Philosophy of Society

Social Philosophy (Theory of Society)

Sociology of the 20th Century

One of the leading currents in 20th-century social philosophy was structural functionalism, pioneered by American sociologists and philosophers Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) and Robert King Merton (1910-2003). Parsons’ work, aptly reflected in the name of this sociological school, focused on the role individuals play within the social structure. Society is seen as a collection of diverse structures (such as labor groups, religious communities, families, states, etc.), within which individuals perform specific functions that define their roles. Each social structure possesses its own internal rules and norms that regulate social relations, the distribution of resources, and social roles. A structure can only survive if the functions of its members are correctly allocated; otherwise, it will perish. However, each social structure seeks equilibrium, thereby evolving over time so that the distribution of social functions maintains its stability. Influenced by Durkheim, Merton explored social anomalies, particularly crime, and argued that while social structures strive for harmonious function distribution, deviations like crime indicate structural illness. Social structures seek internal harmony and have the capacity for self-healing.

Thus, a key feature of structural functionalism is the belief that social structures aim for internal accord, a thesis that has faced significant criticism in sociological discourse. In contrast, conflict theory, which asserts that internal conflicts are inherent to any social structure, emerged as a counterpoint. American sociologist Charles Wright Mills (1916-1962) criticized Parsons, arguing that conflicts are an inseparable aspect of social structures. Another American sociologist, Lewis Alfred Coser (1913-2003), contended that conflict is not only intrinsic to society but also beneficial, driving societal development through persistent and unavoidable conflict. German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (1929-2009) maintained that throughout human history, there has been a continual conflict between power and resistance, including opposition and the populace fighting for their rights and freedoms. Unlike Coser, Dahrendorf viewed conflict as a negative phenomenon, advocating for methods to reduce social tension and avoid conflicts.

Thus, one of the most pressing debates in 20th-century social philosophy was the issue of harmony versus conflict in society. Proponents of structural functionalism viewed social structures as inherently harmonious, with conflicts or social anomalies considered abnormal phenomena indicating societal illness. Conflict theorists, on the other hand, believed conflict to be a constant feature of society, with varying assessments of its nature: some saw it as positive, while others viewed it negatively.

Another significant direction in social philosophy, differing from structural functionalism and conflict theory, was symbolic interactionism. Founded by American sociologist George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), this school focuses on the symbolic nature of human social actions (interactions). All living beings perform symbolic actions to communicate with others, but humans have perfected this ability, imbuing their actions with meaning. Unlike animals, humans understand the significance of interactions. For example, a slight nod of the head towards another person signifies a greeting or agreement, a meaning assigned by humans. The greatest gift humans possess is language, a complex system of symbols enabling communication. Mead believed that socialization involves learning symbols through actions, starting in early childhood with play. Even when a child plays alone, they imagine themselves in a role, rehearsing social situations and learning to act appropriately. Mastery of the symbolism of interactions, or socialization, places society above the individual, shaping who they become within the social context.

Mead’s ideas were expanded and popularized by his student Herbert George Blumer (1900-1987). Central to Blumer’s thought is the concept of the acting person, who can be studied through their social actions defined by symbolic meanings. Everything in human life is interpreted not as an external reality but as something related to one’s own life. For instance, bread is valued not as a collection of chemical elements but as a staple food. Similarly, human actions are seen as symbolic interactions. Blumer saw sociology’s task as studying methods of interpretation.

A third influential direction in 20th-century sociological discourse was phenomenological sociology, founded by Austrian-American sociologist Alfred Schutz (1899-1959). Schutz’s perspective, akin to Mead’s symbolic interactionism, asserted that society consists of a complex of symbolic actions; however, while Mead focused on the role of symbols in social actions, Schutz emphasized the individual as a member of society. Throughout history, society has developed a set of meanings, and each individual must learn these symbols upon entering society. Mastery and correct interpretation of these symbols transform an individual into a member of society. Schutz saw the humanities’ role as assisting individuals in accurately interpreting meanings and integrating into society.

The fourth major direction in 20th-century sociological thought was the theory of socio-cultural dynamics, developed by American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968). Sorokin argued that human interaction forms the basis of society, with diverse positions within it constituting social stratification. No society is entirely egalitarian; however, an individual’s position in society is not fixed. Social mobility is possible, and Sorokin distinguished between horizontal mobility (movement to another, but equal status) and vertical mobility (movement to a higher or lower status). Social mobility allows individuals to fulfill their instincts, such as the desire for power or wealth, through ascending the social ladder. Yet, each system seeks stability and limits social mobility to avoid general chaos. When a large portion of society feels their instincts are suppressed, they may rise to revolution. Sorokin noted that revolution occurs when the oppressed classes accumulate a desire to break social constraints amidst systemic crisis. If the system is strong enough to maintain control, revolution is impossible. Revolution does not resolve social stratification; people remain unequal afterward, and the exhaustion from revolution leads them to seek peace and stability, often overlooking abuses of power that would previously have provoked revolution. Sorokin concluded that in the wake of revolution, people desire tranquility over change, allowing tyrants to emerge as they fear further upheavals.

In his final years, Sorokin analyzed the two opposing types of social and economic development: capitalism and socialism. He argued that the struggle between capitalism and socialism would not result in the triumph of one over the other but in their convergence, where they would merge into a unified ideology of socio-cultural development that would mitigate the negatives of both extremes.