The three main classical sociological theories were based on theoretical perspectives. These perspectives proposed models of human behavior based on certain assumptions about society. While these models represent scientific observation of society but essentially they focus only on certain aspects of the society. As a result no one perspective can be declared the best. However, the best perspective and the most applicable one in the view of contemporary sociological theorists is the one which combines all perspectives. (Long, Russ)

The Functionalist perspective developed by Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim chooses to describe society as a system where all the parts act together even though each part may be doing different things. Such a system bases its observation on structures in society. Structures are a part of the whole social system and all the various forms of social activities are organized around structures. Institutions like family, education and religion are examples of structures. Since these structures bring together individuals in society therefore they create integration, stability, consensus and balance in society. Functionalist sociologist adopt the biological approach of reasoning citing that the body performs successfully because each part does its job and in the same manner the human society has structures which maintain the whole system. Therefore social organization at the micro level gives rise to social organization at the macro level where every structure promotes consensus. The main critique of the functional approach in the view of contemporary sociologist is that the approach is inherently conservative and views change as a negative consequence. (Long, Russ)

The Conflict theory on the other hand views society as an arena of conflicts and power struggles where cooperation is not assumed. Individuals in society act in their own interest and the furtherance of consensus is not the primary goal. This approach also views society at a macro level. The structures of the functionalist perspective only serve the interests of the powerful in the eyes of conflict theorists. However, contemporary sociologists have used this approach to define conflict as a fact of life in any society where social change is a basic feature and conflicts are the driving force behind desirable change. (Long, Russ)

The Interactionist perspective uses what we call the bottom up approach. Symbolic interactionists are micro sociologists and they are interested in how people interact with each other, how they act, respond and influence each other in a group setting as well as during face to face communication. Interactionist sociologists have no interest in institutions and structures in the society nor do they formulate a manufactured assumption of consensus and conflict in society. The behavior of human beings to them is not governed by the system of the society but by social interaction. Humans are influenced by social interactions to such a degree that each interaction brings about a change in perspective, expectations and boundaries of future social interaction. Therefore, change is a dynamic feature of the society. Change is constant and evolutionary and continuous change as opposed to singular conflicts and stable structures is the real nature of society according to interactionist sociologists. Society is created by people who exist and act, in fact society is always in process of being created. The social institutions so revered by functionalist sociologists are merely human creations for the symbolic interactionist. (Long, Russ)

Interactionists use the term reference groups in place of institutions. Reference groups are social organizations and the same way institutions make up the society, reference groups created by interactions amongst people lead to the construction of the society. Some reference groups have conflicts and are ‘dysfunctional’ and some are stable and have uniformity of consensus. However, the central feature of all the groups is that they are in a continual process of change and transformation gyrating from micro social interactions. Hence as people communicate with one another they bring about social change and this change affects the reference group which in turn plays a role in defining society. (Long, Russ)

An important part of the interactionist perspective is the significance of symbolic communication. Robertson believes that "the interaction that takes place between people occurs through symbols.” And to him symbols are "anything that can meaningfully represent something else” Herbert Blumer, a follower of George H. Mead outlined three core principals of symbolic interactionism. These were meaning, language and thought. The principal of meaning is central to human behavior. To humans people and things have meanings and each human reacts and behaves according to the meaning he has assigned to people and things. Language facilitates meaning by giving it a way to negotiate meaning through symbols. The process of naming is important because it assigns meaning and therefore naming through language becomes the basis for human knowledge. The act of speech involves language a form of symbolic interaction. (Nelson, Lindsey D)

It is the principal of thought which eventually gives the Interaction perspective the quality of stating that the society is dynamic and change is continuous. The process of cognitive thinking develops and modifies each individual’s interpretation of symbols. The process of thought is a major research area for contemporary sociological theories. In thought a mental conversation takes place in which an individual can assume different roles and imagine different situations and points of views. Humans have the ability to convey their thoughts in the form of language. (Nelson, Lindsey D)

Everyday interaction involves the self concept and identity which is formed an individual’s interaction with the society. As a result an individual develops powerful themes of social class, power and dominance, age, gender and ethnicity. All these themes have an impact on an individual’s interaction with others. Throughout his life an individual develops an understanding of moral values, how families behave, religion and laws. Because the society is dynamic and change is continues laws and values change and religious beliefs occupy different levels of importance for different people. The interactionist approach investigates how people interact, and interpret theirs and other peoples actions. Their interactions within a reference group such as family will define the culture, belief and actions of the group and therefore the consequences of individual actions will be felt in the larger social group.

The reality of groups and society exists in the mind of the individual, if the actors believe that the groups are real then the groups exist. In symbolic interaction a group develops a negotiated consensus about what is real and society becomes a social construction. Society and its organizations is basically the outcome of past symbolic interactions and negotiations. Social change does not happen when external factors change rather it happens when people assign new meanings to situations and therefore act accordingly.

Critique

Symbolic interaction has only one variable: the individual with his set of meanings for things and people. External factors, the impact of structures and conflicts will only create social change when the individual creates a new meaning regarding the factor. In a way symbolic interactionism is a liberating and emancipating force. Although micro-social changes do result in changes in society regarding perspectives and opinions but in reality structures such as law are inflexible to micro social changes and they exercise mandatory power which the society despite its micro changes has to succumb to and thus symbolic interactionist theory is less deterministic. Similarly powerful groups of people or structure can impose their will upon others with complete disregard for social beliefs. Therefore structural sources of redefinition are ignored. Finally symbolic interactionism does not state weather individuals’ reform and reconstruct their meanings by actively seeking consensus with others or do they engage in conflict to win and have their way. (Nelson, Lindsey D)