Although it seems from the work of many scholars, the conflict perspective is directly based upon the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883), who saw class conflict and class exploitation as the prime moving forces in history. Largely ignored by sociologists for many years, the conflict perspective has recently been revived by C. Wright Mills, Lewis Coser, and others [Aron, 1957; Dahrendorf, 1959, 1964; Chambliss, 1973; Collins, 1975]. Where functionalists see the normal state of society as one of stable equilibrium, conflict theorists see society as in a continuous state conflict between groups and classes. Although Marx concentrated upon conflict between classes for ownership of productive wealth, modern conflict theorists take a less narrow view. They see the struggle for power and income as a continuous process but one in which many categories of people appear as opponents—classes, races, nationalities, and even the sexes. Conflict theorists see a society as held together through the power of dominant groups or classes. They claim that the "shared values" which functionalists see as the glue holding society together do not really form a true consensus; instead this is an artificial consensus in which the dominant groups or classes impose their values and rules upon the rest of the people. According to conflict theorists, functionalists fail to ask the ques-tion, "functionally useful to whom?" Conflict theorists accuse functionalists of a conservative bias, in that functionalists assume that this "harmonious equilibrium" is beneficial to everyone, whereas it benefits some and penalizes others. Conflict theorists see the harmonious equilibrium of society as an illusion held by those who fail to see how the dominant groups have silenced those whom they exploit. Conflict theorists ask such questions as, "How have the present patterns emerged from the contest between conflicting groups, each seeking its own advantage?‖How do the dominant groups and classes achieve and maintain their position of privilege?" "How do they manipulate the institutions of society (schools, churches, and mass media) to protect their privileges?" "Who benefits and who suffers from the present social arrangements?" "How can society be made more just and humane?"

In this perspective a society is seen as an organized network of cooperating groups operating in a fairly orderly manner according to a set of rules and values shared by most members. Society is seen as a stable system with a tendency toward-equilibrium, -that is, a tendency to maintain a balanced; harmoniously operating system. In the functionalist perspective, with Talcott Parsons [1937], Kingsley Davis [1937], and Robert Merton [1957] as the most prominent spokesmen, each group or institution fulfills certain functions and persists because it is functional. Thus, the school educates children, prepares workers, takes children off their parents' hands for part of the day, and provides spectator sports events for the community, among other things. Behavior patterns arise because they are ', functionally useful. On the American frontier, where there were few inns and fewer people with money for them, a hospitality pattern developed. The traveling family was welcome guests of the nearest settlers wherever night fell upon them. The travelers brought news and a break in monotony; the host provided food and shelter. As the frontier became settled, the hospitality pattern be-came unnecessary and it declined. Thus pat-terns arise to meet needs and pass when the needs change.

Social change disrupts the stable equilibrium of the society, before long a new equilibrium is regained. For example, large families were desired throughout most of history. Death rates were high, and large families helped to ensure some survivors and with never enough hands to do the work, large families were functionally useful. They provided workers, companionship, and old-age security and were good for both the individual and the society. Today, in a crowded world with a lower death rate, large families are no longer a blessing. In

other words, large families have become dysfunctional and threaten the welfare of the society. So a new equilibrium is approaching in which, instead of high death rates and high birth rates, we shall (hopefully) have low death rates and low birth rates. Thus, a value or practice which is functional at one time or place may become dysfunctional—interfering with the smooth operation of society—at another time or place. If a particular social change promotes a harmonious equilibrium, it is seen as functional; if it disrupts the equilibrium, it is dysfunction; if it has no effects, it is non-functional. In a democracy political parties are functional while bombings, assassinations, and political terrorism are dysfunctional, and changes in political vocabulary or party insignia are nonfunctional. Functionalists ask such questions as, "How does this value, practice, or institution help meet the needs of the society?" "How does it fit in with the other pra

