Theories & Theoretical Approaches

SOCIOLOGY REFERENCE GUIDE THEORIES & THEORETICAL APPROACHES The Editors of Salem Press SALEM PRESS Pasadena, Califor...

Author: The Editors of Salem Press

85 downloads 1659 Views 809KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SOCIOLOGY REFERENCE GUIDE

THEORIES & THEORETICAL APPROACHES

The Editors of Salem Press

SALEM PRESS Pasadena, California • Hackensack, New Jersey

Published by Salem Press Copyright © 2011 by Salem Press

All rights in this book are reserved. No part of this work may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews or in the copying of images deemed to be freely licensed or in the public domain.

ISBN: 978-1-42983-496-4 Includes bibliographical references and index. Indexing Subjects 1. Social Sciences - Philosophy 2. Sociology

First Edition

Contents

Introduction

1

Conflict Theory

3

The Frankfurt School of Sociological Thought

14

Feminist Theory

24

Postcolonial Theory

35

Postmodern Approaches to Sociological Theory

47

Social Darwinism

59

Social Positivism

69

Rational Choice Theory

79

Social Constructionism

90

Structural Functionalism

99

Symbolic Interactionism

113

Micro & Macro Level Processes

126

Terms & Concepts

137

Contributors

146

Index

148

Theories & Theoretical Approaches

iii

Introduction

The use of theories and theoretical approaches are imperative in the study of sociology, which incorporates many disciplines, ideas, and philosophies that are not always unanimously accepted as valid. Some of the most popular and most studied sociological theories stem from the foundations laid by early theorists who continue to remain relevant today. The Sociology Reference Guide series is designed to provide a solid foundation for the research of various sociological topics. This volume offers an intriguing overview of sociology as it applies to theoretical concepts and approaches. This subject begins with a focus on conflict theory, critical theory, and consensus theory before moving on to describe a vast range of sociological theories that have gained popularity and attention over the past three hundred years. This volume begins with an essay by Jennifer Kretchmar that provides an overview of conflict theory and consensus theory. According to the author, “even though consensus and conflict theories are often presented as opposing viewpoints, many theorists believe they are complementary.” Katherine Walker offers insight on the Frankfurt School and its contributions to critical theory. She also describes the characteristics of the members of the school and touches on the modern uses of critical theory. Kimberly Cox continues the discussion of sociological theory with an analysis of feminist theory. Throughout the essay, Cox explores feminism’s early Theories & Theoretical Approaches

1

themes, its contribution to sociology, and the areas of feminist theory that pose the most resistance. This collection also offers a discussion of postcolonial theory; in her exploration, Samantha Christiansen “traces the historical trajectory of postcolonial theory from prior approaches to social theory and positions postcolonial theory as an outgrowth of Marxism and postmodernism.” P.D. Casteel follows with a description of postmodernism’s general themes, its critique of modernity, and how these critiques have influenced sociological theory. Kretchmar’s “Social Darwinism” attempts to define the recognizable term that often has little to do with the theory of evolution and is instead more focused with Charles Darwin’s ideas and social, scientific, and political methods. Maureen McMahon moves on to Auguste Comte’s social positivism, which relies on empirical data and the belief that only what can be observed can be considered truth. In the following essay by Alexandra Howson, focus is given to the rational choice theory, which explains why people make the decisions they do and what thought processes occur before these decisions are made. In her analysis on structural functionalism, McMahon offers information on the history of the theory and notes that it was discredited as a result of its qualitative methodology and its propensity to rely on generalities rather than specifics. The next two essays cover the intricacies of symbolic interactionism and discuss macro and micro level processes and their effects on social life. As society continues to confront new challenges, sociologists are able to tap into a variety of reliable sociological theories to use as guides. This volume will provide readers with an overview of these issues and the diverse range of theories and theoretical approaches as they relate to the study of sociology. Complete bibliographic entries follow each essay and a list of suggested readings will locate sources for advanced research in the area of study. A selection of relevant terms and concepts and an index of common sociological themes and ideas conclude the volume.

2

Sociology Reference Guide

Conflict Theory Jennifer Kretchmar

Overview How do societies evolve and change? What role does conflict play in social organizations? Is conflict inherently bad? Is inequality a necessary part of any society? These are just a few of the questions that sociologists – and sociologists who describe themselves as conflict theorists, in particular – have attempted to answer. Like the field of sociology in general, conflict theory has both modern and classical roots. Most recently, conflict theory evolved in the late twentieth century in response to the perceived limitations of structural functionalism, the dominant sociological theory in post WWII America (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). Yet, the foundation of conflict theory rests largely upon the work of Karl Marx, a nineteenth century philosopher and revolutionary. Before investigating either the classical or modern roots of conflict theory, however, it’s worthwhile to place conflict theory – and its counterpart, structural functionalism -- in a broader context. According to Ritzer and Goodman (2004), conflict theory and structural functionalism are part of a larger, ongoing debate between consensus theorists and conflict theorists. In general, consensus theorists emphasize the stability of society. Shared norms, values, and laws all contribute to social order; change occurs slowly and in a peaceful and orderly fashion. In contrast, conflict theorists view society through the lens of group domination – social order is a temporary Theories & Theoretical Approaches

3

state that results from the dominance of one group over another. Change is both inevitable and good, occurring when subordinate groups overthrow dominant groups. Furthermore, change happens quickly, and often in a disorderly and forceful fashion. Some argue that the overarching labels ‘consensus’ and ‘conflict’ are artificial, masking important similarities among theorists and overlooking the ways in which they complement one another (Bailey, 1997). For now, the terms provide a good starting point for understanding fundamental differences in sociological theories. Structural Functionalism

As one of the dominant paradigms in sociological thought, structural functionalism is an important theory in its own right. Many mid-twentieth century sociologists even described structural functionalism as “synonymous with sociology” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 92). If structuralfunctionalism was synonymous with sociology, then Talcott Parsons, an economist by training, become nearly synonymous with structural functionalism. According to Parsons, societies are best understood as social systems consisting of complementary parts, such as social roles, institutions, and organizations. The various parts form a social structure or normative framework, which define the expectations and obligations of the people living within the society (Fulcher & Scott, 2003). Importantly, however, Parson’s primary unit of analysis was not the individual person, but rather the social role he or she occupied. People occupy multiple roles at once – teacher, sister, friend, citizen – each role defined by standards of appropriate behavior in particular social situations. According to structural-functionalists, the stability and continuity of a society are primarily achieved through socialization, the process whereby infants and children learn what is expected of them, and shared norms are passed from one generation to the next. Functions of Social Systems

In addition to structure, Parsons was also interested in the functions, or needs, of social systems. He identified adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency as the four functional needs of every society (Fulcher 4


& Scott, 2003). Structures such as neighborhoods and families help ensure solidarity and cohesion, addressing the functional need of integration. Educational structures help ensure that future resources will be available to a society, addressing its latency needs. Although Parsons realized needs could only be met through social action, he “failed to analyze action as thoroughly as structure and function” (Fulcher & Scott, 2003, p. 51). Sensitive to such criticisms, Parsons’ later work attempted to incorporate a theory of societal evolution to explain social change. Social Roles

While Talcott Parsons’ name is most often associated with structural functionalism, it is the work of Davis and Moore (1945) that is “perhaps the best-known single piece of work in structural-functionalism theory” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 93). Like Parsons, Davis and Moore (1945) also focused on social roles as opposed to the individuals within those roles. However, they placed much more emphasis on the relationship of roles to one another, arguing that some carry more prestige, power, and reward than others. Their work “made it clear that they regarded social stratification as both universal and necessary. They argued that no society is ever unstratified, or totally classless. Stratification is, in their view, a functional necessity” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 93). As mentioned earlier, conflict theory developed in response to the perceived limitations of structural-functionalism. What then were the criticisms of structural functionalism? Ritzer (2004) provides a comprehensive overview of the many charges made against structural-functionalists: • Structural functionalism is ahistorical; it is incapable of explaining how societies evolved into their present day forms; • Structural functionalism does not adequately address the question of social change; if all elements of a system work together harmoniously, as structural functionalists claim, how can the theory account for social change? • Structural functionalism is conservative in its emphasis on shared norms and values and the maintenance of the status quo, especially in terms of status, power, and privilege; • Structural functionalism is abstract and difficult to adequately test and measure; Theories & Theoretical Approaches

5

• Structural functionalists overemphasize harmonious relationships, either ignoring conflict altogether or viewing it as necessarily destructive; • Structural functionalism suffers logical errors. Some of its arguments are tautological – employing circular reasoning – while others are teleological. Defining the whole as the sum of its parts, and defining parts in relation to the whole – as structural functionalists define society – is an example of a tautological error. Assuming the end goals guide behavior – for example, that marriage is a predetermined result of societies’ need for procreation – is what Turner and Maryanski (1979, as cited in Ritzer & Goodman, 2004) call ‘illegitimate teleology.’ As a result of these criticisms, the prominence of structural functionalism has declined considerably since the 1970s, so much so that one of its founders now considers it “an embarrassment in contemporary theoretical sociology” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 92). Conflict Theorists Ralf Dahrendorf

Dahrendorf, writing in the mid twentieth century, recognized that all social systems have elements of both conflict and consensus. He believed theory should account for both, but not necessarily within a single theory. Thus, for conflict theorists like Dahrendorf, structural-functionalist theories weren’t wrong in any fundamental sense, as much as they were necessarily incomplete. Dahrendorf’s theory of conflict rests upon the notion of authority. “In all organizations, he argues, there is an unequal distribution of authority that creates a division between the dominant and the subordinate, between those who rule and those who are ruled” (Fulcher & Scott, 2003, p. 58). Like structural functionalists, Dahrendorf emphasized social positions rather than the people occupying those positions (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). In other words, authority is inherent in the social positions themselves, and is not a result of the psychological or behavioral characteristics of the individuals who occupy them. Rather than emphasizing the normative expectations of social roles, however, Dahrendorf focused on the interests 6


of particular groups of people. Subordinate groups, for example, have an interest in shifting the distribution of authority to their own advantage. People with common interests form social classes or interest groups. The various groups come into conflict with one another, thus bringing about social change. For Dahrendorf, change in society is always imminent. “A conflict of interest within any association is at least latent at all times, which means the legitimacy of authority is always precarious” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 122). Like consensus theories, Dahrendorf’s conflict theory was criticized by those who believe conflict and consensus can and should be integrated into a single theory. Such critics argue, “Sociology must be able to explain order as well as conflict, structure as well as change” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 124). In addition, critics believe Dahrendorf’s theory is vague and underdeveloped, less complete in relation to its structural-functionalist counterpart. Others feel the theory is too macroscopic, offering little insight into the everyday interaction of individuals and groups. Finally, although Dahrendorf hoped to base his theory on Marx and Weber, he was ultimately unsuccessful. In the end, his theory may have more in common with structural functionalism than with Marx. Ritzer and Goodman (2004) write, “The basic problem with conflict theory is that it never succeeded in divorcing itself sufficiently from its structural-functional roots. It was more a kind of structural-functionalism turned on its head than a truly critical theory of society” (p. 119). Randall Collins

Like Dahrendorf, Collins also attempted to use Marx and Weber as a foundation in developing his own conflict theory. What he wanted to avoid, however, were the ideological overtones he felt characterized both Marxism and structural functionalism. For Collins, conflict was neither good nor bad, it was simply a “central process in social life” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 125). In addition, Collins recognized that conflict permeated many different aspects of social life, beyond just economics. In contrast, Marx was often criticized for focusing too heavily on conflict in the economic domain, even though the criticism was largely unfounded (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). Finally, Collins was critical of theories that were too macro in focus; he focused on actors in relation to structures, viewing “social structures as inseparable from the actors who construct them and whose interaction patterns are their essence” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 125). Theories & Theoretical Approaches

7

Whereas Dahrendorf’s theory rested on authority, Collins chose social stratification as the organizational element of his theory. For Collins, social stratification permeated all aspects of life – family, gender relations, politics, economics, and business – and could be reduced to small-scale interactions between people. Collins’ theory begins with a basic set of assumptions: • People are self-interested; • People use resources to maximize their interest; and • People are inherently social but conflict-prone (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). Furthermore, he believed people construct their own subjective experience, but that other people sometimes have the power to affect or control that experience. In particular, people who oppose one another often try to control each other, resulting in interpersonal conflict (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). Collins recognized, however, that people don’t always act rationally; conflict has an emotional element as well. He also emphasized that those in power not only control material resources, but also impose belief systems. Finally, Collins believed in the scientific verification of theory; he developed numerous hypotheses about the relationship between conflict and other aspects of social life that he hoped to test empirically. Although Collins advanced the study of conflict by grounding it in the observation of everyday interactions, his theory was most often criticized for not being what he espoused it to be – mainly, an extension of Marxist thought. As Ritzer and Goodman (2004) explains, “In sum, Collins is, like Dahrendorf, not a true exponent of Marxian conflict theory…Although Collins used Marx as a starting point, Weber, Durkheim, and particularly ethnomethodology were much more important influences on his work” (p. 128).

Further Insights The Influence of Karl Marx

Much of the early work of Karl Marx was politically-charged and ideological, causing many in the academic communities to shun his work. In turn, Marx shunned many academics – sociologists in particular – for failing to 8


fully address the role of conflict in social life. Over time, however, Marxist thought has re-emerged as a viable sociological theory. Salmon (1945) even suggests, “much of the development of sociological theory can be understood as a debate with the ghost of Karl Marx” (as cited in Farganis, 2000, p. 5). Thus, it is to Karl Marx and his work that we now turn. The following summary of Marx’s work draws from Ritzer and Goodman (2004), Farganis (2000), and Ritzer (2008). It is important to understand the objective of Karl Marx’s work. In comparing Marx and Weber, Farganis (2000) writes, “For Marx, the object of social analysis was to change the world; for Weber it is enough to try to understand it” (p. 11). Similarity, Ritzer (2008) describes Marx’s main interest as “the historical basis of inequality…under capitalism” (p. 44). But even more than that, he wanted to figure out “how to change it” (p. 44). Some might ask why Marx’s work is still relevant; he predicted the fall of capitalism, and the subsequent rise of communism, neither of which have proven true. Nevertheless, Marx’s analysis of capitalism is still valuable; with the rise of capitalism worldwide, some suggest “his theories are more relevant now than ever” (McLennan, as cited in Ritzer, 2008, p. 45). Theory Building

Equally as important as Marx’s analysis of capitalism is his approach to theory building in general. Marx was heavily influenced by the German philosopher Georg Hegel, who used the dialectic – the idea that contradiction is a necessary part of social life – to understand change. Rather than relying upon simple, linear, cause-and-effect thinking to explain social phenomenon, Hegel and Marx emphasized reciprocal relationships. “To the dialectician, one factor may have an effect on another, but it is just as likely that the latter will have a simultaneous effect on the former” (Ritzer, 2008, p. 46). Similarly, Marx believed in uncovering relationships between past, present, and future. In particular, he believed it was necessary to look at history in order to gain a full understanding of the present. The relationship between past and present, however, was never predetermined or inevitable; rather, change could only come about through the choices and actions of people (Ritzer, 2008). Thus, Marx was as interested in actors as he was social structures. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

9

Work & Worker Alienation

The relationship between people and work is central to Marx’s theory. According to Marx, labor gives people the opportunity to express themselves creatively and purposefully. Work is not an activity engaged in simply for survival and subsistence, but rather for “the enhancement of human life” (Farganis, 2000, p. 28). Under capitalism, however, Marx believed the fundamental relationship between labor and human nature was disrupted, resulting in our alienation. For Marx, alienation occurs in multiple ways. People are alienated from the productive process itself, because workers must produce according to the instructions of the capitalists, rather than according to their own ideas and needs. Secondly, people are alienated from the product; the products belong to the capitalists, rather than those who produce it. Workers are also alienated from one another, due to the competitive nature inherent in the capitalist system. And finally, workers are alienated from their own human potential. “Instead of being a source of transformation and fulfillment of our human nature, the workplace is where we feel least human, least ourselves” (Ritzer, 2008, p. 55). How did this unnatural arrangement between worker and product give way to conflict and change? The beginning sentence of Marx’s The Manifest of the Communist Party might provide the answer. He wrote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle” (as cited in Farganis, 2000, p. 31). For Marx, class struggles are an inherent part of social life, important because they are the catalyst for change. All social change, he argued, was “the outcome of inevitable conflicts between irreconcilable interests” (Farganis, 2000, p. 29). The ‘irreconcilable interests’ between workers and capitalists are, Marx believed, inherent in the capitalist system; capitalists pay workers less than they deserve, creating a surplus value. Capitalism depends on the expansion of this surplus value, and therefore, the increasing exploitation of the worker (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). After a period of “unrelieved suffering, [the working class] begins to see itself as a class, and gradually mobilizes” against the capitalists (Farganis, 2000, p. 29). Marx thought the mobilization of the working class would ultimately lead to a socialist society. While this summary serves as a brief introduction to Marxist thought, it doesn’t begin to capture the more recent theoretical work that his ideas 10


have spawned. In the past few decades alone, the rebirth of Marxism has resulted in the development of numerous sub-theories, including: • Hegelian Marxism, • Critical Theory, • Neo-Marxist Economic Theory, • Neo-Marxist spatial analysis, and • Post-Marxist Theory, to name a few (Ritzer, 2008). Marx’s influence may not have been immediate, but it is immense.

Viewpoints In most introductory sociology textbooks, conflict theory is presented as it was above – in terms of its modern roots as an outgrowth of structural-functionalism, and in terms of its historical roots in the work of Karl Marx. Different texts spend varying amounts of time discussing each. Wood (1983) argues that this organization and presentation of conflict theory does an injustice to students learning sociology: “conflict theory, as it appears in sociology texts, represents bad sociology and bad pedagogy. There is no such thing as conflict theory. We provide our students with misinformation when we say that there is” (p.464, 471). Wood argues that instead of subsuming Marxist theory under what he believes is a misleading label, texts should present Marxism directly. After all, the conflict theorists typically presented in texts, he argues, are not the theorists who have inspired recent scholarship. Nor does their collective work constitute a true ‘paradigm’ within sociology. Finally, such an organization misrepresents the historical development of the field; separating Marx from conflict theory is “necessary for an accurate understanding of the historical development of sociology itself” (Wood, 1983, p. 481). Recent texts have devoted more space to Marx, as renewed interest in his work has grown; conflict theory, however, is still presented as a viable sociological paradigm. Conflict vs. Consensus

Others have criticized the presentation of conflict theory as a polar opposite of structural-functionalism, or more broadly, consensus theory. Some of these criticisms are founded on the belief that no single theory can Theories & Theoretical Approaches

11

explain all social aspects of social life, nor should they attempt to do so. “Leading theorists of the sociological tradition have attempted, in their different ways, to understand the modern world. None has given a full and complete picture. The most powerful theories are those that have emphasized a particular aspect of the social world and have concentrated their attention on understanding that aspect (Fulcher & Scott, 2003, p. 21). Thus, theories that attempt to explain consensus are no more right or wrong than those that attempt to explain conflict; both are real world phenomenon worthy of study. In a slightly different vein, others argue that the two theories should and can be integrated with one another. Bailey (1997) writes “The systems and conflict approaches are often viewed as incompatible, if not contradictory. [But] rather than being contradictory, consensus and conflict are in fact complementary in some ways. Further, they can coexist within a system. Every system has, at a given time, some level of both consensus and conflict” (p. 425). Theories that attempt to explain social systems, therefore, should include elements of both. Jacob (1981) echoes this sentiment, arguing for the eradication of simplistic dichotomies when approaching complex subjects such as social and educational inequality. Jacob (1981) encourages synthesis across theories in order to avoid the impasse that sometimes results from ‘black and white’ thinking. One of the similarities between conflict and consensus theories is the level of analysis at which they attempt to understand the world. More specifically, “they are both macro-level theories focally concerned with largescale social structures and social institutions” (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004, p. 92). Rossel and Collins (2002) however, believe conflict theory should be grounded in the everyday interactions of people. In other words, theory should be grounded in observation and empirical evidence because “human experiences and actions take place in microsocial reality” (Rossel & Collins, 2002, p. 509). This does not mean, however, that macro-level theories are groundless. Rossel and Collins (2002) conclude, “Macrosociology is [not] an impossible endeavor. It is a necessary part of sociological research, and it has produced some good results in the form of comparative historical sociology. However, its results have to founded in microsociological concepts, which means that macrosociological notions and structures have to be translated, as far as possible, into their microsociological elements” (p. 510). 12


Whether contradictory or complementary, micro or macro, it’s important to understand that conflict theory and consensus theory are just two elements of a larger theoretical landscape in sociology. Symbolic interaction and exchange theory, as well as theorists such as George Herbert Mead, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Karl Mannheim, helped define the historical landscape. More recently, feminist theory, critical theory and post-modernism, have helped point the field in new directions.

Bibliography Bailey, K. D. (1997). System and conflict: Toward a symbiotic reconciliation. Quality and Quantity, 31, 425-442. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=10192086&site=ehost-live Farganis, J. (2000). Readings in social theory: The classic tradition to post-modernism. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Fulcher, J., & Scott, J. (2003). Sociology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jacob, J. (1981). Theories of social and educational inequality: From dichotomy to typology. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2, 71-89. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10605460&site=ehost-live Ritzer, G. (2008). Sociological theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Ritzer, G., & Goodman, D. J. (2004). Modern sociological theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Rossel, J., & Collins, R. (2002). Conflict theory and interaction rituals. In J.H. Turner (ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 509-531). New York, NY: Plenum Publishers. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18732521&site=eh ost-live Wood, R.E. (1983). Conflict theory as pedagogy: A critique from the left. Teaching Sociology, 10, 463-485. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d b=ehh&AN=13837262&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Kimmel, M. S. (2007). Classical sociological theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lemert, C. (2007). Thinking the unthinkable: The riddles of classical social theories. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Swingewood, A. (2000). A short history of sociological thought. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

13

The Frankfurt School of Sociological Thought Katherine Walker

Overview The Frankfurt School is the name now given to both the theories and group of scholars connected to the Institute of Social Research, affiliated with the University of Frankfurt in Germany and Columbia University in New York. Known for the development of critical theory, the study of totalitarianism and mass culture, an interdisciplinary approach to subject matter and methods, and the integration of Freudian theories into neo-Marxist analysis, the Frankfurt School has influenced psychology, sociological theory and cultural studies. Recent adaptations have applied the theories to new communications technologies and the modern crisis of legitimation. Chronology

The Frankfurt School is the name given to the theorists and theories associated with the Institute of Social Research which was founded by Felix Weil on February 3, 1923 at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. Weil and his circle of friends found the structure of contemporaneous German university departments too constraining for the social analysis they wished to conduct. They developed the idea of creating a semi-autonomous research institute and persuaded Weil’s father Hermann, a wealthy merchant, to support the project. Some of the thinkers associated with the Institute were Friedrich Pollack, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Lowenthal, and Walter Benjamin, Jurgen Habermas, Erich Fromm and 14


Georg Lukacs, among others (Jay, 1973). They were sociologists, economists, psychologists, political scientists and philosophers with common interests in Marxism and the critique of culture. Horkheimer, Habermas, Adorno and Marcuse are frequently seen as the core figures of the school (Held, 1980). To understand the perceived need for the Institute, it is necessary to understand the political situation of the time. Germany, defeated in the First World War, was under the control of the unstable and often threatened Social Democratic government that came to be known as the Weimar Republic. The government was weakened by the onerous terms of the Versailles Treaty, afflicted with runaway inflation, and under attack from within by parties from both the extreme left and the extreme right. German universities enforced rigid specialization and a long period of apprenticeship, and their disciplinary boundaries were far too structured for a group of scholars with such interdisciplinary interests. They also were not welcoming to the study of radical political theories, given the political instability of the times. The scholars who created the Institute were interested in revitalizing Marxist theory, yet highly suspicious of Marxism as it was interpreted under the Soviet regime. As they conducted academic research that was seen as radical (although few of them were actually involved with politics), to achieve their goals they needed the autonomy of a new space for research. Thus the Institute was born. The first director was Carl Grunberg, who previously taught law and political science, and who steered the Institute into a traditional interpretation of Marxism. Max Horkheimer took over as director in 1931 after Grunberg’s health failed, and he began to steer the Institute’s focus away from orthodox Marxist analysis. Under his leadership the interdisciplinary interests of the members flourished, and insights from across the academy-in art, literature, music, psychology, and philosophy - entered as subjects of critique. Nazis came to power in Germany in January of 1933. As Marxist theorists, many of whom were ethnically Jewish, the members of the Institute were obvious targets of the new regime. Nazis closed down the Institute and seized its library. (Luckily, the Institute had already removed its endowment from German banks the year before.) As its members left Germany Theories & Theoretical Approaches

15

quickly, the Institute moved to Geneva, also setting up small branches in London and Paris. Their residence in Geneva was short-lived, however, as Switzerland seemed a bit close to the expanding Nazi regime. When Nicholas Butler, president of Columbia University in New York, encouraged the Institute to move to his campus, the members accepted his offer quickly. In 1934, Marcuse, Lowenthal, Pollack, and Wittfogel moved to Columbia University; Fromm had already relocated to the United States and joined them. Despite the move to New York, the Institute did not become Americanized and continued to publish its work in German. This combined with its organization’s independence from university departments and its isolation relative to the Columbia campus meant it never entered the mainstream of American sociology, even while it was located in the United States. The Institute returned to Frankfurt in 1949 after the University of Frankfurt, trying to regain some of its prewar prominence, made compelling offers to get it back. Horkheimer and Adorno, homesick for German, were happy to return. When it returned to Frankfurt, the Institute left some members behind in the United States: Marcuse and Fromm, who were already distanced from it intellectually, remained in the United States, as did Lowenthal, who had married an American. Horkheimer retired in 1959 and Adorno (who was involved with member of the Institute for years before officially becoming a member in 1938 and co-director in 1955) took over the Institute. Critical Theory

The Frankfurt school was composed of many theorists from many disciplines, so the work that came out of the school was broad in scope. Many members of the school were trained in philosophy and influenced by thinkers such as Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel. They shared an interest in Marx, but differed on many points of interpretation. There are unifying threads to their body of work: a desire to update Marxism, an interest in culture, an interest in interdisciplinary analysis, and a reluctance to codify their own output into a monolithic system (Jay, 1973). The Frankfurt School created critical theory. As the name suggests, critical theory began as a critique of other schools of thought. Its aims are many: to bring materialist analysis into social analysis, to connect theory to action, 16


to revive Marx’s ideas, which had been reified and misinterpreted, and to analyze society and culture as a totality, rather than analyzing aspects in isolation. It is rooted in a critique of the trajectory taken by Marxist analysis after Marx’s death, a critique aimed at improving Marxist analysis, not rejecting it. The main attack on Marxist thought dealt with what some saw as its economic determinism; the theorists of the Frankfurt School placed emphasis on culture as a driving force in society. The Frankfurt School’s theorists were also unified by their critique of the positivism of social sciences. Positivism is the idea that social sciences should use the methods of the “hard sciences” to analyze society. This drew fire from the critical theorists (and many others) for several reasons. First, the subject matter of the social sciences is quite different from that of the hard sciences. Humans attach meaning to their actions and exercise free will, which means that their subjective states are also open to study. This also means that absolute laws explaining and predicting human behavior will be almost impossible to generate. Critical theory rejected the value-free orientation created by an emphasis on positivism. Members of the Frankfurt School believed that the social sciences, especially sociology, should advocate for social justice and actively criticize society’s flaws; critical theory thus has a moral tone and considers the ethics of cultural and social forms. Despite their emphasis on action, the theorists tended to avoid political involvement. Political Economy

Marx grounded his analysis of society in its material base; that is, he believed that the economy of a society—the manner in which people produced their livelihoods, their modes of production, methods of distribution, private or public ownership of goods and so on—was the base on which all other aspects of a society rested. The base determined a superstructure consisting of politics, religion, family structure, cultural norms and values, and all the other institutions that meet society’s needs. Marx’s work rests on his historical analysis of class struggle, looking at economic structures throughout history, understanding how they shaped societies, and analyzing how contradictions in each system eventually led to its undoing. While members of the Frankfurt School based their analyses in Marx’s theories, they had to account for the fact that his predictions about Theories & Theoretical Approaches

17

the fate of capitalism and communism were at the minimum incomplete; some were wrong. Like many other professed Marxists who were dismayed that Russia’s revolution did not follow true Marxist ideology, the members of the Frankfurt School were initially ambivalent about Russia’s revolution its development of a communist state. Russia, still an agrarian society barely past feudalism, was not at a stage of development where a true Marxist revolution could take place, so the experiment was on shaky economic footing from the beginning. The doubts that the Frankfurt School had about the outcome of the revolution faded as the brutality of the Stalinist regime became apparent. The Soviet experiment was not the socialism predicted by Marx; it was a dictatorship. This called the practical application of Marx’s dreams of socialism into question. At the same time that a communist revolution was not going as predicted, capitalism also assumed new forms. The emergence of fascism in capitalist states such as Germany and Italy led to a debate about whether such a development was covered by Marx’s writings on capitalism. Marcuse theorized that fascism represented a new version of monopoly and was therefore predicted loosely by Marx while Horkheimer and Adorno believed that capitalism under fascism was not predicted in Marx, but was a new development needing theorizing (Held, 1980). The Culture Industry, Aesthetics & the Impact of Technology

While the Frankfurt school reexamined what Marx said about particular economic systems, they also elevated other social institutions to greater importance in their theories. The greatest change they made to Marx’s work was the increased importance they placed on the analysis of culture. Marx saw the economy as a cause and culture as a result; in contrast, critical theorists saw culture as a driving force in society. They were interested in analyzing how cultural products were now made by industry, creating a new commodified mass culture. They investigated how the ideas of capitalism were transmitted through commodities, how cultural products carried ideologies, and how culture supported the capitalist state. Before arriving at their critique of the process of cultural production, they first wrote about aesthetics. For example, Horkheimer and Lowenthal 18


analyzed literature, Marcuse wrote about art and Adorno analyzed music. Benjamin wrote many works on high culture and aesthetic theory. The approaches taken by the Frankfurt School varied from content analysis to broader structural theory. Unlike traditional Marxists, they argued that art was autonomous, not merely a reactive superstructure resting on an economic base. The Frankfurt School aimed harsh criticism at modern society’s control of the individual through cultural means. Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer were among those that saw in mass culture a new and insidious means of controlling the populace. They analyzed the culture industry and attacked its lack of authenticity and its tendency to soothe through entertainment. The culture industry produced knowledge—or what was taken to be true—for the masses; this stimulated their interested in the sociology of knowledge (Ritzer, 1988). Adorno and Horkheimer believed that the culture industry prepared people to acquiesce to the demands of capitalist society. Since access to the productive forces that created the products of mass culture meant access to wealth and the means of production, the ideas transmitted by mass culture would be the ideas of the ruling class. Technology exacerbated the tendency previously described by Marx for the ruling ideas of an era to be the ideas of the ruling class. Mass production destroyed the spontaneity of cultural products, which were designed under this system to appeal to the lowest common dominator. Cultural products were produced for profit alone, not for any particular artistic purposes, not for the sake of their content. Variety was effectively killed. Instead of style, the culture industry produced a parody of style. The culture industry was itself dependent on the industries that produced its technology, and became a mouthpiece for the interests of industry. It stimulated needs, but only gave the illusion of fulfilling them; ultimately it taught obedience and frustration (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1972; Bettig, 2002). Benjamin (who was only peripherally involved with the Frankfurt School, but influential on their ideas) also considered the impact that technology had on art, but took a different approach. Whereas Adorno and Horkheimer analyzed the impact of the industry on creativity, Benjamin questioned the impact of the mechanical reproduction of art on the art forms themselves. Before mechanical reproduction, he argued, art had an aura, Theories & Theoretical Approaches

19

a quality of being unique in a time and place. Mechanical reproduction destroyed this aura by democratizing art, making it more available to the masses. Technology also created new forms of art, such as the cinema, which restructured the idea of creativity. Like Adorno and Horkheimer, he pointed out that art and cultural products were now created merely to be units of exchange - they were no longer valued for their “use value” as art. While this process changed art aesthetically - with results about which he was ambivalent—it did bring the ability to create and to reproduce oneself to the masses. He thought this was a positive change, unlike Adorno and Horkheimer’s unilateral condemnation of the culture industry. Totalitarianism, the Personality, & Freudianism

While the theorists of the Frankfurt School often disagreed on their interpretation of Freud, they shared an interest in incorporating his theories into their expansion of Marxist theory. As part of their goal of moving Marxist theory away from an overly deterministic interpretation, they reinvestigated Marx’s writings about human nature, and found grounds there to introduce Freud. For example, in Marx’s concept of man, Fromm worked to rescue Marx’s concept of human nature from what he considered to be an overly economically deterministic interpretation; he shows a Freudian influence in his reading of Marx (1961). Since the Institute had moved to escape Nazis it is not surprising that many of its theorists spent time analyzing the modern tendency toward totalitarianism. Freud again proved useful. In Escape from freedom, Fromm explored why modern societies, freed from so any of the constraints of the past, so often embrace the excessive control of totalitarianism. Freedom under modern capitalism brought benefits and created new problems, he argued - while it eliminated constraints, it also left humans more isolated, alienated, and fearful. This fear made the control found under totalitarianism seem attractive (1969). By identifying freedom as both a social and a psychological dilemma, Fromm analyzed the reaction to freedom through a lens that was at once Marxist and Freudian. As a group, the Institute studied the link between personality and prejudice. Adorno wrote a book called The Authoritarian Personality describing the results of these studies (1950). He created scales to measure individuals’ levels of ethnocentrism and anti-Semitism, and found these were 20


highly correlated with a fear of difference, love of conformity, submission to authority, and unusually high interest in the sexuality of others. The insecurity and rigid thinking of this personality type made it confront uncertainty with a desire for authoritarian control.

