2. Weber and Social Action
• Structural and Action approaches are
necessary for understanding human
behaviour, arguing that an adequate
explanation involves 2 levels:
1.Level of cause- explaining the objective
structural factors that shape behaviour
2.Level of meaning- understanding the
subjective meanings that individuals
attach to their actions
3. Weber: Different types of social action
Type Explanation
Traditional Action Action that is custom or habit e.g.
buying gifts at Christmas
Affectual Action Action that is expresses by an
emotional state, such as crying at a
funeral
Value-rational action Action towards a goal the person
regards as desirable e.g. Praying to
get to heaven
Instrumentally rational action
This is a highly rational form of
action where people calculate the
most efficient means of achieving a
given goal
4. Symbolic Interactionism
• Symbolic interactionists emphasise the
ways in which society is actively shaped
by individuals and the meanings they
attach to ‘everyday things’.
5. George Herbert Mead
• Noticed most of our communication was symbolic such
as smiles, and frowns.
• There is an interpretive phase between a stimulus and
our response to it, in which we interpret its meanings.
• We interpret other people’s meanings by taking their
role (putting ourselves in their place, seeing ourselves
as they see us)
• This ability develops through social interaction
• To function as members of society we need the
ability to see ourselves as others see us. Through
shared symbols esp. language we become conscious of
the ways of acting that others require of us
6. Herbert Blumer
• Blumer developed Mead’s approach and identified
3 key principles of Interactionism:
1. Our actions are based on the meanings we give to
situations, people etc. They are not based on
automatic responses to stimuli e.g. (for example,
interpreting the meaning of a red light before deciding how to react to it)
2. These meanings arise from interactions and are
to some extent negotiable and changeable
3. The meanings we give to situations are mainly the
result of taking the role of the other.
7. Labelling Theory
• Perhaps the most well known application of symbolic
Interactionism is labelling theory. Used widely in Education and
Deviance.
• Some groups have more power and are able to impose their
meanings or interpretations on the rest of us
• Charles Cooper (1922) uses labelling to describe how we develop
our self- concept
Uses 3 Interactionist concepts
1.Definition of the situation- defining something
labels it. If people define a situation as real, it
will have real consequences. Once ‘labelled’ people
may changer their behaviour and become deviant-
SFP
8. • Looking-glass self- Cooley argues that
our self concept arises out of our ability to
take the role of others. Others act as a
looking glass to us: we see our self
mirrored in how they respond to us and we
become what they see us as (why SFP occurs)
• Career- apply concept to mental patients.
The individual has a career running from
‘pre-patient’ with certain symptoms
through labelling by a psychiatrist to
hospital in-patient to discharge etc.
‘Mental patient’ becomes the master
status
9. AO2:
• Labelling theory has been accused of determinism- of seeing
our actions and identities as shaped by the way others label
them
•It fails to explain where labels actually originate from
10. Goffman’s Dramaturgical Model
• Argues that social interaction is about
successful role playing
• We actively construct our ‘self’ by
manipulating other people’s impressions of
us
• Uses analogies with drama for analysing
social interaction e.g. ‘actors’, ,scripts,
‘props’, ‘backstage’ etc
• We are all social actors engaged in the
drama of everyday life
11. 1. Presentation of self & impression
management
• We seek to present a particular image to our
audiences, controlling the impression our
‘performance’ gives
• Impression management techniques include
tone of voice, gestures, dress, make up
• As in the theatre there is a ‘front stage
where we act out our roles, while backstage
we can step out of our role and ‘be ourselves’
e.g. Teachers behaviour in the class and
staffroom
12. 2. Roles- There is a gap (role distance)
between our real self and our roles,
which are only loosely scripted by
society and allow us a lot of freedom in
how we play them
• Role distance implies that we do not
always believe in the role we play. We
may be calculating, manipulating
audiences into accepting an impression
that conceals our true self
14. Phenomenology
• Phenomenon- things as they appear to our
senses
• We can never have definite knowledge of
what the world outside is really like, all we can
know is what our minds tells us about it
• It examines the social construction of
particular phenomena and the results of this
subjective way of seeing and talking about
them (a discourse) on people’s attitudes and
behaviour.
