This site uses cookies for learning about our traffic, we store no personal details. ACCEPT COOKIES DECLINE COOKIES What are cookies?
univerge site banner
Review Article | Open Access | Asian J.Soc. Sci. Leg. Stud., 2021; 3(5), 193-199 | doi: 10.34104/ajssls.021.01930199

Do the Differences in Ideas about Social Action Influence Sociological Analysis? A Review Article

Ashim Kumar Ni* Mail Img

Abstract

This article reviews different thoughts of modern sociologists about social action to examine how the differences in the meaning of social action influence sociological analysis. This article also discusses the implication of these differences in the meaning of social action to sociological analysis. Four articles and two books of selected modern sociologists have been reviewed to explore the research questions of this article. This article finds that modern sociologists take social action as an important concept in sociological analysis. Classical sociologists, such as Max Weber, also suggest taking social action as a central focus in sociological study. This article observes that whether action is exerted based on structure or the actors self-interpreting power is one of the key issues in the ideas of modern sociologists.

INTRODUCTION

Various theorists provide different thoughtsabout social action; although in some points they agreed (Goffman, 1956; Giddens, 1984; Coleman,1994). Ana- lysis of social action has a significant effect on socio-logical research (Schrag, 1959).But there is a lack of research on the evaluation of the action frame-work in this regard. The search results in Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science did not show anyevi-dence of recent research on the effect of distinct views of social action on sociological research (Bonna, 2021). Difficulty of the evaluation of action framework has some reasons such as “flexibility of the frame-work” for steadydevelopment, adjustment, andre-construction of the ideas of social action (Schrag, 1959).Moreover, theory of action went through a significant review which is experienced by- (1) the use of action theory to distinct actual social situations (Parsons, 1954); (2) examination of the influence of social changes (Parsons et al.,1956) and so on.

In addition, analysis of the action framework has difficulty in evaluation for the lack of certainty in the interpretation of terms and for the lack of hypothesis/ propositions (Schrag, 1959). Inconsequence of the above-noted points, this article presentsdistinct views of modern sociologists about social action to explore howthe differences change the analysis in sociological study. The implication of these differences inthoughts to sociological analysis is also discussed in this article.Thus, thearticle answers two questions: firstly, what are the ideas of Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer/ George Herbert Mead, James S. Coleman, and An-thony Giddens regarding social action, and secondly, what arethe implications of the differences inthe ideas of these thinkers in sociological analysis? 

Thoughtson Social Action

Erving Goffman

From a dramaturgical perspective (Goffman, 1956) explained how an individual acts. He stated that in-dividuals influence others during social interaction. Taking a functional/pragmatic view he explained an individual act based on his ‘initial information and try to make his “first impression” to others as good and planned as possible and expects desired behaviors from others for his ‘moral right to be valued that in-dividual of his kind have a right to expect (Goffman, 1956). By ‘encounter, he meant an interaction “which occurs throughout any one occasion when a given set of individuals are in one anothers continuous pre-sence” (Goffman, 1956). This special situation or en-counter is important in Goffmans work since he explained his important concepts (role distance) in this special setting. His idea of social action is thus explained by imagining the setting. In addition, social action follows a structure, and an individuals pre-established view about others and his own. Either his thearticle show of an individuals performance in 1956s book or his explanation of role distance re-ferring to the merry-go-round or surgical setting in 1961s article, he explained how individuals act based on his knowledge of the social setting he encounters. For Goffman, performers always try to make an impre-sssion to adapt with the pre-established socially expec-ted roles as a social actor, thus a performer “accen-tuates certain matters and conceals others” during his performance which he executes through mystification (Goffman, 1956). Social actors-/performers maintain the relevant definition of the situation as a team which Goffman mentioned is not linked to social structure rather an encounter. From the point of view of front stage and backstage, individuals can understand with their social mobility that the behaviors they are used to with their previous role are almost similar in their new roles which is a kind of dramaturgical trouble indi-vidual experiences when he acts. Sometimes an indi-vidual does not respond to an immediate situation, which Goffman referred to as “communication out of character”, the reason for this performance is team members response “stands back from” the imagined response (Goffman, 1956). Moreover, loyalty, disci-pline, and circumspection, in the dramaturgical sense, areessential for sustained social action.Role distance refers to actions which effectively convey some dis-dainful detachment of the performer from a role he is performing. Goffman argued that role distance falls between role obligations and actual role performance (Goffman, 1961). That is, role distance means a kind of action that shows an actors contemptuous dis-engagement from the role he/she is supposed to per-form.Taking example of performance of a surgical operation, Goffman defines situated activity systems as “a face-to-face interaction with others for the perfor-mance of a single joint activity, asome-what closed, self-compensating, self-terminating circuit of inter-dependent actions” (Goffman, 1961). By this concept he examined the complexities of concrete conduct. Proving an example of a merry-go-round, he argued at five years of age the situation has changed in the merry-go-round. This changing situation deserves change in his actions.  Now the image that is created for him is an image from which he withdraws by actively manipulating the situation. This changed be-havior separates his role from him. This separateness is called role distance. In this sense, role distance refers to that behavior that suggests that the actor perhaps has some extent of disaffection from and resistance against the role.The meaning of role distance changes for different ranked individuals (Goffman, 1961) said, “Charm and colorful little informalities are thus us-ually the prerogatives of those in higher office…” However, role distance creates division of labor or role differentiation. In addition, an actor has a simultaneous multiplicity of selves. Thus, while an actor participates in an activity system he participates in other matters, in relationships, in multi-situated systems of activity.

