Internal
Links

Top

Review Notes on  TM:  Micro / Macro & Agency / Structure Integration 
External
Links
Link
INTRO TO MICRO / MACRO INTEGRATION   
Link
        The Micro / Macro Question   
Link
        Social Insight   
Link
        C W Mills:  The Sociological Imagination   
 
MANY THEORIES HAVE APPROACHED THE MICRO / MACRO ISSUE, USUALLY FROM A MICRO PERSPECTIVE 
 
Link
        Overview of Marx   
Link
                Base & Superstructure   
Link
                The Mode of Production   
Link
                Alienation   
Link
                Ideology   
Link
        Overview of Weber   
Link
                Rationality   
Link
                The Protestant Ethich & the Spirit of Capitalism (PESC)   
Link
                Weber's Debate w/ the Ghost of Marx   
Link
        Overview of Durkheim   
Link
                Mechanical & Organic Solidarity   
Link
                The Division of Labor   
Link
        Goffman on Micro / Macro Integration 
 
Link
        Intro to Blumer: Micro / Macro Integration in Symbolic Interactionism 
 
Link
        Ethnomethodology on Micro / Macro Integration 
 
Link
        Intro to Baldwin: Symbolic Interactionism & Micro / Macro Integration 
 
Link
        Coleman's Rational Choice Theory 
 
Link
        Burt's Structural Theory of Action   
Link
        Why Study Orgs?  Because the orgl level encompasses mid range theory & the micro / macro integration   
Link
        Intro to Marcuse: A psychological theory is a foundation of social theory, bridging the micro / macro chasm   
Link
        Figurations   
Link
                Micro Figurations   
Link
                Macro Figurations  
  SOME THEORIES HAVE ACHIEVED MICRO / MACRO INTEGRATION   
Link
        The Micro / Macro Continuum   
Link
        Micro to Macro Models   
Link
        A Micro / Macro Model  
Link
INTRO TO AGENCY STRUCTURE INTEGRATION  
Link
                    Baldwin on Agency & Symbolic Interactionism   
Link
          An Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships   
Link
INTRO TO GIDDENS   
Link
          Structuration Theory   
Link
                    Agency   
Link
                    Structure   
Link
                    Structuration   
Link
                    Critiques of Structuration Theory   
Link
INTRO TO ARCHER   
Link
          Morphogenesis:  The Relationships Among Culture, Agency, Structure, & Mental Systems   
Link
          Agency & Cultural Systems   
Link
INTRO TO BOURDIEU   
Link
          Habitus   
Link
                    Practice  
Link
          Field   
Link
                    Field Capital   
Link
                    Conflict in Fields   
Link
                    The Fields   
Link
          Historical Development of Habitus & Field   
Link
          Distinction   
Link
          Professional Habitus & Fields in Academia   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on the Intro to Micro / Macro Integration
External
Links
  MICRO / MACRO INTEGRATION EXAMINES THE RELATIONSHIP BTWN THE MICRO LEVEL / THE INDIVIDUAL & INDIVIDUALISTIC PROCESSES, W/ THE MACRO LEVEL / SOCIAL STRUCTURES & LARGER SOCIAL FORCES   
  The micro macro problem is, in many ways, the American version of the European agency structure problem  
  Micro means small, minute or diminutive & in social theory usually refers to the range of social behavior including the personal, individualistic, the lived life world, everyday life, social psychological, subjective etc. spheres
 
  Macro means large, significant, or outsized & in social theory usually refers to the range of social behavior such as structural, objective, large group, societal, cultural, systemic, etc. spheres
 
  Micro macro integration became a central problem in sociology in the 1980s
 
  Norbert Elias (1939 - 1994), a European sociologist was a leader on the micro macro issue
 
  The micro macro problem is concerned w/ several issues including whether social behavior is the result of micro or macro forces, whether the micro sphere creates the macro sphere or vice versa, whether there even is a micro or a macro level, whether the differentiation of the two levels is false, & so on  
  Ritzer (1979, 1981a) has developed a paradigm that integrates micro & macro levels in both their subjective & objective forms  
  MOST ATTEMPTS TO INTEGRATE MICRO & MACRO LEVEL ANALYSIS FOCUS ON HOW EACH LEVEL CONSTITUTES & IS CONSTITUTED BY THE OTHER LEVELS   
  For Ritzer there are four major levels of social analysis, including   
  -  macro subjectivity
 
  -  macro objectivity
 
  -  micro objectivity
 
  -  micro objectivity
 
Link
The Table on Ritzer's Major Levels of Social Analysis shows that Ritzer accords priority to no level of analysis, & is instead concerned w/ the dialectical relationship among all of them   
  Jeffry Alexander (1982-83) has formulated a schema, similar to Ritzer's, which is called Multidimensional Sociology  
  As a functionalist, Alexander develops his model around the concepts of Order & Action
 
 
Each of Alexander's structures has an individual (micro) level & a collective macro level, creating four major levels of social analysis
 
 
-  collective idealist
 
 
-  collective materialist
 
 
-  individual idealist
 
 
-  individual materialist
 
 
In his schema, Alexander accords priority to the collective idealist level  
 
Norbert Wiley (1988) delineates four major levels of analysis that are similar to Alexander's schema, including the:   
  -  self or individual level  
  -  interaction level  
  -  social structure level  
  -  culture level  
  James Coleman (1986) has concentrated on the micro macro problem & later extended it into a Rational Choice Model (1990)  
  Allen Liska (1990) extended Coleman's work   

 
Top
 
Table on Ritzer's Major Levels of Social Analysis
Objective
Macroscopic
Subjective
I.  Macro objective
e.g. society, law, bureaucracy, architecture, tech, language, etc.
II.  Macro subjective:
e.g. culture, norms, values, etc.
Microscopic
III.  Micro objective:
e.g. patterns of behavior, action, interaction, etc. 
IV.  Micro subjective:
e.g. perceptions, beliefs, social construction of reality, etc.
The Table on the Major Levels of Social Analysis shows that Ritzer accords priority to no level of analysis, & is instead concerned w/ the dialectical relationship among all of them 

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  The Micro / Macro Question 
External
Links
  -  Project:  The Social Sciences & THE Question 
Link
 
THE MICRO / MACRO QUESTION IS CONCERNED W/ OUR ABILITY TO ADDRESS ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL EXISTENCE FROM INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL FORCES TO STRUCTURAL SOCIAL FORCES 
 
 
Social theories have tended to focus on either very small phenomena or very large ones:  e.g., the ethnomethodology of laughter, or the world systems theory of colonialism 
 
 
As currently configured, there are several levels at which theory is constructed which in some ways reflects the way we actually experience life 
 
 
Micro level theory addresses the experiences & social forces of the individual, the dyad, the triad, small groups, & their relationships w/ or interdependence w/ larger grps 
 
 
Mid range theory addresses the experiences & social forces of small grps, e.g. social psych, orgs, theory on specific issues, industrial relations, the workplace, etc. 
 
 
Macro level theory addresses the experiences & social forces of social structures, institutions, or the societal level including all relationships, the workplace, capitalism, etc. 
 
 
Grand theory addresses the experiences & social forces of the relationships of all structures such as Marx's historical materialism 
 
  Meta theory is theory that primarily analyzes other theory such as Foucault's work on the history of knowledge   
 
Many common social science concepts such as alienation, class / false consciousness, etc. focus on how micro level existence is shaped by macro level pressures 
 
 
Mid range theory may be less common in the social sciences because it deals w/ the most complicated of levels where micro & macro level forces meet as seen in the study of origins & function of the family, political consciousness & social action, etc. 
 
  MARX EXAMINED MICRO & MACRO LEVEL THEORY IN RELATION TO THE RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION & ALIENATION   
  Marx's examination of the micro level is concerned w/ the day to day relationships estbed btwn wkrs & owners & structured by the relations of production   
 
Marx's examination of the macro level is concerned w/ the coercive & alienating effects of capitalism on wkrs & owners 
 
  WEBER EXAMINED MID, MACRO, & GRAND THEORY IN RELATION TO BUREAUCRACY, THE INTERACTION OF THE ECON & RELIGION, & THE ROLE OF RATIONALITY   
  Weber's examination of  mid range theory is concerned w/ the everyday workings of organizations & bureaucracies   
 
Weber's examination of  macro theory is concerned w/ the interaction of the econ & religion 
 
  Weber's examination of  grand theory is concerned w/ rationality as unifying principle for all of social science:  how does rat affect the individual?  as a mechanism combating the oppression of traditionalism, or as an iron cage confining modern wkrs to a bureaucratic system of exploitation   
  DURKHEIM EXAMINED MID & MACRO LEVEL THEORY IN RELATION TO SUICIDE, & RELIGION, CULTURE & SOCIETY   
  Durkheim's examination of mid range theory is concerned w/ how social cohesion is maintained or weakened that the effect of that on suicide rates   
 
Durkheim's examination of macro level theory is concerned w/ the role of culture & religion in maintaining social cohesion & integration in society & how this impacted anomie 
 
 
PARSONIAN FUNCTIONALISM IS PRIMARILY MACRO & GRAND LEVEL THEORY IN RELATION TO AGIM 
 
  Parson's examination of macro level theory is concerned w/ the functional requisites of adaptation, goal setting, integration, & maintenance of social norms & practices at the societal level   
  MUCH SOCIAL SCIENCE TODAY EXAMINES AT LEAST TWO LEVELS OF THEORY / EXISTENCE   
 
The micro / macro question is about what level one chooses to examine & how that examination distorts or mystifies relationships at other levels 
 
  Pure micro level theory portrays the individual as determinant of society & essentially free   
  An example of micro level theory is symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, dramaturgy, etc.   
  Pure mid level theory portrays the individual as operating in an env of structural forces which constrain the individual, but leave them room for many choices   
 
An example of mid level theory is Marx's saying that 'while we do make history, we make history under conditions not of our own choosing' 
 
 
Pure macro level theory portrays the individual as influenced / determined by factors beyond his / her control 
 
 
An example of mid level theory is Parson's functionalism which portrays people as a function of the cultural system in which they find themselves 
 
 
The micro / macro question ultimately comes down to such common sense issues as being penny wise, but pound foolish, or being unable to see the forest for the trees; a stitch in time saves nine, or it doesn't matter how you play the game -- winning is everything 
 
 
Being penny wise & pound foolish represents the human error of focusing on the micro level of existence while ignoring or being damaged / exploited by macro forces 
 
  Not being able to see the forest for the trees represents the human error of  focusing on the micro level of existence while ignoring or being damaged / exploited by macro forces   
  Following the principle of a stitch in time saves nine denotes that one may recognize that a small action / understanding now may be inconvenient, but it has repercussions at the macro level   
  Downplaying or sacrificing how one plays the game in order to win demonstrates the understanding that relations at the micro level are sometimes less important than the big picture   
  THE ANSWER TO THE MICRO / MACRO QUESTION IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL INSIGHT WHICH ALLOWS FOR A DYNAMIC UNDERSTANDING OF INDIVIDUAL LIFE & SOCIAL FORCES  
  For social scientists the micro / macro question is one of how we understand people as they understand themselves & understand the social forces that impact them   
  C W Mills' concept of the sociological imagination examines how we often individualize social phenomenon which are the result of social forces, & we often collectivize social phenomenon which are the result of individual choices / forces   
  See Also:  The Sociological Imagination   
  Ultimately the question of the micro / macro levels & everything in btwn comes down to how we gain social insight which allows us to see all levels simultaneously & accurately, understanding the dynamic among them   
  See Also:  Social Insight   
  The answer to the micro / macro question is the development & practice of a theory / lifestyle which allows one to have that ultimate understanding / vision of being able to be humane & efficient at the individual level w/ people which also seeing trends & making the best choices for all parties concerned   
  Life is full of contradictions, difficult choices, compromise, & conflict & social insight offers us the best tool to address these events   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  Social Insight
External
Links
  SOCIOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING IS GAINED THROUGH STUDY / REFLECTION & ACTING IN THE WORLD   
 
Praxis is the process of combining sociological theory & practice 
 
 
One gains sociological insight by practicing praxis 
 
  A paradigm is a theoretical framework as in the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time; e.g. "He framed the problem w/in the psychoanalytic paradigm"   
  In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962 Thomas Kuhn emphasized the importance of the concept of the paradigm for the sciences when he noted that all of science is made up of competing paradigms which gain & lose influence over time   
  Social scientists such as Farley & Macionis prefer to use the term perspective instead of paradigm to denote the various theoretical models in sociology   
  The most important paradigms in sociology include symbolic interactionism, functionalism, & conflict theory   
  Developing sociological insight, praxis, is best accomplished by understanding all the sociological paradigms & by putting them into use in everyday life   
 
SEEING THE GENERAL IN THE PARTICULAR IS THE MOST COMPLEX & USEFUL SOCIOLOGICAL SKILL 
 
 
In 1963 Peter Berger described the sociological paradigm as as seeing the general in the particular, & conversely by seeing the particular in the general 
 
 
In everyday, common sensible understanding praxis is seeing the forest for the trees & as the saying goes "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Reinhold Niebuhr
 
 
Human, thinking, by its very nature is a process of categorization; people inherently categorize life; people stereotype people, things, events, etc. into logical categories as in men & women, children & adults, rich & poor, etc. 
 
 
See Also:  Social Differentiation 
 
 
Generally we see love & marriage as an individualistic, i.e. particular event in which we usually consider love & marriage but the sociological insight of the mature adult as sees factors such as gender, age, race, social class & more 
 
 
Love,  from a sociological paradigm, is the feeling we have for others who match up w/ what society teaches us to want 
 
 
SEEING THE STRANGE IN THE FAMILIAR IS AN IMPORTANT SOCIOLOGICAL AID TO GAINING A MULTI PERSPECTIVAL UNDERSTANDING
 
  Sociological insight also allows us to see the strange in the familiar 
 
  The use of the sociological paradigm via sociological insight means that we see the familiar & also see the strange or the factors influencing life w/ which we are not familiar or comfortable 
 
  Americans & those living in the industrialized, developed world in general are the most individualistic people in all of history, tending to see the world, their lives, more in terms of their own interests, values, & ideologies & less in terms of the interests, values, & ideologies of their community or society 
 
  Individualists tend to see their own lives as normal & right & see the lives of others as strange & not right 
 
  For example we can understand why couples tend to have 2 children but are confused & see it as strange that couples in India choose to have 3, couples in So Africa have 4, couples in Cambodia have 5, couples in Saudi Arabia have 6, & couples in Niger have 7   
  SEEING INDIVIDUALITY IN SOCIAL CONTEXT IS TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE ACT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL FORCES
 
  In 1897 Durkheim wrote his book Suicide to demonstrate that even in the most individualistic act of suicide social forces are at work 
 
  Part of Durkheim's agenda in writing a book on the social forces involved in suicide was to establish sociology as a legitimate social science w/ a distinct sphere of inquiry from psychology 
 
 
In the past & even today the act of suicide is typically thought of in psychological terms, but Durkheim demonstrated that the social forces of integration & regulation as manifested in gender, class, & religion interact to make one more or less likely to commit suicide 
 
 
See Also:  Durkheim on Suicide   
  For Durkheim most victims of suicidal tendencies even experience them in individualistic, psychological terms in that we feel suicidal   
  For Durkheim in order to understand the individualistic, psychological feelings that manifest themselves in suicide, we must put our individuality in a social context, & use sociological insight to see what is beneath the surface & grasp why men commit suicide much more than women, why the extremely rich & the extremely poor commit suicide more than people in other classes, & why people in particular religions  have lower suicide rates   
  CW MILLS DEVELOPED THE CONCEPT / METHOD OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION WHICH REQUIRES SEEING ONE'S BIOGRAPHY / LIFE IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTL FORCES  
  One of the most powerful summations of the meaning of sociological insight was developed by C Wright Mills through his concept of the sociological imagination  
  See Also:  The Sociological Imagination   
  For Mills using the sociological imagination allows one to understand their individualism or biography in terms of the social forces of history   
  Another component of the sociological imagination is distinguishing personal experiences from social issues   
  SOCIOLOGICAL INSIGHT MUST BE EXPANDED TO COMPREHEND THE FORCES OF GLOBALIZATION  
  Today sociological insight must be expanded to a global scale because while in the past social forces may have been largely limited to the village in which one lived, today national events & world events have come to touch our everyday lives   
  For example, in the past all of our acquaintances were probably from the village in which we lived while today we may have regular contact w/ people from anywhere on the globe   
  In the past what happened somewhere else had little impact on us & we may never have even hear about it while today any event such as an outbreak of flu in a village may impact the food we eat & the way we travel & we probably hear about it in days if not hours   
  Throughout hist, where we lived & whom we interacted w/ were important features in channeling social forces, but globalization has magnified these social forces   
  a.  Location shapes our lives   
  b.  Societies are increasingly interconnected; individuals are increasingly interconnected in many ways while disconnected in other ways   
  c.  Social forces, i.e. social problems & opportunities, manifest themselves through very close relationships such as family & friends as well as through very impersonal relationships such as the global econ & transportation   
  d.  As we understand more about the world around us, i.e. globalization, we understand more about ourselves   
  For Macionis, one important factor in understanding the world is understanding the globalized stratification system   
  Stratification is the social process where scarce social & physical resources such as wealth, income, power, status, etc. are non randomly distributed among members, groups, classes etc. of society   
  See Also:  Stratification   
  According to Macionis, there are three different types of nations in the world, including the world's 
a.  high income countries are industrialized nations in which most people have relatively high incomes 
b.  middle income countries have limited industrialization and moderate personal income 
c.  low income countries have little industrialization and most people are poor 
 
  Macionis' view of global strat is vastly oversimplified because each country has poor people & for exam in the US while our poor are "much richer" than mid income people in middle income nations, the US poor are much worse off, some having conditions similar to the poorest of the world's poor   

 
Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Sociological Imagination
C. Wright Mills
External
Links
  -  Project:  Sociological Imagination:  Marriage & Divorce 
Link
  A SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION IS THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE FORCES OF BIOGRAPHY & HISTORY ON ONE'S OWN LIFE & ON SOCIETY   
 
C. Wright Mills developed the concept of the sociological imagination (Soc Im )
 
  Mills described how sociology helps us to see how social situations shape our private realities.
He called this the sociological imagination
 
  What factors influence our lives?
 
  We each have individual experiences of common patterns in life
 
  Individual experiences of
  common patterns of life: 

      family life 
      parents lifestyle 
      educational experience 
      regional setting 
      etc., etc., etc... 

  History

 
  We each live our life as bounded by a particular history
 
 
For Mills, the sociological imagination can be thought of as the intersection of biography & history
 
  Our biography, our life is set w/in a history / social conditions over which we have very limited power   
  If we are caught up in a world event such as a war, disaster, major econ event, etc., then our life may be totally inundated by these forces   
  For many Westerners, our lives exist partially w/in / or are influenced by histl forces, but a large portion appears to exist outside of these forces   
  For a very few people, there is little or no impact of histl / social forces on their lives, though this is rare as in the case of a hermit or a very independent person   
 
THE SOC IMAGINATION IS THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND ONE'S BIOGRAPHY / LIFE IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTL FORCES 
 
 
The sociological imagination is the quality of mind which helps each person 
-  use information 
-  to develop reason 
-  in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on 
-  in the world
-  and what is happening in themselves
 
  The sociological imagination is an understanding, a feeling of the impacts of social forces shaping peoples' behavior  
 
The sociological imagination is the insight that is gained through sociology  
  There are questions to ask to develop your sociological imagination  
  a.  WHAT IS THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE?   
       What components? 
     How are they related? 
     How does it compare to other social orders? 
 
  b.  WHERE DOES THIS SOCIETY STAND IN HUMAN HISTORY?   
      Top?  Bottom? Middle?   
  c.  WHAT VARIETIES OF MEN & WOMEN NOW PREVAIL IN THIS SOCIETY?   
      Farmers, industrial workers, hep cats, tech workers, soccer moms, yuppies...  
  d.  WHAT VARIETIES OF PEOPLE ARE COMING TO PREVAIL?   
      Who are the people & what are their lifestyles that are "behind the times?"  Dinosaurs?   
      Who has embraced the new... & is running w/ it?   
  SOC IMAGINATION CONCEPTS ALLOW ONE TO SEE THE GENERAL IN THE PARTICULAR; TO UNDERSTAND HOW SOCIAL FORCES IMPACT EVERYDAY LIFE 
 
  In using the sociological imagination, we learn to distinguish personal trouble from social issues  
  1.  TROUBLES ARE 'PERSONAL PROBLEMS'   
  Troubles are considered to be a private matter, a personal or individual problem in the sense that both the cause & the solution of the trouble lie w/in the control of a person  
  2.  ISSUES ARE PUBLIC / SOCIAL / POLITICAL PROBLEMS   
  Issues are considered to be a public matter, a social or group problem in the sense that both the cause & the solution of the issue lie w/ societal level action  
  Issues are also known as contradictions or social contradictions  
  In using the sociological imagination, we learn to distinguish excuses from explanations  
  3.  EXCUSES ARE RATIONALIZATIONS FOR 'PERSONAL PROBLEMS' 
 
  Excuses are reasons presented by individuals for a default of a duty or obligation, i.e. a trouble, as a defense, a pretext, or an apology  
  Only troubles may have excuses because responsibility lies only w/ the individual  
  4.  EXPLANATIONS ARE THE MAKING CLEAR OF THE REASONS FOR PUBLIC PROBLEMS   
  Explanations are reasons presented by groups or representatives of societies or segments of societies for a default of a duty or obligation, i.e. an issue, as a defense, a pretext, or an apology  
  Only issues may have explanations because responsibility lies only w/ groups, segments of societies or societies  
  5.  INDIVIDUALIZING IS THE ERROR OF TREATING ISSUES AS PERSONAL PROBLEMS   
  Individualizing is the personalizing of issues which have a social force component  
  A person who is individualizing views an issue as a trouble  
  In modern society, which is the most individualistic society in history, many people look only to the personal level for all problems  
  Many people look only at themselves:
Where did I go wrong?
Why did my spouse treat me that way?
 
  6.  COLLECTIVIZING IS THE ERROR OF TREATING PERSONAL PROBLEMS AS ISSUES   
  A person who collectives tries to avoid responsibility for a personal trouble by blaming it on social forces  
  Collectivizing is the socializing of troubles which have a person component  
  Since the 1960s there has been a trend away from individualizing toward collectivizing  
  7.  FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ERROR LIVING ONE'S LIFE W/ NO CONCEPTION OF HISTL / SOCIAL FORCES   
  The opposite of a sociological imagination is false consciousness  
  False consciousness occurs when we live out a biography w/o seeing  impact of history or society  
  While the idea of false consciousness can be compared to the sociological imagination, Marx first developed the idea of false consciousness when he was trying to determine why workers support an oppressive system or tyrant  
  Today, many social scientists try to understand the phenomenon of false consciousness as seen when the people of Bosnia support Milsovic when the US was bringing him down in the early 1990s; or the people of the Middle East supported Salaam Hussein  
  False consciousness results in the inability to distinguish personal troubles from social issues  
  In using the sociological imagination we learn to distinguish personal troubles from social issues  
  EXAMPLE:  WE OFTEN INDIVIDUALIZE UNEMPLOYMENT, SEEING THE ISSUE OF NO JOB AS A PERSONAL PROBLEM   
 
Unemployed 1929 & 2004--  is it an issue or a responsibility? 
 
Link
Mills' quote on unemployment  
  War creates recognizable personal troubles that most people can easily link to the impersonal social forces of war, though many veterans suffer because of the tendency to individualize their issues:  medical & mental health care  
  Economic downturns create social issues that are more difficult to recognize & most people view these issues as troubles, thus individualizing the problem
 
Link
Can one of our most intimate relationships, marriage, be affected by social forces?
Or is marital bliss or marriage on the rocks attributable only to individual causes?
 
  What are some of the factors affecting marriage & divorce?
 
Link
Differing social forces affected marriage & divorce in the 50's & the 00's
 
  "College Women Faculty & Household Work in the US & China"
 
  Using the sociological imagination, we can see that the US & China are very different, but housework is divided similarly in both countries in that wives do about 65% of housework with the rest being done by men & hired help  
  Using the sociological imagination, we can see that many gender relations transcend cultures supporting feminist claims that understanding gender relations is essential to understanding society  

 
Top  

   C. Wright Mills

"In these terms, consider unemployment. 
When, in a city of 100,000, only one man is unemployed,
that is his personal trouble, 
and for its relief we properly look 
to the character of the man, 
his skills, and his immediate opportunities. 

But when in a nation of 50 million employees,
15 million men are unemployed, 
that is an issue, 
and we may not hope to find its solution 
within the range of opportunities 
open to any one individual."


 
Top  
Differing social forces affected marriage & divorce in the 50's & the 00's
1950s:  2.5 divorces per 1000 married women
1970s:  3.5 divorces per 1000 married women
1980s:  5.2 divorces per 1000 married women
1990s:  4.5 divorces per 1000 married women

 
Top  
Factors affecting divorce

Some factors change everyone's risk of divorce:
   1. newly married
   2. lower income
   3. young
   4. wife earns more than husband
   5. different social backgrounds
   6. divorce is less ostracized by society


 
Top
Using the Sociological Imagination: 
   "College Women Faculty and Household Work in the US and China" 

  The US & China are very different, but housework is divided similarly in both countries w/ women:  wives do about 65% of housework with the rest being done by men and hired help. 

  Many gender relations transcend cultures:  this supports feminist claims that understanding gender relations is essential to understanding society.


 
Internal
Links

Top

  An Introduction to   Karl Marx  1818  -  1883
External
Links
  -  Project:  We Are What We Do
Link
  -  Project:  Class & False Consciousness
Link
  -  Project:  Principles of Marxism & Money, Power, & Status 
Link
Link
-  Major Works & Biography of Marx  
Link
-  Biography of Engels  
  Summary:  There are FIFTEEN of Marx's fundamental concepts
1.  Our human nature is that we are laboring/creating beings
2.  Society consists of two fundamental components:  the base & the superstructure
3.  The forces of production & relations of production determine economic relationships & thus the Base & thus society
4.  Individuals have conflicting self interests
5.  There are "contradictions" in society
6.  There is class conflict:  proletariat & bourgeoisie
7.  Conflict is the energy of social change-- of historical development
8.  There is social evolution in the form of historical development of material life
9.  Society is in a state of constant change & struggle
10.  Conflict does not always mean violence
11.  Capitalism is destructive of humanity
12.  Capitalism is alienating
13.  The upper class controls the economy
14.  Culture is shaped by the economic Base of society
15.  We have either class or false consciousness
 
  SCHOLARS DIVIDE MARX'S WORK INTO "EARLY" & "LATE" MARX BECAUSE IN HIS EARLY PERIOD 
HE WAS MORE PHILOSOPHICAL & IN HIS LATE PERIOD HE WAS MORE ECONOMICS ORIENTED 
 
  There is much debate over the differences & the significance of the differences of Marx's early & late works  
  Early Marx is generally more global & philosophical in scope & offers a more complex & humanist view of human kind  
  Late Marx is generally more focused on the mechanisms of economic systems & is considered to present a more deterministic view of human nature  
  A major debate w/in Marxism is whether Marx's system was a deterministic system or not, & which sector of society had the greatest power over human nature, the economy or culture?   
  See Also:  Economic v. Cultural Determinism  
  There is much debate over various interpretations of Marx's work  
  Early Marx is seen as a humanist w/ a social focus, & a dynamic view of human nature & social life  
  Late Marx has an economics focus & a deterministic view of human nature & social life  
  Many theorists debate whether Marxism is a deterministic system or not  
Link
Preface: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy  
  See Also:   Entire preface  
  There are FIFTEEN of Marx's fundamental concepts  
Link
1.  OUR HUMAN NATURE IS THAT WE ARE LABORING / CREATING BEINGS  
  There are many other bases of  human nature  
  Marx used the term species being for human nature  
  Marx believed our species being is undeveloped
 
  Marx believed in the perfectibility of the individual   
  2.  SOCIETY CONSISTS OF 2 FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS: THE BASE & THE SUPERSTRUCTURE  
  Economic relations make up the base or foundation of society  
  All other relationships make up the superstructure & are determined by the Base  
Link
Did the so called communist countries actually change the economic foundation of their society?  
  3.  THE FORCES & RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION DETERMINE THE 
NATURE OF THE ECONOMY & THUS THE BASE & THUS SOCIETY 
 
  See Also:  Forces of Production  
  See Also:  Relations of Production  
  4.   PEOPLE, GROUPS, ETC. HAVE CONFLICTING SELF INTERESTS  
  Conflict is linked to, or over the material / economic struggle
Groups (classes) conflict because of competition over scarce resources
The major split of self interests was seen as being btwn owners & workers
 
  5.   THERE ARE "CONTRADICTIONS" IN SOCIETY   
  Contradictions are social relations that cause conflict, which may or may not be seen as unjust or simply as "the way things are"  
  Conflict, at the abstract level, is btwn classes while at the everyday or concrete level, conflict is when workers/unionists & particular capitalist firms engage in struggle  
  Examples of Contradictions:
-  social character of production -  private property
-  productive forces -  relations of production
-  production for use -  production for profit
-  production -  consumption
 
  Marx respected Hegel because, through the dialectic, he discussed an affirmative view of a phenomenon as well as its negation; i.e., its inevitable breaking up which takes account of the transient nature of things  
Link
6.  THERE IS CLASS CONFLICT IN SOCIETY   
  The form of society is shaped by conflict btwn groups in society, as well as by the economic base   
  Marxists will see society in conflict whereas functionalists will see society as interdependent/cooperative  
  There were only two classes in Marx's day:  the bourgeoisie & the proletariat  
  The bourgeoisie, aka the owners, are those who own the means of production
The proletariat, aka the workers, are those who work with the means of production
 
  Stratification is the study of class structure today  
  A typical formulation of classes today includes the upper class, UMC, MC, LMC, LC  
  See Also:   Class Structure  
  Today, we see all classes in a struggle w/ each other
Example:  how does more pay for coal miners affect the other groups? 
 
