ge, symbols, and ideas,ö (247). It is from this stock of sociality that the different groups in society, each trying to optimize its own rewards, define their relationships.
From the structural functionalist perspective of Ritzer, we can argue that social behavior and social institutions are directly related. For example, in the world of labor and production, we either are the owners of the means of production or the means of labor. Our role in society defines our relationship to our employment or money-making behavior in a capitalist society. At the core of the cultural system are social institutions not norms or values, i.e. institutions not individuals. It is these institutions that define the status quo of the social system. The status represents the structural position of an individual in society. An individualÆs behavior is determined by that role. So, too, the individualÆs relationships with others of the same and different status are determined.
With respect to critical theory, Ritzer views the function of both society and individuals as a product of the impact of social structures and institutions. In other words, he adopts a macroscopic rather than a microscopic explanation for his theories on sociology, though he does argue that individuals do influence social change. RitzerÆs macroscopic perspective is incorporated into his Integrated Sociological Paradigm. As Maslak (2001) maintains, RitzerÆs ôIntegrated Sociological Paradigm provides a framework that identifies both the subjective and objective dimensions of the macro-structural and micro-individual fundamental characteristics as well
...