Applications While the theories of the Frankfurt School were seen as out of date by practitioners of cultural studies, they are still relevant, largely because of their early insistence on connecting studies of culture, technology, and the material base of society (i.e. linking capitalism with the culture industry and the technologies that support and disseminate its ideology) and their questioning of legitimation (Kellner 2002; Nealon & Irr, 2002). The late twentieth-century consolidation of media conglomerates made Adorno and Horkheimer’s warnings about the coercive impact of the culture industry seem prescient. They did underestimate the extent to which the culture industry would become wealthy and powerful in its own right, seeing it more as a tool of other capitalist industries. Although they have been criticized for what some see as an overly deterministic approach that denies the ability of individuals to resist the culture industry and exercise artistic creativity, the ability of industry to co-opt rebellious movements - punk rock, straight-edge, reggae, extreme sports and so on - seems to support their viewpoint (Bettig, 2002). Finally, the school is a living thing, with theorists who continue to expand on the initial insights of critical theory, and many sociologists who use the critique of society as a starting point. For example, Habermas’ idea of the salon has been adapted into analysis of the internet as public sphere of communication, albeit not always a rational one (Dean, 2001).

Viewpoints Criticisms of the Frankfurt School

Some critics claimed that the Frankfurt School did not ground its analyses of events in the complex social and historical contexts from which they emerged. Others said that their theories are not practical and have no reallife application (Held, 1980). Another criticism was that in its attempt to


21

correct for the economic determinism of neo-Marxism, the school swung too far in the opposite direction and neglected the economy in its analysis. Traditional Marxists thought the move away from economic determinism weakened the critique of capitalism. Members of the school were also criticized for so obviously enjoying the benefits of a high standard of living while attacking the capitalist system that provided it. Many criticisms of the school seem to be founded in overstatements of the actual theoretical positions taken by its members. It is interesting to note that the members of the Frankfurt School have also been known for criticizing each other’s theories. The initial years under Grunberg were more traditional, while an interdisciplinary cultural bent flourished under Horkheimer and Adorno. Habermas, initially trained at the school, took critical theory in a new direction, believing that the structures and ideologies that support and justify capitalism were weakening, which would cause a crisis of legitimation in the system; Adorno and Horkheimer did not approve of his new focus and arguments (Held, 1980).

Bibliography Adorno T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row. Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (1972). Dialectic of Enlightenment (J. Cumming, Trans.). New York: Herder and Herder. Benjamin, W. (1969). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans.). New York: Schoken Books. Bettig, R.V. (2002). The Frankfurt School and the political economy of communications. In J.T. Nealon and C. Irr (Eds.) Rethinking the Frankfurt School (pp. 81-94). Albany: State University of New York Press. Fromm, E. (1961). Marx’s concept of man. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co. Fromm, E. (1969). Escape from freedom. New York: Avon Books. Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dean, J. (2001). Civil society in the information age. In P.U. Hohendahl & J. Fisher (Eds.), Critical theory (pp. 154-174). New York: Berghahn Books. Jay, M. (1973). The dialectical imagination. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Kellner, D. (2002). The Frankfurt School and British cultural studies: the missed articulation. In J.T. Nealon and C. Irr (Eds.), Rethinking the Frankfurt School (pp. 31-58). Albany: State University of New York Press.

22


Nealon J.T. & Irr, C. (2002). Introduction: Rethinking the Frankfurt School. In J.T. Nealon and C. Irr (Eds.) Rethinking the Frankfurt School (pp. 1-7). Albany: State University of New York Press. Ritzer, G. (1988). Sociological Theory (2nd ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Suggested Reading Bronner, S.E. (1994). Of critical theory and its theorists. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Rasmussen, D.M. (Ed.). (1996). The handbook of critical theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Wolin, R. (2006). The Frankfurt School revisited. New York: Routledge.


23

Feminist Theory Kimberley Cox

Overview Feminist theory in sociology emerged out of the political struggles of the 1960s and 70s, and in many ways it parallels the women’s movement. A fundamental charge of feminist scholarship in general is to emphasize the validity of women’s experience in the social world (Sydie, 1987). The early themes of feminist thought in sociology centered on criticisms of the discipline’s dominant frameworks, the distinction between sex and gender, and criticisms of fundamentalism (Andersen, 2005). Virtually all dimensions of sociological theory have been reevaluated through the lens of feminist theory. Hence, feminist thought has made significant contributions to sociology. It has reduced the discipline’s reliance on and acceptance of male experiences and perspectives as human experience, added to the discipline’s existing knowledge base on social institutions and processes, introduced new topics and concepts, redirected explorations into previously overlooked areas of the social world, and actively fostered interdisciplinary linkages with a variety of other disciplines (Alway, 1995). Feminist Theory Defined

The term feminist theory is used to refer to a multitude of types of works, produced by a movement of activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines (Chafetz, 1997). Feminist theory first developed in the 1970s as result of profound changes in women’s experiences and situations that led to a 24


political movement that challenged prevailing explanations of women’s subordinate positions in society (Alway, 1995). Feminist theory differs from general theories of inequality. Generally speaking, feminist theory refers to a set of theories that are concerned with explaining the relative position of women in society. While there is no one form of feminist theory, sociologist Janet Saltzman Chafetz in Feminist Sociology: An Overview of Contemporary Theories (1988), argues that a theory is feminist if it contains three elements: • Gender is the central focus of the theory, • Gender relations are considered to be problematic, and • Gender relations in society are considered changeable. Lengermann and Neibrugge-Brantley (1990) state that feminist theory “implicitly or formally presents a generalized, wide-ranging system of ideas about the world from a woman-centered perspective” (p. 317). Of central importance to feminist theory is the focus not just on women’s issues but how the theory deals with these issues in a way to challenge, counteract, or change a societal gender system that disadvantages or devalues women (Ransdell, 1991). Within sociology, feminist theory has emerged through challenging and revising the discipline’s dominant theoretical traditions. Indeed, feminist theorists have had a great deal to say about many issues central to sociological theory, such as the dynamics of social relations, power, and a wide range of social institutions (Thorne, 2006). Feminist Sociological Theory Defined

According to Lengermann and Neibrugge-Brantley (1990), “feminist sociological theory attempts a systematic and critical reevaluation of sociology’s core assumptions in the light of discoveries being made within another community of discourse—the community of those creating feminist theory” (p. 316). A good portion of the scholarship that is identified as “feminist theory” within the discipline consists of epistemology and epistemological critiques of mainstream or “malestream” sociology (Chafetz, 1997). Judith Stacey and Barrie Thorne’s (1985) paper titled The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology is a classic article in the field of feminist sociology. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

25

In this piece of scholarship, Stacey and Thorne define the parameters of a feminist sociology, such that it involves placing women at the center, as subjects of inquiry and as active agents in the gathering of knowledge. This strategy makes women’s experiences visible, reveals the sexist biases and tacitly male assumptions of traditional knowledge, and...opens the way to gendered understanding (p. 302).

Further Insights Early Themes of Feminist Thought in Sociology

The early feminist literature in sociology focused on identifying the consequences of excluding women from the knowledge of the discipline (Andersen, 2005). In doing so, early feminist scholarship tended to criticize and call into question the conventional and dominant assumptions, categories, and methods within sociology (Alway, 1995). A central target of this criticism was the (male) standpoint from which sociology is written. Emerging from the political struggles of the 1970s, feminist scholars exposed the discipline’s almost exclusive focus on white men, and the phenomenal world it created from their viewpoint (Smith, 1989), and thus, feminist sociology was formed. There are three main themes of early feminist thought in sociology: • Criticisms of Sociology’s Dominant Frameworks: Because feminist scholars devoted a good deal of their early work on criticism of the discipline’s concepts and theories, the central question focused on where women fit in the dominant framework (Andersen, 2005). Marxist theory, as just one example, became a target of early feminist criticism for ignoring the importance of gender in systems of production. • The Sex & Gender Distinction: Early feminist scholars in sociology emphasized the important distinction between gender and sex. The objective of this distinction was to emphasize the social basis of gender and gender roles. This effort became the major avenue within feminist sociology toward debunking the prevailing explanations of sex differences, which rested on biological determinants rather than principles of social organization (Anderson, 2005). 26


• Criticisms of Functionalism: Early feminist scholar’s criticisms of functionalism centered on its interpretations of the family. The fundamentalist idea that expressive and instrumental roles in the family were divided between the genders was fiercely challenged (Anderson, 2005). Feminist Contributions to Sociological Theory

During the twenty year period spanning the early 1970s to 1990s, feminist thought swept through sociology and the percentage of women in the field grew dramatically (Thorne, 2006). Feminist theory has continued to flourish since the 1970s; the section on sex and gender has become the largest research division of the American Sociological Association (Thorne, 2006). Consequently, there is much theoretical work in sociology that has been produced as a result of feminism and the women’s movement, and these contributions have transformed thinking in the discipline. Indeed, feminist scholarship has offered an abundance and variety of valuable theoretical insights, critiques, and concepts that have contributed to the understanding of the social world (Alway, 1995; Chafetz, 1997). Wallace (1989) identified four main theoretical contributions of feminism on sociology: • Critique and reevaluation of existing sociological theories, • Discovery of new concepts and topics, • Interdisciplinary linkages, and • A new sociological paradigm. The following paragraphs elaborate on each of these contributions. Critique & Reevaluation of Existing Sociological Theories

The main target of feminist criticism has been sociology’s prevailing functionalist theory, and, in particular, Talcott Parsons’s work on the family. At the center of this critique are Parsons’s categorization of role expectations and the structure of relationships, which tended to view women’s roles as predominately expressive, and men’s as instrumental. Feminists also generally criticized Parsons’s theory of gender socialization as oppressive for both genders, but particularly so for women. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

27

Marxist class theory was also met with feminist criticism. Sociologist Joan Acker (1989), for example, criticized Marx for defining the economy from the perspective of the male-dominated ruling system. Chafetz (1997) adds that male domination or patriarchy is fostered by the capitalist system, which supports and sustains female oppression within the household and in the labor market. Marxist-inspired feminist theory, often referred to today as socialist-feminist theory, differs from traditional Marxism by insisting that nonwaged labor, which is done overwhelmingly by women, is just as important as waged labor (Chafetz, 1997). Chafetz argues that socialist-feminists demonstrate that gender is as fundamental as class in understanding oppression and exploitation in capitalist systems and that for women, oppression/exploitation results equally from patriarchy and from class structure, not simply as a consequence of class relationships. Feminist scholars also critiqued sociology’s macrostructural theories. As a result, most of the macrostructural-inspired feminist theories focus on the central role of the gender division of labor within the economy. The more responsibility women have in the private or domestic domain, the less equal their opportunities in the economic system, whereas the more equal the access of women to economic roles in the public domain, the lower the amount of gender inequality (Chafetz, 1997). Important insights from macrostructural feminist theories demonstrate that the gender system has implications for nearly all aspects of sociocultural structure. Chodorow (1978) incorporated object relations theory into her revisions of Freudian thought to account for gender differences and inequality. Chodorow contends that because women are overwhelmingly responsible for early childrearing, children of both sexes have a female as their primary love object. However, the Oedipal stage experiences of boys’ and girls’ are very different because only girls share the sex of their primary love object. Another scholar, Carol Gilligan (1982), countered Kohlberg’s prevailing theory of moral development using Chodorow’s theory. Gilligan argued that women’s morality is different from, but not inferior to, men’s morality because it is based on personal relationships rather than abstract principles. These two works are widely cited by feminist sociologists. Discovery of New Concepts & Topics

Chodorow’s (1978) groundbreaking work, The Reproduction of Mothering, provided new insight on male socialization. Chodorow argues 28


that boys view themselves as different from their mothers with whom they have had their first emotional relationships, and thus, repress their emotions and female qualities in order to achieve their individuated male identities. Girls, in contrast, strongly and continuously identify with their mothers and thus, accept their emotions and female qualities. As a result, males tend to see the feminine as inferior. Another example is the work of Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977). Kanter’s observations and immersion in the daily lives of women working in small numbers in corporations led to the concept of tokenism. Interdisciplinary Linkages

Feminist scholars have a keen interest in interdisciplinary linkages. Feminist sociological theorists tend to actively reach across discipline boundaries to engage scholars from such diverse fields as economics, political science, history, literature, philosophy, anthropology, and psychology (Wallace, 1989). A New Sociological Paradigm

Though still in its infancy, feminist thought served as a catalyst for the formation of a “new sociological paradigm” (Wallace, 1989). According to Stacey and Thorne (1985), a paradigm consists of the “orienting assumptions and conceptual frameworks which are basic to a discipline” (p. 302). Acker (1989) described emerging paradigm alternatives as follows: A new feminist paradigm would place women and their lives, and gender, in a central place in understanding social relations as a whole...A feminist paradigm would also contain a methodology that produces knowledge for rather that of women in their many varieties and situations (p. 67). Sociologist Raka Ray’s (2006) work describes two important shifts in the past thirty years of feminist theory in sociology. First is the shift from what she refers to as the “universalizing to particularizing and contextualizing” of women’s experiences. This shift was based on the assumption made about women’s shared experiences, which were not in fact shared by all women, especially women of color and working class women. Consequently, the first theoretical shift was the rejection of the middle class white womanhood as the universal norm of women’s experiences, and acceptance that it was a particular category. The second major shift, accordTheories & Theoretical Approaches

29

ing to Ray, occurred in the object of study as women to questioning that category and shifting exploration to gendered practices where masculinity and femininity exist in relation to one another. In other words, the ways gender difference is socially constructed. The Sociology of Gender

Another noteworthy contribution of feminism in sociology is the new subfield called the sociology of gender, which has produced an enormous amount of scholarship, primarily quantitative research of differences between women and men (Acker, 2006). This subfield has brought the role of gender in the creation of inequality and its consequences to the attention of mainstream sociology. Chafetz (1997) concurs, stating that the “most fundamental contributions of feminist theories have been to demonstrate the thoroughly sociocultural nature of all aspects of the gender system and the omnirelevance of gender to social life” (p. 116).

Viewpoints Resistance & the State of Feminist Theory in Sociology

Alway (1995) claims that sociological theory has failed to recognize feminist theory. According to Alway, gender—the conceptual centerpiece of feminist thought—was the basis for this resistance because it challenged the dichotomous sexual categories that frame traditional sociological thought. A decade earlier, Stacey and Thorne (1985) argued that feminist theory had made little impact on the central theoretical perspectives of sociology. They claimed that despite substantial research on gender, sociology lagged behind other disciplines such as anthropology, literature, and history, in the extent to which feminist scholarship had stimulated a paradigm shift in the discipline as a whole. In their opinion, sociology made the least progress in transforming the discipline’s theoretical and conceptual frameworks because of • The legacy of functionalism, which suggested that current gender arrangements were normal, and ultimately, the best for society (Williams, 2006), • The use of gender as a variable rather than as a central theoretical concept in quantitative analyses, and 30


• Sexism within Marxist scholarship, which privileged class analysis above consideration of gender or race (Acker,1989; Williams, 2006). The gender-as-variable issue noted above has arguably faced the most resistance in mainstream sociology. The enormous body of feminist sociological research continues to analyze gender as a variable, or it adds women to the sampling population, just as it did two decades ago. Stacey and Thorne (1985) criticize this approach because it treats gender as a property of individuals and not as a principle of social organization. Thus, the central feminist idea of gender as a social institution and the role of gender in the maintenance of male dominance remain unused (Lorber, 2006). Lorber argues that “it has been very difficult, if not impossible, to get mainstream sociology to use the concept of gender as a building block and organizational principle of social orders and social institutions...” (p. 449). She attributes this resistance to the persistent belief in mainstream sociology that gender is biologically determined. In other words, efforts to transform the field’s theoretical and conceptual frameworks have been undermined by biologically based explanations of behavior (e.g., hormones, genes), and thus, the social construction of gender has not been easily incorporated into mainstream sociological thinking. The following example from Lorber (2006) illustrates this claim: Everyone knows that women and men of the corporation are treated differently, but the implication is that this occurs because women and men are biologically different, not because the corporation is organized around the production and maintenance of gender difference in order to have a subordinate group of workers who can be paid less and do the dirty work (Lorber, 2006, p. 449). Conclusion

In the over 30 years since publication of Stacey and Thorne’s classic article, feminist scholarship has influenced sociology, primarily by exposing the discipline as one of male discourse, that is, “written by men about men for men” (Smith, 1987). Yet, the response to this criticism has been to “add women” in, both by including gender as a variable to be analyzed, and by creating new subfields within the discipline such as the sociology of Theories & Theoretical Approaches

31

gender (Alway, 1995). According to Alway, these responses have allowed sociology to circumvent some of the more radical challenges of feminism. Merely adding women in also falls short of addressing a central claim of feminist theory, that is, that the social world is deeply “gendered.” Despite the resistance that feminist ideas have faced in sociology, there has been considerable progress made in the last two decades (Thorne, 2006). There has been profound attention to intersectionality, or the intersections of gender with the categories of race and class, and the discipline is in the beginnings of theorizing about how these various categories relate to one another. The three major ways that feminism’s growth in sociology was stymied decades ago according to Stacey and Thorne (1985)—the legacy of functionalism, the use of gender as a variable, and sexism within Marxist scholarship—are, according to Williams (2006), future avenues for important work in feminist sociology. Ray (2006) states that it may be impossible for the discipline to fully understand gender within the United States without an understanding of connections and influences in other parts of the world. Comparative studies are increasingly important to feminist sociology, argues Acker (2006), to understand transnational processes, especially in the areas of power and subordination. Acker also pushes feminist sociologists to revisit capitalism and class. Stacey (2006) and Williams agree, noting the serious problems that exist with Marxist class analysis and its absence in feminist analyses of exploitation and class domination, respectively. Feminist scholars have used mostly all theoretical traditions in sociology as a means to understand the gendered nature of the social world. In the process, they have presented important critiques of the inadequacies of traditional sociological theories (Chafetz, 1997), and thus, reduced the discipline’s reliance on and acceptance of male experiences and perspectives as human experience, added to the discipline’s existing knowledge base, introduced new topics and concepts, redirected explorations into previously overlooked areas, and actively fostered interdisciplinary linkages (Alway, 1995). However, persistent and pressing contemporary social issues such as the high rates of violence against women, the exclusionary practices directed against gays and lesbians, and the millions of impoverished women, men and children, are reminders of the benefit of and need for further feminist thought and action (Andersen, 2005). 32


Bibliography Acker, J. (2006). Introduction: “The missing feminist revolution” symposium. Social Problems, 53(4), 444-447. Acker, J. (1989). Making gender visible. In R.A. Wallace (Ed.), Feminism and sociological theory (pp. 65-81). Newbury Park: Sage. Alway, J. (1995). The trouble with gender: Tales of the still-missing feminist revolution in sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 13(3), 209-228. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10348559&site=ehost-live Andersen, M.L. (2005). Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender & Society, 19(4), 437-455. Brewer, R.M. (1989). Black women and feminist sociology: The emerging perspective. The American Sociologist, 20(1), 57-70. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete database.http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5333203&site=ehost-live Chafetz, J.S. (1997). Feminist theory and sociology: Underutilized contributions for mainstream theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 97-120. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9712041593&site=ehost-live Chafetz, J. S. (1988). Feminist sociology: An overview of contemporary theories. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothers: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Coser, R. L. (1989). Reflections on feminist theory In R.A. Wallace (Ed.). Feminism and sociological theory (pp. 200-207). Newbury Park: Sage. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Yaiser, M. L. (2004). Feminist perspectives on social research. New York: Oxford University Press. Hird, M. J. (2003). New feminist sociological directions. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28(4), 447-462. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11682307&si te=ehost-live Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Lengermann, P. M., & Niebrugge-Brantley, J. (1990). Feminist sociological theory: The near-future prospects. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Frontiers of social theory: The new syntheses (pp. 316-344). New York: Columbia University Press. Lorber, J. (2006). Shifting paradigms and challenging categories. Social Problems, 53(4), 448-453. Ransdell, L.L. (1991). Shifting the paradigm: An overview of feminist sociology. NWSA Journal, 3(3), 468-474. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Theories & Theoretical Approaches

33

Research Complete database.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =ehh&AN=8653922&site=ehost-live Ray, R. (2006). Is the revolution missing or are we looking in the wrong places? Social Problems, 53(4), 459-465. Rupp, L. J. (2006). Is the feminist revolution still missing? Reflections from women’s history. Social Problems, 53(4), 466-472. Smith, D. E. (1989). Sociological theory: Methods of writing patriarchy. In R.A. Wallace (Ed.), Feminism and sociological theory (pp. 34-64). Newbury Park: Sage. Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Stacey, J. (2006). Feminism and sociology in 2005: What are we missing? Social Problems, 53(4), 479-482. Stacey, J., & Thorne, B. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems, 32(4), 301-314. Sydie, R.A. (1987). Natural women, cultured men: A feminist perspective on sociological theory. New York: New York University Press. The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology Twenty Years Later: Looking Back, Looking Ahead. (2006, November). Social Problems, 53(4), 443. Thorne, B. (2006). How can feminist sociology sustain its critical edge? Social Problems, 53(4), 473-478. Williams, C. (2006). Still missing? Comments on the twentieth anniversary of “The missing feminist revolution in sociology.” Social Problems, 53(4), 454-458. Witz, A. (2000). Whose body matters? Feminist sociology and the corporeal turn in sociology and feminism. Body & Society, 6(2), 1-24. Retrieved April 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5434911&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Brewer, R. (1989). Black women and feminist sociology: The emerging perspective. American Sociologist, 20(1), 57-70. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire ct=true&db=ehh&AN=5333203&site=ehost-live Lorber, J. (2005). Breaking the bowls: Degendering and feminist change. New York: W.W. Norton. Neitz, M. (1989). Sociology and feminist scholarship. American Sociologist, 20(1), 3-13. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete.http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5333170&site=ehost-live Wallace, R.A. (Ed.). (1989) Feminism and sociological theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 34


Postcolonial Theory Samantha Christiansen

Overview Defining Postcolonial Theory

What is meant by postcolonial theory, on a basic level, seems easy to see: it is theory after (or post) colonialism. Yet despite the initially obvious temporal answer, postcolonial theory has been quite difficult, in fact impossible, to concretely define. Post-colonial theory is a theoretical approach that attempts to disrupt the dominant discourse of colonial power. Put simply, postcolonial theory is about colonialism, emphasizing the effects of colonialism on both the colonized and the colonizer. This means postcolonial theory provides a point of view that responds to colonialism and the complicated power dynamic that occurs both during the colonial experience and in the aftermath. Such a vague definition of postcolonial leads to contention in the highly self-critical environment of postcolonial theory. In an early definition of what is postcolonial, Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin posited, “We use the term ‘post-colonial’…to cover all the culture affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to the present day” (1989, p. 2). The response to this definition was largely critical and many argued that this defined almost everything as postcolonial, since imperialism had such a widespread presence. Since then, many new definitions of postcolonialism, postcoloniality, post-colonialism, and other variations of the term have expanded, reduced, and refined the concept of Theories & Theoretical Approaches

35

postcolonial (JanMohamed, 1985; McClintock, 1992; Shohat, 1992; Child & Williams, 1995). For the purposes of understanding postcolonial theory in an introductory sense, however, Ashcroft, et al.’s basic definition is a good point of departure, and provides a good platform from which to explore the body of work that comprises the theoretical canon. In particular, postcolonial theory has argued that academic systems of knowledge are rooted in a colonial mindset, and that the voices of the colonized have been made invisible. Post colonial theory is not only interested in providing the point of view of the colonized, but also in how the experience of colonialism has led to certain ways of thinking. In the social sciences, postcolonial theory has dealt with Eurocentric points of view in methodological processes and in the ways power is understood. In literature, postcolonial usually refers to work produced by subjects of the European 19th century colonialism writing from their own perspective. Postcolonial theory, then, is not simply a temporal description, but rather a point of view (or many points of view). Historical Development

While postcolonial theory has brought new light to aspects of colonialism, it has done so by building on previous sociological and philosophical traditions that have been critical of imperialism, such as classical Marxism, and by incorporating analyses of power by social theorists such a Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci. Marxism offered a critique of imperialism rooted in the economic exploitation of capitalism, pointing to the unfair extraction of wealth and resources from the colonies by the European powers as a result of capitalism’s insatiable desire to expand. This was certainly a perspective that was sympathetic to the colonized, but classical Marxist analysis of imperialism never quite managed empathy; that is, it was always still looking into the colonies from outside, and always assuming a uni-directional power flow: the imperialist West abusing the powerless East. Marxist theoretical approaches to colonialism were also heavily rooted in the economic sector, which left many aspects of colonialism un-examined. Knowledge Production

The limitations of a strictly Marxist approach led many academics of the late 1960s to postmodernist and poststructuralist analysis. The work 36


of Michel Foucault influenced the way academics viewed power. No longer uni-directional in a case of domination/exploitation, postmodernist interpretations of power examine an all-inclusive and multi-directional presence that is actively coercive upon the individual through processes of knowledge production. This postmodern perspective opened up a new arena in which to see power and to see the effect of that power on both the colonized and colonizer. Foucault’s emphasis on knowledge production and power opened the Academy itself up to critical examination for its role in exerting power through the establishment of “truth” (much of which was developed via colonial encounters). Despite this appearance, postmodernism and Marxism do not necessarily contradict each other; indeed, postcolonial theory employs them both. As pointed out by Leela Gandhi, “Arguably, then, it is through poststructuralism and postmodernism--and their deeply fraught and ambivalent relationship with Marxism--that postcolonialism starts to distil its particular provenance” (Gandhi, 1998, p. 25). The roots of postcolonial theory as a hybrid of postmodernism and classical Marxism has led in many ways to a tension within the postcolonial perspective that is highly critical of theory and simultaneously self-theorizing. This tension has also contributed to a degree of self-distrust that has made postcolonial theory ever-changing and particularly malleable. The role of knowledge production in the academic realm is particularly important to post-colonial theory. It is a fundamental aspect of the postcolonial theoretic project to de-stablize the “truths” born out of colonialism and to open a space in the academic world for alternative voices and perspectives to be heard. It is important to note that with regard to the historical development of postcolonial theory, the lens of critical analysis has frequently been turned upon the academic disciplines, and postcolonial theory has resulted in the shaking of many academic foundational theories. This is both the result of, and a contributing factor to, the highly interdisciplinary nature of postcolonial theory; it is particularly not confined to history, philosophy, sociology, literary studies, or any specific field. Postcolonial Theory & Sociology

Postcolonial theory can thus be seen as a way to explore the effects of imperialism on society, the individual, and the academic disciplines that study Theories & Theoretical Approaches

37

them. Many classic sociological theorists and foundational concepts have been critiqued by postcolonial theorists and continue to present points of debate. In particular, despite an increasingly globalized perspective, Sociology as a discipline has been accused of being Eurocentric, which means that it privileges Western, European society as the normal point of comparison. Sociologists have responded to such critiques with varying degrees of agreement, but the criticism has led to a new self-examination of the sociological perspective (McLennan, 2003). Thus while the function of some classical sociological theory is present in postcolonial theory, other functions are challenged. The value of the application of postcolonial theory in sociological research is clear, and postcolonial theory is now commonly present in examinations of sociological subjects as far ranging as education systems, microfinance, and modern slavery. Furthermore, the push for sociology to become more self-reflective promises to lead the field in endless directions.