  7.  CONFLICT IS THE ENERGY OF SOCIAL CHANGE, OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT   
  Conflict brings social change  
  8.  SOCIAL EVOLUTION IS THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIAL LIFE   
  Marx sees all history as the history of class struggle  
  Each historical epoch has its own contradictions & classes  
  Humanity has developed through FOUR historical phases, which will be followed by TWO more  
  - Asiatic       Egypt, China
- Ancient     Greece, Roman Empire
- Feudal       W Europe
- Capitalist   last antagonistic system
- Socialist     Marx would maintain that socialism was never estb in Russia, China, etc.
- Communist
 
  While capitalism is last antagonistic system in that there is class conflict, there will always be individual struggle & conflict  
  See Also:  An Overview of Marxist History  
  9.  SOCIETY IS IN A STATE OF CONTINUAL CHANGE & STRUGGLE  
  Equilibrium does not exist for Marx & other conflict theorists because the inherent tendency of society is toward conflict, not consensus  
  Conflict is natural, normal & useful to society  
  10.  CONFLICT DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN VIOLENCE  
  Conflict is institutionalized so that differences can be worked out through society's channels such as unions, courts, etc.  
  Collective bargaining & civil rights panels are examples of the institutionalization of conflict  
  Violence occurs when groups become frustrated w/ society's channels to redress differences  
  Conflict eliminates social arrangements that harm society as a whole  
  Conflict offers disadvantaged groups the opportunity to improve their position in society  
 
11.  CAPITALISM IS DESTRUCTIVE OF HUMANITY 
 
 
The existing system of capitalism was not only preventing fulfillment of our potential, it was even depriving us of our animal needs:  food, shelter, sex, fresh air, & so on
 
 
Hunger is a condition of deprivation imposed by people
 
 
During Marx's time, capitalism had reduced humanity to animal laborers where the worker's needs were at the barest & most miserable level &, in fact, people were becoming less than animals
 
 
See Also:  Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844  
 
Market relations destroy society through TWO processes
 
  a.  creativity is destroyed because we are not creating for ourselves, but instead we are creating for the market  
  b.  the mkt concentrates wealth which creates monopoly  
  See Also:  Pac Man economics & Mkt Concentration  
 
12.  CAPITALISM IS ALIENATING, I.E. CAUSES SEPARATION OF INDIVIDUALS & SOCIAL GROUPS   
  While both Hegel & Feuerbach discussed the nature of alienation, Marx built upon these to develop his own dialectical- material view of alienation  
  See Also:  Alienation  
 
13.  THE UPPER CLASS CONTROL THE ECONOMY ( 50% of income )
 
 
See Also:   Introduction on the Economic Power of the Upper Class  
  The UC controls the economy & thus the culture  
  Bill Gates controls more wealth, over $100 bb in 2000, more than the lower 20% of the population  
  In 2000, there were over 1000 billionaires in the world  
  American income distribution demonstrates that the richest 20% has more income as all the rest  
  The top 5% of the population controls more than the lower 40% of the population  
 
American income distribution demonstrates that the richest 20% has more income as all the rest  
 
Groups w/ advantage will attempt to preserve the status quo:  i.e. existing set of arrangements
 
 
While society experiences conflict, in the long run, society is relatively stable, & income distribution has changed little in the last 100 yrs.
 
 Link 14.  CULTURE IS SHAPED BY THE ECONOMIC BASE
 
 
By controlling the base, the upper class ( UC ) controls the superstructure & thus we have conflicting values & ideologies 
 
 
Marx believed that the powerful promote a belief in their ideology, i.e., ideology of the UC
 
  Most Am have the ideology of the rich which may be thought of as a morbid belief that they also can be rich when the cold reality is that class structure has changed only minutely in last 100 yrs.
 
 
The media holds success stories up for workers to see
 
 
15.  WE HAVE EITHER CLASS OR FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS
 
 
For Marx, we have class consciousness if we support policies that advance our interests 
 
  An example of class consciousness is when the working class supports policies in its own interest such as lower taxes for the non upper classes, the advancement of unions, universal health care, etc.  
 
For Marx, we have false consciousness if we support policies that harm or reverse our interests
 
  An example of class consciousness is when the upper class supports policies that are not in its own interest such as the advancement of unions, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes w/ a high deductible rate  
 
An ideology or world view is a mental system of beliefs about reality, which may be real or ideal
 
 
See Also:  Ideology  
 
See Also:  Class & False Consciousness
 
 
Conflicting ideologies often appear as a conflict of values
 
 
For Marx, most workers support the status quo, i.e., the ideology of the upper class, & thus, they have false consciousness
 
 
Marx viewed the development of the modern era as fraught w/ both immense problems & immense potentials
 
 
Modernity was defined by the capitalist economy
 
 
Modernity had developed as a result of the transition from earlier forms of society  
 
Marx restricted himself mostly to a critique of the economic system & its deformities such as alienation, exploitation, econ collapse, monopolization, etc.  

 
Top
 


Karl Marx
1818 - 1883

Born in the German Rhineland, Marx spent most of his adult life in political  exile
He studied law in Bonn & history & phil in Berlin
He received his doctorate in philosophy from Jena in 1841

Top
 
Major works of Marx
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Communist Manifesto
Das Kapital
Thesis on Feuerbach
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy    1859
Top
 
Engels biography:  Engels was Marx's friend & colleague
Though Engels was also born in the Rhineland, his father was a textile mfr. w/ interests in England
Engels moved to England to 1st work at, then manage, then own, a cotton mill in Manchester
Marx & Engels met briefly in 1842, again in 1844 
From that time on they worked closely together 
From 1850 Engels provided financial  support for Marx, & Marx's family after Marx died

 
Top  
Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.  Succinct formulation of his theory 
 
See entire passage
Link
  1. Legal relations & the form of the state are rooted in mat conditions of life under name civil society
  2. People enter into social relations of production which are indispensable & independent of their will
  3. These relations of prod correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers
  4. Totality of relations of prod constitutes economic structure of society: the foundation on which legal & political SS arise & to which definite forms of consciousness correspond
  5. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but rather that social being determines consciousness
  6. Mat forces of prod come in conflict w/ the existing relations of prod
  7. The legal representations of property relation's become problematic
  8. And so social revolutions occurs:  w/ change in economic foundation, SS is more or less rapidly transformed
  9. Changes occur first in the mat economic conditions, & later in the ideological SS:  legal, political, religious, aesthetic or phil 
  10. No social order ever disappears before all the prod forces in it are development 
  11. New conditions begin amidst old conditions, slowly
z 0515 Hist Mx

 
Top  
Our human nature is that we are laboring/creating beings.  People are "naturally" "laborers."  Marx called our human nature:  our "species being"
  • People work on social, material & natural world of which they are part
  • In doing so, they change the world, the world changes them ( natural selection) & the activities in which we engage change us
  • Work is a part of our human nature:  We are creative beings who must create through work to realize ourself, actualize, develop, etc.
  • Humans are constructing & being constructed by nature
  • Changing of economic systems is a result of individuals & groups struggling w/ their social & natural contexts
  • Marx saw history as an analogy based on competitive struggle
Society & Nature, Dickens, Chap 2

 
Top
 
Did the so called Communist countries change their economic foundations?

Russia, China:  did they change the economic foundation?  And what was the effect on the superstructure? 
This is Marx's rationale for the development of socialism in capitalistic countries only.


 
Top
 
Examples of class conflict & conflict in society: 
Labor v. mgt
Wkrs v. mgt

Environmentalism
Civil Rights Movement
Women's Movement
MADD


 
Top
 
Examples of how Culture is shaped by the economic base of society
Pretty Woman:  prostitute succeeds:  marries millionaire
Cinderella
Who wants to be a millionaire?
Lottery
Beauty Queen marries a multi-millionaire

 
Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Base & the Superstructure
External
Links
  THE THEORY OF THE BASE & SUPERSTRUCTURE HOLDS THAT ECON RELATIONS ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER SOCIAL RELATIONS   
  Note:  There is much debate over the interpretation of Marx's work as seen in the related & competing schools of thought such as conflict theory, neo Marxism, the critical school, etc.  
  Class analysis holds that all history is history of class struggle   
  Class struggle is rooted in economic struggle/competition   
  Understanding economics is at the heart of understanding society because our most fundamental needs are based on food, clothing & shelter & the "higher needs" of art, recreation, even sexuality, are secondary to material needs   
  However, there is an ancient, & on-going philosophical debate over whether material (economic) [Archaic Language] conditions determine the nature of human society or whether idealistic (cultural) conditions determine the nature of society   
  All other human relations fail when fundamental economic relations fail, e.g.  food, clothing, shelter   
  ECON RELATIONS ARE THE FOUNDATION OF SOCIETY IN THAT MOST OF US DEFINE OURSELVES BY WHAT WE DO IN LIFE & BY THE FACT THAT ECON INSTITS DOMINATE SOCIETY TODAY   
  The concepts of the base & the superstructure embody the idea that: "We are what we do"   
  The concepts of the base & the superstructure are similar to humanistic psychology concept of self actualization in that we strive to develop ourselves to highest degree & this is usually done by immersing ourselves in creation, in becoming   
  Alienation occurs when we cannot develop   
  There are many divergent & convergent conceptions of human nature   
  Species being is Marx's term for our most basic human nature which is a collective or social group conception, an not an individual conception of human nature   
  THE BASE IS THE ECON FOUNDATION & THE SUPERSTRUCTURE IS BUILT UPON THE BASE & INCLUDES CULTURE & ALL OTHER SOC RELATIONS   
Link
The Chart on the Base & the Superstructure depicts the belief that the economy is the base or foundation of society & that culture or superstructure of society is determined by the base 
 
 
The base is the economic foundation of society including the means of production & relations of production 
 
 
The base includes what is commonly known as the economy, & also all the social relationships inherent in the economic sphere of society 
 
 
The superstructure includes the ideas of society & their manifestations including culture, law, art, entertainment, etc. 
 
  The superstructure includes what is commonly known as culture, & also all the social relationships inherent in the cultural sphere of society   
 
    See Also:  Marxist Economics   
 
Common terms for the base & the superstructure are the economy & the culture   
  THE BASE HAS THE QUALITIES OF A FOUNDATION, INCLUDES THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, INCLUDES THE RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION, & DETERMINES CULTURE  
 
The base has FOUR major quals.  The base: 
a.  is the economic foundation of society 
b.  includes the means of production 
c.  includes the relations of production 
d.  determines culture 
 
  THE QUALITIES OF CULTURE INCLUDE THAT IT IS COMPOSED OF KBVN & REPRESENTS THE IDEAS MANIFESTED IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THE LAW, THE ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, ETC.   
 
Cultural relationships ( KBVN ) are the superstructure or framework of society   
 
The superstructure has FOUR major qualities 
a.  represents the ideas of society 
b.  represents the manifestations of society 
c.  is made up of culture & law 
d.  is made up of art & entertainment 
 
  In the overview of conflict theory, one of the major principles of conflict theory is that culture is shaped by the economic base of society   
  But most social scientists view this point as the question of how much does the economy influence culture?   
  For Marx, the structure of the economy determines structure of culture   
  For Marx, the base determines the superstructure   
  For Marx, a particular economic order creates a particular type of culture   
  THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THE ECONS OF DIFFERENT ERAS MANIFESTED THE PARTICULAR CULTURAL SYSTEMS OF THOSE ERAS   
  A feudalistic economy had one type of culture, a religious & authoritarian culture 
A capitalist economy has another type of culture, a consumerist & individualist culture 
A socialist economy has another type of culture, a cooperative & bureaucratic culture 
 
  Furthermore, an analysis of the base & superstructure shows that different types of economic systems have different cultures 
  Agriculture 
  Industrial 
  Service 
  High Tech 
 
  Do different occupations have different cultures?     (knowledge, beliefs, values, norms)? 
  Top executive?                    Worker? 
  Cop?                                    Teacher? 
  Entertainer?                         Athletes? 
 
  One bit of proof of the conception of the base & the superstructure is that different occupations have different cultures   
  THE BASE EMBODIES THE SOCIAL STRUCTURES OF THE ECON & ED; THE SUPERSTRUCTURE EMBODIES ALL OTHER SOCIAL STRUCTURES, INCLUDING PF RG M CML  
Link
The Chart on the Base & the Superstructure & the Social Structure shows that the economy determines all other aspects of society   
    See Also:  Social Structures   
  The question of how much the economy influences culture is reflected in an ancient, but still on-going philosophical debate (archaic language) btwn materialism & idealism   
  Materialism, as a philosophy, holds that the concrete aspects of life are primary determinants   
  Idealism, as a philosophy, holds that the abstract aspects of life are primary determinants   
  What is the relationship btwn material life & ideal life?   
  Most Marxists, but not conflict theorists, believe material life totally determines ideal life   
  Marx's theories are based on a materialistic (economic) view of humanity   
  SOCIALIZATION BY THE BASE IS THE MOST PERVASIVE & POWERFUL   
  The fundamental idea of material life determining ideal life is found in many other theories, especially the concept of socialization   
  Socialization is:   
  a.  a process that "teaches" people roles & functions to develop a self - image in people   
  b.  how we "deep learn" through exposure to & participation in the activities of our lives   
       Review:  Socialization   
  The economy shapes our culture / personality because we, for example, engage is the processes of the economy that teach us to look out for number one, work hard, etc.   
  Conflict theorists believe that material life influences ideal life   
  By "controlling" the base, the upper class "controls" the superstructure   
  The ultimate question is not whether the upper class controls the superstructure, but rather how much influence the upper class has over the superstructure   
  Marx believed that the powerful promote a belief in their ideology, i.e., ideology of the upper class   
  In general, most workers support the status quo, i.e. the ideology of the upper class   
  Ideologies are mental systems of beliefs about reality: world view   
  Conflict theorists believe that Americans have the ideology of the rich   
  Conflict theorists believe that most Americans have a "morbid belief " that they also can be rich   
  While most Americans are hopeful that they too can be rich, the reality is that class structure has changed only minimally in last 100 yrs.   
  Social scientists, activists, et al, frequently struggle w/ the questions, "Why do Americans have false consciousness?" & "What can be done to change what people believe?" etc.   
  One common reason people believe what they do is the influence of the media, but conflict theorists & Marxists hold that the media's ideology is only a reflection of the larger ideology as created by the base   
  The media continually holds up unrealistic success stories for people to long after:   
    Cinderella 
  Pretty Woman 
  Who wants to be a millionaire? 
  The Lottery 
 
  'CLASSIC' CONFLICT THEORISTS HOLD THAT THE SOC RELATIONS OF THE BASE DETERMINES THE SOC RELATIONS OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE, BUT NEO CONFLICT THEORISTS & OTHERS HOLD THAT THERE IS A MUTUAL INTERACTION BTWN THE TWO   
  The question of the relationship btwn the economy & culture is not simply one of how strongly one influences the other   
  The question of the relationship btwn the economy & culture may also be understood as a struggle of competing value systems, ideologies, etc.   
  Societies have conflicting values & ideologies   
  Conflicting ideologies often appear as a conflict of values   
  But many believe there is mutual causation btwn the economy & culture   
        See Also:  Economic & Cultural Determination   
  For Marx the direction of causality is that the base determines the superstructure while for Parsons the direction of causality is that the superstructure determines the base   
  For Marx & many conflict theorists, the direction of causality btwn the base & the superstructure is from the base  to the superstructure, but for Parsons & many functionalists the direction of causality is from the superstructure to the base   

 
Top
 

Chart on the Superstructure & Base
 

Superstructure:  ideas of society & their manifestations:  culture, law, 
                             art, entertainment, ideology, values, etc. 
 
 

Base:  economic foundation of society:  means of production & relations of production 


 
Top
 
Chart on the Base, the Superstructure & the Social Structures
1.    Peers
2.    Family
3.    Religion
5.    Government
6.    Military
7.    Charity
9.    Media
10.  Recreation/ Leisure 


4.    Work (economy)
8.    Education

 
External
Links

Top

Outline on the  Mode of Production
Marxist Economics
External
Links
 
The mode of production consists of the two components of the forces of production & the relations of production 
 
  Each type of economic system, i.e. agricultural, craft, industrial, & post-industrial economies, is constituted by a particular mode of production 
 
 
a. The forces of production include people & their ideology & the material factors affecting production such as technology 
 
 
See Also:  Technology   
  The forces of production consist of FIVE components including cooperation of producers, instruments, technology, ideology, & the natural habitat: 
 
 
i.  The social cooperation of the producers structures how workers either work together, compete etc. as seen in small business, assembly lines, independent contracting, temp work, etc. 
 
 
ii.  The instruments of production such as tools, machines & physical technology 
 
 
iii.  Technology includes the operations, materials & knowledge based technology as well as the general education & skill level of the workforce 
 
  iv.  The ideology of each class; i.e. there worldview, culture etc. including their work ethic, views on mobility, views on the legitimacy of the merit system, etc.   
 
v.  The natural habitat including natural resources, access to trade routes, isolation or centrality, etc. 
 
 
b.  The relations of production consist of THREE components including property relations, class structure, & the social cooperation among producers 
 
 
i.  Property relations structure the ownership of society's productive resources (property relations) including such legal forms as the sole proprietorship, the trust, the corporation, the partnership, the cooperative, etc. 
 
 
ii.  Class structure structures who controls a society's productive resources such as when 90% of stocks & bonds are owned by 5% of the population 
 
 
The class structure structures ownership & control of society's wealth & income 
 
 
iii.  The social cooperation among producers structures the type of econ system relations such as competition, monopoly, oligopoly, globalization, etc. 
 
  The social cooperation of producers includes the formal & group structures prevalent in society, the available orgl structures, the available inter orgl relations, & orgl relations w/in society   
  A contemporary view holds that the social relations of production include material & non material means of production & production techniques used to produce goods & services   
  The relations of production structure ownership & control of the means of production, i.e. control of the "shop floor"   
 
Marx was aware of both internal relations such as the forces & relations of production & external or miscellaneous factors in production relations such as war, trade, immigration, climate, geography, physical conditions, social change, etc. 
 
  One of humanities earliest occupations was warrior   
  Today many conflict theorists, such as C. Wright Mills, believe that war has become a primary determinant via the military industrial complex 
 
  For Marx, in war, people are conquered along w/ land & human accessories (homes and tools), & so arises slavery & serfdom   
  Marx discovered that change in the mode of production contributes to new social formations   
 
Social change in the economy is usually experienced as a change of the mode of production, which is constant & inevitable, but there are also random historical events such as changes in style, war, market fluctuations, etc. 
 
 
Change in the mode of production, i.e. in the forces and / or the relations of production are necessary but not sufficient conditions for emergence of certain, new social formations 
 
  Thus, Daniel Bell is utilizing Marxist theory when he asserts that the industrial sector is developing new forces & relations of production that are transforming society into a post industrial society that impacts the economic & other social structures of society   
  Marx discovered that the mode of production determines the character of the people, & ultimately historical conditions, & economic systems   
 
For Marx, it is not our ideas that shape the world, but our relationships with each other that shape our ideas, & thus again, 'we are what we do' 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top

  Outline on the  Definition of Alienation & Anomie
External
Links
  ALIENATION IS THE RESULT OF BEING SEPARATED FROM THE PREDOMINANT CULTURE  
  Many theorist have contemplated the meaning of alienation  
  Hegel            1770  -  1831  
  Feuerbach     1804  -  1872  
  Marx             1818  - 1883  
  Blauner         contemporary  
  Alienation is a state of being, a relationship ( mental & physical manifestations ) characterized by the separation or isolation from existing culture ( knowledge, beliefs, values, norms held in common ) caused by an estrangement from idealistic and/ or materialistic factors  
  While both Hegel & Feuerbach discussed the nature of alienation, Marx built upon these to develop his own dialectical- material view of alienation  
  Alienation, as defined by Marx, is the separation or isolation of workers from the products of their labor Contemporary definition:  feelings or the experience of emotional distance, isolation, powerlessness, loss of control  
  ANOMIE IS THE RESULT OF A WEAKENED OR ABSENTCULTURE / MORALITY  
  For Durkheim, anomie is weakened or absent common morality; a condition of normlessness in society  
  Durkheim developed his concept of anomie to explain the condition in modern society where the old culture or common morality, break down, but have not yet been replaced by its modern form, in the form of organic solidarity as manifested in a societal div of labor  
  Anomie is a state of being, a relationship, with mental & physical manifestations, characterized by the lack of a controlling culture ( knowledge, beliefs, values, norms held in common ) caused by the destruction, ineffectiveness or rejection of culture  
  Anomie is the lack or weakness of the usual social or ethical standards in an individual or group  
Link
Examples of alienation include: 'I am alienated if there is a strong culture, but I cannot become part of that culture' or 'I am anomic if culture has basically disintegrated or is ineffective'  
  Durkheim, taking the term from the Greek anomia which means lawlessness, argued that anomie could result from rapid social change  
  FOR MERTON, ALIENATION IS THE RESULT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE NORMAL LIFE GOALS OF A SOCIETY   
  Some US sociologists, in particular Robert K. Merton (1910- ), have maintained that anomie can lead to deviance  
  For Merton, when an individual or group is prevented from achieving widely accepted goals, law-breaking may result  
  Both alienation & anomie exhibit any number of psychological & political manifestations
  - depression                                  - thievery
  - anger                                          - violence
  - revolutionary political ideals    - deviance
 
  While the concept anomie is similar to Marx's concept of alienation, there are significant differences btwn the two including the fact that anomie is a condition of a lack of, or a vacuum of common culture, while alienation is a condition where a person or group is separated from an existing common culture  
  For Hegel, alienation was only a phenomenon of mind caused by an estrangement from the dominating ideas of the time  
  FOR MARX, ALIENATION IS A COMMON CONDITION IN CAPITALIST SOCIETIES BECAUSE PEOPLE, RATHER THAN BEING ABLE TO MANIFEST THEIR CREATIVITY THROUGH WORK AS THEY SHOULD, ARE EXPLOITED AT WORK   
  For Marx, alienation is a condition in which a person's own powers appear to be controlled by independent forces or entities     [ Marx & his contemporaries were called the young, or left Hegelians ]  
  Marx believed that people find their humanity through labor, not religion, not sex, not anything else  
  Marx believed that the failure to realize our human nature results in alienation  
  We are what we do  
  Our labor becomes objectified in our products  
  Craftsperson, or the primitive hunter gatherer produces, controls the products & either consumes it, or sells it themselves  
       See Also:  Species Being  
  In the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Marx writes Human Estrangement is rooted in the social structure which denies people their essential human nature   

 
Top
 
Examples
Hippie is alienated because they cannot fit in or become part of middle class America
For the street urchin there is no dreams of middle class America
For him there is no such culture in existence-- he is anomic
He embraces a gang counter culture
PW

 
Internal
Links

Top

Outline on  Ideology
External
Links
  AN IDEOLOGY IS A WAY OF THINKING, A WORLDVIEW  
  An ideology is a  particular system of ideas, a characteristic way of thinking of a people, a group, or a person especially on social & political topics   
  An ideology is a system of thought based on related assumptions, beliefs, & explanations of social movements or policies   
  Ideologies are mental systems of beliefs about reality   
  An ideology may be understood as a "world view  
  Ideology & culture are very similar in meaning.  The definition for ideology asserts that the knowledge, beliefs, & values shared by a society give legitimacy to the social structure   
  An ideology is a system of ideas that is pre conscious that often embodies a rationalization of motivations   
  IDEOLOGIES COMBINE ALL FACETS OF SOCIAL EXISTENCE  
  An ideology's content may be economic, political, philosophical, or religious   
  Some ideologies, such as communism & socialism, refer to econ & political systems   
  Other ideologies are capitalism, democracy, fascism, feminism, Protestantism, racism, Roman Catholicism, totalitarianism, & more   
  Ideologies do not rely equally on factual info in supporting their beliefs   
  People who accept an entire thought system usually reject all other systems concerned w/ the same content   
  To such people, only conclusions based on their ideology seem logical & correct   
  people strongly committed to an ideology have difficulty understanding & communicating w/ supporters of a conflicting ideology   
  Conflicting ideologies held by various nations, social classes, or religious groups have led to the world's greatest & most dangerous controversies   
  For example, World War 2 was largely a struggle btwn democratic & totalitarian nations   
  IDEOLOGIES HAVE SOCIAL POSITIONS, I.E. EXIST IN A HISTL CONTEXT  
  Ideologies have a "social position" in that they often support or justify a party, class, or group   
  Ideology & contextual knowledge:  Because we all have an ideology, & our own personal historical context true knowledge is impossible   
  Epistemology is the sociology of knowledge or how knowledge is socially created   
  Conflict theorists, Marxists, etc. believe that, narrowly speaking, consciousness, or broadly speaking, ideology, is shaped by the interaction of material ( working ) conditions & the dominant culture in which one finds oneself   
  A major focus of conflict theory is the examination of ideology which is a world view, including  knowledge, opinions, etc.   
  For conflict theorists, our ideology is that part of our culture of which we are generally, but not specifically aware   
  Ideology is important to conflict theorists because they seek an end to class domination, & to achieve that end, people must first understand that they are exploited, & desire to end that exploitation   
 
Social scientists know that their is an interaction of ideology & social position, but they do not agree on how that interaction operates 
i
 
The materialists believe that one's social position determines ideology 
 
 
The idealists believe that one's ideology determines social position 
 
  The conflict theorist / Marxist view is that social position determines one's view of society, i.e., one's world view or ideology 
 
  Montesquieu first developed the concept of the "contextualization" of knowledge as seen in many contemporary theories of ideology   
  MARX:  CLASS DETERMINES CONSCIOUSNESS  
  Marx developed an analysis which held that class determines consciousness through a process that follows FOUR steps   
  a.  labor determines class   
  b.  labor & class determine consciousness   
  c.  what you do, determines how you think   
  d.  you are what you do   
  Marx developed an analysis which held that through the creative process of our labor, we develop an ideology which embodies the adage that "you are what you do"   
  CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST  
  Class consciousness occurs when a group of people w/ a common self interest correctly perceive that interest & develop beliefs, values, & norms consistent w/ advancing that interest   
  Class consciousness occurs when subordinate groups do not accept ideology of the dominant group, but accept ideology relevant to their own interests   
  THE DOMINANT CLASS' IDEOLOGY USUALLY DOMINANTS   
  The ideology of the dominant group or class is often the most prominent ideology   
  People accept the ideology of the dominant groups in society & so accept their values & do not pursue their own self interest   
  Much of social analysis concerns 
a.  the nature of the dominant group's ideology 
b.  why people accept the dominant group's ideology 
c.  how the dominant group's ideology is disseminated 
 
  STRUGGLES OCCUR OVER IDEOLOGY & MATERIAL RESOURCES  
  For many social theorists, culture, ideology, etc. cause conflict   
  For many social theorists, cultural belief systems, ideology, ethnicity & religion, can cause a lot of conflict   
  Ideological struggle has gone by various names such as: 
a.  the culture wars 
b.  the struggle for the hearts & minds 
c.  religious wars 
 
  When analyzing these ideological struggles, one must also examine material / economic struggles   
Link
Examples of ideological & material struggles   

 
Top
 
Examples of ideological & material struggles 
Israeli - Arab conflict:  religion & land 
Black - White conflict:  some amorphous ideology of race/culture & equal opportunity rights 
Catholics & Protestants in No Ireland:  religion & land & equal opportunity rights 
PW

 
External
Links
blank
Top
  An Overview of   Max Weber  1864  - 1920
External
Links
  -  Project:   Your Status, Class, & Power 
Link
Link
-  Biography & Major Works   
  SUMMARY:  There are EIGHT major ideas of Weberian sociology
1.  The major influence in modern society is the development of rationality
2.  Charisma, tradition, & rationality are all forms of authority
3.  In relation to an overview of Weber, while rationality is necessary for the dev of mod soc, it is also dominating soc 
4.  The dimensions of stratification include class, power & status 
5.  Culture, like economics, affects the fundamental structure of society 
6.  History demonstrates the development of rationality
7.  Weber agreed w/ Marx on the functioning of the econ sector, but supplemented his work w/ examinations of rationality & culture 
8.  Weber believed that the development of social science methodology was needed
 
  There are EIGHT major ideas of Weberian sociology
 
  1.  THE MAJOR INFLUENCE IN MODERN SOCIETY IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF RATIONALITY
 
 
For Weber, rationality is a method or practice of choice based on who / what works best in achieving a given objective  
  2.  CHARISMA, TRADITION, & RATIONALITY ARE ALL FORMS OF AUTHORITY
 
  2.1.  Charismatic authority is present when one is treated as endowed w/ supernatural, or at least exceptional powers or qualities not accessible to ordinary people  
  2.2.  Traditional authority is the claim by leaders & the belief by followers in the virtue of sanctity of age old rules & powers   
  2.3.  Legal/rational authority is a model of choice based on who / what works best in achieving a given objective  
  2.3.1.  BUREAUCRACY IS THE ULTIMATE RATIONAL SOCIAL ORGANIZATION   
  See Weber on Organizations  
  Weber believed that, conceived as a pure type, the modern bureaucratic organization has several distinctive characteristics  
  2.3.2.  Weber noted that Marx largely ignored administrative domination & organizational life
 blank
  See Also:  A comparison of Charismatic, Traditional, & Rationality Authority  
  3.  WHILE RATIONALITY IS NECESSARY FOR THE DEV OF MOD SOC, IT IS ALSO DOMINATING SOC   
  Weber viewed the development of the modern era as increasingly dominated by the "iron cage of rationality"  
  Weber called the rationalization of society, i.e. the development of the iron cage of rationality, the disenchantment of the world  
  Weber demonstrated that the disenchantment of the world had been carried out more thoroughly in the West than elsewhere  
  Weber thought the development of rationality in society was inevitable, but was extremely uncertain about the value of said development  
  For Weber, domination had been implemented, historically, through govt, i.e. political orgs  
  Weber feared that domination would become absolute through bureaucracy  
  Weber conceived of many of the dysfunctions of bureaucracy   
  Weber analyzes the role of professionals in bureaucracy & concludes that they have the best chance of breaking out of the "iron cage of rationality"  
  4.  THE DIMENSIONS OF STRATIFICATION INCLUDE CLASS, POWER, & STATUS
 
  See Also:  Stratification  
  4.1.  Class, a.k.a. the economic dimension, is based on wealth & income
 
  Weber updates Marx on class by adding the middle & professional classes  
  4.2.  Power, a.k.a. the political dimension, is based on political power
 
  4.3.  Status, a.k.a. the social dimension, is based on prestige, honor, etc.
 
  Weber is the first social theorist to make status important in social analysis  
  The addition of power & status to social analysis makes Weber similar to the neo Marxists   
  5.  CULTURE, LIKE ECONOMICS, AFFECTS THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY   
  Weber, contrary to Marx, believes that the cultural system affects being as much as the economic system
 
  Weber believed that all societal institutions were shaped by climate & geography as well as by the econ system  
  In the PESC, Weber finds that the economic & religious systems have mutual impacts on each other  
  The transition from ancient Judaism to Christianity enhanced the evolution of capitalism & rationality  
  China did not develop capitalism for many reasons  
  India did not develop capitalism for many reasons  
  6.  HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THE DEVELOPMENT OF RATIONALITY  
  Weber adds cultural effects to economic effects to understand history  
  Early Empire Era aka Asiatic System                         3 K - 200 BC  
  Empire Era: Ancient Slave Society
The Transition to Feudalism                             200 BC - 500 AD
 
  Middle Ages: Transition to Capitalism                                500 - 1300  
  Early industrial Age:  Western Capitalism                     1300 - 1700  
  7.  WEBER AGREED W/ MARX ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ECON SECTOR, 
BUT SUPPLEMENTED HIS WORK W/ EXAMINATIONS OF RATIONALITY & CULTURE 
 
  Weber's "debate w/ ghost of Marx" was a sympathetic debate  
  Marx examines the development & impact of the economy  
  Weber examines the development & impact of rationality  
  8.  WEBER BELIEVED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODOLOGY WAS NEEDED   
  Weber & many other soc scientists believe that the soc sciences must distinguish themselves from phil & common knowledge by developing a methodology that allows for the creation of verifiable, objective  knowledge   
  One of Weber's major discoveries was that science cannot be value free  

 
Top  

Max Weber
1864  -  1920
( pronounced   vay ber )

Born and resided in: Germany, then Known as Prussia
Began as an historian, later converted to a full time sociologist. 

