Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ACTION THEORIES (SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM (LABELLING THEORY (EXPLANATION (THE…
ACTION THEORIES
SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM
LABELLING THEORY
EXPLANATION
THE DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION: THOMAS ARGUES THAT IF PEOPLE DEIFNE A SITUATION AS AREAL THEN IT WILL HAVE REAL CONSEQUENCES.
THE LOOKING GLASS SELF: COOLEY ARGUES THAT OUR SELF CONCEPT ARISES OUT OF OUR ABILITY TO TAKE THE ROLE OF THE OTHER. THROUGH THIS, WE COME TO SEE OURSELVES AS THE WORLD SEES US
CAREER: BECKER AND LEMERT APPLY THE CONCEPT TO GROUPS. IN RELATION TO MENTAL ILLNESS, WE CAN SEE AN INDIVIDUAL AS HAVING A CAREER RUNNING FROM 'PRE-PATIENT' THROUGH LABELLING BY A PSYCHIATRIST TO HOSPITAL IN-PAITENT, TO DISCHARGE
EVALUATION
SHOWS THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN CREATE AND NEGOTIATE MEANINGS, AND MAKE SENSE OF THE WORLD THROUGH INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS OR BY DRAWING ON THEIR OWN COMMON SENSE UNDERSTANDINGS
FOCUSES ON FACE TO FACE INTERACTIONS AND IGNORES WIDER SOCIAL STRUCTURALS AND FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE ORGINS OF THE LABEL
GOFFMAN
EVALUATION
GOFFMAN'S DRAMATURGICAL ANALOGY HAS ITS LIMITATIONS: IN INTERACTIONS, EVERYONE PLAYS THE PART OF BOTH ACTOR AND AUDIENCE, AND INTERACTIONS ARE OFTEN IMPROVISED AND UNREHEARSED
EM ARGUES THAT INTERACTION IS CORRECT IN FOCUSING ON ACTORS' MEANINGS BUT IT FAILS TO EXPLAIN HOW ACTORS CREATE MEANINGS
SOME ARGUE THAT GOFFMAN'S DRAMATURGICAL MODEL IS MORE A LOOSE COLLECTION OF DESCRIPTIVE CONCEPT THAN AN EXPLANATORY THEORY
EXPLANATION
IMPRESSION MANAGMENT
WE SEEK TO PRESENT A PARTICUALAR IMAGE OF OURSELVES TO OUR AUDIENCES AND TO DO SO, WE MUST CONTROL THE IMPRESSION OUR PERFORMANCE GIVES. THIS INVOLVES CONSTANTLY STUDYING OUR ADUIENCE TO SEE HOW THEY ARE RESPONDING
WE HAVE MANY TECHNIQUES FOR IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: LANGUAGE, TONE OF VOICE, GESTURES, PROPS AND SETTINGS.