Applications While postcolonial theory has taken many forms, there are basic ideas that have guided the theory since its major development in the 1970s. This section will explore some of the key concepts of postcolonial theory and some of the major works that comprise the common canon, or at least major theoretical reference points. Orientalism & the Other

In what is widely accepted as the seminal work of postcolonial thought, Orientalism (1978), Edward Said argues that beyond the physical and economic aspects of colonialism, there was another aspect present: the defining of the “Other.” The Other, Said contends, is the result of a binary world view, in which the world was divided into an us-and-them structure. Said uses the term Orientalism to describe the process of “Othering” of the Eastern colonies by the Western metropole; the European colonizers’ home nation. Orientalism is the European definition of all things related to the colonies as wild, emotional, backwards, powerless and fundamentally different from the (purported) Occidental qualities of civilized behavior, rational thought, modernism, and (justifiably) powerful. Through a conscious production of knowledge, the West defined the East as inferior, and in doing so, also defined themselves as superior. However, and perhaps 38


more importantly, Said argues, the West cannot exist without the East, as it is a mutually dependent definition (there can be no West without an East) and it illustrates the interconnected relationship of the colonized and colonizer. According to Said, the long lasting effects of Orientalism are still present and represent an aspect of colonialism that never ended. The fingers of viewing modernity, progress, civilization, and power in Eurocentric terms is a legacy of colonialism with which we live today and which postcolonial theory seeks to illustrate and destabilize. The Subaltern Subject

In the 1980s, another major defining move was made in postcolonial theory. The work of the Subaltern Studies Collective and the set of edited volumes they produced, alongside the responses to them, firmly established the notion of the subaltern in postcolonial theory. The subaltern, according to a founder of the idea, Ranajit Guha, was the colonized subject who was not only completely absent from colonial produced accounts of the colonized period, but in fact operated on a completely different and often utterly separate level from the colonizer and the elite indigenous class. The concept of the subaltern is further laid out in the introduction to the first volume of collected essays in Subaltern Studies I and then elaborated on in Guha’s monograph, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency (1983). He claims that, parallel to the domain of elite politics, there existed… another domain…in which the principal actors were not the dominant groups of the indigenous society or the colonial authorities, but the subaltern classes and groups constituting the mass of the labouring population… - that is, the people (1983, p. vii). Guha builds on the methodology of prior social historians and theorists, such as E.P. Thompson and Antonio Gramsci, to try and point out an arena of non-elite activity in the history of colonialism in South Asia. In terms of theory, Guha argues that this is different from prior approaches of social history because the idea of the subaltern was not just filling in the perspective of overlooked people (such as the working class). Instead, Guha took it a step further by demonstrating that the domain of the Indian peasant Theories & Theoretical Approaches

39

constituted a discrete arena from the elite domain. In other words, the peasants were not just reacting to the colonial government or elite rulers; the subalterns were actively involved in making their own history (MacDonald, 2009). Since its early manifestations, the subaltern studies are seen as a subset of postcolonial theory, despite never claiming to be part of the postcolonial project. The notion of the subaltern, while fundamental to postcolonial theory, has been contentious. Gayatri Spivak famously pointed out that the subaltern subjectivity, or individual perspective, may indeed not be recoverable as it is too far removed, too nebulous, and too different for the non-subaltern to grasp. Indeed, she asks, is it any better for modern theorists to attempt to speak for them by flattening them into an essentialist category. Essentialism refers to the flattening of a diverse group of people (Indian peasants) into a group based on a few shared qualities (in this case poverty and relative geography). Spivak acknowledges, however, that “strategic essentialism” can help to clarify certain aspects of colonialism, but that it must be deployed consciously, carefully and critically (Spivak, 1990). Agency & Resistance

Within the same vein of locating the subaltern, many postcolonial theorists have endeavored to locate his or her own perspective on colonialism. Postcolonial theorists have been careful to point to instances in which the colonized subject was able to exert power over his or her own life. This ability to exercise power is referred to as agency, and is a critically important aspect of postcolonial theory. Agency is often conflated with resistance, but it is important to note a clear distinction between the two. Agency can manifest in acts of resistance to colonialism, in big actions such as a massive worker strike or in small actions, such as the conscious refusal to adapt to the colonizers mode of fashion. However, agency can also manifest in acts that are explicitly non-resistance oriented, such as collaborating with the colonizer to root out agitators among the workers or consciously deciding to master and embrace the colonizers’ philosophy and education. It is further important to note, that in the case of all four examples of agency, the resistance (or non-resistance) could even be misleading, and each scenario could be reversed into resistance or acquiescence. Thus, when we think of agency as it relates to postcolonial theory, it is referring only to the ability to exercise power over one’s individual, or subjective, situation. Collective agency, 40


which refers to a group of people having agency, is arguably more difficult to distinguish from resistance. Still, resistance must not be over-emphasized as the only way power functions. Resistance is one important way agency functions, and frequently it is a point of focus for postcolonial theory. Guha’s early work defining the subaltern was also concerned with locating his/her resistance to colonialism. Postcolonial theory has retrospectively incorporated many of the texts written by colonial subjects (and former colonial subjects) as works of resistance. Among the most cited writers of postcolonial theory now is Franz Fanon, particularly his work, The Wretched of the Earth (Omar 2009; Fanon 1968). Although all of Fanon’s work deals distinctly with the experience of colonialism and the effects of the colonial encounter, The Wretched of the Earth most clearly engages with the issue of resistance. Fanon was himself actively involved in the struggle for Algerian independence, and his theories on the violence of colonialism justifying (indeed mandating) a violent resistance in response have been explored and theorized heavily in later postcolonial work. It is also important to note that for Fanon, and for postcolonial theory generally, resistance occurs not only in a mass uprising, but in the individual mind because, argues Fanon, colonialism projected power in the form of physical and emotional oppression. The individual submission to be considered a colonized/inferior subject occurs in the mind, and thus, resistance to it also begins in the mind. For postcolonial theorists this has meant that understanding this aspect of the colonial experience requires more individually-focused sources and different forms of expression such as art and literature as modes of resistance. Literature as Resistance

Literature as resistance is a particularly large field within postcolonial theory, and it comprises both reading resistance in texts and reading texts as resistance. Fanon’s work is about resistance, therefore it is easy to see, but other work is more subtle in the way resistance works. While the examples are many, one particularly good example of resistance in literature can be seen in Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958). Within this text, Achebe fiercely counters the colonially –informed stereotypes of “primitive” Africa by depicting the complex life of an African village. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

41

He also writes the dialogue in a high register of the native language Ibo, which not only illustrates the beauty of the language, but also positions the western English speaking reader as the outsider to a complexity of African life. Indeed, this approach of recreating dialects spoken by the colonized is a form of resistance that occurs throughout much postcolonial literature. Achebe’s work is an excellent example of a postcolonial text challenging colonial knowledge production, and has provided rich material for postcolonial theory in its production, content and reception (Ashcroft, et al. 1998). Assimilation & Hybridity

Another major component of postcolonial theory deals with the issues of cultural subjectivity, and the intersections of colonized and colonizer. Arguing against the binary categories that colonized/colonizer accepts, postcolonial theorists such as Homi Bhabha and Ann Laura Stoler have argued that the spaces of “mixing” offer the greatest challenge to colonialism by destroying the very definitions on which it was based (Bhabha, 1994). The colonial pre-occupation with keeping the relationships distinctly clear between the two categories through vast amounts of colonial policy regarding the intermixing of the racialized categories of colonized/ colonizer, points to a clear concern on the part of the imperial authority to keep it straight which is the Other (Stoler, 2001). The physical creation of hybrid persons biologically the product of a colonizer and a colonized is one type of hybridity, but another hybridity occurs on a cultural level. Postcolonial theorists (including Bhabha) have also explored the cultural blurring of the two binaries. The notion of assimilation, or ways in which aspects of the colonizers’ culture were adapted into a local manifestation (accepting some aspects while likely rejecting others) has provided interesting insight into forms of agency, resistance, and the effect of the colonial encounter on larger social structures such as religion, gender, race and class. Hybridity refers to the new culture that colonialism produces – a culture distinct from both the colonizer and colonized prior to encounter. While some postcolonial theorists valorize this space, others see it as problematic. Fanon refers to the hybrid man as having a schizophrenic mindset, and equates the assimilation of Western habits to mimicry and a loss of identity that is another example of colonial destruction (Fanon, 1968). 42


Viewpoints Critiques of Postcolonial Theory

The first and foremost critique levied at postcolonial theory is with the concept of “postcolonial” itself. Critics have challenged that postcolonial is either so vague in its definition that it encapsulates virtually all times and places, therefore rendering it meaningless, or that the terms is just too simplistic. Aijaz Ahmad has argued that the overly broad definition of colonialism (and subsequently postcolonialism) leads to meaninglessness, pointing out, “colonialism” then becomes a trans-historical thing, always present and always in a process of dissolution in one part of the world or another, so that everyone gets the privilege, sooner or later, at one time or another of being the colonizer, colonized, and post-colonial – sometimes all at once, as in the case of Australia (Ahmad, 1995, p. 9). Ann McClintock has problematized the notion of a postcolonial by noting that the term is still rooted in a binary: the colonial/postcolonial. She argues that, “the singularity of the term effects a re-centering of global history around the single rubric of European time. Colonialism returns at the moment of its disappearance” (McClintock, 1992, p. 86). McClintock continues to point out that in its simplicity, the term also privileges the 19th century European colonial experience as the standard; an essentialism of colonialism that ignores, or at least diminishes, the imperial projects both preceding the European era (such as Japanese imperialism) and in the era after its demise (such as Soviet imperialism). In addition, the term postcolonial, say critics such as McClintock, implies that colonialism has ended, and that we can look back on it now with new postcolonial perspective. While official colonialism as defined by 19th century European standards may have passed, many have pointed out that fingers of colonialism remain deeply enmeshed in the world today, and many geo-political relationships could be (and frequently are) defined as colonial, or neo-colonial. Does this mean that at some point there could be a post-neo-colonial theory? The question is only partially in jest, and points to an issue with defining the theoretical perspective as postcolonial and what it implies. Postcolonial theory with all of its focus on knowledge production has certainly not been blind to the power of language, and as a result, some of the most heated debates regarding the postcolonial terminology have come from those who have worked to define the idea themselves. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

43

Further critiques of postcolonial theory have also emphasized an uncomfortably dominant position of European colonialism in postcolonial theory. Indeed, while still an example European colonialism, the Spanish colonial project in the Americas has been given scant (albeit increasingly more) attention as it ended decades prior to the end of colonialism in Africa and Asia. Australia is barely represented at all, and the experience of groups that have been subject to internal colonization such as indigenous populations, have had far too little voice in the project of rewriting colonial history (Shohat 1992; McClintock 1992). Postcolonial theory has also been accused of ignoring structural conditions in favor of subjectivity, to the point of missing the real power altogether (Dirlik, 1994). Finally, the highly selfcritical nature of postcolonial theory has elicited charges that postcolonial theory has reached into an esoteric realm, perpetually arguing with itself about what it is and what it should be called. Postcolonial Theory in the Future

The fact that postcolonial theory is no longer new has enabled it to settle a bit more comfortably into the academy, even if that comfort is subject to destabilization. The application of postcolonial theory to a wide-ranging spectrum of academic endeavors is proof that the theory has something to offer various projects. In recent work, postcolonial theory has been used to inform the understanding of such widely variant topics as nursing protocol in the post 9/11 world (Racine 2008) to the sanitation system of Bombay, India (McFarlane 2008). Within the vast range of applications of postcolonial theory, the sociological applications offer a particularly rich ground for new research and postcolonial theory will undoubtedly continue to inform academic inquiry in a variety ways.

Bibliography Ahmed, A. (1995). The politics of literary postcoloniality. Race and Class, 36 (3), 1-20. Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G. & Tiffin, H. (1989). The empire writes back: Theory and practice in post-colonial literatures. London and New York: Routledge. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge. Childs, P. &Williams, P. (1995). The post-colonial studies reader. London: Routledge. Dirlik, A. (1994). The postcolonial aura: Third world criticism in the age of global capitalism. Critical Inquiry 20 (2), 328- 356. 44


Fanon, F. (1968). The wretched of the earth.New York: Grove Press. Gandhi, L. (1998). Postcolonial theory: A critical introduction. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Guha, R. (1983). Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency in colonial India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. JanMohamed, A. (1985). The economy of Manichean allegory: The function of racial difference in colonial fiction. Critical Inquiry 12 (1) 59-87. Macdonald, H. (2009). A conversation: Subaltern studies in South Asia and post-colonial anthropology in Africa. Anthropology Southern Africa 32 (1/2) 59-68. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44703276&site=ehost-live McClintock, A. (1992). The angel of progress: Pitfalls of the term “postcolonialism.” Social Text, 31/32, 84-98. McFarlane, C. (2008). Governing the contaminated city: Infrastructure and sanitation in colonial and post-colonial Bombay. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 32(2), 415-435. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=32549799&site=ehost-live McLennan, G. (2003). Sociology, Eurocentrism and postcolonial theory. European Journal of Social Theory 6(1), 69-86. Omar, S. (2009). Fanon in Algeria: A case of horizontal (post)-colonial encounter? Journal of Transatlantic Studies 7 (3) 264-278. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=a9h&AN=43430915&site=ehost-live Racine, L. (2009). Examining the conflation of multiculturalism, sexism, and religious fundamentalism through Taylor and Bakhtin: Expanding post-colonial feminist epistemology. Nursing Philosophy 10(1)14-25, 12. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35728770&site=ehost-live Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon: New York. Shohat, E. (1992). Notes on the ‘post-colonial’. Social Text, 31/32, 99-113. Spivak, G. (1990) The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues. Ed. S. Harasym. London: Routledge. Stoler, A. (2001). Tense and tender ties: The politics of comparison in North American history and (post) colonial studies. The Journal of American History 88 (3), 829-865. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5897319&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Gaurav, G.D., & Nair, S. (2005). Postcolonialisms: An anthology of cultural theory and criticism. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

45

Moore-Gilbert, B. (1997). Postcolonial theory: Contexts, practices, politics. New York: Verso. Shome, R. (2009). Post-colonial reflections on the ‘internationalization’ of cultural studies. Cultural Studies 23 (5/6), 694-719. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=sih&AN=45141542&site=ehost-live vanAmersfoort, H. & van Niekerk, M. (2006). Immigration as a colonial inheritance: PostColonial immigrants in the Netherlands, 1945–2002. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies 32(3), 323-346. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=19869257&site=ehost-live

46


Postmodern Approaches to Sociological Theory PD Casteel

Overview Sociology was founded and formed within the ideals of modernity. Theory in sociology is an account of the world that goes beyond what we can see and measure. It embraces a set of interrelated definitions and relationships that organizes our concepts and understanding of the world (Marshall, 1998). Early social thinkers adopted the dominant themes of modernity, universalism, progress, institutions, and the certainty of the scientific method, and applied them to emerging new social order. Saint-Simon (1760-1825) seized on the ideas of social progress based on the writings of Rousseau and Franklin and the certainty of Newtonian physics to propose a new social order based on science (Booth, 1871). Auguste Comte (17981857), who coined the term sociology, adapted a philosophy of mathematics to a new science of politics that he believed could positively identify the scientific laws underpinning society and apply these laws to the progress of humanity (Pickering, 1993). Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) adapted ideas from Darwin and recommended a social order based on the survival of the fittest (Francis, 2007). These early social theorists grounded the new discipline of sociology in the dominant principles of modernity. Since that time sociology has expanded as a discipline and developed its own methodologies to substantiate its claim of being a social science. Through its development the underlying Theories & Theoretical Approaches

47

assumptions of mainstream sociological theory remained anchored in the universalism, progress, institutions, and the certainty of the scientific method. What is Postmodernism?

Postmodernism is a wide sweeping reaction to the modern. It is not an organized movement and many of the theorists and writers identified as postmodernist refute the label. Initially a movement reacting to modern architecture and modernism in art, postmodernism as a critique of the modern has spread to every department in academia. Postmodernists in sociology have focused their critique on modernity, its assumptions, institutions, economic order, and culture. They believe modernity has ended and that we are in the era of postmodernity (Giddens, 1990). Because of the fragmented nature of the postmodernism it’s not possible to address all the elements of the postmodern critique. However, three broad postmodern themes that have had a significant influence on sociological theory can be identified: • A critique of positivism. • The theme of institutions and domination • The critique of meta-narratives and language Positivism is an approach to the social that maintains knowledge can only be acquired through value-free observations and the use of proper scientific or mathematical methodologies. The Postmodern critique claims that there is no such thing as a value-free observation, that science cannot be applied to the social in the same manner it is applied to nature, and that knowledge does indeed arise from other sources than observation and analysis. Postmodern writers address the power of institutions, their ability to discipline, how they advantage few while silencing many, and how they separate people from their needs. Postmodern theorist have also attacked meta-narratives, grand theories that claim to capture universal principles and explain experience and the order of things, for being no longer believable in a time when people are aware of their differences, diversities, and irreconcilable needs (Lyotard, 48


2002). Language is oppressive, language is power, language carries with it a history and yet is contextually anchored in the moment, and perhaps the most famous Postmodern critique is that meaning in language cannot be known, but must be deferred. These postmodern critiques attack many of the fundamental paradigms that nurtured sociology in its infancy and still form the bedrock of dominant sociological theory today. They also have provided new approaches to sociological theory and the basis for greater diversification research.

Applications Postmodernism & Positivism

Positivism is a system for understanding society developed by Auguste Comte. Comte believed that society evolved through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and the positive. In the positive stage society would no longer depend on abstract rationalizations; rather, individuals would be able to gather knowledge through observation and affirm this observation through the positive (scientific) method. This process would allow individuals to gain the knowledge needed to govern themselves (Comte, 1988). Over time, two other ideas became associated with positivism. The first was the idea of social facts and the second was the idea of value-free observation. Social facts is a term coined by Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917). A social fact is a social practice, rule, duty, or sanction that exists outside of the individual. Durkheim believed a positivist social science could study social facts and uncover universal social laws. These laws could then be used to judge a society’s well-being (Morrison, 2006). Though Comte certainly never specifically called for value-free observation, it is implied in his approach. It was Max Weber (1864 – 1920) who would call for a “value neutral” science in sociology. His idea became an identifying characteristic of positivism. Critical Theory

The postmodern criticism of positivism has been anchored in a school of social thought called critical theory. Critical theory proposes that sociology should not only analyze society, but work to change it. Max Horkheimer (1895 – 1973), who first defined critical theory, was one of the early critics of positivism. Horkheimer had no quarrel with the role of observation in the Theories & Theoretical Approaches

49

social sciences. He was as much of an empiricist as Comte. However, positivism elevated observation and scientific method as the lone viable source for knowledge of the world. For Horkheimer this reduced the world to a world of “facts.” These “facts” were mere creations of the devices of scientists. These “facts” could not be questioned. Though the “facts” were verifiable they could not be shown to be good, bad, true, or untrue. Furthermore, positivism only reproduced what already existed. It could not imagine a new future or new possibilities (Stirk, 1997). Positivism could not speak to the truth of art, literature, and music. A decade later Horkheimer would identify positivism and its controlled mechanism as the instrument that fostered the rise of technical processes that objectified nature and humans, allowing both to enter seamlessly into the all-inclusive economic apparatus. Horkheimer believed that it was treating people like objects in the mechanics of society that allowed the Holocaust to happen (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1972). On the issue of valuefree observation, Horkheimer argued that it only leads to objectify humans and the results are undesirable. Herbert Marcuse (1898 – 1979), a younger associate of Horkheimer, argued that value judgments simply could not be separated from reason. Who we are, our lived experience, cultures, race, and ethnicity informs all of our judgments and how we reason. Value-free judgments are therefore, at their very core, unreasonable (Marcuse, 1991). Over the years the term positivist has fallen out of favor in sociological circles, yet traces of positivism remain. Critical theory as a postmodern critique has influenced a new generation of sociologists that work to combine the methods and theory of sociology with an understanding of the biases the observer brings to a project and the context of people being studied. Though critical theory itself remains a small contingent among sociologist the rise of feminist theory and the use of personal narratives and life stories in sociology can be traced back to critical theorists’ critique of positivism. Sociology, Institutions & Power Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984) is one of the few postmodern theorists that have enjoyed a considerable following among sociologists. Although Foucault rejected the postmodernist label, his contributions to the post50


modern critiques are considerable. Perhaps his most provocative and influential work centered on the dire dynamic between institutions and other forms of power and knowledge that create new forms of domination (Best & Kellner, 1991). Foucault dismisses the idea of progress and replaces it with a history of one type of violence, such an uncivilized humanity, being replaced by groups of rules that create new institutions of violence and domination (Foucault, 1979). These rules are not universal or absolute. Rather they are unique to their history, context, and domain. Though they are specific they are also always changing. These rules determine social order and practices (Foucault, 1972). What Foucault does in his work is try to show how the laws that govern order and give rise to powerful institutions have their origin not in universal truths or historical meta-narratives, but in specific places in time. Foucault studies the development of hospitals, asylums, and prisons to show how institutions entwine themselves in a network of institutions and use the specific knowledge and language to coerce and discipline society. Foucault believes this discipline not only silences the masses, but also regulates and subjugates their bodies. Marcuse, Cultural Industry & Domination

Marcuse continued his attack on positivism by broadening the critique to the modern industrial state. Marcuse saw the expansion of mass production, distribution, and administered economic coordination as a force of domination capable of manipulating, if not completely abridging, our own conception of our human needs and our ability to fight or refute the system (Rose, 1990). Marcuse attacked two institutions of the industrial state: the cultural industry and administration. The cultural industry, a term coined by Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) and Horkheimer, is a system of mass produced popular culture that uses consumption and low forms of pleasure to create a passive population and uses advertising to generate false needs. Administration is scientific production of control from a myriad of sources within the industrial state. Government and business both work to administer living. The administered life is the good life. Work and leisure are manufactured by administration in order to increase consumption. What need is there for self-determination when administration can offer the “good life” (Marcuse, 1991)? One way of looking at what Marcuse has theorized is to see his work as a blending of ‘soma,’ a pleasure drug given to the masses, from Huxley’s Brave New World, and Big Brother always watching from Orwell’s 1984. As a postmodern Theories & Theoretical Approaches

51

critique of domination Marcuse takes the ideas of progress and scientific method, as embodied in industrial technology, to task. The postmodern critique of institutions and domination has included critiques of the patriarchy, imperialism (geographic, cultural, and economic), religion, classical music, and the Western canon of philosophy and literature just to name a few. Sociology has, to varying degrees, found a place in the discipline for most of these critiques. Sociology, Meta-Narratives, & Language

Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998) fully embraced postmodernism. He opposed universals and positivism. Though he admitted to the progress of the sciences he wrote that the validity of knowledge is found in the practical subject – humanity. Science does not represent the totality of knowledge. Science has always existed in addition to other kinds of knowledge. As an example, when discussing issues of the state, science is of little use in knowing what is just or good. Of all Lyotard’s arguments against modernity perhaps his position on meta-narratives is best known. Lyotard argued that meta-narratives were the defining attribute of modernity. These grand totalizing theories that claimed to encapsulate the world and the metaphysical were no longer tenable in this age of technology and mass communication. Humanity is too aware of the world’s diversity and our differences. Lyotard (2002) suggests that we break up meta-narratives and begin to see the mass of individual narratives located at specific nodal points yet woven together in a fabric of relations. Kuhn’s Paradigms

Perhaps the most striking argument against the meta-narrative came from Thomas Kuhn (1922 – 1996). What was so critical about Kuhn’s assault was that the subject of his writing was the practices and works of scientists. Instead of using the term meta-narrative or grand theories Kuhn used the term paradigms. He defined paradigms as theories and their historical practices and achievements that supply a foundation for scientists, as well as problems to solve. For a theory to be a paradigm it must seem better then other theories and provide unresolved problems for scientists (Kuhn, 1996). Paradigms created the lens which scientists looked through. Their work could only be understood by looking through this lens. Paradigms 52


forced scientists to work on a small range of problems, over long periods of time, in detail otherwise unimaginable. The paradigm, whether Newton’s physics or Franklin’s electricity, leaves the scientist with the mopping up of all the small details or what Kuhn calls ‘normal science.’ Kuhn argues that scientific facts are little more than a solved puzzle within the paradigm. When a paradigm shifts, like from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s relativity, scientific facts thought to be knowledge or truth must change. Wittgenstein, Baudrillard & Language

The postmodern critique of language is generally traced back to the later writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 -1951). Wittgenstein attempted to remove language from the meta-narratives of modernity. He insisted language was guided by rules. But the rules he wrote about were not universal laws that guided language. Instead they were rules that arose from a particular “form of life” (Wittgenstein, 1968). The ultimate test of rules and language was whether they work in their context and were useful. Wittgenstein does not believe the meaning of a word is directly related to an object. Instead the meaning is derived from the definition which is derived from other words. If a new animal is encountered it is not given a name and definition that is directly related to the nature of the animal. Instead it is compared to other familiar animals. The word for this animal, and eventually its definition, will be drawn from the resemblances it has with other animals. Wittgenstein maintained that words, their definitions and meanings, have long histories that evolve out of these resemblances ever changing and creating new words and meaning. Jean Baudrillard (1929- 2007), expanded this idea with his idea of passwords. Not only do passwords have these rich histories and relationships, but they are also vehicles and passers of ideas. Harold Garfinkel (b. 1917) expanded these critiques into conversation. Garfinkel (1967) wrote that everyday conversations are creative processes that are leveraged by individuals to create a sense of order and meaning (Garfinkel 1967). Garfinkel wrote about the reflexive nature of conversations, individuals, and locales. Reflexivity is a circular relationship that informs meaning and self-identity between conversationalists. All of these thinkers saw words, conversations, and language as something quite apart from the universal laws and meta-narratives of modernity. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

53

Derrida’s Différance

Jacques Derrida (1930 – 2004) was the rock star of the postmodern movement. He is the most cited scholar by those who support, as well as those who attack, postmodernism. Derridaian terminology has seeped into every part of popular culture and every academic discipline. Derrida proposed that texts could be deconstructed or taken apart by elements within the text. He also continued in the vein of Wittgenstein and others with his concept différance. Différance is from the French word différer which means both to differ from and to defer. Derrida believed that meaning in the text is always deferred. In order to understand the meaning of a word one must turn to different words that signify something else altogether. This difference forces one to defer meaning. Additionally, the particulars of context are unknowable (Derrida 1985). From this position Derrida has not only questioned the knowledge of modernity, but also the knowledge proposed by those who critique modernity. Richard Rorty (1931 – 2007) added to the postmodern critique of language an ironic twist. Rorty (1989) wrote that a theorist’s responsibility was to search for and construct a system of truth or what he called the final vocabulary. The irony is that the theorist doubts their own final vocabulary and sees it as no closer to the truth than any other final vocabulary. Thus they continue to search and construct. Other Postmodern Approaches to Sociology

What does a postmodern approach to sociological theory look like? No one agrees. In the age of reality television, MySpace, YouTube, and blogs it is easy to see the postmodern as a methodology of biography (Agger, 2002). Pavlich (1995) has written that Foucault’s genealogical approach, a practice of digging into and disrupting the unchallenged histories and meta-narratives of Western civilization in order to unearth forgotten voices, might be a useful methodology in constructing a postmodern sociology. Perhaps embracing the biased observer and putting aside the Cartesian dualism that allowed modern thinkers to erroneously imagine an observer quite apart from their opinions would be a step towards a postmodern approach to sociological theory (Murphy, 1988). The power of conversations and the reflexive nature of the individual interactions with others and institutions may offer elements for a postmodern approach to sociological theory (Platt, 1989). 54


Many smaller schools of sociological theory, such as feminist, queer, and specific race and ethnic theorists are drawn to postmodermism because they stand in opposition to the dominant institution. Situated thus they have proven quite creative in employing postmodern perspectives in their approaches to sociological theory. Some feminist and queer theorists use an approach to theory centered on Foucault’s analysis of how powerful institutions use language. The argument is that not only gender, but sex, sexuality, and ultimately identity is constructed by the language of male dominated institutions. Postmodern theorists working on race often adapt the critique of institutions from critical theory and add the concept of an increasingly fragmenting society, another significant postmodern critique, to attack a history of administration and propose new ways to construct truth within previously marginalized communities. There is no one true postmodern approach to sociological theory or postmodern school of sociology. There are many approaches, each specific to the theorists it serves. Conclusion

The criticism of postmodernism, the challenge in getting postmodern work published in leading sociological journals, and the difficulty of obtaining tenure may effectively keep postmodernism out of the sociological mainstream. Postmodernism has been attacked for being meaningless, nonsensical, intentionally obscure, relativist, and ultimately impossible to understand. It has been taken to task for not being a theory at all. To take it one step further, Baudrillard thought a postmodern approach to sociological theory was really beside the point. Today information technologies has replaced the “social” with the “mass” and made sociology, in Baudrillard’s opinion, altogether irrelevant (Pavlich, 1995). The central problem is, according Jurgen Habermas (b. 1928), that attacks by critical theorists and postmodernists have gone too far. Habermas, who is considered a critical theorist, understands the attack on modernity. Yet he writes that the project of modernity is worth completing. Modernity can be redeemed and obstacles to communication and domination can be removed (Habermas, 1982). The democracy imagined in the modern dialectic can be achieved (Habermas, 1981). In his later work Habermas would place postmodernism within the project of modernity, sort of like a lower branch on the tree of knowledge. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

55

Despite the criticism postmodernism has received from the sociological establishment it is clear the postmodern critique has had a lasting influence on the discipline. The diversity now seen in sociological journals, course offerings, and faculty in some part can be attributed to the influence of postmodern discourses. The language of postmodernism is ubiquitous in the texts of sociology. The fragmentation of sociology, the breaking up of a dominant discourse into many discourses has, despite Baudrillard’s assertion of sociology’s demise, broadened and strengthened the relevancy of the discipline. And though there is no single coherent postmodern approach to sociological theory there is a significant postmodern influence on much of sociological theory.

