ACTION

THEORIES

ACTION THEORIES

Action theories start from the opposition to structural

theories such as functionalism and Marxism. They are

micro-level, ‘bottom-up’ approaches focusing on the

actions and interactions of individuals. Action theories are

voluntaristic and believe individuals have free will and

choice. All four action theories emphasise action, but they

differ in how far they see structural explanations as valid.

SOCIAL ACTION THEORYWeber saw both structural and action approaches as necessary for

understanding human behaviour, arguing that an adequate explanation involves

two levels:

The Level of Cause explaining the objective structural factors that shape

behaviour

The Level of Meaning understanding the subjective meanings that

individuals attach to their actions

In his study of the rise of capitalism, at the level of structural cause, the

Protestant Ethic introduced a new belief system, Calvinism. This changed

people’s worldviews, shaping their behaviour. At the level of subjective meaning,

work had a religious meaning for Calvinists, as a calling by God. As a result, they

accumulated wealth and became the first modern capitalists.

TYPES OF ACTIONWeber classifies action into four types based on their meaning for the actor…

Instrumentally Rational Action where the actor calculates the most

efficient means of achieving a given goal

Value-Rational Action towards a goal that the actor regards as desirable

for its own sake, such as worshipping God in order to get to heaven

Traditional Action customary, routine or habitual action (the actor ‘has

always done it’)

Affectual Action expresses emotion, such as weeping out of gried

EVALUATIONWeber is are a valuable corrective to the over-emphasis on structural factors

and he places importance on understanding actor’s meanings. But he has been

criticised…

Schutz argues Weber’s view of action is too individualistic and cannot explain

the shared nature of meanings. For example, when a person at an auction

raises their arm, they mean that they are making a bid but how does everyone

else who is present give this gesture the same meaning?

Weber advocated the use of verstehen (empathetic approach of putting

yourself in the actor’s place), but since we cannot physically do this, we can

never be sure we have truly understood their motives

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Symbolic interactionism focuses on how we

create the social world through through

interactions which are based on the

meanings we give situations and conveyed

through symbols, particularly language.

Mead formed the basis for many later interactionists.

Symbols vs. Instinct unlike animals, human behaviour is not

governed by instincts. We respond to the world by giving meanings to

the things that are significant to us and so create a world of meanings

by attaching symbols to the things around us. Therefore, there is an

interpretive phase between a stimulus and our response to it, in which

we interpret its meaning. For example, if someone shakes their fist at

you, there are many ways to interpret this (anger, humour etc)

Taking the Role of the Other we interpret other people’s meanings

by taking their role; seeing ourselves as they see us. This ability

develops through interaction. Young children internalise significant

others such as parents, while later in life we see ourselves from the

point of view of society, the generalised other. Shared symbols,

especially language are very important for us to become conscious of

the ways of acting that others require of us.

Blumer identified three key principles of interactionism…

1. Our actions are based on the meanings we give to the situations, people etc.

and so aren’t automatic responses to stimuli

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

Blumer argues that although out action is partly predictable because we

internalise the expectations of others, there is always some room for choice in

how we perform our roles. This view of how humans conduct themselves

contrasts strongly with structural theories such as functionalism which sees the

individual as a puppet passively responding to the system’s needs.

Labelling theorists use three key interactionist concepts…

1. Definition of the Situation defining something labels it. Thomas argues that if people define a situation as real, it will have real consequences: if we believe something to be true, this will affect how we act and in turn may affect those involved

2. Looking-Glass Self Cooley argues that our self-concept arises out of our ability to take the role of the other. Others act as a looking-glass to us: we see our self mirrored in how they respond to us, so through this process a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs and we become what they see us even if the initial definition was false

3. Career Becker and Lemert apply this concept for example to mental patients. The individual has a career running from ‘pre-patient’ with certain symptoms, through labelling by a psychiatrist to hostpital in-patient to discharge etc. ‘Mental patient’ may become our master status.

However, labelling theorists ignore wider social structures such as class inequality and fails to explain the origin labels and consistent patterns in behaviour.

Whereas labelling sees the individual as the passive victim of other people’s labels, Goffman describes how we actively construct our ‘self’ by manipulating other people’s impression of us. This is a dramaturgical approach as it uses analogies with drama such as ‘actors’, ‘scripts’, ‘props’.

