Action Theories

• In a nutshell


  Unlike structural theories, action theories are micro-level approaches that see society as constructed by members’ interactions and meanings. Weber’s social action theory believes social behaviour should be understood through the level of cause and the level of meaning. Symbolic interactionism sees us as creating meanings through interactions in which we take the role of the other. Phenomenology and ethnomethodology see society as an inter-subjective reality created out of members typifications or common sense understanding.
• SOCIAL ACTION THEORY - Weber


  To gain a full understanding of human behaviour, the sociological explanation involves two levels: The level of cause. The level of meaning.

  
  

  Weber identified four types of action associated with human behaviour:

  Instrumentally rational action - the actor calculates the most efficient means of achieving a given goal.

  ​

  Value rational action - action towards a goal that is desirable for one’s own sake.

  ​

  Traditional action - customs, habitual actions, which are often automatic.

  ​

  Affectual action - action which expresses emotion.

• SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM - LABELLING THEORY


  The two concepts that underpin this theory are:

  The definition of the situation - if we attach a label to something, it will affect the way we act and has real-life consequences (Thomas).​

  The looking glass self - self-concept comes from the ability to take the role of the other. This allows us to see ourselves as others see us. This leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy: we become as others see us. Our label becomes part of our self-concept (Cooley).
• SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM - Mead

  We create meaning through interactions, which are based on meanings we give to situations.

  ​

  Behaviour is not fixed. When something happens, we embark on an interpretive phase before responding to it, in order to select an appropriate response (for instance, if someone makes a hand gesture at you, you interpret whether this was out of anger/joke).

  ​

  We work out meanings by taking the role of the other - to function in society, we must see ourselves as others do which helps us share symbols/language to act as others require us to.
• SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM - BLUMER

  There are three key principles to our actions:

  Our actions are based on meanings we give to situations and are not instinctive

  These meanings come from the interaction process, they are not fixed and are changeable to an extent

  The meanings we give to situations are dependent on the interpretive process we use, especially by taking the role of the other
• SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM - GOFFMAN

  Elements of Goffman’s dramaturgical model include:

  ​

  Actively constructing ourselves through manipulating other people's impressions of us

  Uses the analogy of drama to analyse social interaction: we are actors who use scripts and props with the aim of giving a convincing performance

  We seek to control the presentation of self - give people a particular impression of us. To do this we must control our impression management

  Our roles are interchangeable - there are backstage roles where we can be ourselves, and front stage roles where we act out roles
• PHENOMENOLOGY - SCHUTZ


  Typifications - categories and concepts shared with other members of society:

  ​

  Typifications allow us to stabilise meaning and make sure we agree on meanings of things, which make it possible to cooperate and communicate

  ​

  Without typifications, social order would not be possible
• PHENOMENOLOGY - HUSSERL


  We never have definite knowledge of what the world outside our mind is really like - only what our sense tells us about it. The world only makes sense because we classify and clarify information into mental categories. We can only get knowledge through the process of categorising.
• ETHNOMETHODOLOGY - GARFINKEL


  Social order is created from the bottom up, order and meaning are therefore an accomplishment - something members actively construct in every-day life using common sense knowledge. Ethnomethodology is therefore different to interactionism because it does not focus on the effect of meanings, but instead how meanings were created in the first place. Garfinkel believes in indexicality - nothing has a fixed meaning, it depends on the social context.