15. Example
• Jack Douglas studied concepts of suicide,
suggesting that some people viewed it as a
means of crying for help, some as a way to
get revenge, others as a spiritual hope of
reaching a better place. These different
motivations for suicide meant that it could
not be regarded as a single type of act,
making nonsense of analysing patterns in
suicide statistics in the hope of finding
causes
16. Ethnomethodology
• Ethnomethodology examines how people
speak to each other and interact in
everyday conversations and
relationships
• Rejects idea of society as a real
objective structure
• Sociologists task is to uncover the
taken-for –granted rules people use to
construct social reality
18. Combining Structure and Action
• Action Theories- micro level,
voluntaristic that see society as inter-
subjective, constructed through
interaction and meaning
• Structural theories- macro,
deterministic theories that see society
as objective and external to individuals
19. Giddens Structuration Theory
• Seeks to combine the 2 approaches into a
single unified theory of structure and action
• Argues that there is duality of structure.
Structure and agency (action) cannot exist
without the other
• Our actions produce, reproduce and change
structures over time and space, while these
structures are what make our actions possible
• This is called relationship Structuration
20. AO2:
Criticised for not being a theory at all; it doesn’t
explain what happens in society. It just describes the
kinds of things we will find when we study society
He fails to explain how his theory can be applied to
large scale structures e.g. economy & state
21. Reproducing Structures through
agency
Giddens- Structure has 2 elements:
1. Rules- Norms, customs, laws that govern action
2. Resources- economic & power over others
• Rules & Resources can either be reproduced or changed
through human action. However our actions generally tend
to reproduce rather than change them. This is because
society’s rules contain a stock of knowledge about how to
live our lives, so our routine activities tend to reproduce
the existing structure of society
• We also reproduce existing structures because we have a
deep-seated need to feel the world is orderly, stable and
predictable
22. Changing Structures through agency
• Change can happen because:
1.We reflect upon our actions and we can
deliberately choose a new course of
action. In late modern society, where
tradition no longer dictates action this
is even more likely
2.Our actions may have unintended
consequences, producing changes that
were not part of our goal
23. AO2:
Giddens claim that actors can change
structures underestimates the capacity
of structures to resist change e.g. slaves
may wish to abolish the institution of
slavery but lack the power to do so
Notes de l'éditeur
http://www.theorycards.org.uk/card01.htm
Weber argues that we should avoid generalising theories because people are not determined by general laws. Social science should proceed by understanding human action. Weber’s work has been influential in the development of the sociology of everyday life. Weber’s approach lead to a view called methodological individualism which focuses on how people actively engage in social interaction. Structures do not determine our behaviour. Weber is critical of Marx, and believes that it is individuals that shape the development of society.
A student may consider various costs and benefits of different courses of action before selecting a particular behaviour. They may put more effort into an essay for one teacher because they write the student reports. Schutz (1972) argues that the action theory is too individualistic and cannot explain the shared nature of meanings. Weber’s typology of action is difficult to apply and some actions belong to more than one type of action identified by Weber. We can never truly understand an individual’s actions so Weber’s idea of verstehen cannot be applied. Lee and Newby (1983) describe Weber as a methodological individualist who ignores how the structure of society.
Mead argued that humans interact through the use of symbols such as Symbols can be: Visual signs (red traffic light = stop) Visual gestures (waving = hello) Expressions (frown = angry) Verbal (scream = fear) Sounds (siren = emergency) Shared understanding of these symbols and how to respond to them form the basis of communication. Whilst we are each conscious individuals, the way in which we choose to behave is influenced by the social context of that behaviour . To interpret the meaning of ‘symbols’ we use empathy and put ourselves in the place of others. This enables us to understand the meaning behind the action. Blumer: 3 key principles of Symbolic Interactionism; Our actions are based on meanings that we give to situations. These meanings are negotiable and are not fixed. The meanings we give are based on interpretive procedures such as empathising. Interactionist Theories include; The Labelling Theory & Dramaturgical Model. Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionsim: Ignores social structural issues such as poverty and inequality. Fails to explain how labels are created. It cannot explain consistent behaviour patterns. Reynolds (1975) found evidence that interactionists ignore power and class as being important concepts of interactionism. Evaluation: It over-emphasises the significance of the individual. There tends to be little conception of social structures. It cannot explain power relationships in society in the way that Marxists or feminists have. It does not explain why some individuals / social groups are more powerful than others. It concentrates too much on small-scale, trivial aspects of social life, therefore ignoring the much bigger picture of life at a society-wide level of analysis. The dramaturgical analogy is weak because at times we are actors and audience members. Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionsim: Ignores social structural issues such as poverty and inequality. Fails to explain how labels are created. It cannot explain consistent behaviour patterns. Reynolds (1975) found evidence that interactionists ignore power and class as being important concepts of interactionism.
