Question

Please explain the below incident by using each major theoretical perspective: functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interaction.

Please apply the Solomon Asche Experiment and the Stanley Milgrim experiment to current society as it relates to deviance and crime. Please be specific in your responses.

A young person between ages 23-32 years old walked into a neighborhood coffee shop and approached the ordering counter. The young man stated “Good morning, I need today’s WIFI password for access to the internet.” The coffee shop employee stated “I can provide you the code after making your purchase.” The young man stated “why do I need to purchase something? I’m only using the internet! You’re only saying this because I am ____________.” The worker told the young person to leave the premises but the young person refused to leave and demanded to speak with the store manager. After about 10 minutes the police showed up in the coffee shop and told the young man to leave the premises. The young man tried to explain the situation to the police and ended up being arrested for failing to comply to the police orders.

Please explain the above incident by using each major theoretical perspective: functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interaction.

Please apply the Solomon Asche Experiment and the Stanley Milgrim experiment to current society as it relates to deviance and crime. Please be specific in your responses.

Answer 1

Answer.

Since the early days of the development of Sociology as a discipline, sociologists have sought to explain what deviance and crime mean to society. Largely speaking, there are three major sociological paradigms: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.

In the given scenario of the person getting arrested, functionalist would likely explain the situation as a result of social disorganisation and social strain. According to Robert Merton’s Strain theory, the young man’s conflict over the wifi access would be seen as a form of social deviance which is an inherent part of a functioning society. This view explains that access to socially acceptable goals plays a part in determining whether a person conforms or deviates. The person’s previous experiences as a person of a socioeconomic or ethnic minority is likely to have made him feel sensitive to the denial by the coffee shop authority. Functionalists believe that deviance plays an important role in society and can be used to challenge people’s views. However, in this situation, the police emerge as a social agency that serves the function of law and order to restore peace and order in the coffee shop environment. Thus, different systems work in corelationsjip to endure equilibrium in society. Any element or individual, such as the young man who appeared to threaten the order and norm of restricted access of a public place like the coffee shop, is likely to be evaluated as a deviant or a criminal.

However, a contesting explanation is seen in symbolic interaction theory according to which a social phenomenon such as crime or inequality is based upon the meanings and gestures or symbols which the members use to communicate with others in society. Thus, individuals are seen as active constructors of meanings rather than as passive agents. According to the labelling theory, Although all of us violate norms from time to time and ‘demand ‘ access to public facilities such as toilet, water in a restaurant, etc but hardly all of us get arrested. However, the young invited police intervention in the situation probably because he was labeled “deviant” by society ( here represented in the coffee shop staff) and has gradually come to be sensitive and believe in the label himself.   Thus, what is considered deviant in this situation is determined not so much by his behavior of refusing to comply with the police but by the reactions of the cafe staff and the police officer to the behavior. As a result, what was perhaps considered deviant and got arrested.

Yet another explanation for this situation can be found in the conflict theory. According to this view, the young man’s arrest is due to underlying racial and socioeconomic issues associated with deviance and crime. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists don’t see the social factors as positive functions of society.

Based on this view it can be argued that the rules of society are stacked in favor of a privileged few who manipulate them to maintain status quo. It is these people who decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who have little power. In this situation, it is likely that the young man was targeted by the coffee shop and the police officer for his economic status as he perhaps was unable to buy any beverages and thus was labelled as an unimportant customer who was denied the services which are otherwise offered to all the customers equally. Thus, according to the conflict theory, the police officer intervened in the interest of the more powerful party- the coffee shop business.

Conclusion: thus, based on a comparative understanding of these three views, we can see how the analysis of a social deviance or crime opens the complexity in the issue of social inequality, fairness, deprivation and access in determining the causes behind an individual’s legally implicated behaviours.