Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns. They then develop theories to explain why these occur and what can result from them. In sociology, a theory is a way to tentatively explain different aspects of social interactions and create testable propositions about society (Allan, 2006). For example, Durkheim’s proposition that differences in suicide rate can be explained by differences in the degree of social integration in different communities is a theory.

As this brief survey of the history of sociology suggests, there is considerable diversity in the theoretical approaches sociology takes to studying society. Sociology is a multi-perspectival science: a number of distinct perspectives or paradigms offer competing explanations of social phenomena. Perspectives or paradigms are frameworks or models used within a discipline to tie different concepts, analyses, explanations, and ways of formulating problems together (Drengson, 1983). Sociologists use these models to pose or address research questions.

Talcott Parsons’ reformulation of Durkheim’s and others work as structural functionalism in the 1950s is an example of a paradigm because it provides a general model of analysis applicable to an unlimited number of research topics. As a framework for research, it can generate numerous specific theories or explanations. Parsons proposed that any identifiable social structure (e.g., roles, families, religions, or states) could be explained by the particular function it performed in maintaining the operation of society as a whole. Historical materialism and symbolic interactionism are two other examples of sociological paradigms which formulate explanatory frameworks and research problems differently.

The variety of paradigms and methodologies makes for a rich and useful dialogue among sociologists. It is also sometimes confusing for students who expect that sociology will have a unitary, scientific approach like that of the natural sciences. However, the key point is that the subject matter of sociology is fundamentally different from that of the natural sciences. The existence of multiple approaches to the topic of society and social relationships makes sense given the nature of the subject matter of sociology. The “contents” of a society are never simply a set of objective qualities like the chemical composition of gases or the forces operating on celestial spheres. For the purposes of analysis, the contents of society can sometimes be viewed in this way, as in the positivist perspective, but positivists and other schools of thought in sociology recognize that social reality is more complex. It is imbued with social meanings, historical contexts, political struggles, and human agency.

Despite the differences that divide sociology into multiple perspectives and methodologies, its unifying aspect is the systematic and rigorous nature of its social inquiry. Sociology is based on the scientific research tradition which emphasizes two key components: empirical observation and the logical construction of theories and propositions. Science is understood here in the broad sense to mean the use of reasoned argument, the ability to see general patterns in particular incidences, and the reliance on evidence from systematic observation of social reality. However, as noted above, the outcome of sociological research will differ depending on the sociological approach and theoretical and methodological tools being used. Each of the blind men studying the elephant in the illustration above are capable of producing an empirically true and logically consistent account of the elephant, albeit limited, which will differ from the accounts produced by the others. While the analogy that society is like an elephant is tenuous at best, it does exemplify the way that different schools of sociology can explain the same factual reality in different ways

Sociology can be divided into three broad paradigms of sociological thinking: structural functionalism (also ‘functionalism’), critical sociology (sometimes called a ‘conflict’ theory) which encompasses Marxist, feminist, intersectional sociology as well as queer theory and much environmental sociology and symbolic interactionism (or interactionism or interpretive sociology).  Each of these perspectives of paradigms comes with its own strengths, limitations, and practical purposes: functionalism focuses on generating types of knowledge useful for controlling or administering social life. interpretive sociology on types of knowledge useful for promoting greater mutual understanding and consensus among members of society, and critical sociology on types of knowledge useful for changing and improving the world, for emancipating people from conditions of servitude. Within these three types of sociological knowledge, we will discuss four paradigms of sociological thinking: structural functionalism, historical materialism, feminism, and symbolic interactionism.

1. Structural Functionalism: A Positivist Perspective

Structural Functionalism falls within the positivist tradition in sociology due to Durkheim’s early efforts to describe the subject matter of sociology in terms of objective social facts and his emphasis on empirical observation and measurement the search for law-like statements about the social world. According to structural functionalism, society is composed of different social structures that perform specific functions to maintain the operation of society as a whole. Structures are simply regular, observable patterns of behaviour or organized social arrangements that persist through time. Legal systems, family forms, economic institutions, forms of governance and gender roles are all structures. Functions are the purposes or roles that structures play to meet the various needs of a society (i.e., for socializing children, for the distribution of food and resources, or for a unified belief system, etc.). Different societies have the same basic functional requirements, but they meet them using different configurations of social structure (i.e., different types of kinship system, economy, or religious practice). Thus, society is seen as a system not unlike the human body or an automobile engine.