Bibliography Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1972). The dialectic of enlightenment. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. Agger, B. (2002). Postponing the post modern : Sociological practices, selves, and theories. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Agger, B. (2000). Public sociology: From social facts to literary acts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Andrews, D. L. (1993). Desperately seeking Michel: Foucault’s genealogy, the body, and critical sport sociology. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10 (2), 148-167. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database, SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13472231&site=ehost-live Baudrillard, J. (2003). Passwords. New York: Verso Books. Bauman, Z. (1990). Philosophical affinities of postmodern sociology. Sociological Review, 38 (3), 411-444. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN =5475043&site=ehost-live Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. New York: The Guilford Press. Booth, A. J. (1871). Saint-Simon and Saint-Simonism: A chapter in the history of socialism in France. London: MTA Comte, A. (1988). Introduction to positive philosophy. Publishing Company, Inc.

Indianapolis, IN: Hackett

Derrida, J. (1985). Margins of philosophy. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Tavisstock Publications Limited. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. 56


Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. New York: The Harvester Press. Francis, M. (2007). Herbert Spencer and the invention of modern life. New York: Cornell University Press. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice Hall. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: reason rationalization of society, Vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1992) Postmetaphysical thinking. Cambridge: Polity. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lyotard, J. F. (2002). The postmodern condition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Marcuse, H. (1991). One-dimensional man. Boston: Beacon Press. Marshall, G. (Ed.). (1998). A dictionary of sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Murphy, J. W. (1988). Making sense of postmodern sociology. British Journal of Sociology, 39 (4), 600-614. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&A N=6788804&site=ehost-live O’Connor, P. (2006). Wittgenstein: A Feminist Interpretation [Book review]. Hypatia, 21 (3), 207-210. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=2172 2595&site=ehost-live Pavlich, G. (1995). Contemplating a postmodern sociology: genealogy, limits and critique. Sociological Review, 43 (3), 548-572. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=a9h&AN=9508225686&site=ehost-live Pickering, M. (1993). Auguste Comte: An intellectual biography, Vol. 1. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Platt, R. (1989). Reflexivity, recursion and social life: elements for a postmodern sociology. Sociological Review, 37 (4), 636-667. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=a9h&AN=5476707&site=ehost-live Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rose, B. (1990). The triumph of social control? A look at Herbert Marcuse’s one dimensional man, 25 years later. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 35, 55-68. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database, SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di rect=true&db=sih&AN=15063463&site=ehost-live Stirk , P M. R. (1997). Max Horkheimer: A new interpretation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

57

Tal, K. (1996). Life behind the screen. Wired, (4.10). Retrieved April 21, 2008. http://www. wired.com/wired/archive/4.10/screen.html Weber, M. (1978). Max Weber: Essays in sociology. (H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Trans. and Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations. New York: MacMillian Publishing.

Suggested Reading Jameson, F. (2001). Postmodernism, or, The cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Nicholson, L. J. (Ed.). (1991). Feminism/Postmodernism (Thinking Gender). New York: Routledge. Sarup, M. (1993). An introductory guide to post-structuralism and postmodernism. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

58


Social Darwinism Jennifer Kretchmar

Overview Social Darwinism is a widely recognized term, both within academia and without, and yet it is not easily defined. As Caudill writes, “For a concept that seems so familiar to so many… the meaning of the term ‘Social Darwinism’ is strangely elusive” (1997, p. 64). It’s elusive for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it has almost nothing to do with Charles Darwin or his theory of natural selection. Secondly, it has been associated with a large variety of “schools of thought,” some contradictory, so that in the end it has been difficult to develop a single, definitive definition. Finally, Social Darwinism is a term that has been applied by historians retrospectively, to describe the ideas of philosophers and sociologists who themselves never identified as Social Darwinists. And yet, despite its elusiveness, it was also one of the most influential movements of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Indeed, Ryan describes it as a “controversial and complex intellectual and cultural phenomenon that sent shock waves through Western, particularly American society, that still reverberate today” (1999, p. ix). A logical place to begin an exploration of Social Darwinism is with the name itself. As Asma explains, “it should be immediately noted that Social Darwinism…had almost nothing to do with Darwin but everything to do with Herbert Spencer” (1933, p. 10). What is known as Social DarwinTheories & Theoretical Approaches

59

ism, he argues, should really be referred to as “Social Spencerism” (Asma, 19933, p. 11). But Spencer was a contemporary of Darwin’s; other scholars like Allchin suggest the defining tenet of Social Darwinism – the idea that humans are subject to the same natural laws of competition and individualism as other life forms – predated both Darwin and Spencer (2007). Similarities to Hobbes’ view of man as inherently selfish, and Malthus’ notion that limited resources breed competition, suggest to Allchin that Social Darwinism should be called “Hobbism or Malthusianism” (2007, p. 114). In the United States, sociologist and Yale Professor William Graham Sumner was themost visible defender of Social Darwinism; described as Spencer’s “American deputy,” however, few historians have offered “Sumnerism” as a more appropriate name. Yet, if Darwin, Spencer, and Sumner are the three central characters in the Social Darwinist “plot,” then it is important to understand the perspective from which each contributed to the dialogue. For Darwin and Spencer, especially, the study of evolution was of primary importance. Spencer, however, studied it as a philosopher, writing without an academic appointment of any kind, communicating his ideas largely through the popular press (Caudill, 1997). Darwin, on the other hand, studied evolution as a biologist, and was widely accepted in the scientific community. Indeed, Spencer went to great (often unsuccessful) lengths to distinguish himself from Darwin, and resented the notoriety Darwin received. At the same time, Darwin was wary of Spencer’s extension of evolutionary principles to the realm of the sociological, and found his writing unnecessarily obtuse (Asma, 1993; Caudill, 1997). If Darwin and Spencer were academics, then Sumner, albeit a professor, was a practitioner at heart. He continually looked for ways to put theory into practice, especially with regard to social policy on immigration, poverty, taxes, and education. In the end, however, Sumner’s writings and policies – and to some degree Spencer’s as well – contained very few traces of Darwin’s ideas (Hodgson, 2004). As Tilman explains, Spencer and Sumner “made careers out of exploiting” the ideas of Darwin (2001, p. ix). Understanding how their ideas differ from one another is the first step in unraveling the mystery of Social Darwinism. 60


Further Insights Charles Darwin & the Theory of Natural Selection

With the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, Charles Darwin became the first to explain the mechanism by which evolution took place. This mechanism – or the theory of natural selection – became the defining signature of his work. Specifically, Darwin argued that plants and animals, in all their variety, had evolved to their present form because of three principles: all organisms reproduce; each organism within a given species differs slightly from all others; and all organisms compete for survival (Degler, 1991). Darwin argued that those best able to adapt to a changing environment would outbreed others; over time, adjustments to the environment might lead to the development of a new species altogether. The idea of natural selection has often been compared to the process that a breeder of horses might follow, intentionally selecting breeding those individual animals displaying the most desired traits. But natural selection differs in one significant respect. That is, the breeder exercises intention and purpose, whereas nature has no goal in mind at all. As Degler explains, “the immense diversity of living organisms resulted, according to Darwin, not from a plan of purpose but from the accidents of history, from those changes in climate, weather, geology, and food supply, or the increase or decrease in the presence of enemies to which an animal or plant might be subjected” (1991, p. 6). Importantly, by discrediting the notion of purpose, Darwin also indirectly undermined Christianity, God, and the story of Creation. Missing from Darwin’s first publication was any mention of how natural selection applied to human beings (Degler, 1991). His second publication, The Descent of Man, however, was devoted entirely to establishing the connection between humans and other animals. As Degler (1991) writes, Darwin’s intention – as evidenced in notebooks produced long before either publication - “was [always] to demonstrate the application of natural selection to human evolution” (p. 12). Does this alone, however, qualify Darwin as a Social Darwinist? Most, like Allchin (2007) respond with a resounding ‘no’. Others, however, see traces of ‘Social Spencerism’ in Darwin’s writing (Caudill, 1997; Degler, 1991). “It is quite true that scattered throughout the Descent of Man are passages suggesting that Darwin Theories & Theoretical Approaches

61

believed the principle of survival of the fittest justified as well as explained the social hierarchy in human affairs. Darwin, in sum, was hardly free from the accoutrements of Social Darwinism” (Degler, 1991, p. 11). If there were only traces of Social Darwinism in Darwin’s work, what form would his work have taken if Social Darwinist tenets were more prominent? The Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer & William Graham Sumner

Arguably, the most defining characteristic of Social Darwinism is its extension of science (and Darwinist principles especially) into the social sciences. Importantly, however, such extensions were made less on the basis of any sound, empirical evidence, and more as a way of justifying previously held social and political beliefs. Tilman writes, “Charles Darwin’s…The Origin of Species, although a treatise of enormous scientific value, was sufficiently ambiguous as to lend itself to various political and sociological interpretations” (2001, p. ix). Allchin argues the point more passionately. Social Darwinism, he writes, “defames science, especially Darwinian concepts, by portraying an ill-informed cultural interpretation of science as an extension of science itself” (2007, p. 115). Although Social Darwinists like Spencer and Sumner have largely been discredited, it was precisely their appeal to science which gave them credibility and acceptance in the first place. Indeed, Spencer coined the term “survival of the fittest” to describe the process whereby those organisms best able to adapt to the environment outlive and outbreed others. Several years later, after the first publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin incorporated the phrase into his own work. Shared terminology such as this led many to believe Spencer rested upon the same solid, scientific foundation as Darwin. But the appeal to science wasn’t the only factor contributing to the widespread popularity of Social Darwinism in the late nineteenth century. As Caudill argues, survival of the fittest was also a relatively simple idea that could be shaped toward different ends, and it “appealed to the educated middle and upper classes, whose social and economic superiority it explained in terms of scientific law” (1997, p. xiii). Flaws in the Theory

Before defining in greater detail the tenets of Social Darwinism, as espoused by Spencer and Sumner, it’s important to understand the ways in which the application of Darwin’s theory of evolution to human society 62


was fundamentally flawed. First and foremost, the biological processes of natural selection do not easily explain characteristics of social groups. Political power and economic class, Allchin points out, are not biological traits (2007). The unit of selection also became a source of confusion in the application of Darwinist principles to human society (Caudill, 1997). Were Spencer and Sumner referring to the evolution of society as a whole or to the evolution of its individual members? They referred to each alternately, often leading to conflicting results. Finally, Spencer and Sumner mistakenly viewed adaptation to the environment as a sign of progress (Allchin, 2007; Caudill, 1997). Whereas Darwin believed evolution proceeded without purpose, by accidents of history, Spencer “was a social determinist who believed that society gradually would move toward its potential in a uniform manner” (Caudill, 1997, p. 67). However, Social Darwinists were less concerned about following the letter of scientific law, and were more interested in promoting a particular social agenda. What was the prevailing agenda of Social Darwinists? Although Darwinism was used, at times, to promote conflicting viewpoints, the particular variety of Social Darwinism preached by Spencer and Sumner was most pervasive. For Richard Hofstadter, whose 1940 publication Social Darwinism in American Thought was the seminal work for a period of time, Social Darwinism consisted of three elements: the notion of survival of the fittest; classical economics, particularly laissez-faire; and a Protestant work ethic, with its emphasis on the relationship between economic success and moral virtue (as cited in Tilman, 2001, p. x). In short, Spencer and Sumner were vehement defenders of capitalism and the free market. And they opposed government intervention of any kind. “Free competition, Spencer argued, was a natural law of economics and the best guarantor of a community’s well-being. Governmental interference with the natural law of competition would hinder social progress and ultimately would result in economic misfortune” (Caudill, 1997, p. 67). Sumner, in his 1883 publication What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, advanced the argument, claiming that unfettered access to the structure of capitalism was all any member of society – rich or poor – owed one another (as cited in Tilman, 2001, p. xii). Sumner believed each person was ultimately paid what his contribution was worth. Indeed, “for Sumner, competition was as much a natural law as gravity, and regulation of comTheories & Theoretical Approaches

63

petition ultimately as futile as attempting to regulate gravity” (Caudill, 1997, p. 68). What implications did this perspective have for the jobless and poor? As Asma writes, “Spencer himself adamantly opposed all state aid to the poor on the grounds that it would be an interference with the ‘natural’ developmental process” (1993, p. 11). According to Social Darwinists, the poor and homeless, by virtue of being poor and homeless, had demonstrated that they were inferior and unfit for survival. Others could only stand by and watch, “but take some consolation in the fact that it was ‘fated’ by nature to happen” (Asma, 1993, p. 11). Because of the primacy of the Protestant work ethic, and its emphasis on the relationship between economic success and virtue, it was a small logical leap for Social Darwinists to conclude that the poor “deserved their destitution” (Asma, 1993, p. 11). Spencer’s faith in non-governmental interference led him to oppose public policy of all sorts, including free public education. According to Spencer, free public education “could only be interpreted as a betrayal of economic individualism and an oppressive concession to State collectivism” (Tilman, 2001, p. xiii). Indeed, Sumner and Spencer opposed all efforts to remake social institutions, claiming that such attempts interfered with man’s natural right to participate in free exchange and have access to unlimited wealth. They failed to understand that their endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism was itself an attempt to remake social institutions, albeit in a different fashion. In the end, Sumner criticized others for their “absurd attempts to make the world over,” preferring to view his own attempts as part of the natural order. Villains or Misunderstood?

Spencer and Sumner are easily portrayed as villains, advocating a competitive and combative mentality within social groups, while showing little care and concern for the less fortunate. Hofstadter, a prominent earlytwentieth century historian, helped solidify this perspective in much of his work. Caudill argues, however, that he and others often overlooked the complexity and nuance of Spencer and Sumner’s beliefs (1997). In particular, Spencer, like Darwin recognized the importance of cooperation as well as competition in evolution. Thus, while Spencer opposed government subsistence, he believed in private self-help. The more fortunate, 64


he argued, should help the poor begin to help themselves. Spencer wrote about justice and generosity as necessary elements in any social structure (Caudill, 1997). In the end, Caudill argues, “Spencer’s survival of the fittest was rather benign, notably lacking in tooth-and-claw logic” (1997, p. 72). Because Social Darwinism is so closely associated with Spencer and Sumner, it’s easy to forget that Darwin’s ideas about evolution were appropriated to support other – often opposing – ideas (Caudill, 1997; Kaye, 1997). That is, the type of Social Darwinism espoused by Spencer was a defense of capitalism, but socialists and nationalists used evolutionary principles to suggest the ‘naturalness’ of their economic and political system as well. Similarly, some used Darwin to defend conflict and war, while others used it to argue for cooperation and social harmony (Caudill, 1997). Thus, the application of Darwinists principles to human society was distributed uniformly along the political and economic spectrum. Part of this complexity is lost because the term ‘Social Darwinism’ was applied retrospectively. Hodgson traces the evolution of the term itself in academic publications, and documents significant shifts in meaning over the period of several decades (2004). Hofstadter, Hodgson argues, is responsible for portraying Spencer and Sumner as leading Social Darwinists, while at the same time “lump[ing] together all sorts of views under the vaguely defined label” (2004, p. 450).

Issues Abuses & Misuses of Darwinism

All Social Darwinists, to some extent, are guilty of misusing Darwinism for political or social ends. Spencer and Sumner, we have learned, used it to justify capitalism and social hierarchy. Others, however, used it for far more pernicious ends. The Eugenics movement and the Nazi holocaust provide two such examples. Racism in the United States in the early twentieth century was not a new phenomenon, but the use of science to justify it gave it renewed energy. As Caudill explains, “Darwin’s natural selection itself had evolved from biological theory, to social, and economic theory, until finally it provided the intellectual foundation for creating a ‘better’ human race” (1997, p. 97). Those who attempted to create this better human race through a program Theories & Theoretical Approaches

65

of “selective breeding” were known as eugenicists. Francis Galton, cousin to Darwin, founded the movement because “he was convinced that society needed to promote the reproduction of its better members in order not to be swamped by the unfit, for which urban slums were seen as prime breeding ground” (Caudill, 1997, p. 99). Indeed, irrational fears such as these were fueled by rapid societal changes – urbanization, industrialization, and immigration and eugenicists were willing to take significant measures to stem the tide of change. In 1924 they successfully passed national legislation to restrict immigration of people deemed less desirable; smaller governmental units at the county level even proposed sterilization legislation. Ultimately, the eugenics movement declined as World War II broke out, and it became increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish their ideals from Hitler’s. The Nazis’ use of biological evolutionary theory to justify their program of racial purification was, in the end, what compromised whatever shred of intellectual and scientific credibility social Darwinists had left. As Degler (1991) writes, “Social Darwinism was definitely killed, not merely scotched” (p. ix). But again, it was the Nazis’ appeal to science which garnered them power and acceptance in the first place. “The Nazis were brutal, sadistic, even contradictory in their so-called thinking about race, but they were not stupid. [They knew] the veneer of even a little scientific respectability could help stall international decisiveness about the Nazi’s actions and intentions” (Caudill, 1997, p. 115). Although there are many parallels between the eugenics movement in the United States and Nazism – racist beliefs and practices, and the use of science to gain political advantage, to name two – Caudill argues that further comparisons are unfair: “[Germany] took that fateful, radical final step in promoting ‘the fittest’, while the [United States] stopped far short of a program of extermination” (1997, p. 132). The Return to Darwin & Biology

An unfortunate consequence of the Social Darwinist movement, many argue, is that many scholars have since been quick to dismiss the role of biology in explaining human behavior (Hodgson, 2004). In other words, Social Darwinism – particularly as it existed in its extreme forms in the eugenics movement and Nazi science – instigated a backlash against those who emphasized nature over nurture in the long-standing debate in the 66


social sciences. As Hodgson writes, “A worry is that the term ‘Social Darwinism’ has been used in the twentieth century to close down much of the discussion in the social sciences concerning the influence of human biology on human behavior. Those misguided by the rhetoric of ‘Social Darwinism’ are less well prepared to engage with these developments” (2004, p. 429). Although Social Darwinism may have squashed genuine dialogue about the role of biology in human evolution for some period of time, the end of the twentieth century saw renewed interest in biological explanations for human behavior. Importantly, however, scholars distance themselves from the pseudo-scientific approach of Social Darwinists. Degler writes, “It’s important to recognize that this ‘return to biology’ is not simply a revival of repudiated ideas, like racism, sexism, or eugenics. The story told here of the return to biology does not resuscitate Herbert Spencer” (1991, p. ix). Nor does it discredit the role of the environment; those who have revisited Darwin in the last half century are not trying to marginalize culture’s influence on human behavior, but rather keep others from “pushing biology out of the picture” entirely (Degler, 1991, p. 329).

Bibliography Allchin, D. (2007). Social un-Darwinism: How does society relate to nature in an evolutionary perspective? American Biology Teacher, 69, 113-115. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24872061&site=ehost-live Asma, S.T. (1993). The new social Darwinism: Deserving your destitution. Humanist, 53, 10-12. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=94013138 21&site=ehost-live Caudill, E. (1997). Darwinian myths: The legends and misuses of a theory. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press. Degler, C.N. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hodgson, G.M. (2004). Social Darwinism in Anglophone academic journals: A contribution to the history of the term. Journal of Historical Sociology, 17, 428-463. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15073330&site=ehost-live Horgan, J. (1995). The new social Darwinists. Scientific American, 273, 174-184. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9510134430&site=ehost-live Theories & Theoretical Approaches

67

Kaye, H. (1997). The social meaning of modern biology. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with FullText: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=682 2597&site=ehost-live The story of man. (2005). The Economist, 377(8458), p. 11. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19250053&site=ehost-live Tilman, R. (2001). Introduction. In F. X. Ryan (Ed.), Social Darwinism and its critics (pp. ix-xxii). Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press.

Suggested Reading Bannister, R.C. (1979). Social Darwinism: Science and myth in Anglo-American social thought. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Crook, P. (2007). Darwin’s coat-tails: Essays on social Darwinism. New York, NY: Peter Lang Press. Hofstadter, R. (1944). Social Darwinism in American thought. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Numbers, R.L., & Stenhouse, J. (Eds.). (1999). Disseminating Darwinism: The role of place, race, religion, and gender. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

68


Social Positivism Maureen McMahon

Overview For most people, the thought of proving a concept is as challenging as identifying the criminal in an episode of Law and Order. Most people do not collect and analyze data on a regular basis, but they can if they have to for the duration of a television show. For a scientist, though, a concept is not considered a concept until it can be proven as such; a chair is not a chair until it is ruled out as being some other piece of furniture. In many cases, it is the methodology of how that proof is gathered (and subsequently interpreted) that determines into what branch of science an investigator can be categorized. Within the field of social science, or sociology, a social positivist studies facts; a naturalist studies what happens in certain environmental conditions, while a realist prefers to see things for herself, ignoring what might be ideal. And, within many scientific disciplines, each category of investigator agrees to disagree with the others. Social positivism is such a category. Positivism manifests itself across all scientific realms (biology, chemistry, physics, sociology, etc.) because it is clear, concise, and leads to an answer that can be proven by fact, i.e., empirical data. From a positivist perspective, a concept can only be considered a concept when the facts (what can be seen, calculated, or dissected) prove that it is (in fact) a concept. Auguste Comte, who first coined the term and science of sociology, created the theory in the 19th century as a way to Theories & Theoretical Approaches

69

rid the scientific world of rationalism, a perspective that relied on reason as the guiding voice for action. Comte believed that proof was essential to science, (and the science of sociology); since reason includes intuition, positivists had no use for it. As a social philosophy that relied heavily on science, positivism was distinct from other philosophies in several ways. First, a positivist investigator had to obtain facts (from various sources) in an objective manner; emotions and values had no place in positivism. Second, induction of generalizations was the basis for beginning an investigative search. As Turner (2006) notes, a positivist’s work is “guided by highly abstract theoretical principles” (p. 453). Third, empiricism guides all of an investigator’s work. The abstract is a good place to begin, but in the end, there must be concrete evidence to prove a concept. Finally, practicality is essential; the more quantifiable the data, the easier it is to control. The point of the theoretical work was to make a prediction about future social behavior based on new information being added (i.e., positive) to the old (behavior that occurred within history). Positivism across Various Fields

Other scientists saw the value in the generalist methodology, and a surge of cross-perspective research resulted from positivism. The fields of psychology, education, economics, business, and the labor industry received an increase in interest as data collection relied on quantification rather than supposition (Smelser, 1990). However, while the popularity of positivism grew, so did its critics. Those critical of the theory, according to Turner (2006), misunderstood it, especially its methodology. Turner (2006) argues that data collection was not the only goal of positivist theorists. A few positivists use mathematics in their formulation of theoretical principles, but this is not the same as quantifying variables. The more important point is that, at times, quantification is possible, and if possible, it is probably desirable, but quantification for its own sake violates the basic tenets of positivism. The most important tenet for positivists is to denote universal and generic properties of the social world and to formulate laws about their dynamic properties (p. 452-453). Turner (2006) also notes that taking an historical perspective – analyzing events in social history – in addition to other positivist methodology, 70


helped to predict those social dynamics (457). Using this view, positivism could be summarized as looking at the whole plus its parts. An Example of Quantitative Data

An example of positivism could be the high school student looking for the perfect college. Many students look at a school’s history when considering the idea of spending four years there. At the State University College at Plattsburgh, New York, the curriculum began in the late 1800’s when the school opened as a normal school; it taught teachers how to teach. Since then, though, it has developed a cross-disciplinary curriculum; it’s now a school of arts and sciences. While it still has a division of education on both undergraduate and graduate levels, it also shares space with business and chemistry and history when it once did not. To find out if the school of education has experienced a negative in no longer being the college’s primary function, a prospective student might do two things. First, she could look at statistics, discerning how many applicants finish the education program and how many of those graduates find positions within the field of education. Second, the student could ask people who attended the education program what their experience was. All of the information gathered would have to be compared first to information gathered when the school was entirely education based, and second, to similar information gathered from other schools with education programs. The statistical data that is based on the history of the school, and the conclusions made solely on those numbers are thus quantitative. The subjective details provided by former education majors is considered qualitative, and would only appeal to a positivist if the details are based on fact rather than opinion, which is rarely the case. However, considering the historical dynamic of the school and any quantitative data collected, a positivist would be able to predict how a prospective student would fare at Plattsburgh State for the next four years.

Applications Example: Photography

One way to make a theory seem valuable is to make it applicable to real life. For photographers, according to Saltz (2006), positivism was the golden Theories & Theoretical Approaches

71

egg and William Henry Fox Talbot is the mother goose sitting on it. Historically, photography and positivism gained popularity around the same time in the mid 1800s. While people were able to produce still pictures hundreds of years earlier, the camera wasn’t invented until 1839. That is just about the time that Auguste Comte was knee-deep in publishing his multi-volume work, Cours de Philosophie Positive. Berger (1982) points out that the concepts of photography and positivism grew up together (as cited in Saltz, 2006). According to Saltz (2006), the two had a great deal in common: Photography, like positivism, limits the real and knowable to the visible, to facts that can be observed, measured, and quantified. A positivist model of knowledge likewise assumes a split between a neutral observing subject and the objects or people observed (Saltz, 2006, p. 73). Observation needs light, and Fox Talbot’s focus as a photographer was embedded in the duality of light and dark, picture and shadow. Interestingly, while the ideas of light and dark seem in opposition, they rely on each other for existence, as without the ability to identify darkness, the human eye does not perceive light. As a result of Talbot’s work, scientific thought at the time focused on the concept of polarity – opposites attracting while substances with similar composition repel each other (Saltz, 2006). Photography and its concepts of light and dark can be proven, examined, and measured, as can the polar forces of electricity and gravity. As a result, the polarity identified in Talbot’s work provided other scientists with a perfect example of positivism, and a means to conduct work across disciplines.