Herbert Blumer/George Herbert Mead

Blumer comments and debates on Meads concepts on social action. He saw human beings as an actor who has a self. Self is a process, not a structure. For this self, an actor can judge and interpret the things as a mechanism of self-interaction that guides his action.To actpeoplemust set a goal, plan how to behave, explain the actions of others, and understand the situation. Moreover, Blumer said that symbolic interaction is a formative process. Like symbolic interaction, actors explain each others body language and act based on meaning generated by the explanation in the situation. Blumer used joint action instead of Meads ‘social act. Social act refers to the “larger collective of action that is constituted by the fitting together of the lines of behavior of the separate participants” (Blumer, 1966). Family dinner is an example of joint action. Important characteristics of joint action are, firstly, the core of society belongs to the continuing trial of action. Thus, action is the basis of all structures of relations. Secondly, individuals can see and treat action. Thirdly, each joint action must have a background and so on (Blumer, 1966). Similarly, Mead observed human society as a “diversified social process in which people were engaged in forming joint actions to deal with situations confronting them” (Blumer, 1966).

James S. Coleman

Actors do not have full control of their own activities since these activities are under the control of other actors. Structure is a system of action where actors act purposefully to expand the awareness of their interests. This awareness creates interdependence among actors (Coleman, 1994). An actor might compensate for the right to control his own actions in two conditions, first-ly, if he already holds that right, secondly, if “he holds the right to dispose of the right” (Coleman, 1994).

Coleman, (1994) thinks that corporate actors use for-mal rules to make choices.These formal rules are called systems which help moving “micro level of individual action to the macro level of social choice. For example, casting vote” (Coleman, 1994). Coleman (1994) argued that conceptual foundations of the development of the mathematical structure are: “actors and events as the two basic elements of a system of action, linked together by the control of actors over resources and events and the interest of actors in resources and out-comes of events”.Coleman, (1986) discussed that there are two theoretical problems: “how the actions of the actors combine to exert system-level behavior and how those purposive actions are in turn shaped by constraints that result from the behavior of the system”.We might be cautious to take his one idea that argues that any type of authority ultimately depends on a conscious choice from the standpoint of the person. Moreover, how could we compute that shows the costbenefit of perceived alternative action? We might also be cautious to accept the given influence of the transition from traditional to deliberatelygenerated structures. Lastly, we could say he did not provide enough evidence of an empirical nature of his ideas.

