However, functionalist could explain child labour as an anomie, which occurred as a result of a unfulfilled function of a particular institution. This means that, perhaps functionalists would see the use of child labour as an outcome of the failure of an institution, in this case, the government. They could argue that due to the lack of efforts made by the government to help people escape poverty, it has left them no choice but to work at a young age. This then results into social division  and conflict in society rather than social order. Another view could be that child labour had come about as a result of its own institution failing to perform its own function. This then leads the society not being able to function properly. 

As functionalist theory, society is an organism and every part contributes to society like organs to the whole human body, and functionalism thinks of the gun conted in the scenario as a social order provided by a social institution like government or court. Functionalism also thinks gun conted could give residents social cohesion and let people relate to each other by protecting citizens from shooting cases.

For the positive sides of functionalism, it seems gun conted tries to help keep a safe society and unite citizens by excluding relatively unstable people from gun rights. For example, American criminals can’t keep or use any gun, which helps reduce re-offend rates and let citizens feel safe to some extent.

But there are still some negative sides of functionalism as criticism. For example, people who live in America but don’t have citizenship like International students or permanent residents born in other countries, are banned from using or keeping guns, which lets them lose the ability to defend or fight back against criminals. This is not fair for them compared to American citizens and also not good for social stability.

 

However, stability and cohesion are over-exaggerated in this theoretical perspective, as those who attempt to voice their concerns and opinions regarding certain matters are considered to be a threat. Therefore, it stagnates change and development by disregarding the freedom and autonomy of the people, stripping them from their rights. This can be exemplified by the suffragette movement, where women in the UK advocated their right to vote; and a latent function included the gender equally in various aspect in life by challenging gender norms and societies status quo. Taking into consideration the functionalism theory, it is evident that by disregarding human rights and perceiving humans as more of machines that contribute to the stability of a society, and not considering their concerns would results to conflict and chaos. To be able to oppose and question a system and structure is vital as it would lead to further development, as according to Plato, thoughtful questioning enables people to examine ideas more thoroughly and determine the validity of their ideas. By fighting for their rights, it shined light on the grey areas in the system which needed to be repaired. In this case, citizens who were mentally capable of voting should have to right to do so, as all citizens would be influenced by the final decision; it is essential for them to contribute to that decision to reach a general consensus in order to maximize harmony amongst citizens, ultimately resulting in stability and cohesion.

 

In conclusion, it can be inferred that functionalism as a theory fails to recognize the conflict within a society due to the perception of change and those who voice their concerns as a threat, while simultaneously over-emphasizing its stability and integrity. 

However, when we consider the issue of child labor, the functionalist theory falls short in explaining this problem. Child labor involves the exploitation of children for work that harms their health, education, and childhood. This practice is a global problem, often linked to poverty and lack of education.

From a functionalist perspective, child labor could be viewed as a necessary part of the economy, providing cheap labor for economic growth and stability. But this perspective neglects the harmful effects of child labor on children's well-being and perpetuation of poverty. Moreover, it violates children's human rights and contributes to broader social issues such as inequality and discrimination.

In conclusion, while functionalism offers an understanding of how social institutions work together to maintain social order, it does not fully address the complex problem of child labor. Exploiting children violates their rights and harms their development, perpetuates poverty, and contributes to broader social issues. Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of child labor is necessary, prioritizing children's well-being and rights.

Based on the idea of structural functionalism, the social facts surrounding child labour may be interpreted as an established social realityconnected to the presence of social structures and institutions around it. The change of a family institution's function as a child care institution into an economic institution has an influence on the rise of child labour. In this situation, the child is a social structure element who serves as the family's provider in order to meet the family's economic demands. As a result, functional child labour is for the family. With the employment of underage children, the existence of child labour is also functional for enterprises. Entrepreneurs gain since the income paid is low. Working is not only functional for the child in terms of meeting basic necessities, but it is also dysfunctional in that the child will lose time to learn, play, and socialise with family members. If a child is exploited at employment, it can have a negative influence on his physical and emotional health. 

It can be concluded that the existence of child labour has a manifest function for the social system. The latency function refers to the ineffectiveness of regulation as a tool for overseeing the problem of child labour, as well as the rejection of regulation by the social system. 

The term "electronic commerce" refers to the sale of goods and services over the internet.We need to enhance restrictions on guns from all angles, because the severe management of the epidemic in recent years has caused people to be very impatient. For example, youngsters who are unable to attend school can do homework online at home.Because of the outbreak, some parents have little financial resources. The sick population has become large, and social medical facilities are distributed unevenly.I believe the positive element is being able to interact with society, so that different components of society can do what they have to do more effectively, and help people who are imprisoned as a result of the shooting incident, but repair their faults.However, there is a disadvantage because there are too many unknown components, making it impossible to predict whether they will change or follow the prior trend.

 

The suffragette movement sought to provide women the ability to participate in politics and to have an impact on the political, economic, and social environments. According to this perspective, the suffragette movement was crucial to accomplishing social objectives since it campaigned for women's political rights and equal standing, raising the status of women in society.

