Assess the usefulness of micro sociology to our understanding of society (33marks)
Micro sociology focuses on the actions and interactions of individuals and is a bottom-up approach. Such micro approaches, see society as shaped by its members, who possess agency, in other words, the ability to act as free agents. Micro approaches, also known as action theories, include social action theory, symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodoly. However, macro sociologists take a deterministic approach, as they believe that our actions are determined by society. Macro theories include Functionalism and Marxism, who see individuals as puppets, under the control of social structures.
One micro approach to sociology is Weber’s social action theory. According to Weber, in order to understand human behaviour, we must take into account both the level of structural cause, and the level of subjective meaning that individuals attach to their actions. Weber argues that there are an infinite number of subjective meanings that actors give to their actions; however he attempts to classify actions into four types. Instrumentally rational action refers to action that is driven by a given goal, in order to achieve through the most efficient means. Value rational action involves action towards a goal that the actor regards as desirable, for example worshipping god in order to get to heaven. Unlike instrumentally rational action, there is no way of calculating whether the means of achieving the goal are effective. Traditional action involves habitual or routine actions. Weber argues that this type of action is not rational as no conscious thought has gone into it. Finally affectual action refers to any action that expresses emotion, for example an act of violence provoked by anger. Weber notes that affectual action is important in religious and political movements, who attract a following based on emotional appeal. Whilst Weber’s categories of action are useful in understanding different motives and meanings behind actions, the typology of action is difficult to apply. For example, the practising of a religion could be classified as a value rational action, driven by the goal to get to heaven, however, it may also be classified as a traditional action, as it is routine. Schutz also criticises Weber’s view of action for ignoring the shared nature of meanings, is therefore too individualistic. Schutz, a phenomenologist, argues that the categories we use have shared meaning, known as typifications. In Schutz view, typifications are important as they clarify meanings, making it possible for us to communicate and cooperate. Without such common-sense knowledge, social order would be impossible, as meanings can vary according to its social context. For Husserl, the world as we know it can only be a product of our mind. Similarly, for Schutz the social world is shared and inter-subjective, that can only exist with shared meanings. Like phenomenology, ethnomethodology sees meanings as potentially unclear, a characteristic Garfinkel calls indexicality. For Garfinkel, reflexivity allows us to construct a sense of meaning and order. Reflexivity refers to common-sense knowledge and is a similar idea to Schutz’s concept of typifications. One way of achieving reflexivity is through the use of language, as our description removes the uncertainty of meaning. Another action theory is symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism sees our interactions as based on the meanings we give to situations, in the form of symbols. Mead argues, unlike animals, our behaviour is not shaped by fixed instincts. Instead we respond to stimuli by giving meanings to them, and attaching symbols to the world. In this way, we behave according to our interpretation of the situation. According to Mead, we do this by taking the role of others, seeing ourselves as they see us. Mead argues that in order to function as members of society we need the ability to see ourselves as others see us, and this ability develops through social interaction from childhood. Similarly, Blumer notes that our actions are based on the meanings we give to situations and these meanings are the result of interpretation. However, by contrast to Mead, Blumer argues that although our actions are partly determined by others expectations of us, they are not completely fixed as meanings are negotiable and changeable to some extent. Meads concept of taking the role of the other has been developed by labelling theorists. Cooley argues that our self-concept arises out of our ability to take the role of the other. He argues that others act as a looking glass, as we see our self mirrored in the way they respond to us. Labelling theorists argue that the through this process, a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs in which we become what others see us as. By contrast to labelling theories, the work of Goffman describes how we construct our self by manipulating other people’s expectations of us. Goffman believes that we are not truly shaped by how other see us; we simply present that image to that particular audience. He argues that as social actors, we adopt many different roles according to the situation and our audience. For example, we may behave very differently around work colleagues than we do around friends. Goffman’s view of roles, is often described as the dramaturgical approach, and differs sharply from the views of Functionalists, who see roles as tightly ‘scripted’. Whilst micro approaches are useful in explaining individual’s free will, avoiding the determinism of structural theories, they ignore wider social structures such as class inequality. Such theories fail to acknowledge how individual’s actions are limited, as society’s laws ultimately regulate our behaviour, and its economic structure affects the jobs we are able to obtain. For this reason, it may be better to understand society in terms of a combination of both micro and macro approaches. This was the view of Giddens, who attempts to create a single unified theory of structure and action. According to Giddens, there is a duality of structure and agency. He argues that while structure creates the rules and resources that shape our action, structures can either be maintained, or changed through agency. However, Giddens notes that although our action can change existing structures, there is a tendency to maintain the structure of society. This suggests that, whilst it’s important to acknowledge the fact that individual actions can shape society; structural forces generally take hold. Therefore, macro sociology may provide a better explanation for our understanding of society today than micro sociology. Nevertheless, it is important to note that social change can be brought about through individual’s actions. For example, the civil rights movement demonstrates how actions can shape and change the structure of society.