Response

Paradigms don’t necessarily seek to explain anything; they simply provide us with ways of looking (Babbie, p. 31). The goal is to not mistake our paradigm for reality. The two I selected are Conflict Paradigm and Symbolic Interactionism. Conflict paradigm looks at conflict amongst society as coming about due to classes having competing interests. It focuses its attention on class, poverty, and ethnic struggles at both the micro and macro levels (Babbie, p. 34). Symbolic interactionism is concerned less with society-level issues and looks at how individuals interact with one another (Babbie, p. 35). An example of this would be Charles Cooley’s theory of the “looking-glass self” in which people study the reactions of those around them to help determine how they see themselves.

Similarities between these two paradigms are that they can both be used at the micro-level of study. Conflict paradigm can be used to look at small-scale conflict, similar to symbolic interactionism. Also, conflict paradigm and symbolic interactionism typically group people together: one by class and one by symbols. Differences in these two theories are that conflict paradigm typically looks more at macro-society and class struggle, whereas symbolic interactionism looks at micro-society and intimate relationships. Symbolic interactionism is more interested in looking at personal-level interactions rather than Karl Marx’s society-level concerns (Babbie 2016).

As human services professionals and researchers, it is our job to understand these paradigms as useful ways of viewing the world. What might be a useful way of viewing a social phenomenon for one person might not work for another. This brings to light the differences in macrotheory vs. microtheory. Macrotheory looks at understanding interactions among whole societies while microtheory looks at smaller interactions between individuals (Babbie, p. 34). For example, someone who has spent their life’s work helping members of a small community deal with substance abuse might be able to understand the patterns that exist there by utilizing the symbolic interactionism paradigm. On the other hand, a social science researcher who has dedicated their life to studying substance abuse among larger communities or whole societies across the world might see those same patterns develop differently. Their view might be more closely related to the conflict paradigm because they’re able to see and compare various social classes. Both, however, contribute to the overall goal of understanding substance abuse across time and space