SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY The Industrial Revolution was a set of developments that transformed Western
societies from largely agricultural to overwhelmingly industrial systems.
CHAPTER 1
Classical sociological theories are theories of great scope and ambition that
either were created in Europe between the early 1800s and the early 1900s or
have their roots in the culture of that period. The work of such classical
sociological theorists as Auguste Comte, Karl Marx,Herbert Spencer, Emile
Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and Vilfredo Pareto was important
in its time and played a central role in the subsequent development of sociology.
Additionally, the ideas of these theorists continue to be relevant to sociological
theory today, because contemporary sociologists read them. They have become
classics because they have a wide range of application and deal with centrally
important social issues.
This chapter supplies the context within which the works of the theorists
presented in detail in later chapters can be understood. It also offers a sense of
the historical forces that gave shape to sociological theory and their later
impact. While it is difficult to say with precision when sociological theory began,
we begin to find thinkers who can clearly be identified as sociologists by the
early 1800s.
Social Forces in the Development of Sociological Theory
The social conditions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were of the
utmost significance to the development of sociology.
The chaos and social disorder that resulted from the series of political
revolutions ushered in by the French Revolution in 1789 disturbed many early
social theorists. While they recognized that a return to the old order was
impossible, they sought to find new sources of order in societies that had been
traumatized by dramatic political changes.
Peasants left agricultural work for industrial occupations in factories. Within this
new system, a few profited greatly while the majority worked long hours for low
wages. A reaction against the industrial system and capitalism led to the labor
movement and other radical movements dedicated to overthrowing the
capitalist system. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, large numbers of
people moved to urban settings. The expansion of cities produced a long list of
urban problems that attracted the attention of early sociologists.
Socialism emerged as an alternative vision of a worker's paradise in which
wealth was equitably distributed. Karl Marx was highly critical of capitalist
society in his writings and engaged in political activities to help engineer its fall.
Other early theorists recognized the problems of capitalist society but sought
change through reform because they feared socialism more than they feared
capitalism.
Feminists were especially active during the French and American Revolutions,
during the abolitionist movements and political rights mobilizations of the mid-
nineteenth century, and especially during the Progressive Era in the United
States. But feminist concerns filtered into early sociology only on the margins. In
spite of their marginal status, early women sociologists like Harriet Martineau
and Marianne Weber wrote a significant body of theory that is being
rediscovered today.
All of these changes had a profound effect on religiosity. Many sociologists came
from religious backgrounds and sought to understand the place of religion and
morality in modern society.
Throughout this period, the technological products of science were permeating
every sector of life, and science was acquiring enormous prestige. An ongoing
debate developed between sociologists who sought to model their discipline
after the hard sciences and those who thought the distinctive characteristics of
social life made a scientific sociology problematic and unwise.
Intellectual Forces and the Rise of Sociological Theory

The Enlightenment was a period of intellectual development and change in
philosophical thought beginning in the eighteenth century. Enlightenment
thinkers sought to combine reason with empirical research on the model of
Newtonian science. They tried to produce highly systematic bodies of thought
that made rational sense and that could be derived from real-world observation.
Convinced that the world could be comprehended and controlled using reason
and research, they believed traditional social values and institutions to be
irrational and inhibitive of human development. Their ideas conflicted with
traditional religious bodies like the Catholic Church, the political regimes of
Europe's absolutist monarchies, and the social system of feudalism. They placed
their faith instead in the power of the individual's capacity to reason. Early
sociology also maintained a faith in empiricism and rational inquiry.
A conservative reaction to the Enlightenment, characterized by a strong anti-
modern sentiment, also influenced early theorists. The conservative reaction led
thinkers to emphasize that society had an existence of its own, in contrast to the
individualism of the Enlightenment. Additionally, they had a cautious approach
to social change and a tendency to see modern developments like
industrialization, urbanization, and bureaucratization as having disorganizing
effects.
The Development of French Sociology
Claude Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825) was a positivist who believed that
the study of social phenomena should employ the same scientific techniques as
the natural sciences. But he also saw the need for socialist reforms, especially
centralized planning of the economic system.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) coined the term "sociology." Like Saint-Simon, he
believed the study of social phenomena should employ scientific techniques. But
Comte was disturbed by the chaos of French society and was critical of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Comte developed an evolutionary
theory of social change in his law of the three stages. He argued that social
disorder was caused by ideas left over from the idea systems of earlier stages.
Only when a scientific footing for the governing of society was established would
the social upheavals of his time cease. Comte also stressed the systematic
character of society and accorded great importance to the role of consensus.
These beliefs made Comte a forerunner of positivism and reformism in classical
sociological theory.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) legitimized sociology in France and became a
dominant force in the development of the discipline worldwide. Although he was
politically liberal, he took a more conservative position intellectually, arguing
that the social disorders produced by striking social changes could be reduced
through social reform. Durkheim argued that sociology was the study of
structures that are external to, and coercive over, the individual; for example,
legal codes and shared moral beliefs, which he called social facts. In Suicide he
made his case for the importance of sociology by demonstrating that social facts
could cause individual behavior. He argued that societies were held together by
a strongly held collective morality called the collective conscience. Because of
the complexity of modern societies, the collective conscience had become
weaker, resulting in a variety of social pathologies. In his later work, Dukheim
turned to the religion of primitive societies to demonstrate the importance of the
collective consciousness.
The Development of German Sociology
German sociology is rooted in the philosopher G.F.W. Hegel's (1770-
1831) idea of the dialectic. Like Comte in France, Hegel offered an evolutionary
theory of society. The dialectic is a view that the world is made up not of static
structures but of processes, relationships, conflicts, and contradictions. He
emphasized the importance of changes in consciousness for producing
dialectical change. Dialectical thinking is a dynamic way of thinking about the
world.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) followed Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) in
criticizing Hegel for favoring abstract ideas over real people. Marx adopted a
materialist orientation that focused on real material entities like wealth and the
state. He argued that the problems of modern society could be traced to real
material sources like the structures of capitalism. Yet he maintained Hegel's
emphasis on the dialectic, forging a position called dialectical materialism that
held that material processes, relationships, conflicts, and contradictions are
responsible for social problems and social change.
Marx's materialism led him to posit a labor theory of value, in which he argued
that the capitalist's profits were based on the exploitation of the laborer. Under
the influence of British political economists, Marx grew to deplore the
exploitation of workers and the horrors of the capitalist system. Unlike the
political economists, his view was that such problems were the products of an
endemic conflict that could be addressed only through radical change. While
Marx did not consider himself to be a sociologist, his influence has been strong in
Europe. Until recently, American sociologists dismissed Marx as an ideologist.
The theories of Max Weber (1864-1920) can be seen as the fruit of a long
debate with the ghost of Marx. While Weber was not familiar with Marx's
writings, he viewed the Marxists of his day as economic determinists who offered
single-cause theories of social life. Rather than seeing ideas as simple reflections
of economic factors, Weber saw them as autonomous forces capable of
profoundly affecting the economic world. Weber can also be understood as trying
to round out Marx's theoretical perspective; rather than denying the effect of
material structures, he was simply pointing out the importance of ideas as well.
Whereas Marx offered a theory of capitalism, Weber's work was fundamentally a
theory of the process of rationalization. Rationalization is the process whereby
universally applied rules, regulations, and laws come to dominate more and
more sectors of society on the model of a bureaucracy. Weber argued that in the
Western world rational-legal systems of authority squeezed out traditional
authority systems, rooted in beliefs, and charismatic authority, systems based
on the extraordinary qualities of a leader. His historical studies of religion are
dedicated to showing why rational-legal forms took hold in the West but not
elsewhere. Weber's reformist views and academic style were better received
than Marx's radicalism in sociology. Sociologists also appreciated Weber's well-
rounded approach to the social world.
Georg Simmel (1858-1918) was Weber's contemporary and co-founder of the
German Sociological Society. While Marx and Weber were pre-occupied with
large-scale issues, Simmel was best known for his work on smaller-scale issues,
especially individual action and interaction. He became famous for his thinking
on forms of interaction (i.e., conflict) and types of interacts (i.e., the stranger).
Simmel saw that understanding interaction among people was one of the major
tasks of sociology. His short essays on interesting topics made his work
accessible to American sociologists. His most famous long work, The Philosophy
of Money, was concerned with the emergence of a money economy in the
modern world. This work observed that large-scale social structures like the
money economy can become separate from individuals and come to dominate
them.
The Origins of British Sociology
British sociology was shaped in the nineteenth century by three conflicting
sources: political economy, ameliorism, and social evolution.
British sociologists saw the market economy as a positive force, a source of
order, harmony, and integration in society. The task of the sociologist was not to
criticize society but to gather data on the laws by which it operated. The goal
was to provide the government with the facts it needed to understand the way
the system worked and direct its workings wisely. By the mid-nineteenth century
this belief manifested itself in the tendency to aggregate individually reported
statistical data to form a collective portrait of British society. Statistical data soon
pointed British sociologists toward some of the failings of a market economy,
notably poverty, but left them without adequate theories of society to explain
them.
Ameliorism is the desire to solve social problems by reforming individuals.
Because the British sociologists could not trace the source of problems such as
poverty to the society as a whole, then the source had to lie within individuals
themselves.
A number of British thinkers were attracted to the evolutionary theories of inspire modern sociologists in a variety of ways. Many contemporary thinkers
Auguste Comte. Most prominent among these was Herbert Spencer (1820- seek to reinterpret the classics to apply them to the contemporary scene.
1903), who believed that society was growing progressively better and therefore
should be left alone. He adopted the view that social institutions adapted
progressively and positively to their social environments. He also accepted the
Darwinian view that natural selection occurred in the social world. Among
Spencer's more outrageous ideas was the argument that unfit societies should
be permitted to die off, allowing for the adaptive upgrading of the world as a
whole. Clearly, such ideas did not sit well with the reformism of the ameliorists.

Other Developments

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) thought that human instincts were such a strong
force that Marx's hope to achieve dramatic social changes with an economic
revolution was impossible. Pareto offered an elite theory of social change that
held that a small elite inevitably dominates society on the basis of enlightened
self-interest. Change occurs when one group of elites begins to degenerate and
is replaced by another. Pareto's lasting contribution to sociology has been a
vision of society as a system in equilibrium, a whole consisting of balanced
independent parts.

After his death, Marx's disciples became more rigid in their belief that he had
uncovered the economic laws that ruled the capitalist world. Seeing the demise
of capitalism as inevitable, political action seemed unnecessary. By the 1920's,
however, Hegelian Marxists refused to reduce Marxism to a scientific theory that
ignored individual thought and action. Seeking to integrate Hegel's interest in
consciousness with the materialist interest in economic structures, the Hegelian
Marxists emphasized the importance of individual action in bringing about a
social revolution and reemphasized the relationship between thought and action.

The Contemporary Relevance of Classical Sociological Theory

Classical sociological theories are important not only historically, but also
because they are living documents with contemporary relevance to both modern
theorists and today's social world. The work of classical thinkers continues to
 CHAPTER 2
Introduction
There are a variety of interpretations of Karl Marx's (1818 - 1883) theory of
capitalism. This arises from both its unfinished nature and Marx's shifting points
of emphasis across his lifetime. The focus of Marx's work, however, was
undoubtedly on the historical basis of inequality, and specifically inequality
under capitalism. Marx's critiques of the capitalist system - its tendency towards
crises, the necessity of inequality - are still relevant today.
The Dialectic
Marx's powerful critique has as it basis a unique approach to reality - the
dialectic. Taking fromG.W.F. Hegel (1770 - 1831), Marx believed that any
study of reality must be attuned to the contradictions within society and, indeed,
he sees contradiction as the motor of historical change. Unlike Hegel, Marx
believed that these contradictions existed not simply in our minds (i.e., in the
way we understand the world), but that they had a concrete material existence.
At the heart of capitalism was the contradiction between the demands of the
capitalist to earn a profit and the demands of the worker, who wants to retain
some profit to subsist. Over time, the workings of the capitalist system would
exacerbate this contradiction, and its resolution can be had only through social
change.
The Dialectical Method
The dialectical approach does not recognize the division between social values
and social facts. To do so leads away from any real understanding of the
problems people face. Additionally, the dialectical method does not envision the
social world as being dominated by a cause-and-effect relationship; instead, it
looks at the reciprocal relations among social factors within the totality of social
life. These relations include not only contemporary phenomena but also the
effects of history, as dialecticians are concerned with how the past shapes the
present and how the present lays the seeds for the future. Because of this
complex set of relations, which often fold back in on themselves, the future is
both indeterminate and contingent on individual action. Indeed, this relationship
between actors and structures is at the heart of Marx's theory. Structures both
constrain and enable individuals, having the potential of both helping them to
fulfill themselves and contributing to their exploitation.
Human Nature
Marx's insights into actors and structures must be understood in the context of
his views on human nature, which is the basis for his critical analysis of the
contradictions of capitalism. Marx viewed human nature as historically
contingent, shaped by many of the same relations that affect society. In his view,
a contradiction exists between our human nature and work in the capitalist
system. Though we have powers that identify us as unique animals, our species
being, the possibilities for realizing human potential within the capitalist system
are frustrated by the structures of capitalism itself. Unlike most social theories
that have implicit assumptions about human nature, Marx elaborates a concept
of human nature that also informed his view of how society should look. An
important factor in this is Marx's ideas about labor. By objectifying our ideas and
satisfying our needs, labor both expresses our human nature and changes it.
Through this process, individuals develop their human powers and potentials.
Alienation
Under capitalism, the relationship between labor and human expression
changes: rather than laboring to fulfill their needs or express ideas, workers do
so at the demands of capitalists. Workers are alienated from their labor because
it no longer belongs to the worker, but rather to the capitalist. This alienates
workers in four ways:
1. Workers are alienated from their productive activity, in that they no longer
labor to satisfy their own needs.
2. Workers are alienated from the product of their labor, which now belongs
to the capitalist. Instead of finding expression in producing, workers turn
to consuming to express themselves.
 3. The cooperative nature of work is destroyed through the organization of
the labor process, alienating workers from their fellow workers.
Additionally, workers often must compete against one another for work
and pay.
4. Workers are alienated from their human potential, as the transformative
potential of labor is lost under capitalism.
The Structures of Capitalist Society
Marx wrote in response to the rapid changes taking place in Europe in response
to industrialization, particularly in Germany. This period of dislocation and
poverty is the context for Marx's notion of alienation, and his critiques were
designed to show that capitalism was the basis for alienation and to develop a
plan for action for overcoming the structures of capitalism. Marx understood that
inherent within capitalism was also a system of power: it is both economic and
political; it both coerces and exploits workers. Actions undertaken in the name of
economic necessity disguise political decisions For example, although it is an
accepted economic method for dealing with inflation, raising interest rates
protects the wealthy, while causing unemployment among the poor. The political
decision to privilege the wealthy at the expense of workers is hidden behind
economics.
Commodities
Marx's understanding of commodities (products of labor intended for exchange)
is central to understanding his ideas about the nature of capitalism.
Commodities produced to subsist and to satisfy their needs have use value.
Under capitalism, where workers produce for others and exchange commodities
for money, products have exchange value. Because it is often unclear where a
commodity's value comes from, it takes on an independent, external reality.
Marx called this the fetishism of commodities, when the value of an object or
commodity is believed to be tied to something "natural" or independent of
human action, such as markets. Thus, the reality that value originates from labor
and the satisfaction of needs is obscured. Marx used the term reification to
describe the process whereby social structures become naturalized, absolute,
independent of human action, and unchangeable. Just as the fetishism of
commodities obscures the relationship between commodities, value, and human
labor, reification obscures the underlying relationships within the capitalist
system and allows supposedly natural and objective social structures to
dominate people.
Capital, Capitalists, and Proletariat
Under capitalism, there are two main groups: the proletariat, who are wage-
laborers, and thecapitalists, who own the means of production. Whereas workers
are wholly dependent upon wages, capitalists are dependent upon money
invested to create more money. Capital is unique to the circulation of
commodities under capitalism. Under non-capitalist forms of exchange,
commodities are traded for money, which is then traded for another commodity
(C1- M - C2). The primary reason for exchange is to obtain a commodity for use.
Under capitalism, money is used to purchase a commodity, which is then sold to
create a greater amount of money (M1 - C - M2). The purpose of this form of
exchange is to create greater and greater sums of money.
Exploitation
Exploitation is a set of social relations on which capitalism is built. Capitalists
exploit workers by paying them less in wages than the value they produce. While
a worker may earn eight dollars a day in wages, s/he may produce ten dollars a
day worth of value, creating what Marx called surplus value. Capital grows by
exploiting workers to generate ever greater amounts of surplus value, usually by
lowering workers' wages. In addition, capitalists constantly compete with one
another over capital by finding new ways to generate profit and surplus value in
order to maintain an edge. Marx calls this drive the general law of capitalist
accumulation. Capitalism is not the only historical epoch in which individuals are
exploited, but it is the only one in which the mechanisms of exploitation are
hidden behind independent, objectified, and reified structures, such as the
market.
Class Conflict
The conflict created by the contradictory positions of two groups, the proletariat
and the capitalists, is at the heart of capitalism. Because these represent groups
in conflict, Marx called them classes. For Marx, every period of history contained
fault lines upon which potential conflict could result, and, thus, every historical
period had its own class formations. Because capitalists are continually
accumulating capital while also competing with other capitalists, Marx believed
that more and more members of society would eventually become proletarians
in a process he called proletarianization. Society would then be characterized by
a very small number of capitalists exploiting a large number of poor proletarians
subsisting on low wages. Marx called this group of proletarians the industrial
reserve army. Thus, the normal operation of the capitalist system, through
competition and exploitation, produces an ever greater number of workers who
will eventually rise up to overthrow the system.
Capitalism as a Good Thing
Despite his criticisms, Marx was aware of the benefits of capitalism, and
generally understood it to be a good thing. The productive capacity of capitalism
could free people from need, and it delivered people from the traditions that
have dominated them throughout history. Marx criticized capitalism from a
future-oriented perspective, based upon his understanding of what capitalism, as
a revolutionary force in modern society, was capable of, and what its limits were.
Marx thought that capitalism had fully developed itself and that it was ready to
enter a new mode of production, communism.
The Materialist Conception of History
Marx's future-oriented perspective has its basis in his materialist conception of
history. He suggests that the ways societies provide for their material well-being
affects the type of relations that people will have with one another, their social
institutions, and the prevailing ideas of the day. Marx uses the term "the forces
of production" to refer to the ways in which people provide for their needs. He
uses the term "relations of production" to describe social relationships that
dominate the productive capacities of a society. Under capitalism, the forces of
production lead to a set of relations of production which pit the capitalist and the
proletariat against one another. To change the relations of production, Marx felt
revolution was necessary. Revolution arises from exploited classes agitating for
change in the relations of production that favor transformations in the forces of
production.
Ideology
The relations of production act to dissuade revolutionary behavior, as do the
prevalent ideas within society. Many of these ideas cloud the true relationships
that underlie capitalist society. Marx called these kinds of ideas ideologies. The
first type of ideology is emergent from the structure of society, and can be seen
in things like the fetishism of commodities, or money. The second type is used by
the ruling class to hide the contradiction of this system when it becomes
apparent. These explain away the contradiction by making them seem coherent
(as in religion or philosophy), making them seem the product of personal
pathologies, or making them seem a reflection of the contradiction within human
nature itself and, therefore, immutable. Marx used equality and freedom, our
ideas of which stem from the nature of commodity exchange in capitalist society.
These mask the fact that we are neither equal with one another nor able to
freely control our labor or the products of our labor. Capitalism inverts our notion
of equality and freedom: it is capital that is freely and equally exchanged, not
individuals who are free and equal.
Marx also viewed religion as an ideology. Just as freedom and equality are ideas
to be cherished, religion also contains positive dimensions, but it has been used
to disguise the true set of relations that undergird capitalism.
Criticisms
Marx has faced a number of criticisms. Most importantly, actual existing
communism failed to fulfill its promise. Though these experiments may have
distorted Marx's thought, Marxist theory certainly did not reflect its practice.
Second, history has shown that workers have rarely been in the vanguard of
revolutionary movements, and indeed have resisted communism in some places.
Third, Marx failed to adequately consider gender as factor in the reproduction of
labor and commodity production. Fourth, some have accused Marx of focusing
far too much on production, without giving enough attention to the act of
consumption. Last, Marx's historical materialist approach uncritically accepts
Western notions of progress.
Sociology as a Discipline and Social Facts
Emile Durkheim(1858-1917) is considered one of the "fathers" of sociology
because of his effort to establish sociology as a discipline distinct from
philosophy and psychology. This effort is evident in the two main themes that
permeate Durkheim's work: the priority of the social over the individual and the
idea that society can be studied scientifically. Durkheim's concept of social facts,
in particular, differentiates sociology from philosophy and psychology. Social
factsare the social structures and cultural norms and values that are external to,
and coercive over, individuals. Social facts are not attached to any particular
individual; nor are they reducible to individual consciousness. Thus, social facts
can be studied empirically. According to Durkheim, two different types of social
facts exist: material and immaterial. Durkheim was most interested in studying
the latter, particularly morality, collective conscience, collective representation,
and social currents.
The Division of Labor
In this work Durkheim discusses how modern society is held together by a
division of labor that makes individuals dependent upon one another because
they specialize in different types of work. Durkheim is particularly concerned
about how the division of labor changes the way that individuals feel they are
part of society as a whole. Societies with little division of labor (i.e., where
people are self-sufficient) are unified by mechanical solidarity; all people engage
in similar tasks and thus have similar responsibilities, which builds a strong
collective conscience. Modern society, however, is held together by organic
solidarity (the differences between people), which weakens collective
conscience. Durkheim studied these different types of solidarity through laws. A
society with mechanical solidarity is characterized by repressive law, while a
society with organic solidarity is characterized by restitutive law.
Suicide
Durkheim's goal to differentiate sociology from psychology is perhaps best seen
in this work on how social facts can be used to explain suicide rates. This work is
also important because of the historical comparative method that Durkheim uses
to show that that suicide rates vary across societies and over time. According to
Durkheim, suicide cannot simply be explained by individual psychological
problems-otherwise suicide rates would be static. Durkheim argues that two
social facts, in particular, influence suicide rates: integration, or the strength of
attachment people feel to society, and regulation, or the degree of external
constraint on people. Durkheim distinguishes between four types of suicide that
correlate to these two social facts. Egoistic suicide is a result of a lack of
integration; altruistic suicide is a result of too much integration; anomic suicide
is a result of too little regulation; and fatalistic suicide is a result of too much
regulation.
Elementary Forms of Religious Life
This is perhaps Durkheim's most complex work, as he attempts to provide both a
sociology of religion and a theory of knowledge. In this work, Durkheim studies
primitive society to demonstrate that an enduring quality of all religions, even
the most modern, is the differentiation between the sacred and the profane. The
sacred is created through rituals, and what is deemed sacred is what morally
binds individuals to society. This moral bond then becomes, according to
Durkheim, a cognitive bond that shapes the categories we use to understand the
social world.
The development of religion is not simply based on the differentiation between
the sacred and the profane, but also on religious beliefs, rituals, and the church.
The latter two conditions are particularly important to Durkheim because they
connect the individual to the social; individuals learn about the sacred and
religious beliefs through participating in rituals and the church. The most
primitive form of religion is totemism, which is connected to the least complex
form of social organization, the clan. The totem is the actual representation of
the clan-it is the material representation of the nonmaterial, collective morality
of the clan.
Totemism is important to Durkheim's theory of knowledge in that it is one of his
categories of understanding: classification. Other categories of understanding
include time, space, force, causality, and totality. These six categories may be
abstract concepts, but they are all derived from social experiences, particularly
rituals. Durkheim acknowledges that it is possible for moral and cognitive
categories to change or be created anew through what he calls collective
effervescence, or periods of great collective exaltation.
Cult of the Individual
Although Durkheim focused much of his attention on the social, he did not
dismiss the idea of individualism. Indeed, he believed that in modern society the
individual has become sacred, and he called the modern form of collective
conscience the cult of the individual. According to Durkheim, humans are
constituted by two beings or selves: one is based on the isolated individuality of
the body, and the other is based on the social. These two beings may be in a
continual state of tension, and they are connected in that individuality develops
as society develops. For example, it is only in modern society, characterized by
the division of labor, that people even come to understand themselves as
distinct individuals. Durkheim argued that individuality has both positive and
negative consequences. Egoism, or the selfish pursuit of individual interests, is
at odds with moral individualism, the ability to sacrifice self-interest for the rights
of all other individual human beings.