Weber studied legal and economic history at several German universities.
After a brief period as a legal assistant and on completion of his doctoral dissertation, he was appointed professor first (1894) at the University of Freiburg and then (1897) at Heidelberg. Despite a severe nervous breakdown several years later, Weber produced a body of work that established him as the foremost figure in social thought of the twentieth century.

Towards the end of his life, Weber became politically active and served on the committee that drafted the constitution of the Weimar Republic in 1918.

xrefer  Who's Who in the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, © Market House Books Ltd 1999

WEBER, Max (1864-1920). 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', Max Weber's most controversial and stimulating book, was published in 1904-05. In it he asserted that the stern doctrines of Calvinism bred in believers a relentless commitment to one's earthly calling and an avoidance of trivial pleasures. The result was, in Protestant nations, the rapid accumulation of capital that has made possible the enormous structure of modern economic life. 
   Weber was born in Erfurt, Germany, on April 21, 1864, to an authoritarian father and strongly Calvinist mother. He was educated at the universities of Heidelberg, Berlin, and Gottingen and served briefly in the army. In 1895 he became professor of political economy at Freiburg, and the next year he went to Heidelberg in the same post. He advocated German overseas expansion as a means to raise the political consciousness of the German people. 
   Following a nervous collapse in 1898, Weber was institutionalized periodically until 1903. It was after this period that he did his most significant research. During this time he influenced sociological theory and tried to gain respect for sociology as a discipline by defining a value free methodology for it. He also argued strongly against German aims in World War I. After the war Weber helped draft the constitution of the Weimar Republic and founded the German Democratic party (see Weimar Republic). He died in Munich on June 14, 1920. 

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Top  
Major Works of Weber

Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. 1904, trans., 1930
General Economic History.
 Economy and Society.  1922; translated as Economy and Society, 1968
Methodology of the Social Sciences. (1949).


 
Internal
Links

Top

Outline on  Rationality
External
Links
  -  Project:  What is rational? 
Link
  RATIONALITY IS A MODEL OF CHOICE BASED ON WHO / WHAT WORKS BEST IN ACHIEVING A GIVEN OBJECTIVE   
  A SOCIO HISTL ANALYSIS OF RATIONALITY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE RAT / SCIENTIFIC WAY OF THINKING IS A NEW / MODERN PHENOMENON   
  A form of scholarship known as antiquarianism spread across Europe beginning in the 1500s   
  Antiquarian scholars gathered, preserved, recorded, edited, and cataloged the basic materials for history   
  Examples of antiquarian research   
  Without the research of the antiquarians, the primary sources for many fields of history throughout Europe might have been lost   
  THE ENLIGHTENMENT, AKA THE AGE OF REASON, IS THE LATE MID AGES ERA WHERE RAT / SCIENCE CAME TO THE FOREFRONT, DISPLACING TRADL KNOWLEDGE   
  During the Age of Reason, aka the Enlightenment, which lasted from the late 1600s to the late 1700s, a group of French philosophers called the philosophes became prominent   
  See Also:  The Enlightenment   
  Writers during the Age of Reason preferred to write broad historical narratives to proclaim large scale theories of the progress and decline of civilization   
  In general, the works of the philosophes reflected the respect for rationality, critical thought, secular values, and scholarship that characterized the Age of Reason   
 
Leading philosophes included the Marquis de Condorcet, Montesquieu, and Voltaire   
 
The philosophers of the Age of Reason believed that each person has a rational will, which makes it possible to make and carry out plans 
 
  The Enlightenment thinkers declared that animals are slaves of their emotions; when an animal is afraid of something, it tries to escape; when an animal is angry, it fights   
  However for the Enlightenment thinkers, people can figure out the best course of action when they are afraid, angry, or in trouble   
  In addition, people can make themselves do the right thing, instead of doing only what may seem easier or more appealing   
  The Enlightenment thinkers realized that people do not always plan ahead but often act on impulse, which they attributed to inadequate education   
  All people, the Enlightenment thinkers believed, are born with the capacity to reason   
  RENE DESCARTE PHILOSOPHIZED THAT RATIONALITY WAS A NATURAL QUALITY OF HUMAN KIND   
  Descartes wrote that "the power of forming a good judgment and of distinguishing the true from the false, which is properly speaking what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men."   
  Descartes therefore thought that to become rational, a person need only acquire an education that teaches a good method of reasoning   
  JOHN LOCKE PHILOSOPHIZED THAT GOD GAVE US THE CAPACITY FOR RATIONALITY  
  Locke wrote that reason is "the candle of the Lord set up by Himself in men's minds" and "must be our last judge and guide in everything."  
  See Also:  Locke   
  Locke believed reason teaches that people must unite and form a state to protect their "lives and liberty and property."   
  Locke noted that although people must give up some rights when they form a state, they gain more in protection than they lose   
  Locke believed that anyone can reason, providing the capacity is allowed to develop   
  He therefore emphasized the importance of education and insisted on the right of free speech and on toleration for conflicting ideas   
  WEBER HELD RATIONALITY WAS THE CENTRAL & SUPRA POWERFUL FEATURE OF MODERNITY   
 
Rationalization in Weberian sociology, is the process by which decisions are made on basis of what is expected to work best   
  Weber sees rational authority as displacing charismatic & traditional authority   
  Rationality is inherent in modernization, urbanization, & the Industrial Revolution   
  For Weber, bureaucracy is the primary means by which rationality occurs in modern society   
  Weber's forms of rationality parallel his forms of authority which are based on technical mastery of a area or subject   
  1.  SUBSTANTIVE RAT IS THE DOMINANCE OF NORMS & VALUES IN THE RATIONAL CHOICE OF MEANS TO ENDS   
  Substantive rationality creates the ability to draw on norms & values to motivate people to behave in a rational manner   
  Substantive rationality requires that people strive to master a situation & adapt it to their conscious ends   
Link
Examples of Substantive Rationality   
  2.  THEORETICAL / INTELLECTUAL RAT IS THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE PEOPLE'S RATL PROBLEM SOLVING CAPACITIES   
  Theoretical rationality is also known as the rational cognitive process   
  Examples of theoretical rationality, which use a mental schema to make a decision, include:   
  -  the scientific method   
  -  risk management process   
  3.  PRACTICAL RAT IS DAY TO DAY RAT AS SEEN IN THE ABILITY TO FIND PRACTICALLY RAT WAYS OF HANDLING MUNDANE SITUATIONS   
  Examples of practical rationality include:   
  -  Pragmatism   
  -  What works best in the short run   
  -  Common sense   
Link
Examples of Practical Rationality   
  4.  FORMAL RAT IS THE USE OF ORGL STRUCTURES WHICH CONSTRAIN PEOPLE TO ACT IN A RAT MANNER IN THEIR CHOICE OF MEANS TO ENDS   
  Bureaucracy is the primary orgl structure used to implement formal rat   
  Functional, aka formal rationality requires of the subordination of one's mind & self to a thing or mechanical process   
 
Examples of formal rationality include   
  -  the typical top down bureaucracy today which is the organizational hierarchy as first devised in religion, govt, & then refined in the mideval military   
  -  the division of labor & the assembly line   
  -  Fordism   
 
-  McDonaldization   
  Weber's thesis is that formal rationality & bureaucracy is the distinctive development in the modern world & displaces both:   
  a.  Charismatic authority   
  b.  Traditional authority   
  For Weber, formal rationality is vastly superior to earlier forms of organization   
  THE FOUR DIMENSIONS OF FORMAL RAT ARE EFFICIENCY, PREDICTABILITY, QUANTITY, & NONHUMAN TECH   
Link
a.  Efficiency is the search for the best means to the end   
Link
b.  Predictability is being able to determine future events, thus creating a world of no surprises   
Link
c.  Quantity is the gaining benefits from the economies of scale, the opposite of which is quality   
Link
d.  Nonhuman technology is the substitution of machines, computers,  biotech, etc. for human labor   
  There are inherent strengths & weaknesses w/ each form of rationality   
  A common weakness of rationality is called the irrationality of rationality which is the obsession w/ only one form of rationalization   
  As formal rationality develops, it draws less & less upon the other forms of rationality   
  Formal rationality downplays & ignores contributions of the three other forms or rationality   
  Dehumanization & demystification are often associated w/ progress & formal rationality   
  In Weberian Sociology, the process by which tradition, faith, and personal relationship are set aside in the conduct of business, with decisions being made on the basis of what is expected to work best is defined as rationality   
  HYPERRATIONALITY COMBINES EFFICIENCY, PREDICTABILITY, QUANTITY, & NONHUMAN TECH IN A FORMAL RAT PROCESS   
  Ritzer developed the concept of hyperrationality, which is a process that combines all of Weber's forms of rationality   
  There are THREE advantages of hyperrationality   
  a.  Hyperrationality mitigates individual rationalization weakness & emphasizes individual rationalization strengths   
  b.  Hyperrationality combines all forms of rationality to mitigate the weaknesses of each   
  c.  Hyperrationality can emphasize any of the forms of rationality, given the particulars of the situation   
 Link
Examples of Hyperrationality   
  Weber viewed the development of the modern era as increasingly dominated by the "iron cage of rationality"   
  Weber analyzes the role of professionals in bureaucracy & concludes that they have the best chance of breaking out of the "iron cage of rationality"   

 
Top
 
Examples of Substantive Rationality
      Letting your values & goals dictate how you do something 
     Belief in democracy / equality:  involve the whole family in making decisions 
     Belief in patriarchy:  head male makes the decisions 

 
Top
 
Examples of Practical Rationality
      How to build a garden shed: 
      Buy the lumber, hand saw it up, nail it up 
      Buy a kit (wood is already cut), buy nail gun & compressor 

 
Top
 
Examples of Efficiency 
A drive through window is a good example of increased efficiency in fast food delivery
Ritzer 0411

 
Top
 
Examples of Predictability 
Example:  Big Mac in NYC is the same as in Paris 
[ standardization ] 
Ritzer 0411
Knowing how many people to put on each shift because of good analysis of demand 

Knowing where a store can profitably exist 


 
Top
 
Examples of the Economies of Scale 
Fast food gives you a healthy portion rather than a unique dining experience 
Ritzer 0411

 
Top
 
Examples of Nonhuman Technologies 

McDonalds' assembly line production w/ detailed instructions for preparing all the food

Ritzer 0411

 
Top
 
Examples of Hyperrationality
US & Japanese Auto Industries 
Ritzer 0411
McDonalds is becoming so 
Walmart 
PW

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  Weber's Protestant Ethnic & the Spirit of Capitalism
External
Links
Link
-  Project:  Weber & the PESC
Link
 
Summary: The Protestant Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism  ( PESC ) holds that the Protestant ethic enhances the evolution of capitalism.  Weber wants to refute some Marxists who believed Reformation was consequence of economic developments, but has no intention showing that capitalism is necessary & inevitable outcome of Reformation.  For Weber, development of capitalism was a multi factor event:  primarily economic & religious.  Many factors in Protestantism encouraged the development of capitalism  
  In the analysis of the PESC, Weber demonstrates that economic & religious systems exhibit causal interactions  
  To analyze the relationship btwn religious & economic systems, Weber utilized, what today we would call a multi factor analysis
 
  Weber looks at how Protestantism affected capitalism, & how Protestantism was influenced by the totality of social conditions, especially economic
 
  Weber discuss an "elective affinity" btwn ideology of Protestantism & values (spirit) of modern, rationalized capitalism  
  Marx agrees: “Christianity w/ its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois development, Protestantism, Deism, etc., is the most fitting form of religion.”     ( Das Kapital )  
  Weber asks, How did the capitalist system overcome the resistance of the old order?
 
  Weber recognized that the typical answer on the development of capitalist ideology discussed the influx of precious metals, capital accumulation, expanded markets, growth of pop, new tech, etc.
 
  Weber did not deny the importance of technical & historical factors in the dev of cap, yet there were countries that had all these qualities & yet did not embrace cap, & vice versa
 
  The West's revolutions fostered social change
 
  In the West there were strong independent forces that different princes could ally w/
 
        For Weber, five great revolutions decided the fate of the West, including the:
Italian rev
1100s & 1200s
Netherlands rev
1400s
English rev
1600s
American rev
1776
French rev
1789
 
  The Protestant Ethic was the new moral value that emerged w/ the religious changes of the 1500s
 
  The Reformation affected the actions of new capitalist entrepreneurs
 
  The Protestants believed that self denial is the best manner to improve this world
 
  In their education, Protestants studied more technical subjects, they were more often proprietors
 
  Protestants developed & practiced economic rationalization faster than others
 
  The Protestants are not more worldly or hedonistic than Catholics, but more ascetic:  self denying
 
  Ben Franklin:  time is money
But Franklin was not hedonistic. 
Franklin was ideal type of an ascetic Protestant Cap
 
  Asceticism can be traced to Calvin, not Luther
 
  Luther developed the concept of a Calling:  a moral duty to fulfill task assigned by God 
 
  The Calling meant that for 1st time in Western history, a religion gave significance to people's daily, worldly activities
 
  But Luther aligned himself with princes, not peasants & so became a defender of status quo, thus idea of a calling was not a sufficient moral base for capitalism   
  Weber asks, How did notion of Calvinistic predestination lead to support of worldly activities such as business?   
  While Calvin rejected any notion of a sign of being chosen, his followers modified original doctrine to include good works in daily life  
  Baxter, a Protestant minister writes of Protestant ethic, rejecting seignior and the rich, & also praising sober, middle class, self made person  
  Thus, Baxter links the Protestant ethic w/ the work ethic  
  Seignior:  anything taken or claimed by sovereign  
  For Weber, Baxter carried ethos of rationalistic organization of capitalism & labor & turned it against hedonism  
  The Protestant Ethic embodied:  
  a. Self denial today creates rewards tomorrow "A penny saved is a penny earned"  
  b.  Activity in world today affects chances of getting into heaven  
  c.  Wealth, success, etc. was a sign of religious favor; making $$ became associated w/ being in god's grace  
  There is value of "doing good work" i.e., good work is favored by god  
  d.  Protestantism supported idea of making profit off another's labor because those in favor can help others find the path  
  In short, work hard to get ahead  
  Many factors in Protestantism encouraged the development of capitalism
- end to predestination
- a calling
- value of self denial:  "a penny saved is a penny earned"
- value of "doing good work" 
- activity in world today affects chances of getting into heaven
- Protestantism supported idea of making profit off another's labor
- making $$ became associated w/ being in god's grace
 
  The Protestant Ethic was a catalyst for the development of capitalism  
  Over time, religious roots of capitalism died out, giving way to the secular view of utilitarianism  
  Protestantism supported: 
- exploitation of worker's willingness to labor, 
- eased employer's conscience, 
- treated workers' labor as a calling
 
  Thus, mutually reinforcing developments of cap & Protestantism  
  Once capitalism was established, the Protestant ethic was no longer necessary for maintenance of the system  [ true? ]  
  Calvinistic & Lutheristic ethics  
  But why did Weber not choose Calvin as his ideal typical ascetic?   
  Weber uses Baxter, Franklin & John Wesley, all who lived 100 yrs after Calvin  
  Weber shows that as Calvinism developed, it came under influence of economic & other developments  
  Weber is suggesting that two relatively autonomous developments intersected at a given historic point which created modern rational temperament  
  Weber was not a religious determinist  
  Economic & political interests of Puritans were important, not determinant  
  Weber is not saying that religion is a permanent prerequisite to capitalism, nor does he set fourth a general theory of the relationship of religion to economics  
  Weber also analyzes THREE cultures whose religious & other cultural factors, were not conducive to the development of capitalism  
  - Religion in China   
  - Religion in India  
  - Ancient Judaism  

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  Weber's Debate w/ the Ghost of Marx
External
Links
  INTRODUCTION   
  Marx has been so influential that much of sociology, political science, history, & other disciplines have been in "a debate w/ the ghost of Marx"   
  Many try to paint Weber & Marx as opponents, but Weber & Marx agree on much more than they disagree 
 
  Marx focused on the development of economic systems & the rise of capitalism while Weber focused on the development of religious systems & rise of capitalism 
 
  PARSONS, & OTHERS   
  Parsons' work misleads many in his belief that Weber rejected Marx's analysis 
 
  In 1929, Parsons declared that Weber's The Protestant Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism ( PESC ) was a refutation of Marx, but he was mistaken 
 
  Parson implies Marx had failed to understand much of history & thus it became accepted that Weber opposed & refuted Marx 
 
  Zeitlin, Albert Salomon, CW Mills, others all believe that Weber rounds out & supplements Marx's work
 
 
Marx & Weber agree that society is determined by social class  
  Weber & Marx are compatible & complementary
 
  There are very few inconsistencies in the works of Weber & Marx
 
  Weber knew Marx's readings & took them into account, though no one in academia could admit to reading Marx until academic freedom triumphed in the 1950s
 
  Weber does refute single cause theories such those as supported by orthodox Marxists
 
  The PESC  is not a refutation of Marx
 
  ECONOMIC & RELIGIOUS FACTORS ARE COMPLEMENTARY   
  In the PESC Weber explores the economic relevance of a religious ethic demonstrating that the Protestant work ethic was a vital factor that lead to the development of capitalism
 
  Many, but not Weber, believed that Marx confused technical & economic factors
 
  Weber understood that when Marx said: "Labour is organized, is divided differently according to the instruments it disposes over. The hand mill presupposes a different division of labor from the steam mill." he was focusing on the complex interaction of social & physical forces in the determination of the nature of society  
  Weber believed that Marx's understanding of the interdependence of the technology of labor & the organization of labor indicates that he is not a technological determinist  
  Marx's position is that the division of labor allows particular relations of ownership & relations of production ( separate worker from the means of production )   
  For Weber & Marx, only that division of labor varies w/ technology, & this does not determine an overall economic system 
 
  Marx is often ambiguous because he writes both political statements as well as academic analyses  
  EMERGENCE OF CAPITALISM   
  Marx & Weber were both concerned w/ the emergence of capitalism  
  Weber is concerned w/ origin & nature of modern capitalism & why it emerges 1st in the West  
  Weber used a historical social method that is compatible w/ Marx's historical materialism  
  Marx's major aim was not to see the economy as a primary social determinant, but to explore the relationships btwn the economy & other social institutions  
  Both Weber & Marx define the economy as the material struggle for existence  
  Weber's journal describes his work at the investigation of the general cultural significance of socio-economic structure, & its historic forms  

 
Internal
Links

Top

 An Overview of    Emile Durkheim    1858  -  1917
External
Links
  -  Project:  Theory & Your Project 
Link
Link
-  Biography & Major Works   
  INTRODUCTION:  Durkheim, who is considered to be a 'father of sociology,' saw Rousseau as the father of sociology.  Saint Simon, Comte, Tocqueville & Spencer all utilized sociological concepts & some form of the scientific method, but Durkheim was first to make sociology a scientific discipline   
  SUMMARY:  For Durkheim, one of the main problem for the social sciences, which he answers w/ his theory, was 'What creates social order?'
During the modern era, there is a problem w/ maintaining social order
Durkheim makes SEVENTEEN major points
1.  Society & social behavior could & should be studied scientifically
2.  Social facts are observable 'phenomena' that allow the study of society
3.  Social cohesion is the force that unites a society, creating congruity, consistency, etc. 
4.  Mechanical solidarity is the type of cohesion based on traditional relationships 
5.  Organic solidarity is the type of cohesion based on self determination 
6.  The division of labor is the basis of organic solidarity today, in that every member participates in it & every member benefits from it 
7.  Collective consciousness consists of the knowledge, beliefs, values & norms that we hold in common 
8.  The cult of the individual represents society's unprecedented hi level of individualism 
9.  Anomie is the social condition of a weakened or absent common morality 
10.  Integration is the process of bringing new individuals & social phenomena into society 
11.  Regulation is the process of controlling, directing, or ruling society 
12.  Common morality consists of the beliefs, values, & norms that we hold in common 
13.  Religion is a primary type of traditional cohesion
14.  Durkheim opposed political socialism, but believed in a greater level of cohesion or cooperation in society
15.  Occupational associations are optimal institutions for achieving social reform 
16.  Modern society was displacing traditional society & mech solidarity was dissolving, but organic solidarity is slow to develop 
17.  Organic solidarity  is not totally in effect, therefore there is a great risk of anomie & social instability 
 
 
DURKHEIM IS A PROGRESSIVE FUNCTIONALIST:  I.E. ADVOCATED CHANGE 
& FOCUSED ON REGULATORY & INTEGRATORY PROCESSES 
 
  Saint Simon was the most influential social theorist on Durkheim's thinking   
 
Durkheim built on Saint Simon's work of sociology as a 'science,' social evolution, etc.   
 
Durkheim is usually categorized as a functionalist because many of his ideas have been utilized by that discipline   
  Functionalism is usually considered to be conservative, especially when compared to conflict theory   
 
Durkheim is a progressive functionalist   
  Durkheim believed that contemporary philosophy should be constructive & organizational, NOT critical   
  Contrary to what is taught by many sociologists, Durkheim was not a conservative; Durkheim was a progressive thinker who had a deep interest in socialism & social change   
  Durkheim is less interested in economics than Marx or Weber, but like Marx & Weber, Durkheim was very interested in the industrial revolution & urbanization  
  For Durkheim, one of the main problem for the social sciences, which he answers w/ his theory, was 'What creates social order?'   
 
Many issues that Durkheim studied stem from his concern w/ the inevitable results of the development of modern society 
 
  There are SEVENTEEN fundamental principles of Durkheim's theory   
  1.  SOCIETY COULD & SHOULD BE STUDIED SCIENTIFICALLY   
 
Society & social behavior can be studied scientifically   
  Durkheim was first to make sociology a scientific discipline   
  Durkheim believed that society made individuals not vice versa   
  2.  SOCIAL FACTS ARE OBSERVABLE 'PHENOMENA' THAT ALLOW THE STUDY OF SOCIETY   
 
Social facts include relationships, institutions, groups, statistical patterns, as well as more abstract concepts like culture & social structure   
  Durkheim conceived the idea that there were such things as 'social facts' that were observable 'things' that enabled the study of society   
  Durkheim's famous 1st principle of sociology was to 'study social facts as things'   
  When Durkheim advocated study social facts as things he was advocating that social life can be analyzed as rigorously as object or events in nature   
  3.  SOCIAL COHESION IS THE FORCE THAT UNITES A SOCIETY, CREATING CONGRUITY, CONSISTENCY, ETC.  
 
Cohesion is necessary in both pre industrial & industrial society   
  The social forces, the cohesion that holds pre industrial & industrial societies together are different   
  4.  MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY IS A TYPE OF COHESION BASED ON TRADITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS   
 
Mechanical solidarity is the type of cohesion in pre industrial society   
  Cohesion is based on tradition culture   
  Mechanical solidarity is based on a relatively narrow division of labor, which creates relatively high level of independence combined w/ nearly all relationships being primary   
  5.  ORGANIC SOLIDARITY IS A TYPE OF COHESION BASED ON SELF DETERMINATION   
 
Organic solidarity is the type of cohesion in industrial society   
  Cohesion is based on mutual interdependence   
  Organic Solidarity is based on a very broad division of labor, which creates relatively high level of mutual interdependence combined w/ nearly all relationships being secondary   
  Durkheim considered organic solidarity to be the cement of a society   
  Much of Durkheim's theory was based on his conception of organic solidarity   
  6.  THE DIVISION OF LABOR IS THE BASIS OF ORGANIC SOLIDARITY TODAY, IN THAT 
EVERY MEMBER PARTICIPATES IN IT & EVERY MEMBER BENEFITS FROM IT 
 
 
The division of labor is the primary type of mutual interdependence in society today  
  Durkheim elaborated on Saint Simon's scheme of the new industrial class to develop his ideas on the division of labor  
  The division of labor resulted in development of modern society ( see below )  
  Durkheim perceived the ideas behind the industrial system as possessing an inherent unity  
  7.  THE COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS CONSISTS OF THE KNOWLEDGE, 
BELIEFS, VALUES & NORMS THAT WE HOLD IN COMMON
 
  Collective consciousness is our strongly held common morality
 
  8.  THE CULT OF THE INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTS SOCIETY'S UNPRECEDENTED HIGH LEVEL OF INDIVIDUALISM   
  The cult of the individual is strongly held individual morality  
  Individualism is the opposite of collective consciousness  
  Individualism increases the chance of suicide  
  The cult of the individual was a source of societal disorganization  
  9.  ANOMIE IS A WEAKENED OR ABSENT COMMON MORALITY   
  Anomie is a condition of normlessness in society  
  Durkheim coined term anomie  
  Individuals are confronted w/ anomie when they are faced w/ insufficient moral constraints  
  For Durkheim, anomie is the social condition of a weakened or absent common morality which leads to deviance, crime & possibly even social chaos / revolution  
  Modern society has made old morality obsolete, but new morality is in flux & thus weak or absent  
  Compared to the absolute power of "the old morality" people in modern era do not have a clear concept of what is & is not proper & acceptable behavior  
  10.  INTEGRATION IS THE PROCESS OF BRINGING NEW INDIVIDUALS & SOCIAL PHENOMENA INTO SOCIETY   
  Society is becoming more integrated as it develops internalized social control
 
  Integration is the degree in which collective sentiments are shared; i.e. degree to which people feel part of social groups  
  11.  REGULATION IS THE PROCESS OF CONTROLLING, DIRECTING, OR RULING SOCIETY   
  Regulation is externalized social control
 
  Regulation is the degree of external constraints on people   
  W/o regulation, a person experiences anomie  
  12.  COMMON MORALITY CONSISTS OF THE BELIEFS, VALUES, & NORMS THAT WE HOLD IN COMMON   
  Common morality decreased during the modern era  
  There is a problem w/ maintaining social order  
  Disorder was viewed, generally, as an automatic consequence of an economic system in which every individual pursues his/her own interest unless such a system had a common morality of organic solidarity, the division of labor, etc.  
  See Also:  Durkheim on Crime  
  13.  RELIGION IS A PRIMARY TYPE OF TRADITIONAL COHESION   
  The source of religion is society's shared sentiments  
  The nature of society's religions were also affected by the transition from mechanical solidarity  to [ traditional solidarity ] organic solidarity [ rational solidarity ]
 
 
14.  DURKHEIM OPPOSED POLITICAL SOCIALISM, BUT BELIEVED IN 
A GREATER LEVEL OF COHESION OR COOPERATION IN SOCIETY 
 
  Durkheim's studies of socialism were to be an "analysis of the causes of an idea."  
  Durkheim used the concept of socialism to emphasize or highlight his theoretical scheme  
  While Durkheim was not a socialist in Marxist sense, he, like Weber, is having a debate w/ 'the ghost of Marx'  
  One cannot say merely that Durkheim opposed Marxism because he accepted many basics & rejected many others  
  Durkheim especially opposed any revolutionary doctrine, which he feared would only result in anarchy & moral disruption  
  Durkheim also refused to recognize the class character of society as being center of conflict in society, but did recognize that equalization of classes was necessary  
  In essence, Durkheim synthesized works of St. Simon & Marx  
  15.  OCCUPATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ARE OPTIMAL INSTITUTIONS FOR ACHIEVING SOCIAL REFORM  
  Occupation associations (OAs) are similar to business unions, but have much more authority in the workplace & in society   
  OAs are organizations of professionals in a particular field who organize to advance their own interests & the interests of society  
  Today one of our most powerful OAs is the American Medical Assoc (AMA) which regulates doctors, the healthcare field for the benefit of themselves, the patient, & society as a whole   
  16.  MODERN SOCIETY WAS DISPLACING TRADITIONAL SOCIETY & MECH
SOLIDARITY WAS DISSOLVING, BUT ORGANIC SOLIDARITY IS SLOW TO DEVELOP 
 
  Durkheim viewed the development of the modern era with hope, but later became disillusioned  
  The development of modernity was especially dangerous because it broke down traditional society, which was held together by mechanical solidarity  
  Durkheim believes that modern society is not fully developed, which is a position which Habermas now embraces  
  17.  ORGANIC SOLIDARITY IS NOT TOTALLY IN EFFECT, THEREFORE 
THERE IS A GREAT RISK OF ANOMIE & SOCIAL INSTABILITY 
 
  Because of the transition from tradl soc to mod soc, i.e. the trans from mechanical to organic solidarity, & because societies change at different rates, & because some societies have lost tradl soc but have not adopted mod soc values, we are experiencing a crisis or breakdown   
  At the personal & social level the crisis of the transition from tradl to mod society is experienced as anomie, i.e. an absence of a common morality   
  For the most part Durkheim did support the development of modernity, but after "the Great War" his son was killed & he had great doubts that modern society could ever function as well as traditional society  

 
Top  

Emile Durkheim
1858  -  1917
Born in France 
Resided in Germany
Son died in The Great War
( known today as WW I )
Deeply hurt Durkheim,
Became cynical about society & died soon after

DURKHEIM, Emile (1858-1917). A pioneer social scientist, Emile Durkheim established sociology as a separate discipline, or field of study. He was the first to subject the specific events of everyday life to close sociological study and to determine specific scientific methods of examination. 
   Emile Durkheim was born on April 15, 1858, in Epinal, France. He studied philosophy at the prestigious Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris. Upon graduation in 1882 he taught in secondary schools until 1887, when he was appointed to a lectureship especially founded for him at the University of Bordeaux. This was the first course of social science officially provided in a French university. 
   Durkheim's first book, 'The Division of Labor in Society', published in 1893, focused on the problems of new technology and the mechanization of work. This division of labor, according to Durkheim, made workers both more alien to one another, as their jobs were different, and more dependent on one another, as none any longer built the whole of a product. The methods to be used to examine society in this new discipline Durkheim laid out in 'The Rules of Sociological Method' (1895). 
   His classic 'Suicide' (1897) examines the ties that bind individuals to the society in which they live, and their breakdown. Suicide appeared to be more frequent in societies where individuals are less a part of the life around them, as in modern industrial societies. He distinguished three types of suicide: In egoistic suicide the individual shuts himself off from other human beings. Anomic suicide comes from the belief that the world has fallen apart around one. Altruistic suicide springs from great loyalty to a cause. 
   In 1902 Durkheim was appointed to the University of Paris, becoming a full professor in 1906. He taught there until his death on Nov. 15, 1917. 

