Social Action Theory & Symbolic Interactionism
Interactionism: Individual, Self, Personality & Change This week we will start to take a look at the micro approaches within sociological theory, briefly discussing Max Weber, this reading moves on to look in more depth at American sociology (that has come to be known as Interactionism) – specifically Erving Goffman and Howard Becker.
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
At a similar time to that of Marx (1818-83) and Durkheim (1858-1917) [the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th] Max Weber (18641920) also contributed to the founding of sociology as a discipline. Weber’s writings differed considerably to those of Marx and Durkheim – whereas Marxism and functionalism concentrated their interpretation of society from a macro perspective [where the system shapes individual behaviour]; Weber questioned this: For Weber - the actions of individual people were neglected and underestimated when attempting to understand how social organisation and social change takes place. As far as he was concerned – during any occurrence of social change, it is the actions, interpretations and meanings of individual people that are of paramount importance - as it is individual people who [collectively with shared ideas and beliefs] bring about the change. Illustrating his argument to great effect [in one of his most famous studies] Weber uses the example of religion to highlight how this takes place. But before we move on to look Weber’s argument, we will recap briefly on the other two theories and their perception of the role and function of religion in society. For functionalists such as Durkheim and Parsons – religion is a social institution [a system] that exists to provide symbols of the sacred for society. These symbols [morality, physical denial and asceticism] provide guidelines or ideals in order for people to behave reasonably [and in a disciplined manner] to one another.
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
2
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
Importantly, functionalists believe that when people worship the ideals of religion – they are actually worshipping the ideal of the perfection of human society: worship brings society together to strive for these ideals – over and above their own individual weaknesses and selfish impulses; religion serves as a cohesive force that binds people together. The functionalist view of religion is typically ‘macro’ - its analysis concentrates on it as a notion of an external system regulating human behaviour. The Marxist view of religion is more pessimistic than that of the functionalists. As far as Marxists are concerned – religion is nothing more than another controlling system used by the bourgeoisie, aimed at keeping the proletariat in their place. Marx argued that religion is the ‘opium of the masses’ – myths of Gods, prophets and eternal paradises only serve to persuade humans that whilst existence is not so good in this life, they will reap the benefits in the next life. Marxists argue that religion as a system serves only as an excuse for the capitalists: it is manipulated to appear to lend divine authority to the capitalist system. [Do you agree or disagree with the Marxist/functionalist views, explain your support or criticisms] Again – Marxism uses a macro approach to interpret the role and function or religion. It could be argued that both macro approaches are too abstract and simplistic. Religion is a very complex phenomenon: functionalism fails to take account of the fact that there is not ‘one’ religion but many and that this can cause social conflict and war – not societal cohesion. And how can Marxism deal with the fact that far from merely ‘controlling’ people religion has been a catalyst in various revolutions [an ideal that Marxists only seem able to theorise about]? These are issues that Max Weber takes account of and develops in ‘The Protestant Work Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism’:
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
3
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
Max Weber: Social Action Theory [The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]
Weber acknowledged the existence and significance of large social structures and institutions (i.e. social class, economy, family) However, for Weber – these structures do not exist or change without the actions of individual people. Essentially, we cannot understand how structures work without first understanding the people within them. For Weber, it is the actions and interpretations of individual people that influence how a structure/institution works. Adopting this approach, Weber produced a powerful critique of Marx’s crude and generalised interpretation of the role and effect of religion In his attempt to understand religion, Weber concentrated on the development of capitalism to attempt to establish the importance [and role] of religion in social change. Weber asked the question:
“Why did capitalism develop in the West, in the period that it did, and not anywhere else in the World?” Weber argued (and set out to attempt to prove) that capitalism was the outcome of Calvinistic Protestantism. This religious approach established the ‘seeds’ for capitalism to develop. HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
4
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
John Calvin [1509 – 64] (a French Protestant reformer) interpreted scripture in a very distinct and unique way. Weber argued that the following Calvinist protestant ‘values’ generated the Spirit of Capitalism: “God has pre-destined each person to salvation or damnation; this pre-destination cannot be altered [no body really knows who is the ‘elect’ and who is damned].” “God created the world for his glory, and everyone is obliged to work for the glory of God – whether they are to be saved or not.” “Worldly things belong to the order of sin: salvation occurs only through divine grace.” Essentially:
• To work hard [to get closer to God] • To better yourself [& accumulate wealth] • To generate and accumulate wealth, but not lavish luxury on one-self [to have self-restraint or asceticism] as this is sinful
The idea is that as these values were passed down to the ‘flock’ – they then interpreted these principles, and then passed them down to their children etc. As new generations came and went, different interpretations developed and then these principles became diluted and laid the foundations for capitalism.
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
5
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
Individuals received and interpreted [and re-interpreted] the Calvinist message, and the unintended consequence was the development of capitalism. [As proceeding generations adapted their views and behaviours]. [The wealth accumulated now becomes ‘acceptable’ to spend] Weber argued that the other great World religions – Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism – did not develop all of these values at the same time in order for the foundations of capitalism to develop. The most important point for Weber is the impact of the Calvinist belief system on individual people [and how individuals ‘actively’ interpret meaning].
