Question by PeaceLoveUnityRespect: What would a symbolic interactionism theorist, conflict theorist, and functionalist think of alcoholism?
It’s for a sociology project. I’m bad at research, and I need help. How would these three types of theorists view alcoholism, and which would best explain alcoholism? Cite your sources, please and thank you 🙂

Best answer:

Answer by C
I’m assuming intro to Sociology? haha. Here is a brief breakdown. Please do not plagiarize. Try to understand the “rules” governing the different theories/frameworks and then APPLY different sets of facts to each theory (like alcoholism):

1. Symbolic Interactionism. SI takes a micro-level approach to interactions between people, institutions, and groups. What this means is that the environment, value-sets of each party, social roles, norms, and so on are all considered in the interaction. George Herbert Mead, Goffman, Weber, Blumer, Dewey, and to some extent Freud (among others) are all influential within this framework (I will not be citing individual works, as that would constitute an entire syllabus). Alcoholism would be addressed within this paradigm by looking at the social setting of the individual experiencing alcoholism and those around him/her that are influential and/or are influenced by him/her. For instance, if Joe is suffering from alcoholism and Joe is from an Irish family that drinks liberally and celebrates heavily with alcohol, then when addressing his alcoholism, one would need to consider this distinct value set and culture. In his family, alcohol use was supported to a greater extent then some other groups. This framework would consider alcoholism an individual problem (limited to the person and his or her immediate network) that would need to be addressed at a micro-level.

2. Conflict Theory. Here you should check out C. Wright Mills and Marx. This theoretical framework looks at inequality (including power, money, status, etc.) and the resulting conflict it causes. Marx looked at inequality of means of production and the resulting division of society into classes. In the context of alcoholism we would likely argue that the unequal distribution of and access to education, power, employment, and money, etc. leads to fewer opportunities for minorities, the lower class and other marginalized groups resulting in these groups disproportionately suffering from alcoholism compared to their higher SES counterparts. This could be attributable to various factors including restricted access to medical/psychological treatment, money for treatment, education to prevent abuse, employment (which could positively affect substance abuse), etc.

3. Functionalism. See Herbet Spencer, among others. Alright, this is like a macro-aggregate model. Here we consider how institutions and culture affect “reality” and behavior. What are the norms, values, traditions, etc. of a group? Alcoholism within this context would likely consider how American society “abuses” alcohol in high school and (especially) college cultures. Rather than teaching students that alcohol is a way to relax at dinner, it is a “forbidden fruit” of sorts, leading to excessive use (e.g., binge drinking) in young adulthood. Furthermore, alcoholism is largely considered a personal problem and not something that concerns the larger community or state, as a result, a continuing problem with alcohol could be traced to our culture of meritocracy/individualism (attributable in large part to Protestant roots).

As far as what BEST explains alcoholism? That’s the beauty of sociology… everything is relative. There is no one right answer. Alcoholism can be explained in a number of ways. These theories are only a guideline from which we can address different issues. You can easily make an argument about which one better, but they are entirely different approaches.

Good luck.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!