Anthony Giddens

Giddens, (1984) argued that human action is demons-trated as a duree, which is an endlessprogress of conduct. Everyday action is featured as a reflexive monitoring of activity, which incorporates the action of both person and the others.He said actors always follow the context in which they move, they monitor the flow of their activities with activities of others. This activity of monitoring is a continuous process. The actor also endlessly monitors social and physical aspects, which facilitate actors to ensure that others are following them.He depicted his ideas of action using a figurative description where he showed that un-in-tended consequences of action cause ‘unacknow-ledged conditions of action Giddens, (1984). ‘Un-intended consequences of action influenced by the re-flexive monitoring of action which in turn influenced ‘rationalization of action Giddens,(1984). Motivation of action affects rationalization of action. Here, Gid-dens, (1984) refer to rationalization of action as an end-less theoretical realization of the background of their activity that is maintained by actors. He argued that rationalization of action and reflexive monitoring are different from its motivation.Giddens, (1984) uses his idea ofduree to explain one of the key concepts- agencies.He gave an example of his speaking English which is his intentional act but through this act he is reproducing the English language which is not inten-tional. Unintentional acts cause the unintended con-sequences of reproducing the English language. In this regard he critically refers the concept of Durkheim- suicide.He elaborated that suicide is uncommonamong most of the human acts in terms of intentions.Giddens, (1984) also provides an example of an officer on a submarine to illustrate the ideas of intentions. By this example(Giddens, 1984) show that submarine officers action, i.e., pulling the lever, was intentional but the consequence of the action, i.e., pulling the wrong lever which caused sank of the Bismarck, was unintentional. Actor is imagined as a perpetrator, since “whatever happened would not happen if that individual has not intervened” (Giddens, 1984). Giddens, (1984) summa-rized the discussion of intentionality and uninten-tionality with the discussion of agents power. He stated that the consequence of action did not happen if an actor did not act, although the action was out of that actors control.In discussing forms of institution, Giddens explains the dimensions of the duality of structures which is also important to understand social action. Interpretative schemes are included with-in an actors stock of knowledge. This knowledge is enfor-ced spontaneously to assist communication. Actors use stock of knowledge to produce and repro-duce inter-action. The stock of knowledge is also used to describe or to give reason.

Differencesin Ideas

1) Structure: Coleman explains structure as a system of action that the actors are purposive and each actor having the goal of maximizing the realization of his interests that gives the interdependence to their actions. On the other hand, Giddens argued thatstructure is internal to the individual. He (1984) added that structure is recurrently involved which includes “situated activities of human agents, reproduced across time and space”. For Goffman, action follows an existing structure. 

2) Profane part of Goffmans ideas see social action is exacted by society which is opposite of Blumer/Meads view. In contrast, the sacred part of Goffmans ideas of social action describes an individual who is able to be touched by humor, he/she can show his typesand so this part is like the view of Blumer/Mead. However, Blumer/ Mead see social action as an ongoing process of action (i.e., constructing structure).   

3) Influence in action: Coleman thinks an indivi-duals action is affected by others action. But according to Blumer/Mead, ‘a mechanism of self-interaction helps an individual in guiding his/her conduct. However, Goffman thinks that skills of maneuvering are essential for role dis-tance, in other words, the skills of maneuvering help individuals to act, to execute role distance.

4) Principle/process of action: Coleman thinks the actors principle of action is to maximize their realization of interests. According to Blumer/ Mead, actors judge and interpret the actions of others then plan a prospective way of behavior and then act. However, for Goffman, defensive activity is the reason of an individuals decline to embrace role self.

5) Methodological approach: Blumer/Mead meth-odological approach is opposite of objective app-roach. Goffmans approach might be an object-tive approach.

6) Categories of action: Blumer/Mead describes two types of social action: conformity and devi-ance. On the other hand, Giddens sees action has two forms, intentional and unintentional. How-ever, Coleman finds differences in action bet-ween natural actors and corporate actors.

7) Goffman sees self as looking glass, whereas Mead/Blumer sees it as an object.

8) According to Goffman we can see the social situation from outside, but Mead/Blumer sugg-ests understanding everything from the point of view of the actor.

9) Goffman discussed a situated activity system, whereas Mead/Blumer discussed joint action.

10) Coleman argued that rationality and egoism affects behavior. But according to Blumer/Mead, in symbolic interaction, individuals interpret the action of others and respond according to that interpretation.

Similarities in Ideas

a) By ‘interpretative schemes, Giddens shows an individual can describe and give reason. To do it, obviously,anindividualdependsonhis/herstock of knowledge. At least partially, this idea is like Blumer/Mead since they also think that indivi-duals interpret the behavior of others and then respond. But we might be cautious to apply the idea of Giddens in relation to the existing stock of knowledge of an individual, since it is not clear what he exactly meant by stock of know-ledge: does this knowledge follow only structure which he meant interior to the individual or it is like an ongoing process? If the stock of know-ledge only follows the structure, then it is like the ideas of Goffman.

b) Goffman argues that an individual can have simultaneous multiplicity of selves. This idea is similar to the idea of Blumer/Mead. Because Blumer/Mead argued that an individual inter-prets the action of others before responding, we might assume that that individual will also be conscious about his/-her simultaneous multipli-city of selves when he/she interprets others actions.

c) Giddens sees power in actors which is important for action. We might say Goffman also thinks actorshavepower,powerofmaneuvering,power of declining to embrace role self. 

d) Both Goffman and Blumer/Mead believe that an individual acts understanding his situation. 

e) Coleman, (1994) assumed that “individuals are rational, and they are egoistic”. To some extent, this point is like the ideas of Blumer/Mead if we think ego as self.