It is our job to determine the meaning of these symbols and act accordingly. Understanding the meaning of these symbols to us is the key to understanding human behaviour. How useful is Mead’s theory to an understanding of society? Although Meads theory is over 70 years old, humans do relate the meanings of symbols to what they do, i.e at a red traffic light, the majority of people would stop. Therefore, Mead is correct to an extent. However, Mead states that we as individuals shape society, but for the majority to abide by the symbols, rules and regulations there must be some sort of collective conscience, norms and values. In order to have shared meanings, it must feed of some sort of structural factors .
Blumer, 1962 have developed Mead’s approach. Blumer emphasizes that people do not react automatically to external stimuli but interpret their meaning before reacting (for example, interpreting the meaning of a red light before deciding how to react to it) Meanings develop during interaction and are not fixed. Rules and Structures restrict social action and shape the interpretation of meaning to some extent, but they are never absolutely fixed.
We all label people and objects Those with power are able to label someone, and make others accept that label Labelling of humans can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy If the label is especially damaging, it can become a master status Look at the work of Goffman and the dramaturgical analogy
front regions’ (on stage) in the eyes of the public. In the ‘back regions’ (off stage)
Strengths: These are micro approaches that see the individual as having agency, not simply as a recipient of external social forces. Interpretivism enables us to see how social reality is constructed through meanings and negotiations. Weaknesses: Versethen sociology assumes the individuals engage in rational behaviour and thus are able to understand their own motivations. Ideal types are simply devices to make sense of chaotic reality. Weber’s interpretation of the relationship capitalism and Protestantism has been challenged on historical grounds. Symbolic Interactionism ignores the impact of structural elements on individuals. Labelling assumes that social actors passively accept being labelled and tends to ignore resistance labels.
We can only obtain knowledge about the world through our mental acts of categorising and giving meaning to our experiences. Any meaning given to an experience varies according to its social context. We ‘typify’ meanings to ensure that all members of society are in agreement. Phenomenology is another branch of social action theory with a slightly different emphasis. It examines the social construction of particular phenomena and the results of this subjective way of seeing and talking about them (a discourse) on people’s attitudes and behaviour. Jack Douglas studied concepts of suicide, suggesting that some people viewed it as a means of crying for help, some as a way to get revenge, others as a spiritual hope of reaching a better place. These different motivations for suicide meant that it could not be regarded as a single type of act, making nonsense of analysing patterns in suicide statistics in the hope of finding causes. How people view childhood, deviance, gender and religion have also been studied extensively. This type of research is also known as social constructionism. Without the process of typification, social order would be impossible! Members of a society have a shred ‘life world’ – a stock of shared typifications or commonsense knowledge that we use to make sense of our experience. It includes shared assumptions about the way things are, what different situations mean and what other people’s motives are. A Criticisms of Phenomenology: Berger and Luckmann (1971) reject Schutz’s view that society is merely an inter-subjective reality. Berger and Luckmann claim that once reality has been socially constructed, it takes on a life of its own and becomes and external reality that reacts back on us. An example of this is religion. Religious ideas may start off in our consciousness but they become embodied in powerful structures such as churches, which then constrain us. For example; influencing laws about sexual relations.
Ethnomethodology, another type of social action approach , can certainly be described as microsociology as it examines how people speak to each other and interact in everyday conversations and in relationships within their own homes. Not to be confused with ethnography, though both words relate to the study of social groups) ethnomethodology reveals that there are unspoken rules when people of a common culture chat to each other. For example we usually take turns and respond to what the other person has just said in an appropriate way. There are conventions such as not describing our ailments in detail if a comparative stranger greets us with ‘How are you?’ Harold Garfinkel (1967) conducted ‘breaching experiments’ in which participants were asked to break these conventions in order to reveal how much we take them for granted. For example students were asked to go home and behave as if they were guests at a hotel run by their parents. The result was that the parents, not aware that an experiment was taking place, believed their children were suffering from some sort of mental illness or had taken drugs.