Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
interactionism/ social action theory - Coggle Diagram
interactionism/ social action theory
Interactionist sociologists reject
the structuralist assumption that social behaviour is determined by the organisation of society
They see people as having a much more positive and active role in shaping social life.
Rejects the view that peoples behaviour is product of external forces over which they have little control.
But acknowledges that we are aware of and respond to others around us
We bring INTERPRETATIONS to every interaction – and use them to make sense of social behaviour
Particularly in terms of symbols
bottom up theory
Starts with people NOT society
is a microtheory
Social Identity – how well we perform our roles
Self Identify – way we see ourselves
Our self identify is often the result of how we interpret others reactions to us.
It is how we learn acceptable and unacceptable behaviour
Max Weber: Social Action Theory
Weber saw structural and action approaches as necessary for a full understanding of human behaviour.
Weber attempts to classify
actions/behaviours into 4 types:
Instrumentally rational - Calculating the most efficient way of achieving the goal
Value rational - action towards a goal that is considered desirable
Traditional Action - customary or routine actions
Affectual Action - action that expresses emotion
G. H. Mead
We respond to the world by giving meaning to things that are significant to us – we do this by attaching symbols to the world, a symbol is something that stands for or represents something else.
Before we know how to respond to something we need to interpret its meaning.
To interpret other peoples meaning we have to ‘take the role of the other’ – put ourselves in the place of the other person.
Herbert Blumer 1900 -87
Systemised Meads ideas into 3 key principles:
Our actions are based on the meanings we give to situations
These meanings arise from the interaction process – negotiable and changeable
The meanings we give to situations are the result of the interpretive procedures we use.
Blumer argues that our action is partly predictable because we internalise the expectations of others – not completely fixed.
Goffman
Interaction with others is all a performance designed to create a particular impression
Stage – e.g Classroom – rules for successful interaction?
Script – sometimes already in place ( how would you greet someone in the morning?)
Costume ( how would you dress to convey authority?)
Stage directions – cultural context
Becker: Labelling Theory
Closely linked to Social Action Approach
Helps us understand how some sections of society socialise people into identities with negative consequences
E.g. EDUCATION (Social Class, Ethnicity)
Interactionists believe that social identity of pupils is dependent on how they interact with teachers
E.G If teachers act in a way that pupils feel negatively labelled, then this will affect their behaviour and progress
Becker: Master Status
Can override all other identities ( such as father/son/husband.
Leads to self fulfilling prophecy
E.G. Criminal Status
Goffman (1961) – The Power of labelling
Ethnographic study of inmates
Mental hospital USA
‘Total institutions’ as attempt to shape all aspects of lives
Break down a persons sense of self through ‘mortification’ ( stripped, common uniform, number)
Insititution tries to destroy individuality then rebuild in collective image.
FOUND: Some conformed. Some resisted whilst appearing to coform Some openly opposed.
Phenomology
Husserl argues that the world only makes sense because we impose meaning and order on it by constructing categories to classify and file.
Alfred Schutz applies this idea to the social world – the categories and concepts we use are not unique to ourselves but we share them with other members of society. (Typification)
Ethnomethodology (EM)
Harold Garfinkel – rejects the idea of society as a real objective structure – social order is created from the bottom up- social order is an accomplishment – actively constructed by members of society in everyday life.
EM attempts to study how we do this by studying peoples methods of making sense of the world.
criticisms
social action theories tend to be vague in explaning who is responable for defining accepctable norms of bahaviour - e.g. who makes the rules. so they do not explore the origin of power and neglect potential sources such as class and gendewr. they are descriptive rather then explanatory.