Implicationof Different Viewson Social Actionin Sociological Analysis

Erving Goffman

Role distance might be effective for research focused on well-being and worthwhile lifestyle. It might be helpful to bring a positive attitude in life through role distance from negative activity. Goffman argued that role distance falls between role obligations and actual role performance (Goffman, 1961). This gap might cause trouble for sociologists. This can turn their own direction of analysis. For example, in an in-depth inter-view, respondent provides a deep account that covers many aspects of a question, and if the researcher is not skilled there is a possibility of role distance through a deviance of interpretation of the data. Sometimes researchers try to understand respondentsdescriptions with the researchers own standpoint that also can divert the direction of analysis. (Goffman,1961) him-self suggests that the “concept of role distance pro-vides a sociological means of dealing with one type of divergence between obligation and actual perfor-mance”. He adds the more extensive the trappings of a role, the more opportunity to display role distance (Goffman,1961). This argument could be a basis for studying the contribution of different professionals including sociologists in their own field.Goffman took the ‘surgery as a case to test his role distance concept. We can examine similar social settings in different places with cultural varieties to compare how different people behave. Goffman, (1961) argued that “certain maneuvers which act to integrate the system require for their execution individuals who do not fully embrace their situated selves”. For maneuvering one needs skills, so we might investigate whether those who are more skilled in strategy setting are more able to role distance?His dramaturgical perspective might be applied in the investigation of social establishment as restricted systems. The establishment could be viewed technically, politically, structurally, and cul-turally. Moreover, the individual personality, social interaction, and society can be taken inter-disciplinary attempts as one framework (Goffman, 1956). His ideas can be applied to the same areas of social life in differ-ent cultural settings such as in Asia, Latin America and so on.

Herbert Blumer/George Herbert Mead

Blumer/Meads ideas are important to analyze deep reasons for various social problems, which might be difficult using quantitative approaches. Because they suggest analyzing social action from anactors view. It is more like a micro sociological approach that can focus on micro level problems. However, it might be a challenge to capture all micro level phenomena and cover all potential actors in analyzing social pro-blems.Structure has been imagined as a standard to under-stand social action, as Blumer/Mead said that “social action falls into two general categories: con-formity, marked by adherence to the structure, and deviance, marked by departure from it. Because of the central and determinative position into which it is elevated, structure develops as an object of socio-logical study and analysis” (Blumer, 1966). Blumer, (1966) himself acknowledged that the methodology he discussed is opposite of the objective approach, since he suggests taking the “role of the actor and seeing the world from his standpoint”. But it might be challen-ging for the researcher to separate his/her own ideo-logy and subjective views apart from the views of actors whom he/she has taken as a respondent. An important aspect of Blumer/Meads ideas is that they see actors who are constructing the structure and society as a “vast number of occurring joint actions” (Blumer, 1966). This aspect gives us a new way of analyzing structured actors views and understanding society.

James S. Coleman

Colemans theoretical view of social action focuses highly on rationality. But there are many situations where we do not have ‘options so in that case ratio-nality becomes irrelevant. For example: we can take a recent example of a coronavirus outbreak. Globally many countries closed their borders despite the huge risk of economic and other crises. Because to stop or delay the coronavirus outbreak, affected countries have no other options that can rationally be thought of. We can think of another example. If a university decides to shift all classes and examinations online in response to the outbreak and does not ask students about their opinions (practically this is not a time to ask students because there is no option of yes/no or agree/disagree). Students are bound to participate in the online courses, although their programs are not online programs. Even if a student prefers doing class at university campus, he/she has no options right now. This example might be a very silly example, but what we can understand from this example is that there are some situations when we do not have options of thinking rationally.

Moreover, there is a concern regarding testability. How could we test Colemans, (1994) assumptions such as “whether the cause of altruistic behavior is egoism?”We find many researchable interests in his book, but he did not show how these could be trans-formed into specific empirical questions. In addition, he did not show any concern with conceptual prob-lems. Even he did not show how we could opera-tionalize his terms. Coleman, (1986) expressed his concern about new change in post watershed research which is “largely statistical and largely confined to explaining individual behavior” on the basis of “causal explanation based on statistical evidence that replaced purposive explanation”(Demiessie et al., 2021). More-over, he recommended that we require a proper theo-retical model that shows a relationship between indi-vidual actions and systematic functioning to conduct an analysis of systematic actions (Coleman, 1986).

