Sociological theoryACTION THEORIES

Structural theor ies such as Funct ional ism and Marxism are macro - level , top-down and determin ist ic , and v iews soc iety as a ‘ real th ing’ out there that shapes our ideas and behaviour, and so to understand people ’s behaviour, we must fi rst understand the soc ia l s tructure that shapes i t .

However, un l ike structural theor ies , act ion theor ies are micro - level , bottom up, voluntar is t ic approaches that focuses on the act ions and interact ions of ind iv iduals as having free wi l l and choice. Our act ions are not determined by soc iety as structural theor ies be l ieve, because we possess agency and so therefore we can shape soc iety through our choices , meanings and act ions.

The four cruc ia l act ion theor ies are Weber’s soc ia l act ion, symbol ic interact ion ism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology. A l though al l four emphasise act ion and interact ion, they d iff er in how far they see structural explanat ions of behaviour.___________________________________________________________________________The debate goes as fo l low… For Weber’s soc ia l act ion and symbol ic interact ion ism – the soc ia l s tructure infl uences how we behave.

VS

For phenomenology and ethnomethodology – cr i t ic ise the above, argu ing that there is not a soc ia l s tructure out there infl uencing our behaviour.

WHAT I’D WRITE IN THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ESSAY

Weber saw both structural and action approaches as important to understand human behaviour, and therefore needed a reasonable explanation, which involved to levels.

• The level of cause – Exp la ins ob ject ive s t ructura l factors that shape our behav iour• The level of meaning – The sub ject ive meanings that ind iv idua ls a t tach to the i r act ions

For example , in Weber ’s s tudy o f the r i se o f cap i ta l i sm, at the s t ructura l leve l , the protestant re format ion int roduced a new be l ie f system, Ca lv in ism – and th is changed peop le ’s wor ldv iew, lead ing to changes in behav iour. However , a t the leve l meaning, i t had a re l ig ious meaning for the Ca lv in is ts as a ca l l ing by God, lead ing to the accumulat ion o f wea l th .

Weber c lass ifi es act ion in to four types , based on the meaning for the actor:

Ins t rumenta l ly ra t iona l act ion: The actor ca lcu la tes the best ways o f ach iev ing goa l . For example , cap i ta l i s t may ca lcu late that the best way to become profi tab le i s to pay low wages .

Va lue-rat iona l act ion : An act ion towards a goa l that the actor may regard as des i rab le for i t s own sake. For example , worsh ipp ing God in order to get to heaven.

Trad i t iona l act ion : Behav ing in a t rad i t iona l way and invo lves habi tua l act ions .

Aff ectua l act ion: Expresses emot ion , such as weeping out o f gr ie f and d is t ress

WEBER’S SOCIAL ACTION

Weber has been criticised on several grounds:

Schutz (1972) argues that Weber’s view of action is too individualistic. For example, when a person at an auction raises their hand, it means that they want to make a bid: BUT Weber, does not explain how another person who does the same gesture can have the same meaning. For example, I may raise my hand and mean that I want to talk.

Weber however also advocated the use of ‘vestehen’ but has not explained how we can be the other person to emphasize, as we can never truly explain and understand another person’s motives.

EVALUATION AND CRITICISM OF WEBER’S SOCIAL ACTION

Symbol ic interact ionism looks on how we can create the soc ia l wor ld through our interact ions.

G.H MEAD (1931) argues that:Unl ike animals whose behaviour is governed by inst incts , humans can respond to the wor ld by giv ing meanings to the th ings that are important to them. So there is an interpret ive phase between a st imulus and our responses to i t (as we fi rst have to interpret the meaning) For example, i f I shake my fi st at you, I am us ing a symbol that has many poss ib le meanings, and to understand what is going on – you must interpret the meaning of th is symbol . For example, am I shaking my fi st at you because I am angry or because I am jok ing with you? When you interpret the symbol , only then wi l l you know how to respond.

Animals however, as Mead argued do no know how to interpret another animals act ions. For example, when a dog snar ls at another dog, the other dong automatical ly adopts a defensive posture ( i t cannot interpret the meanings or ways to respond, because i ts response is immediate .

So a l l th is i s bas ical ly saying that we create the soc ia l wor ld through our interact ions.

However, we can interpret other people ’s meanings by tak ing the i r ro le i .e . putt ing ourse lves in the i r pos i t ion. This abi l i ty develops interact ion. We fi rst do this as chi ldren, through imitat ive play when we take on the ro le of our parents and then later in l i fe , we see the wor ld as they saw i t (as we put ourse lves in the i r pos i t ion) – so we need to see ourse lves as others see us.

For Mead, to funct ion as members of soc iety, we need to be able to see ourse lves as others see us.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Blumer developed Mead’s interactionism: and stated that our actions are based on the meanings that we give to situations. Unlike animals, our actions are not based on automatic responses to stimuli.

