Sometimes different scenarios can be explained by the less obvious perspectives. In my observation of the teenage girl on the Amtrak train, my instincts were to think of the Conflict theory and the need for her to be flamboyant among the other passengers. She wanted to be the winner of attention, a survival of the fittest, and impress those in power. As I continued my research into the overall atmosphere of the train and the people on board, I realized that the two perspectives that helped most to explain the occurrences were functionalism and interactionism. Though the Conflict theory has some valid points, functionalism and interactionism help mold the overall picture. .
Functionalism would explain this scenario in several ways. All the people that were sitting on the train were a part of a well-oiled machine which worked together in order to keep peace within the car. In this particular case, the teenagers sitting in the train car were factors which threatened the rest of the society which inhibited the area because they were doing dysfunctional acts which were not making the atmosphere a better place. They were messing up the glue which holds society together. The conflict that arose from this girls" actions would be considered pathological and dysfunctional. At the same time, since the girl and her friends are counterparts of this machine called society then everyone shifts and reacts based on her. No one proceeded to confront her, but rather accepted her words and actions and went from there. Furthermore, as a whole, the other people on the train came to a consensus the best thing to do was allow her actions rather than go against her and create conflict. Functionalism justifies the occurrences as being integrated parts of the entire machine.
The symbolic interactionists would explain this situation as being .
Applied Perspectives 3.
behavior that was acquired based on interaction.