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Top  

Major Works of Durkheim
Suicide
The Division of Labor in Society
The Rules of Sociological Method
The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,   1915

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  Durkheim's Mechanical & Organic Solidarity
External
Links
  MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY   
  2a. Mechanical solidarity:  Solidarity is based on the narrow division of labor, which creates relatively high level of independence combined w/ nearly all relationships being primary
 
  In pre industrial societies, mechanical solidarity, i.e. the social forces that held society together consisted of  traditional, unquestioned beliefs  & forced conformity 
 
  Mechanical solidarity had both good & bad aspects
 
  Modern society w/ its high division of labor & large anonymous, urban populations destroyed mechanical solidarity
 
  What holds mechanical society together according to Durkheim?   
  In a mechanical society, i.e. a traditional society,  the bond is that the members of society are engaged in similar activities & have similar responsibilities thus having a common goal & identity  
  Durkheim believes that the process of modernization is the process of replacing mechanical solidarity w/ organic solidarity
 
  ORGANIC SOLIDARITY   
  Organic solidarity is the solidarity based on very broad division of labor, which creates relatively high levels of mutual interdependence combined w/ the fact that nearly all relationships being secondary
 
  Organic solidarity is based on absolute reliance, trust, dependence, & anonymity
 
  The forces of interdependence create a cohesive society
 
  The very nature of large cities, make us all interdependent
 
  Modern society has a much greater & more refined division of labor
 
  People in modern society occupy more specialized positions & have a much narrower range of tasks & responsibilities
 
  What holds organic society together according to Durkheim? 
 
  In an organic society, i.e. modern society,  the bond is that members of society have different tasks & responsibilities to perform that are highly specialized & therefore they need one another to survive
 
  Organic solidarity consists of cohesion based on mutual interdependence & has FOUR features
 
  FEATURES OF ORGANIC SOLIDARITY   
  1.  The division of labor was a central feature in society which created order in modern industrial society 
 
  Durkheim also recognized other factors as crucial to industrial society including professional associations, religion, social boundaries, etc. 
 
  2.  Professional associations are modern soc institutions that allow for rationalization in society & as Weber noted, a system which minimizes the negative effects of oligarchy & alienation 
 
  3.  Religion: For Durkheim, a religion is a reflection of the collective consciousness of the society  
  Thus religion builds solidarity & maintains social order because as people adhere to its tenets, they are affirming the tenets of the society  
  4.  Society creates boundaries / deviants in order to determine what is & what is not acceptable  
  Deviants & criminals are "internal threats" that create social cohesiveness  

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on the  Division of Labor  ( DOL ) 
External
Links
  -  Project:  The Division of Labor, Solidarity, & Social Problems 
Link
 
The division of labor (DOL) is highly specialized economic activity
 
  The DOL is workplace relationship where different workers carry out different steps in producing a product  
 
The DOL is a characteristic of most societies in which different individual or groups specialize in different tasks
 
 
The DOL is the specialization of work tasks, by means of which different occupations are combined w/in a production system
 
  DOL = SPECIALIZATION = EFFICIENCY = COMPLEXITY   
  An example of the DOL can be seen in assembling bicycles in that one person performing all six required steps in assembling a bike, can make one unit in the same amount of time as it takes six people, each specializing in one of the six steps, to make 12 units   
  In 1776 Adam Smith argued that the DOL produces efficiencies because of the increased dexterity of the worker as he or she specializes in one task, because of the time save "in passing from one sort of work to another," and because of the introduction of machinery  
 
All societies have at least some rudimentary division of labor, especially btwn the tasks allocated to men & those allocated to women
 
 
W/ the development of industrialism, however, the DOL becomes vastly more complex than in any prior type of production systems.
 
 
In the modern world, the DOL is international in scope, hence globalization
 
 
The most fundamental change in the nature of work over time has been the increasing DOL
 
  EARLY DOL   
 
In hunter gatherer societies, each member engaged in more or less the full range of work activities except as labor as divided by gender & age
 
 
See Also:  Hunter Gatherer Society  
 
See Also:  Gender in Hunter Gatherer Society  
  It is believed that the earliest form of the DOL was that btwn men & women, & btwn children & adults  
  The child adult DOL began in the hunter gatherer era wherein children would tag along as adults did their tasks, learning the tasks & helping as their skills enabled them to help  
  The child adult DOL continued until factory work began & adults went out of the home to work, whereby child became a consumptive liability for a family rather than a productive asset  
  Until factory work began, the workplace orgl structure was identical w/ the family & extended family grp structure  
 
In the Feudal Era, most workers were in agriculture, but some specialized in a single product & had occupations such as tailors, cobblers, bakers, etc.
 
 
See Also:  The Feudal Era
 
  SDOL   
  The social division of labor (SDOL) is the DOL into different crafts or trades  
  The SDOL began in the Feudal Era, but became widespread in the Early Industrial Age  
 
In modern industrial societies, work has become so specialized that each trade is broken down into seemingly innumerable specialties
 
 
In the meat packing industry one can specialize as a large stock scalper, belly shaver, crotch buster, gut snatcher, gut sorter, snout puller, ear cutter, eyelid remover, stomach washers (sometimes called a belly bumper), hind puller, front leg toenail puller, & oxtail washer (Wilensky & Lebeaux, 1986)
 
 
Specialization creates new lines of work that require new & different skills; however, the DOL often reduces the range of skills needed to perform jobs
 
 
The DOL often results in the deskilling of workers
 
 
For example, a much narrower range of skills is needed to be a "gut snatcher" than a butcher
 
  DOL, INDL REV, BUREAUCRACY   
 
The DOL is a basic feature of industrialization, & the DOL as we know it today developed during the Industrial Revolution
 
 
The limited development of the DOL had occurred in eras previous to the Ind Rev  
 
Bureaucracy had existed in limited forms previous to the Industrial Revolution, but w/ this change, bureaucracy, like the DOL became widespread  
  The DOL is one of the fundamental characteristics of bureaucracy  
  Bureaucracy as we know it could not exist w/o the DOL  
  See Also:  Bureaucracy  
  See Also:  Weber  
  Durkheim held that the DOL is a fundamental, defining feature of modern society  
  Durkheim believes that modern society could not exist w/o the DOL  
  One of Durkheim's most important insights was that the DOL & industrial interdependence, which he characterized as organic solidarity, replaced mechanical solidarity wherein each person / family is relatively independent when compared to today's people  
  See Also:  Durkheim  
  See Also:  Mechanical & Organic Solidarity   
  MDOL   
  Most work in industrial society is organized in terms of the manufacturing DOL (MDOL)  
  Under the MDOL, the different activities in each craft are separated  
  For example a cobbler would make soles, then make tops, & then stitch them together while w/ the MDOL workers would divide these two tasks into many  
  Early scholars of work in the 1800s conducted analyses of labor where they studied craftsmen in order to determine how to divide the labor among unskilled workers  
  The analysis of labor continues today wherein each manufacturer must conduct exhaustive studies to determine the optimal MDOL  
  Analysis of labor consultants often work closely w/ production engineers to optimize the way products are designed so that the components can be efficiently assembled  
  The MDOL often involves the increased efficiencies from the assembly line  
  The DOL allows some workers to be paid less than other workers & has resulted in large, stratified orgs w/ a tall  hierarchy  
  The MDOL creates the preconditions for mechanization  
  Mechanization creates its own MDOL because workers must learn to operate various machines  
  EFFICIENCY VS. ALIENATION   
  Starting w/ Marx, it became well known that an extensive DOL frequently negated some of the increased efficiency because of the alienation & lost enthusiasm of the workers  
  The DOL is administered through direct personal control, foreman control, or technical control  
  See Also:  Workplace Control  
  The DOL reached some limits in the 1970s in that jobs were so finely dissected, & wkrs were so alienated that even mgt sought alternative methods of job org  
  Modern indl society has developed the DOL to such a great extent via Scientific Mgt., bureaucracy, etc. that workers literally go insane  
  Since the 70s, there has been some limited reversal of the trend of an increasing DOL, in some industries such as auto manufacturing  
  In the 2000s, job enlargement & the recognition that "big picture people" give orgs an advantage is more than apparent   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  Goffman on Micro / Macro Integration 
External
Links
 
FOR GOFFMAN, BLUMER, & OTHER MICRO THEORISTS MACRO STRUCTURES EMERGE FROM MICRO PRACTICES; SOC STRUCTURES ARE PATTERNS OF INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS 
 
  Groups, orgs, social structures, societies, etc. are not valid units of study, have no existence beyond mistaken theories, but are the result of habits, or patterns among individuals 
 
  For Goffman & many others, symbolic interactionism & related schools such as dramaturgy are the link btwn the micro & macro 
 
  Goffman criticizes structural functionalists who see deterministic structures as external & coercive to individuals 
 
  In the sense that there are not deterministic, external, coercive structures, we are all totally free 
 
  The rationale of no deterministic structures & total freedom is inherently conservative 
 
  Symbolic interactionism sees structures as acts which are built up by people through their interpretation of the situation 
 
  Goffman accepted Mead's idea of macro structures emerging from micro structures 
 
  a.  by emphasizing that structures are well established & repetitive in form 
 
  b.  because macro structures enable & coerce & are not simply all pervasive 
 
  c.  because all structures must constantly be re-enacted or they will shatter 
 
  d.  because structures leave many unprescribed areas 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on an intro to  Herbert Blumer 
External
Links
Link
-  Biography & Major Works  
  BLUMER COINED THE TERM SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM TO EMPHASIZE THE SOCIAL NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SELF & SOCIETY THROUGH THE USE OF SYMBOLS   
  In 1937,  Blumer coined the term symbolic interactionism  
  Blumer found that there are three types of objects in thought & social interaction  
  - physical  
  - social:  student or mother  
  - abstract:  idea or moral principle  
  The dynamic process of the constitution of thought & social interaction creates a relativistic or subjective view in that different object have different meanings to different people   
  SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST TYPE INTERACTIONS ARE THE LINK BTWN INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, & SOCIETIES BECAUSE THEY AGGREGATE TO FORM RELATIONS THAT ARE QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT THAN A SIMPLE SUM OF INTERACTIONS   
  For Blumer, symbolic interactionism is the link btwn the micro & macro worlds  
  Blumer criticizes structural functionalists who see deterministic structures as external & coercive to individuals  
  Symbolic interactionism sees structures as acts which are built up by people through their interpretation of the situation  
  Blumer accepted Mead's idea of macro structures emerging from micro-structures  
  Blumer emphasized that structures are well established & repetitive in form  
  Structures both enable & coerce & are not all pervasive
 
  Structures must constantly be re-enacted or they will shatter
 
 
Structures leave many unprescribed areas; i.e., social structures do not pervade every sphere of life
 
  BLUMER & SYM - INT BELIEVE THE SELF IS 'RADICALLY FREE;' I.E. CANNOT BE CONSTRAINED BY SOC STRUCTURES   
  Blumer does not take symbolic interactionism into the structural confines of communication, but it gives us the notion of the self as the free creator  
  For Blumer, Mead's conception of the self falls into a description of the I & the Me  
  For Blumer, Mead's Me is the retrospective traces that build up in a person, i.e. our history of adjustment  
  Blumer says that Mills incorrectly interprets one's history of adjustment as the place where structure impacts the person, whereas Blumer emphasized the I as the place where one adjusts & keeps a history of adjustment  
  Blumer is influence by his advisor, Robert Park & the Chicago School, as much as he is by Mead  
  Blumer agreed w/ Park that understanding would make the world better because we can we can get outside of the world through understanding, & we can get outside of ourself by understanding the self  
  But for Mills & Mead we can never get outside it because all we can do is create a different present which is always conditioned by something  
  By emphasizing the I, Blumer breaks free of the notion of constraint minding, & tends more to volitional interactions that we have
 
  By focusing on volitional interactions, Blumer tends toward a more micro system  
  In their time, both Blumer & Mills are taken as alternatives to structural functionalism  
  FOR MILLS, THE ROLES WE EMBRACE ARE PRE CREATED IN EARLIER HIST ERAS, BUT BLUMER NOTES THAT THESE ROLES ARE CREATED & RECREATED IN THE PRESENT   
  For Mills, the roles produced by society are handed over in history, for Blumer the roles produced by society are more parallel, & handed over in that they are created & recreated  in historical contexts  
  The parallel creations of roles are more of a dynamic realignment of behavior & thought than historical processes  
  Blumer gives little consideration to constraint in social action because his notion of S - I is very volunteristic  
  The article by Blumer, "Society as Symbolic Interaction," gives the sense that we act toward things on the basis of meanings  
  As w/ Mead, in acting toward things on the basis of meaning, there is an emphasis of how cognitive definitions of situations are arrived at in inaction w/ other people  
  We develop lines of interpretation & constraint is not considered in the interpretation  
  Compared to Blumer, Mead tends more to the I, but for Blumer the important part of the self is the me, where we jointly interact & find sequences
of interaction
 
  Blumer's self is usually focused on interactions, leaving out history  
  But as Mills notes w/ his conception of the sociological imagination, it is useful to see the interactions & sequences of interactions as constrained by history  
  Goffman's concept of ritual routines combines the concept of the self as constructed by interactions & sequences of interactions, & the constraints of history  
  When we live w/in the constraints of history, they give us the sense of life as inevitably having a past & future, & this sense acts an organizing constraint on the present.   
  BLUMER'S METHODOLOGY IS INDUCTIVE, & NON POSITIVISTIC, I.E. INTERPRETIVE   
  Blumer's major breakthrough is in methodology  
  Blumer developed concepts which sensitized micro sociologists to new points of view  
  Blumer's methods parallels the work of Anselm Straus & Barney Glasser in the Discovery of Grounded Theory, both which advocate the use of inductive methods where researchers explore interactions in order to discover the concepts of sociology  
  Concepts emerge or are derived & are not created then tested  
  Mills notes that S - I is not as radical in its confrontation w/ positivism as are other branches of soci, such as conflict theory  
  Mills uses the more radical potentials of S - I, but Blumer gives S - I a mainstream focus & S - I becomes an alternative to working in mainstream sociological models which were dominated by positivism  
  Blumer's S - I is also seen as an alternative to the quantification of all social relations aspects, i.e. statistical analysis  
  S - I provides a haven for those who do not embrace the concepts of positivism, but does not offer a radical critique of it  
  S - I explores the ability to sensitize oneself to the interpretive perspectives, trying to get into the participants' quality of life as it goes on  
  In Blumer's terms, sensitivity to the interpretive life we all live in is a preface to hypothesis development  
  Thus S - I produces sensitizing concepts getting us closer to what people are in the world so that ultimately once you understand that closeness you can develop statements about the nature of the world  
  The dominant mode of doing sociology from the mid 60s to now is the quantification of social relationships as if they were facts  
  FORMATION OF THE SELF IS THE ALIGNMENT OF MUTUAL DEFINITIONS BY MYSELF & OTHERS   
  For Blumer, it is in the alignment of mutual definitions that we take meaning & adjust our understanding of meaning while for Mead the self is the adjusted summation of the messages given to us from society, generalized others, significant others, & even the self  
  Thus for Blumer, being is more flexible or malleable than it is for Mead  
  For Blumer, our self is the fallout of so many ideas of knowledge about the world  
  Neither Blumer nor Mead deals w/ emotion or the non rationality of the our 'feeling world'  

 
Top
 

Herbert Blumer
 1900 - 1987

Studied under Robert Park

 Born in St. Louis, Missouri; was an American sociologist & a pupil of George Herbert Mead.

When Mead had to give up his position as a lecturer at the University of Chicago due to illness, Blumer took over & continued his work. In his 1937 article "Social Psychology", Blumer coined the term symbolic interactionism & summarized Mead's ideas into three premises:
a. The way people view objects depends on the meaning these things have for them. 
b. This meaning comes about as a result of a process of interaction. 
c. The meaning of an object can change over time. 

In 1952 Blumer became the Chair of the new Sociology department at the University of California, Berkeley. He was secretary treasurer, & later President, of the American Sociological Association. Blumer was presented with the association's Award for a Career of Distinguished Scholarship in 1983.

Anselm Strauss, who worked as a research assistant with Blumer, cofounded grounded theory.

Top
   
Major Works of Blumer

Blumer combined LeBon's & Park's 1939 ideas into his own version of Contagion Theory in "The Field of Collective Behavior."  1969
Movies & Conduct (1933) 
Movies, Delinquency, & Crime (1933) 
The Human Side of Social Planning (1935) 
Social Psychology, Chapter 4 in Emerson Peter Schmidt (ed.) Man & Society: A Substantive Introduction to the Social Science. New York, Prentice Hall (1937) 
Critiques of Research in the Social Sciences: An Appraisal of Thomas & Znaniecki's "The Polish Peasant in Europe & America" (1939) 
Symbolic Interaction: Perspective & Method (1969)


 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on   Ethnomethodology on Micro / Macro Integration 
External
Links
  ETHNOMETHODOLOGY MAINTAINS THAT MICRO RELATIONSHIPS ARE DETERMINATIVE, & SO ACKNOWLEDGE MACRO STRUCTURES, WHILE MAINTAINING THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT THAN MICRO RELATIONSHIPS   
  Ethnomethodology acknowledges the existence of a tension btwn micro & macro structures 
 
  Ethnomethodologists accuse other social scientists as viewing people as judgmental dopes instead of free agents 
 
  Ethnomethodologists do not treat people as judgmental dopes, but people are viewed as exhibiting strong routines & as being relatively unreflective 
 
  For ethnomethodologists, traditional social science views people, not as individuals, but rather strictly & solely in terms of their membership activities; i.e., the activities that they engage in as part of a group, or institution 
 
  Ethnomethodology is seen as connecting micro & macro structures in it's examination of the practices whereby people produce, for themselves & others, large scale orgs, structure, & small scale interactional or personal structure 
 
  For ethnomethodologists, everyday activity produces both micro & macro structures 
 
  Ethnomethodology remains micro extremist, but still reaches for macro integration by addressing how people act in institutions 
 
  Conversational analysis & symbolic interactionism both examine thought via talk in interaction 
 
  Ethnomethodology transcends the micro macro relationship because it is concerned w/ social practices which produce micro & macro structures 
 
  The structures which make-up conversation & the symbolic interactionism of everyday life & the structural phenomena that members orient to & take for granted are the same phenomena 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline an Intro to  John C. Baldwin
External
Links
  BALDWIN HOLDS THAT MEAD DOES COVER MICRO TO MACRO INTERACTIONS & DISCUSSES THE VARIETIES OF INDIVIDUAL & INSTITUTIONAL AGENCY   
  Mead's work is sociologically integrative
 
  Mead covers the full range of micro macro interactions
 
  Mead interweaves contributions from all schools of social science
 
  Mead commits to scientific methods, ensuring all data & theories can be integrated
 
  INDIVIDUAL AGENCY IS THE CAPACITY FOR PEOPLE TO ACT IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL FORCES   
  A micro macro orientation implies agency whereby the actors act w/ both a subjective & objective component 
 
  Agency, acting w/ both a subjective & objective component, results in interaction & patterns
 
  INSTITUTIONAL AGENCY IS THE CAPACITY FOR PEOPLE, AS ORGL ACTORS, TO ACT IN THE ORG'S INTERESTS, OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL FORCES 
 
  Organizations, etc. can act as agents & use & are subject to symbolic interactionist processes such as gestures, impression management, etc.
 
  Organizations, institutions, social movements, social classes, nations, interest groups, races are characterized by subjective processes, & thus are agents
 

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on Coleman on Rational Choice Theory
External
Links
Link
-  Biography & Major Works   
  RCT HOLDS THAT MICRO LEVEL SOCIAL LIFE, I.E. RATIONAL, INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS ARE THE BASIS OF MICRO & MACRO LEVEL SOCIAL LIFE   
  James S. Coleman is considered the father & major contributor to the development of rational choice theory ( RCT ) 
 
  RCT is based in methodological individualism which uses micro level social life to explain macro level social life 
 
  FOUNDATIONS OF RCT
 
  For RCT, the micro level is more important than the macro level because 
 
  a.  this is where data is gathered 
 
  RCT is building up the micro level analysis at the expense of the macro level, ignoring the fact that data on orgs, institutions, structures, etc. is also useful 
 
  b.  this is where interventions are made 
 
  RCT is building up the micro level analysis at the expense of the macro leveling ignoring the fact that changes are also made in orgs, the law, marriage practices, etc.
 
  The key to understanding the link btwn the micro & macro levels is to understand that in any particular situation, one level may dominate, but that the two levels always have a mutually reinforcing relationship
 
  See Also:  The Into to Micro / Macro Integration  
  RCT HOLDS THAT ACTORS MAXIMIZE UTILITY, ARE RATIONAL, HAVE GOALS, USE RESOURCES, DEVELOP SYSTEMS, MACRO LEVEL STRUCTURES EMERGE, WHERE ACTORS MAX UTILITY FOR THE LARGER SOCIAL UNIT   
  The fundamental principles of RCT include
 
  1.  Actors seek to maximize utility, i.e. satisfy needs & wants
 
  2.  Actors are rational, not expressive
 
  RCT holds that irrational action does exist, but it is insignificant & overwhelmed by rational action, but many theorists believe this is clearly wrong, believing instead that few people, orgs, or structures are rational
 
  Theorists who disagree w/ RCT on the rationality of actors include Freud, Durkheim, the post modernists & others
 
  Many other theorists belief that rationality is not a given, but it is emerging in the modern era
 
  3. Actors act purposively toward a goal, which is shaped by values or preferences
 
  4. Resources are things over which actors have control
 
  5. Systems consist of structures where two or more actors have control over resources of interest to others
 
  6. The macro level is emergent in that it emerges from patterns of action at the micro level
 
  7. Structures function independently of the actors
 
  8. To understand social action, the theorist should keep levels or types of micro level rational choice interactions constant & generate from these the various macro level phenomena
 
  9. The linkage btwn the individual & structure is the individuals granting of authority & rights to another  
  10. In structures, instead of maximizing one's own interests, one seeks to realize the interests of another  
Link
Realizing the interests of another may be a goal for an actor in RCT for a number of reasons  
 
THE MAJOR CRITIQUE OF RCT IS THAT ACTORS ARE NOT RATIONAL & DO NOT HAVE GOALS
 
  Ritzer's critique of RCT is that causality moves primarily from the individual actor to the structural actor, ignoring the dialectical relationship btwn micro & macro   
  Another common critique of RCT is that actors attempt rationality, but often don't attain it because of lack of knowledge, the power of others, lack of resources, etc.  
  Post modernists, et al, critique RCT by noting that it is not only purposes, values, preferences in which irrationality resides; irrationality may reside in the most "rational of systems" such as the modern bureaucracy; e.g. Hitler's genocide bureaucracy  
  Collective behavior theorists note that people transfer control to another, unilaterally, not as part of exchange, and that people in a crowd often appear to act irrationally  
  However, even the irrationality of mob violence is questioned by some theorists who note that many people in a riot or a social movement hope to gain something, even if they must make the ultimate sacrifice & act altruistically  
  Individual maximization of utility does not necessarily lead to system equilibrium  
 
NORMS & VALUES MAY EMERGE RATIONALLY BUT OVER TIME ACTORS FORGET THE PURPOSE & SO FOLLOW THEM NON RATIONALLY 
 
  See Also:  Norms & Values  
  RCT says traditional sociology does not explain the emergence of norms & values  
  Traditional sociology says norms are socialized in & internalized through patterned rewards & punishments; then we forget the origin & they become a habit  
  RCT holds that norms are initiated by people who are willing to give up some control & in the process gain some control via norms over others  
  It is in the interest of some actors to have others internalize their norms  
  Marx holds that, in general, the people internalize the norms of the upper class  
  Norms are macro level & come into existence on the basis of micro purposive action  
  As differentiated from collective behavior theory, actors gain control over others via norms  
  For RCT, gaining control over others via norms is not a mutual exchange, it's unilateral, but it is in equilibrium  
  The power of norms lies in the ability to enforce consensus  
  CONFLICT IS RATIONAL IN THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE ARE PURSUING THEIR OWN INTERESTS   
  Conflict occurs because actors may pursue purposes at variance w/ others' interests  
  Conflict may exist at the micro level, or micro to macro, or macro to macro  
  Especially in modern society, a large fraction of rights & resources reside in corporate actors  
  Control by corporate actors is a key shift in society:  
  RCT notes that emergence of corporate actors as "natural persons" is a modern phenomenon  
  RCT asks, "How are we to judge the emergence of major corporate actors?"   
  Theorists should postulate (assume) that individuals are sovereign, i.e. have the maximum level of rights & evaluate social systems from that point of view  
  Old corp actors are being steadily replaced by new, purposively constructed, freestanding corp actors  
  There is a progressive unbundling of activities that were once tied together within primordial structures, e.g. the family, the workplace, religion, the military, etc.  
  The structural unbundling has left a series of voids that have not been fulfilled by the new structures  
  A major issue today is how to ensure corporate social responsibility  
  Corps may gain social responsibility by internal reforms or by changing external structures such as laws  
  The goal of Coleman's work is to construct a viable social structure commensurate w/ primordial structures  
 
The goal of Coleman's work is not to destroy new structures, but to realize opportunities & avoid problems  
  The goal of RCT is similar to Durkheim, et al, in that Durkheim's concern was how to transition from  traditional society to modern society, & keep the best of both, & avoid anomie, i.e. normlessness, in the interim  

 
Top
 
Reasons to pursue the interests of another include:

Habit:  we are indoctrinated to do so
In our society, if we work for someone, & do well for them, we assume our reward will be forthcoming in the form of pay, a raise, status, etc.


 
Top
 

James S. Coleman
1926  -  1995

James S. Coleman was an Am sociologist. He was a sociological theorist, who studied the sociology of ed, public policy, & was one of the earliest users of the term "social capital". His Foundations of Social Theory stands as one of the most important sociological contributions of the late 20th century.

Coleman received his bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering from Purdue U in 1949, & received his Ph.D. from Columbia U in 1955, where he stood under the influence of Paul Lazarsfeld. He achieved renown with 2 studies on problem solving: He taught at Stanford U, the U of Chicago, at Johns Hopkins U (1959-1973), & then again at Chicago, where he directed the National Opinion Research Center. In 1991 Coleman was elected President of the ASA.