Viewpoints While many have utilized the positivist theory, many have also criticized it, noting various shortcomings in its foundation. As a result of those noted shortcomings, there has been much research criticizing the theory when it is applied to many situations. The Qualitative Nature of Stress

Change is a constant condition, and with change comes stress – either good stress (like buying a house, or bad stress (like losing a job). Because it 72


is a cross-cultural and frequently occurring phenomenon, it makes sense that scientists would want to study it. However, studying how people interact with stress does not approach why some people are affected by it and others are not. Bicknell & Liefooghe (2006) identify disconnect as a concern for stress research, as treating the symptoms of stress do not treat the cause of it. “It is not simply…that stress occurs when there is a ‘misfit’ between person and environment, but rather that that ‘misfit’ must be negotiated” (p. 380). There are many ways to relieve stress. Getting enough sleep and exercising regularly are two notable things people can do to reduce the stress in their lives. These two activities, though, don’t help to reduce the stressors in one’s life; they simply aim to help a person better handle a stressful situation. For many people, stress is encountered on a daily basis at work. However, like purchasing a new home, stress at work is not necessarily considered negatively. In fact, according to Sky News, (2003), “77% of the UK’s workers believe stress at work leads to greater job satisfaction” (as cited in Bicknell & Liefooghe, 2006, p. 379). In addition to the symptom versus the cause disconnect, there is also a great deal of disconnect within the discipline of stress research methodology. Studies within the field of organizational and occupational psychology have largely (though not exclusively) been from a positivist perspective … [but] arguments around subjective vs. objective assessment come into sharp focus when applied to stress (Perrewe´ & Zellars, 1999; Schaubroeck, 1999, as cited in Bicknell & Liefoogh, 2006, p. 378-379). Indeed, how someone feels (i.e., whether or not he feels stressed) is subjective, and therefore qualitative. People tend to spend time in therapy sessions discussing their feelings rather than using statistical data to note each experience of stress (under what circumstances the stress occurred, the time of day it occurred, the weather on the days of occurrence, the amount of sleep acquired the night before each occurrence, etc.) since their last visit. True positivism would require that the policies regulating therapy change to be more data friendly. Education Policy

The policies governing public education should be determined by the public, but this is not often the case. There are many influences which affect Theories & Theoretical Approaches

73

the regulations of schools. Those influences spread from the local level to various governmental entities, especially when funding is concerned. With so much at stake – and so many people involved in the process – it is no wonder that decisions are based (primarily) on quantitative data collected from standardized test scores and experimental trials that show results in tidy lists of information. When tests scores are listed on a sheet of paper, it is easy to see that District A has a lower pass rate for state’s required 10th grade science exam when compared with Districts B and C. What is not easy to see, however, is the reason behind the decrease in scores. Qualitative measures are probably a better way to collect that data, but the information reported from interviews with administrators, teachers, and students will not be as easy to interpret at a budget meeting. Rather than basing standard policy on generalized assessments, Lees (2007) suggests that the differences within each district be taken into account when determining what is considered best policy, even if the data collected is difficult to interpret. “Complexity must be accepted as a necessary part of research, policy development, school management, teaching and learning” (Lees, 2007, p. 50-51). In addition, Delandshere (2006) notes that the disparity within the United States education system ties the hands of the researchers who would want to investigate District A’s lower scores. In an unprecedented move, the US federal government has in effect mandated what constitutes educational research worthy of public funding. Many government requests for research proposals in education, or for evaluation of federally funded programs in general, explicitly require the use of randomised controlled trials. In addition, and consistent with this mandate, states and school districts which receive federal education funds are also required to use these monies on programs for which there exist scientifically-based evidence (As cited in Lees, 2007, p. 56-57). Such specific and controlled data collection cannot be qualitative, nor does the United States government assert that it should be. As a result, data collection is skewed because it ignores the very people it is supposed to support. District A is seen just one notation on a sheet of many. 74


Religion

While photography and education are measurable concepts, stress and religion are not as clear-cut. Stress, however, is identifiable by the physiological affect on the people it inflicts. Spirituality is not identified by a rapid heart rate or sweaty palms. While scientific theory embraced the idea of positivism for over one hundred years, those who embraced religion were in conflict with science. Within the philosophical and methodological framework of positivism, there was no epistemologically legitimate scope for the study of human spirituality and subjectivism. But today’s new science challenges the basic assumptions of positivism. No serious philosopher of science today believes that positivism depicts the true nature of science. In the post-positivist conception, the study of human subjectivity is a legitimate scientific inquiry…Out of the revolt against positivism, there began to grow a new conception of science, and it is within this new conception that there is developing an evaluative space for the scientific exploration of religion and spirituality (Shahidullah, 2007, p. 20). As positivism was lost from the center of scientific thought, new ways of thinking were formed. For the most spiritual, though, nothing new had to be born; what science rejected, the most religious disregarded, for the existence of a God did not need to be proven to be believed. Nonetheless, religion, belief, and intuition now carry weight within the world of science. In fact, in 2004, the world of physics acknowledged a new theory, the Wave Theory – the theory of everything that encompasses much of what positivism rejected. As Roberts (2002) asserts, “It is this postmodern trend of thought that begins to produce a space for the evaluation of religious knowledge and spirituality in science, particularly in human sciences” (as cited in Shahidullah, 2007, p. 8). Subjectivity and intuition are now valuable pieces of the scientific world. Quality versus Quantity

The concept of qualitative data versus quantitative data is one that has been considered for centuries. And sociology is just a small focus of the debate. However, arguing that qualitative data is more valid than quantitative data and that quantitative data is more concise than qualitative Theories & Theoretical Approaches

75

data doesn’t settle the debate of one being “better” than the other. When considering the example of what college to attend, both statistics about a school’s graduate-placements and conversations with those graduates is probably the best way to go, as personal preference includes a great deal of variability while statistics do not. However, other instances of quality versus quantity invade our daily lives, and sometimes, where to spend the next four isn’t as important as being able to spend it. Fields like criminal investigation, medicine, and forensic science rely on empiricism-- only facts and raw data to determine what the truth is. While observation can assist in the methodology of these fields, quantitative data is relied upon to make determinations that save lives and put the bad guys behind bars, and there is no question about the choice of methods used. Sociology is not as clear cut, and the argument about quantitative versus qualitative methodology clearly remains under debate. Furthermore, the argument has not only divided the camps within the debate, it has segregated the few who care enough to argue. Burris (2007) doesn’t believe this debate will end any time soon. Implicated in the debate over quantitative versus qualitative methods are both genuine differences about the most valued forms of sociological knowledge … If ever there were a specter haunting sociology, it is this dichotomy, which shows no sign of abating despite the many reasoned appeals for methodological pluralism (Little 1991) and despite the fact that many individual sociologists easily straddle both sides of the line … [I]nsofar as the quantitative qualitative dichotomy is intertwined with the contest for disciplinary prestige and the relative valuation of different kinds of intellectual capital, the prospects for a negotiated truce are more problematic (Burris, 2007, p. 104-105). Neither the quantitative nor the qualitative is evil or harmful; the methods are what they are – valid ways of gathering and documenting data.

Bibliography Bicknell, M. & Liefooghe, A. (2006). The art of stress. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 79 (3), 377-394. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Research Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=22558001&site=ehost-live 76


Burris, V. (2007). Fordism and positivism in U.S. sociology. Social Science History 31 (1), 93-105. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2423734 9&site=ehost-live Lees, P. J. (2007). Beyond positivism: Embracing complexity for social and educational change. English Teaching: Practice & Critique 6 (3), 48-60. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=30001722&site=ehost-live Positivism. (Website) Retrieved March 24, 2008 from website: http://changingminds. org/explanations/research/philosophies/positivism Saltz, L. (2006). “The art of fixing a shadow”: Talbot’s polar epistemology of early photography. English Language Notes 44 (2), 73-86. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24551683&site=ehost-live Shahidullah, S. M. (2007). Science and religion: The quest for knowledge and certainty in the Postmodern Era [the cases of medicine and psychiatry]. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology 4 (1), 1. Retrieved March 26, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=285 31600&site=ehost-live Smelser, N. J. (1990). Sociological theory: Looking forward. American Sociologist 21 (3), 275-282. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9602290719& site=ehost-live Turner, J. (2006). Explaining the social world: Historicism versus positivism. Sociological Quarterly 47 (3), 451-463. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ap h&AN=21638527&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Berger, J. & Mohr, J. (1982). Another way of telling. New York: Vintage Books. Buckland, G. (1980). Fox Talbot and the invention of photography. Boston: David R. Godine. Comte, A. [1830–1842] (1896). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte. Translated by Martineau. London: George Bell. Delandshere, G. (2006). “Scientific” research in disguise and the threat to a spirit of inquiry. In B. Doecke, M. Howie & W. Sawyer (Eds.), “Only connect”: English teaching, schooling and community (pp. 69-82). Kent Town, SA: Wakefield Press. Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in Education: Within/Against. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Lather, P. (2006a). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 19(1), 35-57. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

77

Lather, P. (2006b). Foucauldian scientificity: Rethinking the nexus of qualitative research and educational policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 19(6), 783-791. Ogburn, W. F. (1922). Social change: With respect to culture and original nature. New York: B.W. Huebach. Positivism & Post Positivism. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved March 24, 2008from website: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php President’s Research Committee on Social Trends 1933. Recent Social Trends in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Smelser, N. J. (1976). Comparative methods in the social sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall. Steinmetz, G. (2005). Positivism and its others in the social sciences, in George Steinmetz (ed.) The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press: 1–56. Turner, J. H. (1975). A strategy for reformulating the dialectical and functional theories of conflict. Social Forces 53, 433–44.

78


Rational Choice Theory Alexandra Howson

Overview Rational choice theory tries to explain why people make decisions with particular outcomes (or take actions); how they do so; and to predict the decisions they will make given certain circumstances. Rational choice theory isn’t unique to sociology and in fact has its intellectual roots in classical economics and political theory. But its application by sociologists is unique, because of the way the sociologists use rational choice theory to not only explain the calculations of costs and benefits people make before they act, but also how these calculations are made in the context of social interactions and how they contribute to a stable social order. The concepts and terms of rational choice theory have developed into what is known as exchange theory. Rational choice theory is used by criminologists to explain why would-be offenders make decisions to engage in activities that have potentially criminal outcomes; and by medical sociologists to explain why people make certain health related choices and not others. However, rational choice theory has been criticized because, • It generally ignores the social determinants of decisions, choices and actions; • It over-rationalizes human thought and action; and • Rational choice theory may be a product of modernity insofar as it privileges an individualized approach to explaining decision-making and action. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

79

Rational choice theory seeks to explain human behavior in terms of the decisions that people make in order to maximize their aims, on the assumption that people make calculated decisions about their lives (about money, relationships or actions) based on a given set of constraints or feasible options. Basis in Economics

The Rational Choice model developed from economic understandings of how prices and the allocation of scarce resources can be explained by the way people rationally maximize utility in relation to cost. Akers (2000) notes that rational choice theory borrows the “expected utility principle” from economics, which states that people will order their behavior according to rational decisions based on straightforward cost-benefit analyses. In sociology, rational choice theory tends to be referred to as exchange theory and refers to a body of theory that attempts to explain aspects of social life by the calculated actions of individuals, even those most unlikely to be responsive to calculative action, such as intimate relationships. Over time, rational choice theory has been linked to or integrated with other sociological traditions, notably within the action frame of reference, network theory and organization theory (Levi, Cook, O’Brien & Faye, 1990). The best known example of rational choice theory is Adam Smith’s theory of the division of labor from the introduction to the Wealth of Nations (1776), in which the outcome of a free market is that self-interested individuals are wise enough to promote the public good. That is, people make choices in their (economic) self-interest that will have the effect of promoting the public good. The key to understanding rational choice theory then, is the assumption that when people make decisions, and act on those decisions, they do so in their own self-interest. That doesn’t necessarily mean that people are selfish, but they that they rationally calculate the best possible course of action in terms of what it will cost them and the rewards they will reap. In political sociology, rational choice theory tends to be applied to voting behavior, political commitment, collective organization (voluntary and coerced). Similarly in criminology, rational choice theory is typically applied to cost-benefit calculations that would-be offenders make and in medical sociology, rational choice theory has been used to explain why people make certain health choices. 80


Weber & Rationality

Also key to understanding rational choice theory is the emphasis on rational action and rationality, characteristics of modernity. For Max Weber, for example, modern Western capitalism is rational. Moreover, rationality is the key characteristic of the age and pervades all aspects of social life. Rationality is most apparent in bureaucratic forms of organization, in which “rules, means, ends, and matter-of-factness dominate its bearing” (Gerth & Mills, 1991, p. 235). Yet, rationality for Weber is not just about economic market conditions but also is an attitude or sensibility associated with a particular kind of decision-making. Indeed, rationality so pervades social and economic life in ways that are difficult to avoid or challenge: it becomes an ‘iron cage.’ Moreover, rationalization marks the progression of modern industrial societies for Weber, as does rational goal-oriented action. Thus, for Weber, it isn’t only the behavior of individuals that can be explained by rational choice theory but also the development and characteristics of modern capitalist society. As such, rational choice theory has developed as a model of human behavior that assumes people are motivated by money and the possibility of making a profit (Scott, 2000). However, although Weber and other theorists acknowledge that many forms of human action and behavior are possible such as value-oriented action (Max Weber), habitual action (such as in the work of Pierre Bourdieu) and emotional action (as in the work of Arlie Hochschild), rational choice theory is unique in that it privileges calculation, rationality and instrumentalism, even when action may seem irrational (Scott, 2000). What are the core concepts of rational choice theory?

Further Insights Rational Choice & Social Interaction

While political economy assumes that money is the primary motivator for most people and that the choices they make are motivated by maximizing the potential for accruing money, sociology recognizes, first, that other kinds of rewards may motivate people and second, that rational calculations are made through social interaction. Thus, though decisions and Theories & Theoretical Approaches

81

actions may be rationally calculated to maximize benefits, such decisions and actions require a degree of reciprocity, or social exchange. Moreover, though the rewards that people seek may be material, they are as or more likely to be social. Sociologists have found that resources such as time, prestige and approval are social rewards that motivate people to act in particular ways. In particular, through social interaction, people reinforce or undermine certain behaviors through an exchange of rewards and sanctions and in this way, sustain social order. George Homans, a contemporary of Talcott Parsons at Harvard University, developed a sociological model of rational choice theory based on a fusion of B.F. Skinner’s behavioral psychology with Homans’ own adaptation of economics (see Waters, 1994 for an extended discussion of Homans). Homans’ framework privileged social interaction as the framework through which choices are made and emphasized the importance of the mutually interactive performances of individuals (when I act, my performance will be directly rewarded or punished by another). Thus, for Homans, winning social approval was critical to understanding why people made certain decisions. He argued that social interaction produces benefits and costs (e.g. goods, money, praise, approval, esteem) and people will act rationally to obtain them. When individuals act (make choices), they calculate the cost to them in material and emotional terms of providing benefits for others. They also calculate the profits from the benefits they receive. In making socalled rational choices, people don’t want to feel they are disadvantaged or that their actions will incur disapproval. In other words, they look for an element of distributive justice as an outcome of their rational choice (Waters, 1994). In sum, the benefits received by an individual depend on the benefits the individual provides to others. There is a process of exchange between individuals in which benefits are traded on the basis of the information that people have about the conditions under which they are acting (Scott, 2000). In this way, rational choice theory is used to explain complex social phenomena on the basis of individual actions (Elster, 1990) that express personal preferences, anticipate certain outcomes and are a calculated means to an end. 82


Social Exchange & Power

Because rational choice occurs in the context of the give and take of social interaction, rational choice theories have developed in sociology as theories of social exchange. Social exchange theory is based the main premise that the exchange of social and material resources is a primary form of human interaction. For instance, in the 1960s Peter Blau argued that all human association entails exchange, because people do things for others on the assumption that they will at least receive approval, if not tangible rewards, and that in doing so, they anticipate their actions will be reciprocated in the future. Moreover, in order for exchange to occur, people have to be attractive to each other (either intrinsically through personal qualities or through the extrinsic advantages they provide). However, not everyone has qualities or advantages that hold equal value and in some exchanges, some people will have more or less resources. This means that people may make calculations about their best interests that involve trade-offs and acknowledge differences in power (Blau, 1964). In Exchange and Power in Social Life, (1964) Blau argued that while much of social behavior is governed by exchange (of resources, information), power relations affect exchange in ways that may undermine the extent to which exchange fully occurs. That is, while individuals make rational choices, the extent to which those choices result in equal, reciprocal benefits is limited by power. Blau (1964) deals with the potential for power differentials in exchange relationships by arguing that people may choose to subordinate themselves in a relationship because of the rewards they may ultimately accrue. Equally, where people perceive that the power being exercised over them exceeds the benefit they receive, they will communicate disapproval to each other, sometimes in ways that shape collective organization. While individual action was the analytical unit for early rational choice theories, collection action has been more recently the focus of analysis. For instance, during the 1970s and 1980s Richard Emerson and Karen Cook developed laboratory experiments dealing with social power and equity in exchange networks and examined Theories & Theoretical Approaches

83

factors and constraints that affected the use of power in a simulation of negotiated trade agreements. One simulation involved 112 male and female participants in a specially developed computerized laboratory and communication network. Each of eight subjects was connected to three others as bargaining partners, forming two separate four-person networks. Subjects sought to increase their profits by entering into “trade agreements” for “resource units.” Subjects could pursue either formal or informal negotiating procedures before a “transaction” was completed. The experimental design allowed the researchers to study power, equity, and the creation of commitment during these bargaining processes (“Social Exchange Theory,” 1996).

Applications Criminology

Despite some criticisms about the limits of rational choice theory it has, nonetheless, been developed in substantive fields such as criminology and health. According to Akers (2000), rational choice theory in criminology “is proposed as a grand, all-inclusive explanation of both the decision to commit a specific crime and the development of, or desistance from, a criminal career” (p. 24). For instance, in criminology, public policy makers, the law and police may argue that crimes are committed through decisions taken to act in a certain ways and that crime prevention strategies will be effective because they cause would-be offenders to think twice before acting in certain ways (i.e. cost-benefit analysis). Typically crimes that lead to some material gain are viewed as rational actions, whereas crimes that are an end in themselves are viewed as expressive (Pratt, 2008). Tobacco Sales

Consequently, many studies of rational choice theory in criminology try to understand why people make choices to break social and legal rules. An underlying assumption of such studies is that crime is deliberate and calculated and that would-be offenders expect that the choice they make will maximize and indeed outweigh their benefits. For instance, a study in Canada (O’Grady, Asbridge & Abernathy, 2000) examined why tobacco merchants in Ontario break the law, despite severe penalties, in order to 84


sell tobacco to young people. The research found that tobacco merchants did indeed make calculated decisions about whether to make tobacco sales, but that situational elements were important in the choices they made (such as whether young people looked as though they might be older than they turned out to be). Addiction

Context and situational elements are also important in looking at people’s choices in relation to health. For instance, addiction to drugs has been explained in terms of rational self-medication (Becker & Murphy, 1988); or as conscious choice to capitulate to visceral cravings induced by the lack of a specific psychoactive substance in the body (Loewenstein, 1996). Nonetheless, rationality is central, in that the consumption of substances is perceived by the consumer as an act of self-interest (Cohen & Rabinovitch, 2005). Similarly, medical sociologists have developed explanations for health behaviors based on rational choice theory. For instance, the health behavior model (Becker, 1974) assumes that people make choices about health based on rational calculations about risk avoidance, for instance in relation to behaviors identified and defined by experts as unhealthy such as smoking, high fat diet, inadequate physical activity, drug and alcohol abuse, and unsafe sexual behavior. However, some people may choose to engage in behaviors deemed unhealthy by experts, or even to avoid behaviors that present opportunities for improved health (Buetow, 2007). Social norms that privilege professional expertise, and good health, deem such choicees irrational. However, from the perspective of those choosing to avoid health-promoting behaviors or to engage in unhealthy behaviors, their choices may be rational. Moreover, not all health behaviors can be understood in terms of rational decision-making. For instance, a recent study of parental decision-making in relation to mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) immunization found that parents, especially mothers, decided to have their child immunized following a media scare about a putative link between MMR immunization and autism, not necessarily through rational calculation in the best interests of their child, but because they took a “leap of faith” in conditions of uncertainty (Brownlie & Howson, 2005). Theories & Theoretical Approaches

85

Viewpoints Can Rational Choice Theory Explain All Decision-Making Behavior?

Sometimes the costs of a decision or action outweigh the benefits. It becomes difficult to see what is motivating a person to make decisions that are costly, and what is rational about costly decisions. For instance, some relationships are considered special, such as a mother-child relationship, in which it is hard to see net-benefit as the guiding principle of the relationship. Social or non-contractual values, such as duty and love, may determine the nature of the relationship. However, in such a relationship, there are situations in which mothers make rational decisions that are costly because not only will their child benefit, but also mothers benefit from the social approval associated with being a ‘good mother’ (Melberg, 1993). Similarly, it is difficult to see how rational choice theory can explain altruistic behavior, since altruism is by definition non-calculative. However, a person might make decisions to be helpful or truthful because to do so creates an internal feeling of pleasure, and supports rather than breaks internalized social norms (such as ‘telling the truth’ or ‘being helpful’). Thus, according to Melberg (1993) in the rational choice model people optimize behavior that not only brings social benefits, but also sustains social norms. However, there is a question of whether following social norms can be explained by rational choice, since some norms seem more deeply ingrained than others, or why some groups of people are more likely to follow social norms than others (i.e. what explains why some people and not others choose to break rules?). Indeed, in The Structure of Social Action (1937) Talcott Parsons criticized voluntaristic theories of action, such as rational choice theory, in which human behavior is characterized as making choices between means and ends in circumstances that present physical, environmental and social constraints. In contrast, he set out to show how the choices people make and the actions that follow from those choices are oriented to social norms and values that create social systems. The Limits of Rational Choice Theory

The success of rational choice theory as an explanation for why people make decisions depends, among other things, on the assumption that social 86


benefits, such as happiness, social acceptance, prestige and influence, have equal value for individual actors. However, such benefits may have different meanings for different social groups and they may symbolize different social values and ideas. Indeed, although we may make decisions about which symbols we wish to adopt to represent our self and social identities, rational choice theory does not really explain how certain objects, values or gestures become endowed with the meanings we attach to them (Waters, 1994). Even though there is acknowledgement that exchange relationships are shaped by and contribute to power relations and networks, nonetheless, rational choice theory tends to downplay the ways that people’s choices may be constrained. That is, social circumstances, age, ethnicity and gender may influence choice making. Moreover, rational choice theory overlooks the importance of social relationships in making decisions and choices about behavior and how the emotional components of decisionmaking may bear on people’s calculations. Methodologically, it’s possible to claim that any action can be interpreted as rational given a set of beliefs and assumptions and it is difficult to refute rational choice theory because the action of the individual is both the object of explanation and the proof of the theory – they are both the topic under investigation and the mode of explanation. That raises a methodological challenge: how can we show that actions are rational without taking into account the contexts in which they are made and the belief systems that shape them? Also, stable relationships are necessary in order for rational choices to occur in a context of exchange. This takes us back to the question of norms and values, such as trust, and where they fit in rational choice theory. A central question concerns whether social exchange creates social order, or in fact, presupposes it. Finally, the fundamental assumptions within rational choice theory—that decisions, behaviors and actions are purposive and instrumental—have been criticized (for instance see Wrong, 1997) for inherent psychological reductionism and its over-prioritization of self-awareness or consciousness. Rational choice theory is influenced by the development of Western thought and the way this has privileged individualism, with its contingent expectations of independence, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

87

Bibliography Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Education Monographs. 2, 324-508. Becker, G. & Murphy, K.M. (1988). A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy. 96, 675-700. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Brownlie, J. & Howson, A. (2005). ‘Leaps of Faith’ and MMR: An empirical study of trust. Sociology. 39 (2), 221-239. Retrieved April 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=25945012&site=ehost-live Buetow, S. (2007). Non-attendance for health care: When rational beliefs collide. Sociological Review. 55(3), 592-610. Retrieved April 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=a9h&AN=25945012&site=ehost-live Cohen, B-Z. & Rabinovitch, R. V. (2005). Outcomes of the decision to terminate drug abuse: An application of Rational Choice Theory. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 5(4), 47-62. Retrieved April 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =a9h&AN=20022100&site=ehost-live Cook, K. S. & Emerson R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review. 43(5), 721-739. Retrieved April 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14741304&site=ehost-live Elster, J. (1991). When rationality fails. In: K. S. Cook & M. Levi (Eds). The limits of rationality Chicago: University of Chicago Press (pp. 19-50). Gerth, H.H. & Mills, C. Wright. (1991) From Max Weber: Essays in sociology London: Routledge. Levi, M., Cook, K. S., O’Brien, J. A. & Faye, H. (1990). Introduction: The limits of rationality. In K. S. Cook and M. Levi (Eds.) The limits of rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (pp.1-18). Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 65, 272-292. Pratt, T. (2008). Rational choice theory, crime control policy, and criminological relevance. Criminology & Public Policy. 7 (1), 43-52. O’Grady, W., Asbridge, M. & Abernathy, T. (2000). Illegal tobacco sales to youth: A view from rational choice theory. Canadian Journal of Criminology. 42(1), 43-52. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX, http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=2682826&site=ehost-live 88


Melberg, H. O. (1993). Three arguments about rational choice theory in sociology. Retrieved April 21, 2008 from Geocities webpage http://www.geocities.com/hmelberg/ papers/930520.htm Parsons, T. (1968 [1937]). The structure of social action. New York: McGraw Hill/Free Press. Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. In: G. Browning, A. Halcli, & F. Webster (Eds.) Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present. London: Sage Publications. (pp.126-138). Social Exchange Theory. (1996). Pathbreakers. Retrieved March 23, 2009 from the University of Washington. http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1978a.html Waters, M. (1994). Modern sociological theory. London: Sage. Wrong, D. (1997). Is rational choice humanity’s most distinctive trait? American Sociologist. 28 (2): 73-81. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9710101418&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading England, P. (1989). A feminist critique of rational choice theory. The American Sociologist, 20 (1): 14-28. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX, http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5333181&site=ehost-live Hechter, M. & Kanazawa, S. (1997) Sociological rational choice theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23 (1). 191-214. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=97120 41601&site=ehost-live Huber, J. (1997) Rational choice models in sociology. American Sociologist. 28(2): 42-53. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9710101414&site=ehostlive


89

Social Constructionism Jennifer Kretchmar

Overview Social constructionism is a cross-disciplinary theoretical orientation, and has been adopted in one form or another by linguists, psychologists, sociologists, historians, literary theorists, and anthropologists alike (Brickell, 2006). And yet, the questions that social constructionists attempt to answer, even across disciplines, are largely the same. What is knowledge? Does knowledge change over time? Across cultures? Is there a reality or truth that exists independently of human beings and their interactions with one another? The social constructionists’ answers to these questions place them front and center in a larger theoretical debate between positivists on the one hand, and postmodernists on the other. In some sense, social constructionism can best be defined by first explaining what it is not. Positivism

Positivism, or essentialism, has a long history, having originated during the Age of Enlightenment - also known as the Age of Reason - in 18th century Europe (Burr, 1995). Enlightenment thinkers reacted against the power vested in the church and state, an authority based largely on tradition, superstition, and irrationality. They believed that reason was the only way to guard the common man against tyrannical rule and thus, it was during this period that the scientific method was born. Along with this method came a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature of knowl90


edge and truth - mainly, that an objective reality exists in the world independently of human beings, we can perceive this reality directly through our senses, and truth is something that can be attained, in an absolute and universal sense (Burr, 1995; Hibberd, 2005; Cisneros-Puebla & Faux, 2008). For positivists, knowledge is ahistorical and acultural. Although positivism is arguably the predominant theoretical orientation embraced by natural and social scientists today, the collective dissenting voices of postmodernists and constructionists have grown exponentially in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (Cisneros-Puebla & Faux, 2008). Their multi-faceted response to positivism can best be distilled into this singular critique – that positivists are ultimately guilty of the very thing they hoped to eradicate. Gergen (as cited in Cisneros-Puebla & Faux, 2008) explains, “to me, it is ironic that the Enlightenment, with its great promise of replacing dogma with freedom, has slowly established yet another dogma. When science begins to claim that everyone should think in its terms, it becomes the new dogma, and the process of suppression begins once again” (¶ 26). For constructionists, the notion of an objective, absolute truth existing independently of culture, history, or power is as limiting as superstition. Constructionists believe, rather, that “meaning [or truth] is ours to make [through our interaction with one another and the world]; it is not ‘out there’ to be discovered” (Cisneros-Puebla & Faux, 2008, ¶ 5). Theories & Theorists

Although social constructionism has gained momentum in recent years, the ideas it proposes can be traced back to a variety of scholars over the past few hundred years. As Berger explains, “many of the fundamental assumptions [of social constructionism] have been alive and well and living in sociology for quite some time” (p. 9). In sociology in particular, the 1966 publication of Berger and Luckmann’s “The Social Construction of Reality” is marked as a watershed moment, for it was in this publication that the term ‘social construction’ was first coined (Hibberd, 2005). But even Berger and Luckmann (1966) concede that their ideas precede them. “Neither the general problem [of our publication] nor its narrower focus is new. An awareness of the social foundations of values and world views can be found in antiquity” (p. 5). Theories & Theoretical Approaches

91

For Berger and Luckmann (1966), theorists such as Marx, Nietzsche, and Mead, and theoretical perspectives such as historicism were the immediate precursors to social constructionism. It was from Marx, for example, that “the sociology of knowledge derived its root proposition – that man’s consciousness is determined by his social being” (p. 6). Nietzsche suggested ways in which human thought might be influenced by power and conflict. In the mid-twentieth century, George Herbert Mead proposed the theory of symbolic interactionism, arguing that people construct their sense of self through interactions with others (Burr, 1995). Historicism, which acknowledged the relativity of human thought and its situational context, contributed to the development of social constructionism too, as did ethnomethodology, a research technique developed in the 1950s that allowed scholars to understand how ordinary people construct and interpret their lives (Burr, 1995). The ideas of other theorists – Mannheim, Scheler, Merton, and Foucault, to name just a few – were adopted in part by social constructionists as well. Although the precursors to social constructionism were many and varied, Berger and Luckmann (1966) were the first to distill these ideas into ‘a sociology of knowledge.’ About their work they wrote, “the basic contentions of the argument of the book are implicit in its title and subtitle, namely, that reality is socially constructed and that the sociology of knowledge must analyze the processes in which this occurs” (p. 1). More specifically, Berger and Luckmann were interested in the ways in which knowledge came to be established or agreed upon as ‘reality.’ They were the first to show, Burr (1995) argues, how “the world can be socially constructed by the social practices of people, but at the same time be experienced by them as if the nature of their world is pre-given and fixed” (p. 10). All of which implies their interest in everyday, common knowledge - not just theory or scholarship – and the ways in which people make meaning in their ordinary, day-to-day lives. Berger & Luckmann’s Social Construction

For Berger and Luckmann (1966) the process by which knowledge becomes reality, or taken-for-granted everyday knowledge, is threefold – it involves externalization, legitimation, and internalization, all of which are part of a dialectical relationship between an individual and the social world. More specifically, when man acts, or externalizes, in the social world, all 92


such acts have the potential to become habituated. Habituation can occur in isolation from others, but when habituated action is reciprocated, institutions develop. Therefore institutions exist only in relation to other people, and yet they are “experienced as an objective reality.” As Berger and Luckmann (1966) argue, “despite the objectivity that marks the social world in human experience, it does not thereby acquire an ontological status apart from the human activity that produced it” (p. 61). The final stage of the process occurs when an individual internalizes the social world and shared meanings; primary socialization occurs first, in childhood, but secondary socialization or internalization is an ongoing process. Although Berger and Luckmann (1966) were the first to coin the term ‘social construction,’ the theory has grown exponentially since then. Along with this growth, however, has come some confusion. As Burr (1995) argues, “there is no single description [of social constructionism] which would be adequate.” Brickell (2006) concurs when he writes “First, we ought to recognize the multiplicity of social constructionism or, more accurately, social constructionisms” (p. 87). And yet, there are some core principles – or what Burr (1995) refers to as ‘family resemblances’ - that the different types of social constructionism have in common. First and foremost, perhaps, social constructionists challenge conventional, taken-for-granted knowledge. By adopting what Burr (1995) refers to as a ‘critical stance’, social constructionists “invite us…to challenge the view that conventional knowledge is based upon objective, unbiased observation of the world” (p. 3). Berger and Luckmann (1996) suggest that our taken-for-granted understandings of the world shouldn’t be separated from the people who constructed those understandings in the first place. “It is essential to keep pushing questions about the historically available conceptualizations of reality from the abstract ‘what?’ to the sociologically concrete, ‘says who?’” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, as cited in Guess, 2006, p. 658). Social constructionists are especially critical of what are often referred to as grand theories or meta-narratives – theories that purport to explain all of human or social life. Thus, whereas positivists seek universals and absolutes, social constructionists emphasize the ways in which knowledge changes over time. Gergen (1967), a prominent psychologist studying Theories & Theoretical Approaches

93

human behavior from a constructionist point of view, argues that “the only abiding feature of social life is that it is continually changing” (as cited in Burr, 1995, p. 11). Implicit in the notion of continual change is the idea that multiple meanings can co-exist at one time; there is no single truth, but rather a variety of perspectives available to us at any one time. Knowledge is continually shifting because, according to social constructionists, it is always context dependent. In other words, knowledge varies across time and across cultures. As Burr (1995) writes, “This means that all ways of understanding are historically and culturally relative. The particular forms of knowledge that abound in any culture are…artifacts of it, and we should not assume that our ways of understanding are necessarily any better (in terms of being any nearer the truth) than other ways” (p. 4). Guess (2006) uses Foucault’s conceptualization of an ‘archeology of knowledge’ to suggest how changes in knowledge can be studied over time; using race as an example, he documents the social construction of notions of ‘whiteness’ and ‘other’ through the human traces that people leave behind. Traces are left behind at micro levels – in terms of racial prejudice and discrimination – as well as macro levels, in differential patterns of socio-economic status, access to health care, and rates of incarceration. As much of the above discussion implies, social constructionists argue that what becomes accepted as common, everyday knowledge has less to do with truth, and more to do with the relative amounts of power held by those presenting competing realities. Berger and Luckmann (1966) write “the confrontation of alternative symbolic universes implies a problem of power – which of the conflicting definitions of reality will be ‘made to stick’ in the society” (p. 109). Their answer? “He who has the bigger stick has the better chance of imposing his definitions. This is a safe assumption to make with regard to any larger collectivity…” (Berger and Luckmann, 1966, p. 109). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, social constructionists believe that knowledge is created through social interaction. As a result, social constructionists focus on process and action rather than underlying structures or stable traits (Burr, 1995). Traditional sociologists, for example, might study marriage as a societal structure, whereas social constructionists will examine the patterns of interaction between people that establish such re94


lationships. As Burr (1995) explains, for social constructionists “explanations are to be found neither in the individual psyche nor in social structures, but in the interactive processes that take place routinely between people” (p. 8). One particular type of social action that is of interest to many social constructionists is language. Many argue that language is the primary mechanism through which much of the social world is constructed, and therefore is more than a simple mode of expression.