As an alternative to Marx’s view – Weber is claiming that religion (and people) can bring about radical social change. Weber was not espousing the superiority of Protestantism – Weber carried out intensive research into Islam and Judaism. In his writing, he discusses the beauty and importance of other main religions. Weber’s ideas of social action [the role of individuals] in establishing social order and social change were developed and utilised by the early 20th century American sociologists: George Coolley, George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman and Howard Becker.
Collectively these thinkers make up the Symbolic Interactionist approach within sociology. One of the main micro approaches within sociology.
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
6
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
Symbolic Interactionism. •
Also referred to as interactionism or interpretivism.
•
This approach is very different to the other MACRO approaches we have looked at (i.e. functionalism & Marxism); because:
1). Funct. & Mxsm offer a general explanation of society as a whole. 2). They regard society as a system and are sometimes known as systems theories. 3). They tend to see human behaviour as shaped by the system •
Interactionism is different as it focuses upon individual people or small-scale groups and how they inter-act. As an approach it is interested in notions such as our personal ‘meanings, how we understanding things & our identities’.
•
Interactionism [unlike functionalism & Marxism] rejects the notion of a coherent social system that we can analyse and understand. It does accept that social situations can be analysed, and possibly improved – only on a much more small scale (MICRO) and piecemeal way.
•
•
As a result of this, interactionism concentrates on attempting to understand individuals and small social groups.
•
E.G. education
Just as Functionalism is associated mostly with Durkheim (1858-1917) and Marxism with Marx (1818-83) & Engels (820-95); Interactionism is generally associated (as having developed from) Max Weber (18641920).
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
7
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
• Weber differed from the other theorists as he concentrated on the actions of individual people, as opposed to large social structures. •
Taking up these ideas from Weber, American sociologists developed interactionism as an approach. According to George H. Mead (1863– 1931) individuals give meaning to the ‘world’ by defining it and interpreting it in certain ways. •
Mead’s notion of the ‘I’ & the ‘Me’
‘I’ consists of your internal voice or conscience and how this part of you views yourself. ‘Me’ consists of other peoples actions and reactions to you. For example, how do you think other people view you? Does this influence the way you see yourself? •
Therefore ‘our’ view of ourself (our identity) is constructed through various interactions with the other people around us.
•
‘Reality’ for interactionists is what we as individuals make it through involvement with other people.
•
In order to share this ‘reality’ we need to be able to interact with each other through symbols (word, language & body language) that we recognise and understand.
•
Spoken & written words; pictures & images are used by people to give meaning to situations.
•
Individuals must share the meaning associated with the symbol in order for the interaction to make sense.
•
Erving Goffman (1922-82) argues that we have many selves – we act differently in different situations [depending on who we are with]. How many situations can you think of where you act ‘differently’? How many ‘selves’ have you got?
•
Goffman uses a concept called Dramaturgy – which argues that the way people live-out their lives is like a drama, a Soap Opera. People
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
8
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
interact through the ‘act’ of drama. We learn different ‘scripts’ and act them out •
People are actors, who ‘act-out’ their roles in interaction. We attempt to give our audiences convincing performances.
Howard S. Becker: Labelling theory For Becker a ‘deviant’ is someone who has had the label of deviant successfully applied. According to Becker there is no such thing as a ‘true’ deviant act, behaviour only becomes deviant when others define it as such (and people are unfortunate enough to get caught!). Notions of deviance alter in different social situations: • •
When is nudity acceptable/unacceptable When is ‘taking life’ acceptable/unacceptable
In certain situations the above acts are labelled as deviant by those who have the power to do so. People who become labelled as deviant develop a ‘self-concept’- they ‘see’ themselves in relation to the label and act accordingly (e.g. thug, violent, criminal). This ‘living-out’ of the label or self-concept is termed the Self Fulfilling Prophecy.
[In your own life have you ever been ‘labelled’ in any way? How did it affect your behaviour?]
Once officially labelled as deviant, the possibility of living an ‘ordinary’ everyday life is virtually impossible. Labels of junkie, tearaway, thief, nutter, ex-convict influence other peoples perception and reaction.
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
9
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
[This is a ‘social response’ to the labelling: How might the above labels influence potential employers/friends reaction?]
The stages we have discussed so far are:
• •
A particular act is labelled as deviant (smoking pot) Individuals caught commiting the offence become labelled as deviant – ‘pot heads’, druggies (the system labels through prosecution/criminal record)
•
The label is applied, a self concept is internalised, and the selffulfilling prophecy ensues.
•
Social reaction reinforces the labelling process and ‘deviant careers’ of crime develop as there is no alternative way of life (can you think of any examples of a ‘social reaction’ to labelled deviants?)
Main Interactionist concepts: View of human nature.
Labelling & Self-Concept
Negotiation and roles.
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
10
Social Action Theory / Interactionism
Criticisms: •
Refuses to acknowledge an ‘external’ system (outside of the individual); however Marxist theorists point out how the external system (capitalism, poverty, 3rd world debt) controls and exploits people. So therefore some kind of structure does exist.
•
Emphasises the role of the individual too much; misses important structural influences of institutions such as education, politics, media.
HE Access: Sociological Perspectives.
11