CHAPTER 3

Moral Education and Social Reform

Durkheim believed that society is the source of morality; therefore, he also

believed that society could be reformed, especially through moral education.
According to Durkheim, morality is composed of three elements: discipline,
attachment, and autonomy. Discipline constrains egoistic impulses; attachment
is the voluntary willingness to be committed to groups; and autonomy is
individual responsibility. Education provides children with these three moral tools
needed to function in society. Adults can also acquire these moral tools by
joining occupational associations. According to Durkheim, these associations
would include members of a particular occupation regardless of class position
and could provide a level of integration and regulation, both of which tend to be
weakened by the division of labor.
Criticisms
Durkheim is often criticized for being a functionalist and a positivist. However,
his historical comparative methodology puts him at odds with functionalists and
positivists who believe that invariant social laws exist that can explain social
phenomenon across all societies. Durkheim does tend to emphasize the
objective nature of social facts; thus, he neglects the subjective interpretations
that social actors may have of a particular social phenomenon and the agency of
individuals in general to control social forces. Furthermore, Durkheim's basic
assumption about human nature-that people are driven by their passion for
gratification that can never be satisfied-is not empirically substantiated in any of
his work. Finally, Durkheim's understanding of the relationship between morality
and sociology has been critiqued as being conservative.
CHAPTER 4
Max Weber's Methodology
Max Weber (1864-1920) argued against abstract theory, and he favored an
approach to sociological inquiry that generated its theory from rich, systematic,
empirical, historical research. This approach required, first of all, an examination
of the relationships between, and the respective roles of, history and sociology in
inquiry. Weber argued that sociology was to develop concepts for the analysis of
concrete phenomena, which would allow sociologists to then make
generalizations about historical phenomena. History, on the other hand, would
use a lexicon of sociological concepts in order to perform causal analysis of
particular historical events, structures, and processes. In scholarly practice,
according to Weber, sociology and history are interdependent.
Weber contended that understanding, or verstehen, was the proper way of
studying social phenomena. Derived from the interpretive practice known as
hermeneutics, the method ofverstehen strives to understand the meanings that
human beings attribute to their experiences, interactions, and actions. Weber
construed verstehen as a methodical, systematic, and rigorous form of inquiry
that could be employed in both macro- and micro-sociological analysis.
Weber's formulation of causality stresses the great variety of factors that may
precipitate the emergence of complex phenomena such as modern capitalism.
Moreover, Weber argued that social scientists, unlike natural scientists, must
take into account the meanings that actors attribute to their interactions when
considering causality. Weber, furthermore, sought a middle ground between
nomothetic (general laws) and idiographic (idiosyncratic actions and events)
views in his notion of a probabilistic adequate causality.
Weber's greatest contribution to the conceptual arsenal of sociology is known as
the ideal type. The ideal type is basically a theoretical model constructed by
means of a detailed empirical study of a phenomenon. An ideal type is an
intellectual construct that a sociologist may use to study historical realities by
means of their similarities to, and divergences from, the model. Note that ideal
types are not utopias or images of what the world ought to look like.
Weber urged sociologists to reflect on the role of values in both research and the
classroom. When teaching, he argued, sociologists ought to teach students the
facts, rather than indoctrinating them to a particular political or personal point of
view. Weber did argue, however, that the values of one's society often help to
decide what a scholar will study. He contended that, while values play this very
important role in the research process, they must be kept out of the collection
and interpretation of data.
Max Weber's Substantive Sociology
Max Weber's sociology is fundamentally a science that employs both interpretive
understanding and causal explanations of social action and interaction. His
typology of the four types of social action is central to comprehending his
sociology. According to Weber, social action may be classified as means-ends
rational action, value-rational action, affectual action, or traditional action. Any
student of Weber must keep in mind that these are ideal types.
Weber developed a multidimensional theory of stratification that incorporated
class, status, and party. Class is determined by one's economic or market
situation (i.e., life chances), and it is not a community but rather a possible basis
for communal action. Status is a matter of honor, prestige, and one's style of life.
Parties, according to Weber, are organized structures that exist for the purposes
of gaining domination in some sphere of social life. Class, status, and party may
be related in many ways in a given empirical case, which provides the sociologist
with a very sophisticated set of conceptual tools for the analysis of stratification
and power.
Weber also made a profound contribution to the study of obedience with his
ideal types of legitimate domination or authority. Rational-legal authority rests
on rules and law. Traditional authority rests on belief in established practices and
traditions - i.e., authority is legitimate because it is exercised the way it has
always been exercised. Charismatic authority rests on belief in the extraordinary
powers or qualities of a leader. All of these forms of authority must take into
account the point of view of those obeying commands. Moreover, each form of
authority is associated with a variety of structural forms of organization and
administration. Legal authority, for example, is often associated with
bureaucracy, while traditional authority is associated with gerontocracy,
patriarchalism, patrimonialism, and feudalism. Charismatic authority may be
associated with a charismatic form of organization. The dilemma of charismatic
authority, however, consists of the difficulty of maintaining charisma when the
charismatic leader dies. In other words, charismatic organizations tend to
routinize charisma, which invariably gives rise to either traditional or rational-
legal authority.
Weber also argued that rationalization is a long-term historical process that has
transformed the modern world. His typology of forms of rationality is central to
this argument. He argued that there are four types of rationality: practical,
theoretical, formal, and substantive. He was most concerned with processes of
formal and substantive rationalization, especially as propelled by capitalism and
bureaucracy. Weber argued that rationalization has occurred in many spheres,
including the economy, law, religion, politics, the city, and art.
Weber's arguments regarding rationalization are exemplified in his studies of
religion and capitalism. These sophisticated and voluminous studies inquire into
the ways in which religious ideas, the spirit of capitalism, and capitalism as an
economic system, are interrelated. In short, according to Weber, Calvinism as a
rational, methodical system of religious beliefs and practices was an important
factor in the emergence of modern capitalism in the Western world. The
economic ethics of other religions, such as Hinduism and Confucianism, inhibited
the emergence of modern capitalism in India and China. Once modern capitalism
emerged in the Western world, however, it spread the effects of rationalization
worldwide.
While Weber's work has had a profound impact on sociology - as well as other
disciplines - it is not without its critics. Some critics question the consistency and
applicability of Weber's method of verstehen. Others are puzzled by Weber's
methodological individualism as it is applied to macro-sociology. Some critics
have rebuked Weber for failing to offer any alternatives to rationalization,
capitalism, and bureaucracy. Finally, many critics decry Weber's unflagging
pessimism about the future of rationalization and bureaucracy.

CHAPTER 5
Georg Simmel (1858-1918) is best known as a microsociologist who played a
significant role in the development of small-group research. Simmel's basic
approach can be described as "methodological relationism," because he
operates on the principle that everything interacts in some way with everything
else. His essay on fashion, for example, notes that fashion is a form of social
relationship that allows those who wish to conform to do so while also providing
the norm from which individualistic people can deviate. Within the fashion
process, people take on a variety of social roles that play off the decisions and
actions of others. On a more general level, people are influenced by both
objective culture (the things that people produce) and individual culture (the
capacity of individuals to produce, absorb, and control elements of objective
culture). Simmel believed that people possess creative capacities (more-life) that
enable them to produce objective culture that transcends them. But objective
culture (more-than-life) comes to stand in irreconcilable opposition to the
creative forces that have produced it in the first place.
Primary Concerns
Simmel's interest in creativity is manifest in his discussions of the diverse forms
of social interaction, the ability of actors to create social structures, and the
disastrous effects those structures have on the creativity of individuals. All of
Simmel's discussions of the forms of interaction imply that actors must be
consciously oriented to one another. Simmel also has a sense of individual
conscience and of the fact that the norms and values of society become
internalized in individual consciousness. In addition, Simmel has a conception of
people's ability to confront themselves mentally, to set themselves apart from
their own actions, which is very similar to the views of George Herbert Mead.
Simmel is best known in contemporary sociology for his contributions to our
understanding of patterns or forms of social interaction. Simmel made clear that
one of his primary interests was association among conscious actors and that his
intent was to look at a wide range of interactions that may seem trivial at some
times but crucially important at others. One of Simmel's dominant concerns was
the form rather than the content of social interaction. From Simmel's point of
view, the sociologist's task is to impose a limited number of forms on social
reality, extracting commonalities that are found in a wide array of specific
interactions.
Along these lines, Simmel attempts to develop a geometry of social relations.
The crucial difference between the dyad (two-person group) and triad (three-
person group) is that a triad presents a greater threat to the individuality of
group members. In a larger society, however, an individual is likely to be
involved in a number of groups, each of which controls only a small portion of his
or her personality. Distance also determines the form of social interaction. For
example, the value of an object is a function of its distance from an actor.
Simmel considered a wide range of social forms, including exchange, conflict,
prostitution, and sociability.
One of the main focuses of Simmel's historical and philosophical sociology is the
cultural level of social reality, which he called objective culture. In Simmel's view,
people produce culture, but because of their ability to reify social reality, the
cultural world and the social world come to have lives of their own and
increasingly dominate the actors who created them. Simmel identified a number
of components of objective culture, including tools, transportation, technology,
the arts, language, the intellectual sphere, conventional wisdom, religious
dogma, philosophical systems, legal systems, moral codes, and ideals. The
absolute size of objective culture increases with modernization. The number of
different components of the cultural realm also grows. What worried Simmel
most was the threat to individual culture posed by the growth of objective
culture.
The Philosophy of Money
In The Philosophy of Money, Simmel assesses the impact of the money economy
on the inner world of actors and the objective culture as a whole. Simmel saw
money as linked with social phenomena such as exchange, ownership, greed,
extravagance, cynicism, individual freedom, style of life, culture, and the value
of personality. In general, he argued that people create value by making objects,
separating themselves from those objects, and then seeking to overcome
distance, obstacles, and difficulties. Money serves both to create distance from
objects and to provide the means to overcome it. Money provides the means by
which the market, the economy, and ultimately society, acquire a life of their
own that is external to and coercive of the actor. Simmel saw the significance of
the individual declining as money transactions became an increasingly important
part of society. A society in which money becomes an end in itself can cause Criticisms
individuals to become increasingly cynical and to have a blas attitude.
Simmel is most frequently criticized for the fragmentary character of his work.
He did not devise a systematic sociology on a par with Marx, Durkheim, or
Weber. Marxists criticize Simmel for not seeing a way out of the tragedy of
Objective Culture
culture-an analytic equivalent to Marx's concept of alienation.
The increasing division of labor in modern societies leads to an improved ability
to create the various components of the cultural world. But at the same time, the
highly specialized individual loses a sense of the total culture and loses the
ability to control it. As objective culture grows, individual culture atrophies. The
massive expansion of objective culture has had a dramatic effect on the rhythm
of life. For example, our means of communication are more efficient, meaning
that slow and unpredictable communication has been replaced with readily
available mail, telephone, and e-mail service. On the positive side, people have
much more freedom because they are less restricted by the natural rhythm of
life. On the negative side, problems arise because the growth of objective culture
generates cultural malaise, cultural ambivalence and, ultimately, a tragedy of
culture.
Secrecy
Simmel's work on secrecy is characteristic of his work on social types. Simmel
defines secrecy as a condition in which one person is intentionally hiding
something while another person is seeking to reveal what is being hidden.
Simmel examines various forms of social relationships from the point of view of
reciprocal knowledge and secrecy. According to Simmel, confidence is an
intermediate state between knowledge and ignorance about a person.
Acquaintanceship is a relationship in which there is far more discretion and
secretiveness than there is among intimates. Friendship is not based on total
intimacy, but rather involves limited intimacy based on common intellectual
pursuits, religion, and shared experiences. Marriage is the least secretive form of
relationship. Simmel sees the secret as one of man's greatest achievements
because it makes for a strong "we-feeling" among those who know the secret.
But the secret is always accompanied dialectically by the possibility that it can
be discovered. Simmel thought that the social structure of modern society
permits and requires a high degree of secrecy. The money economy, for
example, allows people to hide transactions, acquisitions, and changes in
ownership.