Applications As mentioned previously, social constructionism has made its mark across the academic disciplines. As a result, it has taken as its object of study nearly every conceivable topic, including but not limited to gender, personality, race, sexuality, politics, language, and religion. The following section is meant to serve as a brief introduction to the type of research being conducted by scholars who identify as social constructionists and is in no way representative of the field as a whole. Gender & Sexuality Studies

Viewing gender and sexuality through a social constructionist lens is difficult for many. We tend to believe that our anatomy determines our gender and that sexuality is a matter of genetics. Social constructionists, however, believe gender and sexuality is constructed, in the same way as other aspects of our social lives. Brickell (2006) reviews the many angles from which social constructionists have studied gender – using historicism, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, and materialist feminism - and argues that the multiple perspectives strengthen our understanding of a complex topic. Historical analyses, for example, reveal that our current understanding of gender as binary – male and female – took the place of a ‘one sex model’ in which women were defined as an ‘inside-out’ variation of the male. Symbolic interactionists study the ways in which gendered selves are performances; they argue that people must ‘do their gender’ appropriately, or risk social sanction. Such performances may also be imbued with power, so that ‘doing male’ implies dominance while ‘doing female’ means performing deference (Brickell, 2005). Material feminists focus on power relations and oppression more exclusively, examining the ways in which the relationship between men and women is one of inequality. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

95

Burdge (2007) writes about gender and sexuality from a social work perspective, arguing that the transgender community experiences oppression as a result of society’s binary definition of gender. She writes “their very existence challenges the traditional gender dichotomy, and by stepping outside these fundamental social norms, they are vulnerable to discrimination and oppression” (p. 244). Burdge (2007) advises social workers to be sensitive to language, and honor the ways in which transgender individuals identify and define themselves. She also advocates eliminating ‘gender identity disorder’ from the American Psychiatric Association’s Manual of Mental disorders, educating the public about gender diversity, and increasing the visibility of the transgender community. Burdge (2007) uses social constructionism and queer theory to frame her discussion. The Social Construction of Race

In addition to gender and sexuality, race is a topic that has received a great deal of attention from social constructionists. Guess (2006) argues, however, that scholars have focused almost exclusively on the social construction of ‘the other’ or the ‘non-white’ individual. “The sociology of race relations has historically failed to observe and report on the social construction of both sides of America’s black/white binary paradigm when addressing racial inequality…[therefore, I give] special attention to the social construction of whiteness [and] the political significance of ‘race’ and whiteness in America” (Guess, 2006, p. 650). Guess (2006) looks at the ways in which the concept of race is informed by historical, cultural, social, and political values. The physical characteristics that constitute whiteness or blackness have no meaning in and of themselves, he argues. Rather, only when people ascribe value to these differences does the idea of ‘race’ emerge. Stanfield (1985) explains, “race-making is a mode of stratification…It is premised on the ascription of moral, social, symbolic, and intellectual characteristics to real or manufactured phenotypical features which justify and give normality to the…societal dominance of one population over others” (as cited in Guess, 2006, p. 658). Personality Reconsidered

Like gender and race, personality is an aspect of the self that is often taken for granted. Specifically, the traditional or common-sense notion of personality is an essentialist one; we believe that the kind of people we become is in some degree determined by our genes or biology, and that 96


we have our own particular being or essence. Personality is assumed to be stable over time, and reflect individual differences between people (Burr, 1995). From a social constructionist perspective, however, personality doesn’t exist within people as much as it does between them (Burr, 1995). Indeed, the words that are typically used to describe someone’s personality – “friendly,” “caring,” “outgoing” – often lose meaning outside the context of relationships with others. And we often act differently from one situation to the next, with one group of people versus another. Burr (1995) writes “Instead, then, of people having single, unified and fixed selves, perhaps we are fragmented, having a multiplicity of potential selves which are not necessarily consistent with each other” (p. 29).

Viewpoints As social constructionism has gained popularity in recent decades, the two primary objections to the theory have remained consistent. First and foremost, critics argue that social constructionism leads to relativism – the idea that all knowledge is equal, and cannot be true or false in any absolute sense. In other words, it leads to what proponents believe is an absurdist ‘anything goes’ position, in which we are left unable to make any value judgments at all (Hibberd, 2005). Secondly, critics argue social constructionists undermine their own claims; if knowledge is relative, then social constructionism cannot be more correct or true than the position of positivists and essentialists. Thus their arguments are, in some sense, self-refuting. As Moore (2007) writes, “by doing its job, the sociology of knowledge does itself out of a job” (p. 28). Social constructionists counter by arguing that there are many different types of relativism, not all of which lead to self-refutation (Hibberd, 2005) and that many of the charges against them are made using language or concepts that belong to positivism, and therefore are not applicable. Neither side has gained a particular advantage over the other; indeed, the debate between the two different perspectives has been described as an ‘intellectual standoff’ and will likely continue for some time to come (Hibberd, 2005).

Bibliography Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.


97

Brickell, C. (2006). The sociological construction of gender and sexuality. The Sociological Review, 54, 87-113. Retrieved June 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2 0042912&site=ehost-live Burdge, B. (2007). Bending gender, ending gender: Theoretical foundations for social work practice with the transgender community. Social Work, 54, 243-250. Retrieved June 20, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26769115&site=ehost-live Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. New York, NY: Routledge. Cisneros-Puebla, C., & Faux, R. (2008). The deconstructive and reconstructive faces of social construction. Qualitative Social Research, 9, 1-15. Retrieved June 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=29973425&site=ehost-live Guess, T. (2006). The social construction of whiteness: Racism by intent, racism by consequence. Critical Sociology, 32, 649-673. Retrieved June 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di rect=true&db=aph&AN=23457023&site=ehost-live Hibberd, F. (2005). Unfolding social constructionism. New York, NY: Springer. Moore, R. (2007). Going critical: The problem of problematizing knowledge in education studies. Critical Studies in Education, 48, 25-41. Retrieved June 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24409677&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading De Cecco, J., & Elia, J. (Eds.). (1993). If you seduce a straight person, can you make them gay? Issues in biological essentialism versus social constructionism in gay and lesbian identities. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. Searle, J. (1995). Construction of social reality. New York, NY: Freedom Press.

98


Structural Functionalism Maureen McMahon

Overview Developed in the 1930s, structural functionalism is a sociological theory that dominated social interpretive approaches until the 1970s. Talcott Parsons, born in Colorado in 1902, presented the theory in the United States based on the work of Max Weber (economist and social historian in Germany) and Emile Durkheim (a social theorist in France). Parsons studied both Weber and Durkheim and translated their work into English a few years after becoming a professor at Harvard in 1927. Parsons is the author of The Structure of Social Action and The Social System, both well known texts within the social science field. Structural functionalism posits that within every social structure or system – politics, family, organizations – each member of the system has a specific function. Those functions can be small or substantial, are dynamic in nature (i.e., they can change), and work toward the same purpose: to keep the system operational within its environment. According to Parsons, change is evident within any society or system; however, for the system to survive, it must adapt to that change in order to maintain its equilibrium. As part of this maintenance, Parsons identified four imperatives for societies to survive, which he called the AGIL model: • Adaptation: acquiring and mobilizing sufficient resources so that the system can survive. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

99

• Goal Attainment: setting and implementing goals • Integration: maintaining solidarity or coordination among the subunits of the system. • Latency: creating, preserving, and transmitting the system’s distinctive culture and values. A good example of structural functionalism is an ant colony. Ants live within a social system that is structured yet adaptable, with each ant holding a position within that system. While the positions of the ants may be different (worker, queen), their goals are the same: to maintain the colony’s status as a functioning unit so it can survive. The queen ant gives birth to a tribe of worker ants who find sustenance and share it with the rest of the system. While not considered as complex as an institutionalized form of government, an ant colony is a system which differentiates between its members, adapts to new environments, and includes members and activities that years ago may not have been acceptable. It does this to function effectively and to promote its survival. Divergence from Earlier Theories

What made structural functionalism notable is its strong divergence from earlier theories. Social positivism, prominent in the early 20th century, focused on empirical studies of social interaction. Often referred to as logical positivism or empiricism, the theory was concerned solely with concrete facts and quantitative data analysis. Parsons believed that ideas like motivation and goals should also be a theorist’s focus, as human interaction can not always be as clear cut as “the inductive model of scientific knowledge that positivism presented” (Smelser, 1990). As such, Parsons promoted the analytical over the concrete to interpret the roles of the members within different social systems. To further this view, Parsons posited that every action people take is done so within a social context of the system in which they are have been socialized. In addition, each action is taken in an attempt to get along, rather than as a random set of actions or a system of actions to further an individual’s gain within the system. For Parsons, work toward the “ends” is always

100


done to maintain the order and balance of the system. The system must be flexible and adaptive, but it cannot allow for deviance. And, while established mechanisms (the legal system) are supposed to keep deviance in check, social order is maintained through the socialization process: the members are taught that deviance is wrong because it harms the survival of the system. Critics attacked structural functionalism in the late 1960s because the theory was unable to explain phenomena such as social change, disagreement with social and political aims, and the influential underpinnings of the wealthy. Furthermore, feminists were critical of Parsonianism because while the theory supplies an explanation for male privilege, it avoids discussion of the historical contributions of women. As a result of these criticisms, structural functionalism lost its credibility in the 1970s. However, some scientists revert to the theory as it offers a valid explanation of consensus, which supports the concept of social order. It is also considered a useful model of description as a result of its collection of quantitative data.

Applications Political Science

Parsons used structural functionalist methodology to interpret many areas of society. When he delved into the realm of political science, controversy ensued. Boskoff (1959) states that, “The development of political sociology reflects the social scientist’s dislike of artificially neat disciplines and their consequent production of isolated bodies of fact and generalization” (71). It could have been that Parsons did not like the all-inclusive packages of other theories and wanted to expand the political arena to that of his own liking. In his theoretical expansion into politics, he used four levels of analysis, moving from the broad to the restricted. Structural Functionalism & Voting Systems

First, Parsons identified a general theory of social systems within the twoparty voting system. He believed that because the ability to vote cut across social and cultural boundaries, there was overwhelming support for the social system of politics as a whole. Second, as political campaigns are functional within a society, an over-all political organization is prominent.


101

Third, in addition to the function of an organized political system, having the flexibility to vote for either side – a two-party system model – is also the crux of Parsons’ political theory. Boskoff (1959) notes that Here the mechanism of cross pressures derived from two or more solidary groups, reference groups, causes (1) an increase in voting interest among those politically indifferent; and (2) shifts in voting choices. Cross-pressures operate principally on those persons involved in social change and subject to the processes of social mobility and thus prevent the development of rigid voting patterns in the face of important changes in the over-all society (p. 71). Finally, Parsons held fast to the specific voting system of the United States. Focusing on society as a whole, Parsons believed that the people of the country would participate in the voting process simply as a function of membership within the group. Boskoff criticizes this point by suggesting that, in fact, everyone does not vote and when they do, only certain segments of society – those within specific ethnic, economic, and cultural divisions – are the ones who step up to the plate (Boskoff, 1959, p. 71-72). Also, it is important to point out that Parsons’ theory relies entirely on the proposition that the voting process is the most relevant demonstration of a two-party political system. Boskoff (1959) disagrees and identifies several other indicators that need analysis within this context. [A] proper functional analysis of our two-party system should also focus on such phenomena as the nature of municipal, county, and state elections; the rural-urban imbalance in state legislatures; the realities of intraparty structure and function, including the selection of candidates, patronage systems on all levels, and ideological factions; the considerable range of one party controls; the extraparty role of pressure groups and lobbyists; the significance of appointed administrators, particularly on regulatory commissions; the effectiveness of specific policies and programs developed and administered by both parties in such fields as agricultural problems, labor-management relations, financial controls, civil rights, and crime control; and finally, the 102


repercussions of two-party maneuvering on foreign policy in a shaky two power world (p. 73). To defend Parsons’ limited perspective, it is necessary to note that his theoretical interpretation was focused on the voting of one presidential election because that was the data to which he had access. He took that information and, as many theorists do, put his own framework to work to identify a possible explanation for human behavior. Interestingly, Parsons’ data concluded that an election campaign itself “does not convince most voters. Instead, it tends to increase interest in the election and to encourage identification with” parties rather than candidates (Boskoff, 1959, p. 71-72). Sociology Class: The Family Structure

Mathieu Deflem (2007) teaches his upper-level sociology course as a continuum of sociological theory taught at the introductory levels. He notes that while several theorists are discussed throughout his seminar, Talcott Parsons is one that receives a great deal of attention, as Parsons’ work was the crux of sociological theory for decades; in addition, it links twentiethcentury sociology between the classical perspective of the early 1900s to the contemporary one utilized today, fitting well in the middle of the two. One of the ideas behind using film to depict Parsons’ theoretical perspective is that structural functionalism (and theories in general) earn the consideration of criticism simply because they exist. A large criticism of Parsonian theory is that it is too abstract. As Deflem’s students are seeing the teacher after already learning (probably in sociology 101) about this abstractness and its effect in the downfall of structural functionalism, Deflem spends time concentrating on the benefit of abstract ideas before presenting films. I … find it particularly useful in the teaching of Parsons’ theories to communicate to students the notion that the development of abstract theoretical ideas does not imply that such theorizing cannot be applied to the study of empirical phenomena. The exact opposite is true (Deflem, 2007, p. 4). The teacher moves from the abstract to the specific and considers the family system that is a prominent focus within Parsons’ theory. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

103

A consideration worth noting is that Parson’s theory – that everything has a function – was popular in the time when women were beginning to reject the notion of functioning as the housewife and supermom. The theorist did identify this shift in tradition but held that the parental functions did not weaken with the shift. Mom would still be mom in the sense that she nurtured the children (even if she worked outside of the home), and dad would still be dad taking his responsibility to provide financially for his family seriously (even if mom made more money than he did). Even if a shift caused conflict within the family-social system, it worked itself out, just as it was supposed to. Film & Family Structure: Alfred Hitchcock

Deflem (2007) identifies three tenets of structural functionalism that are demonstrated in Hitchcock’s films. First, the family system and the members within it have a social function – those functions are static. Even if mom gets a job and earns more than dad, she is still the caregiver and will still make cookies for the school bake sale. Second, change is bound to occur within the system; it will always be dynamic. Finally, the family members and system as a whole can undergo strain: conflict is inevitable when one person in a system of several is perceived as doing more than anyone else. Noting several films as examples, Deflem points to the family system as providing an environment of socialization as a function. This functional perspective of the family is very common in Hitchcock’s world. It is a view of the family that is easily recognizable and accepted as secure and stable, portraying a well-functioning family as part of an everyday environment in which, as the story unfolds, a disturbing element can be injected to arouse drama and suspense. In this context, also, Hitchcock is fond of showing the family as an affective unit with strong emotional ties. These ties involve special care and affection, especially between the mother and the children (Deflem, 2007, p. 7). For example, in The Wrong Man (1958), a man is accused of a crime he didn’t commit. The film begins with the man’s family – a wife and two children – functioning at home: mom and dad are doing the dishes, the 104


kids get along for a bit and then begin to fight. Mom tries to stop the bickering, but as she is the nurturer, her intervention does little to remedy the situation, whereas dad settles the dispute quickly and effectively. In another film, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), a similar filial functionality guides the entire plot, with mom putting kids to bed singing, “Que Sera Sera” while dad is doing something else. “The parental functions are thus clarified in terms of a differentiation between the mother’s affective role and the father’s instrumental-occupational role” (Deflem, 2007, p. 8). In addition to the functionality of the members of the family, Hitchcock introduces the dynamics of the family system as functions change. Deflem notes that the concept of dynamics is not as prominent as conflict as a function in Hitchcock’s films, but it is clear enough to offer examples for his students. In the film, Shadow of a Doubt (1943), a family is visited by an uncle and the distinctive roles within the family system are notable because of the outsider’s presence. Later, the uncle is identified as a murderer. In dramatic contrast, Stage Fright (1950) focuses on romance: that of a daughter and her separated parents. The latter are drawn back together by the idea of their little girl getting married. Finally, conflict – sometimes drastic and sudden – emerges within the family system, and Hitchcock produces it on film. In Suspicion (1941), a young woman overhears her parents referring to her as a spinster, and in response, she hastily decides to marry a man she doesn’t believe is trustworthy. In The Birds (1963), conflict ensues when a man welcomes a love interest into the home of his newly widowed mother and grieving sister. The mother becomes jealous of her son’s love interest, and competes for the man’s attention. And in Sabotage (1936), a man enlists his brother-andlaw to carry out a job the first man cannot complete. Unbeknownst to the brother-in-law – as well as his sister (the first man’s wife) – the job is of the spy nature: to deliver a bomb. As luck would have it, the bomb explodes at the wrong time, killing the young man who is deeply adored by his sister. She finds out that her brother was killed because of her husband and sticks a knife into her dearly beloved, only escaping persecution because the detective investigating the case falls in love with her and covers her tracks. Applying these films to modern sociological theory puts them into perspective and shows that theory is empirical and pragmatic, even to the Theories & Theoretical Approaches

105

entertainment industry. Deflem notes that his “analysis was primarily meant to demonstrate the value of abstract theorizing … the abstractness of theoretical ideas precisely allows for, rather than inhibits, the analyses of empirical dimensions of society” (Deflem, 2007). Some theories are pulled from the outer reaches of a person’s imagination. Deflem’s point is that even if they are, being able to apply them to the world makes them just as legitimate as any scientific interpretation gained by experimentation. Sociobiology, Feminism & Gender Roles

There are some things that only science can explain, however. Around the time of World War II, primates were studied at length to determine their socialization process in an attempt to gain insight into the socialization processes of humans. According to structural functionalism, female apes carry, birth, and nurture their babies while male apes take on a protective role and gather food. This is similar to the functional socialization of human families and political establishments. In fact, according to feminist researcher Donna Harraway (1986), “… male dominance was viewed as functioning to organize and control the troop in much the same way as political leadership functions in human cultures” (as cited in Sperling, 1991, p. 2). However, identifying which behaviors are learned and which are innate is a difficult task. In the 1970s, sociobiology replaced structural functionalism as a theory to explain the behavior of female primates. Part of the reason for this is simple biology, more specifically, evolution of the species. Sperling (1991) notes that in a sociobioligist view, “behaviors always evolve to maximize the reproductive fitness of individuals (the relative percentage of genes passed on to future generations)” (Sperling, 1991, 3). In this view, scientists identify the survival of the fittest as being the survival of those most capable of reproducing (females), rather than those most capable of beating off intruders or providing food for the family (males). However, reproduction is a function – a specific role – for members of a group whose greater purpose is to promote the maintenance of that group. In this sense, sociologists believe that both sociobiology and structural functionalism theories explain how adaptation, one group evolving over time, is controlled by genetics. As part of a movement from structural functionalism, though, sociobiologists assert that: 106


female primates harass each other in an effort to increase their own genetic advantages … [and] attacks on pregnant monkeys and apes by other females are efforts by the attackers to gain a genetic advantage by reducing the number of competitors’ offspring … [which suggests that] female primates are aggressive strategists in pursuit of their own reproductive advantages rather than passive objects over which males compete (Sperling, 1991, p. 3). In respect to a feminist perspective, this is a great thing: female primates can take care of themselves with little or no help from Tarzan. Sperling (1991) notes a problem, though. The empirical design (observation) used to identify this female primate behavior should have been stronger (3). Nature versus nurture is always a difficult case to argue. From Hitchcock’s perspective, primates are doing what they have to do: Adaptation, killing other apes, bullying the young – these are the features that work well for survival (especially on the silver screen). Furthermore, a formal role is clear, change is evident, and conflict ensues; one could argue that Parsons’ perspective has not been replaced by a new theory, just expanded based on behavioral evidence. In addition, Sperling (1991) identifies an overall weakness in the basis of sociobiology. Feminist sociobiology does not represent progress for feminist evolutionary science because it suggests a biological essentialism at the heart of human behavior. In following its path, we abandon those research strategies that might lead us to insights about gendered aspects of human aggression, among other things (Sperling, 1991, p. 4). In other words, if science is going to rely on a rationale for behavior, it needs to prove that behavior is controlled solely by genetics. Since that is difficult, sociobiologists need to not only consider but utilize other theories in searching for rationale. However, as feminist expert Sandra Harding, points out, structural functionalism needs to do the same. Although feminist functionalism has “told new stories” about male and female primates … it proposes a reductionist science of genetic essences of maleness and femaleness that does not explain the diversity observed in nature. An approach that Theories & Theoretical Approaches

107

looks at genetic factors in the origin, diversity, and persistence of gender dimorphic behavior is more useful … than reductionistfunctionalist models (as cited in Sperling, 1991, p. 26). It could be as simple as one hand washing the other for a complete sense of cleanliness.

Viewpoints Social Conflict

A generalized criticism of structural functionalism is based on the theory’s lack of explanation for social conflict or social change in addition to its “bias of political conservatism” (Smelser, 1990). Furthermore, psychology is left out of Parsons’ discussion of human behavior. Psychology tends to focus on facts and research-based hypotheses rather than suppositions. While Parsons appreciated human interaction, he ignored the possibility that facts would yield a plausible explanation for human behaviors. Motives and goals pressed the actions of society, in Parsons’ mind. Psychology, also delving into the reasons why people do what they do, based its results on scientific explanations – those observed in a lab or a carefully planned context; types of research which Parsons did not carry out. Qualitative Methodology

Fielding (2005) furthers this criticism, pointing to methodology as structural functionalism’s biggest flaw. The theoretical principles prior to the time of Parsonianism were based on quantitative research – that which was observed in closely-monitored settings with data being gathered in a bulk of statistics. In fact, positivism was considered a “science of society” in that it attempted to improve social conditions by explaining the causes of social phenomena through the investigation of “empirical phenomena” (Fielding, 2005). Parsons, however, preferred the practical, believing that qualitative data was more valuable (and accurate) than a collection of numbers attributed to hypothetical situations. While statistics can describe a social situation based on raw data, the quality of information collected from observing behavior, talking to people within diverse social strata, and comparing new events to historically similar events was more applicable to structural functionalism (Fielding, 2005). This is not an argument that

108


died away over time. Scientists continue to compare the qualitative versus the quantitative, and both are deemed useful for various purposes. Conclusion

As different research methods have a place, so do sociological theories. While the former remain stable, the latter do not. In fact, Smelser (1990) notes, almost humorously, that there really is no constant within the realm of intellectual ideals. The past century seems to have been characterized by the following kind of sequence: From time to time, amid the complex and generally uncoordinated activities of the scores of hundreds of thinkers, researchers, and practitioners in the field, a certain theoretical viewpoint will emerge, consolidate and become relatively dominant as an influence on research and as a focus of intellectual attention …. After a period of hegemony, however, this perspective comes to be the focus of multiple criticism and attacks, and begins to fray at the edges, and soon loses its great influence and credibility. From the resultant babble of voices many lines of thought and research then arise--some of them new and some revivals of something from the past. Then, after this period of confusion, a new perspective emerges, becomes consolidated, wins spokesmen and followers, and gains its day at the top of the field. But its period of dominance is also limited, and before long a cadre of critics appears, and the whole process begins again (Smelser, 1990, p. 275-6). Smelser and others might argue that theories are like music, television programs, and snack foods; they are fads to be limited by the contexts in which they are popular.

Bibliography Boskoff, A. (1959). General sociological theory and political phenomena: Structuralfunctionalism at work. Alpha Kappa Deltan 29 (1), 70-73. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=23139373&site=ehost-live Deflem, M. (2007). Alfred Hitchcock and sociological theory: Parsons goes to the movies. Sociation Today 5 (1), 1-16. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s ih&AN=25817414&site=ehost-live


109

Fielding, N. (2005). The resurgence, legitimation and institutionalization of qualitative methods. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (2), 1-7. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17713310&site=ehost-live Proctor, I. (1980). Voluntarism and structural-functionalism in Parsons’ early work. Human Studies 3 (4), 331-346. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=11678374&site=ehost-live Smelser, N. J. (1990). Sociological theory: Looking forward. American Sociologist 21 (3), 275-282. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9602290719& site=ehost-live Sperling, S. (1991). Baboons with briefcases: Feminism, functionalism, and sociobiology in the evolution of primate gender. Journal of Women in Culture & Society 17 (1), 1. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9112091068 &site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Abbott, Andrew (1999). Department and discipline: Chicago Sociology at one hundred. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Aya, R. (1982). The theory behind theory and society. Theory & Society 11 (6), 907-913. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10746529&site=e host-live Coser, R. L. (1964). The family: Its structure and functions. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Deflem, M. (1999). Teaching theory for sociology students: Junior notes. Perspectives, The ASA Theory section newsletter, 7-8. Deflem, M. (2005). Comment [Letter to the Editor]. Contemporary Sociology 34(1). 9293. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15938357&site=e host-live Demerath III, N. J. (1966). Synecdoche and structural-functionalism. Social Forces 44 (3), 390-401. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13524190&s ite=ehost-live Demerath, N.J. (1981). Through a double-crossed eye: Sociology and the movies. Teaching Sociology 9(1), 69-82. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=138 60067&site=ehost-live

110


Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage. Dowd, J. J. (1999). Waiting for Louis Prima: On the possibility of a sociology of film. Teaching Sociology 27(4), 324-342. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=sih&AN=9469169&site=ehost-live Fine, G. (Ed.) (1995). A second Chicago School? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gerstein, D., Luce, D. R., Smelser, N. J. & Sperlich, S. (1988). The behavioral and social sciences: Achievements and opportunities. Washington: The National Academy of Sciences Press. Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY/London: Cornell University Press. Harraway, D. (1986). Primatology is politics by other means: Women’s place is in the jungle. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Ruth Blier. New York: Pergamon, 77-118. Lovejoy, O. (1981). The origin of man. Science 211 (4480), 341-350. Mayer, J. P. (1948). Sociology of film: Studies and documents. London: Faber and Faber. Maynard, R. A. (1971). The celluloid curriculum: How to use movies in the classroom. New York: Hayden. Morgan, D. H. J. (1975). Social theory and the family. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Norbet, W. (1990). Social theory: Past and present. American Sociologist 21 (3), 286-289. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9602290721&site= ehost-live Papademas, D. (ed.) (2002). Visual sociology and using film/video in sociology courses. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Parsons, T. (1977). Social systems and the evolution of action theory. New York: The Free Press. Pescosolido, B. A. (1990). Teaching medical sociology through film: Theoretical perspectives and practical tools. Teaching Sociology 18(3), 337-346. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=12748177&site=ehost-live Prendergast, C. (1986). Cinema sociology: Cultivating the sociological imagination through popular film. Teaching Sociology 14. 243-248. Proctor, I. (1980). Voluntarism and structural-functionalism in Parsons’ early work. Human Studies 3 (4), 331-346. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=11678374&site=ehost-live


111

Ritzer, G. (1992). Sociological theory (3rd ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill. Smith, D. D. (1973). Teaching introductory sociology by film. Teaching Sociology 1(1). 4861. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13859114&site=eh ost-live Smith, D. D. (1982). Teaching undergraduate sociology through feature films. Teaching Sociology 10(1). 98-101. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s ih&AN=13884959&site=ehost-live Tipton, D. B. & Tiemann, K. (1993). Using the feature film to facilitate sociological thinking. Teaching Sociology 21(2). 187-91. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di rect=true&db=sih&AN=12578415&site=ehost-live Turner, J. H. (1991). Wadsworth.