In fact the English philosopher and biologist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) likened society to a human body. Each structure of the system performs a specific function to maintain the orderly operation of the whole (Spencer, 1898). When they do not perform their functions properly, the system as a whole is threatened. The heart pumps the blood, the vascular system transports the blood, the metabolic system transforms the blood into proteins needed for cellular processes, etc. When the arteries in the heart get blocked, they no longer perform their function. The heart fails, and the system as a whole collapses. In the same way, the family structure functions to socialize new members of society (i.e., children), the economic structure functions to adapt to the environment and distribute resources, the religious structure functions to provide common beliefs to unify society, etc. Each structure of society provides a specific and necessary function to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the whole. However, if the family fails to effectively socialize children, or the economic system fails to distribute resources equitably, or religion fails to provide a credible belief system, repercussions are felt throughout the system. Talcott Parsons (1881–1955), an American sociologist noted that in a healthy society, like in a body, all of these parts work together to produce a stable state called dynamic equilibrium (Parsons, 1961).

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that social processes can have more than one function. Manifest functions are the intended or anticipated functions of a structure, while latent functions are the unintended or unanticipated consequences A manifest function of post-secondary institution like this college would be the transferring of knowledge and skills to students, the preparation of students for a career, and finding a good job, or the production of knowledge through research. All of these are useful for the ongoing success of our society. But is that all colleges do? College is also a place where students meet new people, it is place where students participate in extracurricular activities, and it is a place where some meet romantic or sexual partners. While colleges are not explicitly built or funded to do such things these are latent functions that contribute the working of society. Social processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are called dysfunctions. Colleges for example often charge significant tuition fees that might exclude lower-income people from attending and in so doing society loses out on their potential talents and these individuals may never get the chance for the type of work they are most suited for.  Colleges have also encouraged environments such as pub nights and fraternities that have been linked to higher rates of sexual assault. These, while part of the ongoing operation of society are nonetheless clearly dysfunctional.

While sociologists in many different traditions can use quantitative data, the Structural Functionalist tradition tends to present this data as objective facts and their findings as a value-neutral scientific understanding of society.

Criticisms of Structural Functionalism

The main criticisms of positivist sociology and structural functionalism have to do with whether (1) social phenomena can, or should, be studied objectively like the natural phenomena of the physical sciences and (2) whether the ‘macro’ level study of social systems can capture the richness of social life. On one hand, interpretive sociologists suggest that by focusing on the macro workings of society and by emphasizing quantitative data, these approaches reduce the rich complexity and ambiguity of social life to an abstract set of numbers and statistical relationships. Measuring someone’s depth of religious belief or “religiosity” by the number of times they attend church in a week. Moreover, explaining religious structures for their role in social cohesion explains very little about the religious experience itself.  Interpretive sociologists argue that the social world must be understood at the level of interpersonal communication and the meaning people attach to their experiences.

Meanwhile, critical sociologists challenge the conservative tendencies of quantitative sociology and structural functionalism. Both types of positivist analysis represent themselves as being objective, or value-neutral, whereas critical sociology notes that as societies are defined by relationships of power, inequality and struggles for social justice, sociology cannot be neutral or purely objective. Structural functionalism might describe how the world ‘is’ but it offers little explanation of ‘why’ social arrangements are as they are and how such systems might benefit certain groups at the expense of others.

Similarly, the focus on the needs and the smooth functioning of social systems in structural functionalism supports a conservative viewpoint because it suggests a static model of society. The functions of each structure are understood in terms of the needs of the social system as it exists at a particular moment in time. Each individual has to fit the function or role designated for them. Change is not only dysfunctional or pathological, because it throws the whole system into disarray, it also is very difficult to understand why change occurs at all if society is functioning as a system. This conservative tendency is illustrated by some of its more controversial arguments. For example, Davis and Moore (1944) argued that inequality in society is good (or necessary) because it functions as an incentive for people to work harder. Talcott Parsons (1954) argued that the gender division of labour in the nuclear family between the husband/breadwinner and wife/housekeeper is good (or necessary) because the family will function coherently only if each role is clearly demarcated. In both cases, the order of the system is not questioned, and the historical sources of inequality are not analysed. Inequality in fact performs a useful function. Critical sociologists ask a very important question “who is society functional for?”  When observing a society at “equilibrium” these sociologists  argue we must look closely to see whose interests are served and who is harmed.

