This document discusses several sociological theories related to human action and agency. It begins by introducing action theories as micro-level approaches that focus on individual actions and interactions, in contrast to structural theories. It then summarizes key aspects of social action theory proposed by Weber, who saw both structural and action approaches as necessary. The document also discusses symbolic interactionism and how meanings arise through social interactions. Finally, it evaluates attempts to combine structural and action approaches, such as Giddens' structuration theory.

1. ACTION
THEORIES

2. ACTION THEORIES
Action theories start from the opposition to structural
theories such as functionalism and Marxism. They are
micro-level, ‘bottom-up’ approaches focusing on the
actions and interactions of individuals. Action theories are
voluntaristic and believe individuals have free will and
choice. All four action theories emphasise action, but they
differ in how far they see structural explanations as valid.

3. SOCIAL ACTION THEORY
Weber saw both structural and action approaches as necessary for
understanding human behaviour, arguing that an adequate explanation involves
two levels:
 The Level of Cause  explaining the objective structural factors that shape
behaviour
 The Level of Meaning  understanding the subjective meanings that
individuals attach to their actions
In his study of the rise of capitalism, at the level of structural cause, the
Protestant Ethic introduced a new belief system, Calvinism. This changed
people’s worldviews, shaping their behaviour. At the level of subjective meaning,
work had a religious meaning for Calvinists, as a calling by God. As a result, they
accumulated wealth and became the first modern capitalists.

4. TYPES OF ACTION
Weber classifies action into four types based on their meaning for the actor…
 Instrumentally Rational Action  where the actor calculates the most
efficient means of achieving a given goal
 Value-Rational Action  towards a goal that the actor regards as desirable
for its own sake, such as worshipping God in order to get to heaven
 Traditional Action  customary, routine or habitual action (the actor ‘has
always done it’)
 Affectual Action  expresses emotion, such as weeping out of gried

5. EVALUATION
Weber is are a valuable corrective to the over-emphasis on structural factors
and he places importance on understanding actor’s meanings. But he has been
criticised…
 Schutz argues Weber’s view of action is too individualistic and cannot explain
the shared nature of meanings. For example, when a person at an auction
raises their arm, they mean that they are making a bid but how does everyone
else who is present give this gesture the same meaning?
 Weber advocated the use of verstehen (empathetic approach of putting
yourself in the actor’s place), but since we cannot physically do this, we can
never be sure we have truly understood their motives

6. SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Symbolic interactionism focuses on how we
create the social world through through
interactions which are based on the
meanings we give situations and conveyed
through symbols, particularly language.

7. Mead formed the basis for many later interactionists.
 Symbols vs. Instinct  unlike animals, human behaviour is not
governed by instincts. We respond to the world by giving meanings to
the things that are significant to us and so create a world of meanings
by attaching symbols to the things around us. Therefore, there is an
interpretive phase between a stimulus and our response to it, in which
we interpret its meaning. For example, if someone shakes their fist at
you, there are many ways to interpret this (anger, humour etc)
 Taking the Role of the Other  we interpret other people’s meanings
by taking their role; seeing ourselves as they see us. This ability
develops through interaction. Young children internalise significant
others such as parents, while later in life we see ourselves from the
point of view of society, the generalised other. Shared symbols,
especially language are very important for us to become conscious of
the ways of acting that others require of us.

8. Blumer identified three key principles of interactionism…
1. Our actions are based on the meanings we give to the situations, people etc.
and so aren’t automatic responses to stimuli
2. These meanings arise from interactions and are to some extent negotiable
and changeable
3. The meanings we give to situations are mainly the result of taking the role of
the other
Blumer argues that although out action is partly predictable because we
internalise the expectations of others, there is always some room for choice in
how we perform our roles. This view of how humans conduct themselves
contrasts strongly with structural theories such as functionalism which sees the
individual as a puppet passively responding to the system’s needs.

9. Labelling theorists use three key interactionist concepts…
1. Definition of the Situation  defining something labels it. Thomas argues
that if people define a situation as real, it will have real consequences: if we
believe something to be true, this will affect how we act and in turn may
affect those involved
2. Looking-Glass Self  Cooley argues that our self-concept arises out of
our ability to take the role of the other. Others act as a looking-glass to us:
we see our self mirrored in how they respond to us, so through this process
a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs and we become what they see us even if the
initial definition was false
3. Career  Becker and Lemert apply this concept for example to mental
patients. The individual has a career running from ‘pre-patient’ with certain
symptoms, through labelling by a psychiatrist to hostpital in-patient to
discharge etc. ‘Mental patient’ may become our master status.
However, labelling theorists ignore wider social structures such as class
inequality and fails to explain the origin labels and consistent patterns in
behaviour.