112

The structure of sociological theory (5th ed.).

Belmont, CA:


Symbolic Interactionism Cynthia Vejar

Overview Human beings have the natural desire to make sense of the chaotic and unpredictable world in which they reside by discerning the external cues that permeate their everyday surroundings. Symbolic Interactionism (Jeon, 2004; Lyman, 1988; Duncan, 1969; Manis & Meltzer, 1978; Sheeran & Abraham, 1994; Stryker, 1987; Tibbetts, 2004) is a framework that attempts to facilitate the innate desire to appropriately interpret events in our lives. There are three overarching premises that constitute Symbolic Interactionism (Ingoldsby, Smith, & Miller 2004; Blumer, 1986). The first assumes that meaning is an important element of human existence, a concept that is both subjective and individualistic, and that people consequently act in accordance with the meanings they construe. People often derive diverse interpretations despite receiving identical sensory input surrounding objects, interactions, and people. Meaning

Imagine the scholar who, upon drawing on the concept of a book (i.e., object), generates stimulating and intellectual constructs. Meanwhile, someone who struggles academically may harbor feelings of fear and resentment toward that object. A dyadic conversation (i.e., interaction) may consist of one person disclosing emotionally-laden personal accounts to a person who is furrowing his brow. Interpretations derived from such a Theories & Theoretical Approaches

113

non-verbal gesture can be varied, and the speaker might either conclude that he has an attentive audience, or that he is being critiqued. Another example shows how the role of “parent” (i.e., people) might generate the image of a warm, nurturing, and supportive role model to one person, while eliciting visualizations of an autocratic and punitive figure to another. Socialization

A second premise that constitutes Symbolic Interactionism asserts that people identify and mold their unique symbolic references through the process of socialization. This postulation suggests that people are not inherently equipped with interpretive devices that help navigate through the complex realms of human behavior. Through the act of establishing an intricate series of relationships they come to certain symbolic determinations, which create a sturdy platform on which subsequent behavior is structured. When a young child engages in pleasant behavior that causes his parent to smile, he equates the concept of “good behavior,” with that of “a specific facial expression resulting in an upturned mouth.” As the child encounters pleasurable deeds throughout the course of his life, he will be prompted to implement the symbolic demonstration (i.e., a smile) he initially corresponded with such acts. Cultural Symbolism

Behaviors are adopted through an obscurely subtle learning process, and the third tenet of Symbolic Interactionism affirms that there is a cultural dimension that intertwines the symbolic “educational” development. For example, in conversation, the amount of physical space in which we distance our bodies has culturally symbolic significance (Rothbaum, Morelli, Pott, & Liu-Constant, 2000). Likewise, greetings in the form of demonstrative affection, such as hugs and kisses can be warmly regarded by one culture, and deemed as the obstruction of personal space and the crossing of inappropriate boundaries by another (Graham, 2007). George Herbert Mead

A pioneer of Symbolic Interactionism was George Herbert Mead, who emphasized the importance of gestures within the framework of communication. When interacting with others, we carry ourselves in a certain manner that conveys significance; our posture, tone of voice, voice inflections, as 114


well as hand and facial movements can either accentuate or contradict that which we are verbally stating. Subsequent scholars, such as Albert Mehrabian, have studied the interaction between verbal and nonverbal language, and found that the spoken word constitutes 7% of an overall message, whereas body language represents the remaining 93% (Clarke & Sykes, 2005). For example, the word no is communicated very differently based upon the mannerisms that accompany such a declaration, as it can be stated with hesitancy, teasingly, or with conviction. Likewise, gestures can represent the cultural context in which one resides, such as the hand signal that denotes “ok” (i.e., the pointer finger and thumb connecting to form a circle while the remaining fingers remain upright) in the United States signifies “money” in Japan, “sex” in Mexico, and “homosexual” in Ethiopia (Archer, 1997). Mead’s Three Stages of Self-Discovery

Mead additionally proposed that the process of self-discovery was enacted by the usage of gestures threefold through the play stage, the game stage, and through a stage called generalized other. In the play stage, young children identify with key figures in their environments, such as the mother or father, as well as occupational or gender-specific roles to which they have been exposed (e.g., police officer, nurse) and replicate the behavioral norms that correspond with such roles. A young boy might sit on the edge of the bathroom counter, attentive to the way in which his father goes about shaving, and emulate this action by scraping the edge of a blunt object across his own face. During the game stage, children extrapolate from the vantage point of the roles they have simulated by assuming the roles that their counterparts concurrently undertake. While engaging in a team sport, for example, it behooves a child to conceptualize the roles of his teammates and opponents in order to successfully maneuver throughout the game within his own particular position. As people developmentally evolve, their anticipation of the generalized other helps them construct morally sound and appropriate behavior, such as the employee who arrives promptly to work in order to avoid scrutiny from his colleagues. Moreover, self identity continuously fluctuates between the I, which is the impulsive, automatic, “knee-jerk” responses Theories & Theoretical Approaches

115

we have to stimuli (Lane, 1984), and the me, which is the socially refined reactions that were instilled through the process of adopting social standards (Baldwin, 1988).

Further Insights Language

The concept of language interacts with Symbolic Interactionism (Hewitt, 1979; Schwalbe, 1983), and serves as the vehicle to convey the symbols that engulf us. Words are connecting forces that help illustrate our thoughts, beliefs, values, intentions, and objectives. When a patron at a restaurant requests “eggs and toast,” it is reassuring and productive that the meaning the patron attaches to both “eggs” and “toast” directly converges with that of the waiter. Certainly there are conceptual terms that are less tangible and possess an abstract quality that make it difficult to distinguish their true nature such as “honor,” “courage,” and “love.” There have been countless tales that illustrate a person’s usage of the word “love” to convey an emotional experience, only to be met with confusion, disagreement, or some form of misunderstanding by the person on the receiving end. To some, “love” might be a term tossed around freely, while others might reserve the term for special encounters. Thus, the word “love” lacks a universal quality, and is limited to the person espousing such a sentiment. Definition of the Situation

Relational misunderstandings among those in intimate kinships are a common occurrence that has been examined thoroughly by family theorists. The mere essence of a family implies a congregation of various actors, each of whom possess their own unique set of symbols, and the cumbersome integration of such divergent representations (Hall, 2006; Knox and Schact, 2008). Definition of the Situation (Altheide, 2000; Perinbanayagam, 1974) refers to the predispositions that impact an ability to impart objectivity into joint classifications. For example, before couples marry, they might agree on certain seemingly simplistic and objective terms such as “upholding a clean household.” A symbolic point of disagreement that might extend from this pledge is what a clean living space actually means to each individual; one partner might assume that “clean” is defined by the ability to “eat off the kitchen floor,” while the other might assume it is defined by a lack of cockroaches infiltrating the kitchen. 116


A second term that couples might agree on is the decision to have children in the near future. Upon further scrutiny, they might find that their symbolic references are incompatible. The couple’s concept of time might be mismatched, in that “near future” to one person might represent a 5-year timeline, while to the other person it might mean tomorrow. In order to uphold a semblance of consistency while Defining a Situation, it is common for people to control their environments in a way that congruously parallels their established identity (Cast, 2003). This can be enacted through the process of role salience, which suggests that people select roles and behaviors that match the identities they have created for themselves and the level of importance they assign to those roles. If a college student concurrently holds a full time job, there may be times when the role of the “student” and the role of the “employee” conflict. In such times, if the student shuns work-related functions in order to study, it is likely that his student role is deemed more salient. Additionally, people cast others into roles that reinforce their own identities, which can in turn be either embraced or refuted. When embraced, a symbiotic level of dependency that is also self-serving transpires. Betty considers herself to be an ambitious professional with strong leadership skills that can sometimes venture into domination and is drawn to Bob, a meek and tender-hearted man who is both compliant and dutiful. Betty’s attraction to Bob, in part, is based on the fact that he helps uphold her identity as a strong, powerful woman. Likewise, Betty reinforces the identity that Bob has established for himself as altruistic and accommodating. This portion of the theory asserts that people’s self-identifiable qualities do not exist in a vacuum; people only know their internal and external traits by comparatively measuring themselves against others. Hence, people do not know that they are tall, intelligent, or generous unless they come in contact with those that are short, ignorant, or frugal. Moreover, if a person wishes to highlight his tall, intelligent, and/or generous nature, he might proactively seek to immerse himself with those who substantiate these self-labeled characteristics. Cooley’s Looking-Glass Self

The Looking-Glass Self (Cooley, 1902; Gecas, 1983; Scheff, 2005), a concept attributed to sociologist Charles Cooley, is a process that refers to the deTheories & Theoretical Approaches

117

terminations we internalize about ourselves that are initiated by the perceived appraisals of those in our external environments. We are acutely aware that others are in our midst, and presume to know how they estimate our physical, intellectual, and psychological worthiness, which directly contributes toward our sense of self. If George is at a cocktail party during which he is mingling with others at a consistent pace, he might determine that he is interesting and intellectually stimulating. This postulation, which may or may not be accurate, is the force that heightens his level of esteem and self-perception. The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

On the other hand, The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Wiley, 2003) is a set of beliefs, which may be faulty, that we convert into reality based upon the ways in which we re-structure our lives in deference to such beliefs. If Joan believes that her husband, Frank, is unfaithful, she might become excessively suspicious, and plague him with the irrational fears that are flooding her mind. Prophetically, the harassment itself might drive Frank into the arms of another woman. Upon finding that her suspicions were true and Frank had engaged in extramarital affairs, Joan might have a “told-you-so” attitude, whereas in reality it was her paranoid behavior that actuated the infidelity. Other Variables Age

Even variables that seem concrete and objectively unquestionable can be analyzed through the lens of Symbolic Interactionism. On the surface, a person’s age appears to be chronologically indisputable, and being 15 years old seems to collectively transcend the notion of symbolic differentiation, regardless of psychological or sociological ideals. Nevertheless, the roles and expectations accompanying a 15-year old may fluctuate depending on the cultural and family mores in which that person is imbedded. For example, a 15-year old in a tribal community, whose rites of passage affirm their transition into adulthood, may contrast greatly with a typical 15-year old high school student in Western Civilization (Delaney, 1995). Likewise, the relational patterns that constitute our family lives also affect the symbolic variation on the concept of age. Koerner, Kenyon, and Rankin (2006) found that adolescent females coming from divorced households in which they currently reside with their mothers may experience age quite 118


differently from their peers, depending on the mother-daughter rapport. Girls that grow up and witness the financial and intrapersonal anguish that their mothers endure identify themselves to be a psychological age that is older than their chronological age. This can affect subsequent peer relations, such as an earlier entrance into the dating world. Inequity

According to Hollander & Howard (2000), the theoretical tenets of Symbolic Interactionism can be applied to the concept of inequity. Cultural and individual ideals reveal symbolic perceptions of gender, race, sexual orientation, and social class biases, which consequently harm the recipients of such assumptions. Through a combination of variables, including the self-fulfilling prophecy, people who are exploited tend to take on the negative characteristics that are bestowed upon them by higher-status persons. Moreover, those that reside within the “high-status” groups are also adhering to the expectations placed on them to achieve more productive goals, which serve as a stepping-stone toward success. This hierarchical pecking order produces a boss-subordinate dynamic, whereby those which are exploited constantly defer to those who are deemed to be more worthy. When people refuse to fall prey toward such oppressive expectations, they may submit to resistance and negotiation. Females, for example, may reject the societal notion that they are vulnerable by the way in which they portray themselves, and by the activities that they pursue, such as rugby or other male associate sports. These good intentions, positive demeanors, and self-improvement strides may influence corresponding interpersonal relationships, though they may not enact change on a large-scale level. Hence, the risk of victimization is not completely eradicated from the realm of possibility. In other words, it is difficult to modify deep-seated sociological symbols that trickle into our personal lives through individual behavioral modifications.

Viewpoints Symbolic Violence

The notion of Symbolic Interactionism and social inequity is further elaborated by a study conducted by Herr and Anderson (2003) that examined the Theories & Theoretical Approaches

119

notion of symbolic violence. Symbolic violence is described as violent acts that are undetected based on their ambiguous or inconspicuous form, such as the subtle inequitable divisions of power that correspond with the suppression of gender and ethnicity. Hierarchies that demonstrate symbolic violence are assigned based on arbitrary cultural ideals, such as supremacy based on patriarchal roles and color-of-skin premises. In Herr and Anderson’s study, the concept of symbolic violence is verified qualitatively through a poor, urban middle school educational environment, in which the authors monitored different teaching strategies that were employed from various faculty members toward an unruly group of adolescent boys. One well-intentioned teacher attempted to incorporate middle-class symbols (i.e., values) into the classroom, and in the process unintentionally discounted the students’ boisterous behavioral norms as unsuitable. Such judgment was not well received by the students who retaliated against her deductions with brash opposition. Conversely, a different teacher who was successful in his instructional strategies was able to create a sense of mutual respect in the way that he interpreted student behavior contextually and responded with hope, motivation, and persistence. The symbolic violence established in such a situation reflects society’s gross misinterpretations of the mandatory preparation for “at-risk” human service fields. As opposed to having a one-size-fits-all model, Herr and Anderson imply that school authority figures should symbolically assess the different needs of the students they target, and therefore find suitable teachers who can undertake the task of reaching students with diverse needs. Mental Health Disorders

Those who are diagnosed with various psychological disorders comprise another population who are oftentimes marginalized and treated with unwarranted disregard. Rosenberg (1984) questions the ability of mental health specialists to place objective parameters onto behavior that is considered irrational and outside of the scope of reality (i.e., insanity). Psychologists consult with the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (i.e., DSM) in order to appropriately liken problematic or distressing behaviors with a corresponding diagnosis. In order to conduct such evaluations, atypical symptoms in the form of behavior, thoughts, and/or affect tend to be objectively classified as bizarre 120


(i.e., psychotic) or painful to the sufferer (e.g., depression). However, from a Symbolic Interactionist’s perspective, it is not the “objective symptoms” that serve as the all-powerful criteria, but the clinician’s ability or inability to symbolically relate to such dimensions through the act of “role-taking.” In other words, the professional who determines that behavior is maladaptive may be unable or unwilling to relate to the symbolic meaning pertaining to the patient’s life perspective. Thus, Rosenberg encourages people to conceptualize insanity under subjective terms rather than socially accepted norms. Identical behaviors can render different levels of acceptability based on an observer’s (i.e., the clinician or layperson) ability to relate; if a man in a public arena falls to the ground in a fit of convulsions, witnesses seek to judge the acceptability of such behavior. If the spectators are reassured by that person’s spouse that the man is epileptic, they might compassionately deem such conduct as out of his control, and it is therefore psychologically acceptable. If, however, the spouse offers no source of explanation, the witnesses might speculate on why such a folly is unfolding before them, such as: “is this man writhing on the ground due to a mental breakdown?” In both cases the behavior is the same, but the ability to understand his collapsed body through the framework of a physical ailment is a concept with which most people are familiar, whereas the ambiguity surrounding the unknown leaves people unnerved. Similarly, the clinically labeled “mentally disturbed” population demonstrates behaviors with which the lay public is unable to intellectually relate and is often judged through lenses of ignorance. Moreover, timeframes through which a person explains phenomena reflect the subjective state of mental health functioning. In previous centuries, a meteorologist who sought to explain weather conditions through our currently accepted scientific terminology would have been labeled insane or heretical, just as a person of today who reverts to notions such as “the Gods of the sky are angry, and are therefore releasing extensions of their irritation via hailstorms” would be deemed mentally unstable. In this instance the generational timeframe is the dependent variable, not the weather-related explanations. Perhaps in a futuristic time zone, the thoughts that delude the minds of today’s Schizophrenics will resonate with more clarity. Similarly, the existence of severe mood swings that render a diagnosis of “deTheories & Theoretical Approaches

121

pression” or “anxiety” can be explained through the contextual situations that people are placed. The act of being “emotionally beside oneself” in the throes of grief and bereavement is normative, and thus the presence of emotionality itself does not demonstrate psychological disparity as much as the contextual forces that surround such sensations. Conclusion

The utilization of Symbolic Interactionism is quite prolific on both individualistic and large-scale levels. Interpersonally, if people sought to understand their family members, friends, and co-workers from their distinct contextual backdrops, more harmonious relations would surely result. Marital therapists, for example, are thus challenged with the difficult task of merging disparate definitions on concepts like “sex,” “finances” and “childrearing discipline techniques.” Likewise, multicultural calamities are often rooted in the existence of symbolic misinterpretations. For some cultures, “time” is a loosely-constructed notion (e.g., arriving at 12:00 might mean 12-ish), whereas in other cultures it is a concrete and definitive reality (Wellner, 2004), and these different interpretations can often be the source of extreme contention. Most importantly, disagreements on “objective” societal ideologies have served to initiate tremendous wide-spread destruction and violence, which are a continual reminder to re-examine the importance of subjective symbols.

Bibliography Altheide, D. L. (2000). Identity and the definition of the situation in a mass-mediated context. Symbolic Interaction, 23(1), 1-27. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=aph&AN=2980413&site=ehost-live Archer, D. (1997). Unspoken diversity: Cultural differences in gestures. Qualitative Sociology, 20(1), 79-105. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=11302581&site=ehost-live Baldwin, J. D. (1988). Mead’s solution to the problem of agency. Sociological Inquiry, 58(2),139-162. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13759745 &site=ehost-live Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

122


Cast, A. D. (2003). Power and the ability to define the situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(3), 185-201. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=11026587&site=ehost-live Clarke, R. D. & Sykes, T. A. (2005). Walk your talk. Black Enterprise, 35(9), 124-124. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16471496&site=ehost-live Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner. Delaney, C. H. (1995). Rites of passage in adolescence. Adolescence, 30(120), 891-898. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9512143502&site=ehost-live Duncan, (1969). Symbols and social theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Gecas, V. & Schwalbe, M. L. (1983). Beyond the looking-glass self: Social structure and efficacy-based self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(2), 77-88. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13545146&site=ehost-live Graham, J. (2007). A hands-on approach. Psychology Today, 40(6), 24-24. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27351334&site=ehost-live Hall, S. S. (2006). Marital meaning. Journal of Family Issues, 27(10), 1437-1458. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22427042&site=ehost-live Herr, K. & Anderson, G. L. (2003). Violent youth or violent schools? A critical incident analysis of symbolic violence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(4), 415-433. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11985416 &site=ehost-live Hewitt, J. P. (1979). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology. Boston, London, Sydney, Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Hollander, J. A. & Howard, J. A. (2000). Social psychology theories on social inequalities. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 338-351. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d irect=true&db=aph&AN=4062460&site=ehost-live Ingoldsby, B. B., Smith, S. R. & Miller, J. E. (2004). Exploring family theories. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. Jeon, Y. (2004). The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18(3), 249-256. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14359335&site=ehost-live


123

Koerner, S. S., Kenyon, D. B. & Rankin, L. A. (2006). Growing up faster? Post-divorce catalysts in the mother-adolescent relationship. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 45(3/4), 25-41. Knox, D. & Schacht, C. (2008). Choices in relationships: An introduction to marriage and the family. Australia, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Spain, UK, US: Thomson & Wadsworth. Lane, H. J. (2001). Self-differentiation in symbolic interactionism and psychoanalysis. Social Work, 29(3), 270-274. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=5273694&site=ehost-live Lymon, S. M. (1988). Symbolic interactionism and macrosociology. Sociological Forum, 3(2), 295-301. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10796288 &site=ehost-live Manis, J.G. & Meltzer, B. N. (1978). Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology. Boston, London, Sydney, Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Mead, G. H. (1934/1956). On social psychology: Selected papers (Anselem Strauss, ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1974). The definition of the situation: An analysis of the ethnomethodological and dramaturgical view. Sociological Quarterly, 15(4), 521-541. Rosenberg, M. (1984). A symbolic interactionist view of psychosis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 289-302. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=12819581&site=ehost-live Rothbaum, F., Morelli, G., Pott, M., & Liu-Constant, Y. (2000). Immigrant-Chinese and Euro-American parents’ physical closeness with young children: Themes of family relatedness. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(3), 334-348. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3683591&site=ehost-live Schwalbe, M. L. (1983). Language and the self: An expanded view from a symbolic interactionist perspective. Symbolic Interaction, 6(2), 291-306. Scheff, T. J. (2005). Looking-glass self: Goffman as a symbolic interactionist. Symbolic Interaction, 28(2), 147-166. Sheeran, P. & Abraham, C. (1994). Unemployment and self-conception: A symbolic interactionist analysis. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4(115129), 115-129. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1205693 8&site=ehost-live Stryker, S. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(1), 83-94. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1 3544879&site=ehost-live 124


Tibbetts, P. (2004). Symbolic interaction theory and the cognitively disabled: A neglected dimension. American Sociologist, 35(4), 25-36. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d irect=true&db=aph&AN=18756743&site=ehost-live Wellner, A. S. (2004). The time trap. Inc., 26(6), 42-43. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di rect=true&db=aph&AN=13118220&site=ehost-live Wiley, N. (2003). The self as self-fulfilling prophecy. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 501-513.

Suggested Reading Becker, H. S. & McCall, M. M. (1993). Symbolic interaction and cultural studies. USA: University of Chicago Press. Charon, J. M. (2006). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation. USA: Prentice Hall. Herman-Kinney, N. J. (2004). Handbook of symbolic interactionism. USA: AltaMira Press.


125

Micro & Macro Level Processes Kimberley Cox

Overview There are two broad theoretical divisions within sociology: micro and macro. These two contrasting theoretical perspectives—often referred to as micro-sociology and macro-sociology—use different concepts drawing from micro-level or macro-level processes to explain social life. In general, the micro/macro distinction refers to the scope of the phenomena under study. According to Wippler and Lindenberg (1987), there are no clear cut-off points in this distinction. However, an example constituting a micro-level process would be if the scope were focused on interaction among individuals; if the scope were focused on the value system of a society, this would constitute a macro-level process. Micro-sociology analyzes the underlying social processes responsible for relations between persons. Micro-level processes thus focus on social interaction and communication; important concepts are symbols, obligations, exchange, and reciprocity. Macro-sociology, on the other hand, analyzes the structure of different positions in a population and their constraints on social relations. Macro-level processes thus focus on the influence of the social environment on people’s relations, and important concepts are differentiation, institutions, and inequality (Blau, 1987). 126


Brief History of the Micro/Macro Distinction in Sociological Theory

Until the 1960s, theories oriented to macro-level processes (or macro-theories) dominated the American sociology landscape, specifically, structural functionalism and the equally macro-oriented conflict theory (Ritzer, 1985). Talcott Parsons is credited with playing a central role in helping structural functionalism obtain its dominant position in American sociological theory. With respect to theories oriented to micro-level processes (or micro-theories) prior to the 1960s, symbolic interactionism is worth mentioning during the time that macro-theories strongly dominated sociological theory. According to Ritzer (1985), the late 1960s and 1970s were a time during which micro-theories gained popularity in American sociological theory, most notably with the developments of exchange theory and the work of George Homans and Peter Blau. Homans was working on a theoretical alternative to Parson’s structural functionalism that addressed its limitations and macro-orientation. His work applied principles from psychology (specifically behaviorism) to issues of sociological importance. According to Blau (1964), Homans was attempting to develop a behavioristic and scientific micro-theoretical alternative to macro-theoretical orientations. During this time, Blau was also developing his own theory, a type of exchange theory that extended its original micro-oriented principles to macro-level processes (Ritzer, 1985), and thus was an integrative effort to also appeal to supporters of macrotheories. There were also notable developments in phenomenology and ethnomethodology during the rise in popularity of micro-theories, including the work of individual theorists like Albert Schutz. However, these developments came up against hostility from conventional macro-oriented theorists. According to Ritzer (1985), this hostility centered on the emphasis of phenomenology and ethnomethodology with “trivial micro-sociological issues and for losing sight of the importance of social structures and social institutions. Their apparent focus on creative consciousness led to the view that theorists with such an orientation were not, indeed could not be, scientific” (p. 90). Theories & Theoretical Approaches

127

Applications Macro-level Processes

Macro-level processes in sociological theory approach the investigation of social life as it exists in social systems, institutional structures within society, and the relationships among the various structures within society. From this macro-theoretical perspective, it is the structures within society that set the stage or serves as the context for individual behavior. The theoretical concerns of macro-level processes represent those of the classical period of sociology. The founding fathers of sociology—Marx, Durkheim and Weber—attended to such macro-oriented analyses. The following section will briefly review three major theoretical perspectives that focus on macro-level processes: Marx’s theory of stratification, Parsons’s structural functionalism, and Dahrendorf’s conflict theory. Marxism

German philosopher Karl Marx’s writings of the nineteenth century, including The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, are perhaps the most influential attempts to understand the origins and development of stratification in capitalist societies. It is these writings and others published by Marx and his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels that form the foundation of thought and belief known as Marxism. Marx’s theory of stratification is based on the assumption that the foundations of human society are based on the way in which society has developed its relationship to the means of production. According to Marx, the means of production refers to the productive resources in society; for example, things that are necessary to supply the society’s economic needs such as types of technology used to produce basic necessities. The central feature of stratification, according to Marx, is the subordination among classes that evolves ultimately from the means of production (Smelser, 1988). In other words, an individual’s relationship to society’s economic system depends on how they relate to the sources of power in that system. Thus, for Marx, those people who hold the same position with regard to the productive process share a class. The unequal distribution of society’s productive resources creates a system of stratification. People situated at these various rankings in the vertical order receive unequal shares of the 128


society’s wealth and possess differential degrees of power over others. Essentially, then, societies are composed of two classes: the owners of the means of production, or bourgeoisie, and the workers, or proletariat. According to Marx, the division between these two classes would inevitably grow until a dynamic class struggle forced revolutionary societal change. Marx views capitalism as a political tool for this ranking of human groups for the purpose of distributing wealth and power within the economic system rather than as a system for producing goods and services to fill human needs. It is the social institutions in societies such as the economy, government, and education that operate to assure the position of various human groups (Freedman, 2005). Structural Functionalism

Talcott Parsons is regarded as the theorist who brought the structural functionalism approach to its most developed form. His publication of The Structure of Social Action in 1937 was pivotal in American sociological theory, in that it solidified the strength of structural functional theory in the decades to come. It was this piece of Parsons’s work and others that concentrated on the structures of society and their relationship to each other with an emphasis on how order is maintained among the various elements of society. Parsons’ theoretical writings outlined a comprehensive model of a systemic analysis of society that focused on identifying functions for the existence of a society and the systems that are necessary to perform the functions. Parsons’s model identified four basic functions he called “functional prerequisites” (by the acronym AGIL) that he believed were necessary for all systems: • (A) Adaptation – a system must cope with the situational needs facing it; • (G) Goal – a system must achieve its primary goal; • (I) Integration – a system must control the interrelationship of the other three functional perquisites; and • (L) Latency – a system must provide, maintain, and renew both motivational and cultural patterns. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

129

Each one of these functions is performed by a system within society, including the Behavioral system, which performs the function of Adaptation; the Personality system, which performs the function of Goal-attainment; the Social system, which performs the function of Integration through norms; and the Cultural system, which shows how cultural values establish patterns in the Social and Personality systems (“Society as a system,” 2001). Structural functionalism came under its strongest criticisms in the 1960s and 1970s; paradoxically, at about the same time it was gaining dominance in American sociological theory. According to Ritzer (1983), it was criticized for being politically conservative, unable to explain social change, and incapable of analyzing social conflict. As a result, there was an effort to address these criticisms by integrating its focus on structure with that of social conflict. This effort led to the development of conflict theory. Conflict Theory

Conflict theory, like structural functional theory, is oriented toward the study of social structure and institutions. In contrast to structural functional theory, conflict theorists view every society as subject to processes of change. Where functional theorists emphasize the orderliness of society, conflict theorists see conflict at every point in the social system with many societal elements contributing to change. Any order that does exist, according to conflict theorists, is the result of coercion of some members by those holding positions at the top. Thus, conflict theorists emphasize the role of power in maintaining order in society. The work of Ralf Dahrendorf in the late 1950s is recognized with the development of conflict theory. Dahrendorf’s work concentrated on larger social structures. A central premise of his writings is the idea that various positions within society have different amounts of authority. This authority exists in positions not within individuals. Dahrendorf was interested in the structure of these positions and the conflict among them. Conflict groups, or those that engage in group conflict emerge, and engage in actions that lead to changes in social structure. Dahrendorf was opposed to those theorists who focused on microlevel processes. Micro-level Processes

Micro-level processes in sociological theory approach the investigation of social life as it exists in interpersonal and interactional processes. From this 130


micro-theoretical perspective, it is the individual in social context that is of central importance. Thus, microsociology is concerned with the interactions, exchanges and choices of people as affected by the social context in which they occur. Exchange Theory

