1. Sociological theory ACTION THEORIES

2. Structural theories such as Functionalism and Marxism are macro-level, top-down and deterministic, and views society as a ‘real thing’ out there that shapes our ideas and behaviour, and so to understand people’s behaviour, we must first understand the social structure that shapes it. However, unlike structural theories, action theories are micro-level, bottom up, voluntaristic approaches that focuses on the actions and interactions of individuals as having free will and choice. Our actions are not determined by society as structural theories believe, because we possess agency and so therefore we can shape society through our choices, meanings and actions. The four crucial action theories are Weber’s social action, symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology. Although all four emphasise action and interaction, they differ in how far they see structural explanations of behaviour. ___________________________________________________________________________ The debate goes as follow… For Weber’s social action and symbolic interactionism – the social structure influences how we behave. VS For phenomenology and ethnomethodology – criticise the above, arguing that there is not a social structure out there influencing our behaviour. WHAT I’D WRITE IN THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ESSAY

3.  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 – Explains objective structural factors that shape our behaviour The level of meaning – The subjective meanings that individuals attach to their actions For example, in Weber’s study of the rise of capitalism, at the structural level, the protestant reformation introduced a new belief system, Calvinism – and this changed people’s worldview, leading to changes in behaviour. However, at the level meaning, it had a religious meaning for the Calvinists as a calling by God, leading to the accumulation of wealth. Weber classifies action into four types, based on the meaning for the actor: Instrumentally rational action: The actor calculates the best ways of achieving goal. For example, capitalist may calculate that the best way to become profitable is to pay low wages. Value-rational action: An action towards a goal that the actor may regard as desirable for its own sake. For example, worshipping God in order to get to heaven. Traditional action: Behaving in a traditional way and involves habitual actions. Affectual action: Expresses emotion, such as weeping out of grief and distress WEBER’S SOCIAL ACTION

4. 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

5. Symbolic interactionism looks on how we can create the social world through our interactions. G.H MEAD (1931) argues that: Unlike animals whose behaviour is governed by instincts, humans can respond to the world by giving meanings to the things that are important to them. So there is an interpretive phase between a stimulus and our responses to it (as we first have to interpret the meaning) For example, if I shake my fist at you, I am using a symbol that has many possible meanings, and to understand what is going on – you must interpret the meaning of this symbol. For example, am I shaking my fist at you because I am angry or because I am joking with you? When you interpret the symbol, only then will you know how to respond. Animals however, as Mead argued do no know how to interpret another animals actions. For example, when a dog snarls at another dog, the other dong automatically adopts a defensive posture (it cannot interpret the meanings or ways to respond, because its response is immediate. So all this is basically saying that we create the social world through our interactions. However, we can interpret other people’s meanings by taking their role i.e. putting ourselves in their position. This ability develops interaction. We first do this as children, through imitative play when we take on the role of our parents and then later in life, we see the world as they saw it (as we put ourselves in their position) – so we need to see ourselves as others see us. For Mead, to function as members of society, we need to be able to see ourselves as others see us. SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

6. 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

7.  Three interactionist ideas that underpin the labelling theory: The definition of the situation: Thomas (1966) argued that if people define a situation as real, then it will only have real consequences. That is, if we believe something to be true, then this belief will affect how we act. For example, if a teacher labels a boy as a ‘trouble maker’ then this teacher will be likely to act differently towards them e.g. treat them more harsher. The looking-class self: Cooley (1922) argues that our self-concept comes from our ability 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-fulfilling prophecy occurs – when we become what other people see us as. Career: Becker and Lemert apply this concept to mental people. If someone is defined as ‘a mental patient’ then this label will override any other positive label that they have e.g. as good mothers and this label as a ‘mental patient’ would become their ‘master status’ leading to self-fulfilling prophecy. Labelling theorist fail to establish what causes people to label others and also ignore wider social structures such as inequalities etc. LABELLING THEORY

8. Goffman’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 staffroom they step out of their role. GOFFMAN’S DRAMATURGICAL MODEL

9. 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. Goffman’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

10.  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:

11.  Husserl argues that the world only makes sense to us because we impose meanings and order on it by constructing mental categories. Schutz applies this idea to the social world.  He calls this ‘typifications’ (allows us to organise our experiences into a shared world of meaning). The meaning of an action varies according to the social context. For example, putting your hand up means two different things at an auction and in a classroom.  Fortunately, typifications make social order possible, because they give members of society a shared ‘life world’ of commonsense knowledge that we can use to make sense of our experiences. Schutz calls this ‘recipe knowledge’. Like a recipe we can follow it without thinking too much, using it to make sense of the everyday world.  The social world is an inter-subjective one that exists only when we all share the same meanings.  The fact that society appears to us as a real and objective thing shows that all members of society share the same meanings. This allows us to cooperate and achieve our goals.  Berger and Luckmann reject the view that reality is a social construct. Once constructed, it takes on a life of its own and become an external reality that shapes our lives. PHENOMENOLOGY

12. Like phenomenologists, ethnomethodologists also reject the idea of a society existing out there that shapes our behaviour. Garfinkel argues that social order is created from the ‘bottom up’. It is something members of society actively construct in everyday life using commonsensical knowledge. The sociologists task is to therefore uncover the taken-for-granted rules people use to construct social reality. Indexicality: meanings may sometimes not be clear. This is a threat to social order, because meanings are unclear and cooperation becomes difficult. Reflexivity: is the use of commonsense knowledge to construct a sense of meaning and order, so that indexicality can be prevented. Language is important in achieving reflexivity. It gives us a sense of reality. Garfinkel used breaching experiments to disrupt people’s expectations of a situation. For example, students behaving like lodgers in their parents’ home. These show how the orderliness of everyday situations is not inevitable and how we can use of commonsense knowledge to create a social order. ETHNOMETHODOLOGY

13.  Assess the usefulness of interactionist approaches to the study of society (33 marks)  Assess the contribution of different ‘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)