Conflict/Consensus based approached

I was looking at a past theory and methods A2 essay :

sociological theories based on consensus are more useful than those based on conflict in understanding contempary society.

Assess this view.

Cany anyone help suggest how to answer this?

Also i understand Functionalism is a consensus theory and Marxism/Feminism are conflict theories but where do post modernism, social interactionism, phenemonology, post modernism and the new right fall?

Thanks.

Reply 1

Chris.Livesey

This is one of those "wide open" questions (AQA) examiners like to ask as a means of differentiating the good from the very good.

Most students will go down the Functionalism / New Right = Consensus, Marxism / Feminism = Conflict route (possibly throwing a bit of Weber into the latter if you like) and it's perfectly possible to score well if you discuss / analyse / evaluate successfully.

If you want to be a bit more adventurous then you've got a couple of choices:

1. Outline as above but add a couple of evaluating paragraphs questionning whether the "either / or" approach is actually useful. This would mean showing how "conflict theory" recognises consensus and explains it and introducing various Action-type theories (including postmodern stuff) to suggest neither is "the whole story".

2. Try to argue that interactionist / postmodern ideas can fit into the Consensus / Conflict divide. You could, for example, include them in each area (or at least particular theories). This is more difficult - especially in an exam - but if you do it well you will score highly. Do it badly and you run the risk of it becoming a bit of a mess.

Reply 2

LaurenFah

Thanks Chris, I was wondering the same.
I've done an example essay of this question in class a few weeks ago and I followed the "adventurous" route and got an A.

I found 2) hard... very hard. Placing postmodernism in a consensus/conflict bracket is difficult but remember to use contemporary examples! e.g. explain how *one feature of postmodernism e.g. globalisation* is one reason why postmodernism could be in the *conflict/consensus* bracket, and an example in contemporary society is.. *reason... e.g. for globalisation, could contribute it to being in conflict because of time space compression - we're affected by distant events, e.g. war*

Sorry that rambled a LOT. And I don't think it even makes sense.

Reply 3

Truman

Thanks for those replies. So post modernims, phenemonology and social interactionism dont fit neatly into conflict/consensus so its down to your interpretation and you can argue either way?

Also when doing the basic part of the essay would you do something like this

Marxism - strengths- show how society may be controlled by a ruling class elite, shows how economic system effects other state instititions, shows effect of capitalism on individuals.

Weaknesses - Too conspiratorial? Ignores other forms of conflict in society eg. gender or race

Do the same for feminsim. Then compare the strengths and weaknesses of marxism/feminism to the strengths and weaknesses of Functionalism and New Right. From this you could make a judgement to see if one appears to be more useful than the other?

Thanks.

Reply 4

Chris.Livesey

Firstly, don't worry about the difference between phenomenologists, ethnomethodologists or symbolic interactionists - the examiner won't ask you to distinguish between them (just have a general knowledge of "Interactionism").

Secondly, if you're going to organise your answer this way it will be fine, but for Marxism you could be quite subtle; societies have the appearance of consensus in many areas but this is ultimately based on power relationships (which you could draw-out by your arguments about the sources of power).Hegemonic marxists, for example, see the ways "consensus is manufactured" differently to more traditional forms of "ruling class" marxists (and if you're talking about power then it's always helpful to bung Foucaut into the mix).

Thirdly, for the "neither consensus nor conflict" writers use them as a way to criticise your main arguments (eg. for postmodernists you can't really talk about socieites in terms that ignore global dimensions).

Reply 5

LaurenFah

Start with consensus since thats what the essay is stressing.

- Functionalist - Strengths, how it's useful in contemporary society, weaknesses (in which you could bring in marxist criticisms of it).
- New Right - Same structure.

- Marxists - How they criticise functionalists, their strengths, examples in contemporary society. Also bring up how many people believe they're in a state of consensus when this is indeed false consciousness, and the RC are simply dulling the pain of oppression.
- Feminists - Same structure.

- Difficult to show which is more useful as they can all be applicable to contemporary society. Mention how both recognise each other, e.g Functionalists recognise that parts of society can cause conflict, yet argue that to a degree this can be functional for society.

- Could also bring in Post Modernism and that it doesn't believe that meta-narratives such as Marxism are useful in contemporary society as we're offered so many choices that each individual has their own set of belief system that combines both conflict and consensus and so working within one paradigm of belief isn't useful.

- Summarise all your points and explain that it is difficult to make a statement on which is more useful as they're both evident in todays society.

(Thats how I'd do it, but I'm not entirely sure thats correct as I don't have my old answer for it).

Edit: Chris' answer is better than mine, and I also didn't place Interactionists in mine.

Reply 6

Truman

Thanks Lauren and Chris.......i think id be able to answer this question now.

Reply 7

Truman

What did Foucaut say about power? I dont have any notes/materials on power at all. Il try and read up on him.

Reply 8

Chris.Livesey

Just remember "power is everywhere" and you won't go far wrong...

Reply 9

Eidothea

Btw, can you argue that the Postmodernism essentially trashes the Consensus and Conflict theories, seeing that Postmodernists no longer believes in metanarratives???
This is because Postmodernism doesn't really talk about conflict/consensus in society, but rather emphasis on diversity and plurality.
(Am really confused about this as this was what my teacher suggested!!)

Reply 10

Chris.Livesey

Yes, that would be perfectly okay as a geenral criticism of these approaches and the question itself.

However, as I think I said, be very careful in the exam to ensure you answer the question that's set. It's sometimes very easy with these "open to interpretation" type questions to lose sight of the ball - remember to focus on the question (assessing consensus / conflict theories) and use postmodern stuff etc. as points of specific / general criticism.

The key, as always, is to make a plan for your answer before you start writing it - that way you have a visual list of things to say / points to make; you can continually refer to The Plan while you're writing to check that you're keeping everything focused. If you find yourself veering off the question, try to add something (like "this idea relates to the question because...) to show the examiner how what you've written should be considered relevant.

Reply 11

Truman

Chris.Livesey

Just remember "power is everywhere" and you won't go far wrong...

So Foucaut could be brought in to criticise Marxism as power is dispersed everywhere, not just in the hands of a ruling class elite? Thanks.

Reply 12

LaurenFah

Truman

So Foucaut could be brought in to criticise Marxism as power is dispersed everywhere, not just in the hands of a ruling class elite? Thanks.

I didn't do power and politics, but this sounds like a good general criticism to use.
Would it be a bad idea to bring in this quote without having background knowledge of it?