Top
   
Major Works of James S. Coleman

Union Democracy (1956, with Seymour Martin Lipset) 
The Adolescent Society (1961) 
Introduction to Mathematical Sociology (1964) 
Equality of Educational Opportunity (1966) 
Mathematics of Collective Action (1973).
Youth: Transition to Adulthood (1973) 
High School Achievement (1982) 
Individual Interests and Collective Action (1986) 
Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action, article in American Journal of Sociology 91: 1309-1335 (1986). 
Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, article in American Journal of Sociology 94, pp. 95-120 (1988). 
Foundations of Social Theory (1990)

Wiki

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  Burt's Structural Theory of Action
External
Links
  ACTORS INITIATE ACTION & SOCIAL STRUCTURES EXIST ONLY AS A CONTEXT & THUS ARE LESS DETERMINATIVE THAN MICRO LEVEL PHENOMENON   
  Ronald Burt notes that there are multiple approaches to network analysis 
 
  Burt notes that there is a schism w/in action theory btwn the "atomistic" & "normative" orientations 
 
  The atomistic orientation assumes that alternative actions are evaluated independently by the separate actors so that decisions are made w/o reference to the other actors 
 
  The normative orientation views separate actors w/in a system as having interdependent interests as social norms generated by actors socializing one another 
 
  Burt develops a third approach that attempts to bridge this schism which he calls the structural perspective 
 
  The marginal evaluation, the criterion assumed by the structural perspective, is an actor's status or role set as generated by the division of labor 
 
  An actor evaluates the utility of alternative actions partly in regard to his personal conditions and partly in regard to the conditions of others 
 
  For Burt, actors are purposive under social structural constraints 
 
  Burt's position that actors are purposive under social structural constraints is similar to Marx's when he says, 'actors make history, but not under conditions of their own choosing'   
  Actors find themselves in a social structure 
 
  The social structure defines actors' social similarities
 
  Thus, the social structure defines social similarities which pattern their perspective of the advantages & disadvantages of each alternative 
 
  Thus, the interaction of the social structure, social similarities, perspectives, & alternatives each constrain the actor's decision or action 
 
  In relation to Burt & structural theory, actions are a joint function of actor's pursuing their interests to the limit of their ability where both interests & abilities are patterned by social structure which is primarily structured by the actor's perception of how significant coactors will react to the decision 
 
  Actions taken under social structural constraint can modify the social structure itself 
 
  The modification of the social structure by the actors' actions can create new constraints 
 
Link
See the Figure on Burt's Integrative Model of Action   

 
Top
 
Figure
Burt's Integrative Model of Action holds that:

1.  Social Structure defines the Actors social similarities, which in turn pattern their perceptions of the advantages to be had by taking any of several alternative actions and differentially constrains Actor's ability to take actions
 

3.  Actor's Interests themselves are patterned by Social Structure (2.), psychological factors, other people, etc.
 

5.  Actions are a joint function of Actor's Interests (4.) & the Social Structure's constraining oe enabling features (6.)
 

7.  Action itself may have an impact on the Social Structure
 

Much of social theory only considers Actor's Interests as impacting Action & does not include that they may also impact social structure, the interests themselves, & future actions:  3. -->  4.  -->  5. 


 
Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Importance of Organizational Studies or Why Study Organizations?
External
Links
  -  Project:  Why Study Orgs? 
Link
  -  Video:  Office Space 
Link
  INTRODUCTION   
 
 Organizations are simply people in relatively fixed social relationships 
 
 
Orgs are reified, i.e. abstract relationships endowed w/ "life, reality, etc."   
 
In the sense that organizations are made of people, equipment, & buildings, there really are organizations 
 
 
In the sense that organizations are made of social relationships, there really are no organizations, only people, equipment, & buildings   
 Link
There are NINE reasons organizational studies are important   
  1.  ORG'S IMPORTANCE IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED  
Link
The importance of orgs & org studies is widely recognized   
  2.  ALL SOCIAL LIFE OCCURS IN ORGS   
  Nearly all life & social action takes place in orgs:   Orgs, orgs, everywhere...  
  "I am a rock.... I am an iiiiiiiisland"-- NOT! (w/ apologies to Simon & Garfunkel)
Almost all human activity takes place in orgs:      birth, play, work, marriage, education, taxes, death
Orgs have outcomes for individual & for other orgs & societies
We spend most of every day in orgs
 
  3.  ORGS LINK THE PERSONAL & THE SOCIAL  
Link
Org studies address one of the major problems in the social sciences, i.e., the micro / macro problem
 
  Orgs are crucial part of micro / macro connection because they actually connect individuals w/ the larger world  
  Mid range theory addresses issues of everyday life, as does micro level theory, but instead of focusing on the individual, mid range theory focuses on everyday life at the group, organizational & structural level  
 
Orgs are the link btwn individual & the world, btwn biography & history 
 
  Orgs are a social tool for development the sociological imagination  
 
See Also:  the Micro / Macro Problem  
  4.  SOCIAL STRUCTURES ARE DETERMINANTS OF SOCIAL LIFE, & THEY ARE MADE OF ORGANIZATIONS   
 
Social structures represent the way we usually do things such as raise a family or get an education & changing the family is nearly impossible & the changing educational system is very difficult   
Link
5.  THE RELATIONSHIP BTWN ORGS & STRATIFICATION SUGGESTS THAT WEALTH, POWER, STATUS, ETC. ARE DISSEMINATED THROUGH ORGS  
 
Thus orgs are the means by which we socially measure, or rank, people
 
 
Stratification is social process where scarce social & physical resources such as wealth, income, power, status, etc. are non randomly distributed among members, groups, classes etc. of society  
Link
6.  MOST SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAVE AN ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT   
  The discussion of many social problems is unrealized because they are not recognized as orgl problems such as control of the police, prisons, the military, etc. 
 
  There is little recognition of orgl constraints in many problems; e.g., changing the US environmental problem requires changes in the orgl structure of the EPA, the USFS, & more orgs   
Link
7.  ORGANIZATIONS ARE A TOOL FOR SOCIAL CHANGE  
 
Social change comes through organizations 
Orgs respond to social problems & to their environment 
 
 
While organizations are inherently conservative, they are also the locus of social change 
 
 
See Also:  Social Change   
 
See Also:  Social Movements   
 
See Also:  The Importance of Soc Mvmts   
  8.  ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE SOURCE OF CATASTROPHIC HUMAN ERRORS  
  See Also:  Perrow:  Normal Accidents
 
  Errors come not only from "operator error" but because of "systemic or organizational problems" such as a chain or cascade of errors, orgl myopia that chooses not to see problems, etc.   
  We accept larger accidents, i.e. normalize them, everyday  
Link
9.  THE GOVT RULES & MISRULES THROUGH ORGANIZATIONS   
  Govts / public orgs are more often seen as being harmful as a result of inaction, as opposed to their actions
 
  In Love Canal, a city near Niagara Falls, NY,  the govt denied the effects of toxic wastes buried under a subdivision   

 
Top  
1. The importance of orgs is widely recognized

Many sociologists & leaders recognize the imp of orgs
Who's Who in Orgl Analysis?
Many sociologists & leaders recognize the importance of orgs
Sociologists & Orgs:
Classical

  •   Weber
  •   Michels
  •   Mannheim

  • Modern
  • Blau
  • Gouldner
  • Etzioni
  • Goffman
  • Herbert Simon
  • Collins:  'Org'l analysis has made more progress in accumulating explanatory knowledge than perhaps any 

  •     other part of sociology'
    Leaders:
    (we did not have society as we know it until we advanced beyond tribal orgs)
    Pharaohs
    Persians
    Greeks
    Rome:  Caesar
    The Popes
    Kings & Queens of Western societies
    What do leaders do?  They organize
    Org members  do things? 

     
    Top  
    3. The micro / macro problem

    Micro macro problem
    Structure:  the macro ordering of micro processes
    Durkheim & Marx had little orgl theory         Both had micro & macro theory
    Durkheim:  ritual density model on micro level        Div of labor model at macro
    Marx:  alienation of species being as micro- problem
    Political  economy as macro
    Both could not connect this, hence problems of

  • Reification of social structure
  • Romanticization of personal relationships

  • Orgl Analysis lets us conceptualize macro orgs from micro interactions
    First level:  orgs:  UVW, McDonalds, Norton Community Hospital...
    Next level is interorg relations, which is itself a 'mega - org' networks of ed orgs, bus orgs....:
    Networks of el schools, mid schools, HS, Community College, Un &  network of all of them.....
    Next  is 'social structure:'  family, ed, econ....
    Next  is society:  Western, Eastern....   Am, UK, Japan....
    Next:  World systems:  development & interaction of societies

     
    Top  
    5. Orgl stratification
  •   income/wealth
  •   race
  •   gender
  •   status....

  • Example:  Macro:  social classes are based on (control) positions w/in orgs (including ownership)
    State is center for political control & a prop for the property system & a locus of struggle
    Capitalism itself is a kind of interorganizational network
    Society, the World System runs via orgs
    Example:  Micro:  where I end up in my org (wk) is a primary determinant of my income (class) & status

     
    Top  
    6. All social problems have an  organizational component Most social issues in sociology are orgl problems
     
    deviance discrimination:  gender, race....
    police control of the military
    corrections environmental degradation
    medical sociology / epidemiology operation of democracy
    educational problems urban

     
    Top  
    7. Organizations are a tool for social change
    See Perrow, 1984 for example of orgl analysis & public issues from R Collins:  Theoretical Sociology, 1988, p. 450

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on an Introduction to  Herbert Marcuse  1898 - 1979
    External
    Links
    Link
    -  Biography & Major Works   
      THERE ARE BOTH CULTURAL & ECONOMIC CONTRADICTIONS, & AS A CRITICAL THEORIST, MARCUSE FOCUSES ON THE CULTURAL MORE THAN THE ECONOMIC SPHERE OF SOCIETY   
      Critical theorists are pessimistic especially on such phenomenon as Weber's iron cage of rationality through which  rationality, bureaucracy, etc. will come to dominate every facet of the world   
      The content of Western culture is such that for most people, Western society appears to lack internal econ contradictions   
      The cultural belief that there are no econ contradictions parallels the belief that the world has benefited from capitalism, ignoring the oppressiveness of the system   
      Critical theory takes Marx in a subjective / non material direction   
      TECHNOLOGY IS NOT NEUTRAL & THEREBY MAY BE USED TO FOSTER TOTALITARIANISM, OR FREEDOM  
      For Marcuse, technology is never neutral, it is either oppressing or liberating   
      The utilization of technology today is leading to totalitarianism   
      Through technology, new, more pleasant but effective methods of control are being developed such as TV, mass sports, sex-ploitation, the internet, etc.   
     
    Marcuse's understanding of technology, technical knowledge, tools, the media, space travel, computers, cloning, etc. is imp for Habermas in his understanding of instrumental knowledge & it's relationship to humanistic knowledge & critical knowledge in that the former is independent of the later   
     
    Marcuse & Habermas are in agreement that technological knowledge, which Habermas calls instrumental knowledge, can not be neutral, & Habermas also notes that there is a particular area of knowledge concerning the nature of & achievement of freedom, liberation, agency, etc.   
     
    POPULAR CULTURE CAN CREATE A ONE DIMENSIONAL SOCIETY WHERE-IN SOCIETAL FACTORS ARE OVER-SIMPLIFIED / IGNORED   
      In his One Dimensional Society, Marcuse critiques "pop culture" & the "culture industry"   
      The culture industry is a relatively new sector of the economy which produces mass or popular culture   
      Mass culture is administered, non spontaneous, reified, phony culture, rather than the real thing   
      Marcuse's critique of pop culture holds that:   
      a.  pop culture is false, does not represent reality, is "idealized" & is a constructed ideology   
      b.  pop culture is pacifying, repressive, & stupefying   
      Kellner opposes Marcuse by noting that the media is not monolithic because the media does critique society too   
      For Kellner, TV, the music industry, etc. may be a threat but it is also an opportunity for those seeking social change   
      Mother Jones demonstrated the power of culture in her quote, 'If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution!' 
     
      Demonstrating the indirect power of culture, in Sept., 1997, Ted Turner gives $1b to UN because ‘It was just one of those things that popped into my head.... & $1b is a nice round number.’ 
     
      Marcuse, like Gramsci & many other neo Marxists, notes that there are both economic & cultural contradictions in modern capitalism   
      America appears to lack internal economic contradictions because the world has benefited from capitalism 
     
      But yet the system is oppressive   
     
    GLOBALIZED CORPS HAVE CREATED A GLOBALIZED POP CULTURE WHICH CREATES A PLIABLE POPULACE & A BENIGN VIEW OF ECON DEVELOPMENT / EXPLOITATION   
     
    Recall, ideology is part of culture & is therefore a system of knowledge & beliefs which serve to justify / legitimize social arrangements   
      Marx gave ideology radical implications   
      Marcuse explores the content & process of how owners / controllers of social institutions disseminate ideology   
      For Marcuse, the ultimate effect is that people dominate themselves in the name of larger social structure, i.e. for the job, because everyone else does it, etc.  
     
    MARCUSE APPLIED FREUD'S IDEAS TO POP CULTURE, NOTING THAT EXPLOITATION CREATES REPRESSED EMOTIONS & THUS PSYCL PROBLEMS ARE LINKED TO SOC RELATIONSHIPS   
      Marcuse applied Freud's ideas to popular culture & the lack of class consciousness or a social revolution   
      a.  Marcuse believes that social theory needs a base of psychological theory   
      Marx began w/ an analysis of "species being" which is an exploration of humanities fundamental nature   
      Marx bases his theory on his 'labor' centered theory of human nature 
     
      Parsons theorizes that the basis of action is found in the behavioral organism   
     
    The attempts by these theorists, & others, to base or found social theory in psychology is one model of reality which bridges both:   
      -  the micro macro chasm, &   
      -  the agency structure dichotomy   
      b.  Marcuse notes that many psychopathologies originate w/in society:  depression / alienation; obesity & anorexia / consumerism; etc.   
      c.  A failure to develop revolutionary consciousness is a failure to embrace our higher nature, as posited by humanistic psychology & it conception of self actualization   
      d.  For Marcuse, people can develop psychological liberation even in the middle of an oppressive society, & these psychologically liberated people can aid others   
      Marcuse applied Marx's dialectical materialism to culture & ideology   
      Dialectics:  conditions sew the seeds of their own change: 
    - current situation has weaknesses & strengths 
    - new situation develops to overcome weaknesses 
    - new situation has weaknesses & strengths  - etc. 
          Thesis:  anti-thesis:  synthesis 
     
     
    Marcuse believes the social sciences should focus on the totality & interdependence of social life 
     
      In this way, the current situation of the domination through ideology & popular culture, which is the thesis, will become apparent to more people   
      As a critical mass of people become aware of domination through ideology & popular culture, they will forge an alternative, which is the antithesis, which will become apparent & utilized to masses of people   
     
    As the new, alternative ideology & popular culture becomes mainstream, a new ideology & popular culture forms a class consciousness, which is the synthesis 
     
      See Also:  Douglas Kellner on Marcuse   

     
    Top
     

    Herbert Marcuse
    1898 - 1979
    American political philosopher; 
    b. Germany. 
    Founder Frankfurt Institute of Social Research
    Fled from Nazis (1934) to US
    Taught at Harvard & other universities before becoming (1965) 
         professor of philosophy at University of California at San Diego
    Known for his synthesis of Marxist & Freudian theory
    He was a hero to American radicals of the 1960s
    Top
       
    Major Works of Marcuse
    Marcuse, Herbert: Negations (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968).
    Marcuse, Herbert: Reason & Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1941; reprinted Boston: Beacon Press, 1960).
    Marcuse, Herbert: Eros & Civilization (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955).
    Marcuse, Herbert: Soviet Marxism (New York: Columbia University Press 1958; second edition 1988).
    Marcuse, Herbert: One Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964; second edition, 1991).
    Marcuse, Herbert: An Essay on Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969).
    Marcuse, Herbert: Counterrevolution & Revolt (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972).
    Marcuse, Herbert: Studies in Critical Philosophy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973).
    Marcuse, Herbert: The Aesthetic Dimension (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978).
    References & Further Reading
    Alford, C. Fred: Science & the Revenge of Nature: Marcuse & Habermas (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1985).
    John Bokina & Timothy J. Lukes, editors, Marcuse: New Perspectives (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1994).
    Institut fÄr Sozialforschung: Kritik und Utopie im Werk von Herbert Marcuse (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1992).
    Kellner, Douglas: Herbert Marcuse & the Crisis of Marxism (London & Berkeley: Macmillan & University of California Press, 1984).
    Lukes, Timothy J.: The Flight Into Inwardness: An Exposition & Critique of Herbert Marcuse's Theory of Liberative Aesthetics (Cranbury, N.J., London, & Toronto: Associated Un Presses, 1986).
    Robert Pippin, et al, editors, Marcuse. Critical Theory & the Promise of Utopia (South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey, 1988).
    Kellner.  Illuminations Website

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Figurations
    External
    Links
      -  Project:  Your Figurations 
    Link
      THE CONCEPT OF FIGURATIONS EMBODY THE IDEA THAT SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD AS A WEB OF INTERDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIPS WHERE AT A PARTICULAR TIME, A PARTICULAR RELATIONSHIP MAY BE MORE DETERMINATIVE THAN OTHERS   
      The challenge of social science, of the micro / macro question is to resist t he socially conditioned pressure to split & polarize our conception of mankind, which has repeatedly prevented us from thinking of people as individuals at the same time as thinking of them as societies 
     
      Figuration is a process of the interweaving of people who are interrelationships that are btwn & coercive of individuals 
     
      People are not structures that are external to & coercive of relationships btwn people 
     
      Individuals are open & interdependent; figurations are made up of such individuals 
     
      Power is central to social figurations, which are, as a result constantly in flux 
     
      Figurations are characterized as being a process of fluctuating interrelationships w/ tensile equilibrium, a balance of power 
     
      Figurations emerge & develop, but in largely unseen & unplanned ways 
     
      Figurations occur at both the micro & macro levels & to every social phenomenon btwn those 2 poles 
     
      Figurations are applied to small grps as well as to societies made up of thousands or millions of interdependent people 
     
      FIGURATIONS EXIST ON ALL LEVELS FROM THE MICRO TO THE MACRO, & THEY CANNOT BE PERCEIVED DIRECTLY  
      All relationships from small grps to orgl relationships, to structures & institutions have figurations which cannot be perceived directly 
     
      The chains of interdependence which link mid to macro level social phenomenon together are longer & more differentiated than micro level figurations 
     
      Figurations do not exist btwn the individual & society 
     
      Figurations occurs btwn people perceived as individuals & people perceived as society 
     
      Both individuals & society & other macro level phenomenon involve people, human relationships 
     
      Individuals are open to, & interrelated w/ other individuals   
      Understanding the how & why people are bound together in chains of interdependence or figurations is the goal of social science   
      Social scientists & everyday people generally have images of single human beings each of who is independent of others, as individuals in themself   
      The individualist image of people is not accurate because we are interdependent & open to many figurations   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on the  Micro Figurations 
    External
    Links
      MICRO FIGURATIONS, I.E. INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL HABITS, MANNERS, ETIQUETTE, PRACTICES, ETC. ALL HAVE DEEP ROOTS & HAVE GENERALLY CONTROLLED MORE OF OUR BEHAVIOR   
      Elias is concerned w/ the development of civilization, i.e. the process of civilizing, the 'socio genesis' of civilization in the West by analyzing the figurations which are constructed & perceived as civilized, & paralleling that, the analysis of those 'uncivilized' figurations which are eliminated / no longer accepted in society 
     
      People & societies in the West have civilized through very gradual changes which take place in the behavior & psychological makeup of people 
     
      The gradual changes in behavior & psychological makeup of people is a micro level analysis & later Elias examines macro figurations 
     
      Micro figurations examine the connections btwn changes in the structure of society & the changes in the structure of behavior & psycl makeup
     
      Micro figurations emerge as gradual, histl transformations of a variety of very mundane behaviors in the directions f what we now call civilized behavior, although there are also periods of 'decivilization' 
     
      While the beginning of the civilizing process & 'civilization' is lost in the fog of time & began before recorded hist, it is possible to examine figurations of particular eras, but it must be acknowledged that these segments of figurations also have histl roots 
     
      Thus practices, structures, i.e. figurations which began 100 k yrs ago in hunter gather society, or those that began in ancient times can be followed / analyzed so that we can understand how they created our practices, structures, figurations today 
     
      Elias begins w/ examining the mundane / everyday life practices of manners as related to table manners, natural functions, & sexual practices 
     
      Civilization involves a change in the way human drives are controlled, & the social science concern w/ drives is generally contained in a micro level analysis 
     
      There is a mvmt from either a relative absence of control, or largely eternal control, to the more contemporary situation in which the emphasis is on self control 
     
      The civilizing process does not occur in a straight line; rather there are many forward, backward, & even sideways mvmts 
     
      Control is cultivated in the individual from an early age as habitual self restraint by the structure of social life, by the pressure of social institutions in general, Y by certain executive structures of society, esp the family
     
      The social commands & prohibitions of society increasingly become part of the self 
     
      The micro formations of manners & sexual practices are constructed into our personality structure as we are socialized to obey rather than forced to obey as in earlier hist periods 
     
      MANNERS ARE MICRO FIGURATIONS WHICH BOTH REFLECT & ADVANCE THE CONTROL OF THE INDIVIDUAL   
      Table manners btwn the 13th & 19th centuries have evolved so that the threshold of embarrassment has gradually advanced   
      What people did at the table w/ little or no embarrassment in the 13th C would cause much embarrassment today   
      What is distasteful is, over time, increasingly likely to be removed to behind the scenes of the typical everyday life   
      Today we do not put bones back on the serving dish, we do not poke our ears or nose, we do not burp out loud, etc.   
      W/ serious offenses like these eliminated, society moved on to defining other, less serious behaviors as uncivilized   
      Changes in manners are not made rationally   
      The source of changes in manners is more in emotions than in rational considerations   
      For Elias, the attempts by some social scientists to locate the changes in manners as an improvement in hygiene, which adds to the survival rate of civilized participants, as a rationalization of manners because people had no understanding of these medical / hygienic reasons   
      For Elias, changes in manners are not brought about consciously, but rather emerge unconsciously   
      People did not at some past time intend this change, this 'civilization' & gradually realize it by conscious, 'rational,' purposive measures   
      But manners do generally emanate from a single sources such as the high society of the French royal court   
      MANNERS CONCERNING BODILY FUNCTIONS SEEK TO CONTROL NOT ONLY THOSE FUNCTIONS BUT ALSO CREATE A CULTURE OF CONTROL  
      Manners concerning natural body functions abound in the past, the present, & will continue into the future   
      Farting was discussed as an issue of manners in the 14th C, & it was recommended that it be done as subtly as possible because it was unhealthy to suppress it   
      Elias contends that today, no etiquette about farting is opening discussed because 'everybody knows it is not acceptable'   
      The suppression of farting & even the discussion of the etiquette of farting demonstrates that the 'frontier of embarrassment' has been moved back so that things that could be discussed in the past, cannot be discussed today  
      The control of farting & all other impulses related to natural functions, as well as other impulses, reflects the general trend of controlling impulses & the trend of high society establishing these controls & then passing them down to the lower classes of society   
      Like farting, nose blowing has increasingly been restricted   
      The 'conspiracy of silence,' i.e. the inability to allow natural body functions & to allow discussion of natural body functions is spreading   
      As the conspiracy of silence expands, so to the 'shame frontier' has 'progressed'  as more & more walls are erected btwn people so that things formerly could be done in the presence of others are now hidden from view   
      MANNERS CONCERNING SEXUALITY ALSO DEMONSTRATE A GENERAL CULTURE OF CONTROL  
      Manners concerning sexual practices abound in the past, the present, & will continue into the future   
      In that sexuality is a natural body function, the same figurations that were constructed around farting & nose blowing were also constructed around sexuality   
      While in the mid ages, after a dinner party, people might sleep together in the main room, some of them naked, this behavior is considered deviant today   
      In the mid ages, there as a stronger norm demanding the consummation of the marriage, i.e. that the newly weds should have sex on their wedding night to solidify the marriage bond   
      To enforce the consummation norm, the wedding party might take the newly weds to the bedroom, disrobe them & put them in bed   
      Today there is less enforcement of the consummation norm in that the honey mooners typically go away together; however, it is assumed that their isolation from family & the wedding party does give them the privacy to consummate the marriage, & it would be deviant to not have sex on the wedding night   
      For Elias, sexual practices have been taken out of the larger society & enclosed in the nuclear family   
      The civilizing of sexuality runs parallel to those of other drives as we see self control grow ever greater   
      The instinct is slowly but progressively suppressed from the public life of society   
      The constraint of sexuality & other bodily functions is enforced less & less by direct physical force  
      A CRITIQUE OF ELIAS' MICRO FORMATIONS SHOWS THAT HIS EVIDENCE IS FLAWED ANTHROPOLOGICALLY, HE IGNORES THE RISE & FALL OF PATRIARCHY & IT'S EFFECT ON MANNERS & SEXUALITY   
      Elias assumes that we have increasing control in relation to nearly all manners, sexuality, & other human practices; however, anthropological & histl evidence evidence both suggest that humans always existed in a strong web of norms around these customs & behaviors   
      Children have been socialized to follow norms via internal control throughout time & external control has always supplemented this control   
      For example, our relations w/ pets, the very existence of pets has been regulated from ancient to modern times by both internal norms, as well as by customs & even laws   
      Patriarchy arose around 10 K BC, & in order form men to control women & paternity, they found it expedient to control many bodily & social functions   
      Sexuality was increasingly controlled as patriarchal control expanded until the mid ages, but since that time patriarchy & the limitation of sexuality have been reduced   
      Sexuality has transformed from it's ultimate patriarchal form where sex was only allow btwn one man & one woman in marriage only for procreation   
      Today recreational sex is common & the varieties of sexual practices are expanding   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Macro Figurations 
    External
    Links
      MACRO FIGURATIONS DEVELOP AS FIGURATIONS, I.E. WEBS OF RELATIONSHIPS, IN THAT THESE RELATIONSHIPS EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF MICRO RELATIONSHIPS & HAVE WEB TENTACLES IN THE PAST & PRESENT 
     
      A micro figuration analysis of manners must be understood w/ a parallel macro figuration analysis of the structures of personality & society which evolve in indissoluble interrelationships 
     
      One must understand that  both psycho genetic & socio genetic social forces combine to create our everyday experience of life   
      While Elias notes that micro & marco figuration analysis must be understood together, Ritzer contends that this is not true micro / macro integration 
     
      While self constraint is the foundation of the micro figurations of society, one must temper this w/ the macro level analysis that macro figurations impact or structure the development & practice of the micro figurations of self constraint 
     
      The micro figuration of many single plans & actions give rise to changes & patterns that no individual person has planned or created
     
      Because of our interdependence arises an order which is independent of micro figurations, an order more compelling & stronger than the will & reason of the individuals composing it
     
      The order of interweaving human impulses & strivings, determines the course of histl change, underlying the civilizing process 
     
      Elias' understanding of the micro / macro question is similar to that of many micro level theorists such as Goffman & Blumer who see social structures as merely the result of the over determination inherent in an almost infinite number of micro relationships, which continually & individually compel particular cultural practices 
     
      However, Elias' macro figurations goes beyond this typical micro level analysis by supplementing it w/ Durkheim's demonstration of how an increasing division of labor has created an increased interdependence which creates organic or voluntary social relations as compared to the enforced, mechanical relations of traditional / ancient societies 
     
      Macro figurations are created not only by a single state society, but by the social field formed by a specific group of interdependent societies, & of the sequential order of its evolution 
     
      Macro figurations have formed as we have lengthened our chains of dependence w/ more & more people 
     
      Each individual in society is now dependent on more people than they were in the past as a result of the expansion of the division of labor 
     
      In ancient & traditional societies, individuals & families carried out more of the labor that allowed them to exist such as growing food or making clothing 
     
      Today, we specialize, earn money & use that money to buy food & clothes, thus making us dependent on more people 
     
      Social functions have become more differentiated under the pressure of competition
     
      The more differentiated they become, the larger the number of functions & thus of people on who the individual depends 
     