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, gesture, props, 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. how teachers behave in the classroom & staffroom)

Roles there is a 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 don’t always believe in the roles we play. We may be calculating, manipulating audiences into accepting an impression that conceals our true self.

But, this approach is criticised for simply being a loose collection of descriptive concepts rather than an explanation theory.

PHENOMENOLOGY

The philosopher Husserl argues that the world

only makes sense because we impose meaning

and order on it by constructing mental categories

that we use to classify the information coming

from our senses. So, we can’t have definite

knowledge about what the world is really like, all

we can know is what our mind tells us about it.

Schutz applies this idea to the social world. We share the categories that we use to classify the world with other members of society…

He calls these shared categories typifications which enable us to organise our experiences into a shared world of meaning (link to Cicourel’s idea about policeman)

The meaning of an action varies according to its social context. Meaning is given by the context, not by the action itself, so meanings are potentially unclear and unstable

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 experience

Schutz calls this recipe knowledge: 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 can only exist when we share the same meanings

The fact that society appears to us as a real, objective thing outside of us simply shows us that all members of society share the same meanings; he calls this the natural attitude. In turn, this allows us to cooperate and achieve goals

EVALUATION

Berger and Luckmann reject the

view that society is merely a social

construct. Once constructed, it takes

on a life of its own and becomes an

external reality that shapes our lives

ETHNOMETHODOLOGYEthnomethodologists also reject the idea of society as a real objective structure

‘out there’.

Garfinkel argues that social order is constructed from the ‘bottom up’ and is an

accomplishment. It is something members of society actively construct in

everyday life using their commonsense knowledge. The sociologist’s task is thus

to uncover the taken-for-granted rules people use to construct social reality (link

this to Atkinson’s theory about coroners in suicide cases). Indexicality refers to

the fact that meanings are always potentially unclear. This is a threat to social

order because if meanings are unclear or unstable, communication and

cooperation become difficult and social relationships will break down. Reflexivity

is the use of our commonsense knowledge to construct a sense of meaning and

order, so prevent indexicality occurring.

Language is of vital importance in achieving reflexivity. It gives us a sense of

reality existing ‘out there’, although in fact all we have done is to construct a set

of shared meanings. Garfinkel used breaching experiments to disrupt people’s

expectations of a situation (e.g. students acting like lodgers in their parent’s

homes which led to the parents becoming angry, anxious or embarrassed).

These show how the orderliness of everyday situations is not inevitable and how

we use our commonsense, taken-for-granted assumptions to actively create

social order.

Craib argues that ethnomethodology’s findings are trivial. Ethnomethodologists

seem to spend a lot of time ‘uncovering’ taken-for-granted rules that turn out to

be no surprise to anyone.

Also, this theory ignores how wider structure of power and inequality affect the

meaning’s that individuals construct.

COMBINING STRUCTURE &

ACTIONAction Theories are micro-level, voluntaristic theories that see society as inter-

subjective, constructed through interaction and meaning.

Structural Theories are macro-level, deterministic theories that see society as

objective and external to individuals.

There is so much to be said about each theory, so Giddens’ created the

structuration theory, a single unified theory which combines both.

STRUCTURATION THEORIES

Giddens’ argues there is a duality of structure. Structure and

agency (i.e. action) are two sides of the same coin; neither can

exist without the other. Our actions produce, reproduce and

change structures over time and space, while these structures are

what make our actions possible in the first place; he calls the

relationship structuration. This can be applied to language. It is a

structure with rules that make it possible for us to communicate,

but our use of it can also change it’s structure, for example giving

words new meanings.

For Giddens, structure has two elements…

Rules the norms, customs and laws that govern action

Resources both economic resources and power over others

Rules and Resources can be either 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 for ontological security – a need to feel that the world is orderly, stable and predictable.

Change can happen because…

We reflexively monitor 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.

Our actions may have unintended consequences, producing changes that were not part of our goal.

EVALUATION

Archer argues that his 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

Craib rejects this as a theory because it doesn’t explain what actually

happens in society, it just describes the kinds of things we find when we study

society. Therefore, he fails to unite structure and action