2. Symbolic Interactionism: An Interpretive Perspective

The focus in interpretative sociology is on understanding or interpreting human activity in terms of the meanings that humans attribute to it. It is sometimes referred to as social constructivism to capture the way that individuals construct a world of meaning by interacting with others in particular social circumstances.  Max Weber’s Verstehende (understanding) sociology is often cited as the origin of this perspective.  Weber believed that we cannot understand human behaviour if we don’t ‘get inside the head’ of people and understand how they see the world around them.

Symbolic interactionism is one of the main schools of interpretive sociology and as such the focus is on understanding or interpreting human activity in terms of the meanings that humans attribute to it. It is sometimes referred to as social constructivism to capture the way that individuals construct a world of meaning by interacting with others in particular social circumstances.

Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level perspective is centred on interpersonal communication where individuals reach common definitions of the situation (shared understandings). The student sitting in a lecture has a quizzical look on their face which the instructor interprets as meaning that they have not stated their point clearly.  The instructor stops and uses a story to illustrate the point and the student responds with a more knowing look.  This illustrates that a lecture is actually a dialogue even when only one person is speaking as subtle social cues pass between instructor and student. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes that groups of individuals have the freedom and agency to define their situations in potentially numerous ways.

Have you noticed for instance how in one class students might be quiet and only listen to the instructor while another might be marked by many questions and discussions.  While instructors often take the credit (and the blame) for such differences, symbolic interactionists would point to how the actions of both students and instructors come to help shape the environment.  An instructor might, through body language, choice of words or explicit instruction might encourage (or discourage) students to speak up.  A small number of assertive students might encourage others to ask questions.  Even the way that desks are arranged might shape the tenor of the class.

Symbolic-interactionists emphasize that all situations are subject to interpretation.  For example, Howard Becker (1953) argued in his classic study of marijuana users that the effects of marijuana have less to do with its physiological qualities in the body than how users in communication (symbolic interaction) with other users interpret the effects. New marijuana users learn from experienced smokers how to identify the effects, how to enjoy them, and how to attach meaning to them (i.e., that the experience is funny, strange or euphoric, etc.). Becker emphasizes, therefore, that marijuana smoking is a thoroughly social process and that the experience of “being high” is as much a product of mutual interactions as it is a purely bio-chemical process. This is not to deny that cannabis does not have a psychoactive effect but rather that what matters is how, through interacting with others, we come to understand and give meaning to this effect.  In one social circumstance the disorienting effects might be be understood as stress relieving and a momentary escape from everyday pressures, in another situation this may be interpreted as frightening and immoral and in another context it might be seen as way to connect to a spiritual being or higher power.

Symbolic interactionism has also been important in bringing to light the experiences and worlds of individuals who are typically excluded from official accounts of the social order. Howard Becker’s Outsiders (1963) for example described the process of labelling in which individuals come to be characterized or labelled as deviants by authorities. The sequence of events in which a young person, for example, is picked up by police for an offense, defined by police and other authorities as a “young offender,” processed by the criminal justice system, and then introduced to criminal subcultures through contact with experienced offenders is understood from the subjective point of view of the young person. The significance of labelling theory is to show that individuals are not born deviant or criminal, but become criminal through an institutionalized symbolic interaction with authorities. As Becker says, deviance is not simply a social fact, as Durkheim might argue, but the product of a process of definition by moral entrepreneurs, authorities, and other privileged members of society:

…social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying those roles to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an “offender.” The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behaviour that people so label (1963).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, rather than quantitative methods because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Criticisms of Interpretive Sociology

From the point of view of positivism, one of the problems of interpretive paradigms that focus on micro-level interactions is that it is difficult to generalize from very specific situations, involving very few individuals, to make social scientific claims about the nature of society as a whole. The danger is that, while the rich texture of face-to-face social life can be examined in detail, the results will remain purely descriptive without any explanatory or analytical strength. In discussing the rich detail of the rituals and dynamics of authority in a street gang, can a sociologist make conclusions about the phenomenon of street gangs in general, or determine the social factors that lead individuals to join street gangs? Can one go from a particular observation to a general claim about society?