ROLES
GOFFMAN ARGUES THERE IS A ROLE DISTANCE BETWEEN OUR REAL SELF AND OUR ROLES. IN HIS VIEW, ROLES ARE ONLY LOOSELY SCRIPTED BY SOCIETY AND WE HAVE A GOOD DEAL OF FREEDOM IN HOW TO PLAY THEM
THE IDEA OF ROLE DISTANCE SUGGESTS THAT WE DO NOT ALWAYS BELIEVE IN THE ROLES WE PLA AND THAT OURR ROLE PERFORMANCE MAY BE CYNICAL OR CALCULATING
MEAD
EXPLANATION
SYMBOLS VS. INSTINCTS
WE RESPOND TO THE WORLD BY GIVING MEANINGS TO THE THINGS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT TO US. WE DO THIS BY ATTACHING SYMBOLS TO THE WORLD
THEREFORE TO RESPOND, AN INTERPRETIVE PHASE COMES BETWEEN THE STIMULUS AND OUR RESPONSE TO IT. ONCE WE HAVE INTERESTED THE MEANING, WE CAN THEN CHOOSE AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE
-
ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
EVALUATION
EM DRAWS ATTENTION TO HOW WE ACTIVELY CONSTRUCT ORDER AND MEANING, RATHER THAN SEEING US AS MERELY PUPPETS OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM - AS FUNCTIONALISM DOES
CRAIB ARGUES THAT ITS 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 ... EG: GENERALLY ONLY ONE PERSON SPEAKS AT A TIME DURING A PHONE CONVERSATION
EM IGNORES HOW WIDER STRUCTURES OF POWER AND INEQUALITY AFFECT THE MEANINGS THAT INDIVIDUALS CONSTRUCT. EG: MARXISTS ARGUE THAT 'COMMONSENSE' KNOWLEDGE IS REALLY JUST RULING CLASS IDEOLOGY AND THE ORDER IT CREATES SERVES TO MAINTAIN CAPITALISM
EXPLANATION
EM SEES MEANINGS AS ALWAYS POTENTIALLY UNCLEAR (GARFINKEL CALLS THIS INDEXICALITY). INDEXICALITY IS A THREAT TO SOCIAL ORDER BECAUSE IF MEANINGS ARE UNCLEAR THE COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION BECOME DIFFICULT AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS MAY BEGIN TO BREAK DOWN
GARFINKEL ARGUES SOCIAL ORDER IS CREATED FROM BOTTOM UP. ORDER AND MEANING ARE NTO ACHIEVED BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE 'PUPPETS' WHOSE STRINGS ARE PULLED BY THE SOCIAL SYSTEM BUT INSTEAD SOCIAL ORDER IS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT.
-
EXAMPLE
GARFINKEL AND HIS STUDENTS SOUGHT TO DEMONSTRATE THE NATURE OF SOCIAL ORDER BY A SERIES OF 'BREACHING EXPIEREMENTS'
THE AIM WAS TO DISRUPT PEOPLE'S SENSE OF ORDER AND CHALLENGE THEIR REFLEXIVITY BY UNDERMINING THEIR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE SITUATION
EG: PARENTS OF STUDENTS WHO BEHAVED AS LODGERS BECOMES BEWILDERED, ANXIOUS, EMBARRASSED OR ANGRY. THEY ACCUSED THE STUDENTS OF BEING NASTY, OR ASSUMED THEY WERE ILL
SOCIAL ACTION
EVALUATION
SCHUTZ ARGUES THAT WEBER'S VIEW OF ACTION IS TOO INDIVIDUALISTIC AND CANNOT EXPLAIN THE SHARED NATURE OF MEANINGS. EG: WHEN A PERSON AT AN AUCTION RAISES THEIR ARM THEY MEAN THEY ARE MAKING A BID - BUT WEBER DOESN'T EXLAIN HOW EVERYONE PRESENT ALSO COMES TO GIVE THIS GESTURE THE SAME MEANING
WEBER'S TYPOLOGY OF ACTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPLY. EG: AMONG THE TROBRIAND ISLANDERS, INDIVIDUALS EXCHANGE 'KULA' WITH OTHERS ON NEIGHBOURING ISLANDS. THIS COULD EITHER BE SEEN AS A TRADITIONAL ACTION OR IT COULD BE SEEN AS INSTRUMENTALLY RATIONAL ACTION
HIS IDEAS ARE A VALUABLE CORRECTIVE TO THE OVER EMPHASIS ON STRUCTURAL FACTORS THAT WE SEE IN FUNCTIONALISM AND MANY FORMS OF MARXISM, AND AN AFFIRMATION THAT WE MUST ALSO UNDERSTAND ACTOR'S SUBJECTIVE MEANINGS IF WE WANT TO EXPLAIN THEIR ACTIONS ADEQUATELY
EXPLANATION
WEBER ATTEMPTS TO CLASSIFY ACTIONS INTO FOUR TYPES: INSTRUMENTALLY RATIONAL ACTION, VALUE RATIONAL ACTIONS, TRADITIONAL ACTION & AFFECTUAL ACTION
-