Early American Sociology
Much of early American sociology was defined by the influence
of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903); v The concept of modern social
theory presents the possibility of a postmodern social theory. Indeed,
postmodernism has had wide-ranging effects on a number of
disciplines, including sociology. Because of the multidisciplinary nature
of postmodernism, it is necessary to think of postmodern social theory
rather than postmodern sociological theory, with the basic distinction
resting on the various sources of input in social theory.
Structuralism
Structuralism emerged from a reaction against the humanism of Jean-
Paul Sartre's (1905-1980) existentialism. Sartre assailed the idea of
structures that overly determine the behavior of individuals, of having
actors without agency. Structuralism emerged in the 1960s, and was
based on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure(1857-1913).
Saussure's work was oriented to understanding the structures
underlying languages. Thus, structuralism is associated with the
linguistic turn. Saussure focused on the relationship between the
formal, grammatical system of language (langue) and the everyday
usage of language (parole). Parole was of little interest to linguists, who
should be concerned with understanding the determinant laws that
govern langue. Langue is conceptualized as a system of signs whereby
each sign may be understood by its relationships to other signs within
the system. This system of signs is a structure, a structure that affects
society by shaping relationships of signs within the system and our
understanding of the world. Saussure focused on the creation of
difference, particularly through binary oppositions (e.g., hot/cold) ,
CHAPTER 6
Early American Sociology
Much of early American sociology was defined by the influence of Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903); various strands of Social Darwinism; and political
liberalism - with the latter paradoxically contributing to the discipline's
conservativism. William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) and Lester F. Ward (1841-
1913) exemplify these tendencies in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
American sociological theory, but their work has certainly not passed the test of
time. Other early American sociologists, especially from the Chicago School, did
have an enduring impact on sociological theory. W.I. Thomas (1863-1947),
Robert Park (1864-1944), Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929), and George
Herbert Mead (1863-1931) profoundly shaped the theoretical landscape of
symbolic interactionism, and their ideas predominated until the
institutionalization of sociology at Harvard University in the 1930s. While for
many years sociologists have emphasized these three theoretical orientations,
scholars of sociology have recently pointed to the significance of early women
sociologists such as Jane Addams (1860-1935), Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-
1935), and Beatrice Potter Webb (1858-1943), as well as the race theory of
W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963).
Sociology at Harvard, Marxian Theory, and the Rise and Decline of Structural
Functionalism
Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968) was a central figure in the founding of sociology at
Harvard University during the 1930s. Sorokin was soon overshadowed, however,
by Talcott Parsons (1902-1979). Parsons is a key figure in the history of
sociological theory in the United States because he introduced European thought
to large numbers of American sociologists and developed a theory of action and,
eventually, structural functionalism. Parsons helped to legitimize grand theory in
the United States, and produced many graduate students who carried his ideas
to other departments of sociology in the U.S. The rise of structural functionalism
to a dominant position in the 1940s and 1950s led to the decline of the Chicago
School.
While structural functionalism was gaining ground in the United States, the
Frankfurt school of critical theory was emerging in Europe. With the rise to power
of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists in Germany, many of the critical
theorists fled to the United States, where they came into contact with American Early Twenty-First-Century Theory
sociology. Thinkers such as Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno
While the future of sociological theory is unpredictable, a number of perspectives
(1903-1969), and Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) propounded a kind of Marxian
have come to the forefront in recent years. Multicultural social theory, for
theory that was heavily influenced by the work of G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), Max
example, has exploded in the past 20 years. Post-modernism continues to be
Weber (1864-1920), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Much of the critical
influential, though some post-post-modernists are making headway. Finally,
theorists' work, however, was neglected until the 1960s.
theories of consumption are shifting the focus of sociology away from its
During the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, many criticisms and challenges to structural productivist bias and toward consumers, consumer goods, and processes of
functionalism emerged. Radical sociologists such as C. Wright Mills (1916-1962) consumption.
and conflict theorists attacked structural functionalism for its grand theory,
purported political conservatism, inability to study social change, and lack of
emphasis on social conflict. Other theorists, such as Erving Goffman (1922-1982)
and George Homans (1910- ), developed dramaturgical analysis and exchange
theory, respectively. The sociological phenomenology of Alfred Schutz (1899-
1959) prompted a great deal of interest in the sociology of everyday life, which is CHAPTER 7
exemplified by Harold Garfinkel's (1917- ) ethnomethodology.
Structural Functionalism
The Rise and Fall of Marxian Theory
Although popular, even dominant, after World War II, structural functionalism is
During the 1970s and 1980s, a number of scholars revived Marxist perspectives
today generall Structural Functionalism
in studies of historical sociology and economic sociology, while others began to
question the viability of Marxian theory given the atrocities committed in the
Although popular, even dominant, after World War II, structural functionalism is
name of Marxism and the collapse of the Soviet Union and other Marxist
today generally of only historical interest. Emerging as an offshoot of organicism,
regimes. Ritzer and Goodman suggest that neo-Marxian theory will see
structural functionalists were mainly societal functionalists who were interested
something of a renaissance as a consequence of the inequalities of globalization in large-scale social structures and institutions within society, how they
and the excesses of capitalism. interrelate, and their constraining effects on actors.
Late Twentieth-Century Social Theory
One of the earliest and better known applications of structural functionalism was
In the last thirty years or so, a number of theoretical perspectives have thefunctional theory of stratification. This theory argued that stratification was
emerged. First, and perhaps most significant, is the rise of feminist theory. universal and necessary for society, and that it was therefore functional.
Second, structuralism, post-structuralism, and post-modernism gained Stratification here refers to positions rather than individuals and to the way that
considerable ground - most notably in the work of Michel Foucault (1926-1984). individuals are placed in the appropriate position. Since some positions are more
Third, in the United States, many sociological theorists have developed an important, more pleasant, and require different skills, a system of stratification is
interest in the micro-macro link. Fourth, the debate over the relationship necessary to make sure all roles are fulfilled. Much like other versions of
between agency and structure - which developed mainly in Europe - has made structural functionalism, this theory is criticized as conservative and lacking in
its way into sociological theory in the U.S. Finally, in the 1990s a number of empirical support.
sociological thinkers have taken an interest in theoretical syntheses.
Talcott Parsons
The single greatest contributor, and practitioner, of structural functionalism
was Talcott Parsons (1902-1979). The heart of Parsons's theory is built on the
four functional imperatives, also known as the AGIL system:
1. The adaptive function, whereby a system adapts to its environment.
2. The goal-attainment function, i.e., how a system defines and achieves its
goals.
3. The integrative function, or the regulation of the components of the
system.
4. Latency, or pattern maintenance function, i.e., how motivation and the
dimensions of culture that create and sustain motivation are stimulated.
Complementing this are four action systems, each of which serve a functional
imperative: the behavioral organism performs the adaptive function;
the personality system performs goal attainment; the social system performs the
integrative function; and the cultural systemperforms pattern maintenance.
Parsons saw these action systems acting at different levels of analysis, starting
with the behavioral organism and building to the cultural system. He saw these
levels hierarchically, with each of the lower levels providing the impetus for the
higher levels, with the higher levels controlling the lower levels.
Parsons was concerned primarily with the creation of social order, and he
investigated it using his theory based on a number of assumptions, primarily
that systems are interdependent; they tend towards equilibrium; they may be
either static or involved in change; that allocation and integration are
particularly important to systems in any particular point of equilibrium; and that
systems are self-maintaining. These assumptions led him to focus primarily on
order but to overlook, for the most part, the issue of change.
The basic unit of Parsons's social system is the status-role complex. Actors are
seen as a collection of statuses and roles relatively devoid of thought. Parsons's
interest was in the large-scale components of social systems, such as
collectivities, norms, and values. Parsons also thought that social systems had a
number of functional prerequisites, such as compatibility with other systems,
fulfillment of the needs of actors, support from other systems, inducing adequate
levels of participation from its members, controlling deviance, controlling
conflict, and language.
Parsons was particularly interested in the role of norms and values. He focused
on the socialization process, whereby society instills within individuals an outlook
in which it is possible for them to pursue their own self-interest while still serving
the interests of the system as a whole. It was through socialization that Parsons
believed that actors internalized the norms of society. Physical or coercive
systems of control were seen as only a secondary line of defense.
The cultural system is at the very pinnacle of action systems. For instance,
Parsons believed that culture had the capability of becoming a part of other
systems, such as norms and values in the social system. Culture is defined as a
patterned, ordered system of symbols that are objects of orientation to actors,
internalized aspects of the personality system, and institutionalized patterns.
The symbolic nature of culture allows it to control other action systems.
The personality system generates personality, defined as the organized
orientation and motivation of action in the individual actor, built by need-
dispositions and shaped by the social setting. Again Parsons presents a passive
view of actors.
In order to deal with change, Parsons turned to a form of evolutionary theory,
focusing on differentiation and adaptive upgrading. He suggested three
evolutionary stages: primitive, intermediate, and modern. This perspective
suffers from a number of flaws, primarily because it sees change as generally
positive and does not deal with the process of change, but rather points of
equilibrium across periods of change.
One way that Parsons does inject a real sense of dynamism into his theory is
with the concept of the generalized media of interchange. Although this concept
is somewhat ambiguous, it can be thought of as resources, particularly symbolic
resources, for which there is a universal desire (e.g., money, influence, or
political power). The suggestion that individuals might act to influence the social
distribution of such resources (as media entrepreneurs) adds dynamism to what
is often seen as a static theory.
Robert Merton
Robert Merton(1910-2003) attempted to rectify some of the weaknesses
within structural functionalism. Specifically, he criticized the underlying
assumptions of functionalism and added complexity to how structural
functionalism dealt with the relationship between structures and functions.
Dispensing with the notion that all parts of the system are functional, highly
integrated, and indispensable, he created a system of concepts to deal with the
ways in which structures may be related to the whole. For instance, he
suggested that some social facts might be dysfunctional, meaning they may
have negative consequences for other social facts. Overall, he thought that it
was possible to have an idea of the balance of a structure by taking into account
dysfunctions, functions, and nonfunctions. He also added additional complexity
by asserting that this sort of analysis may be performed at various levels of
functional analysis, as "functions" might be a matter of perspective. For
instance, slavery was functional for some and dysfunctional for others.
Merton was also concerned with the intended and unintended functions of
structures, ormanifest and latent functions, and their unanticipated
consequences. He added nuance to structural functionalism by noting that
dysfunctional structures can exist within systems, depending on their
relationship to other systems. Thus not all structures are positive, nor are all of
them indispensable.
Merton also took up Emile Durkheim's (1857-1917) notion of anomie. He
suggested that when individuals cannot act in accordance with normalized
values or realize normalized goals because of the obstacles created by social
structures, it produces deviant behavior.
Criticisms
There are a number of criticisms of structural functionalism: it is ahistorical; it is
unable to deal effectively with the process of change or conflict; and it is
conservative. It is viewed as ambiguous and lacking in adequate methods.
Structural functionalism inhibits certain forms of analyses, such as comparative
analysis. Structural functionalism has also been described as both illegitimately
teleological and tautological. The former implies that structural functionalists
rely too heavily on the notion that social structures have purposes or goals. This
notion is posited to justify the existence of particular structures without
adequate theoretical reasons or empirical backing. Tautology suggests that the
conclusion of a theory makes explicit what is implicit in the premise of the
theory. Thus, structural functionalism defines the whole in terms of the parts and
the parts in terms of the whole.
Neofunctionalism
Neofunctionalism was an attempt by theorists such as Jeffrey Alexander,
among others, to revive the stronger tenets of structural functionalism.
Neofunctionalism attempted to synthesize portions of structural functionalism
with other theories. It highlighted the interactional patterning of the elements
that constitute society, attended to both action and order, understood
integration as a possibility rather than as fact, adopted various portions of
Parsons's action systems, and traced the process of social change that resulted
from differentiation within action systems.
Conflict Theory
Associated primarily with the work of Ralf Dahrendorf (1929- ), conflict theory
arose primarily as a reaction against structural functionalism and in many ways
represents its antithesis. Where structural functionalism sees a near harmony of
purpose from norms and values, conflict theory sees coercion, domination, and
power. Dahrendorf saw both theories as addressing different situations,
depending upon the focus of the study. According to Dahrendorf, functionalism is
useful for understanding consensus while conflict theory is appropriate for
understanding conflict and coercion.
For Dahrendorf the distribution of authority was a key to understanding social
conflict. Authority is located not within people but within various positions.
Authority is created by the expectation of certain types of action associated with
particular positions, including subordination of others and subordination to
others. Various positions of authority exist within associations. The fault lines
that spring up around competing loci of authority generate conflicting groups.
The conflict between these groups pervades their interaction, with the result that
authority is often challenged and tenuous.
Much as Merton looked at latent and manifest functions, Dahrendorf identified
latent and manifest interests, or unconscious and conscious interests. The
connection between these two concepts was a major problematic for conflict
theory. Dahrendorf posited the existence of three types of groups: quasi-
groups, interest groups, and conflict groups. Dahrendorf felt that, under ideal
circumstances, conflict could be explained without reference to any other
variables.
Conflict theory has been criticized for being ideologically radical,
underdeveloped, and unable to deal with order and stability. Both functionalism
and conflict theory share the weakness of being able to explain only portions of
social life.
Conflict Sociology
Randall Collins developed a form of conflict theory that focuses far more on
micro-level interactions than does Dahrendorf. It criticized previous conflict
theories and theories of stratification as "failures," and attempted to focus on the
role of individual action in the process of stratification. His theory of stratification
is rooted in Marxist, phenomenological, and ethnomethodological concerns,
focusing on material arrangements and exploitation in real-life situations. Collins
extended his theory to deal with various dimensions of stratification, such as
gender and age inequality, as well as looking at stratification within formal
organizations.
y of only historical interest. Emerging as an offshoot of organicism, structural
functionalists were mainly societal functionalists who were interested in large-
scale social structures and institutions within society, how they interrelate, and
their constraining effects on actors.
One of the earliest and better known applications of structural functionalism was
thefunctional theory of stratification. This theory argued that stratification was
universal and necessary for society, and that it was therefore functional.
Stratification here refers to positions rather than individuals and to the way that
individuals are placed in the appropriate position. Since some positions are more
important, more pleasant, and require different skills, a system of stratification is
necessary to make sure all roles are fulfilled. Much like other versions of
structural functionalism, this theory is criticized as conservative and lacking in
empirical support.
Talcott Parsons
The single greatest contributor, and practitioner, of structural functionalism
was Talcott Parsons (1902-1979). The heart of Parsons's theory is built on the
four functional imperatives, also known as the AGIL system:
1. The adaptive function, whereby a system adapts to its environment.
2. The goal-attainment function, i.e., how a system defines and achieves its
goals.
3. The integrative function, or the regulation of the components of the
system.
4. Latency, or pattern maintenance function, i.e., how motivation and the
dimensions of culture that create and sustain motivation are stimulated.
Complementing this are four action systems, each of which serve a functional
imperative: the behavioral organism performs the adaptive function;
the personality system performs goal attainment; the social system performs the
integrative function; and the cultural systemperforms pattern maintenance.
Parsons saw these action systems acting at different levels of analysis, starting
with the behavioral organism and building to the cultural system. He saw these
levels hierarchically, with each of the lower levels providing the impetus for the
higher levels, with the higher levels controlling the lower levels.
Parsons was concerned primarily with the creation of social order, and he
investigated it using his theory based on a number of assumptions, primarily
that systems are interdependent; they tend towards equilibrium; they may be
either static or involved in change; that allocation and integration are
particularly important to systems in any particular point of equilibrium; and that
systems are self-maintaining. These assumptions led him to focus primarily on
order but to overlook, for the most part, the issue of change.
The basic unit of Parsons's social system is the status-role complex. Actors are
seen as a collection of statuses and roles relatively devoid of thought. Parsons's
interest was in the large-scale components of social systems, such as
collectivities, norms, and values. Parsons also thought that social systems had a
number of functional prerequisites, such as compatibility with other systems,
fulfillment of the needs of actors, support from other systems, inducing adequate
levels of participation from its members, controlling deviance, controlling
conflict, and language.
Parsons was particularly interested in the role of norms and values. He focused
on the socialization process, whereby society instills within individuals an outlook
in which it is possible for them to pursue their own self-interest while still serving
the interests of the system as a whole. It was through socialization that Parsons
believed that actors internalized the norms of society. Physical or coercive
systems of control were seen as only a secondary line of defense.
The cultural system is at the very pinnacle of action systems. For instance,
Parsons believed that culture had the capability of becoming a part of other
systems, such as norms and values in the social system. Culture is defined as a
patterned, ordered system of symbols that are objects of orientation to actors,
internalized aspects of the personality system, and institutionalized patterns.
The symbolic nature of culture allows it to control other action systems.
The personality system generates personality, defined as the organized
orientation and motivation of action in the individual actor, built by need-
dispositions and shaped by the social setting. Again Parsons presents a passive
view of actors.
In order to deal with change, Parsons turned to a form of evolutionary theory,
focusing on differentiation and adaptive upgrading. He suggested three
evolutionary stages: primitive, intermediate, and modern. This perspective
suffers from a number of flaws, primarily because it sees change as generally
positive and does not deal with the process of change, but rather points of
equilibrium across periods of change.
One way that Parsons does inject a real sense of dynamism into his theory is
with the concept of the generalized media of interchange. Although this concept
is somewhat ambiguous, it can be thought of as resources, particularly symbolic
resources, for which there is a universal desire (e.g., money, influence, or
political power). The suggestion that individuals might act to influence the social
distribution of such resources (as media entrepreneurs) adds dynamism to what
is often seen as a static theory.
Robert Merton
Robert Merton(1910-2003) attempted to rectify some of the weaknesses
within structural functionalism. Specifically, he criticized the underlying
assumptions of functionalism and added complexity to how structural
functionalism dealt with the relationship between structures and functions.
Dispensing with the notion that all parts of the system are functional, highly
integrated, and indispensable, he created a system of concepts to deal with the
ways in which structures may be related to the whole. For instance, he
suggested that some social facts might be dysfunctional, meaning they may
have negative consequences for other social facts. Overall, he thought that it
was possible to have an idea of the balance of a structure by taking into account
dysfunctions, functions, and nonfunctions. He also added additional complexity
by asserting that this sort of analysis may be performed at various levels of
functional analysis, as "functions" might be a matter of perspective. For
instance, slavery was functional for some and dysfunctional for others.
Merton was also concerned with the intended and unintended functions of
structures, ormanifest and latent functions, and their unanticipated
consequences. He added nuance to structural functionalism by noting that
dysfunctional structures can exist within systems, depending on their
relationship to other systems. Thus not all structures are positive, nor are all of
them indispensable.
Merton also took up Emile Durkheim's (1857-1917) notion of anomie. He
suggested that when individuals cannot act in accordance with normalized
values or realize normalized goals because of the obstacles created by social
structures, it produces deviant behavior.
Criticisms
There are a number of criticisms of structural functionalism: it is ahistorical; it is
unable to deal effectively with the process of change or conflict; and it is
conservative. It is viewed as ambiguous and lacking in adequate methods.
Structural functionalism inhibits certain forms of analyses, such as comparative
analysis. Structural functionalism has also been described as both illegitimately
teleological and tautological. The former implies that structural functionalists
rely too heavily on the notion that social structures have purposes or goals. This
notion is posited to justify the existence of particular structures without
adequate theoretical reasons or empirical backing. Tautology suggests that the
conclusion of a theory makes explicit what is implicit in the premise of the
theory. Thus, structural functionalism defines the whole in terms of the parts and
the parts in terms of the whole.
Neofunctionalism
Neofunctionalism was an attempt by theorists such as Jeffrey Alexander,
among others, to revive the stronger tenets of structural functionalism.
Neofunctionalism attempted to synthesize portions of structural functionalism
with other theories. It highlighted the interactional patterning of the elements
that constitute society, attended to both action and order, understood
integration as a possibility rather than as fact, adopted various portions of
Parsons's action systems, and traced the process of social change that resulted
from differentiation within action systems.
Conflict Theory
Associated primarily with the work of Ralf Dahrendorf (1929- ), conflict theory
arose primarily as a reaction against structural functionalism and in many ways
represents its antithesis. Where structural functionalism sees a near harmony of
purpose from norms and values, conflict theory sees coercion, domination, and
power. Dahrendorf saw both theories as addressing different situations,
depending upon the focus of the study. According to Dahrendorf, functionalism is
useful for understanding consensus while conflict theory is appropriate for
understanding conflict and coercion.
Much as Merton looked at latent and manifest functions, Dahrendorf identified
latent and manifest interests, or unconscious and conscious interests. The
connection between these two concepts was a major problematic for conflict
theory. Dahrendorf posited the existence of three types of groups: quasi-
groups, interest groups, and conflict groups. Dahrendorf felt that, under ideal
circumstances, conflict could be explained without reference to any other
variables.
Conflict theory has been criticized for being ideologically radical,
underdeveloped, and unable to deal with order and stability. Both functionalism
and conflict theory share the weakness of being able to explain only portions of
social life.
Conflict Sociology
Randall Collins developed a form of conflict theory that focuses far more on
micro-level interactions than does Dahrendorf. It criticized previous conflict
theories and theories of stratification as "failures," and attempted to focus on the
role of individual action in the process of stratification. His theory of stratification
is rooted in Marxist, phenomenological, and ethnomethodological concerns,
focusing on material arrangements and exploitation in real-life situations. Collins
extended his theory to deal with various dimensions of stratification, such as
gender and age inequality, as well as looking at stratification within formal
organizations.