In a similar fashion, critical sociologists argue that in focusing on micro-level interaction and the ability of individuals to interpret these interactions, this approach misses the very real ways power and inequality shape interactions and interpretations.  Feminist sociologists for instance have found that men are more likely to interrupt women in conversation a phenomenon referenced in recent popular culture discussion of ‘mansplaining’ where men assume they know more than a woman and thus feel the need to take on the role of ‘teacher’ in everyday conversation.  Similarly, it is impossible fully understand the interaction of individuals and police without understanding larger patterns of racial inequality including systemic racism within police forces.

In the case of marijuana users, for example, it is difficult to go from Becker’s analysis of symbolic interaction between individuals to a strong explanation for the reasons why marijuana was made illegal in the first place, how this produced an underground trade, how drug laws were unequally enforced, who the winners and losers were, and how the groups formed to fight for drug policy reform.

3. Marxist and Feminist Sociology: Critical Perspectives

The critical perspective in sociology has its origins in social activism, social justice movements, revolutionary struggles, and radical critique. This perspective focuses on identifying social inequalities and the historical processes that allowed for their development. Rather than objectivity and value neutrality, the tradition of critical sociology promotes practices of liberation and social change in order to achieve universal social justice. As Marx stated, “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (1845). Marxist, feminist, and anti-racist sociology along with queer studies and much environmental sociology are all examples of the critical perspective in sociology.

The critical tradition in sociology is not about complaining or being “negative.” Nor is it about adopting a moral position from which to judge people or society. It is not about being “subjective” or “biased” as opposed to “objective.” Being critical in the context of sociology is about using objective, empirical knowledge to expose inequalities and to assess the possibilities and barriers to improving or “ameliorating” human life.

Historical Materialism

The tradition of historical materialism that developed from Karl Marx’s work is one of the central frameworks of critical sociology. Marxist sociology concentrates on the study of how our everyday lives are structured by relations of power embedded in economic processes. The elements that make up a culture, our ideas, traditions and beliefs, are all shaped by the type of economy that our society rests upon.

In the dramas of our everyday lives (that interpretive sociologists are so good at describing) it is often hard to see the connection to large scale economic structures. For example, it was not evident to the Scots who were expelled during the Highland clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries that their fate was tied to the transformation from feudalism to capitalism. The rise of this new economic system freed owners of land from historical responsibilities and they forced tenants off the land they had worked for generations to make way sheep production in a new form of capitalist agriculture. Yet understanding this shift is critical to understanding the not only the lives of these men and women but also the future of the Indigenous peoples of what is now known as Canada. Landless and fleeing poverty, these Scots were recruited to emigrate to the Red River settlements in Rupert’s Land (now Manitoba). To these marginalized folk it might not have been clear that they were playing an important part in a colonial process that would soon displace the Cree and Anishinabe who were gradually drawn out of their own Indigenous modes of production (hunting and gathering economies) and into the developing global capitalist economy as fur trappers and provisioners for early European settlements. It was a process that eventually led to the loss of control over their lands, the destruction of their way of life, the devastating spread of European diseases, the imposition of the Indian Act, the establishment of the residential school system, institutional and everyday racism, and an enduring legacy of intractable social problems.

In a similar way, historical materialism helps us understand how our own lives and especially the problems we face are influenced by the type of economy central to our society. From the types of career to pursue to the number of children to have, the decisions and practices of everyday life are shaped by a new form of capitalism where factory work has shifted to other parts of the world, jobs are short lived and economic inequality has grown. In this environment, a Marxist sociologist might argue, we are encouraged to not put roots down, to think firstly of ourselves, to value individuality over collective well-being.

The historical materialist approach employs a form of dialectical thinking. Dialectics in sociology proposes that social contradiction, opposition, and struggle in society drive processes of social change and transformation. Marx’s study of capitalism makes clear that owners (capitalist class or bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat) are not simply social groups that are part of a whole but rather they have opposing interests. While owners seek to increase profits by keeping wages low and hiring as few workers as possible, workers have an interest in higher wages and better working conditions. The conflict between owners and workers, each following their interests, is what drives social change. Globalization is driven by owners seeking pools of cheap labour and workers band together to create unions and political parties to push for better working conditions, to protect their jobs and fight for a bigger share of the profits that their work creates.

