Definitions of Social Action
Max Weber defines social action: action is social in so far
as by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by acting individual it
takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course.
It includes all human behaviour when and in so far as the acting individual
attaches a subjective meaning to it.
According to Talcott Parsons a social action is a process in
the actor-situation system which has motivational significance to the individual
actor or in the case of collectivity, its component individuals.
According to Pareto sociology tries to study the logical and
illogical aspects of actions. Every social action has two aspects one is its
reality and other is its form. Reality involves the actual existence of the
thing and the form is the way the phenomenon presents itself to the human mind.
The first is called the objective and the other is called subjective aspects.
Different Theories of Social Action
Max Weber
Sociology according to Weber is not confined to study of
social action alone. It studies certain other factors as well. But the basic
fact is that social action which according to Max Weber is that action is
social in so far as by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by
acting individual it takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby
oriented in its course.
Social action according to Weber possesses the following
characteristics:
Relationship with the action of others: No action shall be
called a social action unless it has relationship with the present, past or
future behaviour of others. Others are not necessarily known persons. They may
be unknown individuals as well. Social action includes both failures to act and
possess acquiescence may be oriented to the past, present or accepted further
behaviour of others.
Social action is not isolated: Social action in order to be
really social has to be oriented to the behaviour of other animate things as
well. Worship before an idol or worship in a lonely place is not a social
action. It has to be oriented to the behaviour of animate beings as well. In
every kind of action even overt action is social in the sense of the present
discussions. Overt action is non social if it is oriented solely to the
behaviour of the inanimate objects.
Result of cooperation and struggle between individual and
members of the society: Mere contact with human beings is not a social action.
It should deal with the cooperation and struggle between various individuals. A
crowd that may collect at a place does not necessarily indulge in the social
action unless it starts behaving with one another. Social action is not
identical with the similar action, actions of many persons or action influenced
by others.
Has a meaningful understanding with other, action or action
of others: Mere contact with others or actions in relation to others are not a
social action. Social action should have a meaningful understanding with the
social action of others. In every type of contact of human beings has a social
character. This is rather confined to cases where the actor’s behaviour is
meaningfully oriented to that of others.
Weber argued that to explain an action we must interpret it
in terms of it’s subjectively intended meaning. A person’s action is to be
explained in terms of the consequences he or she intended purpose rather than
in terms of its actual effects the two are often at variance. A subjectively
intended meaning is also a causal explanation of the action, in that the end in
view is a cause of present actions. For Weber it is important that action is
defined in terms of meaningfulness and sociological analysis must proceed by
identifying the meaning that actions have for actors.
Types of social action
According to Max Weber social action like other social forms
of action may be classified in the following four types Rational Action: In
terms of rational orientation to a system of discrete individual ends that is
through expectations as to the behaviour of objects in the external situation
and of other human individuals making use of these expectations as conditions
or means for the successful attainment of the actor’s own rationally chosen
ends.
Evaluative actions: In terms of rational orientation to an
absolute value; involving a conscious belief in the absolute value of some
ethical, aesthetic, religious or other form of behaviour entirely for its own
sake and independently of any prospects of external success.
Emotional actions: In terms of effectual orientation
especially emotional determined by the specific affects and state of feeling of
the actors.
Traditional actions: Traditionally oriented through the habituation
of long practice.
Sociology according to Weber is not merely confined to study
of social action. It is an interpretative understanding of the social action.
He has defined sociology as a science of understanding. Although he has laid
stress on causal explanation and causal relationship or relationship between
cause and effect but he clearly defines the difference between the two. He has
not only differentiated between sociology and natural sciences but sociology
and other social sciences as well.
Talcott Parsons
Parson’s theory of social action is based on his concept of
the society. Parsons is known in the field of sociology mostly for his theory
of social action. Action is a process in the actor-situation system which has
motivational significance to the individual actor or in the case of
collectively, its component individuals.
On the basis of this definition it may be said that the
processes of action are related to and influenced by the attainment of the
gratification or the avoidance of deprivations of the correlative actor,
whatever they concretely be in the light of the relative personal structures
that there may be. All social actions proceed from mechanism which is their
ultimate source. It does not mean that these actions are solely connected with
organism. They are also connected with actor’s relations with other persons’
social situations and culture.