For Dahrendorf the distribution of authority was a key to understanding social

conflict. Authority is located not within people but within various positions.
Authority is created by the expectation of certain types of action associated with
particular positions, including subordination of others and subordination to
others. Various positions of authority exist within associations. The fault lines
that spring up around competing loci of authority generate conflicting groups.
The conflict between these groups pervades their interaction, with the result that
authority is often challenged and tenuous.
Early American Sociology
Much of early American sociology was defined by the influence of Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903); various strands of Social Darwinism; and political
liberalism - with the latter paradoxically contributing to the discipline's
conservativism. William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) and Lester F.
Ward (1841-1913) exemplify these tendencies in late nineteenth- and
early twentieth-century American sociological theory, but their work has
certainly not passed the test of time. Other early American sociologists,
especially from the Chicago School, did have an enduring impact on
sociological theory. W.I. Thomas (1863-1947), Robert Park (1864-
1944), Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929), and George Herbert Mead
(1863-1931) profoundly shaped the theoretical landscape of symbolic
interactionism, and their ideas predominated until the institutionalization of
sociology at Harvard University in the 1930s. While for many years
sociologists have emphasized these three theoretical orientations, scholars
of sociology have recently pointed to the significance of early women
sociologists such as Jane Addams (1860-1935),Charlotte Perkins
Gilman (1860-1935), and Beatrice Potter Webb (1858-1943), as well
as the race theory of W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963).
Sociology at Harvard, Marxian Theory, and the Rise and Decline of
Structural Functionalism
Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968) was a central figure in the founding of
sociology at Harvard University during the 1930s. Sorokin was soon
overshadowed, however, by Talcott Parsons (1902-1979). Parsons is a
key figure in the history of sociological theory in the United States because
he introduced European thought to large numbers of American sociologists
and developed a theory of action and, eventually, structural functionalism.
Parsons helped to legitimize grand theory in the United States, and produced
many graduate students who carried his ideas to other departments of
sociology in the U.S. The rise of structural functionalism to a dominant
position in the 1940s and 1950s led to the decline of the Chicago School.
While structural functionalism was gaining ground in the United States, the
Frankfurt school of critical theory was emerging in Europe. With the rise to
power of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists in Germany, many of the
critical theorists fled to the United States, where they came into contact with
American sociology. Thinkers such as Max Horkheimer (1895-
1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), and Herbert Marcuse (1898-
1979) propounded a kind of Marxian theory that was heavily influenced by
the work of G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), Max Weber (1864-1920),
and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Much of the critical theorists' work,
however, was neglected until the 1960s.
CHAPTER 8
Since the time of Karl Marx's writing, a variety of theories have emerged that
bear the Marxian legacy, although in many different ways.
Economic Determinism
Although it is often said that Marx was an economic determinist, or, rather, that
he focused narrowly on how the economic dimension of society determined the
shape of the rest of society, this view overlooks Marx's dialectical inclinations. A
number of the so-called revisionist Marxists, including Friedrich Engels (1820-
1895), Karl Kautsky (1850-1938),and Eduard Bernstein (1850-
1932),espoused an economically deterministic brand of Marxism, influenced
primarily by the boom and busts that characterized this period of capitalism.
Hegelian Marxism
One reaction to the growth of economic determinism was a renewed focus on
Marx's philosophical writings, particularly their Hegelian roots. Although a
number of Marx's early writings, which were primarily philosophical in their
orientation, were unpublished and therefore unavailable to scholars at the
time, Georg Lukcs (1885-1971)managed to anticipate much of what was to
be revealed of Marx's philosophical perspective. In particular, Lukcs focused on
two major concepts - reification andclass consciousness. With reification he
extended Marx's notion of the fetishism of commodities to include the process by
which any portion of social life could be made a "thing," rather than just
commodities. Lukcs also developed the notion of class consciousness, or the
belief systems shared by those who occupy the same class position within
society. Conversely, those who occupy the same class position may be unaware
of their common lot, and may possess a false consciousness. Although classes
are a part of every historical epoch, to Lukcs it was only under capitalism that a
class could achieve true class consciousness and be a truly revolutionary force.
Lukcs discussed the ways in which the nature of the capitalist system is
obscured. He thought that once these were revealed, society would become a
battleground in the conflict between those who wished to conceal the class
character of society and those who wished to expose it.
Another important Hegelian Marxist isAntonio Gramsci (1891-1937). Gramsci
rejected deterministic Marxist formulations, focusing instead on how revolution
was contingent on action on the part of the masses, assuming they became
conscious of the nature of capitalism and their role in it. This they could do only
by using the analysis provided to them by intellectuals. Perhaps the most
important contribution Gramsci made to Neo-Marxian theory has been the
concept of hegemony, which he referred to as the cultural leadership exercised
by the ruling class. Thus, revolutionary forces must not only change the material
bases of society, but they must also wrest from its oppressors the cultural
leadership of society.
Critical Theory
Critical theory grew up around a group of German neo-Marxists who were
unhappy with the economic determinism of turn-of-the-century Marxism. Rather
than focusing on the material dimensions of society, the critical school focused
primarily on culture. As its name suggests, critical theory is predominantly
known for offering critiques of various dimensions of society. Central to this were
its critiques of positivism (it leads to passivity), sociology (for its scientism),
modern society (rationalization and the absence of reasonableness, as in the
rationality), and culture (the pacifying and repressive effects of mass culture
disseminated by the culture industry). The critical school has been credited with
refocusing attention on subjective phenomena, despite Marx's materialist
tendencies. For example, the critical school also had an interest in ideology and
its role in domination. They were also dialecticians who attempted to relate the
parts of society to its whole, or its totality. Critical theory has been criticized for
its lack of historical focus, its weak treatment of economic factors, and its lack of
faith in the working class as a revolutionary force.
A slightly different variant found within the critical school tradition is the work
ofJurgen Habermas(1929- ). Habermas believes that Marx oversimplified the
social component of species-being. Habermas takes as his starting point the
necessity of communicative action in the realization of species-being, which
emerges from the distinction between purposive-rational action (work) and
communicative action (interaction). While Marx's central problematic was the
alienation of workers, Habermas's is the alienation of communication, or the
"distortion" of communication. Habermas is concerned with the technological
dominance of life through the rationalization of purposive-action. However,
unlike other theorists, Habermas argues that rationalization can have a positive
effect if it rationalizes communication, which would lead to a communication free
from domination, creating a form of emancipatory communication. Habermas's
idea of a rational society is a society constructed of free communication, where
ideas are weighed on their merits and unaltered by ideology.
Neo-Marxian Economic Sociology
Noting that the period in which Marx formulated his critique of capitalism was a
specific period in the development of capitalism, a number of theorists have
attempted to develop work that more accurately portrays the workings of the
capitalist system as it exists today. This can be seen as a shift away from
focusing on the era of competitive capitalism and towards looking at what has
been calledmonopoly capitalism. Paul Baran andPaul Sweezy are the major
contributors to this line of work, particularly in their book Monopoly Capitalism.
Monopoly capitalism involves a transformation in the ways in which companies
operate. Under monopoly capitalism, firms compete on the basis of advertising
and marketing rather than price. Further, markets are dominated by a small
number of very large firms. Lastly, there are many owners, in the form of
stockholders, and managers play a much larger role in the operation of the
capitalist firms. Similar work has been done by Harry Braverman. Braverman
took a microscopic view and looked at changes in the labor process. He
emphasized that the control of workers required task specialization, the
separation of knowledge and execution, and scientific management techniques.
The overall effect of these strategies is to increase productivity while decreasing
the cost of labor. Machinery also plays a role in this process. Braverman was one
of the first neo-Marxists to deal with white-collar clerical workers, as he tried to
show that they faced a set of strategies of control very similar to that faced by
manual laborers.
One important line of research surrounds the transition from Fordism to post-
Fordism. Fordism is characterized by the assembly line and mass-production
techniques, whereas post-Fordism involves small, flexible production runs and
high technology. The importance of the Fordism/post-Fordism debate is related to
the argument of whether our current society is modern or postmodern. While
some have argued that post-Fordism is an improvement over Fordism, this
overlooks the fact that both exist simultaneously across the world and that
empirical studies have shown increased stress levels for those working in post-
Fordist environments.
Historically Oriented Marxism
Perhaps the single most important contributor to historical Marxism has
beenImmanuel Wallerstein (1930- ). Unlike other Marx-influenced thinkers,
Wallerstein focused on world-systems as his unit of analysis. The current
capitalist world economy is but one of three possible world-systems, along with
the world empire and a socialist world government, the latter of which has never
existed. Wallerstein breaks down the world system into core, periphery,
andsemi-periphery. The core dominates the world economy and exploits the
others. The periphery provides raw materials, and the semi-periphery is a mix of
the two. The world-system eventually incorporated every nation, and was
structured by three processes: geographical expansion, the worldwide division of
labor, and the development of the core states. The world-systems perspective
has been criticized for under-developing a central Marxist problematic, since it
focuses on relations within the world system rather than relations between
classes.
Neo-Marxian Spatial Analysis
A number of Marxists, influenced by the work of Michel Foucault (1926-1984),
have turned to an analysis of the production of space. Henri Lefebvre (1901-
1991) focuses on the ways in which space is used to reproduce the capitalist
system and the class structure that underpins it. For Lefebvre, notions of space
propagated by elites are used to achieve and maintain dominance, distorting the
use of space that would flow from people's natural experience of it.Edward
Soja attempts to integrated space, geography, and time. He developed the
notion of trialectics to understand cities as historical-social-spatial phenomena,
with an emphasis on the spatial dimension. David Harveyhighlights the
attention Marx paid to the spatial dimension, and the strength and weaknesses
of his positions. For Harvey, the necessity of capitalist expansion puts space near
the center of Marx's theory. Marx is faulted for paying little attention to the
problematics inherent in the territorial organization of states and for ignoring the
way space differentiates strata of the working class.
Post-Marxist Theory
Post-Marxists may be characterized by their nihilistic approach to the history of
Marxist thought, to the extent that they dispose of much of Marx's philosophical
underpinnings, as well as repudiating the existence of any truly Marxist
"method."John Roemer's analytical Marxism attempts to employ modern
positivistic methods of analysis to create a better "scientific" Marxism. This
includes incorporating rational-choice and game-theoretic orientations. Erik Olin
Wrighthas tried to bring robust, complex, empirical methods to the investigation
of Marxist themes. This has led him to break from Marx in at least one way,
illustrated in his notion of contradictory locations within class relations. This
suggests that individuals may hold multiple, sometimes contradictory, class
positions.
Marxian theory as a field has not escaped the wide-ranging influence of
postmodern thought. It has led to a focus on the relationship between discourse
and ideology, time-space compression, and the continuity between Fordism/post-
Fordism and modernity/postmodernity.
More generally, Ronald Aronson has gone so far as to suggest that Marxism as
a coherent theory is dead. The fall of the Soviet Union, and communism more
generally, is seen as the ultimate historical test of Marxian thought, and it has
failed. The birth of so many variants of Marxism has destroyed its powerful
coherence in totality. Aronson views these new modifications as pure theory, and
not as an expression of the unification of theory and practice that was central to
Marx's work. Because of this, he does not believe that these new formulations
should be called Marxist.
CHAPTER 9
Sociology and Modern Systems Theory
Despite the checkered past of systems theory in sociology, some scholars have
pointed to its advantages. Walter Buckley (1921-), for example, argued that
systems theory provides a way to unify all the behavioral and social sciences; it
is a multi-leveled approach; it is interested in many varied relationships in the
social world; it emphasizes processes of information and communication; it is
integrative; and it views the world in dynamic terms.
Buckley maintained that three different kinds of systems exist: mechanical,
organic, and sociocultural. These three kinds of systems differ qualitatively as
well as quantitatively - i.e., in terms of the way they work as well as their degree
of complexity and instability. Systems may also be described in terms of the
degree to which they are open or closed. Open systems (e.g., sociocultural
systems) tend to respond to a greater range of fluctuations in the environment
than closed systems do. Closed systems generally are entropic (i.e., they tend
to break down), while open systems tend to be negentropic (i.e., they tend to
elaborate structures).
Sociocultural systems are often purposive and goal-seeking due to their capacity
to receive feedback from their environments. Feedback - which is key to the
cybernetic approach to systems analysis - allows analysts to take into account
change, growth, friction, and evolution in their studies of social systems.
Moreover, systems theorists emphasize the importance of internal processes
such as morphogenesis (processes of system change)
and morphostasis (processes of system maintenance). Social systems
develop mediating systems for the purposes of maintenance and change.
Niklas Luhmann's General Systems Theory
Niklas Luhmann(1927-1998) addressed the problems of structural-
functionalism by focusing on self-reference and contingency (i.e., the fact that
things could have developed differently) in systems. Luhmann maintained that
systems are always less complex than their environments. Systems simplify by
selecting pieces of information from the complexity of an environment. Since
systems are forced to select from a plethora of pieces of information within an
environment, the systems theorist must acknowledge the contingency of a
system's selections, because the system could have selected differently. This
contingency entails risk, because paying attention to some bits of information
while ignoring others may have unforeseen consequences for the system if what
is ignored is important to the user of the information.
Autopoietic systems, according to Luhmann, produce their own basic
elements; they are self-organizing insofar as they create their own boundaries
and internal structures; they are self-referential insofar as their elements refer to
the system itself; and they are closed systems insofar as they do not deal
directly with their environments, but rather with representations of their
environm Sociology and Modern Systems Theory
Despite the checkered past of systems theory in sociology, some scholars have
pointed to its advantages. Walter Buckley (1921-), for example, argued that
systems theory provides a way to unify all the behavioral and social sciences; it
is a multi-leveled approach; it is interested in many varied relationships in the
social world; it emphasizes processes of information and communication; it is
integrative; and it views the world in dynamic terms.
Buckley maintained that three different kinds of systems exist: mechanical,
organic, and sociocultural. These three kinds of systems differ qualitatively as
well as quantitatively - i.e., in terms of the way they work as well as their degree
of complexity and instability. Systems may also be described in terms of the
degree to which they are open or closed. Open systems (e.g., sociocultural
systems) tend to respond to a greater range of fluctuations in the environment
than closed systems do. Closed systems generally are entropic (i.e., they tend
to break down), while open systems tend to be negentropic (i.e., they tend to
elaborate structures).
Sociocultural systems are often purposive and goal-seeking due to their capacity
to receive feedback from their environments. Feedback - which is key to the
cybernetic approach to systems analysis - allows analysts to take into account
change, growth, friction, and evolution in their studies of social systems.
Moreover, systems theorists emphasize the importance of internal processes
such as morphogenesis (processes of system change)
and morphostasis (processes of system maintenance). Social systems
develop mediating systems for the purposes of maintenance and change.
Niklas Luhmann's General Systems Theory
Niklas Luhmann(1927-1998) addressed the problems of structural-
functionalism by focusing on self-reference and contingency (i.e., the fact that
things could have developed differently) in systems. Luhmann maintained that
systems are always less complex than their environments. Systems simplify by
selecting pieces of information from the complexity of an environment. Since
systems are forced to select from a plethora of pieces of information within an
environment, the systems theorist must acknowledge the contingency of a
system's selections, because the system could have selected differently. This
contingency entails risk, because paying attention to some bits of information
while ignoring others may have unforeseen consequences for the system if what
is ignored is important to the user of the information.
Autopoietic systems, according to Luhmann, produce their own basic
elements; they are self-organizing insofar as they create their own boundaries
and internal structures; they are self-referential insofar as their elements refer to
the system itself; and they are closed systems insofar as they do not deal
directly with their environments, but rather with representations of their
environments.
Society is an autopoietic system. According to Luhmann, the most basic element
of society is communication, and anything that is not communication is part of a
society's environment (e.g., biological and psychic systems). Both psychic and
social systems - which are environments for each other - rely on meaning. In
Luhmann's theory, meaning is comprehensible because of contingency. In other
words, meaning emerges only because a specific action is different from other
possible actions.
Double contingency refers to the fact that every communication must consider
the way in which it will be received. In Luhmann's view, social structures (e.g.,
roles and norms) make it more likely that communications will be understood by
both sender and receiver. Social structures also give communications some
continuity over time. Double contingency thus provides much of the impetus for
the evolution of social systems.
Luhmann's theory eschews teleological views of evolution - i.e., the outcomes of
evolution are not predefined. Evolution, in Luhmann's view, is a set of processes
that includes variation, selection, and the stabilization of reproducible
characteristics. Note that the process of selection does not entail the choice of
the best possible solution. Selections often occur not because they are optimal,
but because they are the easiest to stabilize.
Luhmann's theory of differentiation is closely connected to his view of evolution.
In Luhmann's view, differentiation is the means by which a system deals with
changes in its environment. Differentiation tends to increase the amount of
complexity in a given system - that is, as an environment changes, a system
(e.g., a bureaucracy) will develop new departments in order to deal with such
changes. Luhmann argues that four forms of differentiation occur: segmentary,
stratificatory, center-periphery, and functional differentiation. The latter form of
differentiation, according to Luhmann, is the most complex and problematic for
modern society, since it means that problems are often displaced from the level
of society to one of its subsystems (e.g., the problem of ecology).
Finally, Luhmann argues that society is a world society that may on be observed
only from within the system. In Luhmann's view, knowledge of society may be
gained through the observation of the relationship between a society and its
semantics, or the way in which a society describes itself.
While Luhmann has made many contributions to sociological theory, one must
acknowledge some criticisms of his work. First, many thinkers view his theory of
evolution and functional differentiation as something to resist rather than
embrace. Others question his notion of differentiation as development. They
point to processes of de-differentiation and interpenetration as equally important
counter-processes. Other scholars are skeptical of Luhmann's ability to describe
the inter-relationships between systems. Moreover, many scholars cast doubt on
Luhmann's sociology of knowledge as inconsistent.
ents.
Society is an autopoietic system. According to Luhmann, the most basic element
of society is communication, and anything that is not communication is part of a
society's environment (e.g., biological and psychic systems). Both psychic and
social systems - which are environments for each other - rely on meaning. In
Luhmann's theory, meaning is comprehensible because of contingency. In other
words, meaning emerges only because a specific action is different from other
possible actions.
Double contingency refers to the fact that every communication must consider
the way in which it will be received. In Luhmann's view, social structures (e.g.,
roles and norms) make it more likely that communications will be understood by
both sender and receiver. Social structures also give communications some
continuity over time. Double contingency thus provides much of the impetus for
the evolution of so Sociology and Modern Systems Theory
Despite the checkered past of systems theory in sociology, some scholars have
pointed to its advantages. Walter Buckley (1921-), for example, argued that
systems theory provides a way to unify all the behavioral and social sciences; it
is a multi-leveled approach; it is interested in many varied relationships in the
social world; it emphasizes processes of information and communication; it is
integrative; and it views the world in dynamic terms.
Buckley maintained that three different kinds of systems exist: mechanical,
organic, and sociocultural. These three kinds of systems differ qualitatively as
well as quantitatively - i.e., in terms of the way they work as well as their degree
of complexity and instability. Systems may also be described in terms of the
degree to which they are open or closed. Open systems (e.g., sociocultural
systems) tend to respond to a greater range of fluctuations in the environment
than closed systems do. Closed systems generally are entropic (i.e., they tend
to break down), while open systems tend to be negentropic (i.e., they tend to
elaborate structures).
Sociocultural systems are often purposive and goal-seeking due to their capacity
to receive feedback from their environments. Feedback - which is key to the
cybernetic approach to systems analysis - allows analysts to take into account
change, growth, friction, and evolution in their studies of social systems.
Moreover, systems theorists emphasize the importance of internal processes
such as morphogenesis (processes of system change)
and morphostasis (processes of system maintenance). Social systems
develop mediating systems for the purposes of maintenance and change.
Niklas Luhmann's General Systems Theory
Niklas Luhmann(1927-1998) addressed the problems of structural-
functionalism by focusing on self-reference and contingency (i.e., the fact that
things could have developed differently) in systems. Luhmann maintained that
systems are always less complex than their environments. Systems simplify by
selecting pieces of information from the complexity of an environment. Since
systems are forced to select from a plethora of pieces of information within an
environment, the systems theorist must acknowledge the contingency of a
system's selections, because the system could have selected differently. This
contingency entails risk, because paying attention to some bits of information
while ignoring others may have unforeseen consequences for the system if what
is ignored is important to the user of the information.
Autopoietic systems, according to Luhmann, produce their own basic
elements; they are self-organizing insofar as they create their own boundaries
and internal structures; they are self-referential insofar as their elements refer to
the system itself; and they are closed systems insofar as they do not deal
directly with their environments, but rather with representations of their
environments.
Society is an autopoietic system. According to Luhmann, the most basic element
of society is communication, and anything that is not communication is part of a
society's environment (e.g., biological and psychic systems). Both psychic and
social systems - which are environments for each other - rely on meaning. In
Luhmann's theory, meaning is comprehensible because of contingency. In other
words, meaning emerges only because a specific action is different from other
possible actions.
Double contingency refers to the fact that every communication must consider
the way in which it will be received. In Luhmann's view, social structures (e.g.,
roles and norms) make it more likely that communications will be understood by
both sender and receiver. Social structures also give communications some
continuity over time. Double contingency thus provides much of the impetus for
the evolution of social systems.
Luhmann's theory eschews teleological views of evolution - i.e., the outcomes of
evolution are not predefined. Evolution, in Luhmann's view, is a set of processes
that includes variation, selection, and the stabilization of reproducible
characteristics. Note that the process of selection does not entail the choice of
the best possible solution. Selections often occur not because they are optimal,
but because they are the easiest to stabilize.
Luhmann's theory of differentiation is closely connected to his view of evolution.
In Luhmann's view, differentiation is the means by which a system deals with
changes in its environment. Differentiation tends to increase the amount of
complexity in a given system - that is, as an environment changes, a system
(e.g., a bureaucracy) will develop new departments in order to deal with such
changes. Luhmann argues that four forms of differentiation occur: segmentary,
stratificatory, center-periphery, and functional differentiation. The latter form of
differentiation, according to Luhmann, is the most complex and problematic for
modern society, since it means that problems are often displaced from the level
of society to one of its subsystems (e.g., the problem of ecology).
Finally, Luhmann argues that society is a world society that may on be observed
only from within the system. In Luhmann's view, knowledge of society may be
gained through the observation of the relationship between a society and its
semantics, or the way in which a society describes itself.
While Luhmann has made many contributions to sociological theory, one must
acknowledge some criticisms of his work. First, many thinkers view his theory of
evolution and functional differentiation as something to resist rather than
embrace. Others question his notion of differentiation as development. They
point to processes of de-differentiation and interpenetration as equally important
counter-processes. Other scholars are skeptical of Luhmann's ability to describe
the inter-relationships between systems. Moreover, many scholars cast doubt on
Luhmann's sociology of knowledge as inconsistent.
Finally, Luhmann argues that society is a world society that may on be observed
only from within the system. In Luhmann's view, knowledge of society may be
gained through the observation of the relationship between a society and its
semantics, or the way in which a society describes itself.
While Luhmann has made many contributions to sociological theory, one must
acknowledge some criticisms of his work. First, many thinkers view his theory of
evolution and functional differentiation as something to resist rather than
embrace. Others question his notion of differentiation as development. They
point to processes of de-differentiation and interpenetration as equally important
counter-processes. Other scholars are skeptical of Luhmann's ability to describe
the inter-relationships between systems. Moreover, many scholars cast doubt on
Luhmann's sociology of knowledge as inconsistent.

cial systems.

Luhmann's theory eschews teleological views of evolution - i.e., the outcomes of

evolution are not predefined. Evolution, in Luhmann's view, is a set of processes
that includes variation, selection, and the stabilization of reproducible
characteristics. Note that the process of selection does not entail the choice of
the best possible solution. Selections often occur not because they are optimal,
but because they are the easiest to stabilize.

Luhmann's theory of differentiation is closely connected to his view of evolution.