Anthony Giddens

Giddens idea might be referred to as abstract, so it is a challenge to use it empirically. He compared different theories of social action before presenting his own idea. An important aspect of his ideas is that he argued motivation is the potential for action. He said that motive gives the plan. This idea could be interesting to social psychologists in their analysis. Moreover, he argued that the actor/individual is a perpetrator since “whatever happened would not happen if that indi-vidual had not intervened. Action is a continuous process like a flow in which the reflexive monitoring which the individual maintains is fundamental to the control of the body that actors ordinarily sustain throughout their day-to-day lives” (Giddens, 1984). Giddens structuration theory might be helpful in analyzing how leadership does work in an organi-zation. For example, if we take rules and resources of an organization as structure and individuals as agents of an organization, then we can assume that interaction between structure and agency, in other words, inter-action between rules and regulations with individuals can develop better leadership in an organization. 

CONCLUSION

The ideas of modern sociologists explained many unanswered questions of social action. These ideas might be used to analyze different new social and glo-bal phenomena, for example, how we behave during unexpected crises such as a coronavirus outbreak which reduces our options and affects the global community at the same. Their views also contribute to the questions of the role of structure and self-inter-acting power of actors in executing action. It helps to think about how cultural and social background can affect an individuals action.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This article is written based on an examination paper of the “Modern Sociological Theory” course in the Department of Sociology at Stockholm University, Sweden.This publication has been produced during my scholarship period at Stockholm University, which is funded by the Swedish Institute (SI reference number: 13910/2019).

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Author discloses no potential conflict of interest. 

Article References:

  1. Blumer, H. (1966). Sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead. The Ameri-can Journal of Sociology, 71(5), 535-544. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2774496 
  2. Bonna S. (2021). The bad effects caused by policy prescription and financial assistance by IMF on developing countries, Asian J. Soc. Sci. Leg. Stud., 3(5), 172-177. https://doi.org/10.34104/ajssls.021.01720177 
  3. Coleman JS. (1986).Social theory, social res-earch, and a theory of action. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(6): 1309-1335. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28198605%2991%3A6%3C1309%3ASTSRAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 
  4. Coleman JS. (1994). Foundations of Social Theory,pp. 1-993.The Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press, Cambridge. USA. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.31522 
  5. Demiessie MG, Hossain MR, and Shirin S. (2021). The gateway to well-being and happi-ness: re-defining individualism, voluntary sim-plicity and civilization, Asian J. Soc. Sci. Leg. Stud., 3(3), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.34104/ajssls.021.059074 
  6. Giddens A. (1984).Elements of the theory of structuration, pp. 1-40.in Giddens, A. (ed.),the Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of California Press, Berkeley. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Constitution+of+Society%3A+Outline+of+the+Theory+of+Structuration-p-9780745665283 
  7. Goffman E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, pp. 1-162.Social Sciences Res-earch Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edin-berg. https://monoskop.org/images/1/19/Goffman_Erving_The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life.pdf 
  8. Goffman E. (1961). Role distance, pp. 84-152. In Goffman E. (ed.), Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction, The Bobbs-Merill Company, Inc., New York. https://www.worldcat.org/title/encounters-two-stu-dies-in-the-sociology-of-interaction/oclc/710786 
  9. Schrag C. (1959). Comments on the general theory of action. Alpha Kappa Deltan, 29(1): 46-52.
  10. Parsons T. (1954). Essays in Sociological The-ory. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. https://www.worldcat.org/title/essays-in-sociological-theory/oclc/253489 
  11. Parsonset al. (1956). Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. https://www.worldcat.org/title/family-socialization-and-interaction-process/oclc/259911 

Article Info:

Academic Editor

Dr. Sonjoy Bishwas, Executive, Universe Publishing Group (UniversePG), California, USA.

Received

August 29, 2021

Accepted

October 2, 2021

Published

October 9, 2021

Article DOI: 10.34104/ajssls.021.01930199

Corresponding author

Ashim Kumar Ni*

Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Barishal, Barishal-8254, Bangladesh.

Cite this article

Nandi AK. (2021). Do the differences in ideas about social action influence sociological analysis? a review article, Asian J.Soc. Sci. Leg. Stud., 3(5), 193-199. https://doi.org/10.34104/ajssls.021.01930199 

Views
178
Download
449
Citations
Badge Img
Share