      As more people attune their conduct to others, a web of actions must be organized more strictly & accurately if each individual action is to fulfill its social function   
      The individual is compelled to regulate her conduct in an increasingly differentiated, more even & stable manner  
      The more complex & stable control of conduct is instilled in the individual from her earliest yrs as an automatism, a self compulsion that she cannot resist even if we consciously wishes to   
      Macro figurations, the lengthening of the chains of social action & interdependence contributes to the need for individuals to moderate their emotions by developing the habit of connecting events in terms of chains of cause & effect   
      THE DEVELOPMENT OF MACRO FIGURATIONS ARE SEEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE AS FIGURATIONS EMERGED FROM MORE INDIVIDUALISTIC FEUDALISM TO MODERN GOVTS W/ MORE INTERDEPENDENCIES  
      In addition to the macro figurations of interdependence / differentiation of social functions caused by the division of labor, is the macro figuration of the development of the state, i.e. of a stable, central organ of society that monopolizes the means of physical force & of taxation   
      The emergence of the modern state represents the evolution of the concentration of social power resulting in the total reorganization of the social fabric   
      Crucial to the develop of the state was the emergence of a king w/ absolute status, as well as of the court society in what Elias calls a 'royal mechanism'  
      Kings emerge in a specific figuration where competing functional groups are ambivalent characterized by both mutual dependency & hostility w/ power evenly distributed btwn them thus prohibiting a decisive conflict or a decisive compromise   
      It is not by chance, nor by the emergence of a strong ruling personality that a king arises to unite & rule a formerly fractious area   
      The emergence of a king & a central state occurs only when a specific social structure provides the opportunity  
      In short, a king emerges when the appropriate figuration is in place   
      The precursor to the warrior, whose short chains of dependence made it relatively easy for him to engage in violence  
      The noble, w/ a much longer chain of dependence on other nobles found it necessary to be increasingly sensitive to others  
      The noble had to control his emotions & avoid violence  
      Because interdependence makes violence less effective,   
      The power of the king & court created the monopolization of violence, & for Elias this includes a reduction of the use of that violence   
      The monopolization of violence allowed for the monopolization of taxation, & in an interrelated manner, the control of taxes made the monopolization of violence more possible   
      "The financial means thus flowing into this central authority maintains its monopoly of military force, while this in turn maintains the monopoly of taxation"   
      The relationship btwn militarism & the state's right of taxation is the beginning of the macro figuration of the military industrial congressional, executive complex (MICEC) that is common in the globalized world of today  
      THE MACRO FIGURATION OF THE FEUDAL COURT SERVED AS A MODEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERDEPENDENCIES WHICH IMPACTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE AS WELL AS THE LARGER SOCIETY  
      The emergence of a king & a central state as a civilizing macro figuration is supplemented by the emergence of the king's court which is important because it eventually affected the whole of society  
      The court & the nobles play a key role as a civilizing macro figuration because changes that take place among this elite group are gradually disseminated throughout society  
      Courtly society was often the model which fused w/ other macro figuration of other groups resulting in the exercise of power in ever wider circles of functions   
      The court, more than any other Western groups affect the differentiation / specialization of groups & the parallel linking, or lengthening of macro chains of these groups   
      The functioning of the court & the dissemination of its influence to other groups is addressed by class analysis in that the UC exerts its power & ideology over the other classes, & as long as the UC can maintain this hegemony, the MC, LC & other classes are likely to experience false consciousness & accept the ideology & rule of the UC  
      The changes developed by the macro figuration of the king, nobles, & court spread through many other parts of the world   
      The 'courtization' of the warrior & their retinues (i.e. of warlords & their gangs) is a key 'spurt' in the civilizing process   
      The idea of a spurt is important in Elias' analysis in that he sees uneven social development throughout history: their are periods of stability & periods of crisis & change   
      The historical materialistic analysis of the dialectical development of warriors & retinues to kings & courts is also held by Marx & Engels to be a key pt in the evolution of civilization as depicted in their seminal work the Origin of the Family, Private Property & the State, 1884   
      While the development of the court is an important macro figuration, the ultimate cause must be understood as a figuration, i.e. as a change in the entire social figuration of the time  
      This macro figuration depicts changes in various relationships among groups, as well as changes in the relationships among individuals in those groups   
      The courtization macro figuration was constraining on king & nobles alike   
      The constraints of the courtization macro figuration must be understood in the Durkheimian sense that traditional society (pre courtization) allows a high level of independent action, but the society transitioning to a more modern form via courtization has both more interdependence & more power, but   
      Courtization builds strength in numbers & so increases the power of the king & nobles as compared to the independent but weaker power of the warlord & his retinue   
      From the dominance of the king & his nobles arises a mvmt toward a state as seen in King Charles in Eng, Charlemagne in Fr, & Bismarck in Ger  
      Once the macro figuration of the private monopoly by the king & nobles of arms & taxes is in place, the ground is set for the public monopoly of those resources & the emergence of the state  
      In the courtization macro figuration there is a direct link btwn the growth of the king & later the state as controlling agencies in society & the parallel controlling agency w/in the individual  
      As state power & control of the state developed, so did the self control of individuals both which affected more aspects of people's lives   
      Paralleling the analysis of Durkheim, the figuration analysis contends that the development of longer chains of interdependence as a result of the division of labor / differentiation / specialization, the individual learns to control herself more steadily  
      MACRO  FIGURATIONAL ANALYSIS IGNORES THE IMPACT OF CLASS & POWER ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS, BUT EMBRACES THE PSCHL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNALIZATION, & THE SYM INT PRINCIPLE THAT BOTH SOCIETY & THE SELF SOCIALIZE THE SELF  
      The figurational analysis of the increasing control over individuals & social structures recognizes the parallel increased power of individuals & social structures but ignores that this power is concentrated in classes, such as the UC & professionals, & social structures such as govts & corps   
      The figurational analysis of the increasing control over individual parallels the Freudian psycho dynamic analysis which holds that the parallel development of the superego (conscience) & civilization progressively suppresses / controls the instincts of the Id & gives more power to the rationality of the ego   
      Freud & a figurational analysis converge on the idea that as people are unable to express their emotions directly, they need to find other outlets   
      Freud & a figurational analysis converge on the idea that what were once external struggles may come to be internalized   
      Marcuse more than Freud recognized that while greater control over emotions brings a reduction in violence, it also brings boredom & restlessness   
      Longer dependency chains bring greater emotional control & an increasing sensitivity to others & to the self   
      Figurational analysis parallels the ideas of Cooley's looking glass self which maintains that the emergence of the self is the result of socialization by significant others, generalized others, & one's self, i.e. our 'looking glass' through which we view, critique & socialize our self   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  the Micro / Macro Continuum
    External
    Links
      THE CONCEPT OF A MICRO / MACRO CONTINUUM DENOTES THAT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL LIFE MAY BE DETERMINATIVE & THAT THEY ALL INTERACT  
      We need a micro / macro continuum because contrary to much of micro & macro theory, social phenomena operate independently of any single individual or social force & are influenced by a plethora of social vectors from the micro to the macro 
     
      The principle of aggregation holds that independent properties combine or aggregate to yield a grp property or structural level which operates independently of individuals; that the combining of individual phenomenon to create collective phenomenon is not a simple summation, but is more like a chemical reaction 
     
      We need a obj / subj continuum because some social phenomena are not directly accessible to observation & because some social phenomena are unrecognized/ mystified 
     
     
    RITZER POSITS 4 LEVELS OF SOCIAL LIFE INCLUDING THE MICRO OBJ, MICRO SUBJ, MACRO OBJ, & MACRO SUBJ  
      In relation to levels of existence & analysis, Ritzer sees four levels that are all mutually interdependent & may be understood as a micro / macro continuum & a obj / subj continuum 
     
    Link
    The Table on Ritzer's Major Levels of Social Analysis shows that Ritzer accords priority to no level of analysis, & is instead concerned w/ the dialectical relationship among all of them 
     
      The Table on Ritzer's Major Levels of Social Analysis shows that we experience life & thus can analyze life at many different levels, & that it is not common to 'see the forest for the trees' or 'make a stitch in time to save nine'   
      While there is a continuum from the macro obj to the macro subj to micro obj to micro subj, it is not easy to travel btwn these levels or to see / analyze them all simultaneously   
      At level I, the macro objective level includes all of society, bureaucracy as well as phenomenon such as architecture, technology, language, etc. 
     
      At level II, the macro subjective level includes culture, norms, values, ideology, worldview, class/false consciousness, etc. 
     
      At level III, the micro objective level includes patterns of behavior, action, interaction, etc. 
     
      At level IV, the micro subjective level includes perceptions, beliefs, soc construction of reality, etc. 
     
      Examples of the operation of the levels of social analysis can be seen in the examination of the credit card industry where:
     
      -  at level I, the macro objective level, the govt sets interest rates & policies 
     
      -  at level II, the macro subjective level, credit is now a culturally accepted phenomena 
     
      -  at level III, the micro objective level, buying patterns have changed in that people no longer save or put purchases on lay away, rather we buy now pay later 
     
      -  at level IV, the micro subjective level, where our personal value system around credit perceives that credit is the norm, credit card debt is the norm 
     
     
    Examples of the operation of the levels of social analysis can be seen in the examination of unemployment where:   
     
    -  at level I, the macro objective level, the govt sets interest rates & policies affecting unemployment 
     
     
    -  at level II, the macro subjective level, we now accept 5% unemployment as normal 
     
      -  at level III, the micro objective level, job security, employment status   
      -  at level IV, the micro subjective level, we perceive unemployment as either a personal trouble or public policy problem 
     
     
    ALEXANDER POSITS 4 LEVELS OF SOCIAL ORDER & ACTION INCLUDING MATERIAL STRUCTURES, NORMS, RATIONAL ACTION, & VOLUNTARY AGENCY
     
    Link
    The Table on Alexander's Integrative Model of Order & Action demonstrates that collective (macro) social phenomenon include structures & norms, & that individual (micro) social phenomenon include rational action & voluntary agency & that these phenomenon are either materialistic or idealistic 
     
     
    Alexander develops a multidimensional sociology w/ the continuums of order & chaos, & action & thought 
     
      The material structures level has a hi level of order & occurs more on the level of action / materialism   
      At the material structures level, order / patterns are produced by collectivist beh, e.g. social existence is more than a mere summation of ind beh   
      The normative level has a hi level of order & occurs more on the level of consciousness / thought   
      The normative level exists as a collective phenomenon because culture, norms, values, etc. are created by the sharing of, or embracing of similar ideas, conscious positions   
      At the rational action level, there is a low level of order & more chaos, & is based more in the action / materialist world   
      At the rational action level, action is highly random; & paralleling Parsons' functionalism, order is imposed by the macro level, esp culture, not via a rational econ sys  
      At the voluntary agency level, there is a lower importance of action since it is based more in consciousness, & there is a low level of order & w/ high random action & thought   
      Ritzer & Alexander are symptomatic of the rift in the social sciences in that Ritzer holds that the micro level is not determinative, but merely influential or contextual   
     
    Ritzer disagrees w/ determinitiveness of culture 
     
     
    For Ritzer, any / all levels may be determinative in a particular historical situation:  historical materialism/idealism 
     
      Alexander disagrees w/ Ritzer & holds, as do many of those in the soc psych & symbolic interactionist fields, that social action originates at the personal level & aggregates to form societal level phenomenon; i.e. there are no social forces affecting individual behavior   

     
    Top
     
    Table on Ritzer's Major Levels of Social Analysis
    Objective
    Macroscopic
    Subjective
    I.  Macro objective
    e.g. society, law, bureaucracy, architecture, tech, language, etc.
    II.  Macro subjective:
    e.g. culture, norms, values, etc.
    Microscopic
    III.  Micro objective:
    e.g. patterns of behavior, action, interaction, etc. 
    IV.  Micro subjective:
    e.g. perceptions, beliefs, social construction of reality, etc.
    The Table on the Major Levels of Social Analysis shows that Ritzer accords priority to no level of analysis, & is instead concerned w/ the dialectical relationship among all of them 

     
    Top
     
    Table on Alexander's Integrative Model of Order & Action
    Materialistic
    Action
    Collective
    Idealistic
    Thought
    I.  Material Structures II.  Norms
    Individual
    III.  Rational Action  IV.  Voluntary Agency 
    The Table on Alexander's Integrative Model of Order & Action demonstrates that collective (macro) social phenomenon include structures & norms, & that individual (micro) social phenomenon include rational action & voluntary agency & that these phenomenon are either materialistic or idealistic 

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on the  Micro to Macro Models
    External
    Links
      INTEGRATIVE MICRO MACRO MODELS ADDRESS ALL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL ACTION FROM THE MICRO TO THE MACRO 
     
      An integrative micro macro model deals w/ both the micro to macro issue as well as the macro to micro issue 
     
      The micro to macro relationship is seen in Weber's Protestant ethnic thesis 
     
      Marx's theory demonstrates how the econ system, which he viewed as the base or foundation of society, impacts the culture of a society, which in this case is the Protestant religious doctrine 
     
      Weber did not reject Marx's theory, he accepted that the econ basis of a society does impact all aspects of a society including peers, family, religion, the govt, & so on 
     
      Weber supplemented Marx's theory by demonstrating how the Protestant religious doctrine, called the Protestant work ethic, influence the development of the capitalist economic system 
     
      COLEMAN'S INTEGRATIVE MICRO / MACRO MODEL EXAMINES (MACRO) (MACRO) STRUCTURE & CULTURE, & (MICRO) VALUES & BEHAVIOR  
      Coleman formed Marx's & Weber's work into his integrative model 
     
    Link
    The Figure on Coleman's Integrative Model demonstrates that (1) values affect econ beh, (2) cultural factors (religion) affect values, & (3) soc structure (the econ sys) affects econ beh   
      By integrating the works of Marx & Weber, Coleman's model deals w/: 
     
      1.  the micro to micro relationships btwn individual values & econ behavior 
     
      2.  the macro to micro relationships btwn religious doctrine & individual values 
     
      3.  the micro to macro relationships btwn econ beh & econ systems 
     
      Ritzer notes that a more adequate model would demonstrate the interaction btwn all of the variables w/ all causal arrows pointing in both directions 
     
      For Ritzer, the integration of Marx & Weber shows that there is feedback among all levels of analysis 
     
      Coleman focuses primarily on the micro to macro relationships btwn econ beh & econ systems as do many micro oriented social scientists 
     
      LISKA'S INTEGRATIVE MICRO / MACRO MODEL EXAMINES (MACRO) STRUCTURE & CULTURE, & (MICRO) VALUES & BEHAVIOR  
     
    Liska develops a model that further integrates the work of Marx & Weber to fully address both macro to micro relationships, & micro to macro relationships 
     
    Link
    Figure on Liska's Macro to Micro & Micro to Macro Model demonstrates that (A) cultural factors (religion) affects oc structure (the econ sys), (B) cultural factors (religion) affects values, (C) values affect econ beh, & (D) econ beh affects soc structure (the econ sys) 
     
     
    By integrating the works of Marx & Weber & Coleman, Liska's model deals w/: 
     
     
    A.  the macro to macro relationships btwn religious doctrine & econ systems 
     
     
    B.  the macro to micro relationships btwn religious doctrine & individual values 
     
      C.  the micro to micro relationships btwn individual values & econ behavior   
      D.  the micro to macro relationships btwn econ beh & econ systems   
      Ritzer notes that a more adequate model would demonstrate the interaction btwn all of the variables w/ all causal arrows pointing in both directions   
      Liska notes there are 3 ways of analyzing macro level phenomena ( his level A )   
      Aggregation analysis is 'summation' of individual properties yields group properties   
      Structural analysis involves the relationships btwn actors w/in a group, where the actors may be people, orgs, institutions, etc.   
      Global analysis  examines emergent properties of actors such as the development of law, language, practices, strategies, & other epi relationships   
      Analyzing micro to macro relationships, ( his level D ) generally does not involve structural analysis or global analysis   
      Structural analysis & global analysis are qualitatively different from the characteristics of individual action, & it is difficult to know how they emerge out of micro level action   
      The concept of emergence describes how global factors develop   
      Liska emphasizes the importance of aggregation in micro to macro relationships   
      In micro to macro relationships it is relatively clear to social scientists, but no necessarily to everyday people, how individual properties combine to yield group properties   
      At the macro to micro level, contextual variables cause micro level phenomena where aggregate, structural, & global analyses are the contexts   
      Social scientists frequently rely on micro level factors when wking on the individual level; e.g. most psychologists will perceive / comprehend / utilize only micro level phenomena & cannot perceive / comprehend / utilize macro level factors   

     
    Top
     
    Figure on Coleman's Integrative Model 
     
    Macro Level
    Protestant 
    Religious 
    Doctrine
    Capitalist
    Economic
    System
     | 
     2  | 
     | 
    \/ 
     |
     |  3
     |
    \/
    Micro Level
    Individual
    Values
    ------- 1 ------>
    Orientations
    to Economic
    Behavior

    The Figure on Coleman's Integrative Model demonstrates that (1) values affect econ beh, (2) cultural factors (religion) affect values, & (3) soc structure (the econ sys) affects econ beh 


     
    Top
     
    Figure on Liska's Macro to Micro & Micro to Macro Model 
     
    Macro Level
    Protestant 
    Religious 
    System 
    -------- A ------>
    Capitalist
    Economic
    System
     | 
     B  | 
     | 
    \/ 
    /\
     |  D
     |
     |
    Micro Level
    Individual 
    Values 
    ------- C ------>
    Economic
    Behavior

    The Figure on Liska's Macro to Micro & Micro to Macro Model demonstrates that (A) cultural factors (religion) affects oc structure (the econ sys), (B) cultural factors (religion) affects values, (C) values affect econ beh, & (D) econ beh affects soc structure (the econ sys) 


     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on a Micro / Macro Model
    External
    Links
      -  Project:  Applied Micro / Macro Models 
    Link
     
    A MICRO / MACRO MODEL DEMONSTRATES THE MUTUAL, INTERDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIPS BTWN ALL ASPECTS OF SOCIAL LIFE FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE LARGEST, MOST ABSTRACT HUMAN FORMATIONS, I.E. AMONG THOUGHT, ACTION, STRUCTURES, & CULTURE 
     
    Link
    The Figure on a Micro / Macro Model shows the various interdependent relationships btwn social structure, culture, everyday action, & everyday thought, demonstrating that they combine to produce our individual experience of life 
     
     
    A micro / macro model shows how action creates thought, emotion, etc., i.e. the self; how thought, emotion, i.e. our self consciousness creates action, how the soc structures of society & the culture of society affect each other & affect individual action & thought   
     
    A micro / macro model shows the mutual interactions among thought, action, structures, & culture 
     
      I.  MACRO, OBJ SOCIAL STRUCTURE INCLUDES THE ORGANIZATIONS OF SOCIETY, LAW, BUREAUCRACY, ARCHITECTURE, TECH, LANGUAGE, ETC.   
      See Also:  Social Structure   
     
    A social structure is the organization of society, our patterns of behavior as seen in family structure, ed, etc. 
     
     
    Social structure is the organization of society, including institutions, social positions, the relationships among social positions, the groups or orgs that make up society, & the distribution of scarce resources w/in the society 
     
     
    Common social structures today include: peers, family, religion, economy, govt, military, charity, education, media, leisure ( PF REG M CEML ) as well as less institutionalized structures such as society, law, bureaucracy, architecture, tech, language, etc. 
     
     
    II.  MACRO, SUBJ CULTURE INCLUDES THE SHARED KNOWLEDGE, BELIEFS, VALUES, & NORMS OF SOCIETY   
      See Also:  Culture   
     
    Culture is the shared content of society 
     
     
    Culture is the shared knowledge, beliefs, values, norms & the physical & abstract manifestations of that content 
     
     
    Culture is the shared set of meanings that are lived through material & symbolic practices, & the socially created objects of everyday life 
     
     
    III. MICRO, OBJ ACTION / BEHAVIOR INCLUDES PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR, ACTION, INTERACTION, ETC. 
     
      See Also: Work / Econ   
      Common actions / behaviors today include friendship, marriage, worship, work, voting, military service, charity / giving, schooling, staying current, recreating   
      Each individual in a particular society is adept at acting w/in social prescriptions in many different cultural spheres   
      IV.  MICRO, SUBJ CONSCIOUSNESS / THOUGHT INCLUDES AN INDIVIDUAL'S CULTURE OF ATTITUDES, OPINIONS, INTERESTS, & IDEOLOGY   
     
    See Also:  Ideology   
     
    See Also:  KBVN AOII   
      An ideology is a way of thinking, a worldview   
      An ideology is a  particular system of ideas a characteristic way of thinking of a people, a group or a person especially on social & political topics   
      Ideologies are mental systems of beliefs about reality   
     
    Common components of consciousness / thought today include perceptions, beliefs, social construction of reality, class / false consciousness, etc. 
     
     
    THE 6 MUTUAL, INTERDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL LIFE DEMONSTRATES THE 'HYPER CONNECTIVITY OF SOCIAL LIFE' WHERE WHAT OCCURS ANYWHERE IN LIFE RIPPLES THROUGH ALL THE OTHER ASPECTS OF LIFE 
     
     
    The Figure on a Micro / Macro Model w/ Mutual Interdependencies demonstrates that (1) soc beh & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent, (2) soc beh & soc structure are mutually interdependent, (3) social structure & culture are mutually interdependent, (4) culture & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent, (5) soc beh & culture are mutually interdependent (6) soc structure & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent 
     
     
    Each of the mutual interdependent relationships among the social levels of social life has its unique dynamics that are patterned both in time & space in that each has a particular socio histl existence & exists differently in different societies & sub societies 
     
     
    1.  The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn any social behavior & thought / consciousness is seen in the ideas that "we are what we do;" where action shapes beliefs 
     
     
    The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn thought / consciousness & any social behavior occurs where we 'look (think) before we leap' where we have free will & pursue our own interests; where thought dictates action 
     
     
    2.  The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn soc beh & soc structure occurs where our patterned behaviors or practices become the 'system' of, for example, education, marriage, politics, etc. 
     
      The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn soc structure & soc beh occurs where we can act only in prescribed ways because 'that is the way it is done' as in one can only engage in radical / extreme beh such as a group marriage, education w/o grades, work for free, etc. if one is willing to take the wrath of 'society' i.e. individuals acting on their own beliefs, or on behalf of their organizations   
     
    3.  The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn social structure & culture occurs where the way we do things creates a culture as in coal miner culture, office culture, govt culture, middle class family culture, etc. 
     
     
    The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn culture & social structure occurs where the old way we do things such as work is shaped by the new expectations that people have about work & life fulfillment   
     
    4.  The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn culture & thought / consciousness occurs where we have media shaped knowledge, beliefs, values, norms, attitudes, opinions, interests & ideology where we 'everything I know I learned on line
     
      The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn thought / consciousness & culture occurs where we are all cultural icons as we have our '15 minutes of fame' as society / culture becomes more democratic / amateur so that 'I can run it up a flag pole & see who salutes'   
     
    5.  The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn soc beh & culture occurs where one may not be thinking / planning to be a cultural icon, but it happens as where an activity catches the public's eye as in skate boarding 
     
      The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn culture & soc beh occurs where we participate in mass events such as NASCAR, WWF, football games, concerts, etc. because we feel a sense of community, of belonging   
     
    6.  The mutual, interdependent relationships btwn soc structure & thought occurs where, for example, our friends, our family, our religion our job, the govt, etc. 'tell' us what to think 
     
     
    The mutual interdependent relationships btwn thought & soc structure occurs where we express our knowledge, beliefs, values, norms, attitudes, opinions, interests & ideology through a soc structure such as our friends, our family, our religion, our job, the govt, etc. 
     
      A SOCIO HIST ANALYSIS OF THE 4 LEVELS OF SOCIAL LIFE INDICATES THAT THE LEVELS & THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THEM HAVE GROWN, DIFFERENTIATED, & RATIONALIZED  
      A socio histl analysis indicates that as society has developed from tradl to modern, each sector in & of itself has grown, differentiated, & rationalized, & the connections among the 4 sectors have grown, differentiated, & rationalized   
      As social structure developed from tradl society centered on peers, family, & religion has grown, differentiated, & rationalized into additional centers of power including the econ, govt, military in the middle ages, & then to modern society w/ the additional structures of charity, education, the media, & leisure   
      Culture has developed from being centered on beliefs, values, & norms in tradl society to being centered on knowledge in the modern societies   
      Action / behavior has grown, differentiated, & rationalized as the common person no longer has a station in life, but now has opportunities in nearly all spheres of life   
      Consciousness / thought has grown, differentiated, & rationalized as we are exposed to & accept a wider range of attitudes, opinions, interests, ideology, etc. than people in tradl society   

     
    Top
     
    Figure on a Micro / Macro Model
    Objective /
    Materialist
    Macroscopic
    Subjective /
    Idealist
    I.  Social Structure:
    e.g. PF REG M CEML,
    society, law, bureaucracy, architecture, tech, language, etc.
    II.  Culture:
    e.g. KBVN: shared knowledge, beliefs, values, norms, etc.
    III.  Action / Behavior:
    e.g. patterns of behavior, action, interaction, etc. 
    IV.  Consciousness / Thought:
    e.g. AOII:  attitudes, opinions, interests, ideology; 
    perceptions, beliefs, social construction of reality, class / false consciousness, etc.
    Microscopic
    The figure on a micro / macro model shows the various interdependent relationships btwn social structure, culture, everyday action, & everyday thought, demonstrating that they combine to produce our individual experience of life 

     
    Top
     
    Figure on a Micro / Macro Model w/ Mutual Interdependencies 
     
     
     Macro Level
    Social
    Structures
    <----- 3 ----->
    Culture
    Objective /
    Materialistic
    Phenomena
    /\
     | 
     2  | 
     | 
    \/ 
    5     6
    /\
     | 
        |  4
     |
    \/
    Subjective /
    Idealistic
    Phenomena
    Any Social
    Behavior
    <----- 1 ----->
    Thought/
    Consciousness
    Micro Level

    The Figure on Micro / Micro to Macro Integration Model demonstrates that (1) soc beh & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent, (2) soc beh & soc structure are mutually interdependent, (3) social structure & culture are mutually interdependent, (4) culture & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent, (5) soc beh & culture are mutually interdependent (6) soc structure & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent 


     
    Top
     
    Agency / Structure Integration
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on an Intro to  Agency / Structure Integration
    External
    Links
      AGENCY INCLUDES INDIVIDUALS & COLLECTIVITIES; & STRUCTURE INCLUDES SOCIAL STRUCTURES AS WELL AS HABITS / THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF EVERYDAY PRACTICES   
      Agency & structure integration is important because it embodies the age old debate, 'do I have free will, or am I just a product of my env' wherein the env may include socialization, social pressure, structural forces, genetics, instincts, etc.   
      In many ways agency structure integration is the 'acid test' of general social theory & the 'central problem' in theory because understanding society necessitates understanding how the individual & larger society interact   
      In our simplest understanding btwn agency & structure, there is a tension btwn the two   
      Agency includes micro level individual human actors as well as macro level collective actors   
      Human agents include individuals & organized grps, orgs, nations, societies, etc.   
      Symbolic interactionists focus on individuals as actors while Marx focuses on classes as actors   
      Structure includes large scale social structures as well as micro structures such as those involved in human action  
      Social structures often include PF REG M CEML as well as culture, justice, pleasure, etc.   
      Micro structures often include Mead's genesis of the self, Cooley's looking glass self, 'ethnomethods,' the social construction of everyday life, & more   
     
    AGENCY STRUCTURE INTEGRATION EXAMINES THE NATURE OF INDIVIDUALISTIC POWER / REFLEXIVITY INTERACTIONS W/ STRUCTURAL FORCES INCLUDING CULTURE, POWER, THE ECON, STRUCTURES OF THE MIND, ETC. 
     
      The agency / structure problem is, in many ways, the European version of the American micro macro problem
     
      Agents are usually micro level actors but may also be collective level actors such as families, churches, businesses, unions, etc.
     
      Structures are usually macro level phenomena, but structures also impact & operate in everyday life
     
      AGENCY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS TENDS TO SEE THIS SPLIT AS A DICHOTOMY WHEREAS MICRO MACRO ANALYSIS IS LIKELY TO VIEW SEVERAL LEVELS OF ANALYSIS   
      Giddens' structuration theory sees agency & structure as a "duality"  
      Giddens' concept of a duality denotes that the parts of the duality cannot be separated from one another if one is to depict an accurate understanding of the phenomenon
     
      Agency is implicated in structure & structure is implicated in agency
     
      Giddens sees structure as both constraining & enabling
     
      Margaret Archer (1982) views agency & structure as a "dualism"  
      In a dualism, the components can & should be separated for examination
     
      Thus, for Archer, agency & structure can & should be separated
     
      Archer is also examines the relationship btwn culture & agency & recently developed a more general agency structure theory (1995)
     
      Pierre Bourdieu differentiates btwn habitus & field  
      Habitus is an internalized mental, or cognitive, structure through which people deal w/ the social world
     
      Habitus both produces, & is produced by the society
     
      The field is a network of relations among objective positions
     
      The structure of the field serves to constrain agents, be they individuals or collectivities
     
      THE RELATIONSHIP BTWN AGENCY & STRUCTURE IS NOT OF INDEPENDENCE BUT RATHER OF MUTUAL INTERACTION, EACH CONSTITUTING THE OTHER  
      The relationship btwn the habitus & the field of one of mutual interaction:
     
     
    Mutual interaction is seen when the field conditions the habitus & the habitus constitutes the field
     
     
    Jurgen Habermas, a critical theorists, & viewed as being sympathetic to the modernist school, examines the agency structure problem in his consideration of the colonization of the life world  
     
    The system arises from the life world but ultimately the system comes to develop its own structural characteristics & colonization of the life world
     
      The life world is a micro world where people interact & communicate  
      The system has its roots in the life world  
      As structures grow in independence & power, they come to exert more & more control over the life world  
      In the modern world, the system is "colonizing, " that is exerting control over the life world  
      Ulrich Beck's The Risk Society:  Towards a New Modernity (1992) discusses the unprecedented risks facing society today  
      THEORETICAL SYNTHESIS BTWN MICRO MACRO ANALYSIS & AGENCY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS IS ON-GOING, BUT THERE IS STILL A WIDE GAP BTWN MICRO ANALYSeS SUCH AS DRAMATURGY, WHICH DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF STRUCTURE, &  MACRO ANALYSES SUCH AS STRUCTURALISM, WHICH SEES MIC RELATIONSHIPS AS CONSTITUTED BY STRUCTURES / SOC FORCES   
      The micro macro & the agency structure problems bring to light the overall problem of fragmentation in sociology  
      Many theorists are attempting to combine theories to come up w/ a general theory of Society  
      Levine (1991a) is synthesizing Simmel & Parsons  
      Alexander is examining neofunctionalism to combine it w/ symbolic interactionism, feminism, exchange theory, etc.  
      Elster, 1985; Mayer, 1994; Roemer, 1996c are post Marxists who are bringing mainstream ideas to Marxism  
      Harvey, 1989; Jameson, 1984; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985 are bringing post modernism ideas to Marxism  
      Crippen, 1994; Maryanski & Turner, 1992 are working w/in sociobiology  
      Coleman, 1990 is working on rational choice theory which combines sociology & economics  
      Systems Theory has its roots in the physical science but Niklas Luhmann, 1982, has applied it to the social world  
      Marcuse develops a social theory based on psychology, esp Freudian psych, thus illuminating the relationship btwn free will & the social structures that limit & empower it  

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline an Intro to  John C. Baldwin
    External
    Links
      BALDWIN HOLDS THAT MEAD DOES COVER MICRO TO MACRO INTERACTIONS & DISCUSSES THE VARIETIES OF INDIVIDUAL & INSTITUTIONAL AGENCY   
      Mead's work is sociologically integrative
     
      Mead covers the full range of micro macro interactions
     
      Mead interweaves contributions from all schools of social science
     
      Mead commits to scientific methods, ensuring all data & theories can be integrated
     
      INDIVIDUAL AGENCY IS THE CAPACITY FOR PEOPLE TO ACT IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL FORCES   
      A micro macro orientation implies agency whereby the actors act w/ both a subjective & objective component 
     
      Agency, acting w/ both a subjective & objective component, results in interaction & patterns
     
      INSTITUTIONAL AGENCY IS THE CAPACITY FOR PEOPLE, AS ORGL ACTORS, TO ACT IN THE ORG'S INTERESTS, OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL FORCES 
     
      Organizations, etc. can act as agents & use & are subject to symbolic interactionist processes such as gestures, impression management, etc.
     
