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