Sociology can be seen through the eyes of two contradicting theories known as the functionalism and the conflict theory.The book analyzes both of the theories and gives the definitions to give us a start by stating, “functionalism emphasizes the importance of social institutions for social stability and implies that far-reaching social change will be socially harmful” ( Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World , 24). “Conflict theory emphasizes social inequality and suggests that far-reaching social change is needed to achieve a just society” ( Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World , 25). Both of these theories were established long ago during Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, but continue to shape the way sociologist still view many things such as immigration. Immigration is, in definition, the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country. The sociology of immigration on the other hand, associates the sociological analysis of immigration,with race and ethnicity, social structure, and political policy.
One of the two main sociological perspectives is functionalism, or the functionalist perspective. Functionalism emphasizes the importance of the many forms of social institutes like education, religion, media, and family to produce a stable society. Functionalism is also known for having a conservative perspective due to their doubtfulness when it comes to rapid social changes because of the threat they have towards a society’s stability and future. With all this being said this theory focuses on the idea that every single society has certain structures set existing to fulfill at least some necessary functions. This being said, functionalists strongly believe, whether the effects being positive or negative, immigration significantly impacts the level of this social cohesion in the work field. Regarding to the economy of a society, immigrants play a distinguished role in maintaining, disrupting, and contributing to the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper. Since the 1980s through the 1990s America's economy has always favored workers who provide valuable skills. If these immigrants who are moving to the United States provide these valuable skills the US is looking for, they may "increase the chances of economic success in the United States, such as the language and culture of the American workplace". (Heaven's Door : Immigration Policy and the American Economy, p. 19.) The human capital and physical resources that immigrants may have to offer can accompaniment those already existing in America’s economy. This analysis of the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper, or social cohesion, is similar to the sociologist Émile Durkheim’s work. Utilizing functionalism a sociologist would state that immigration serves as a consolidation for the immigrant population in a foreign society. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, immigrants in the United States socialized with those of related ethnic backgrounds in order to experience unity during a time of intense force of re-engineering social values, beliefs, and norms . That feeling of group solidarity led to an increase in social capital, which brought people together and decreased the lack of the usual social or ethical standards among immigrants, which is a "sense of aimlessness or despair that arises when we can no longer reasonably expect life to be predictable".(You May Ask Yourself: an Introduction to Thinking like a Sociologist, pg.25). Immigration, therefore, served as a technique or way for social networks to build among their own populations during a time of intense resocialization.
On the other hand, the other sociological perspectives used is known as the conflict theory which totally contradicts functionalism. This theory focuses more on the idea that society’s different groups interest vary due to their different social positions. The conflict theory states the various parts of society contribute to the ongoing inequality and feel we must encourage social change to reduce this inequality, which is seen as a progressive perspective rather than a conservative. Social conflict theory views society as a constant struggle for power and resources and highlights competition between competing interests as a central function of society. Social conflict theorists believe that the competition for power and resources is necessary for a social change and must be applied. That being said, since the early nineteenth century opponents of immigration have evaluated the economic effects of immigration on both the national economies and the work field. Opponents of national increases in immigration rates have argued that restricting immigration "improves the economic well-being of native workers"( Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy And The American Economy, pg 62). Immigration, opponents also argued the different causes of unemployment for native workers.Immigrant people competing with the native people for jobs and resources is the reasoning behind this argument. More jobs going to immigrant workers is the result of this increased competition due to the fact that it costs less for employers to hire a low-skilled immigrant than a highly skilled native worker. However, supporters of immigration argue that immigration makes a nation's economy better since the workforce now has more bodies, thus resulting in higher productivity and increased competition in the labor market. Additionally, proponents argue that the citizens population is affected in a good way from immigration since "immigrants increase the demand for goods and services produced by native workers and firms"(Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy And The American Economy, pg.87). Social conflict theorists suggest that the rivalry between the native workers and immigrant workers is the gist of the immigration controversy relating to economics. A common fear in the United States is that immigration and their people will alter the native culture of a nation. In the discipline of sociology, "culture" is defined as a "set of beliefs, traditions, and practices"(You May Ask Yourself: an Introduction to Thinking like a Sociologist, pg.75). It is the view that the nonmaterial culture of immigrants will decrease the staying power and predominance of the native culture. For example, the fear that repeated immigration to the United States will result in the importance of the English language fading. The competition to maintain English as the "official" language of the United States will forever be a struggle that American will continue to confront as a society if immigration continues. Additionally, the "native vs. immigrant" competition for both social mobility and in the workforce will continue as long as the immigration continues.
After analyzing both of these articles, looking at immigration from not just a person in this society, but now also as a sociologist I believe I would stand more on the functionalist beliefs.
All in all, immigration, the action of one moving from country to another one in search for a better life, as we seen can be looked at in through two separate lenses. Through the eyes of a functionalist perspective they’re seen as an asset to the United States providing us with great workers, while in the eyes of conflict theory they’re seen as people who will take over the US. I personally stand more for the idea a functionalist would because the immigrants are just here for a better life and jobs, they aren’t trying to take over. But, now that you are presented with two many different ways of looking at immigration where would you stand? What do you believe? Is there a right or wrong answer? Well, in reality the answers to all these questions at hand can vary from me to you to someone else it’s all how we look at things from a sociological perspective so make your own.