In Luhmann's view, differentiation is the means by which a system deals with
changes in its environment. Differentiation tends to increase the amount of
complexity in a given system - that is, as an environment changes, a system
(e.g., a bureaucracy) will develop new departments in order to deal with such CHAPTER 10
changes. Luhmann argues that four forms of differentiation occur: segmentary,
stratificatory, center-periphery, and functional differentiation. The latter form of The Historical Roots of Symbolic Interactionism
differentiation, according to Luhmann, is the most complex and problematic for
modern society, since it means that problems are often displaced from the level Symbolic interactionism, especially the work of George Herbert Mead (1863-
of society to one of its subsystems (e.g., the problem of ecology). 1931), traces its roots to two intellectual traditions: pragmatism and
psychological behaviorism. Mead adopted from the pragmatists three important
themes: (1) a focus on the interaction between actors and the social world, (2) a
view of both actors and the socia The Historical Roots of Symbolic
Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism, especially the work of George Herbert Mead (1863-
1931), traces its roots to two intellectual traditions: pragmatism and
psychological behaviorism. Mead adopted from the pragmatists three important
themes: (1) a focus on the interaction between actors and the social world, (2) a
view of both actors and the social world as dynamic processes, and (3) the
centrality of actors' ability to interpret the social world. In sum, both pragmatism
and symbolic interactionism view thinking as a process. Mead recognized the
importance of overt, observable behavior, but expanded the understanding of
mental capacities of most psychological behaviorists by stressing the importance
of covert behavior. Unlike the radical behaviorists, Mead believed that there were
significant differences between human beings and animals, particularly the
human capacity to use language and dynamically created social reality.
The Ideas of Mead
Mead's most widely read work, Mind, Self and Society, gives priority to society
over the mind and highlights the idea that the social leads to the development of
mental states. To Mead, the mind is a process, not a thing, and is found in social
phenomena rather than within individuals. The act is the fundamental union in
Mead's theory, and it is represented by four stages: impulse, perception,
manipulation, and consummation. The basic mechanism of the social act,
according to Mead, is the gesture. Mead pays particular attention to one kind of
gesture, significant symbols, which make it possible for humans to think, to
communicate, and to be stimulators of their own actions.
The self occupies a central place in Mead's theory. Mead defines the self as the
ability to take oneself as an object and identifies the basic mechanism of the
development of the self as reflexivity - the ability to put ourselves into the place
of others and act as they act. Mead makes it clear that a self can arise only
through social experiences, and he traces its development to two stages in
childhood: the play stage and the game stage. During the play stage, children
learn how to take the attitude of particular others to themselves, but it is only
during the game stage that children learn how to take the roles of many others
and the attitude of the generalized other. Mead also discussed the difference
between the "I" and the "me" in his theory of the self. The "I" is the immediate
response of an individual to the other; it is the unpredictable and creative aspect
of the self. The "me" is the organized set of attitude of others that an individual
assumes; it is how society dominates the individual and is a source of social
control.
The Basic Principles of Symbolic Interactionism
The basic principles of symbolic interactionism include the following: (1) human
beings possess the capacity for thought, which is shaped by social interaction;
(2) people learn meanings and symbols through social interaction; and (3)
people are able to modify or alter the meanings and symbols they use in
interactions by interpreting the situations they are engaged in.
Socialization is one way individuals learn to think, interact with one another, and
understand how to use meanings and symbols. Defining the situation is another
way that individuals actively engage in creating the social world. Finally,
developing a "looking-glass" self helps individuals to perceive and judge the
impressions we make on others we interact with.
The Work of Goffman
Erving Goffman (1922-1982) focused on dramaturgy, a view of social life as a
series of dramatic performances, and he was interested in how the self is shaped
by the dramatic interactions between social actors and their audiences. The
basic unit of analysis in Goffman's work is a team, which is any set of individuals
who cooperate in staging a single act or routine. The central theme in his work is
impression management, or the techniques that social actors use to maintain
particular images of themselves when they encounter problems during
interactions. As a general rule, most individuals feel the need to hide certain
things about themselves when they are engaged in a performance. Goffman
used the concepts of front stage, personal front, setting, appearance, manner,
and back stage to discuss the theater of social life. According to Goffman, fronts
tend to become institutionalized and are therefore selected rather than created.
Personal fronts consist of appearance, or expressive equipment that tells the
audience what kind of role the performer expects to play in a particular situation.
The back stage is where actors engage in informal action that is suppressed
when on front stage.
Goffman also addressed the issue of stigma in his work. Stigmas emerge when
there is a gap between a person's virtual social identity and actual social
identity. Goffman differentiated between discredited stigmas, which actors
assume when their stigmas are evident to audience members (like loss of a
nose) and discreditable stigmas, which audience members are unaware of unless
an actor discloses this information (like his being infertile.) According to
Goffman, we all possess some type of stigma, depending on the situations we
are in.
Later in his career Goffman moved away from symbolic interactionism to the
study of small-scale structures or frames. Frames are understood by Goffman as
rules that constrain social action and function to organize experience. He also
described frames as the rituals of everyday life. Goffman's move toward
studying frames and rituals led him away from his earlier cynical view social life
and brought him closer to Durkheim's work The Elementary Forms of Religious
Life.
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism and Its New Directions
Symbolic interactionism has been criticized for relying too much on qualitative
methodology and for failing to incorporate quantitative methodology into its
research program. It has also been criticized for being too vague on the
conceptual front and for downplaying large-scale social structures. Given its
micro-level focus, some have argued that symbolic interactionism is not
microscopic enough, because it tends to ignore psychological factors.
Symbolic interactionists are currently trying to answer some of these criticisms
by integrating micro- and macro-level theories and synthesizing their approach
across other fields of study. For example, some scholars are redefining Mead's
theory to show that it accounts for both micro- and macro-level phenomena.
Others are using role theory as a way to integrate structure and meaning. Some
symbolic interactionists are focusing more attention on culture and are working
within cultural studies to examine the role communication technologies play in
producing and representing social reality.
Symbolic interactionism has changed considerably since its inception. According
to one symbolic interactionist, Gary Fine, the field has fragmented, resulting in
greater diversity. It has expanded beyond its concerns with micro-level relations,
incorporated ideas from other theoretical perspectives, and been adopted by
sociologists who would not define themselves as symbolic interactionists.
l world as dynamic processes, and (3) the centrality of actors' ability to interpret
the social world. In sum, both pragmatism and symbolic interactionism view
thinking as a process. Mead recognized the importance of overt, observable
behavior, but expanded the understanding of mental capacities of most
psychological behaviorists by stressing the importance of covert behavior. Unlike
the radical behaviorists, Mead believed that there were significant differences
between human beings and animals, particularly the human capacity to use
language and dynamically created social reality.
The Ideas of Mead
Mead's most widely read work, Mind, Self and Society, gives priority to society
over the mind and highlights the idea that the social leads to the development of
mental states. To Mead, the mind is a process, not a thing, and is found in social
phenomena rather than within individuals. The act is the fundamental union in
Mead's theory, and it is represented by four stages: impulse, perception,
manipulation, and consummation. The basic mechanism of the social act,
according to Mead, is the gesture. Mead pays particular attention to one kind of
gesture, significant symbols, which make it possible for humans to think, to
communicate, and to be stimulators of their own actions.
The self occupies a central place in Mead's theory. Mead defines the self as the
ability to take oneself as an object and identifies the basic mechanism of the
development of the self as reflexivity - the ability to put ourselves into the place
of others and act as they act. Mead makes it clear that a self can arise only
through social experiences, and he traces its development to two stages in
childhood: the play stage and the game stage. During the play stage, children
learn how to take the attitude of particular others to themselves, but it is only
during the game stage that children learn how to take the roles of many others
and the attitude of the generalized other. Mead also discussed the difference
between the "I" and the "me" in his theory of the self. The "I" is the immediate
response of an individual to the other; it is the unpredictable and creative aspect
of the self. The "me" is the organized set of attitude of others that an individual
assumes; it is how society dominates the individual and is a source of social
control.
The Basic Principles of Symbolic Interactionism
The basic principles of symbolic interactionism include the following: (1) human
beings possess the capacity for thought, which is shaped by social interaction;
(2) people learn meanings and symbols through social interaction; and (3)
people are able to modify or alter the meanings and symbols they use in
interactions by interpreting the situations they are engaged in.
Socialization is one way individuals learn to think, interact with one another, and
understand how to use meanings and symbols. Defining the situation is another
way that individuals actively engage in creating the social world. Finally,
developing a "looking-glass" self helps individuals to perceive and judge the
impressions we make on others we interact with.
The Work of Goffman
Erving Goffman (1922-1982) focused on dramaturgy, a view of social life as a
series of dramatic performances, and he was interested in how the self is shaped
by the dramatic interactions between social actors and their audiences. The
basic unit of analysis in Goffman's work is a team, which is any set of individuals
who cooperate in staging a single act or routine. The central theme in his work is
impression management, or the techniques that social actors use to maintain
particular images of themselves when they encounter problems during
interactions. As a general rule, most individuals feel the need to hide certain
things about themselves when they are engaged in a performance. Goffman
used the concepts of front stage, personal front, setting, appearance, manner,
and back stage to discuss the theater of social life. According to Goffman, fronts
tend to become institutionalized and are therefore selected rather than created.
Personal fronts consist of appearance, or expressive equipment that tells the
audience what kind of role the performer expects to play in a particular situation.
The back stage is where actors engage in informal action that is suppressed
when on front stage.
Goffman also addressed the issue of stigma in his work. Stigmas emerge when
there is a gap between a person's virtual social identity and actual social
identity. Goffman differentiated between discredited stigmas, which actors
assume when their stigmas are evident to audience members (like loss of a
nose) and discreditable stigmas, which audience members are unaware of unless
an actor discloses this information (like his being infertile.) According to
Goffman, we all possess some type of stigma, depending on the situations we
are in.
Later in his career Goffman moved away from symbolic interactionism to the
study of small-scale structures or frames. Frames are understood by Goffman as
rules that constrain social action and function to organize experience. He also
described frames as the rituals of everyday life. Goffman's move toward
studying frames and rituals led him away from his earlier cynical view social life
and brought him closer to Durkheim's work The Elementary Forms of Religious
Life.
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism and Its New Directions
Symbolic interactionism has been criticized for relying too much on qualitative
methodology and for failing to incorporate quantitative methodology into its
research program. It has also been criticized for being too vague on the
conceptual front and for downplaying large-scale social structures. Given its
micro-level focus, some have argued that symbolic interactionism is not
microscopic enough, because it tends to ignore psychological factors.
Symbolic interactionists are currently trying to answer some of these criticisms
by integrating micro- and macro-level theories and synthesizing their approach
across other fields of study. For example, some scholars are redefining Mead's
theory to show that it accounts for both micro- and macro-level phenomena.
Others are using role theory as a way to integrate structure and meaning. Some
symbolic interactionists are focusing more attention on culture and are working
within cultural studies to examine the role communication technologies play in
producing and representing social reality.
Symbolic interactionism has changed considerably since its inception. According
to one symbolic interactionist, Gary Fine, the field has fragmented, resulting in
greater diversity. It has expanded beyond its concerns with micro-level relations,
incorporated ideas from other theoretical perspectives, and been adopted by
sociologists who would not define themselves as symbolic interactionists.
CHAPTER 11
What is Ethnomethodology?
Ethnomethodology is the study of the methods or practices that people use to
accomplish their everyday lives. The f What is Ethnomethodology?
Ethnomethodology is the study of the methods or practices that people use to
accomplish their everyday lives. The founder of this sociological
approach, Harold Garfinkel(1917-), was particularly interested in how social
actors provide accounts of situations. Ethnomethodologists are not so much
concerned with the actual content of these accounts, but rather with the practice
of accounting as a topic of analysis. For example, an ethnomethodologist might
study how a telephone conversation is shaped by the actions of a caller and the
responses of a receiver rather than by the subject matter of the conversation.
Early ethnomethodological research included breaching experiments, which
required subjects to deliberately disrupt the typical procedures of everyday
actions (e.g., addressing family members in a formal manner). Today,
ethnomethodologists focus their studies on social interactions in two broad
areas: conversation analysis and institutional settings.
Conversation Analysis
The goal of conversation analysis is to study the ways in which conversations are
organized. The unit of analysis of this method is the relationship among
utterances, not the relationship between speakers and hearers. Conversation
analysts have researched a variety of different types of speech, including
telephone conversations, laughter, applause, booing, and even nonverbal
communication. The openings of telephone conversations have been analyzed to
discover the sequences social actors use to identify and recognize each other
without the benefit of visual contact. The organization of utterances has also
been analyzed in terms of how laugher is initiated. In a two-party conversation,
the speaker uses two techniques to generate laughter from the listener: either
laughing at the end of an utterance or laughing mid-sentence. However, in a
multi-party conversation, someone other than the speaker usually initiates
laughter.
Political speeches have also been analyzed in terms of how politicians generate
applause from their audiences. Politicians have been found to use seven
different rhetorical devices to generate applause, the most common being
contrasting the same point within a statement. Applause, like agreement, is
generated promptly, in an unqualified manner, and requires no special account.
In contrast, disagreement, particularly booing a public speaker, is delayed,
qualified, and accountable. Unlike applause or agreement, booing is not a result
of individual decision-making, but of mutual monitoring among audience
members. Audience members will listen for vocal cues (e.g., whispering or
jeering) among each other, and they will predict from these cues that no one will
be booing alone.
Other important findings of conversation analysts include the fact the story-
telling is a collaborative process: audiences are not passive recipients of stories,
but can actively shape a story as it is being told. Conversation analysts have also
found that shyness and self-confidence, usually thought of as psychological
traits, are actually accomplished through speech acts, particularly "setting-talk."
"Setting-talk" refers to talk about our immediate surroundings (e.g., the
weather). Shyness is accomplished by engaging in "setting-talk," while self-
confidence is accomplished by addressing the actual topic at hand.
Studies of Institutions
Analyzing conversations and social interactions that take place within
institutional settings is another area of research for ethnomethodologists.
Research of job interviews has found that interviewers use different strategies to
prevent interviewees from returning to or even correcting questions that have
been asked. A study of negotiations among business executives discovered that
they are generally detached and impersonal. Telephone calls to emergency
centers have been found to be structured in such a way that confusion arises
because of the lack of everyday openings, sequences, and recognition. While
emergency dispatchers are often blamed for this confusion, ethnomethodologists
have shown that it is the specific organization of the conversation that causes
mishaps. Finally, research on mediation hearings has shown that the institutional
setting of conflict resolution lessens the chance of conversations escalating into
arguments.
Criticisms of Traditional Sociology
Ethnomethodologists are critical of traditional sociologists because the latter
focus on the socially constructed world instead of the everyday practices of
social actors. According to ethnomethodologists, traditional sociologists distort
the social world by relying too much on statistical analysis and preconceived
coding categories, which mask the sophisticated interactions people use to
accomplish everyday life. Indeed, traditional sociologists are becoming
increasing removed from the real world as they come to depend on research
techniques that do not require them to actually observe everyday practices.
Ethnomethodologists criticize conventional sociologists for confusing topic and
resource - the everyday social world becomes more of a resource than a topic in
its own right.
Stresses and Strains in Ethnomethodology
Conventional sociologists view this sociological perspective with suspicion,
because they feel it focuses on trivial matters. Others worry that
ethnomethodology has become increasingly removed from its phenomenological
roots, neglecting internal motivations for action. Another concern raised by
ethnomethodologists is that the perspective is beginning to lose sight of its
original radical reflexivity, particularly the emphasis on how all social activity is
accomplished. Finally, although some ethnomethodologists worry about the
capacity for this perspective to bridge the micro-macro divide, others feel that
there are positive signs that ethnomethodology is well-suited for synthesizing
and integrating micro-level interactions with macro-level structures. Indeed, the
"radical thesis" of ethnomethodology is that it transcends the issue of micro-
macro linkages because micro and macro structures are generated
simultaneously.
ounder of this sociological approach, Harold Garfinkel(1917-), was particularly
interested in how social actors provide accounts of situations.
Ethnomethodologists are not so much concerned with the actual content of
these accounts, but rather with the practice of accounting as a topic of analysis.
For example, an ethnomethodologist might study how a telephone conversation
is shaped by the actions of a caller and the responses of a receiver rather than
by the subject matter of the conversation. Early ethnomethodological research
included breaching experiments, which required subjects to deliberately disrupt
the typical procedures of everyday actions (e.g., addressing family members in a
formal manner). Today, ethnomethodologists focus their studies on social
interactions in two broad areas: conversation analysis and institutional settings.
Conversation Analysis
The goal of conversation analysis is to study the ways in which conversations are
organized. The unit of analysis of this method is the relationship among
utterances, not the relationship between speakers and hearers. Conversation
analysts have researched a variety of different types of speech, including
telephone conversations, laughter, applause, booing, and even nonverbal
communication. The openings of telephone conversations have been analyzed to
discover the sequences social actors use to identify and recognize each other
without the benefit of visual contact. The organization of utterances has also
been analyzed in terms of how laugher is initiated. In a two-party conversation,
the speaker uses two techniques to generate laughter from the listener: either
laughing at the end of an utterance or laughing mid-sentence. However, in a
multi-party conversation, someone other than the speaker usually initiates
laughter.
Political speeches have also been analyzed in terms of how politicians generate
applause from their audiences. Politicians have been found to use seven
different rhetorical devices to generate applause, the most common being
contrasting the same point within a statement. Applause, like agreement, is
generated promptly, in an unqualified manner, and requires no special account.
In contrast, disagreement, particularly booing a public speaker, is delayed,
qualified, and accountable. Unlike applause or agreement, booing is not a result
of individual decision-making, but of mutual monitoring among audience
members. Audience members will listen for vocal cues (e.g., whispering or
jeering) among each other, and they will predict from these cues that no one will
be booing alone.
Other important findings of conversation analysts include the fact the story-
telling is a collaborative process: audiences are not passive recipients of stories,
but can actively shape a story as it is being told. Conversation analysts have also
found that shyness and self-confidence, usually thought of as psychological
traits, are actually accomplished through speech acts, particularly "setting-talk."
"Setting-talk" refers to talk about our immediate surroundings (e.g., the
weather). Shyness is accomplished by engaging in "setting-talk," while self-
confidence is accomplished by addressing the actual topic at hand.
Studies of Institutions
Analyzing conversations and social interactions that take place within
institutional settings is another area of research for ethnomethodologists.
Research of job interviews has found that interviewers use different strategies to
prevent interviewees from returning to or even correcting questions that have
been asked. A study of negotiations among business executives discovered that
they are generally detached and impersonal. Telephone calls to emergency
centers have been found to be structured in such a way that confusion arises
because of the lack of everyday openings, sequences, and recognition. While
emergency dispatchers are often blamed for this confusion, ethnomethodologists
have shown that it is the specific organization of the conversation that causes
mishaps. Finally, research on mediation hearings has shown that the institutional
setting of conflict resolution lessens the chance of conversations escalating into
arguments.
Criticisms of Traditional Sociology
Ethnomethodologists are critical of traditional sociologists because the latter
focus on the socially constructed world instead of the everyday practices of
social actors. According to ethnomethodologists, traditional sociologists distort
the social world by relying too much on statistical analysis and preconceived
coding categories, which mask the sophisticated interactions people use to
accomplish everyday life. Indeed, traditional sociologists are becoming
increasing removed from the real world as they come to depend on research
techniques that do not require them to actually observe everyday practices.
Ethnomethodologists criticize conventional sociologists for confusing topic and
resource - the everyday social world becomes more of a resource than a topic in
its own right.
Stresses and Strains in Ethnomethodology
Conventional sociologists view this sociological perspective with suspicion,
because they feel it focuses on trivial matters. Others worry that
ethnomethodology has become increasingly removed from its phenomenological
roots, neglecting internal motivations for action. Another concern raised by
ethnomethodologists is that the perspective is beginning to lose sight of its
original radical reflexivity, particularly the emphasis on how all social activity is
accomplished. Finally, although some ethnomethodologists worry about the
capacity for this perspective to bridge the micro-macro divide, others feel that
there are positive signs that ethnomethodology is well-suited for synthesizing
and integrating micro-level interactions with macro-level structures. Indeed, the
"radical thesis" of ethnomethodology is that it transcends the issue of micro-
macro linkages because micro and macro structures are generated
simultaneously.
CHAPTER 12
This chapter focuses on three theories: exchange theory, network theory, and
rational choice theory.
Exchange Theory
Exchange theory has its roots in behaviorism and rational choice theory.
Behaviorism, taken from psychology, is concerned with how behavior is modified
by its consequences, particularly how rewards and costs act as incentives or
disincentives for various forms of behavior. Rational choice theory, which is
derived from neoclassical economics, focuses on how actors seek to achieve
their ends or goals in the face of limited resources and institutions. From this
perspective, actors act purposefully to maximize their utility by rationally
deciding upon courses of action appropriate for their resources within the
context of various social institutions, which encourage or discourage various
courses of action. These two theories were influential in the early stages of
exchange theory.
The father of exchange theory, George Homans (1910 - 1989), dealt primarily
with the psychological principles underlying social behavior. Although
psychology was concerned primarily with individual behavior, Homans felt that
the rules governing individual behavior were sufficient to explain all of social
behavior. At the heart of his theory was the idea that people acted to maximize
their rewards in their social action. Thus, the act of maximization usually
involved an exchange with at least one other person, although this exchange
need not be-and usually was not-monetarily based, but rather was the exchange
of approval or disapproval, reward or punishment. Thus, the various ways in
which actors may mutually reinforce various forms of behavior explain the
hybridity of social action. Homans developed a number of propositions that help
explain social behavior, taken by and large from behaviorism and rational choice.
Taken together, Homans's theory creates an actor who is a rational profit-seeker,
where profit may be considered anything that is viewed as positive for the actor,
including the approval or positive reinforcement of others. The actor is rational
to the extent that she/he chooses courses of action that have the greatest
likelihood of producing desired results. Homans was criticized for not taking fully
into account mental states, and for not being able to adequately explain large-
scale social structures.
Peter Blau (1918-2002) also developed a version of exchange theory. Much
like Homans, he attempted to use the rules that govern the relations between
individuals and groups as the basis for understanding social structures. Blau
developed a four-stage sequence that detailed the movement from "personal
exchange transactions" through "differentiation of status and power" on to the
"legitimization and organization," and into "opposition and change," thus
detailing how "exchange" can lead to both social structures and social change.
Blau also roots his actors in the rewards and penalties involved in social
interaction, but gives more importance to social structures that emerge from
interaction between actors. Blau felt that these social structures could affect the
process of interaction itself. Blau also pushed the boundaries of exchange theory
by dealing with two kinds of organizations-both those that were emergent from
exchange and formal organizations, established to achieved specific objectives,
such as firms or political parties. Lastly, Blau recognized the difference between
large scale, complex social structures and small groups and asserted that
different rules do in fact govern these collectivities. Social structures were
governed by norms and values. He thought the "value consensus" within large
collectivities was a form of indirect exchange among actors, actors who would
otherwise not frequently exchange with every other member in the society or
community.
Richard Emerson (1925-1982) also developed a version of exchange theory.
Much as Homans and Blau attempted to move from micro-level interaction to
macro-level structures, Emerson employs many of the same principles to make a
similar move. However, he gives greater attention to sets of exchange
relationships, which he calls exchange networks. These networks are dependent
upon the possibility of the exchange of valued resources among all actors. Thus
micro-level exchange can build large structures. The focus on valued resources
and opportunities also allows Emerson to discuss power and dependency among
actors.
Network Theory
In an attempt to move away from atomistic and normal approaches, network
theorists look at the pattern of ties linking actors together. Actors here may be
groups, corporations, or even societies, and they may be bound together by
various forms of bonds, such as "strong" or "weak" ties. Although network theory
is still in its relative infancy, it does have a number of guiding principles that
specify how ties work, how stratification develops within the network, and how
collaboration and competition emerge.
Network Exchange Theory
Network exchange theory combines elements of both exchange and network
theory. It attempts to merge the strong model of structure in network theory with
the strong model of relations between actors in exchange theory. Network
exchange theory thus strengthens network theory's weak view of agency and
exchange theory's weak view of structure. Network exchange theory looks at
exchanges within the context of networks of exchanges, with particular attention
paid to the structural dimension (size, shape, connections) of the network within
which exchanges take place. Much like exchange theory, it pays considerable
attention to power in exchanges, as well as dependency and vulnerability.
Network exchange theorists identify two different types of networks: strong and
weak power networks. These are based on whether actors can be excluded from
exchanges, as well as the presence of strong and weak actors. Network
exchange theory thus can predict the distribution of resources across the
network, depending on the strength of the network and the strength of the
actors who make up that network. Considerations such as these provide one of
the greatest benefits of combining network and exchange theory: an expanded
notion of agency that takes into account power differentials between actors.
Rational Choice Theory
In sociology, the main proponent of rational choice theory has been James
Coleman (1931-1995). Because of Coleman's focus on social theory as an
agent of social change, he believes that the appropriate level for social analysis
is at the micro, agent level. Coleman believes that individuals act purposively
towards their desired goals, usually acting to maximize their utility, with their
goals and utilities shaped by values or preferences. Although he admits that
actors are not always rational, he feels his predictions would be the same
regardless of their rationality.
While Coleman focuses on the micro-to-macro link, the movement from
individual-level behavior to the behavior of a system, he was also concerned
with the macro-to-micro connection, or the ways in which structures shape
behavior, and the micro-to-micro link, or how the behavior of individuals affects
the behavior of other individuals. Three weaknesses in this approach are
apparent: (1) it privileges the micro-to-macro issue, and thus does not pay
enough attention to the other linkages; (2) it ignores the macro-to-macro issue;
and (3) the causal arrows flow in only one direction, thus underestimating both
feedback within relationships and the dialectical relationships between levels.
Coleman attempts to build from micro-level action into macro-level phenomena, Rational choice has faced a wide array of criticisms. For instance, critics argue
but doing so in a way in which the conception of the actor remains constant that it: (1) neglects to specify causal mechanisms; (2) promotes an inadequate
across various macro-level phenomena. Coleman sees the granting of authority psychological reductionism; and (3) advocates a perspective that leads only to
and rights from one individual to another as a basic building block in macro-level blind alleys. Some have reacted to the hubris of rational choicers (who have
phenomena. This subordination creates a "structure" rather than just two voiced a desire to replace other forms of theory), given that much of it is
interacting individuals, thus allowing for the possibility that individuals might anathema from their perspective. Rational choice has also been criticized for
maximize the interests of others, or of a group. Coleman uses a similar ignoring culture and for decomposing into incoherence and tautology
perspective in trying to explain more chaotic macro-level phenomena, which
result from the unilateral transfer of control of an individual's action from one
individual to another. Because the transfer is unilateral, the careful balancing act
between individuals does not occur, and a stable system equilibrium does not
emerge.
Other systems are stable because norms develop. For Coleman, norms are
created when individuals give up control over their own behavior but gain some
control over others in the form of the rules governing behavior. Thus, these CHAPTER 13
individuals see some purpose in regulating behavior in some way. Coleman
believed that norms were effective only to the extent that a consensus existed Contemporary Feminist Theory: Theoretical Orientation
that some individuals have the right to control the behavior of others and that a
mechanism existed to enforce the consensus. Norms, then, are macro-level Feminist theory is distinct from other theoretical perspectives in that it is
phenomena that emerge from purposive micro-level interactions. woman-centered and interdisciplinary, and it actively promotes ways to achieve
social justice. Three core questions inform feminist theory: (1) "What about the
Coleman distinguishes between individual actors, who wish to maximize their
women?" (2) "Why is the social world as it is?" and (3) "How can we change and
individual interests, and corporate actors, who act on the behalf of some group
improve the social world so as to make it a more just place for women and for all
or collectivity. Within any collectivity, both may be acting simultaneously,
people?"
leading to resistance to the authority of the collectivity. Because of the
importance of collectivities to modern life, Coleman sees a shift from primordial
Feminist theorists have also started to question the differences between women,
structures, such as families, towards corporate structures, understanding that
including how race, class, ethnicity, and age intersect with gender. In sum,
the ramifications of cross-purposes that exist between individual and corporate
feminist theory is most concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting
actors are crucial for rational choice theory.
the various ways women have contributed to society.
Ultimately, Coleman wishes to move away from homo sociologicus, or a view of
actors and action as structurally dependent, and towards homo economicus, a The Historical Roots of Feminist Theory
view of actors who have the ability to act both in cooperation with, and despite
of, structures. Historically, feminist activity has paralleled liberation events, including the
American and French Revolutions, the abolitionist movement in the 1830s, the
mobilization for suffrage in the early 1900s, and the civil rights movement in the
Criticisms 1960s and 1970s. These historical movements of feminism are referred to
as waves. First-wave feminism-including the first women's rights convention,
