Erving Goffman, George Herbert Mead, and Howard Becker are primarily associated with symbolic interactionism and microsociology. In contrast, Antonio Gramsci is a Marxist theorist known for his work on hegemony and conflict theory, which focuses on macrosociological structures and power dynamics, making him the outlier in this list.

Karl Marx is the central figure in conflict theory. He argued that society is defined by the struggle between opposing classes over limited resources and power. Unlike functionalists who emphasize social integration and consensus, Marx viewed social change as the result of inherent contradictions and conflicts within the economic system, particularly between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Ralf Dahrendorf, John Rex, and Jürgen Habermas are key figures in conflict and critical theory. Their work primarily examines how power structures, institutional domination, and social conflict shape society. By analyzing the mechanisms of authority and the tensions within social systems, they provided essential insights into how power is distributed and contested in modern industrial societies.

Alvin Gouldner’s critique of Goffman is rooted in the conflict perspective. Conflict theorists emphasize that social structures are maintained by power dynamics and inequality. Gouldner suggested that by focusing on the micro-level 'dramaturgy' of social interaction, Goffman neglected the macro-level power structures and class conflicts that define the broader social order.

Conflict theory posits that society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources. It focuses on how those in power maintain their dominance by exploiting or oppressing subordinate groups, thereby creating and perpetuating social inequality.

In the 20th century, sociologists like Lewis Coser and C. Wright Mills revitalized conflict theory. Coser focused on the functional aspects of social conflict, while Mills emphasized the power elite and the structural inequalities within American society, moving beyond the classical Marxist interpretations of conflict.

The conflict perspective analyzes how dominant groups use stereotypes to create divisions among minority groups. By labeling one group as a 'model,' the system shifts the focus away from structural inequalities and systemic racism, effectively blaming other marginalized groups for their lack of success rather than addressing the underlying economic and social barriers they face.

Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto, key figures in elite theory, challenged Marx's economic determinism. They argued that political power is held by a small, organized minority—the elite—who occupy top positions across various social spheres. This elite is not necessarily fixed by class but maintains power through circulation and the exclusion of the masses from decision-making, functioning as a coalition of influential social forces.

The conflict perspective, rooted in the work of theorists like Karl Marx, posits that society is in a constant state of struggle over limited resources. It argues that social structures are designed to maintain the dominance of powerful groups, thereby creating and reproducing systemic inequality. This framework examines how power dynamics and social stratification perpetuate disparities in wealth, status, and opportunity across different segments of the population.

The conflict perspective, rooted in Marxist thought, views religion as a mechanism of social control. It suggests that religious institutions often justify the status quo and the power of the elite, thereby legitimizing social inequality and discouraging the oppressed from challenging the existing social order.