10. Whereas labelling sees the individual as the passive victim of other people’s
labels, Goffman describes how we actively construct our ‘self’ by manipulating
other people’s impression of us. This is a dramaturgical approach as it uses
analogies with drama such as ‘actors’, ‘scripts’, ‘props’.
 Presentation of Self & Impression Management  we seek to present a
particular image to our audiences, controlling the impression our
‘performance’ gives. Impression management techniques include tone of
voice, gesture, props, dress, make-up. As in the theatre, there is a ‘front’ stage
where we act out our roles while backstage we can step out of our role and
‘be ourselves’ (e.g. how teachers behave in the classroom & staffroom)
 Roles  there is a role distance between our real self and our roles which are
only loosely scripted by society and allow us a lot of freedom in how we play
them. Role distance implies that we don’t always believe in the roles we play.
We may be calculating, manipulating audiences into accepting an impression
that conceals our true self.
But, this approach is criticised for simply being a loose collection of descriptive
concepts rather than an explanation theory.

11. PHENOMENOLOGY
The philosopher Husserl argues that the world
only makes sense because we impose meaning
and order on it by constructing mental categories
that we use to classify the information coming
from our senses. So, we can’t have definite
knowledge about what the world is really like, all
we can know is what our mind tells us about it.

12. Schutz applies this idea to the social world. We share the categories that we use to
classify the world with other members of society…
 He calls these shared categories typifications which enable us to organise our
experiences into a shared world of meaning (link to Cicourel’s idea about
policeman)
 The meaning of an action varies according to its social context. Meaning is given
by the context, not by the action itself, so meanings are potentially unclear and
unstable
 Fortunately, typifications make social order possible because they give members
of society a shared life world of commonsense knowledge that we can use to
make sense of our experience
 Schutz calls this recipe knowledge: we can follow it without thinking too much,
using it to make sense of the everyday world
 The social world is an inter-subjective one that can only exist when we share the
same meanings
 The fact that society appears to us as a real, objective thing outside of us simply
shows us that all members of society share the same meanings; he calls this the
natural attitude. In turn, this allows us to cooperate and achieve goals

13. EVALUATION
Berger and Luckmann reject the
view that society is merely a social
construct. Once constructed, it takes
on a life of its own and becomes an
external reality that shapes our lives

14. ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
Ethnomethodologists also reject the idea of society as a real objective structure
‘out there’.
Garfinkel argues that social order is constructed from the ‘bottom up’ and is an
accomplishment. It is something members of society actively construct in
everyday life using their commonsense knowledge. The sociologist’s task is thus
to uncover the taken-for-granted rules people use to construct social reality (link
this to Atkinson’s theory about coroners in suicide cases). Indexicality refers to
the fact that meanings are always potentially unclear. This is a threat to social
order because if meanings are unclear or unstable, communication and
cooperation become difficult and social relationships will break down. Reflexivity
is the use of our commonsense knowledge to construct a sense of meaning and
order, so prevent indexicality occurring.

15. Language is of vital importance in achieving reflexivity. It gives us a sense of
reality existing ‘out there’, although in fact all we have done is to construct a set
of shared meanings. Garfinkel used breaching experiments to disrupt people’s
expectations of a situation (e.g. students acting like lodgers in their parent’s
homes which led to the parents becoming angry, anxious or embarrassed).
These show how the orderliness of everyday situations is not inevitable and how
we use our commonsense, taken-for-granted assumptions to actively create
social order.
Craib argues that ethnomethodology’s findings are trivial. Ethnomethodologists
seem to spend a lot of time ‘uncovering’ taken-for-granted rules that turn out to
be no surprise to anyone.
Also, this theory ignores how wider structure of power and inequality affect the
meaning’s that individuals construct.

16. COMBINING STRUCTURE &
ACTION
Action Theories are micro-level, voluntaristic theories that see society as inter-
subjective, constructed through interaction and meaning.
Structural Theories are macro-level, deterministic theories that see society as
objective and external to individuals.
There is so much to be said about each theory, so Giddens’ created the
structuration theory, a single unified theory which combines both.

17. STRUCTURATION THEORIES
Giddens’ argues there is a duality of structure. Structure and
agency (i.e. action) are two sides of the same coin; neither can
exist without the other. Our actions produce, reproduce and
change structures over time and space, while these structures are
what make our actions possible in the first place; he calls the
relationship structuration. This can be applied to language. It is a
structure with rules that make it possible for us to communicate,
but our use of it can also change it’s structure, for example giving
words new meanings.

18. For Giddens, structure has two elements…
Rules  the norms, customs and laws that govern action
Resources  both economic resources and power over others
Rules and Resources can be either reproduced or changed through human
action. However, our actions generally tend to reproduce rather than change
them. This is because society’s rules contain a stock of knowledge about how to
live our lives, so our routine activities tend to reproduce the existing structure of
society. We also reproduce existing structures because we have a deep-seated
need for ontological security – a need to feel that the world is orderly, stable and
predictable.
Change can happen because…
 We reflexively monitor our actions and we can deliberately choose a new
course of action. In late modern society, where tradition no longer dictates
action, this is even more likely.
 Our actions may have unintended consequences, producing changes that
were not part of our goal.

19. EVALUATION
 Archer argues that his claim that actors can change structures
underestimates the capacity of structures to resist change; e.g. slaves may
wish to abolish the institution of slavery but lack the power to do so
 Craib rejects this as a theory because it doesn’t explain what actually
happens in society, it just describes the kinds of things we find when we study
society. Therefore, he fails to unite structure and action