The Philosophy Discussion Forum

When I took an introductory sociology class in college in the late 1980s, it primarily focused on "conflict theory". Before the rise in popularity of conflict theory, I think sociology was primarily based on the "functionalist" approach. Not sure what they are teaching today in most colleges (Probably "critical theory"?).

In short, a functionalist wants society to function smoothly and foster the welfare of its members. A conflict theorist views society mostly as a place of conflict and struggle between social groups. A critical theorist seeks to eliminate injustice and unfairness and challenge unjust power.

There's also the interpretive approach to sociology which to me is more scientific and tries to observe societies non-judgmentally.

I can't help but think that the characteristics of society has been shaped by the paradigms that have been used by the science of sociology to assess society. And the paradigms that have shaped society have arisen out of needs and necessity. Each approach seems to present unique and distinct challenges and insights.

Which approach do you think is the best one? Or which approach do you think best captures the essences of human societies? Or which approach do you think produces the best research results? Or what is the best way to judge a sociology paradigm?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 5:02 am

For some reason all these classifications led to a rumination, however where it fits into the taxonomy is best left to the creator of the divisions.

If we’re living in a simulation of creation, then the full of man has the power to create that simulation, and since the creation of reality that is being simulated requires a creator, then the full of God has the power to create the reality that man is simulating.

Saying that we each live in a separate simulation is more specific than saying we each live in a separate reality, and it accounts for Sri Ramana Maharshi’s observation that the world is in you.

This is empirically simple even though the word “God,” can sometimes create a burst of static in the receiver’s default, filtered frequency settings.

Sorry Gary, I'm bothered by your "wants". Sociology is study of society, not design of society. Thus I would say the "functionalist"* studies in terms of "what allows society to operate smoothly, a "conflict person" studies in terms of how conflicts form and are managed, and a "critical theorist" injustices and how managed. The people doing the studies from those points of view might or might not want whatever.

I'll give one example of one of these to make clear that there are less obvious features. Thus the "functionalist" will ignore what is ging on in terms of the ideology of the society, what some social feature is supposed to be doing, but in terms of what actually is going on (those can be very diferent. Thus Friedenburg's? Coming of Age in America is examining high school education not in terms of what is supposed to be taught but n terms of lessons learned. How was that used by society.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 1:48 pm Sorry Gary, I'm bothered by your "wants". Sociology is study of society, not design of society. Thus I would say the "functionalist"* studies in terms of "what allows society to operate smoothly, a "conflict person" studies in terms of how conflicts form and are managed, and a "critical theorist" injustices and how managed. The people doing the studies from those points of view might or might not want whatever.

I'll give one example of one of these to make clear that there are less obvious features. Thus the "functionalist" will ignore what is ging on in terms of the ideology of the society, what some social feature is supposed to be doing, but in terms of what actually is going on (those can be very diferent. Thus Friedenburg's? Coming of Age in America is examining high school education not in terms of what is supposed to be taught but n terms of lessons learned. How was that used by society.

Would it be more accurate not to say that a functionalist "wants" a smoothly functioning society? Is it more accurate to say that a functionalist studies how societies function?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 5:02 am A critical theorist seeks to eliminate injustice and unfairness and challenge unjust power.

Decidedly not. Critical theory is just about calling things "racist" (or "sexist," or "homophobic," or...) until YOU get to own them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:02 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 5:02 am A critical theorist seeks to eliminate injustice and unfairness and challenge unjust power.

Decidedly not. Critical theory is just about calling things "racist" (or "sexist," or "homophobic," or...) until YOU get to own them.

So, like "socialists" they are all thinking the same thing and it's how to stick it to the rest of us.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:02 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 5:02 am A critical theorist seeks to eliminate injustice and unfairness and challenge unjust power.

Decidedly not. Critical theory is just about calling things "racist" (or "sexist," or "homophobic," or...) until YOU get to own them.

So, like "socialists" they are all thinking the same thing and it's how to stick it to the rest of us.

They ARE Socialists. Neo-Marxists, actually. Just read their theory.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:02 pm
Decidedly not. Critical theory is just about calling things "racist" (or "sexist," or "homophobic," or...) until YOU get to own them.

So, like "socialists" they are all thinking the same thing and it's how to stick it to the rest of us.

They ARE Socialists. Neo-Marxists, actually. Just read their theory.

That explains it, then.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:04 pm

So, like "socialists" they are all thinking the same thing and it's how to stick it to the rest of us.

They ARE Socialists. Neo-Marxists, actually. Just read their theory.

That explains it, then.

CRT comes out of The Frankfurt School, which was a bunch of Neo-Marxists who set up at Columbia U. just before the Second World War, and then began to propagandize like mad from there. It's pretty interesting history, actually. They're linked to the student radicalism of the '60s, the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, Saul Alinsky, Paolo Freire, the Wokies, the Transers, and a whole pack of other nutjobs.