In the 1950s sociologist George Homans introduced exchange theory. Homans was dissatisfied with the structural focus of Parsons’s theory and the collective tradition in classical sociology. He wanted to focus on people and their behavior. It was his development of a sociological form of behaviorism in Skinnerian terms that is considered an important theoretical development in micro-sociology (Alexander & Giesen, 1987). His 1958 article entitled, ‘Social Behavior of Exchange” and subsequent publication, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, presented his view that at sociology’s core is the study of individual behavior and interaction. In his writings, Homans argued that people will continue to do what they have found to be rewarding in the past, and will cease doing what has proved costly in the past. For Homans, the focus of sociology should be these patterns of reinforcement, not social structures and institutions (Ritzer, 1983). Exchange theory also concerns itself with interaction between people involving an exchange of rewards and costs. The basic idea is that interactions are more likely to continue where there is an exchange of rewards, and are less likely to continue when interactions prove costly. Symbolic Interactionism

The development of symbolic interaction theory is mostly tied to Herbert Blumer in the post-World War I context of the University of Chicago’s Department of Sociology (Stryker, 2002). Early influences from the late 19th-century and early 20th-century include the classic works of William James, John Dewey, and most notably, George Herbert Mead (Stryker & Vryan, 2003). Indeed, symbolic interaction theory is strongly inspired by Mead’s insights, which are based on the premise that people creatively shape reality through social interaction. This approach to micro-level processes emphasizes the importance of symbols and interpersonal interaction. Stryker and Vryan (2003) summarize this emphasis: Persons act using symbols developed in their interaction, and they act through the communication of these symbols. Society is a term summarizTheories & Theoretical Approaches

131

ing such interaction; subparts of society designate the settings in which interaction takes place. Society and its subparts are continuously created and recreated as persons act toward one another (p. 4). Mead believed that the capacity in humans to use symbols implies that they have minds and the ability to think. Symbols refer to arbitrary signs of objects that stand in place of those objects. Hand gestures, as well as written or spoken words, are examples of symbols. The meaning assigned to symbols, according to Mead, is determined by the social context in which it occurs. Human beings can think about themselves, observe their own behavior, and take the perspective of others (i.e., role taking) and in so doing come to have a self that is therefore, developed through a social process and emerges from interaction. Through such symbolic interaction human beings play an active role in creating and recreating their social reality. For Mead, it is essential to understand the role of self to understand human behavior (Stryker, 2002). Since Mead, it is Blumer who has had the greatest influence on symbolic interactionism. Blumer took a stronger stand in contrasting symbolic interactionism to conventional sociology. Whereas conventional sociology views social behavior as a product of values, norms, expectations, etc., Blumer’s symbolic interactionism views society, not as organization or structure, but as the sum of actions of human beings occurring through the social process of interaction (Stryker, 2002). Phenomenological Sociology & Ethnomethodology

The mid-1960s was considered a critical time in the development of and interest in phenomenological sociology, and it’s during this time that it made its mark on American sociological theory. This period began with the English translation and publication of Alfred Schutz’s The Phenomenology of the Social World. In his work, Schutz discusses actors’ consciousness or, the way people construct social reality and its relationship to individual thought and action. Ethnomethodology is considered indistinguishable from phenomenology (often referred to as its American version). Developed by Harold Garfinkel (who was a student of Schutz and Parsons), ethnomethodology explores the thoughts and resulting actions of the “actor.” It gained national atten132


tion with Garfinkel’s 1967 publication Studies in Ethnomethodology. Sociologists in this tradition focus on the individual level in their discovery and analysis of everyday life. According to Linstead (2006), “Ethnomethodology has since affected every area of sociology where the study of ordinary people interacting has been recognized as important” (p. 400). Ethnomethodology is generally considered as micro-sociology within the micro-macro debate (Alexander & Giesen, 1987). Linstead (2006), however, proposes that Garfinkel’s key principles illustrate that the micro-level study of interaction can contribute to the explanation of large-scale and fundamental macro-sociological issues. Yet, it has also been argued that ethnomethodology cannot truly participate in the micro-macro debate, because it “transcends” the debate by transcending its terms. According to Hilbert (1990), “Ethnomethodology is indifferent to structure at any level... instead it is concerned with concrete empirical social practices wherein both macro- and microstructure and their interrelations are produced, reproduced, used, and managed” (p. 805). Conclusion

From a sociological approach, macro-level processes analyze social life as it exists in social systems, institutional structures within society, and the relationships among the various structures within society. Examples of theoretical perspectives that focus on macro-level processes include Marx’s theory of stratification, Parsons’s structural functionalism, and Dahrendorf’s conflict theory. Micro-level processes analyze social life as it exists in interpersonal and interactional processes. From this micro-theoretical perspective, it is the individual in social context that is of central importance. Examples of theoretical perspectives that focus on micro-level processes include Homans’s exchange theory, Mead and Blumer’s symbolic interactionism, and phenomenological sociology/ethnomethodology. From a historical perspective theories oriented to macro-level processes dominated American sociology until the 1960s, specifically structural functionalism associated with the work of Parsons, and the equally macrooriented conflict theory (Ritzer, 1985). Symbolic interactionism associated with the work of Mead and Blumer was a prominent micro-level theory during this time, but it was not until the late 1960s and 1970s that microlevel theories gained popularity in American sociological theory. The more Theories & Theoretical Approaches

133

recent advances are associated with the works of Homans and Blau, and those of Schutz and Garfinkel in the areas of phenomenology and ethnomethodology, respectively. An increasing number of sociologists have come to realize the importance of integrating micro- and macro-level processes into a convergent paradigm, including Ritzer’s Integration Model, which attempts to combine micro- and macro-level theories to provide a comprehensive understanding of human social behavior. Parsons’ work illustrates an early formulation toward a micro-macro-link. Though his works of the 1950s and 1960s moved in the direction of structural functional theory, he made a shift over the years, but not without criticism that his writings were “muddled” and “confused” with respect to his theoretical orientation (Ritzer, 1981). As one example, Parsons “sociologized” Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of the personality and used these insights to “psychologize” macro-level processes. In doing so he showed how the affective, cognitive, and moral development of the personality depends on the existence of group structure (Alexander & Giesen, 1987).

Bibliography Alexander, J. C., & Giesen, B. (1987). From reduction to linkage: The long view of the micro-macro debate. In J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch & N. J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 1-42). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Blau, P. M. (1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(1), 26-54. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=153 92235&site=ehost-live Blau, P.M. (1987). Contrasting theoretical perspectives. In J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch & N.J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 71-85). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Blau, P.M. (2001). Macrostructural theory. In, J.H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory. (pp. 343-352). Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media B.V./Books. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18732494&site=ehost-live Callero, P.L. (2003). The sociology of the self. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 115-133. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10878539&site=ehost-live Freedman, R. (1990). The Marxist system: Economic, political, and social perspectives. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. 134


Helle, H.J., & Eisenstadt, S.N. (Eds.). (1985). Macro sociological theory: Perspectives on sociological theory: Vol. 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Helle, H.J., & Eisenstadt, S.N. (Eds.). (1985). Micro sociological theory: Perspectives on sociological theory: Vol. 2. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hilbert, R.A. (1990). Ethnomethodology and micro-macro order. American Sociological Review, 55(6), 794-808. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=910 1282443&site=ehost-live Linstead, S. (2006). Ethnomethodology and sociology: An introduction. The Sociological Review, 54(3), 399-404. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=217 84974&site=ehost-live Society as a system of subsystems. (2001). In, Contemporary sociological theory. (pp. 7-18). New York: Peter Lang. Retrieved May 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=19365007&site=ehost-live Psathas, G. (2004). Alfred Schutz’s influence on American sociologists and sociology. Human Studies, 27(1), 1-35. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=11980147&site=ehost-live Ritzer, G. (1981). Toward an integrated sociological paradigm. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ritzer, G. (1985). The rise of micro-sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 3(1), 88-98. Sharrock, W. (1989). Ethnomethodology. The British Journal of Sociology, 40(4), 657-677. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6790735&site=ehost-live Smelser, N.J. (1988). Social structure. In N.J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (pp. 103129). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stryker, S. (2002). Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory, and structural symbolic interactionism (pp. 211-231). Springer Science & Business Media B.V./Books. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18732480&site=ehost-live Stryker, S., & Vryan, K.D. (2003). The symbolic interactionist frame (pp. 3-28). Springer Science & Business Media B.V./Books. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=sih&AN=18968267&site=ehost-live Wagner, H.R. (1969). Phenomenology and contemporary sociological theory. Sociological Focus, 2(3), 73-86. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14 653051&site=ehost-live Wippler, R., & Lindenberg, S. (1987). Collective phenomena and rational choice. In J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch & N.J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 135152). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

135

Suggested Reading Goldspink, C., & Robert, K. (2004). Bridging the micro-macro divide: A new basis for social sciences. Human Relations, 57(5), 597-618. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete database.http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13756875&site=ehost-live Knorr-Cetina, K., & Cicourel, A.V. (Eds.) (1981). Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies. Boston: Routledge. Lenski, G. (1988). Rethinking macrosociology theory. American Sociological Review, 53(2), 163-171. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&A N=14789906&site=ehost-live Mead, G.H. (1962). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parsons, T. (1963). Social structure and personality. New York: Free Press.

136


Terms & Concepts

Agency: The ability to exert power. Alienation: According to Marx, capitalism disrupts the natural relationship between people and their work. Rather than giving people an opportunity to express their creativity and needs, capitalism alienates people. Specifically, capitalism alienates workers from the process of creating, from the end product, from one another, and from their own potential. Assimilation: The absorption of various foreign aspects of culture and behavior. Authoritarian Personality: A personality type that scores high on measures of anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism, and submission to authority. Scales to measure this were developed by T. Adorno. Authority: Dahrendorf’s theory of conflict rests upon the notion of authority. Authority is distributed unequally across social positions, he argues. It is inherent in the positions themselves, rather than the individuals who occupy them. Subordinate groups have an interest in redistributing authority, thereby creating conflict and change. Capitalism: Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner believed that capitalism was the “natural law” of economics. They opposed governTheories & Theoretical Approaches

137

ment interference of any kind, arguing that such interference would upset the natural order. The poor and homeless were the “less fit” members of society, the wealthy the “more fit”; everyone’s place in the social hierarchy was, they argued, as it should be. Class Conflict: Marx’s views history as a series of class struggles. Class conflict is an inherent part of all social systems, he argues, whether they are feudalist societies or capitalist societies. It is the conflict between opposing groups which brings about change. Competition: Although Darwin believed cooperation and competition were both essential elements in the survival of the fittest, competition was often emphasized over the latter in the popular and scientific press. Spencer, too, recognized the need for cooperation and generosity on an individual level (as opposed to governmental level); his theories, too, however, were portrayed as a promotion for “tooth-and-claw” competition above all else. Conflict Theory: A theoretical approach that assumes that social behavior is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between groups. It focuses on the idea that there exists an unequal distribution of advantage in society, which is characterized by conflict. Consensus: Conflict theories are often presented as the opposite of consensus theories. Consensus theories such as structural functionalism focus on social stability and shared values and norms. Consensus theorists often view conflict as inherently bad; they emphasize the continuity of social systems over time, rather than social change. Cooperation: Social Darwinists believed competition was a natural law of social order, but they reserved room for cooperation and generosity in their theory as well. Herbert Spencer, in particular, emphasized the importance of private help (as opposed to government assistance) for the poor and less fortunate. Cost-Benefit: An economic term that, in rational choice theory, refers to a method of identifying the factors that are taken into account when individuals make choices. The term implies that objective value can be assigned to the costs of decisions or actions, in order to measure the benefits accrued. 138


Critical Theory: A school of thought in social theory closely tied with the Frankfurt School of Social Research. The principles of critical theory are at their core anti-positivism. Critical theory takes exception with the idea that observation and scientific method is the sole source of knowledge. Social inquiry should balance theory with social science. It should also take into account practical aspects of social relationships and discourse. In the end social inquiry is not only about analysis, but also about changing society for the better. Cultural Industry: A term coined by Adorno and Horkheimer. The cultural industry is a system of mass produced popular culture that uses consumption and low forms of pleasure to create a passive population and uses advertising to generate false needs. Definition of the Situation: Eliminating the predispositions that people possess which impair their ability to impart objectivity in a situation. Dialectic: Marx was heavily influenced by the German philosopher Hegel, who used the dialectic – the idea that contradiction is a necessary part of social life – to understand change. Rather than relying upon simple, linear, cause-and-effect thinking to explain social phenomenon, Hegel and Marx emphasized reciprocal relationships. Différance : Derrida’s concept that the understanding of the meaning of any word must be deferred. From the French word différer which means both to differ from and to defer. In order to understand the meaning of a word one must turn to different words that signify something else altogether. This difference forces one to defer meaning. Derrida believed that meaning in the text is always deferred. Dimorphic: Different forms of the same biological species: accounts for the differences among male and female primates. Economic Determinism: A form of analysis that claims that analysis of a society should begin with its economy and material conditions. Empiricism: The use of observation and experimentation (rather than theory) to make a conclusion. Epistemology: The philosophical study of knowledge – how it is discovered, in what depth, and how accurate it is. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

139

Ethnography: Social constructionism defies a singular definition; scholars argue that there are multiple social constructionisms, one of which is historicity. Although all social constructionisms have some core characteristics in common, they all approach their object of study in a slightly different way. Ethnographers observe people in their everyday lives, looking for the ways in which they create meaning through interaction and language. Ethnomethodology: An approach associated with the work of Harold Garfinkel that is used to study the methods people use to make sense of their everyday lives and social interactions. Eugenics: A movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century whose aim was to create a “better race” through selective breeding. Eugenics was introduced by Francis Galton, cousin to Darwin, and was one of the more extreme forms of Social Darwinism. Eugenicists misused science to promote a racist agenda. Eurocentric: A viewpoint which over-privileges the perspective of Europe and European culture as superior or normative. Exchange Theory: A theoretical approach associated with the work of George Homans that focuses on analyzing patterns of reinforcement as explanations for individual behavior and interaction between people involving an exchange of rewards and costs. Externalization: For Berger and Luckmann (1966) the process by which knowledge becomes reality, or taken for granted everyday knowledge, is threefold – it involves externalization, legitimation, and internalization, all of which are part of a dialectical relationship between an individual and the social world. Knowledge must begin when an individual acts, or externalizes, in the social world. Feminist Theory: Encompasses a set of ideas and scholarship in a variety of disciplines as a result of the feminist movement. Focuses on women’s issues and the liberation of women from positions of disadvantage within various social, political, and economic systems. Functionalism: A sociological paradigm that seeks to examine social and cultural phenomena in terms of the functions they serve in a sociocultural system. It is associated with Émile Durkheim and, in contemporary sociology, Talcott Parsons. 140


Gender: Refers to the social differences between women and men. While often used synonymously with sex, in feminist theory, gender is considered a social construction, and thus, is distinguished from biological sex. Habituation: For Berger and Luckmann (1966) the process by which knowledge becomes reality, or taken-for-granted everyday knowledge, is threefold – it involves externalization, legitimation, and internalization. When a person acts, or externalizes, in the social world, all such acts have the potential to become habituated. Habituated acts become ‘automatic’, and are performed again and again without forethought. Hegemony: Dominating (or controlling) something; in this case, the area of social theory. Historicity: Social constructionism defies a singular definition; scholars argue that there multiple social constructionisms, one of which is historicity. Although all social constructionisms have some core characteristics in common, they all approach their object of study in a slightly different way. Historicism emphasizes the cultural, social, and historical relativity of knowledge, or the notion that it’s ‘truth’ is dependent on time and place. Hybridity: The combination of two elements into a new, separate element; in culture, it refers to a combined culture that creates new meaning from combining foreign and indigenous aspects of culture. Individualism: Used broadly in the social sciences to highlight the importance of individual action, interests and belief. Institutionalization: According to Berger and Luckmann (1966), the habituated patterns of individuals externalizing in the world develop into institutions when the habituated patterns are reciprocated by others. Institutions exist only in relation to other people. Internalization: For Berger and Luckmann (1966) the process by which knowledge becomes reality, or taken-for-granted everyday knowledge, is threefold – it involves externalization, legitimation, and internalization. Internalization occurs primarily through socialization - as a child, but throughout one’s lifetime as well. Internalized knowledge becomes shared knowledge. Looking-Glass Self: Internalizations that are initiated by the perceived appraisals of outside sources. Theories & Theoretical Approaches

141

Macro-Level: A level of sociological analysis that focuses on large-scale groups, institutions or social systems, and social structures. Marxism: The body of knowledge and theory associated with the writings of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles. Marxist Analysis: Derived from the writings of Karl Marx, Marxist analysis tends toward economic determinism and believes that social change occurs through a dialectical process. Meta-Narrative: A grand theory that claims to encapsulate and explain all historical knowledge and experience. Metaphysical: What cannot be seen or proven by observation. Methodology: The specific ways (a questionnaire, an interview, an experiment) used to better understand concepts or phenomena, or reach conclusions about them. Metropole: The “home” base of the colonial power (for example, Great Britain for the British Empire or France for the French Empire). Micro-Level: A level of sociological analysis that focuses on individual thought and action, face-to-face interactions, and small-scale interaction between groups. Modernity: An era that began with the rise of industrialization. Modernity is associated with systems of mass production and distribution, large power institutions, and a scientific mastery of nature. Natural Selection: Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on the idea of natural selection, which he introduced in his 1859 publication The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs and is based on three principles: all organisms reproduce; each organism within a given species differs slightly from all others; and all organisms compete for survival (Degler, 1991). Darwin argued that those best able to adapt to a changing environment would outbreed others, thereby passing on favorable traits; over time, adjustments to the environment might lead to the development of a new species altogether. Orientalism: The depiction of culture and society in the colonized world as exotic, backwards, and in opposition to Western (Occidental) tradition. 142


Paradigm: Refers to a conceptual framework or specific points of view within the social sciences. A feminist paradigm places women and their experiences at the center of understanding social and cultural phenomena. Patriarchy: Refers to the structuring of society in which men have primary responsibility for the family unit. In feminism, the concept is often extended to include male responsibility for the community or public sphere as a whole. Phenomenological Sociology: A sociological perspective associated with Albert Schutz that focuses on consciousness and meaning, not structural social phenomena. Positivism: A sociological theory stating that knowledge is acquired through observation and experimentation rather than by opinion, metaphysics (what cannot be seen), or theology. Postmodernity: A criticism of modernity and a description of the current era believed to have followed modernity. As a criticism postmodernity is focused on institutions, economic systems, and the continuing fragmentation of authority. Qualitative Data: Data collected that does not rely on numbers (writing an essay exam or answering questions during an interview rather than by checking off choices). Rational Action: Goal-oriented behavior directed toward accomplishing a calculated objective. Rationality: A mode of action or decision-making that is technical in character. Max Weber distinguishes between formal rationality, which focuses on the technical criteria for action, and substantive rationality, which emphasizes the importance of values and ethics in action and decision-making. Rationalization: A process of using knowledge to achieve control over life, associated with the development of modernity, replacing tradition and emotion with rational calculation. Relativism: One of the primary criticisms of social constructionism is the charge of relativism. If truth is relative to time, place, and person, then we can’t make value judgments about knowledge. We can’t know one claim is Theories & Theoretical Approaches

143

more or less true than another, and therefore, some would argue, we can’t come to know our world. Critics also argue that relativism leads to selfrefutation; if knowledge is relative, then social constructionists can’t argue that their claims are any more true than those of positivists. Resistance and Negotiation: A process that occurs when people refuse to fall prey toward oppressive expectations. Role Salience: The selection of roles and behaviors which match the identities that people create for themselves. Self-fulfilling Prophecy: A set of beliefs, which may be faulty, that are converted into reality. Sex: Refers to the biological classification of women and men. Feminists distinguish biological sex from gender, with the latter based on social differences in women and men’s roles that are socially constructed. Social Exchange Theory: Argues that human behavior and stable social norms are rooted in the social exchanges people make (money, time, goods) based on individual interests. Social Facts: A term coined by Durkheim. Social facts are social practices, rules, duties, or sanctions that exist outside of the individual. Durkheim believed a positivist social science could study social facts and uncover universal social laws. These laws could then be used to judge a society’s well-being. Social Interaction: Refers to the actions, gestures and sounds people make to communicate with others, the meanings these have for actors and the ways they are interpreted by others. Social Order: The characteristics and processes of societies that appear to be stable and cohesive. Social Roles: For structural functionalists, societies are comprised of social roles. Roles are defined by the shared expectations and norms of the society, rather than the individual people who occupy them. Members of any social group are likely to inhabit multiple social roles at any one time. Socialization: For structural functionalists, social continuity and stability is achieved through a process known as socialization. Through the process 144


of socialization, younger members of a group are taught its values and norms so that they are prepared as adults to occupy its social roles. Stratification: Some structural functionalists think stratification is an inherent outcome of social systems and structures. The division of society into social classes, they believe, is inherent, universal, and functional. Marx disagreed, and believed that social systems that bred inequality should be eradicated. Structural Functionalism: A theoretical perspective, associated with Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons that views society as a stable, orderly system. It claims that societal institutions must be understood in terms of the function each performs in society. Subaltern: The colonized subject that is not only missing from historical account, but who also lived in a realm that was at times distinct from the colonial encounter. Subjectivity: The individual perspective based on personal experience rather that external force. Survival of the Fittest: Herbert Spencer coined the term “survival of the fittest” to describe to the process whereby those organisms best able to adapt to the environment outlive and outbreed others. Several years later, after the first publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin incorporated the phrase into his own work Symbolic Interactionism: A theoretical approach inspired by George Herbert Mead’s insights and developed by Herbert Blumer, which focuses on the role of symbols and language in human interaction. Symbolic Violence: Subtle violent acts that are undetected based on their ambiguous or inconspicuous form and which encourage suppression and dominance by one group. Totalitarianism: Form of government in which the government assumes complete control over all aspects of the lives of its citizens.


145

Contributors

PD Casteel has his Master’s degree in Sociology and is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Texas at Dallas. He works as a business executive and writer in the Dallas area. Samantha Christiansen is a historian of modern South Asia, specializing in social movements and student politics. Her work has specifically endeavored to illustrate the connections between radical politics in the developed and developing world, both in a historical context and modern setting. She is affiliated with Northeastern University in Boston, MA, Independent University Bangladesh in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and is a fellow of the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies. Kimberley Cox, Ph.D., is a Social Psychologist. Her research interest is the application of social science knowledge and techniques to the understanding of social problems such as poverty and inequality. She serves on the Board of Directors of the United Nations Association-United States, Southern Oregon Chapter. Dr. Cox has held several research positions, including positions at the University of California, Irvine and RAND Corporation. Alexandra Howson taught Sociology for over a decade at several universities in the UK. She has published books and peer reviewed articles on the sociology of the body, gender and health and is now an independent researcher, writer and editor based in the Seattle area. 146


Jennifer Kretchmar earned her Doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She currently works as a Research Associate in undergraduate admissions. Maureen McMahon received her Bachelor’s degree from the State University of New York at Plattsburgh where she studied English. Her Master’s degree in Curriculum Development and Instructional Technology was earned from the University of Albany. Ms. McMahon has worked in higher education administration for eight years and taught composition and developmental writing for the past six. She resides in Plattsburgh, New York with her husband and two children. Cynthia Vejar received her Doctorate from Virginia Tech in 2003, and has had extensive experience within the realm of academia. She has taught at both the undergraduate and graduate levels at several universities, and has functioned as a clinical supervisor for counselors-in-training. For five years, Dr. Vejar worked as a school counselor in a specialized behavioral modification program that targeted at-risk adolescents and their families. She has also worked as a grief and career counselor. Moreover, Dr. Vejar firmly believes in contributing to the research community. She has published in professional journals, served on editorial boards, and has written book reviews. Katherine Walker received a Doctorate in Sociology from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently teaches in the University College at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her current research concerns race, memory, and controversial commemoration, and she is wrapping up a study of public debates over Confederate memorials. She has also studied the impact of the Internet on identity and relationships.


147

Index A Addiction, 85 Alienation, 10 Assimilation, 42

B Baudrillard, Jean, 53

C Capitalism, 9, 10, 18, 20-22, 32, 36, 6365, 81, 129 Collins, Randall, 7 Competition, 60, 63, 64 Conflict Theory, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11-13, 127130, 133 Consensus, 3-7, 11-13, 101 Cooperation, 64, 65 Cost-Benefit, 80, 84 Criminology, 84 Critical Theory, 7, 14-17, 21, 22, 49, 50, 55 Cultural Industry, 51 Cultural Symbolism, 114

D Dahrendorf, Ralf, 6 Darwinism, 65 148

Derrida, Jacques, 54 Dialectic, 9, 55 Différance, 54 Dimorphic, 108

E Economic Determinism, 17, 22 Empiricism, 70, 76, 100 Epistemology, 25 Ethnomethodology, 8, 92, 95, 127, 132, 133, 134 Eugenics, 66, 67 Eurocentric, 36, 38, 39 Exchange Theory, 79, 80, 83, 127, 131, 133 Externalization, 92

F Feminist Theory, 24, 25, 28-30, 32, 50 Foucault, Michel, 50 Frankfurt School, 14, 20, 21 Freudianism, 20

H Habituation, 93 Hegemony, 109 Hybridity, 42 Sociology Reference Guide

I Individualism, 60, 64, 87 Inequity, 119 Institutionalization, 110 Internalization, 92, 93

K Knowledge Production, 36 Kuhn, Thomas, 52

L Looking-Glass Self, 117

M Macro-Level, 12, 126-128, 133, 134 Marxism, 7, 11, 15, 16, 22, 28, 36, 37, 128 Marxist Analysis, 14-17, 36 Mental Health Disorders, 120 Meta-Narrative, 52 Metaphysical, 49, 52 Methodology, 29, 39, 54, 69, 70, 73, 76, 101, 108 Metropole, 38 Micro-Level, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133 Modernity, 39, 47, 48, 52, 53- 55, 79, 81

N Natural Selection, 59, 61, 63, 65

O Orientalism, 38, 39

P Paradigm, 11, 27, 29, 30, 52, 53, 96, 134 Patriarchy, 28, 52 Phenomenological Sociology, 132, 133 Political Economy, 17 Political Science, 101 Positivism, 17, 48-52, 69-73, 75, 91, 97, 100, 108 Postcolonial Theory, 35, 37, 43, 44 Theories & Theoretical Approaches

Postmodernism, 48 Postmodernity, 48

Q Qualitative Data, 75, 108 Qualitative Methodology, 108

R Rational Action, 81 Rational Choice Theory, 86 Rationality, 81, 85 Rationalization, 81 Relativism, 97 Resistance, 40, 41 Role Salience, 117

S Self-fulfilling Prophecy, 119 Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, 118 Social Construction of Race, 96 Social Exchange Theory, 84 Social Facts, 49, 56 Social Interaction, 81-83, 94, 100, 126, 131 Socialization, 4, 27, 93, 101, 104, 106, 114 Social Order, 3, 47, 51, 79, 82, 87, 101 Social Roles, 4, 5, 6 Sociobiology, 106 Sociological Theory, 27 Stratification, 5, 8, 96, 128, 133, 145 Structural Functionalism, 3-7, 99-104, 106-108, 127-129, 133 Subaltern, 39-41 Subjectivity, 40, 42, 44, 75 Survival of the Fittest, 47, 62-65, 106 Symbolic Interactionism, 92, 95, 127, 132, 133 Symbolic Violence, 120

T Totalitarianism, 14, 20

V Voting Systems, 101 149

Theories & Theoretical Approaches

Theoretical Approaches to Turbulence

Theoretical Approaches to Biological Control

Theoretical & Numerical Combustion

Theoretical Approaches in Psychology (Approaches and Research. Modular Psychology)

Understanding Leadership Perspectives: Theoretical and Practical Approaches

Theoretical Approaches to Turbulence (Applied Mathematical Sciences)

Injury Research: Theories, Methods, and Approaches

Dark Energy: Observational and Theoretical Approaches

Fluid dynamics: theoretical and computational approaches

Theories

Modern theories of development: an introduction to theoretical biology

Modern theories of development: an introduction to theoretical biology

Theories of Geographic Concepts: Ontological Approaches to Semantic Integration

Frontiers of Globalization Research: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theories of Geographic Concepts: Ontological Approaches to Semantic Integration

Utility of gains and losses: measurement-theoretical, and experimental approaches

The Demand for Money: Theoretical and Empirical Approaches, Second Edition

Fluid Dynamics: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, Second Edition

Communication and Mental Illness: Theoretical and Practical Approaches

Theories of Theories of Mind

Theoretical Mechanics: Theoretical Physics 1

Racial Theories

Galois Theories

Conspiracy Theories

Theoretical Microfluidics

Theoretical Knowledge

Theoretical Linguistics

Theoretical Physics

Theories & Theoretical Approaches

Theoretical Approaches to Turbulence

Theoretical Approaches to Biological Control

Theoretical & Numerical Combustion

Theoretical Approaches in Psychology (Approaches and Research. Modular Psychology)

Understanding Leadership Perspectives: Theoretical and Practical Approaches

Theoretical Approaches to Turbulence (Applied Mathematical Sciences)

Injury Research: Theories, Methods, and Approaches

Dark Energy: Observational and Theoretical Approaches

Fluid dynamics: theoretical and computational approaches

Theories

Modern theories of development: an introduction to theoretical biology

Modern theories of development: an introduction to theoretical biology

Theories of Geographic Concepts: Ontological Approaches to Semantic Integration

Frontiers of Globalization Research: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theories of Geographic Concepts: Ontological Approaches to Semantic Integration

Utility of gains and losses: measurement-theoretical, and experimental approaches

The Demand for Money: Theoretical and Empirical Approaches, Second Edition

Fluid Dynamics: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, Second Edition

Communication and Mental Illness: Theoretical and Practical Approaches

Theories of Theories of Mind

Theoretical Mechanics: Theoretical Physics 1

Racial Theories

Galois Theories

Conspiracy Theories

Theoretical Microfluidics

Theoretical Knowledge

Theoretical Linguistics

Theoretical Physics

Recommend Documents