      Organizations, institutions, social movements, social classes, nations, interest groups, races are characterized by subjective processes, & thus are agents
     

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on an  Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships 
    External
    Links
      -  Project:  Agency / Structure Integrated Model 
    Link
     
    AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF SOCIETY GENERALLY INCLUDES THOUGHT, THE ACTOR, STRUCTURE, & CULTURE & THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THEM 
     
      The role & importance of the various components of our understanding of society vary widely both because our knowledge is incomplete, but also because there are three broad paradigms in the social sciences ranging from Marxism / conflict theory, to structuralism / systems theories, to micro / symbolic interactionism theory   
      In constructing a model of the individual & society, it is impossible to embody all the ideas or to represent them accurately  
      The current model has the components of: 
    1.  individual thought consciousness 
    2.  the actor 
    3.  social structure 
    4.  culture 
    & the 6 possible relationships among these components 
     
     Link
    The Figure on an Integrated Model of Society shows the various interdependent relationships btwn everyday thought, the actor & everyday action, social structure, culture, & demonstrating that they combine to produce our individual experience of life   
     Link
    The Figure on an Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships demonstrates that the relationships among the components of society are reciprocal & dynamic  
      (1)  Thought / consciousness & the actor / soc beh & are mutually interdependent in that we appear to have mental control over our actions, & how we act does effect what we think & feel   
      (2)  The actor / soc beh & soc structure are mutually interdependent in that structures are merely the patterned behavior of individuals & the patterned behavior of others impacts the individual   
      (3)  Social structure & culture are mutually interdependent in that patterns of behavior reflect shared ideas, & shared ideas pattern our behavior   
      (4)  Culture & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent in that the shared KBVN of many others influences what the individual thinks, believes, feels, perceives, etc., & individual thought / ideology aggregates when it is shared   
      (5)  Thought / consciousness & soc structure are mutually interdependent in that we each 'know' how to act in particular venues, & these spheres, spheres of life, etc. socialize individuals on how to see them & think in general   
      (6)  The actor / soc beh & culture are mutually interdependent in that as an individual's actions occur, they may be copied & thus become aggregated / shared as culture, & in how culture shapes an individual's behavior   
      1.  THOUGHT / CONSCIOUSNESS INCLUDES WHAT WE RECOGNIZE AS A 'STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS' AS WELL CALL IDEOLOGY,  MENTAL STRUCTURES, HABITUS, PERCEPTIONS, ETC.   
      There are at least three views on concept of individual thought & consciousness, ideology, perception, rationality, etc. which range from 
    a.  Consciousness the the beginning, the foundation of all action & society, to
    b.  Consciousness is important, but we often act differently than we think we will, & we are not rational, to 
    c.  Consciousness is an epi phenomenon in that we need to only understand behavior 
     
      Behaviorists, exchange theorists, et al view the actor as a conscious, creative individual   
      Some theorist see the actor as engaging in mindless behavior, operating almost unconsciously w/ thought being a product of social forces & unconscious forces   
      Rationalists see thought as being important w/ the actor choosing, more or less automatically, the most efficient means to ends   
      2.  THE ACTOR MAY BE AN INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, OR ORG & IS SEEN AS HAVING VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM IN CARRYING OUT ACTION   
     
    The concept of the agent is one that is relatively new in the social sciences, but has resemblances to the older concept of the actor & others 
     
     
    For some, the agent is only an individual 
     
     
    For some the agent includes individuals & organizations or institutions 
     
     
    For some the agent is either individuals or organizations or institutions 
     
      There are many different views on the development, constitution, genesis of the person, the agent, the actor, the self, etc.   
     
    THE FREEDOM OF THE ACTOR RANGES FROM NONE, TO SOME, TO TOTAL 
     
      There are at least three views on agents, actors, the self, etc., that range from completely mechanical & constrained, to powerful, but not totally free, to totally free & unconstrained   
     
    Some contemporary theorists often consider the agent to be mechanical or highly influenced by social forces 
     
      To say that agents are mechanical is to say they have no free will, agency, autonomy or similar connotation of freedom   
     
    Some contemporary theorists consider the classic theorists of Marx, Durkheim, Weber to have a more mechanical view, but other contemporary theorists deny this 
     
     
    The middle ground of the degree freedom of the agent is to hold that agents make decisions based on the best facts available to them, but they are constrained in that perception, choices, resources, allies, etc. are all limited by social forces 
     
     
    Some extreme micro social scientists hold that the agent is constrained only by his / her own perceptions & that social forces either do not exist or have no influence 
     
     
    Bourdieu's agent dominated by habitus, is more mechanical than Giddens' or Habermas' agent because the habitus is a system of durable, transposable dispositions, structuring structures, that is, as principles of the generation & structuring of practices & representations 
     
     
    The habitus is a source of strategies, w/o being the product of genuine strategic intention
     
     
    The habitus dominated agents lacks complete free will & power to constitute itself or the world 
     
     
    Giddens' agent is depicted as having some intentionality & free will because agents have choice & perceive at least the possibility of acting differently than they do 
     
     
    Giddens' agent has power & they make a difference in their worlds 
     
     
    Giddens' agent constitutes & is constituted by structures 
     
      Giddens' agent is active & creative involved in a continual flow of conduct   
      Archer's agent is reduced to systems, particularly the socio cultural system   
      FREE ACTORS ARE DEPICTED AS HAVING POWER, INTENTIONALITY, CHOICE, & REFLEXIVITY WHILE CONSTRAINED ACTORS LACK ONE OR MORE OF THESE   
      Four criteria must be met for the actor to be an agent / have free will:  
      a.  Agents must have power, be able to make a difference  
      b.  Agents undertake intentional action  
      c.  Agents must have some choice, some free play  
      d.  Agents must be reflexive monitoring the effects of their actions & using that knowledge to modify the bases of action  
      Agency is a continuum; all actors have agency to some degree, & no actor has full, unconstrained agency   
     
    3.  STRUCTURE IS THAT SOCIAL COMPONENT WHICH IS SEEN AS THE OBSERVABLE CONSTRAINTS ON ACTORS' BEHAVIOR & THOUGHTS 
     
      Definitions of the nature of structures are as varied as the labeling what is or is not a structure, system, field, institutions, etc.   
      Social structure is the organization of society, including institutions, social positions, the relationships among social positions, the groups or orgs that make up society, & the distribution of scarce resources w/in the society   
      Some define structures as reproduced social practices   
      Some define structures as shared practices that are capable of being influenced but are fundamentally beyond the control or will of any individual   
      Some define structures as actually non existent as external structures, existing as internalized habits & norms, resulting in a definition that is similar to that of a shared ideology, a culture of practices   
      STRUCTURES ARE SEEN AS BEING VERY, SOMEWHAT, OR NOT AT ALL CONSTRAINING ON THE THOUGHT & ACTION OF THE ACTOR   
     
    Like the examination of agency, there are at least three views on structures, systems, fields, institutions, etc., that range from completely mechanical & constraining, to influential, but not totally controlling, to no control or non existent 
     
      For some, a specific structure is central to understanding & determining or shaping society  
      The central structures most frequently cited are the econ, the govt, & the family by Marxists, functionalists, & feminists respectively, though not exclusively   
      The debate over the centrality or power of structures is, like that over the power of agents, somewhat of a 'straw person' argument in that some theorists will accuse others' theories of being mechanical, while those theorists hold that they are not, thus ending in a game of 'my theory is more dynamic than yours'   
      An example of the 'straw debate' is micro theorists of today accuse Marx of being highly mechanical while Marx clearly recognized both freedom & constraint   
      SOME THEORISTS BELIEVE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS STRUCTURE, WHILE OTHERS SEE A FEW, & OTHERS SEE MANY  
      Another debate surrounding structure examines the nature & number of structures ranging from just a few to many   
      Marx & other classic theorists focused on just a few structures such as the econ, the family, religion, & peers   
      Some see that list growing, but the number & nature of structures is similar to that of the classic theorists including such spheres of life as PF REG M CEML   
      Other theorists focus on an array of structures such as orgs, bureaucracy, the polity, art, literature, the sexuality / pleasure system, the deviance / crime / justice system, & more   
      STRUCTURE OPERATES WHEN ACTORS ARE CONSTRAINED IN THOUGHT, IN ACTIONS, WHEN ACTORS HAVE HIST, LEGITIMATE POWER   
      Euro social science is unlikely to separate the analyses of structure & agency, preferring to see them in a reciprocal relationship   
      Structure is seen to operate if two criteria are met:   
      a.  Structure operates when even if an agent can imagine certain actions they simply may not be possible, given, social, techl, physical, etc. realities   
      b.  Structure operates when certain actions seem necessary while others appear impossible   
      c.  Structure operates when agency is limited by other agents who have sanctioning power, both positive & negative   
      Some theorists, e.g. functionalists, focus on both large scale structures & culture, extending all the way from micro structures of the mind to macro structures of society   
      4.  CULTURE IS THE SHARED, THOUGHT OR CONSCIOUSNESS OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE & THE MATERIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THAT SHARED CONSCIOUSNESS   
      Theorists see, broadly, three positions on culture & its relationship to structure & the actor ranging from:   
      a.  culture being the central, most powerful component in understanding society, to   
      b.  culture being equally influential w/ other social phenomena such as the actor & structure, & to  
      c.  culture being merely an epi phenomenon in that thoughts & beliefs are often irrelevant to what is actually done  
      Archer, functionalists, cultural Marxists & others deny the positions of those who focus on structure to the exclusion of culture   

     
    Top
     
    Figure on an Integrated Model of Society 
    Objective /
    Materialist
    Macroscopic
    Subjective /
    Idealist
    3.  Social Structure:
    e.g. PF REG M CEML,
    society, law, bureaucracy, architecture, tech, language, etc.
    4.  Culture:
    e.g. KBVN: shared knowledge, beliefs, values, norms, etc.
    2.  Actor / Action:
    agents, self, action / behavior:
    e.g. patterns of behavior, action, interaction, etc. 
    1.  Thought / Consciousness:
    e.g. AOII:  attitudes, opinions, interests, ideology, habitus; 
    perceptions, beliefs, social construction of reality, class / false consciousness, etc.
    Microscopic
    The Figure on an Integrated Model of Society shows the various interdependent relationships btwn everyday thought, the actor & everyday action, social structure, culture, & demonstrating that they combine to produce our individual experience of life 

     
    Top
     
    Figure on an Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships 
     
     
     Macro Level
    Social
    Structures
    <----- 3 ----->
    Culture
    Objective /
    Materialistic
    Phenomena
    /\
     | 
     2 
     | 
    \/ 
          5                  6 
     

          6                  5

    /\
     | 
     4
     |
    \/
    Subjective /
    Idealistic
    Phenomena
    Actor / Action
    <----- 1 ----->
    Thought /
    Consciousness
    Micro Level

    The Figure on an Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships demonstrates that the relationships among the components of society are reciprocal & dynamic, i.e. that (1) thought / consciousness & the actor / soc beh are mutually interdependent, (2) the actor / soc beh & soc structure are mutually interdependent, (3) social structure & culture are mutually interdependent, (4) culture & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent, (5) thought / consciousness & soc structure are mutually interdependent, (6) the actor / soc beh & culture are mutually interdependent i.e. reciprocal & dynamic 


     
    Top

    Internal
    Links

    An Overview of  Anthony Giddens    1938  - 
    External
    Links
      Project:  Modernist Institutions 
    Link
    Link
    - Biography & Major Works 
     
     
    FOR GIDDENS, MODERNITY HAS FOUR STAGES, INCLUDING THE EARLY, INDL, HIGH, & POST STAGES 
     
      How are these four eras different?   
      The modern era in which we live is very different than that of the classical theorists, who also lived in the early modern era  
      And both of those stages are different than the industrial era of the the 1800s & early 1900s  
      Modernity is not taking one path   
      Modernity has conflicting & contradictory parts & thus theories of modernity are not old fashioned, unidirectional grand theories   
      1.  THE EARLY STAGE OF MODERNITY EXPERIENCED THE RATIONALIZATION OF PRODUCTION THE EARLIEST CONFLICT BTWN TRADL RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS & SCIENCE   
     
    The Early Stage of Modernity runs from the 1600s to after Industrial Revolution gained a head of steam circa 1800s 
     
      The first 'factories' were essentially craft wkrs on an assembly line   
      The cultural development which paralleled the rationalization of the econ, saw the devl of religious freedom, conflict btwn religious & scientific paradigms, etc.   
      2.  THE INDL STAGE OF MODERNITY EXPERIENCED THE INDL REV & THE STRUGGLE FOR 'MIDDLE CLASS RIGHTS'   
     
    The Industrial Stage of Modernity runs from the 1800s to circa 1950 
     
      The indl stage resulted in the earliest devl of a middle class which sought the freedoms & rights which we commonly accept today as our birth right such as a living wage, a safe wkplace, ed, freedom, etc.   
     
    The indl stage saw the end slavery, the development of unions & the labor mvmt, increased rights for women, including suffrage, & the devl of democracy as we recognize it today 
     
      3.  HIGH MODERNITY REPRESENTS THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT / RATIONALIZATION OF THE INDL ECON TO POST INDL, & THE DEVL OF CULTURE IN PARALLEL TO THIS, MOVING TOWARD GREATER FREEDOM   
      The Era of High Modernity runs from the circa 1950 to the present   
      High modernity is also know as radical modernity, late modernity, the high tech era, or even the post industrial era   
     
    For Giddens, High Modernity is unique because
    -  it is a post scarcity system ( for the West only)
    -  there is multilayered democratization
    -  there is demilitarization
    -  there is the humanization of technology
    -  many of its relationships & characteristics are reflexive
     
      For Giddens, there is no guarantee that the world will continue to move toward modernity  
      For Giddens, reflexivity means that a person or a social system can help things, i.e. modernity & other goals, come to pass  
      The modern world may be thought of as a "juggernaut," that is, a runaway engine  
     
    For Giddens the juggernaut: 
    -  is a runaway engine of enormous power
    -  is capable of being driven or steered only to a limited extent
    -  is threatening to rush out of control
    -  crushes those who resist
    -  sometimes seems to have a steady course
    -  sometimes seems to veer erratically
    -  has a ride that can be rewarding & even exhilarating
     
      But we can never feel secure because of the qualities of modernity  
     
    4.  GIDDENS DOES NOT BELIEVE WE ARE YET IN A POST MODERN STAGE
     
     
    While Giddens does not directly embrace the concept of the post modernism, his schema of modernity implies that such an era could exist
     
      Giddens is unsure as to whether we are entering a new, "post modern" stage or not   
      Giddens does not agree w/ the tenet of post modernity that systematic knowledge is impossible   
      The denial of systematic knowledge would lead us "...to repudiate intellectual activity altogether."   
      STRUCTURATION THEORY HOLDS THAT AGENCY & STRUCTURE ARE RECIPROCAL, DYNAMIC SOCIAL FORCES & THAT AGENTS HAVE SOME FREEDOM TO ACT & ARE SOMEWHAT CONSTRAINED BY STRUCTURE   
      In Giddens' Structuration theory, there is a disjunction between agency & historical analysis, btwn individualism & the power of society, btwn the micro & macro aspects of society  
      Giddens emphasizes our ability to be active change agents but yet emphasizes the juggernaut & the dominance of system tendencies  
      Review:  Many other social theorists have recognized the tension btwn agency & structure, including Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Parsons, esp C Wright Mills & the Sociological Imagination  

     
    Top
     


     

    Anthony Giddens
    1938  - 
    Great Britain's most important contemporary social theorist
    Now at Cambridge University
    Began as an empirical sociologist
    Then focused on cross cultural society
    Now a grand theorist
    Involved in several publishing firms:
    Macmillan & Hutchinson, Polity Press
     
     
     
     

    Ritz 0411
    Top
     
    Major Works of Giddens

    The Class Structure of Advanced Societies, 1975
    The Constitution of Society:  Outline of the Theory of Structuration, 1985
    Sociology, 1987
    Modernity and Self Identity, 1991
    Transformation of Intimacy, 1992
    The Consequences of Modernity

    Ritz 0411

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on   Structuration Theory
    External
    Links
      STRUCTURATION DENOTES THAT AGENCY & STRUCTURE ARE TWO SIDES OF ALL REALITY IN THAT WE CONTINUALLY EXPERIENCE BOTH:  THE 'FREE' ABILITY TO ACT & THE FORCES THAT COMPEL US TO ACT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER 
     
      In understanding agency, social scientists relation action or agency to structure in that structure determines action or vice versa 
     
      For Giddens, individual / agents on the one hand, and society / structure on the other hand must be seen as polar alternative in explaining social action & social forms 
     
      The relationship btwn agency & structure is one of the mutual interaction recurrent social practices
     
      The domain of the social sciences is neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of social totality, but social practices ordered across time & space 
     
      In structuration there is a duality & mutual interaction of agency & structure to such a degree that neither can be conceived w/o the other; they are two sides of the same coin 
     
      All social action involves structure, & all structure involves social action 
     
    RECURSION IS THE PROCESS WHEREBY AN OUTCOME OF AGENCY OR STRUCTURE IS DETERMINED BOTH BY ITSELF AS WELL AS BY THE OTHER   
      Giddens characterizes the duality & mutual interaction of agency & structure as being recursive
     
      Activities are not brought into being by social actors but are continually recreated by them via the means they express themselves as actors
     
      Through their activities agents produce the conditions that make these activities possible 
     
      Activities are not produced by consciousness, by the social construction of reality, nor are they produced by social structure
     
      In expressing themselves as actors, people are engaging in practice, & it is through that practice that both consciousness & structure are produced 
     
      Both structure & consciousness are reproduced in & through the succession of situated practices which are organized by it 
     
      In being reflexive, an actors is not only self conscious but also engaged in the env, monitoring & interpreting the env & structural conditions 
     
      Agency is reflexively & recursively implicated in social structures   
      Practice, structure, & consciousness are produced in a mutual interaction w/ each other   
      THE SOCIAL SCIENCES ARE ANOTHER SOCIAL FORCE THAT AFFECTS INDIVIDUAL ACTION   
      There is a double hermeneutic btwn all people in that while we can know each other & understand each other, we can do so only in a less than perfect manner in that we can never totally know each other   
      Despite the barrier of the double hermeneutic, we can & do interact w/ each other, learn from each other, socialize each other, influence each other, etc.  
      Just as people in general interact, learn, socialize, influence, etc. each other, so do people & social scientists relate to each other as the concepts & knowledge of the social sciences impact everyday people, while people impact how social scientists formulate their concepts & knowledge   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Agency
    External
    Links
      -  Project:  Agency & Degrees of Freedom 
    Link
      AGENTS ARE REFLEXIVE TO THEIR SELF & THEIR ENV, BUT ARE OFTEN UNCONSCIOUS ABOUT THEIR MOTIVATIONS 
     
      Agents continuously monitor their own thought & activities as well as their physical & social contexts
     
      Actors rationalize their worlds in that they develop routines that give them security, & enable them to deal efficiently w/ their physical & social lives 
     
      MOTIVATIONS ARE WANTS & DESIRES OF WHICH WE ARE OFTEN UNCONSCIOUS 
     
      Actors have motivations to act & these motivations involve wants & desires that prompt action
     
      While rationalization & reflexivity are continuously involved in action, motivations are a force for potential for action
     
      Motivations provide overall plans for action, but  most action is not directly motivated 
     
      Despite that action often is not motivated & our motivations are generally unconscious, motivations still play a significant role in human conduct & society 
     
      DISCURSIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IS THAT ABILITY TO EXPLAIN OUR MOTIVATIONS WHILE PRACTICAL CONSCIOUSNESS DENOTES THAT WE OFTEN CANNOT EXPLAIN OUR MOTIVATIONS 
     
      Discursive consciousness entails the ability to describe our actions in words 
     
      Practical consciousness involves actions that the actors take for granted, w/o being able to express in worlds what they are doing
     
      Practical consciousness reflects our primary interest in what is done, while discursive consciousness reflects our primary interest in what is said 
     
      For structuration theory, as well as for most people, what we do is more important that what we say or what we think 
     
      The relationship btwn discursive & practical consciousness is permeable in that they may or may not mix / overlap 
     
      EVEN WHEN WE HAVE DISCURSIVE CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE ARE STILL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES  
      Agents act & what they do is called agency  
      Agency includes the events of which an individual or a collective is a perpetrator   
      Agency is a subset of action in that the latter is what the actor intended, but agency is what actually happens   
      Actions often end up being different that what was intended   
      Intentional acts often have unintended consequences   
      FOR THE REFLEXIVE AGENT, POWER IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE   
      Giddens believes that structuration theory affords the actor more power than other theories such as phenomenology or functionalism   
      Agents have the ability to make a difference in the social world   
      Agents make no sense w/o power in that an actor ceases to be an agent if he / she / it loses the capacity to make a difference   
      While there are constraints on actors, actors can still make a difference   
      Power is logically prior to subjectivity because action involves power or the ability to transform the situation  

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Structure
    External
    Links
      THE CONCEPT OF STRUCTURE OR SOC SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT THAT SOC STRUCTURE IN THAT SOC SYS ARE LARGER, MORE MALLEABLE, MORE SUBJECT TO CONTROL, & ARE REPRODUCED PRACTICES 
     
      Giddens use of the concept structure in structuration theory is not the same as the type use of the concept social structure 
     
      See Also:  Social Structures 
     
      Social structures would be a subset of structures 
     
      Structure is the structuring properties, i.e. rules & resources, the properties which make it possible for discernibly similar social practices to exist across varying spans of time & space & which lend them systemic form 
     
      Structure is made possible because individual or collective actors have rules & resources which they practice or utilize in regular patterns 
     
      Structures themselves do no exist in time & space, but social phenomena have the capacity to become structured 
     
      Structure exists in & through the activities of human agents 
     
      While Durkheim emphasized structures that were external to & coercive of actors, Giddens avoids the impression that structure is outside of human action 
     
      Structure gives form & shape to social life, but it is not itself that form & shape 
     
      Structure is not a framework like the girders of a building or the skeleton of a body, but it serves the same purpose, has the same function as a framework 
     
      STRUCTURES / SOC SYS ARE ARE THE RESULT OF INTENTIONAL & UNINTENTIONAL ACTION, HAVE FEEDBACK LOOPS, ARE INSTANT, ARE SUBSTANTIAL, & ARE MANIFEST AT BOTH THE MACRO & MICRO LEVELS 
     
      Structure constrains action, but it also enables action 
     
      Structures allow agents to act in ways they otherwise would not be able to do 
     
      While Giddens does recognize that actors can lose control over the structural properties of social system, he avoids the Weberian iron cage image   
      While for Weber, the loss of control as the result of the power of social structures, for Giddens the loss of control as the result of the power of social structures is not inevitable   
      The concept of social system is a closer to Giddens' sense of social structure  because soc sys do not have structures, but they do exhibit structural properties   
      Structures do not exist in time & space, but they are manifested in social systems in the form of reproduced practices   
      While some soc sys are the product of  intentional action, they are often the unanticipated consequences of human action & feedback into it   
     
    The unanticipated consequences of soc sys & the feedback into them may may efforts to control them elusive, but never the less actors continue efforts to exert control   
      Structures are instantiated in soc sys in that they are instant & substantial or significant   
      Structures are manifest in the memory traces which orient the conduct of knowledgeable human agents; i.e. the knowledge of how to organize a military campaign, a business project, a sporting event, even a family is carried in the formal & informal ed sys of a society, its culture & soc struc  
      The rules & resources of a society manifest themselves at both the macro level os soc sys, as well as at the micro level of human consciousness   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on   Structuration
    External
    Links
      STRUCTURATION IS THE SOCIAL PROCESS, WHICH IS RECIPROCAL & DYNAMIC, BTWN ACTIVE AGENTS & MALLEABLE SOC STRUCTURES 
     
      The constitution of agents & structures are not independent of on another   
      The structural properties of social systems are both the medium & outcome of the practices they recursively organize 
     
      The properties of social systems are seen as both medium & outcome of the practices of actors, & those system properties recursively organize the practices of actors   
      The moment of the production of action is also one of reproduction in the contexts of the day to day enactment of social life 
     
      Structuration involves an interdependent, mutual relationship btwn structure & agency 
     
      People & orgs, i.e. agency, create structure, & structure influences where, when & how people & orgs create 
     
      The constitution of agents & structures are two dependent given sets of phenomena that are a duality 
     
      DISTANCING IS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF ALL SOC RELATIONSHIPS THAT THEY ARE STRUCTURALLY & CULTURALLY TRANSMITTED BY AGENTS ACROSS TIME & SPACE, 'GAINING A LIFE OF THEIR OWN' 
     
      The primordial condition is face to face interaction, in which others are present at the same time & in the same space 
     
      Social systems extend farther than agents in time & space & so the agents of creation of a soc sys may no longer be present 
     
      Distancing in terms of time & space is made increasingly possible in the modern world by new forms of communication & transportation 
     
      Historical analysis try to make clear the nature of the influence of how structures have evolved over time & space 
     
      STRUCTURATION & DISTANCING OCCUR AMONG ALL SOC PHENOMENON, SUCH AS IDEOLOGY, AGENTS, STRUCTURE, CULTURE, & MORE 
     
      Structuration theory concentrates on the orderings of instit over time & space, & does not focus on societies 
     
      Instit include the cluster of practices including symbolic orders (religion, & other cultural sys), politics, econ, & law 
     
      Structuration theory examines changes in institutions over time & space   
      Structuration theory explores the role of leaders of various instit & how they alter social patterns   
      Structuration theory monitors the impact of their findings on the social world   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Critiques of Structuration Theory
    External
    Links
      CRITICISMS OF STRUCTURATION THEORY INCLUDE THAT IT IS NOT GROUNDED, IS NOT COMPLEX ENOUGH, USES THEORIES THAT MAY BE INCOMPATIBLE, MAY EXCLUDE OTHER THEORIES, IGNORES USEFUL IDEAS FROM OTHER THEORIES, HAS NO CRITICAL ANALYSIS, IS FRAGMENTED, VAGUE & DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND 
     
      STRUC TH IS NOT GROUNDED IN THAT IT DOES NOT EXPLORE 'REAL' OR 'DEEP STRUCTURES' THAT ARE THE MOST INFLUENTIAL   
      Craib contents that Gidden's structuration theory fails to get at the soc structures that underlie the social world; i.e. structuration theory lack ontological depth 
     
      Examples? 
     
      STRUC TH IS TOO SIMPLE & THE WORLD IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX   
      Craib contents that Gidden's structuration theory does not mesh well w/ the complexity of the social world 
     
      STRUC TH USES INCOMPATIBLE THEORIES  
      Craib notes that Giddens utilizes a range of theories that might be incompatible 
     
      STRUC TH LIMITS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER THEORIES   
      Giddens' approach, or any grand theory, may limit the contributions that could be derived by employing a full range of sociological theories 
     
      STRUC TH FAILS TO DERIVE USEFUL IDEAS FROM OTHER PARADIGMS & THEORIES   
      According to Ritzer, Giddens' rejection of meta theories such as positivism & theories such as structural functionalism makes him unable to derive any useful ideas from them, but many see that there are connections among structuration, positivism, functionalism, conflict theory, etc. 
     