But their propaganda is all "diversity, equity and inclusion," or "free the oppressed," or "eat the rich," and "punch the Nazi." At the same time, they're really all about fomenting misery, resentment, racism and social unrest. They're a nasty bunch, and the echoes of their nastiness are still playing out.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 10:36 pm CRT comes out of The Frankfurt School, which was a bunch of Neo-Marxists who set up at Columbia U. just before the Second World War, and then began to propagandize like mad from there.

I've already stated I will not interact with IC. But that's just opinons, not facts.

a) Not CRT but CT (no R for half a century)

b) As the name of the group should make obvious to all but idiots, not set up at Columbia just prior to WWII. Instead formed in the early 20's at the University of Frankfurt (Frankfurt, Germany). Some who managed to escape to the US when Nazism came to power more or less reformed a Frankfurt School in Exile at Columbia.

c) CRT is not a descendant of CR.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2026 2:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 10:36 pm CRT comes out of The Frankfurt School, which was a bunch of Neo-Marxists who set up at Columbia U. just before the Second World War, and then began to propagandize like mad from there.

I've already stated I will not interact with IC. But that's just opinons, not facts.

Don't take my word for it. Go do your research. You'll find out.

a) Not CRT but CT (no R for half a century)

Exactly so. They didn't discover the "r" card at first. Calling everybody "capitalists" didn't work out. But calling them "racists" did. Marxism proved to be wrong, and people didn't follow the patterns it tried to prophesy. So the Neo-Marxists, who realized that, went with what worked. Nowadays, they also use "sexist," "transphobic," "Islamophobic," "Nazi," and so forth...the game's the same: just insult everybody until they obey what you want them to obey.

c) CRT is not a descendant of CR.

CR? What do you mean by that? CRT is a descendent of Marxism, through the Frankfurt School. That's the verifiable truth...go and check it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2026 3:03 pm

c) CRT is not a descendant of CR.

CR? What do you mean by that? CRT is a descendent of Marxism, through the Frankfurt School. That's the verifiable truth...go and check it.

BAD LOGIC ----- Even were CRT originated by Marxists that would not be a reason to conclude from the CT Marxists of the Frankfurt school. The C and the T on the respective names not valid reasoning either. After all T, is just for 'Theory" and there are theories of all sort.

CRT began in the LEGAL community, not the academic community. This was just post the main "civil rights" period. LEGAL folk had noticed that racism pervasive in the LEGAL structures of the society. Not just things directly obvious like laws but other legal documents, restrictive covenants in deeds, wills and trust agreements, etc. CRT was arguing systemic/pervasive/written in as opposed to just personal prejudices held in common.

I have no idea if these legal people were or were not Marxists, but even if they were, this observation not coming from their Marxism. Do you really want to argue Marxism causing a false observation? That your non-Marxist eyes don't see this "written in" stuff? << at that time period -- they have of course been fighting for removal, courts to declare invalid clauses in wills and trust documents, etc and have made progress >>

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2026 4:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2026 3:03 pm

c) CRT is not a descendant of CR.

CR? What do you mean by that? CRT is a descendent of Marxism, through the Frankfurt School. That's the verifiable truth...go and check it.

Even were CRT originated by Marxists that would not be a reason to conclude from the CT Marxists of the Frankfurt school.

Yeah, but it's been well-documented. See Cynical Theories, by Lindsay and Pluckrose.

CRT began in the LEGAL community, not the academic community.

Yes, it did. As Critical Legal Theory. But it didn't stay there. There is now a whole set of "Critical Theories." As you point out, it's rotted out the academy from the core; but its swiftly doing the same thing to public education, as well. There, it's called "Critical Pedagogy." There are counterparts in many disciplines: journalism and the media, political theory, sociology and anthropology (of course), religious studies and theology (Liberation Theory, for example), civic planning (where it fights against "racist" overpasses), and even engineering and mathematics (where it insists 2+2 isn't 4, among other things). Not that these are all sane alternatives, or anything close to sane; but they're certainly strident. And they're all connnected, and all go back to Neo-Marxism.

I have no idea if these legal people were or were not Marxists, but even if they were, this observation not coming from their Marxism.

Actually, it is.

But they're not "observing" anything. They're just pushing for things they want. As their own slogan says, "The issue is never the issue; the issue is the revolution." (Horowitz) All these diverse causes are taken up for but one purpose: "revolution."

Do you really want to argue Marxism causing a false observation?

Oh, for sure. Marxism IS a false "observation." Except that it's not actually premised on "observation," but on speculation, ideology and outright attempts at prophesying the future, so it's not really in the "observation" category.