Historical materialists, however, do not claim there is any inevitable direction to history, only that the internal contradictions and tensions of economic and political systems must be understood if we are to understand why and how change can happen. For example, the self-immolation of the street vender Mohamed Bouazizi in 2010 lead to the Tunisian revolution of 2011 because it “crystallized” the multitude of everyday problems endured by others in this society — unemployment, government corruption, poor living conditions, and a lack of rights and freedoms. This ‘spark’ awoke people to the shared source of what often seemed to be ‘personal troubles’ — the way that society was organized benefited a minority of those holding economic and political power handsomely, while masses suffered. While not always successful, critical sociology focuses attention on the way that people, even those with few other resources, can act together to bring about social change.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

“Wanna go for a coffee?”

A good example of the dialectical approach to everyday social life would be to think about all the social relationships that are involved in meeting a friend for a cup of coffee. This is a common everyday event that usually passes without a great deal of sociological reflection. On the one hand, it might offer the sociologist numerous opportunities to study the social aspects of this event in isolation or at a micro-level: conversation analysis, the dynamics of friend relationships, addiction issues with caffeine, consumer preferences for different beverages, beliefs about caffeine and mental alertness, etc. In this regard, a symbolic interactionist might ask: Why is drinking coffee at the center of this specific interaction? What does coffee mean for the friends who meet to drink it?

On the other hand, if one was to take a more systematic and critical sociological view of the activity of coffee drinking, one would note how the practice also embeds people in a series of relationships to others and the environment that are not immediately apparent if the activity is viewed in isolation (Swift, Davies, Clarke and Czerny, 2004). When a person purchases a cup of coffee, they enter into a relationship with the growers in Central and South America. They are involved with their working conditions and with the global structures of private ownership and distribution that make selling coffee a profitable business. They are also involved with the barista at the counter who works in the coffee shop for a living; with the fluctuations of supply, demand, competition, and market speculation that determine the price of coffee; with the marketing strategies that lead people to identify with specific beverage choices and brands; and with the modifications to the natural environment where the coffee is grown, through which it is transported, and where, finally, the paper cups and other waste are disposed of, etc.

Ultimately, over a cup of coffee, people find themselves in the midst of a long political and historical process that is part of the formation of low wage or subsistence farming in Central and South America, the transfer of wealth to North America, and recently, various forms of resistance to this process like the fair trade movement. Despite the fact that people can be largely unaware of the web of relationships that they have entered into when they sit down to coffee with a friend, a systematic analysis would emphasize that their casual chat over coffee is just the tip of a vast iceberg composed of the activities and circumstances of countless individuals, including the activities and work relationships people themselves engage in to earn the money to pay for the coffee. These relationships involve people in dialectical economic and political processes every time they have a cup of coffee. One question for sociologists is therefore about how modern life can be so structured that people typically remain unaware of this vast network of economic relationships and catastrophes?

Feminist Sociology

From the early work of women sociologists like Harriet Martineau, feminist sociology has focused on the power relationships and inequalities between women and men.  Inequality between the genders is a phenomenon that goes back at least 4,000 years (Lerner, 1986). Although the forms and ways in which it has been practised differ between cultures and change significantly through history, its persistence has led to the formulation of the concept of patriarchy. Patriarchy refers to a set of institutional structures (like property rights, access to positions of power, relationship to sources of income) that are based on the belief that men and women are dichotomous and unequal categories. Key to patriarchy is what might be called the dominant gender ideology toward sexual differences: the assumption that physiological sex differences between males and females are related to differences in their character, behaviour, and ability (i.e., their gender). These differences are used to justify a gendered division of social roles and inequality in access to rewards, positions of power, and privilege. The question that feminists ask therefore is: How does this distinction between male and female, and the attribution of different qualities to each, serve to organize our institutions and to perpetuate inequality between the sexes? How is the family,  law, the occupational structure, religious institutions, and the division between public and private spheres of life organized on the basis of inequality between the genders?

Feminism is a distinct type of critical sociology. There are considerable differences between types of feminism, however; for example, the differences often attributed to the first wave of feminism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the second wave of feminism from the 1950s to the 1970s, and the third wave of feminism from the 1980s onward. Despite the variations between the different types of feminist approach, there are four characteristics that are common to the feminist perspective:

1. Gender differences are the central focus or subject matter.
2. Gender relations are viewed as a social problem: the site of social inequalities, strains, and contradictions.
3. Gender relations are not immutable: they are sociological and historical in nature, subject to change and progress.
4. Feminism is about an emancipatory commitment to change: the conditions of life that are oppressive for women need to be transformed.