The suffragette movement also improved democracy and the legitimacy of government by increasing the variety and representation of political decision-makers, reducing bias against particular interest groups, and other positive effects on society as a whole. 

 

In general, the suffragette movement served a significant purpose in achieving social goals and had a good effect on society as a whole from the standpoint of functionalist philosophy.

In this scenario, we can see that the teacher gave puzzles and spatial developmental toys to the boys and dolls and cooking games to the girls. According to the aspect of conflict theory and look at this situation, we can infer ‘puzzles and spatial developmental toys’ symbolised in the mathematics field or could be useful tools in the future. In contrast, ‘dolls and cooking games’ are more likely to be housewife’s work or don’t improve the development of work. Compared with those toys, the class of society is slowly showing out. In the future, the stereotype would emerge in the workplace, and society would be given more opportunities to boys in the mathematics field or think men can do better in this field.

The difference between conflict theories and symbolic interaction theories is that conflict theories focus more on macro-level information, like different classes (male and female) and the whole society’s effect. But symbolic theories pay attention to individuals, like the teacher and children in this scenario. Conflict theories would criticise symbolic interaction theories that they over emphasise the importance of individuals but never mention about the mix effect among society, which points out symbolic interaction theories’ imprecision on complex relationships. Vice versa, symbolic interaction theories would criticise conflict theories that they ignore individuals’ interaction and generalise all such scenarios as the same.

But there still are some similarities between conflict theories and symbolic interaction theories. They both recognize the difference between toys for boys and girls, and mention unfair thinking of different social groups.

In addition, functionalism will see the scenario as the social institution contributes to education for people that teachers represent school to educate children.

According to functionalism, teachers and the school have positive contributions to social cohesion, social order and social education. But it’s not completely real. In the scenario, boys and girls are treated differently on stereotypical toys, which may shape children into society’s expectations but not depend on their own mind and interest.

As a conclusion, symbolic interaction theories and conflict theories both mention unfairness between boys and girls and even different social classes, but functionalism only mentions the positive sides like school’s contributions on education and ignores the negative sides that the education system may not be fair enough to keep a balanced society. And conflict theories and functionalism pay most attention on macro-level and not realise individuals’ contributions, which contrary to symbolic interaction theories that symbolic interaction theories focus on micro-level and not mention the whole society.

 

When observing the situation of a nursery teacher handing out puzzles and spatial development toys and dolls and cooking toys for girls, both conflict theory and symbol interactionism would attempt to explain the teacher’s actions. Symbolic interactionism will suggest that this is because of the meanings given to the toys which would be viewed as symbols, through both their nature and colour. Feminism would accept the idea of the toys acting as symbols with meanings that influence human behaviour and suggest that this is a result of the stereotype created by society of women. In relation to the meaning of the symbols, both symbol interactionism and feminism would agree that softer and pink coloured toys would be used to associate with little girls and more dark and rigid toys would be linked with the idea of little boys. Moreover, Feminism would accept the idea that these meanings are derived from social interactions and personal experiences which influenced society to have that particular idea of women as it looks at gender inequality throughout history.  Additionally, both theories evaluate situations on a micro-level and can explain this single situation of the nursery teacher.

 

As a macro approach, conflict theory would view  this situation as an illustration of how socialisation in society reinforces gender inequality. This theory contends that the teacher's behaviour is influenced by societal patriarchal norms and values. Though they may not be aware of it, the teacher is perpetuating gender stereotypes by giving boys and girls different kinds of toys. On the other hand, a micro theory known as symbolic interaction would see this situation as an illustration of how interpersonal interactions shape gender roles in society. In addition to the expectations and preferences of the students in their class, the teacher's actions are influenced by their own values and beliefs. According to symbolic interaction theory, gender is a byproduct of social interactions rather than a trait that people are born with. As both theories have significant differences, they have both been heavily criticised. A major difference between both approaches is that they explore aspects of society on different scales. This causes a disadvantage for symbolic interactionism as it fails to address macro-level issues. It is too focused on individual interactions and does not recognise the broader social structures that influence these interactions. On the contrary, symbolic interaction theory might criticise conflict theory for being overly deterministic and failing to recognise the agency of people in determining their own experiences. 

The economic base determines the superstructure. Men are viewed usually as the owners of the means of production. In addition，the means of production could be difined as resources or tools used by a worker in production. Generally can include land, plant, machinery and equipment, tools, raw materials and so on. Based on all the stuff mentioned above，people could know that men play a relatively important role as labours and owners of resources in this society. Given to this orientation for men，there is no surprised that the teacher was giving exploratory toys / items to the boys，because exploring is always supposed to be the men’s duty.