which was held in Seneca Falls, NY, in 1848, and the passage of the 19th
Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in 1920-is characterized by
women's struggle for political rights. Second-wave feminism of the 1960s and
1970s and the third-wave feminism of today emphasize a variety of issues,
including the growth of feminist organizations and publications and the
increasing numbers of feminists in government, the educational system, and
other professions.
Varieties of Contemporary Feminist Theory
Four varieties of feminist theory attempt to answer the question "What about the
women?" The gender difference perspective tries to answer this question by
examining how women's location in, and experience of, social situations differ
from men's. Cultural feminists look to the different values associated with
womanhood and femininity (e.g., caring, cooperation, and pacifism) as a reason
why men and women experience the social world differently. Other feminist
theorists believe that the different roles assigned to women and men within
institutions better explain gender difference, including the sexual division of
labor in the household. Existential and phenomenological feminists focus on how
women have been marginalized and defined as the Other in patriarchal societies.
Women are thus seen as objects and are denied the opportunity for self-
realization.
Gender-inequality theories look to answer the question "What about the
women?" by recognizing that women's location in, and experience of, social
situations are not only different but also unequal to men's. Liberal feminists
argue that women have the same capacity as men for moral reasoning and
agency, but that patriarchy, particularly the sexist patterning of the division of
labor, has historically denied women the opportunity to express and practice this
reasoning. Women have been isolated to the private sphere of the household
and, thus, left without a voice in the public sphere. Even after women enter the
public sphere, they are still expected to manage the private sphere and take
care of household duties and child rearing. Liberal feminists point out that
marriage is a site of gender inequality and that women do not benefit from being
married as men do. Indeed, married women have higher levels of stress than
unmarried women and married men. According to liberal feminists, the sexual
division of labor in both the public and private spheres needs to be altered in
order for women to achieve equality.
Theories of gender oppression go further than theories of gender difference and
gender inequality by arguing that not only are women different from or unequal
to men, but that they are actively oppressed, subordinated, and even abused by
men. Power is the key variable in the two main theories of gender
oppression: psychoanalytic feminism and radical feminism. Psychoanalytic
feminists attempt to explain power relations between men and women by
reformulating Freud's theories of the subconscious and unconscious, human
emotions, and childhood development. They feel that conscious calculation
cannot fully explain the production and reproduction of patriarchy. For example,
the unconscious fear that men have towards their own mortality may account for
why men are driven to control women. Radical feminists argue that being a
woman is a positive thing in and of itself, but that this is not acknowledged in
patriarchal societies where women are oppressed. They identify physical
violence as being at the base of patriarchy, but they think that patriarchy can be
defeated if women come recognize their own value and strength, establish a
sisterhood of trust with other women, confront oppression critically, and form
female separatist networks in the private and public spheres.
Structural oppression theories posit that women's oppression and inequality are
a result of capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Socialist feminism combines
Marxian class analysis with feminist social protest in an attempt to answer the
question "What about the women?" They agree with Marx and Engels that the
working class is exploited as a consequence of the capitalist mode of production,
but they seek to extend this exploitation not just to class but also to
gender. Intersectionality theorists seek to explain oppression and inequality
across a variety of variables, including class, gender, race, ethnicity, and age.
They make the important insight that not all women experience oppression in
the same way. White women and black women, for example, face different forms
of discrimination in the workplace. Thus, different groups of women come to
view the world through a shared standpoint of "heterogeneous commonality."
Feminism and Postmodernism
During the 1990s some feminists began to incorporate postmodern ideas and
vocabulary into their theoretical work. The oppositional epistemology of
postmodernism Contemporary Feminist Theory: Theoretical Orientation
Feminist theory is distinct from other theoretical perspectives in that it is
woman-centered and interdisciplinary, and it actively promotes ways to achieve
social justice. Three core questions inform feminist theory: (1) "What about the
women?" (2) "Why is the social world as it is?" and (3) "How can we change and
improve the social world so as to make it a more just place for women and for all
people?"
Feminist theorists have also started to question the differences between women,
including how race, class, ethnicity, and age intersect with gender. In sum,
feminist theory is most concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting
the various ways women have contributed to society.
The Historical Roots of Feminist Theory
Historically, feminist activity has paralleled liberation events, including the
American and French Revolutions, the abolitionist movement in the 1830s, the
mobilization for suffrage in the early 1900s, and the civil rights movement in the
1960s and 1970s. These historical movements of feminism are referred to
as waves. First-wave feminism-including the first women's rights convention,
which was held in Seneca Falls, NY, in 1848, and the passage of the 19th
Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in 1920-is characterized by
women's struggle for political rights. Second-wave feminism of the 1960s and
1970s and the third-wave feminism of today emphasize a variety of issues,
including the growth of feminist organizations and publications and the
increasing numbers of feminists in government, the educational system, and
other professions.
Varieties of Contemporary Feminist Theory
Four varieties of feminist theory attempt to answer the question "What about the
women?" The gender difference perspective tries to answer this question by
examining how women's location in, and experience of, social situations differ
from men's. Cultural feminists look to the different values associated with
womanhood and femininity (e.g., caring, cooperation, and pacifism) as a reason
why men and women experience the social world differently. Other feminist
theorists believe that the different roles assigned to women and men within
institutions better explain gender difference, including the sexual division of
labor in the household. Existential and phenomenological feminists focus on how
women have been marginalized and defined as the Other in patriarchal societies.
Women are thus seen as objects and are denied the opportunity for self-
realization.
Gender-inequality theories look to answer the question "What about the
women?" by recognizing that women's location in, and experience of, social
situations are not only different but also unequal to men's. Liberal feminists
argue that women have the same capacity as men for moral reasoning and
agency, but that patriarchy, particularly the sexist patterning of the division of
labor, has historically denied women the opportunity to express and practice this
reasoning. Women have been isolated to the private sphere of the household
and, thus, left without a voice in the public sphere. Even after women enter the
public sphere, they are still expected to manage the private sphere and take
care of household duties and child rearing. Liberal feminists point out that
marriage is a site of gender inequality and that women do not benefit from being
married as men do. Indeed, married women have higher levels of stress than
unmarried women and married men. According to liberal feminists, the sexual
division of labor in both the public and private spheres needs to be altered in
order for women to achieve equality.
Theories of gender oppression go further than theories of gender difference and
gender inequality by arguing that not only are women different from or unequal
to men, but that they are actively oppressed, subordinated, and even abused by
men. Power is the key variable in the two main theories of gender
oppression: psychoanalytic feminism and radical feminism. Psychoanalytic
feminists attempt to explain power relations between men and women by
reformulating Freud's theories of the subconscious and unconscious, human
emotions, and childhood development. They feel that conscious calculation
cannot fully explain the production and reproduction of patriarchy. For example,
the unconscious fear that men have towards their own mortality may account for
why men are driven to control women. Radical feminists argue that being a
woman is a positive thing in and of itself, but that this is not acknowledged in
patriarchal societies where women are oppressed. They identify physical
violence as being at the base of patriarchy, but they think that patriarchy can be
defeated if women come recognize their own value and strength, establish a
sisterhood of trust with other women, confront oppression critically, and form
female separatist networks in the private and public spheres.
Structural oppression theories posit that women's oppression and inequality are
a result of capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Socialist feminism combines
Marxian class analysis with feminist social protest in an attempt to answer the
question "What about the women?" They agree with Marx and Engels that the
working class is exploited as a consequence of the capitalist mode of production,
but they seek to extend this exploitation not just to class but also to
gender. Intersectionality theorists seek to explain oppression and inequality
across a variety of variables, including class, gender, race, ethnicity, and age.
They make the important insight that not all women experience oppression in
the same way. White women and black women, for example, face different forms
of discrimination in the workplace. Thus, different groups of women come to
view the world through a shared standpoint of "heterogeneous commonality."
Feminism and Postmodernism
During the 1990s some feminists began to incorporate postmodern ideas and
vocabulary into their theoretical work. The oppositional epistemology of
postmodernism complemented feminism, particularly in questioning the relation
of power to knowledge. However, feministtheorists are cautious of the
postmodern turn in social theory for several reasons. They view postmodernism
as too removed from political struggles. Postmodernism may lead people away
from collective action and towards a radical individualism. Furthermore,
feminists argue that postmodernism is too divorced from material reality - its
focus on discourse, representation, and texts ignores material inequality,
injustice, and oppression.
Towards a Feminist Sociological Theory
Feminist sociological theory combines the various types of feminism discussed
thus far to focus on five major areas: the sociology of knowledge, the macro-
social order, the micro-social order, subjectivity, and theory integration. A
feminist sociology of knowledge emphasizes standpoint theory and
intersectionality theory in relation to knowledge production and power relations.
Feminist sociologists who study the macro-social order seek to expand Marx's
analysis of economic production to social production more generally, including
the household, the state, religion, and sexuality. One main topic of concern for
these theorists is the production and reproduction of gender ideology. Feminist
sociologists who study the micro-social order emphasize the role of gender in
everyday interactions and the different meanings that men and women have
regarding specific situations. Subjectivity occupies a special place in feminist
sociological theory as it seeks to understand how women are socialized to see
themselves through the eyes of men. When women learn to internalize the
generalized other, or the perspective of society, it is a male-centered other that
they must relate to. In other words, women, like other subordinate groups in
society, develop a bifurcated consciousness where they live with both the reality
of actual experience and the reality of social typifications. Other feminist
theorists question the reasons why a male-dominated sociology has categorized
and divided the world into micro or macro. Feminist sociologists seek to integrate
macro- and micro-level social phenomena. For example,Dorothy E. Smith
(1926- ) discusses "relations of ruling," "generalized, anonymous, impersonal
texts," and "local actualities of lived experiences."
complemented feminism, particularly in questioning the relation of power to
knowledge. However, feministtheorists are cautious of the postmodern turn in
social theory for several reasons. They view postmodernism as too removed
from political struggles. Postmodernism may lead people away from collective
action and towards a radical individualism. Furthermore, feminists argue that
postmodernism is too divorced from material reality - its focus on discourse,
representation, and texts ignores material inequality, injustice, and oppression.
Towards a Feminist Sociological Theory
Feminist sociological theory combines the various types of feminism discussed
thus far to focus on five major areas: the sociology of knowledge, the macro-
social order, the micro-social order, subjectivity, and theory integration. A
feminist sociology of knowledge emphasizes standpoint theory and
intersectionality theory in relation to knowledge production and power relations.
Feminist sociologists who study the macro-social order seek to expand Marx's
analysis of economic production to social production more generally, including
the household, the state, religion, and sexuality. One main topic of concern for
these theorists is the production and reproduction of gender ideology. Feminist
sociologists who study the micro-social order emphasize the role of gender in
everyday interactions and the different meanings that men and women have
regarding specific situations. Subjectivity occupies a special place in feminist
sociological theory as it seeks to understand how women are socialized to see
themselves through the eyes of men. When women learn to internalize the
generalized other, or the perspective of society, it is a male-centered other that
they must relate to. In other words, women, like other subordinate groups in
society, develop a bifurcated consciousness where they live with both the reality
of actual experience and the reality of social typifications. Other feminist
theorists question the reasons why a male-dominated sociology has categorized
and divided the world into micro or macro. Feminist sociologists seek to integrate
macro- and micro-level social phenomena. For example,Dorothy E. Smith
(1926- ) discusses "relations of ruling," "generalized, anonymous, impersonal
texts," and "local actualities of lived experiences."
CHAPTER 14
Beginning in the 1980s there was renewed interest in the micro-macro linkage.
Despite the early integrationist tendencies of the classical theorists, much of
20th-century theory was either micro-extremist or macro-extremist in its
orientation. On the macro side are theories such as structural functionalism,
some variants of neo-Marxian theory, and conflict theory. Conversely, symbolic
interactionism, ethnomethodology, exchange and rational-choice theory are all
examples of micro-extremis Beginning in the 1980s there was renewed interest
in the micro-macro linkage. Despite the early integrationist tendencies of the
classical theorists, much of 20th-century theory was either micro-extremist or
macro-extremist in its orientation. On the macro side are theories such as
structural functionalism, some variants of neo-Marxian theory, and conflict
theory. Conversely, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, exchange and
rational-choice theory are all examples of micro-extremism. Thus micro- and
macro- extremism can be seen as a development in modern theory, and indeed,
many of the classical theorists can be understood as having an interest in the
micro-macro linkage. A renewed interest in micro-macro integration arose in the
1980s.
There are two strands of work on micro-macro integration. The first involves
attempting to integrate various micro and macro theories, such as combining
structural functionalism and symbolic interactionism. The second involves
creating theory that effectively combines the two levels of analysis. This chapter
focuses primarily on the latter.
Integrated Sociological Paradigm
George Ritzer has attempted to construct an Integrated Sociological Paradigm
built upon two distinctions: between micro and macro levels, and between the
objective and subjective. This produces four dimensions: macro-objective, large-
scale material phenomena such as bureaucracies; macro-subjective, large-scale
ideational or nonmaterial phenomena such as norms; micro-objective, small-
scale material phenomena such as patterns of behavior; and micro-subjective,
small-scale ideational or nonmaterial phenomena such as psychological states or
the cognitive processes involved in "constructing" reality. These are not
conceptualized as dichotomies, but rather as continuums. Ritzer argues that
these dimensions cannot be analyzed separately, and thus the dimensions are
dialectically related, with no particular dimension necessarily privileged over any
other.
Ritzer has utilized this integrated approach to look at the consequences of the
rise in consumer debt in Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card
Society. He attempts to integrate micro and macro by focusing on the micro-
level personal troubles it creates, as well as the macro-level public issues
involved. Personal troubles are those problems that affect an individual and
those immediately around him or her. In the case of credit cards, individuals are
accumulating large amounts of debt, resulting in prolonged periods of financial
trouble. Public issues tend to be those that affect large numbers of people. Credit
cards create public issues because of the large number of people indebted to
credit card companies, which have given rise to bankruptcies and delinquencies.
Ritzer demonstrates the dialectical relationship between the personal troubles
and public issues created by policies and procedures of credit card firms, such as
deluging the populace with pre-approved cards, as well as targeting minors for
credit cards.
Multidimensional Sociology
Jeffrey Alexander has used an integrative approach that very much resembles
Ritzer's. Though the dimensions along which he differentiates the levels of social
phenomena differ, they mirror the distinctions created by Ritzer: rather than
micro-macro, Alexander uses problems of order, which can be either individual or
collective. Rather than subjective-objective, Alexander uses problems of action,
which range from materialist (instrumental, rational) to idealist (normative,
affective). Despite this similarity in analytical approaches, Alexander and Ritzer
differ in the strategy used to integrate the various levels of analysis. Unlike
Ritzer, Alexander privileges the macro over the micro. Alexander sees micro-
level theory as unable to adequately deal with the unique nature of collective
phenomena and unable to adequately handle macro-level phenomena generally.
More specifically, Alexander's sympathies lay with collective/normative-level-
oriented theory. Only this form of theory can sufficiently deal with macro-level
phenomena while remaining coherent and without constructing structural dopes
that act at the whim of macro-objective level phenomena.
Micro-to-Macro Model
James Coleman (1926-1995) has attempted to apply micro-level rational-
choice theory to macro-level phenomena. As an overall integrative approach this
is unsatisfactory as it provides insufficient insight into the macro-micro
connection. Using Max Weber's (1864-1920) Protestant Ethic thesis, Coleman
built a model explicating his integrative model. To Coleman, these various levels
of analysis were related causally, and thus did not take into account feedback
among the various levels. Allen Liska has tried to improve upon this model by
giving more attention to the macro-to-micro linkage and to relationships among
macro-level phenomena, though the relationships are still causal. Liska also
argues for the increased use of a particular way of describing macro phenomena,
aggregation. Unlike structural and global explanations, which rely on poorly
understood processes such as emergence, the meaning of aggregation is easily
elaborated.
Micro Foundations of Macrosociology
Randall Collins's integrative approach, which he calls radical microsociology,
focuses on interaction ritual chains, that, when linked together, produce large
scale, macro-level phenomena. Hoping to centralize the role of human action
and interaction in theory, Collins rejects the idea that macro-level phenomena
can act, instead focusing on the premise that, ultimately, someone, an
individual, must do something in order for action to occur.
Back to the Future: Norbert Elias's Figurational Sociology
One European of note, Norbert Elias (1897-1990), has contributed
significantly to an integrative sociology. Elias developed the notion of figuration
to avoid analytically dichotomizing levels of analysis. Figurations are social
processes that interweave people in relationships, creating interrelationships.
Figurations are not static, coercive macro-structures, but rather are
conceptualized as relatively fluid processes of inter-relationships among
individuals that create shifting relations of power and interdependence. Elias
makes relationships between people central, particularly relations of
interdependence, in contradistinction to individualistic and atomistic approaches.
The History of Manners
Elias demonstrates his integrative approach in his best-known work, The
Civilizing Process, which has two volumes, The History of Manners and Power
and Civility. This work deals with the expansion of civility, or manners, across
society. More abstractly, it relates changes in the structure of society to changes
in the structure of behavior. The History of Manners deals primarily with the
diffusion of manners (micro), while Power and Civility deals primarily with the
changes in society that brought rise to the diffusion of manners (macro). Central
to Elias's work are the changing levels of interdependence among people. This
was the result of increases in differentiation in society from competition.
Increased differentiation leads to increased interdependence, which in turn leads
to an increase in consideration for other people. This has a number of effects: a
transformation of control, from being relatively little and external, to an
interiorization of control by individuals, who self-police. It also creates what Elias
calls a shifting frontier of embarrassment created by a lack of self-control over
impulses, and thus changes in manners. These changes were diffused
throughout society by the creation of certain types of figurations. According to
Elias, these figurations made it possible for a king to emerge, and it was in the
king's court, populated by nobles, from which the habits and rules of the day
emanated. Because nobles had long dependency chains, Elias believed they
needed to be particularly sensitive to others. The king's increasing power,
particularly through taxation and the monopolization of the means of violence,
also encouraged sensitivity among nobles. Thus the civilizing process is tied to
the "reorganization of the social fabric" through competition and
interdependence. These macro level changes made possible a set of
relationships that produced wide-scale changes in micro-level patterns of
behavior throughout society, beginning in the king's court with his nobles.
m. Thus micro- and macro- extremism can be seen as a development in modern
theory, and indeed, many of the classical theorists can be understood as having
an interest in the micro-macro linkage. A renewed interest in micro-macro
integration arose in the 1980s.
There are two strands of work on micro-macro integration. The first involves
attempting to integrate various micro and macro theories, such as combining
structural functionalism and symbolic interactionism. The second involves
creating theory that effectively combines the two levels of analysis. This chapter
focuses primarily on the latter.
Integrated Sociological Paradigm
George Ritzer has attempted to construct an Integrated Sociological Paradigm
built upon two distinctions: between micro and macro levels, and between the
objective and subjective. This produces four dimensions: macro-objective, large-
scale material phenomena such as bureaucracies; macro-subjective, large-scale
ideational or nonmaterial phenomena such as norms; micro-objective, small-
scale material phenomena such as patterns of behavior; and micro-subjective,
small-scale ideational or nonmaterial phenomena such as psychological states or
the cognitive processes involved in "constructing" reality. These are not
conceptualized as dichotomies, but rather as continuums. Ritzer argues that
these dimensions cannot be analyzed separately, and thus the dimensions are
dialectically related, with no particular dimension necessarily privileged over any
other.
Ritzer has utilized this integrated approach to look at the consequences of the
rise in consumer debt in Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card
Society. He attempts to integrate micro and macro by focusing on the micro-
level personal troubles it creates, as well as the macro-level public issues
involved. Personal troubles are those problems that affect an individual and
those immediately around him or her. In the case of credit cards, individuals are
accumulating large amounts of debt, resulting in prolonged periods of financial
trouble. Public issues tend to be those that affect large numbers of people. Credit
cards create public issues because of the large number of people indebted to
credit card companies, which have given rise to bankruptcies and delinquencies.
Ritzer demonstrates the dialectical relationship between the personal troubles
and public issues created by policies and procedures of credit card firms, such as
deluging the populace with pre-approved cards, as well as targeting minors for
credit cards.
Multidimensional Sociology
Jeffrey Alexander has used an integrative approach that very much resembles
Ritzer's. Though the dimensions along which he differentiates the levels of social
phenomena differ, they mirror the distinctions created by Ritzer: rather than
micro-macro, Alexander uses problems of order, which can be either individual or
collective. Rather than subjective-objective, Alexander uses problems of action,
which range from materialist (instrumental, rational) to idealist (normative,
affective). Despite this similarity in analytical approaches, Alexander and Ritzer
differ in the strategy used to integrate the various levels of analysis. Unlike
Ritzer, Alexander privileges the macro over the micro. Alexander sees micro-
level theory as unable to adequately deal with the unique nature of collective
phenomena and unable to adequately handle macro-level phenomena generally.
More specifically, Alexander's sympathies lay with collective/normative-level-
oriented theory. Only this form of theory can sufficiently deal with macro-level
phenomena while remaining coherent and without constructing structural dopes
that act at the whim of macro-objective level phenomena.
Micro-to-Macro Model
James Coleman (1926-1995) has attempted to apply micro-level rational-
choice theory to macro-level phenomena. As an overall integrative approach this
is unsatisfactory as it provides insufficient insight into the macro-micro
connection. Using Max Weber's (1864-1920) Protestant Ethic thesis, Coleman
built a model explicating his integrative model. To Coleman, these various levels
of analysis were related causally, and thus did not take into account feedback
among the various levels. Allen Liska has tried to improve upon this model by
giving more attention to the macro-to-micro linkage and to relationships among
macro-level phenomena, though the relationships are still causal. Liska also
argues for the increased use of a particular way of describing macro phenomena,
aggregation. Unlike structural and global explanations, which rely on poorly
understood processes such as emergence, the meaning of aggregation is easily
elaborated.
Micro Foundations of Macrosociology
Randall Collins's integrative approach, which he calls radical microsociology,
focuses on interaction ritual chains, that, when linked together, produce large
scale, macro-level phenomena. Hoping to centralize the role of human action
and interaction in theory, Collins rejects the idea that macro-level phenomena
can act, instead focusing on the premise that, ultimately, someone, an
individual, must do something in order for action to occur.
Back to the Future: Norbert Elias's Figurational Sociology
One European of note, Norbert Elias (1897-1990), has contributed
significantly to an integrative sociology. Elias developed the notion of figuration
to avoid analytically dichotomizing levels of analysis. Figurations are social
processes that interweave people in relationships, creating interrelationships.
Figurations are not static, coercive macro-structures, but rather are
conceptualized as relatively fluid processes of inter-relationships among
individuals that create shifting relations of power and interdependence. Elias
makes relationships between people central, particularly relations of
interdependence, in contradistinction to individualistic and atomistic approaches.
The History of Manners
Elias demonstrates his integrative approach in his best-known work, The
Civilizing Process, which has two volumes, The History of Manners and Power
and Civility. This work deals with the expansion of civility, or manners, across
society. More abstractly, it relates changes in the structure of society to changes
in the structure of behavior. The History of Manners deals primarily with the
diffusion of manners (micro), while Power and Civility deals primarily with the
changes in society that brought rise to the diffusion of manners (macro). Central
to Elias's work are the changing levels of interdependence among people. This
was the result of increases in differentiation in society from competition.
Increased differentiation leads to increased interdependence, which in turn leads
to an increase in consideration for other people. This has a number of effects: a
transformation of control, from being relatively little and external, to an
interiorization of control by individuals, who self-police. It also creates what Elias
calls a shifting frontier of embarrassment created by a lack of self-control over
impulses, and thus changes in manners. These changes were diffused
throughout society by the creation of certain types of figurations. According to
Elias, these figurations made it possible for a king to emerge, and it was in the
king's court, populated by nobles, from which the habits and rules of the day
emanated. Because nobles had long dependency chains, Elias believed they
needed to be particularly sensitive to others. The king's increasing power,
particularly through taxation and the monopolization of the means of violence,
also encouraged sensitivity among nobles. Thus the civilizing process is tied to
the "reorganization of the social fabric" through competition and
interdependence. These macro level changes made possible a set of
relationships that produced wide-scale changes in micro-level patterns of
behavior throughout society, beginning in the king's court with his nobles.
CHAPTER 15
The agency-structure perspective is the European alternative to the micro-macro
perspective in America. Agency generally refers to micro-level, individual human
actors, but it can also refer to collectivities of that act. Structure usually refers to
large-scale social structures, but it can also refer to micro structures, such as
those involved in human interaction.
Structuration Theory
Structuration theory focuses on the mutual constitution of structure and
agency. Anthony Giddens (1938- ) argues that structure and agency are a
duality that cannot be conceived of apart from one another. Human practices are
recursive-that is, through their activities, individuals create both their
consciousness and the structural conditions that make their activities possible.
Because social actors are reflexive and monitor the ongoing flow of activities and
structural conditions, they adapt their actions to their evolving understandings.
As a result, social scientific knowledge of society will actually change human
activities. Giddens calls this dialectical relationship between social scientific
knowledge and human practices the double hermeneutic.
Actors continually develop routines that give them a sense of security and that
enable them to deal efficiently with their social lives. While their motives provide
the overall plan of action, it is these routine practices that determine what shape
the action will take. Giddens emphasizes that actors have power to shape their
own actions but that the consequences of actions are often unintended.
Structure is the rules and resources that give similar social practices a systemic
form. Only through the activities of human actors can structure exist. While
Giddens acknowledges that structure can be constraining to actors, he thinks
that sociologists have exaggerated the importance of structural constraints.
Structures can also enable actors to do things they would not otherwise be able
to do. For Giddens, a social system is a set of reproduced social practices and
relations between actors.
The concept of structuration underscores the duality of structure and agency.
There can be no agency without structures that shape motives into practices,
but there can be no structures independent of the routine practices that create
them.
Culture and Agency
Margaret Archer (1943- ) has criticized the concept of structuration as
analytically insufficient. She thinks it is useful for social scientists to understand
structure and agency asindependent, because it makes it possible to analyze the
interrelations between the two sides. Archer also thinks that Giddens gives short
shrift to the relative autonomy of culture from both structure and agency.
Archer's focus is on morphogenesis, the process by which complex interchanges
lead not only to changes in the structure of the system but also to an end
product-structural elaboration. The theory emphasizes that there are emergent
properties of social interaction that are separable from the actions and
interactions that produce them. Once these structures have emerged, they react
upon and alter action and interaction.
Archer reserves the term "structure" for material phenomena and interests.
Morphogenetic theory focuses on how structural conditioning affects social
interaction and how this interaction, in turn, leads to structural elaboration.
Archer sees culture-nonmaterial phenomena and ideas-as autonomous from
structure. In the cultural domain, morphogenetic theory focuses on how cultural
conditioning affects socio-cultural interaction and how this interaction leads to
cultural elaboration. Compared to structure and agency, Archer asserts that the
nexus between culture and agency has been neglected. She suggests that in
order to understand agency, one must understand the context of innumerable
interrelated theories, beliefs, and ideas that have had an influence over it.
Agents have the ability either to reinforce or resist the influence of the cultural
system.
Habitus and Field
Another major approach to the agency-structure linkage is Pierre Bourdieu's
(1930-2002) theory of habitus and field. Bourdieu sought to bridge subjectivism
(the individual) and objectivism (society) with a perspective
called constructiviststructuralism. Structuralism focuses on the objective
structures of language and culture that give shape to human action.
Constructivism looks at the social genesis of schemes of perception, thought,
and action. Bourdieu wants to examine the social construction of objective
structures with an emphasis on how people perceive and construct their own
social world, but without neglecting how perception and construction are
constrained by structures. An important dynamic in this relationship is the ability
of individual actors to invent and improvise within the structure of their routines.
The habitus is the mental structure through which people deal with the social
world. It can be thought of as a set of internalized schemes through which the
world is perceived, understood, appreciated, and evaluated. A habitus is
acquired as the result of the long-term occupation of a position in the social
world. Depending on the position occupied, people will have a different habitus.
The habitus operates as a structure, but people do not simply respond to it
mechanically. When people change positions, sometimes their habitus is no
longer appropriate, a condition called hysteresis. Bourdieu argues that the
habitus both produces and is produced by the social world. People internalize
external structures, and they externalize things they have internalized through
practices.
The concept of field is the objective complement to the idea of habitus. A field is
a network of social relations among the objective positions within it. It is not a
set of interactions or intersubjective ties among individuals. The social world has
a great variety of semi-autonomous fields, such as art, religion, and higher
education. The field is a type of competitive marketplace in which economic,
cultural, social, and symbolic power are used. The preeminent field is the field of
politics, from which a hierarchy of power relationships serves to structure all
other fields. To analyze a field, one must first understand its relationship to the
political field. The next step is to map the objective positions within a field and,
finally, the nature of the habitus of the agents who occupy particular positions
