Example A Level Essay

Assess the usefulness of social action theory for our understanding of society 33 marks

One of the key debates in sociology regards how sociologists approach the study of society. There is a clear divide between those sociologists who take a structural approach whereby the institutions of society are seen as determining social behaviour and those sociologists who take the view that social behaviour is socially constructed – that actions are given meaning by individuals and that without individual meaning social institutions would have no influence on behaviours. Social Action theory is a micro perspective, focusing on the meanings attached to the social world by small groups of individuals, taking an interpretative methodological approach, which includes methods such as ethnomethodology, labelling theory and phenomenology.

One major branch of social action theory is symbolic interactionism, this theory puts forward that individuals create the world through the meaning they attach to symbols such as the sounds of language. Mead claimed that humans differ from animals in that animals use instinct to understand the world whereas humans use interpret others’ actions by placing ourselves in their shoes and deciding what meaning they must have attached to their actions. Mead’s theory would lead to the idea that humans are entirely self-determined, however, as argued by Blumer, peoples’ actions remain fairly predictable as expectations are internalised.

One very influential form of social action theory has been labelling theory. Labelling theory is the idea that something is defined by attaching a label to it. This includes the view of Cooley that there is a “looking glass self” whereby we see ourselves as others see us by taking the other persons’ role in social interactions and so we become what we think others perceive us as. Becker developed labelling theory by examining deviancy, claiming that an act is only perceived as deviant once it has been labelled as such. Whether an act will become labelled as deviant depends greatly on the role of social actors and their reactions to an act, particularly the actions of those with the power to define an act as deviant.

Goffman’s view differs slightly from that of Cooley, claiming that actually we are able to manipulate how others see us and we are constantly evaluating our own performance, like those of actors in a play. This is known as the dramaturgical analogy. Goffman explains though that there is a role difference between our free will and our construct of the role we take, for example teachers are perceived as strict but may in fact be laid back.

In phenomenology, Schultz examines how individuals classify or typify the social world in order to create a “shared universe of meaning” for example, raising a hand in a rave party would be seen as a normal behaviour, whereas raising a hand in a classroom would indicate that you are seeking an answer to a question.

The methods of studying society developed from social action theory include ethnomethology, which is a method interested in how individuals attach meanings to actions. Garfinkel developed this method by asking his students to behave like lodgers in their own homes and noting the bewildered response this generated from the family members, showing how social meanings are so important to human interaction. An example of ethnometholodgy is that of Atkinson who examined how a death only became classified as a suicide when a coroner interpreted the persons’ actions as having the meaning of suicide. This demonstrates the social construction of a concept. However, realists such as Craig criticise ethnomethodology claiming the findings are so common-sense that they are meaningless and trivial.

However, there are many critical perspectives on social action theory, not least the view of conflict theories that social action theory ignores the role of social structures and inequality in society. A Marxist may well point out that some individuals have far more power to create the social world than others, a point that Becker recognised when examining the origins of deviance, that law-makers and enforcers have far more power to define acts as deviant than ordinary individuals. Although both marxists and feminism see the social world through their own paradigms, the impact of social inequalities is real and it misses much of the true meaning of acts to ignore this.

Weber took a unique approach to understanding social action – whilst acknowledging the importance of high validity interpretative methods – but also understanding how individuals’ actions are constrained by social factors. Weber takes an integrated approach looking both as the cause of the behaviour as shaped by structural factors and the meaning attached to the behaviour by the individual (verstehen). Giddens develops this into “structuration theory” where he recognises a “daulity of structure” where individuals are shaped and constrained by structures only as long as they allow it as structures only exist as long as actions are taken to support them. This behaviour is called reflexivity – that individuals constantly assess and reflect on their actions. However, Giddens may possibly overstate the individual’s power to change society with some individuals who have far more power acting to maintain the status quo.

On the other hand, a radically different approach would be argued by post-modernists, who would claim that social action is yet another metanarrative that is outdated and fails to explain society as society has fractured and there are many different versions of society that may be true to the individual.

To conclude, social action theory has brought a micro analysis into social theory, allowing researchers to adopt methods that seek to understand the individual and closely examine that individual’s relationship to the power structures in society. However the complex way that individuals construct meaning cannot be divorced from the social structure in which they do it, which is why cultural differences can be so pronounced.