One of the keen sociological insights that emerged with the feminist perspective in sociology is that “the personal is political.” Many of the most immediate and fundamental experiences of social life — from childbirth to who washes the dishes to the experience of sexual violence — had simply been invisible or regarded as unimportant politically or socially. Dorothy Smith’s development of standpoint theory was a key innovation in sociology that enabled these issues to be seen and addressed in a systematic way (Smith, 1977). She recognized that the standpoint of many women, and their concerns, are grounded in their everyday lived experience in caregiving work and household labour. However, in the the the abstract world of institutional work, dealings with schools, medical systems, and government bureaucracies these concerns were “obliterated” (Smith, 1977). Much of society is organized through “relations of ruling,” which treat people and relations ‘as if’ they were abstract bureaucratic categories.  Smith argued that the abstract concepts of sociology, at least in the way that sociology was taught in the 1960s and 1970s, only contributed to the problem.

Criticisms of Critical Sociology

Whereas critical sociologists often criticize positivist and interpretive sociology for their conservative biases, the reverse is also true. In part the issue is about whether sociology can be “objective,” or value-neutral, or not. However, at a deeper level the criticism is often aimed at the radical nature of critical analyses. Marx’s critique of capitalism and the feminist critique of patriarchy for example lead to very interesting insights into how structures of power and inequality work, but from a point of view that sees only the most revolutionary transformation of society as a solution.

Critical sociology is also criticized from the point of view of interpretive sociology for overstating the power of dominant groups to manipulate subordinate groups. For example, media representations of women are said to promote unobtainable standards of beauty or to reduce women to objects of male desire. This type of critique suggests that individuals are controlled by media images rather than recognizing their independent ability to reject media influences or to interpret media images for themselves. In a similar way, interpretive sociology challenges critical sociology for implying that people are purely the products of macro-level historical forces and struggles rather than individuals with a capacity for individual and collective agency. To be fair, Marx did argue that “Men make their own history;” it is just that they “do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances encountered, given, and transmitted from the past” (Marx, 1851).

Theoretical Approaches Summary

Overall, since social reality is complex and multi-faceted, the possibility of fundamental disagreement exists between the different theoretical approaches in sociology. Is society characterized by conflict or consensus? Is human practice determined by external social structures or is it the product of choice and agency? Does society have a reality over and above the lives of individuals or are the lives of individuals the only reality? Is human experience unique because it revolves around the meanings of social action, or is it essentially no different than any other domain studied by science? The answer to each of these questions is: it is both. Similar to the problem in physics about whether light is a particle or a wave, society appears in one guise or another depending on the perspective one takes or the research tool that one adopts. Using Habermas’ schema (discussed previously), sociology takes different forms depending on whether it is to be used for the purposes of administration (e.g., positivism), mutual understanding (e.g., interpretive sociology), or social change (e.g., critical sociology). However, just like the wave/particle uncertainty in physics, the fundamental ambiguity in determining which sociological perspective to adopt does not prevent brilliant insights into the nature of social experience from being generated.

Media Attributions

• Figure 1.15 Freedom Convoy 2022, Ottawa, Canada, February 12, 2022 by Maksim Sokolov, via Wikimedia Commons, is used under a CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.
• Figure 1.16 Blindmen #1, Blindmen #2, and Blindmen #3, by MIke Kline, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY 2.0  licence.
• Figure 1.17 Jürgen Habermas at a discussion in Munich, 2007 by Wolfram Huke, via Wikimedia Commons, is used under a CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. 
• Figure 1.18 Talcott Parsons by unknown source, via Wikipedia, is used under Fair Dealing provisions of the Canadian Copyright Act.
• Figure 1.19 The Last of the Clan by Thomas Faed, 1865, via Wikimedia Commons is in the public domain.
• Figure 1.20 Coffee [cropped] by duncan c. via Flickr, is used under a CC BY-NC 2.0 licence.
• Figure 1.21 Theoretical Approaches Summary by William Little and TRU Media.