can be understood. These agents act strategically, depending on their habitus, in
ord The agency-structure perspective is the European alternative to the micro-
macro perspective in America. Agency generally refers to micro-level, individual
human actors, but it can also refer to collectivities of that act. Structure usually
refers to large-scale social structures, but it can also refer to micro structures,
such as those involved in human interaction.
Structuration Theory
Structuration theory focuses on the mutual constitution of structure and
agency. Anthony Giddens (1938- ) argues that structure and agency are a
duality that cannot be conceived of apart from one another. Human practices are
recursive-that is, through their activities, individuals create both their
consciousness and the structural conditions that make their activities possible.
Because social actors are reflexive and monitor the ongoing flow of activities and
structural conditions, they adapt their actions to their evolving understandings.
As a result, social scientific knowledge of society will actually change human
activities. Giddens calls this dialectical relationship between social scientific
knowledge and human practices the double hermeneutic.
Actors continually develop routines that give them a sense of security and that
enable them to deal efficiently with their social lives. While their motives provide
the overall plan of action, it is these routine practices that determine what shape
the action will take. Giddens emphasizes that actors have power to shape their
own actions but that the consequences of actions are often unintended.
Structure is the rules and resources that give similar social practices a systemic
form. Only through the activities of human actors can structure exist. While
Giddens acknowledges that structure can be constraining to actors, he thinks
that sociologists have exaggerated the importance of structural constraints.
Structures can also enable actors to do things they would not otherwise be able
to do. For Giddens, a social system is a set of reproduced social practices and
relations between actors.
The concept of structuration underscores the duality of structure and agency.
There can be no agency without structures that shape motives into practices,
but there can be no structures independent of the routine practices that create
them.
Culture and Agency
Margaret Archer (1943- ) has criticized the concept of structuration as
analytically insufficient. She thinks it is useful for social scientists to understand
structure and agency asindependent, because it makes it possible to analyze the
interrelations between the two sides. Archer also thinks that Giddens gives short
shrift to the relative autonomy of culture from both structure and agency.
Archer's focus is on morphogenesis, the process by which complex interchanges
lead not only to changes in the structure of the system but also to an end
product-structural elaboration. The theory emphasizes that there are emergent
properties of social interaction that are separable from the actions and
interactions that produce them. Once these structures have emerged, they react
upon and alter action and interaction.
Archer reserves the term "structure" for material phenomena and interests.
Morphogenetic theory focuses on how structural conditioning affects social
interaction and how this interaction, in turn, leads to structural elaboration.
Archer sees culture-nonmaterial phenomena and ideas-as autonomous from
structure. In the cultural domain, morphogenetic theory focuses on how cultural
conditioning affects socio-cultural interaction and how this interaction leads to
cultural elaboration. Compared to structure and agency, Archer asserts that the
nexus between culture and agency has been neglected. She suggests that in
order to understand agency, one must understand the context of innumerable
interrelated theories, beliefs, and ideas that have had an influence over it.
Agents have the ability either to reinforce or resist the influence of the cultural
system.
Habitus and Field
Another major approach to the agency-structure linkage is Pierre Bourdieu's
(1930-2002) theory of habitus and field. Bourdieu sought to bridge subjectivism
(the individual) and objectivism (society) with a perspective
called constructiviststructuralism. Structuralism focuses on the objective
structures of language and culture that give shape to human action.
Constructivism looks at the social genesis of schemes of perception, thought,
and action. Bourdieu wants to examine the social construction of objective
structures with an emphasis on how people perceive and construct their own
social world, but without neglecting how perception and construction are
constrained by structures. An important dynamic in this relationship is the ability
of individual actors to invent and improvise within the structure of their routines.
The habitus is the mental structure through which people deal with the social
world. It can be thought of as a set of internalized schemes through which the
world is perceived, understood, appreciated, and evaluated. A habitus is
acquired as the result of the long-term occupation of a position in the social
world. Depending on the position occupied, people will have a different habitus.
The habitus operates as a structure, but people do not simply respond to it
mechanically. When people change positions, sometimes their habitus is no
longer appropriate, a condition called hysteresis. Bourdieu argues that the
habitus both produces and is produced by the social world. People internalize
external structures, and they externalize things they have internalized through
practices.
The concept of field is the objective complement to the idea of habitus. A field is
a network of social relations among the objective positions within it. It is not a
set of interactions or intersubjective ties among individuals. The social world has
a great variety of semi-autonomous fields, such as art, religion, and higher
education. The field is a type of competitive marketplace in which economic,
cultural, social, and symbolic power are used. The preeminent field is the field of
politics, from which a hierarchy of power relationships serves to structure all
other fields. To analyze a field, one must first understand its relationship to the
political field. The next step is to map the objective positions within a field and,
finally, the nature of the habitus of the agents who occupy particular positions
can be understood. These agents act strategically, depending on their habitus, in
order to enhance their capital. Bourdieu is particularly concerned with how
powerful positions within a field can perpetrate symbolic violence on less
powerful actors. Cultural mechanisms such as education impose a dominant
perspective on the rest of the population in order to legitimate their power.
Bourdieu's analysis of the aesthetic preferences of different groups can be found
inDistinction. The cultural preferences of the various groups within society
constitute coherent systems that serve to unify those with similar tastes and
differentiate them from others with divergent tastes. Through the practical
application of preferences, people classify objects and, in the process, classify
themselves. Bourdieu thinks the field of taste involves the intersection of social-
class relationships and cultural relationships. He argues that taste represents an
opportunity to both experience and assert one's position in the class hierarchy.
These tastes are engendered in the deep-rooted dispositions of the habitus.
Changes in tastes result from struggles for dominance within both cultural and
social-class fields as different factions struggle to define high culture and taste.
Bourdieu also applies his concepts to French academia in Homo Academicus.
This work is concerned with the relationship between the objective positions of
different academic fields, their corresponding habitus, and the struggle between
them. Bourdieu also wants to link the academic field to a larger field of power.
He finds that French academia is divided into dominant fields of law and
medicine and lesser fields of science and the arts. He suggests that faculty
members within each field use their social and cultural capital to compete for
esteem. As a result, aspiring academics attach themselves to established
professors who control their intellectual production. Bourdieu is critical of this
system because it encourages conformity rather than innovation.
Colonization of the Life-World
Jurgen Habermas's (1929- ) theory of the colonization of the life-world can be
characterized as an agency-structure issue because his ideas draw on both
action theory and systems theory. The main premise of Habermas's theory is
that the free and open communication of the life-world is being impinged on by
the formal rationality of the system. The colonization of the life-world involves a
restatement of the Weberian thesis that, in the modern world, formal rationality
is triumphing over substantive rationality.
The life-world is an internal perspective on society conceived from the
perspective of the acting subject. Drawing on phenomenology and symbolic
interactionism, Habermas asserts that when communicative action takes place in
the life-world, it involves a range of unspoken presuppositions and mutual
understandings that must be present for it to take place. He thinks that free and
open communication in the life-world, with the force of the best argument
winning the day, is our best chance at achieving substantive rational solutions to
collective dilemmas.
While the life-world represents the viewpoint of the acting subject in society, the
system involves an external perspective that views society from the observer's
perspective. The analysis of systems is attuned to the interconnections of
actions and their functional significance. The system includes structures such as
the family, the judiciary, the state, and the economy. As these structures evolve,
they become more distanced from the life-world, progressively differentiated,
and increasingly complex. But they also gain greater capacity to steer the life-
world by exerting external control over communicative action.
Habermas asserts that the fundamental problem for social theory is how to
connect these two conceptual strategies. On the one hand, a social integration
strategy focuses on the way in which the life-world is integrated through
communicatively achieved and normatively guaranteed consensus. On the other
hand, a system-integration strategy focuses on the external control exercised
over individual decisions that are not subjectively coordinated. Habermas
concludes that each of these two strategies has serious limitations. The social
integration strategy has a limited ability to comprehend the reproductive
processes at the system level, while the systems-integration perspective cannot
understand the normative patterns that govern the internal perspectives of the
life-world.
Habermas argues that the both the system and the life-world are becoming
increasingly rationalized. The rationalization of the life-world involves growth in
the rationality of communicative action. Social integration is increasingly
achieved through the process of consensus formation. The rationalization of the
system involves the coordination of activities by monetarization and
bureaucratization. Habermas believes that these instrumental system
imperatives threaten substantive rationality by impinging on the life-world and
restricting communication.
Agency-Structure and Micro-Macro Linkages
One of the key differences between micro-macro and agency-structure theory is
their respective images of the actor. Micro-macro theory tends to have a
behaviorist orientation, whereas agency-structure theory places an emphasis on
conscious, creative action. A second major difference is that micro-macro theory
tends to depict issues in static, hierarchical, and ahistorical terms, whereas
agency-structure theory is more firmly embedded in a historical, dynamic
framework.
er to enhance their capital. Bourdieu is particularly concerned with how powerful
positions within a field can perpetrate symbolic violence on less powerful actors.
Cultural mechanisms such as education impose a dominant perspective on the
rest of the population in order to legitimate their power.
Bourdieu's analysis of the aesthetic preferences of different groups can be found
inDistinction. The cultural preferences of the various groups within society
constitute coherent systems that serve to unify those with similar tastes and
differentiate them from others with divergent tastes. Through the practical
application of preferences, people classify objects and, in the process, classify
themselves. Bourdieu thinks the field of taste involves the intersection of social-
class relationships and cultural relationships. He argues that taste represents an
opportunity to both experience and assert one's position in the class hierarchy.
These tastes are engendered in the deep-rooted dispositions of the habitus.
Changes in tastes result from struggles for dominance within both cultural and
social-class fields as different factions struggle to define high culture and taste.
Bourdieu also applies his concepts to French academia in Homo Academicus.
This work is concerned with the relationship between the objective positions of
different academic fields, their corresponding habitus, and the struggle between
them. Bourdieu also wants to link the academic field to a larger field of power.
He finds that French academia is divided into dominant fields of law and
medicine and lesser fields of science and the arts. He suggests that faculty
members within each field use their social and cultural capital to compete for
esteem. As a result, aspiring academics attach themselves to established
professors who control their intellectual production. Bourdieu is critical of this
system because it encourages conformity rather than innovation.
Colonization of the Life-World
Jurgen Habermas's (1929- ) theory of the colonization of the life-world can be
characterized as an agency-structure issue because his ideas draw on both
action theory and systems theory. The main premise of Habermas's theory is
that the free and open communication of the life-world is being impinged on by
the formal rationality of the system. The colonization of the life-world involves a
restatement of the Weberian thesis that, in the modern world, formal rationality
is triumphing over substantive rationality.
The life-world is an internal perspective on society conceived from the
perspective of the acting subject. Drawing on phenomenology and symbolic
interactionism, Habermas asserts that when communicative action takes place in
the life-world, it involves a range of unspoken presuppositions and mutual
understandings that must be present for it to take place. He thinks that free and
open communication in the life-world, with the force of the best argument
winning the day, is our best chance at achieving substantive rational solutions to
collective dilemmas.
While the life-world represents the viewpoint of the acting subject in society, the
system involves an external perspective that views society from the observer's
perspective. The analysis of systems is attuned to the interconnections of
actions and their functional significance. The system includes structures such as
the family, the judiciary, the state, and the economy. As these structures evolve,
they become more distanced from the life-world, progressively differentiated,
and increasingly complex. But they also gain greater capacity to steer the life-
world by exerting external control over communicative action.
Habermas asserts that the fundamental problem for social theory is how to
connect these two conceptual strategies. On the one hand, a social integration
strategy focuses on the way in which the life-world is integrated through
communicatively achieved and normatively guaranteed consensus. On the other
hand, a system-integration strategy focuses on the external control exercised
over individual decisions that are not subjectively coordinated. Habermas
concludes that each of these two strategies has serious limitations. The social
integration strategy has a limited ability to comprehend the reproductive
processes at the system level, while the systems-integration perspective cannot
understand the normative patterns that govern the internal perspectives of the
life-world.
Habermas argues that the both the system and the life-world are becoming
increasingly rationalized. The rationalization of the life-world involves growth in
the rationality of communicative action. Social integration is increasingly
achieved through the process of consensus formation. The rationalization of the
system involves the coordination of activities by monetarization and
bureaucratization. Habermas believes that these instrumental system
imperatives threaten substantive rationality by impinging on the life-world and
restricting communication.
Agency-Structure and Micro-Macro Linkages
One of the key differences between micro-macro and agency-structure theory is
their respective images of the actor. Micro-macro theory tends to have a
behaviorist orientation, whereas agency-structure theory places an emphasis on
conscious, creative action. A second major difference is that micro-macro theory
tends to depict issues in static, hierarchical, and ahistorical terms, whereas
agency-structure theory is more firmly embedded in a historical, dynamic
framework.
CHAPTER 16
Most classical sociologists were engaged in an analysis and critique of modern
society. For Marx, modernity was defined by the capitalist economy. To Weber,
the defining problem of the modern world was the expansion of formal rationality
at the expense of the other types of rationality. In Durkheim's view, organic
solidarity and the weakening of the collective consciousness defined modernity.
Simmel, while sometimes seen as a postmodernist, investigated modernity in
the city and in the money economy.
The Juggernaut of Modernity
Anthony Giddens (1938- ) has described the modern world as a juggernaut,
that is, as an engine of enormous power which can be directed to some extent,
but which also threatens to run out of control. The juggernaut is a runaway world
with great increases over prior systems in the pace, scope, and profoundness of
change.
Giddens defines modernity in terms of four basic institutions. Capitalism is
characterized by commodity production, private ownership of capital, wage
labor, and a class system derived from these characteristics. Industrialism
involves the use of inanimate power sources and machinery to produce goods,
but it also affects transportation, communication, and everyday life. Surveillance
refers to the supervision of the activities of subject populations in the political
sphere. The fourth characteristic is control of the means of violence by the state.
Modernity is given dynamism by three processes. Time and space distanciation
refers to the tendency for modern relationships to be increasingly distant.
Relatedly, disembedding involves the lifting out of social relations from local
contexts of interaction and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time-
space. In such a system, trust becomes necessary because we no longer have
full information about social phenomena. Finally, reflexivity means that the social
practices of modern society are constantly reexamined and reformed in the light
of incoming information.
Giddens thinks that modernity has created a distinctive risk profile. Risk
becomes global in intensity and in the expansion of contingent events that affect
large numbers of people around the world. Our awareness of these risks gives us
the sense of insecurity implied in the term juggernaut.
Giddens argues that the reflexivity of modernity extends to the core of the self
and becomes a reflexive project of identity formation. For example, the body is
subject to a variety of regimes that help individuals mold their bodies. He also
argues that intimate relationships have been set apart from the routines of
ordinary life (sequestered). As a result, the reflexive effort to create a pure
intimate relationship is usually separate from larger moral issues.
The Risk Society
According to Ulrich Beck (1944- ), we no longer live in an industrial society and
are moving toward a risk society. Risk society is a form of reflexive modernity in
which the central issue is how risks can be prevented, minimized, or channeled.
These risks are being produced by the sources of wealth in modern society.
Industry, for example, produces a wide range of hazardous consequences that
reach across time and space. Beck also argues that science has become a
protector of a global contamination of people and nature. He suggests that
subgroups, such as large companies, are more likely than the governments to
lead the way when coping with risks.
McDonaldization and the New Means of Consumption
There are four dimensions of formal rationality. Efficiency means the search for
the best means to the end. Predictability means a world of no surprises. Rational
systems tend to emphasize quantity, usually large quantities, rather than quality.
Finally, formal rationality relies on non-human technology rather than human
qualities. Formally rational systems have a variety of irrational consequences,
such as dehumanization and demystification.
Ritzer argues that the fast-food restaurant brings formal rationality to new
heights. He argues that the prevalence of McDonaldization indicates that we still
live in a modern world. Ritzer has also observed the rise of new means of
consumption, such as shopping malls and superstores, since the end of World
War II. He defines the means of consumption as entities that make it possible for
people to acquire goods and services and for the same people to be controlled
and exploited as consumers. The new means of consumption are modern
because they are highly rationalized.
Modernity and the Holocaust
Zygmunt Bauman (1925-) considers the Holocaust to be the paradigm of
modern bureaucratic rationality. The perpetrators of the Holocaust employed
rationality as one of their major tools. Bauman suggests that the Holocaust was
the product of modernity, not a result of a breakdown of modernity. Without
modernity and rationality, the Holocaust would be unthinkable. Mass
extermination required a highly rationalized and bureaucratized operation.
Bauman suggests that bureaucracies, while not inherently cruel, are likely to be
used for inhuman purposes. There is continuity between the rationality
employed in the Holocaust and the rationalization of the fast-food industry today.
Bauman believes that the conditions that created the Holocaust have not really
changed and that only strong morality and pluralistic political forces can prevent
a recurrence.
Modernity's Unfinished Project
Jurgen Habermas (1929-) believes that social systems have grown
increasingly complex, differentiated, integrated, and characterized by
instrumental reason. At the same time the life-world has witnessed increasing
differentiation and condensation, secularization, and the institutionalization of
norms of reflexivity and criticism. A rational society would be one in which both
the system and the life-world were permitted to rationalize following their own
logics. However, in the modern world, the system has come to dominate the life-
world. While we may be enjoying the fruits of system rationalization, we are
deprived of the enrichment of life that comes from a life-world allowed to
flourish. Habermas thinks that solutions to many of the problems in the modern
world could be devised if the life-world had a better ability to steer the system.
Habermas is critical of the postmodernists for rejecting modernity.
Informationalism and the Network Society
Manuel Castells (1942-) examines the emergence of a new society, culture,
and economy in the light of the revolution in information technology. This
revolution has led to a fundamental restructuring of the capitalist system. The
spread of informational capitalism has led to the emergence of oppositional
social movements based on self and identity. Accompanying the rise of the new
global information economy is the emergence of a new organizational form
called the network enterprise, which is characterized by flexible production, new
management systems, organizations based on a horizontal rather than a vertical
model, and the intertwining of large corporations in strategic alliances. As a
result, the nature of work is being transformed.
Castells asserts that the larger society is being reorganized into networks that
are capable of unlimited expansion and able to innovate without disrupting the
system. Castells suggests that individuals and collectivities whose identities are
threatened by this new order actively oppose this new network society. Castells
also believes that the rise of the network society means that the state is losing
power vis--vis global capital markets.
Globalization
Globalization can be analyzed culturally, economically, politically, and
institutionally. In each case, a key difference is whether one sees increasing
homogeneity or heterogeneity on the world scene. At the extremes, the
globalization of cultu Most classical sociologists were engaged in an analysis and
critique of modern society. For Marx, modernity was defined by the capitalist
economy. To Weber, the defining problem of the modern world was the
expansion of formal rationality at the expense of the other types of rationality. In
Durkheim's view, organic solidarity and the weakening of the collective
consciousness defined modernity. Simmel, while sometimes seen as a
postmodernist, investigated modernity in the city and in the money economy.
The Juggernaut of Modernity
Anthony Giddens (1938- ) has described the modern world as a juggernaut,
that is, as an engine of enormous power which can be directed to some extent,
but which also threatens to run out of control. The juggernaut is a runaway world
with great increases over prior systems in the pace, scope, and profoundness of
change.
Giddens defines modernity in terms of four basic institutions. Capitalism is
characterized by commodity production, private ownership of capital, wage
labor, and a class system derived from these characteristics. Industrialism
involves the use of inanimate power sources and machinery to produce goods,
but it also affects transportation, communication, and everyday life. Surveillance
refers to the supervision of the activities of subject populations in the political
sphere. The fourth characteristic is control of the means of violence by the state.
Modernity is given dynamism by three processes. Time and space distanciation
refers to the tendency for modern relationships to be increasingly distant.
Relatedly, disembedding involves the lifting out of social relations from local
contexts of interaction and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time-
space. In such a system, trust becomes necessary because we no longer have
full information about social phenomena. Finally, reflexivity means that the social
practices of modern society are constantly reexamined and reformed in the light
of incoming information.
Giddens thinks that modernity has created a distinctive risk profile. Risk
becomes global in intensity and in the expansion of contingent events that affect
large numbers of people around the world. Our awareness of these risks gives us
the sense of insecurity implied in the term juggernaut.
Giddens argues that the reflexivity of modernity extends to the core of the self
and becomes a reflexive project of identity formation. For example, the body is
subject to a variety of regimes that help individuals mold their bodies. He also
argues that intimate relationships have been set apart from the routines of
ordinary life (sequestered). As a result, the reflexive effort to create a pure
intimate relationship is usually separate from larger moral issues.
The Risk Society
According to Ulrich Beck (1944- ), we no longer live in an industrial society and
are moving toward a risk society. Risk society is a form of reflexive modernity in
which the central issue is how risks can be prevented, minimized, or channeled.
These risks are being produced by the sources of wealth in modern society.
Industry, for example, produces a wide range of hazardous consequences that
reach across time and space. Beck also argues that science has become a
protector of a global contamination of people and nature. He suggests that
subgroups, such as large companies, are more likely than the governments to
lead the way when coping with risks.
McDonaldization and the New Means of Consumption
There are four dimensions of formal rationality. Efficiency means the search for
the best means to the end. Predictability means a world of no surprises. Rational
systems tend to emphasize quantity, usually large quantities, rather than quality.
Finally, formal rationality relies on non-human technology rather than human
qualities. Formally rational systems have a variety of irrational consequences,
such as dehumanization and demystification.
Ritzer argues that the fast-food restaurant brings formal rationality to new
heights. He argues that the prevalence of McDonaldization indicates that we still
live in a modern world. Ritzer has also observed the rise of new means of
consumption, such as shopping malls and superstores, since the end of World
War II. He defines the means of consumption as entities that make it possible for
people to acquire goods and services and for the same people to be controlled
and exploited as consumers. The new means of consumption are modern
because they are highly rationalized.
Modernity and the Holocaust
Zygmunt Bauman (1925-) considers the Holocaust to be the paradigm of
modern bureaucratic rationality. The perpetrators of the Holocaust employed
rationality as one of their major tools. Bauman suggests that the Holocaust was
the product of modernity, not a result of a breakdown of modernity. Without
modernity and rationality, the Holocaust would be unthinkable. Mass
extermination required a highly rationalized and bureaucratized operation.
Bauman suggests that bureaucracies, while not inherently cruel, are likely to be
used for inhuman purposes. There is continuity between the rationality
employed in the Holocaust and the rationalization of the fast-food industry today.
Bauman believes that the conditions that created the Holocaust have not really
changed and that only strong morality and pluralistic political forces can prevent
a recurrence.
Modernity's Unfinished Project
Jurgen Habermas (1929-) believes that social systems have grown
increasingly complex, differentiated, integrated, and characterized by
instrumental reason. At the same time the life-world has witnessed increasing
differentiation and condensation, secularization, and the institutionalization of
norms of reflexivity and criticism. A rational society would be one in which both
the system and the life-world were permitted to rationalize following their own
logics. However, in the modern world, the system has come to dominate the life-
world. While we may be enjoying the fruits of system rationalization, we are
deprived of the enrichment of life that comes from a life-world allowed to
flourish. Habermas thinks that solutions to many of the problems in the modern
world could be devised if the life-world had a better ability to steer the system.
Habermas is critical of the postmodernists for rejecting modernity.
Informationalism and the Network Society
Manuel Castells (1942-) examines the emergence of a new society, culture,
and economy in the light of the revolution in information technology. This
revolution has led to a fundamental restructuring of the capitalist system. The
spread of informational capitalism has led to the emergence of oppositional
social movements based on self and identity. Accompanying the rise of the new
global information economy is the emergence of a new organizational form
called the network enterprise, which is characterized by flexible production, new
management systems, organizations based on a horizontal rather than a vertical
model, and the intertwining of large corporations in strategic alliances. As a
result, the nature of work is being transformed.
Castells asserts that the larger society is being reorganized into networks that
are capable of unlimited expansion and able to innovate without disrupting the
system. Castells suggests that individuals and collectivities whose identities are
threatened by this new order actively oppose this new network society. Castells
also believes that the rise of the network society means that the state is losing
power vis--vis global capital markets.
Globalization
Globalization can be analyzed culturally, economically, politically, and
institutionally. In each case, a key difference is whether one sees increasing
homogeneity or heterogeneity on the world scene. At the extremes, the
globalization of culture can be seen as the diffusion of common codes and
practices or as a process in which cultural inputs interact to create hybrid
blends. Theorists who focus on economic factors tend to emphasize the
homogenizing effect of the expanding market economy. Some
political/institutional thinkers focus on the worldwide spread of standard models
of governance, while others suggest that local social structures make more of a
difference in people's lives than ever.
Douglas Kellner (1943-) states that the key to understanding globalization is
theorizing it as, at once, a product of technological revolution and the global
restructuring of capital. While the capitalistic economy remains central to
understanding globalization, technoscience provides its infrastructure.
Giddens emphasizes the role of the West and the United States in globalization.
He recognizes that globalization has both undermined local cultures and served
to revive them. He also suggests that a clash is taking place today between
fundamentalism and cosmopolitanism.
Beck defines globalism as the view that the world is dominated by economics
and that we are witnessing the emergence of the hegemony of the capitalist
world market and the neo-liberal ideology that underpins it. Beck is critical of
this conception as being oversimplified and linear. Beck sees greater merit in the
idea of globality, in which closed spaces like nation-states are becoming
increasingly illusory because of the growing influence of transnational actors.
Beck refers to the rise of globality as a second modernity characterized by
denationalization.
Bauman sees mobility as the most powerful aspect of globalization. He argues
that the winners in the "space war" are those who are able to move freely
around the globe. The losers not only lack mobility but are also confined to
territories denuded of meaning.
Ritzer argues that there is an elective affinity between globalization and nothing.
He defines "nothing" as centrally conceived and controlled forms devoid of most
distinctive content. It is easier to export empty forms throughout the globe than
it is to export forms that are loaded with content. We are witnessing the global
proliferation of generic, dehumanized, and disenchanted forms.
Arjun Appadurai discusses global flows and the disjunctures among them. He
uses the suffix -scape to connote the idea that these processes have fluid,
irregular, variable shapes. For example, ethnoscapes are mobile groups and
individuals that play an important role in shifting the world. He also describes
technoscapes, financescapes, mediascapes, and ideoscapes.
re can be seen as the diffusion of common codes and practices or as a process in
which cultural inputs interact to create hybrid blends. Theorists who focus on
economic factors tend to emphasize the homogenizing effect of the expanding
market economy. Some political/institutional thinkers focus on the worldwide
spread of standard models of governance, while others suggest that local social
structures make more of a difference in people's lives than ever.
Douglas Kellner (1943-) states that the key to understanding globalization is
theorizing it as, at once, a product of technological revolution and the global
restructuring of capital. While the capitalistic economy remains central to
understanding globalization, technoscience provides its infrastructure.
Giddens emphasizes the role of the West and the United States in globalization.
He recognizes that globalization has both undermined local cultures and served
to revive them. He also suggests that a clash is taking place today between
fundamentalism and cosmopolitanism.
Beck defines globalism as the view that the world is dominated by economics
and that we are witnessing the emergence of the hegemony of the capitalist
world market and the neo-liberal ideology that underpins it. Beck is critical of
this conception as being oversimplified and linear. Beck sees greater merit in the
idea of globality, in which closed spaces like nation-states are becoming
increasingly illusory because of the growing influence of transnational actors.
Beck refers to the rise of globality as a second modernity characterized by
denationalization.
Bauman sees mobility as the most powerful aspect of globalization. He argues
that the winners in the "space war" are those who are able to move freely
around the globe. The losers not only lack mobility but are also confined to
territories denuded of meaning.
Ritzer argues that there is an elective affinity between globalization and nothing.
He defines "nothing" as centrally conceived and controlled forms devoid of most
distinctive content. It is easier to export empty forms throughout the globe than
it is to export forms that are loaded with content. We are witnessing the global
proliferation of generic, dehumanized, and disenchanted forms.
Arjun Appadurai discusses global flows and the disjunctures among them. He
uses the suffix -scape to connote the idea that these processes have fluid,
irregular, variable shapes. For example, ethnoscapes are mobile groups and
individuals that play an important role in shifting the world. He also describes
technoscapes, financescapes, mediascapes, and ideoscapes.
which have meaning only in relation to one another. The idea of semiotics
extended the analysis of sign systems to various dimensions of the social world.
Structuralism also influenced anthropology and Marxism. In the former case, the
work ofClaude Levi-Strauss (1908-) exhibits this influence. Levi-Strauss
attempted to extend structuralism to anthropology, focusing on communication.
He reinterpreted social phenomena for their effects on communication.
Structural Marxism took from structuralism an interest in the historical origins of
structures, but continued to focus on social and economic structures.