Blumer’s view of human conduct contrasts strongly with Functionalism. Functionalist see individuals as puppets (controlled by society) who passively respond to the systems needs. By contrast, Blumer argues that there is always room for choice and how we want to perform certain roles (we can be active, as not all are passive)

HERBERT BLUMER

Three interactionist ideas that underpin the label l ing theory:

The defi nition of the situation: Thomas (1966) argued that i f people defi ne a situation as real , then it wi l l only have real consequences. That is, i f we bel ieve something to be true, then this bel ief wi l l aff ect how we act. For example, i f a teacher labels a boy as a ‘trouble maker’ then this teacher wi l l be l ikely to act diff erently towards them e.g. treat them more harsher.

The looking-class self: Cooley (1922) argues that our self-concept comes from our abi l i ty to take out the role of the other. In interactions, by taking the role of the other, we come to see ourselves as they see us. When we look in the mirror, we see ourselves as other people see us. Through this, self-fulfi l l ing prophecy occurs – when we become what other people see us as.

Career: Becker and Lemert apply this concept to mental people. I f someone is defi ned as ‘a mental patient’ then this label wi l l override any other posit ive label that they have e.g. as good mothers and this label as a ‘mental patient’ would become their ‘master status’ leading to self-fulfi l l ing prophecy.

Label l ing theorist fai l to establ ish what causes people to label others and also ignore wider social structures such as inequal it ies etc.

LABELLING THEORY

Goff man’s dramaturgical model describes how we can actively construct ourselves by manipulating other people’s impressions of us, such as through acting.

Two key dramaturgical concepts are‘presentations of self’ – we can present a certain image others, thereby controlling the way we appear to others

‘impression management’ – includes tone of voice, gestures and props e.g. in a theatre there is a ‘front stage’ where we act our our roles and a ‘back stage’ where we can step out of our role.

Also, teachers put on a front stage behaviour in classrooms as ‘professionals’ and in the staff room they step out of their role.

GOFFMAN’S DRAMATURGICAL MODEL

Interactionism avoids determinism of structural theories such as Functionalism.

It focuses on face-to-face interactions and ignores wider issues such as inequality and fails to explain the origin of our labels.

Goff man’s dramaturgical model is useful, but has its limitations. For example, in interactions everyone plays the part of the actor and audiences, and interactions are often improvised and unrehearsed.

Ethnomethodologists argue that interactionism is correct in focusing on an actor’s meanings, but fails to explain how actors create meanings.

OVERALL EVALUATION OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Pheno and ethno…criticise symbolic interactionism and Weber’s social action theory! They argue that a social structure does not exist out there that influences our behaviour because we as humans have free will and possess ‘agency’ so we shape the social structure ourselves through our own meanings…

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT:

Husserl argues that the wor ld on ly makes sense to us because we impose meanings and order on i t by construct ing menta l categor ies . Schutz appl ies th is idea to the soc ia l wor ld .

He ca l ls th is ‘ typ ifi cat ions’ (a l lows us to organise our exper iences into a shared wor ld o f meaning) . The meaning of an act ion var ies accord ing to the soc ia l context . For example, putt ing your hand up means two d iff erent th ings at an auct ion and in a c lassroom.

Fortunate ly , typ ifi cat ions make soc ia l order poss ib le , because they g ive members o f soc iety a shared ‘ l i fe wor ld ’ o f commonsense knowledge that we can use to make sense of our exper iences. Schutz ca l ls th is ‘ rec ipe knowledge’ . L ike a rec ipe we can fo l low i t w i thout th ink ing too much, us ing i t to make sense of the everyday wor ld .

The soc ia l wor ld is an inter-subject ive one that ex ists on ly when we a l l share the same meanings.

The fact that soc iety appears to us as a rea l and object ive th ing shows that a l l members o f soc iety share the same meanings. Th is a l lows us to cooperate and achieve our goa ls .

Berger and Luckmann re ject the v iew that rea l i ty is a soc ia l construct . Once constructed, i t takes on a l i fe o f i ts own and become an externa l rea l i ty that shapes our l ives .

PHENOMENOLOGY

Like phenomenologists, ethnomethodologists also reject the idea of a society exist ing out there that shapes our behaviour.

Garfi nkel argues that social order is created from the ‘bottom up’. I t is something members of society actively construct in everyday l i fe using commonsensical knowledge.

The sociologists task is to therefore uncover the taken-for-granted rules people use to construct social real i ty.

Indexicality: meanings may sometimes not be clear. This is a threat to social order, because meanings are unclear and cooperation becomes diffi cult.Refl exivity: is the use of commonsense knowledge to construct a sense of meaning and order, so that indexical i ty can be prevented.

Language is important in achieving refl exivity. I t gives us a sense of real i ty.

Garfi nkel used breaching experiments to disrupt people’s expectations of a situation. For example, students behaving l ike lodgers in their parents’ home. These show how the orderl iness of everyday situations is not inevitable and how we can use of commonsense knowledge to create a social order.

ETHNOMETHODOLOGY

Assess the usefulness of interactionist approaches to the study of society (33 marks)

Assess the contribution of diff erent ‘action’ theories to our understanding of society today (33 marks)

Assess the contribution of symbolic interactionism to our understanding of society (33 marks)

EXAM QUESTIONS (PRACTICE)