      STRUC TH OFFERS NO CRITICAL ANALYSIS, IS FRAGMENTED, VAGUE, & DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND  
      Ritzer believes that Giddens offers no critical analysis of modern society 
     
      Ritzer believes that Giddens' theory is fragmented 
     
      Ritzer believes that Giddens' theory is vague & difficult to understand 
     
      STRUCTURATIONS' STRONGEST QUAL IS THAT IT EMPHASIZES THAT STRUCTURES ARE BOTH CONSTRAINING & ENABLING
     
      Craib notes that the idea that structures are both constraining & enabling is an integral part of contemporary sociology 
     

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on an Intro to Archer 
    External
    Links
      AGENTS ARE IN RECIPROCAL & DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS W/ BOTH STRUCTURE & CULTURE
     
      Archer recognizes the theoretical implications of agency / structure interactions & so examines agency / culture interactions 
     
      While Giddens recognized the duality of structure & culture, seeing them as two side of the same phenomena, Archer advocates examining them as analytically distinct, but intertwined in social life 
     
      Archer believes a weakness of Giddens' structuration theory is giving priority to the duality of structure & culture as opposed to examining the interplay btwn them over time 
     
      It is important to view the dualism of the influences among people & social phenomena such as culture & structure 
     
      THEORISTS DEBATE OVER WHETHER SOC PHENOMENON SHOULD BE SEEN AS SEPARATE ENTITIES IN RELATIONSHIPS OR AS ONE PHENOMENON W/ VARYING QUALITIES 
     
      Ritzer believes that both dualities & dualism are useful in analyzing the social world 
     
      In some cases it is useful to separate structure & action, or mic & mac, to look at how they relate to one another 
     
      In other cases it is useful to look at structure & action, or mic & mac as dualities that are inseparable 
     
      STRUCTURATION IMPLIES MORPHOGENESIS:  THE TRANSFORMATION & ELABORATION OF SOC PHENOMENON 
     
      Structuration theory depicts cycles of agency & structure w/o direction while Archer suggests that their is consistent structural elaboration over time via process called morphogenesis 
     
      See Also:  Morphogenesis 
     
      Morphogenesis is the process by which complex interchanges lead no only to changes in the structure of the system, but also to an end product:  structural elaboration 
     
      While morphogenesis implies changer, morphostasis is an absence of change 
     
      Morphogenesis is a process of emergent properties that are separable form the actions & interactions that produced them   
      Once structures have emerged, they react upon & alter action & interaction   
      The morphogenesis perspective looks at this process over time, seeing endless sequences & cycles of structural change, alterations in action & interaction & structural elaboration   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Morphogenesis:  The Relationships Among Mental Systems, Agency, Structure, & Culture 
    External
    Links
      MORPHOGENESIS IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH COMPLEX INTERCHANGES LEAD NOT ONLY TO CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE SYSTEM, BUT ALSO TO AN END PRODUCT:  STRUCTURAL ELABORATION 
     
      The examination of structure & agency overshadows the examination of culture & agency 
     
      Cultural analysis lags behind structural analysis   
      Because structure & culture are intertwined in the real world, the distinction of the priority of structure / agency or culture agency is a conceptual one 
     
      While structure is the realm of material phenomena & interests, culture involves non material phenomena & ideas 
     
      For Archer, because structure & culture are autonomous, the relationships btwn agency, structure, & culture must be examined independently 
     
      MORPHOGENESIS OCCURS IN ALL SOCIAL PHENOMENON INCLUDING IDEOLOGY, AGENTS, STRUCTURE, & CULTURE 
     
      Morphogenetic theory examines how structural conditioning affects social interaction & how this interaction, in turn, leads to structural elaboration 
     
      Morphogenetic theory examines how cultural conditioning affects socio cultural interaction & how this interaction leads to cultural elaboration over time 
     
      Cultural condition refers to the parts or components, of the cultural system
     
      Socio cultural interaction deals w/ the relationships btwn cultural agents
     
      The relationship btwn cultural conditioning & socio cultural interaction is a variant of the cultural / agency issue 
     

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Agency & Cultural Systems
    External
    Links
      CULTURAL ELABORATION IS THE PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION, DIFFERENTIATION, & GROWTH OF UNIQUE CULTURAL FORMS THAT, TODAY, GIVE AN APPEARANCE OF 'PROGRESS' 
     
      Cultural systems exhibit socio cultural action, wherever it is situated historically, takes place in the context of innumerable interrelated theories, beliefs & ideas which had developed prior to it, & exert a conditional influence on it 
     
      Culture is on par w/ structure in its relationship w/ action & mental states in that both culture & structure influence agency & mental systems & each other   
      The socio cultural sys logically predates socio cultural action &  interaction, & affects, & is affected by such action
     
      Cultural elaboration comes after socio cultural action & interaction & the changes induced in them by alterations in the socio cultural system
     
      Archer examines cultural elaboration in general but also specific manifestations 
     
      Cultural elaboration is the future which is forged in the present, hammered out of past inheritance by current innovation 
     
      CULTURE HAS CONFLICTUAL & ORDERING INFLUENCES ON THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF SOCIETY & THUS MAY INCITE OR CONSTRAIN SOCIAL CHANGE 
     
      The conflict dimension of culture / agency interaction is seen when parts of the cultural system are contradictory 
     
      The order dimension of culture / agency interaction is seen when parts of the cultural system are complementary 
     
      Whether conflict or order is predominate in a cultural system determines whether agents will engage in conflictual or orderly relationships w/ one another 
     
      The cultural system can impinge on or constrain action just as structure can 
     
      AGENTS RESPOND REFLEXIVELY TO CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES OR CONSTRAINTS 
     
      Agents respond to cultural constraints 
     
      The cultural system thus has a two fold relationship as seen in the cultural system's impact upon the agent, & the agent's impact upon the cultural system 
     
      Agents have the ability to either reinforce or to resist the influence of the cultural system   
      CULTURE FUNCTIONS IN 3 WAYS: 
    A.  W/O OUR KNOWING IT 
    B.  BY IMPOSITION VIA DOMINATE GRPS
    C.  BY SHAPING STRUCTURE 
     
      First, is the downward conflation, where culture is a macro phenomenon that acts on actors behind their backs   
      Second, is the upward conflation, where one group imposes its world view, i.e. mental states, upon others by shaping or estbling cultural hegemony   
      Third, is the central conflation, where culture impacts & is impacted by social structure, i.e. all forms of patterned social interaction   
      CULTURAL SYSTEMS HAVE ELABORATED TO INCLUDE MORE VARIED TYPES OF AGENTS & RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THEM   
      The cultural system consists of components that have a logical relationship to one another   
      The cultural system has a causal impact on structure   
      There is a causal relationship among the individuals & groups that exist at the cultural system level   
      Changes in the cultural system lead to elaboration of the cultural system   
      Through an examination of morphogenesis, Archer creates a unified analysis of the relationship btwn structure, culture, & agency by demonstrating the reciprocal impact of structure & culture, as well as the relative impact of both on agency / soc action   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on an  Intro to Bourdieu
    External
    Links
      OBJ & SUBJ FACTORS SUCH AS STRUC & CULTURE, OR AGENTS & MENTAL SYS MUST BE VIEW AS ONE SYSTEM
     
      Bourdieu believes the social sciences & phil have estbed a false opposition btwn objectivism & subjectivism, i.e. the absurd opposition btwn individual & society 
     
      Bourdieu believes Durkheim & his delineation of social facts, the structuralism of Marxists, structuralism , etc. are all exclusively w/in the objectivist camp 
     
      Durkheim & his delineation of social facts, the structuralism of Marxists, structuralism , etc. are all ignoring the process of social construction by which actors perceive, think about & construct these structures & then proceed to act on that basis 
     
      Objectivists ignore & construct structures, & ignore agency & the agent 
     
      Bourdieu develops a structuralist analysis w/o losing sight of the agent 
     
      Bourdieu develops a subjectivist position along the lines of many symbolic interactionists 
     
      For Bourdieu there is a reciprocal relationship btwn objective structures & subjective phenomena 
     
      Objective structures form the basis for representations & constitute the structural constraints that bear upon interactions 
     
      Structural representations take into consideration the daily individual & collective struggles which develop, transform, or preserve these structures 
     
      PRACTICES ARE OUR ROUTINES OR PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR THROUGH WHICH WE ESTB MENTAL SYS, OUR SELF, STRUCTURES, CULTURE, ETC.   
      Bourdieu focuses on practice to explore the subjective component related to structures 
     
      Practices are not objectively determined, nor are they the product of free will 
     
      Constructivist structuralism depicts the reciprocal interaction btwn the way people construct social reality & the products of that construction:  the self & social structures 
     
      Constructivist structuralism analyzes different fields & the genesis of these fields 
     
      The reciprocal relationship btwn fields & the genesis of fields is inseparable from the analysis of the genesis, the biological imperatives of agents, & of mental schemas which are to some extent the product of the incorporation of structure  
      The reciprocal relationship btwn fields & the genesis of fields is also inseparable from structures & the genes of structures, the social space, & the groups that occupy it, all of which are the product of histl struggles   
      STRUCTURES EXIST AT ALL LEVELS INCLUDING W/IN THE OUR CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF, CULTURE, & MORE   
      For Bourdieu, 'traditional structuralists' focused on language & culture, but structures also exist in the social world itself   
      Objective structures, as independent of the consciousness & the will of agents are capable of guiding & constraining their practices or their representations   
      These structures have a particular histl genesis or development 
     
      STRUCTURES AT THE MICRO LEVEL 'CONSTRUCT THE SELF' & PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS ON THE SELF   
      Bourdieu analyzes the way people, on the basis of their position in social space, perceive & construct the social world   
      Perception & construction are both animated & constrained by structures   
      The analysis of objective structures is inseparable from the analysis of the genesis of the self w/in the biological agents, & from the structures themselves, & from the mental structures   
      In the examination of structure & construction of the self & structure is an examination of structures & mental structures   
      CRITICS BELIEVE BOURDIEU IS TO STRUCTURAL BUT HE WOULD CONTEND HIS THEORY EMBODIES AN ACTIVE, FREE AGENT   
      While attempting to bridge the divide btwn structure & constructivism, Ritzer feels that there is a bias in the direction of structuralism   
      The bias towards structuralism is Bourdieu's, Foucault's & others' work while embracing constructivism is the reason they are called post structuralists   
      Ritzer believes Bourdieu's constructivism ignores subjectivity & intentionality  
      Symbolic interactionists see constructivist structuralism as little more than a more adequate structuralism   
      Wacquant notes that priority is granted to objectivism over subjectivist understanding   
      Yet the dynamic agent in Bourdieu's work is a dynamic actor capable of intentionality & intentionless intervention of regulated improvisation  

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Habitus
    External
    Links
      -  Project:  Your Habitus 
    Link
      -  Project:  Their Habitus 
    Link
      HABITUS ARE MENTAL OR COGNITIVE STRUCTURE THROUGH WHICH PEOPLE DEAL W/ THE SOCIAL WORLD
     
      Habitus are practices in relationship to mental systems, the agent / self, structure, & culture 
     
      Habitus is the system of structured & structuring dispositions which is constituted by practice & constantly aimed at practical functions   
      Habitus exists in the minds of actors 
     
      Habitus in a reciprocal relationship w/ field 
     
      People are endowed w/ a series of internalized schemes through which they
    perceive
    understand
    appreciate
    evaluate the social world 
     
      Through habitus people both produce their practices  perceive & evaluate them 
     
      As a result of habitus reciprocal relationship w/ field, it is a product of the internalization of the structures 
     
      Habitus is internalized, embodied social structures 
     
      Habitus is similar to common sense
     
      Habitus reflects the objective divisions in the social structure, such as
    age
    groups
    genders,
    classes
    etc. 
     
      HABITUS DEVELOPS AS A RESULT OF OUR POSITION IN THE WORLD, ESP THE ECON SECTOR   
      Habitus is acquired as a result of long term occupation of a position w/in the social world 
     
      Habitus varies depending on the nature of one's position in that world
     
      Not everyone has the same habitus
     
      Those who occupy the same position w/in the social world tend to have similar habitus 
     
      Habitus is shaped, transformed, developed by agent's practice, i.e. the capacity for invention & improvisation   
      HABITUS ARE COLLECTIVE IN THAT SIMILAR PEOPLE HAVE SIMILAR HABITS, ROUTINES, PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AS A RESULT OF SIMILAR POSITIONS / EXPERIENCES IN THE WORLD   
      Habitus can be a collective phenomenon  
      Habitus allows people to make sense out of the social world, but the existence of a multitude of habitus means that the social world & its structures do not impose themselves uniformly on all actors   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Practice
    External
    Links
      PRACTICE IS THE HUMAN ACTION, THE SYSTEM OF STRUCTURED & STRUCTURING DISPOSITION WHICH IS CONSTITUTED BY THE CONSTANT EXERCISE OF USEFUL FUNCTIONS 
     
      It is practice that mediates btwn habitus & the social world 
     
      It is through practice that habitus is created 
     
      It is as a result of practice that the social world is created 
     
      While practice shapes habitus, habitus also serves to both unify & generate practice   
      Practice is a subset of habitus; habitus is a person's complete set of practices 
     
      Practice is our individual routine that we form around a position, a context, another person   
      An example of practices would be how I act around my mother & how I act around my best friend; I have a set of language, a set of behavior, jokes, tastes, etc. that are consistent for each relationship, & different for each relationship 
     
      PRACTICES, LIKE HABITS OR ROUTINES, ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD & CULTURAL INFLUENCE & THUS WE MAY NOT HAVE TOTAL FREE WILL IN PERFORMING THEM, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE SOME 
     
      While habitus is an internalized structure that constrains thought & choice of action, it does not determine them 
     
      The lack of determinism is seen as one of the main differences of constructive structuralism as opposed to the structuralism of other theorists, who saw structure as more determinative 
     
      For Withen the real power of a given structure such as the econ is seen statistically & varies depending on the variety of other structures such as govt activity, health care, culture, etc. 
     
      For example, an econ downturn will increase the rate of suicide, but suicide rates are also affected by the social safety net, counseling availability, the rhetoric of individualism, etc. 
     
      For Bourdieu, habitus merely 'suggests' what people should think & what they should choose to do 
     
      People engage in a conscious deliberation of options, although this decision making process reflects the operation of the habitus 
     
      The habitus provides the principles by which people make choices & choose the strategy that they will employ in the social world
     
      For Bourdieu & Wacquant put it, 'people are not fools' but they are not fully rational either   
      People act in a reasonable manner, they have practical sense   
      There is a logic to what people do; it is the logic of practice   
      SOME PRACTICES MAY BE CONTRADICTORY OR DYSFUNCTIONAL  
      An example of contradictory practices is: exercising for health & eating unhealthy food; loving someone & abusing them; working hard for our money & spending it foolishly   
      Robbins holds that practical logic is 'polythetic, i.e. is capable of sustaining simultaneously a multiplicity of confused & logically contradictory meanings or theses because the over riding context of its operation is practical   
      Bourdieu's practice underscores the difference btwn practical logic & rationality   
      OUR PRACTICES ARE PARTIALLY SHAPED BY OUR FREE WILL & RELATIONALISM AS WE TRANSFORM THEM TO FIT CHANGING CONDITIONS, I.E. NEW RELATIONSHIPS W/ OTHERS & OUR ENV   
      Relationalism connotes that habitus in constantly changing because it is in a relationship w/ other changing factors of field & practice   
      Habitus in not unchanging, fixed structure, but rather is adapted by individuals who are constantly changing in the face of contradictory situations   
      PRACTICES ARE CARRIED OUT 'BELOW CONSCIOUSNESS' BECAUSE WE OFTEN ACT W/O THINKING & BECAUSE RATIONALITY, DECISION MAKING, FEELINGS, ETC. ARE ALSO AT LEAST PARTIALLY BELOW CONSCIOUSNESS   
      Practice, relationalism, habitus, & fields usually function below the level of explicit consciousness & language, beyond the reach of introspective scrutiny & control by the will   
      While we are not conscious of habitus & its operation, it manifests itself in our practices which are our most practical activities, such as the way we eat, walk, talk, & even blow our noses   
      The habitus operates as a structure, but people do not simply respond mechanically to it or to external structures that are operating on them because our practices include a measure of will, rationality, choice, deliberation, etc.   
      Practice in the activity via which we avoid the extremes of unpredictable novelty & total determinism   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Field
    External
    Links
      FIELD IS SIMILAR TO SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN THAT THEY BOTH REPRESENT PATTERNED SOCIAL BEHAVIORS THAT EXIST BEYOND ANY INDIVIDUAL, & FIELD IS USUALLY CONSIDERED TO BE MORE MICRO CONSTRUCTIVIST THAN TRADL STRUCTURE 
     
      The field is a network of relations among the objective positions w/in it 
     
      Field exists outside the minds of agents 
     
      Field is in a reciprocal relationship w/ habitus 
     
      The field is though of relationally rather than structurally 
     
      The relationships which constitute the field exist apart from the individual consciousness & will
     
      The relationships which constitute the field are not interactions or inter subjective ties among individuals
     
      The occupants of positions may be either agents or institutions, & they are constrained by the structure of the field
     
      There are a number of semi autonomous fields in the social world such as the arts, religions, education, etc. 
     
      Each field has its own specific logic & generates among actors, a belief about the things that are at state in a field 
     
      FIELD IS CONSIDERED TO BE MORE CHANGEABLE & CONSTRUCTED BY PEOPLE IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES THAN SOC STRUCTURE 
     
      Bourdieu's concept of the field is similar to that of social structure 
     
      See Also:  Social Structure   
      Social structure is the organization of society, including institutions, social positions, the relationships among social positions, the groups or orgs that make up society, & the distribution of scarce resources w/in the society 
     
      For Bourdieu, social structure is problematic because soc theorists see it as too permanent & immutable   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Field Capital 
    External
    Links
      -  Project:  Field Capital & Power 
    Link
      CAPITAL IS THOSE RESOURCES, OBJ & SUBJ, THAT ALLOW ONE TO EXIST IN, DEVELOP, & TRANSFORM ONE'S HABITUS & FIELD 
     
      The positions of various agents in the field are determined by the amount & relative weight of the capital they possess
     
      Bourdieu uses military imagery to describe the field, calling it an arena of 'strategic emplacements, fortresses to be defended & captured in a field of struggles' 
     
      It is capital that allows one to control one's own fate as well as the fate of others 
     
      Bourdieu discusses FOUR types of capital, including: 
    a.  economic capital
    b.  cultural capital 
    c.  social capital 
    d.  symbolic capital 
     
      A.  ECONOMIC CAPITAL IS THE ECONOMIC WEALTH ONE OWNS OR CONTROLS 
     
      Econ cap is the most objective & visible type of capital 
     
      Econ cap is the easiest to save / accumulate & the easiest to transfer   
      B.  CULTURAL CAPITAL IS LEGITIMATE KNOWLEDGE, USUALLY ABOUT SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS & PEOPLE 
     
      Cultural capital can be seen in the understanding that one has on how mkts for products operate, the understanding one has of a group of people such as environmentalists, conservatives, a gang, women, etc. 
     
      Cultural capital can be seen in the understanding one has of institutions such as when former govtl officials become consultants to businesses   
      C.  SOCIAL CAPITAL IS THE VALUED SOCIAL RELATIONS BTWN PEOPLE 
     
      Social capital is network power in that 'its not what you know, but who you know' 
     
      Having a network of people is often more valuable than econ cap   
      The upper class is a relatively closed network of people & institutions   
      D.  SYMBOLIC CAPITAL IS ONE'S HONOR & PRESTIGE 
     
      Symbolic capital is similar to status, & can be traded on in the social world 
     
      Symbolic capital can 'open doors' for one 
     
      FIELD CAPITAL IS SIMILAR TO, OR A ROUTE TO POWER   
      Power is the ability or authority to act or do something, or to have something done, or control something or someone   
      An agent must have power to gain capital   
      An agent must have capital to gain power   
      Power & capital are the forces through which individuals, orgs, institutions, etc., i.e. agents can act in the world   
      Agents individuals, orgs, institutions, etc. can gain, lose, use, or save capital & power   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on   Conflict in Fields
    External
    Links
      CONFLICT IN FIELDS OCCURS W/IN A FIELD AS AGENTS TRY  TO GAIN CAPITAL & POWER, & AMONG FIELDS AS AGENTS TRY TO GAIN CAPITAL & POWER FOR THEIR FIELD INCREASING ITS EXPANSE 
     
      The field, by definition, is an arena of battle 
     
      The field is a field of struggles 
     
      It is the structure of the field that both' undergirds & guides the strategies whereby the occupants of these positions seek, individually or collectively, to safeguard or improve their position, & to impose the principle of hierarchization most favorable to their own products' 
     
      The field is a competitive marketplace where field capital, i.e. econ, cul, soc, & symbolic capital, are employed & deployed 
     
      It is the field of power, of politics, that is the most important for Bourdieu 
     
      The hierarchy of power relationships w/in the political field structures all the other fields. 
     
      STRATEGIES ARE A PARTICULAR PRACTICES USE TO GAIN CAPITAL, POWER, EXPAND THEIR FIELD, OR EXPAND THEIR HABITUS
     
      Agents in the field use a variety of strategies, indicating that agents have at least some freedom 
     
      The habitus opens the possibility of strategic calculation on the part of agents 
     
      Strategies are not the purposive & pre planned pursuit of calculated goals 
     
      Strategies are the active deployment of objectively oriented 'lines of action' that obey regularities & form coherent & socially intelligible patterns, even though they do not follow conscious rules or aim at the pre meditated goals positioned by a strategist 
     
      Agents use strategies to act in the field to seek, individually or collectively, to safeguard or improve their position
     
      Agents seek to impose the principle of hierarchization most favorable to their own products   
      The strategies of agents depend on their positions in the field   
      SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE & PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ARE PRACTICES & STRATEGIES THAT COERCE OR CONTROL OTHERS   
      Symbolic violence is soft violence which is exercised upon a social agent w/ his or her complicity   
      Symbolic violence is practiced indirectly, largely thorugh cultural mechanisms, & stands in contrast overt or physical violence   
      Bourdieu is interested in the emancipation of people from symbolic violence & from class & political domination   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on the  Fields
    External
    Links
      BOURDIEU'S FIELDS ARE SIMILAR TO / A COMBINATION OF 'CLASSIC' SOC STRUCTURES & 'MODERNIST' SOC STRUCTURES
     
      Bourdieu made no exact list of all the fields, but he discussed several in depth, including the religion, econ, govt, ed, professionals, the arts & more 
     
      Bourdieu's fields parallel that of other social scientists 
     
    PF REG M CEML is one formulation of structures   
    Structuralists, post structuralists & others also include the structures of crime & the criminal justice system, sex & pleasure, & others   
      THE ECON & GOVT ARE THE MOST INFLUENTIAL / CENTRAL FIELDS 
     
      The econ is the field that is the most central to society, i.e. it has far reaching influence 
     
      The state is the field of the struggle over the monopoly of symbolic violence 
     
      THE ED SYS IS THE PRIMARY FIELD THROUGH WHICH LANGUAGE, MEANINGS, & SYMBOLS ARE IMPOSED ON PEOPLE WHICH LEGITIMIZE THE SYSTEM, ESP THE GOVTL & ECON SYSTEMS 
     
      The ed system is the major institution through which symbolic violence is practiced
     
      Language, the meanings, the symbolic system of those in power are imposed on the rest of the population 
     
      The imposition of language, meanings & symbols via ed & other fields buttresses the positions of those in power by obscuring what they are doing form the rest of society 
     
      The imposition of language, meanings & symbols via ed & other fields by getting the dominated to accepts their condition of domination as legitimate, & thus often not recognizing the existence of that domination 
     
      Bourdieu sees the ed sys as implicated in reproducing existing power & class relations 
     

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on the Histl Dev of Habitus & Field
    External
    Links
      THE HISTL DEV OF HABITUS & FIELD MEANS THAT COMMON PRACTICES TODAY HAVE CHANGES & BEEN MODIFIED THROUGHOUT HIST & SOME MAY HAVE ANCIENT ASPECTS INTACT TODAY 
     
      The habitus, field, practice, et al, which are available at any given time have been created over the course of collective history
     
      The habitus, the product of history, produces individual & collective practices, & hence history, in accordance w/ the schemes engendered by history 
     
      The habitus manifested in any given individual is acquired over the course of individual history & is a function of the particular point in history 
     
      Habitus is both durable & transposable, that is, transferable from one field to another
     
      It is possible for people to have an inappropriate habitus, to suffer from what Bourdieu called hysteresis
     
      An example of hysteresis is some who who is uprooted from an agrarian existence in contemporary pre capitalist society & put to work on Wall Street 
     
      The habitus of the farm would not allow one to cope well in the life of a financier 
     
      HABITUS & FIELD EVOLVE THROUGH AN INTERPLAY THAT REPRODUCES SOME OF THE PRIOR SOCIAL WORLD & PRODUCES NEW, INNOVATIVE ASPECTS OF THE SOCIAL WORLD THUS RESULTING IN BOTH THE MAINTENANCE & DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY 
     
      Given that the social world has a history, this histl development of habitus both produces & is produced by the social world 
     
      Habitus is a 'structuring structure in that it is a structure that structures the social world 
     
      Habitus is a 'structured structure' in that it is a structure that is structured by the social world
     
      Habitus is the reciprocal of the internalization of externality & the externalization of internality 
     
      Habitus is neither a subjective nor an objective phenomenon 
     
      For Bourdieu, we are both subjects, in that we are subject to social forces, & agent, in that we act in our own interests w/in the context of social forces / structures   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Distinction / Taste 
    External
    Links
      DISTINCTION IS ONE'S TASTE, I.E. AESTHETIC PREFERENCE OF DIFFERENT GROUPS THROUGHOUT SOCIETY 
     
      Distinction & tastes appear random to most  people, but in fact they are structured by our relationships to our ideology, self, structure, culture, etc. 
     
      Taste is the acquired disposition to differentiate among the various cultural objects of aesthetic enjoyment & to appreciate them differentially   
      Bourdieu recognizes the legitimacy of the categorization of high culture, popular culture, low culture, the anthropological sense of culture, etc. 
     
      THE TASTES & DISTINCTIONS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL, GRP, ORG, ETC. CONSIST OF A RELATIVELY COHERENT SET OF PREFERENCES 
     
      Because of structural forces, esp field & habitus, the cultural preferences of groups, esp classes & sub classes, are a coherent system 
     
      Each agent, group, etc. has a relatively clear & coherent set of tastes, & while tastes seem to be nearly random, marketers, Bourdieu, & other social scientists recognize that tastes the result of our position in structure & culture 
     
      TASTES & DISTINCTIONS 'GROUND' THE SELF IN THEIR POSITION IN PARTICULAR & GENERAL CONTEXTS 
     
      Taste gives an agent & others a sense of his or her place in the social order
     
      Taste unifies those w/ similar preferences & differentiates them from others 
     
      The implication of taste is that we classify objects & thereby ourselves 
     
      We categorize people by the tastes they manifest, by their preferences for music, movies, cars, jewelry, etc. 
     
      HABITUS, FIELD, CLASS, CULTURE, ETC. ARE SOCIAL FORCES WHICH IMPACT TASTES & DISTINCTIONS
     
      Class & its field, the econ, have a major impact on taste
     
      Each class has its own culture consisting of knowledge, beliefs, values, & norms, & thus class structures cultural relationships 
     
      Class & culture are fields which are a series of positions in which a variety of 'game' or conflicts take place   
      The actions of agents who have positions in the structure are governed by the resources available in the structure & the rules or culture of the structure   
      Agents have positions in fields / structures & the interests associated w/ those positions   
      In the game / conflict that agents engage in, the agents utilize a wide range of strategies   
      Taste is an opportunity both to experience & to assert one's position w/in the field
     
     
    Class has an impact on one's ability to play this game in that those is the higher classes are better able to have their tastes accepted & to oppose the tastes of those in the lower classes
     
      Thus culture is related to class in that each class embraces a culture, a set of tastes  
      Culture, sets of tastes, etc. represent the class one occupies & may allow one to build sufficient capital to enter or leave a class   
      Taste is a matchmaker   
      HABITUS IS OUR PERSONAL CULTURE WHICH SHAPES OUR TASTES & DISTINCTION   
      Tastes are shaped by habitus in that tastes shaped are by surface opinions & verbalizations  
      The nature of a particular cultivated habitus are formed, & only function w/in a field, which is a field of possible forces, a dynamic situation   
      There is a correlation btwn positions & the dispositions, tastes, culture of the agents who occupy them  
      Practices, tastes, culture are estbed in the relationship btwn habitus & field   
      CULTURE IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED AS SHAPING TASTES, AS WE RESPOND TO SHARED IDEAS & PRACTICES AROUND US   
      Culture is a kind of market place where field capital, i.e. economic, cultural, social, & symbolic capital are are produced & traded   
      People pursue distinction in a wide range of cultural field from the beverages they drink to the cars they crime to the newspapers they read, & the resorts they visit  
      Relationships of distinction, of power, of capital are inscribed in these products from the Rolex to the mini van   
      The possession or use of certain cultural goods, such as a Mercedes, yields cultural profits that can open doors or allow connections to be made   
      TO SUCCEED IN A GIVEN FIELD, OUR TASTES MUST MATCH THOSE OF OTHER AGENTS IN THE FIELD   
      To occupy a give position, one needs the cultural goods that go w/ it if one is to succeed   
      Changes in position are likely to result in changes in tastes which results in changes in cultural products   
      Changes in taste result from the conflict btwn opposing forces in culture & class   
      The heart of the conflict lies w/in the class systems, thus paralleling the Marxist / cultural Marxist debates, favoring the Marxists  
      The conflict btwn artists & intellectuals is largely w/in the cultural system & ultimately has not transformed the econ class sys   

     
    Internal
    Links

    Top

     Outline on  Professional Habitus & Field in Academia
    External
    Links
      PROFESSIONS, & ALL OCCUPATIONS, HAVE SETS OF STRATEGIES & PRACTICES THAT, WHEN COMBINED, MAKE UP A HABITUS 
     
      Occupations have cultures & cultures embody tastes & distinctions which give one the capital & power w/ which to rise or fall in that occupation
     
      Bourdieu examines one profession, one w/ which he is familiar, that of the academic, to determine which properties are pertinent, effective & liable to function as capital to as to generate the specific profits guaranteed by the field 
     
      Bourdieu examined the relationship btwn the objective positions of academic fields, their corresponding habitus,  the struggle btwn them 
     
      The ed sys reproduces in specific academic logic the structure of the field of power to which it give access 
     
      Reciprocally, academics through selection & indoctrination contributes to the reproduction of the field of power 
     
      Contrary to Bourdieu, Withen maintains that the ed sys, teachers, profs, & the curriculum is often labeled as liberal because it often does question this reproduction of power 
     
      THE HABITUS OF AN OCCUPATION, IN MOST CASES TODAY, EMBODIES A HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY
     
      All professions, all occupations exist as a hierarchy, which reflects fields of power, as well as the soc strat sys & in which political & econ power reign 
     
      All professions, all occupations have a culture, a cultural hierarchy, & cultural capital derived from scientific authority or intellectual renown 
     
      THE HABITUS OF AN OCCUPATION, IN MOST CASES TODAY, IS THE TERRAIN OF CONFLICT, INCLUDING CLASS CONFLICT, RACE CONFLICT, GENDER CONFLICT, ETC. 
     
      Conflict is waged not only btwn occupations & professions but also w/in occupations occupations & professions 
     
      Whatever type of capital a wkr or professional has take time to accumulate 
     
      Capital must be gained w/in an occupation, but then can be expended in other fields as when Joe the plumber or Jim Hansen (climatologist) become national figures 
     
      In most occupations one must conform rather than be innovative because of the risk that innovation poses to other's capital w/in that occupation   

    The End
     
    Top