Poststructuralism

CHAPTER 17 Poststructuralism loosened the moorings underlying systems of signs. Rather

than seeing stable relationships of signs, they saw chaotic and highly variable
The concept of modern social theory presents the possibility of a postmodern
context-dependent systems. In their view, such structures could not have the
social theory. Indeed, postmodernism has had wide-ranging effects on a number
coercive power over individuals that the structuralists attributed to
of disciplines, including sociology. Because of the multidisciplinary nature of
them. Jacques Derrida(1930-), perhaps the originator of poststructuralism, has
postmodernism, it is necessary to think of postmodern social theory rather than
argued against the notion of logocentrism. By logocentrism Derrida meant the
postmodern sociological theory, with the basic distinction resting on the various
coercive, limiting effects of the search for universal systems of thought that
sources of input in social theory.
would reveal "truth." Instead, Derrida attempts to deconstruct, or uncover,
hidden differences that underlie logocentrism. At the heart of the notion of
Structuralism
logocentrism is the silencing of voices by intellectual elites in the creation of the
dominant discourse. Derrida argues for a decentering, so that previously
Structuralism emerged from a reaction against the humanism of Jean-Paul
excluded or silenced voices may contribute. While the ultimate result of this is
Sartre's (1905-1980) existentialism. Sartre assailed the idea of structures that
unclear, Derrida privileges a movement away from any sort of silencing, a
overly determine the behavior of individuals, of having actors without agency.
movement away from the fallacy of universal truth, and movement towards a
Structuralism emerged in the 1960s, and was based on the work of Ferdinand
society characterized by participation, play, and difference.
de Saussure(1857-1913). Saussure's work was oriented to understanding the
structures underlying languages. Thus, structuralism is associated with the
Michel Foucault
linguistic turn. Saussure focused on the relationship between the formal,
grammatical system of language (langue) and the everyday usage of language
Perhaps the most recognizable figure associated with poststructuralism
(parole). Parole was of little interest to linguists, who should be concerned with
is Michel Foucault(1937-1984). Foucault incorporated a variety of theoretical
understanding the determinant laws that govern langue. Langue is
insights, particularly from Karl Marx(1818-1883), Max Weber(1864-1920),
conceptualized as a system of signs whereby each sign may be understood by
and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Like Nietzsche, he was particularly
its relationships to other signs within the system. This system of signs is a
interested in the relationship between power and knowledge.
structure, a structure that affects society by shaping relationships of signs within
the system and our understanding of the world. Saussure focused on the
creation of difference, particularly through binary oppositions (e.g., hot/cold) ,
Foucault's early work focused on the structures that underlie the limits of
discourse and the ways in which discourses create "truth." Thus, much of
Foucault's work focuses on discourses related to the creation of the human
sciences, such as psychology. Foucault's work during this period ranged from
investigating medical discourses and the construction of normative
understanding of people (normal versus pathological) and ultimately into the
problematic surrounding the emergence of people as both subject and object of
knowledge.
In addition, Foucault's later, less structuralist work sought to create a genealogy
of power, a type of historical analysis that does not seek invariable laws of social
change, but rather recognizes the contingency of history. Substantively,
Foucault's genealogy questioned the ways in which knowledge and power
interpenetrate in certain types of practices, such as the regulation of the body,
governing bodies, and the formation of the self. Thus, it asks how people govern
themselves and others through the production of knowledge. Foucault pays
particular attention to the techniques that are developed from knowledge and to
how they are used to control people. For Foucault, history is punctuated with
changing forms of domination.
In Discipline and Punish, Foucault reinterprets the transformation of crime and
punishment, shifting the explanation away from humanistic concerns and
towards the need to rationalize the functions of discipline and punishment.
Foucault attempts to highlight the multivalent, multidimensional nature of this
transformation by acknowledging the relationship between the new techniques
of punishment and discipline with the encroachment of power throughout
society. These "micro-physics of power" were based on hierarchical observation,
normalizing judgments, and examination, and they were originally taken from
the military. These find their ultimate expression in the Panopticon, a structure
designed by Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832) for observing criminals. The
characteristics of the panopticon are important, because it allows for the shift in
regulatory power to the individual, as they now self-monitor their behavior.
Foucault is also interested in the relationship between sex and power. Here again
he reinterprets history to show the ways in which medicine is more concerned
with morality than with sexuality.
Actor-Network Theory
Actor-network theory extends semotics to focus on material objects rather than
just symbols. Actor-network theory sees sign as emerging from the context in
which entities are located. Actor-network theory attempts to understand action,
less from the perspective of the actor, but rather in terms of its location within a
network and its relationship to non-material objects. From this perspective, non-
material objects are capable of action (as actants), although objects are
considered inferior partners to humans. The interactions of these components
are viewed not as consistent and patternable networks, but rather as a fluid
combination of interactions at various levels of social life that are performed by
actors and actants. Actor-network theory breaks down many analytical
distinctions used in other social theories, such as micro/macro and
agency/structure, to help make sense of social phenomena.
Postmodern Social Theory
Postmodern social theory has received a tremendous level of attention and has
diversified to such an extent that it is difficult to make easy, overarching
generalizations, particularly since there are substantial points of disagreements
between various postmodern thinkers. Indeed, it is still debated whether
postmodernism represents a distinct phase in history or a new society of sorts,
or whether it simply extends modernism. Still another perspective sees
modernism and postmodernism less as competing periods of history and more
as sets of principles that critically engage one another.
In order to better engage the variants of this discipline, it is useful to distinguish
between postmodernity, postmodernism, and postmodern social
theory. Postmodernity refers to that which comes after modernity,
conceptualized as another epoch of history. Postmodernismrefers to cultural
products, while postmodern social theory refers to a way of questioning the
world different from modern social theory. Understood in this way, the
postmodern represents a new historical epoch, new cultural products, and a new
type of theorizing the social world, one that emerged from the acknowledgment
of modernity's failures sometime between the Kennedy/Johnson administrations
and the Reagan administration. Postmodern social theory rejects the ambitions
and techniques of modern social theory, moving away from grand narratives and
universalistic, rational theorizing and towards a deconstruction of universal
truths, a decentering that is attuned to difference and locality.
Moderate Postmodern Social Theory: Frederic Jameson
Frederic Jameson sees postmodernism as an extension of modernity. In his
view, capitalism still dominates social life. Jameson makes the claim that while
there have been significant cultural changes, these are still the expression of the
same sort of economic structures discussed by Karl Marx. Thus, despite attempts
by the postmodern social theorists to use Marx as an archetype of modernist
grand narratives, Jameson uses Marx's theory to help explain postmodernity.
These cultural changes represent capitalism's expansion into the last
uncommodified areas of life that is typical of "late capitalism." Late capitalism
follows Marx's market capitalism and V. I. Lenin's (1870-1924) imperalist
stage of capitalism. He also identifies cultures with specific economic structures,
such as postmodern culture in multinational capitalism.
Jameson characterizes postmodern society with four elements: (1) superficiality
and lack of depth; (2) the waning of emotion or affect; (3) a loss of historicity;
and (4) new technologies. A consequence of this is that people are unable to
make sense of an increasingly complex society. He proposes the creation of
cognitive maps to help us navigate the postmodern society, including its spatial
dimensions. These maps bring about a certain form of consciousness (e.g., class
consciousness) to help us understand our position within a complex system.
Extreme Postmodern Social Theory: Jean Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard's work grew increasingly postmodern over his life, and
although rooted in sociology, it can no longer be termed anything but
postmodern. While his early work sought to synthesize Marx's work and
semiotics, he came to view Marx as limited to the extent that his views
replicated worldviews and an analytical orientation antithetical to change. Rather
than replicating this, Baudrillard proposed the notion of symbolic exchange,
involving an uninterrupted cycle of gift giving, as an alternative.
Baudrillard sees modern society as dominated by media, information,
technology, and their supporting structures. These create a code of production,
leading to an explosion in signs. Signs are no longer attached to anything real,
but rather are self-referential, imploding the relationship between signs and
reality. Baudrillard also characterized the postmodern world by simulations and
hyperreality. The former refers to the creation of simulacra, which attempt to
reproduce reality. The latter is a description of the social world in which
simulations and simulacra are privileged, where they become real and
predominate.
Unlike Marxists, Baudrillard saw little revolutionary activity on the part of workers
or the masses; rather, he saw them as being increasingly passive. They are
inundated with signs, simulacra, and hyperreality by a media willing to provide
the masses with titillation. Thus, life is led toward nihilism and meaninglessness.
Baudrillard promotes symbolic exchange as an alternative to the consumer
culture of contemporary society. Despite this proposition, Baudrillard is not
optimistic about the future.
Postmodern Social Theory and Sociological Theory
In many ways, postmodern thought is simply not commensurate with
sociological theory. Its aversion to grand narratives refutes much of what
sociology has been and tries to do. However, some authors have attempted to
apply postmodern concepts to provide fruitful sociological analyses. George
Ritzer's coupling of Weber and disenchantment in looking at the new means of
consumption helps us understand the processes involved in re-enchantment,
such as the use of simulations and implosion in Las Vegas.
Criticisms of Postmodern Social Theory
Postmodernism is criticized for being untestable, unsystematic, overly abstract,
relativistic, pessimistic, and without vision. Nevertheless, there is some question
as to what is the appropriate metric of success, as postmodernism has certainly
posed a number of important and interesting questions to social theory.
Contents:
Chapter 1: A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Early Years
Chapter 2: Karl Marx
Chapter 3: Emile Durkheim
Chapter 4: Max Weber
Chapter 5: Georg Simmel
Chapter 6: A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Later Years
Chapter 7: Structural Functionalism, Neofunctionalism, and Conflict
Theory
Chapter 8: Varieties of Neo-Marxian Theory
Chapter 9: Systems Theory
Chapter 10: Symbolic Interactionism
Chapter 11: Ethnomethodology
Chapter 12: Exchange, Network, and Rational Choice Theories
Chapter 13: Contemporary Feminist Theory
Chapter 14: Micro-Macro Integration
Chapter 15: Agency-Structure Integration
Chapter 16: Contemporary Theories of Modernity
Chapter 17: Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and the Emergence of
Postmodern Social Theory