Jormay Cleo S.

Tubigon BSN 3

1. Historical background of sociology and anthropology in the Philippines.

Sociology as a scholarly discipline emerged primarily out of enlightenment thought, shortly after
the French Revolution, as a positivist science of society. Its genesis owed to various key
movements in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of knowledge. Social analysis in a
broader sense, however, has origins in the common stock of philosophy and necessarily pre-dates
the field. Modern academic sociology arose as a reaction to modernity, capitalism, urbanization,
rationalization, secularization, colonization and imperialism. Late 19th century sociology
demonstrated a particularly strong interest in the emergence of the modern nation state; its
constituent institutions, its units of socialization, and its means of surveillance. An emphasis on
the concept of modernity, rather than the Enlightenment, often distinguishes sociological
discourse from that of classical political philosophy.

Anthropology is primarily started to the 18th- and 19th-century precursors of modern

anthropology. The term anthropology itself, innovated as a New Latin scientific word during the
Renaissance, has always meant "the study (or science) of man." The topics to be included and the
terminology have varied historically. At present they are more elaborate than they were during
the development of anthropology. For a presentation of modern social and cultural anthropology
as they have developed in Britain, France, and North America since approximately 1900, see the
relevant sections under Anthropology.

2. What are the 4 major theoretical perspectives? Views of society and criticism towards the
theory.

 The functionalist perspective attempts to explain social institutions as collective means

to meet individual and social needs. It is sometimes called structural-functionalism
because it often focuses on the ways social structures (e.g., social institutions) meet social
needs. This approach views society as a complex, but interconnected system, where each
part works together as a functional whole. A metaphor for the structural-functional
approach is the human body.
 Functionalism has been criticized for downplaying the role of individual action, and for
being unable to account for social change. In the functionalist perspective, society and its
institutions are the primary units of analysis. Individuals are significant only in terms of
their places within social systems (i.e., social status and position in patterns of social
relations). Some critics also take issue with functionalism’s tendency to attribute needs to
society. They point out that, unlike human beings, society does not have needs; society is
only alive in the sense that it is made up of living individuals. By downplaying the role of
individuals, functionalism is less likely to recognize how individual actions may alter
social institutions.
 The conflict perspective, or conflict theory, derives from the ideas of Karl Marx, who
believed society is a dynamic entity constantly undergoing change driven by class
conflict. Whereas functionalism understands society as a complex system striving for
equilibrium, the conflict perspective views social life as competition. According to the
conflict perspective, society is made up of individuals competing for limited resources
(e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.). This theory views society as a system of
groups that are not equal, and therefore consistently generate conflict and change. Think
back to that example from the beginning of the lesson with the different groups of
students in school.
Conflict theory has been criticized for its focus on change and neglect of social stability.
Some critics acknowledge that societies are in a constant state of change, but point out
that much of the change is minor or incremental, not revolutionary. For example, many
modern capitalist states have avoided a communist revolution, and have instead instituted
elaborate social service programs. Although conflict theorists often focus on social
change, they have, in fact, also developed a theory to explain social stability. According
to the conflict perspective, inequalities in power and reward are built into all social
structures. Individuals and groups who benefit from any particular structure strives to see
it maintained. For example, the wealthy may fight to maintain their privileged access to
higher education by opposing measures that would broaden access, such as affirmative
action or public funding.
 The feminist perspective has much in common with the conflict perspective. However,
instead of focusing broadly on the unequal distribution of power and resources, feminist
 sociology studies power in its relation to gender. This topic is studied both within social
structures at large and at the micro level of face-to-face interaction, the latter of which
incorporates the methodology of symbolic interactionism. Feminism is often
misunderstood as coming from a group of angry women who are trying to dominate men.
That is not what feminism is! Understood correctly, feminism is a perspective that views
society as traditionally unequal between men and women and strives for equality between
the sexes.
 Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the relationship
between humans and society. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human
action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful
communication or symbols. This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought.
According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has no reality for humans;
only subjectively defined objects have meaning. There is no single objective “reality”;
there are only (possibly multiple, possibly conflicting) interpretations of a situation.
Meanings are not entities that are bestowed on humans and learned by habituation;
instead, meanings can be altered through the creative capabilities of humans, and
individuals may influence the many meanings that form their society. Human society,
therefore, is a social product.
Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social
interpretation—the “big picture.” In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the
larger issues of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” (for example, the size of the
diamond in the wedding ring) rather than the “forest” (for example, the quality of the
marriage). The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social
forces and institutions on individual interactions.

3. Out of 4 perspective which of this is best explain society

For me out of 4 perspectives, best explain is symbolic interactionism theory because it talks
about the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and how people
interact with each other. According to the symbolic interactionism perspective, people attach
meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these
symbols. Verbal conversations, in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make
this subjective interpretation especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the
“sender,” and, during effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the
“receiver.” Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly
interpret the world around them.