The interactionist perspective suggests no grand theories of society, since "society," "the state," and "social institutions" are conceptual abstractions, while only people and their interaction can be studied directly. Sociologists like G. H. Mead (1863-1931) and C. H. Cooley (1846-1929) concentrate upon this interaction between individuals and groups. They note that people interact mainly through symbols, (language) which include signs, gestures, and most importantly, through written and spoken words. A word has no inherent meaning. It is simply a noise; it becomes a word when people reach agreement that this noise carries a special meaning. Thus "yes," "no," "go," "come," and thousands of other sounds became symbols as a meaning is attached to each. Al-though some meanings can be exchanged without words, as all lovers know, most meanings are exchanged through spoken or written words. People do not respond to the world directly; they respond to meanings they impute to the things and happenings around them: a traffic light, a lineup at a ticket window, a police officer's whistle and hand signal. An early sociologist, Thomas (1863-1947), coined the phrase, definition of the situation, noting that we can act sensibly only after we decide what kind of situation it is. If a man approaches with right hand extended, we define this as a friendly greeting; if he approaches with clenched fists, we define the situation differently. A person who misdefines a situation and tries to make love, or vice versa, is a stock comic. But in real life, failure to define behavior situations correctly and make appropriate responses can have unhappy consequences. As Berger and Luckma state, society is an objective reality, in that people, groups, and institutions are real, regardless of our perceptions of them. But society is also a subjective reality, in that for each person, the other persons, groups, and institutions are what-ever that person perceives them as being. Whether most people are pretty nice or pretty nasty, whether the police are protectors or oppressors, whether corporations serve common interests or selfish interests—these are perceptions which persons form their own experiences, and these perceptions be-come "the way it is" for persons holding them. This does not mean that all reality is subjective—that it exists only in the mind. There are objective facts in the universe. The sun, moon, and stars are real, and still would be "out there" even if there were no humans to see them. Human beings are real; they get born and they die; they take actions which have consequences. But a fact has no meaning of itself. Meanings are given to facts arid human actions by human-beings.` The symbolic interactionist perspective concentrates upon what meanings people find in other people's actions, how these meanings are derived, and how others respond to them. The interactionist perspective has brought a great deal of insight into personality development and human behavior. It has been less helpful in the study of large groups and social institutions.

In order to study anything, one must begin by making some assumptions about the nature of what is studied. For example, the ancient Greeks believed that the universe was run according to the whims of the gods. By contrast, all scientists assume that the universe is orderly, and operates in certain regular ways which we may be able to discover. Thus, Newton developed the laws of gravity after observing that apples always fall down, never up. A working set of assumptions is called a "perspective," an "approach". What are some of the perspectives used in sociology?
 
The Evolutionary Perspective 
 The evolutionary perspective is the earliest theoretical perspective in sociology. Based on the work of August Comte (1798-1857) and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), it seemed to offer a satisfying explanation of how human societies originate and grow. After a few decades it fell from favor, and is now once again becoming fashionable.
Sociologists using the evolutionary perspective look for patterns of change and development appearing in different societies, to see whether any general sequences can be found. They might wonder, for example, whether Chinese Communism will develop in the same way as Russian Communism, which gained power three decades earlier, or whether industrialization will have the same effects upon the family in developing countries that it seems to have had in Western nations. While not the major perspective in sociology, the evolutionary perspective is an active one.

A science can be defined in two ways:
(1) a science is a body of organized, verified knowledge which has been secured through scientific investigation
(2) a science is a method of study by which a body of organized, verified knowledge is discovered.

These are, of course, two ways of saying much the same thing. If the first definition is accepted, then sociology is a science to the extent that it develops a body of organized, verified knowledge which is based on scientific investigation. To the extent that sociology forsakes myth, folklore, and wishful thinking and bases its conclusions on scientific evidence, it is a science. If science is defined as a method of study, then sociology is a science to the extent that it uses scientific methods of study. All natural phenomena can be studied scientifically, if one is willing to use scientific methods. Any kind of behavior—whether of atoms, animals, or adolescents—is a proper field for scientific study. During human history, few of our actions have been based on verified knowledge, for people through the ages have been guided mainly by folklore, habit, and guesswork.

Until a few centuries ago, very few people accepted the idea that we should find out about the natural world by systematic observation of the natural world itself, rather than by consulting oracles, ancestors, or intuition. This new idea created the modern world. A few decades ago we began acting on the assumption that this same approach might also give useful knowledge about human social life. Just how far we have replaced folklore with knowledge in this area can be explored.