Symbolic interaction theory is relatively easy to explain this situation. In this theory, sign is the basic concept. Symbols refer to all things that can represent a certain meaning of people, such as language, words, actions, objects and even scenes. The reason why a thing becomes a symbol is that people give it some meaning, which is recognized by everyone; there is no objective meaning in things themselves. It is given by people in the process of social interaction. So the behavior of teachers giving different toys to students of different genders is based on their understanding of society. They gave these toys different objective values and meanings. For example, the teacher give dolls to girls which was hope them to be gentle. And dolls are not only toys, but also symbols of babies in social interaction. For a long time, most of the work of taking care of babies in the family was done by women. So when people mention toys like dolls or cooking games, most of them will contact with girls. Teachers may think that dolls and cooking games will help girls bring into the image of mothers, which will help them integrate into society. The same thing is that puzzles and space creation are highly innovative. In society, the image of engineers is mostly male, and this kind of toys can effectively improve children's creativity. Therefore, most people will think that such toys are the symbol of boys. Compare with symbolic interaction theory

Therefore, comparing these two theories, it can be found that the conflict theory believes that this toy will affect children's future social status and wealth rights, and promote children to become familiar with production tools in future social labor. Symbolic theory suggests that these toys represent different elements of society, and gender gives these social elements different meanings. That's why teachers give different toys to children of different genders.

The conflict theory suggests that social inequality exists due to struggles between different groups that are competing for scarce resources. In this scenario, the toys given to boys and girls may reflect gender stereotypes and societal expectations. The teacher may unconsciously assume that boys are naturally more spatially inclined, and girls are more interested in nurturing roles. This gendered division of toys can reinforce gender norms and contribute to the perpetuation of gender inequality. Conflict theory emphasises that social structures can create and maintain inequalities, and this can be seen in the way gender roles are perpetuated in the choice of toys given to children. However, conflict theory has been criticised for being too focused on macro-level social structures and ignoring individual agency. This theory fails to account for the fact that individuals can resist or challenge social norms and structures. For instance, a child may choose to play with a toy that is not typically associated with their gender. Thus, the conflict theory alone may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the situation.

In contrast, the symbolic interaction theory suggests that social interactions shape the construction of reality, and individuals act based on the meanings they attach to symbols, such as gender roles. In this scenario, the teacher's actions may reflect her beliefs and values about what is appropriate for boys and girls to play with. The teacher may believe that boys are better suited to playing with puzzles and spatial developmental toys, while girls are better suited to playing with dolls and cooking games. These beliefs and values may be shaped by the teacher's interactions with others in her social environment, including other teachers, parents, and society as a whole. Symbolic interaction theory emphasises that social interactions are important in shaping individual behaviour, including how children perceive gender roles and what toys they choose to play with. However, symbolic interaction theory has been criticised for being too focused on micro-level social interactions and ignoring macro-level social structures. This theory fails to account for the impact of wider social structures, such as gender roles, on individual behaviour. The teacher's beliefs and values about gender roles are not formed in a vacuum but are shaped by broader societal norms and expectations. 

In conclusion, the observation of a nursery teacher giving different toys to boys and girls can be explained by both conflict and symbolic interaction theories. While conflict theory emphasises the role of social structures in perpetuating gender inequality, symbolic interaction theory highlights the importance of individual beliefs and values. Both theories have their limitations, and they should be used together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. The way toys are distributed in nurseries and preschools can have a significant impact on the development of children's gender identity and their perception of gender roles. Therefore, it is important to reflect on our own beliefs and values and strive to create an environment where children can explore different interests and activities without being constrained by gender stereotypes.

 

A similarity between both the conflict and the symbolic interaction theory would be the recognition of toys being categorized by gender, where there are toys that are designated or made to suit the interests of both boys or girls. Symbolic interaction theory states that social interaction shape the construction of reality and give meaning to symbols. In this case, the teacher allocated certain toys to her students based on her beliefs and values formed though social interactions and experiences. Where boys were given more spatial development toys and girls were given more dolls and cooking games to girls. In other words, gender designated toys are rooted to the social consensus established through social interactions and experiences, subliminally influencing the teacher’s actions and ability to reason.

 

However, symbolic interaction theory fails to recognize the cultural or societal influence on the teacher’s values and belief, as it only focuses on the individuals (micro) and not the general context (macro). Taking into consideration the conflict theories, these toys were manufactured with the sole purpose of developing children’s abilities which match their gender norms to then contribution to the needs of their society. Exemplified by the allocation of dolls and cooking game to girls, as they possess a nurturing stereotype, and as a society they are expected to raise their children and put food on the table for the family. Whereas boys are considered to be more physically dominant and spatial, as a result, they are given toys which complement their societal stereotypes. In a feminist point of view, society forces these genders into performing certain roles, restricting them of their freedom to choose to develop ability which they see as fit to their personality; as it be seen that the adults force the children to play with these toys based on their beliefs. Where boys are given toys which would encourage their dominance and power, and girls are given toys which would enhance their nurturing ability and other essential household roles.

 

In conclusion, it can be deduced that both theories have their similarities and differences. The predominant similarity amongst them is the recognition of gender-based toys, where certain toys are manufactured for the purpose of fulfilling the desires or needs of certain genders. However, unlike the symbolic interaction theory, conflict theory being a macro-level theory takes into consideration the societal and cultural implications, it argues that these toys were manufactured for the sole purpose of developing children’s abilities which match their gender norms to then contribute to the needs of their society.