Systems of social action
Social actions are guided by the following three systems
which may also be called as three aspects of the systems of social action
Personality system: This aspect of the system of social action is responsible
for the needs for fulfilment of which the man makes effort and performs certain
actions. But once man makes efforts he has to meet certain conditions. These situations
have definite meaning and they are distinguished by various symbols and
symptoms. Various elements of the situation come to have several meanings for
ego as signs or symbols which become relevant to the organization of his
expectation system.
Cultural system: Once the process of the social action
develops the symbols and the signs acquire general meaning. They also develop
as a result of systematised system and ultimately when different actors under a
particular cultural system perform various social interactions, special
situation develops.
Social System: A social system consists in a plurity of
individual actor’s interacting with each other in a situation which has at
least a physical or environmental aspect actors are motivated in terms of tendency
to the optimization of gratification and whose relations to the situation
including each other is defined and motivated in terms of system of culturally
structured and shaped symbols.
In Parson’s view each of the three main type of social
action systems-culture, personality and social systems has a distinctive
coordinative role in the action process and therefore has some degree of causal
autonomy. Thus personalities organize the total set of learned needs, demands
and action choices of individual actors, no two of whom are alike.
Every social system is confronted with 4 functional
problems. These problems are those of pattern maintenance, integration, goal
attainment and adaptation. Pattern maintenance refers to the need to maintain
and reinforce the basic values of the social system and to resolve tensions
that emerge from continuous commitment to these values. Integration refers to
the allocation of rights and obligations, rewards and facilities to ensure the
harmony of relations between members of the social system. Goal attainment
involves the necessity of mobilizing actors and resources in organized ways for
the attainment of specific goals. Adaptation refers to the need for the
production or acquisition of generalized facilities or resources that can be
employed in the attainment of various specific goals. Social systems tend to
differentiate these problems so as to increase the functional capabilities of
the system. Such differentiation whether through the temporal specialization of
a structurally undifferentiated unit or through the emergence of two or more
structurally distinct units from one undifferentiated unit is held to
constitute a major verification of the fourfold functionalist schema. It also
provides the framework within which are examined the plural interchanges that
occur between structurally differentiated units to provide them with the inputs
they require in the performance of their functions and to enable them to
dispose of the outputs they produce.
Pattern Variables
Affectivity vs affectivity neutrality: The pattern is
affective when an organized action system emphasizes gratification that is when
an actor tries to avoid pain and to maximize pleasure; the pattern is
affectively neutral when it imposes discipline and renouncement or deferment of
some gratifications in favour of other interests.
Self-orientation vs collectivity orientation: This dichotomy
depends on social norms or shared expectations which define as legitimate the
pursuit of the actor’s private interests or obligate him to act in the
interests of the group.
Particularism vs universalism: The former refers to
standards determined by an actor’s particular relations with particular
relations with a particular object; the latter refers to value standards that
are highly generalized.
Quality vs performance: The choice between modalities of the
social object. This is the dilemma of according primary treatment to an object
on the basis of what it is in itself an inborn quality or what it does and
quality of its performance. The former involves defining people on the basis of
certain attributes such as age, sex, color, nationality etc; the latter defines
people on the basis of their abilities.
Diffusion vs specificity: This is the dilemma of defining
the relations borne by object to actor as indefinitely wide in scope,
infinitely broad in involvement morally obligating and significant in
pluralistic situations or specifically limited in scope and involvement.
Karl Mannheim
Karl Mannheim’s theory of sociology of knowledge explains
the linkage between thought and action. Thought process is not of individual
making. Rather a group having similar position develop only gradually new
thoughts as differentiated from the old established thoughts when they are
exposed to a certain kind of typical behaviour in a prolonged historical
setting and social perspective. When the actors interact in certain social
reality they organize their thought and act in a historical and social
perspective.
Pareto
Pareto has discussed his action theory on the basis of
logical and illogical actions in which both objective and subjective meanings
are attached respectively. Logical action essentially involves rational action
both in the mind of the actor as well as those who observe them objectively. He
maintains a logical co-relation between the means to the action and the end it
serves. All sorts of logical actions are objectively observable and verifiable
which is a reality in itself. However in social reality most of the social
actions are not logical. Although sociology deals with both the logical and
non-logical actions it emphasizes the analysis of non-logical actions. It is
the social reality in which actors give subjective meaning to the action which
is driven by meanings, motives and sentiments.
No comments:
Post a Comment