Читать книгу Contemporary Sociological Theory - Группа авторов - Страница 28

Micro-sociological theory grew, in large part, as a counterpoint to the dominance of structural functionalism in the mid-twentieth century, although its antecedents had been present in sociological theory, and in philosophy, far earlier. Structural functionalism, and the Durkheimian tradition in sociology more generally, focused on the social system as a whole, its functional requirements, and the ways that these requirements are met (see Classical Sociological Theory – the sister volume to this reader). In doing so, it tended to treat human agents as cogs in the machine of social forces. Even the early work of Talcott Parsons, which was greatly concerned with social action, was more clearly about action systems than about actors and their subjective orientation to the action at hand and to the other actors it involved.

Micro-sociologists, by contrast, emphasized the other side of social existence. Just as humans are shaped by the social system in which they act, the micro-sociologists emphasized that the social system was also a human creation. Rather than order being imposed on individuals by the system, micro-sociologists see social order as produced either from an emergent phenomenon formed through human interaction or as the result of discrete, self-interested action and exchange. It is created and maintained, they claim, by the institutions that we actively produce, even when we are not aware of them. Because of this, society itself rests on the ability of human agents to communicate with one another through the use of symbols to signify particular meanings. This highly evolved capacity for communication based on complex, abstract symbolic systems is, in fact, one of the features that distinguish humans from other species. Although there are different theoretical traditions in micro-sociology, some of which will be discussed more fully in the following text, in a general sense, it can be said that micro-sociology is characterized by at least three common elements.

First, micro-sociologists place emphasis on the face-to-face social interaction of human agents rather than on the workings of the social system as an abstract entity. It is not quite correct to say that they focus on individuals since it is really the creation and maintenance of stable systems of meaning between individuals that micro-sociologists find fascinating. However, it is true that micro-sociologists generally focus on the interactions of concrete human agents or sets of agents rather than abstract social units, such as classes.

Second, micro-sociologists place emphasis on meanings rather than functions. Here, the influences of Max Weber and George Herbert Mead are evident in later micro-sociology. For Weber, sociology was the study of social action. Because it is individuals who carry on social action, Weber stressed that sociology had to be an interpretive science. That is, we should strive to provide objective accounts of the subjective motivations of the actions of individuals. Doing this necessarily involved taking into account the meanings that people assigned to their actions. However, Weber’s own empirical analyses tended to examine highly routine forms of social action. Later, micro-sociologists began to examine the way that even everyday interactions are supported by the meanings produced and maintained in social interaction. Here, Mead’s emphasis on the role of verbal and non-verbal symbols in the creation of meaning becomes central to micro-sociology. Although we are all born with the capacity to interpret symbols, it is only through the use of such symbols in interaction that humans acquire a “self” – a sense of who we are in the world. In this way, micro-sociologists stress the intersubjective aspects of human existence.

Third, micro-sociologists emphasize lived experience rather than an abstracted (or reified) concept of “society.” The authors in this section generally grant that social institutions, once produced, do confront us as external and “objective” realities. Nevertheless, they focus on the way that human agents experience regularized patterns of social interaction (or “institutions”) and how they support them in both big and small ways. The exchange of symbols allows forming solidarity with others by letting us come to common definitions of the world. Even seemingly banal social institutions, such as greeting rituals, have important symbolic meanings. As the sociologist Harold Garfinkel showed, we rarely recognize the importance of such institutions until they break down.¹ When we cannot take such minor routines for granted in our interactions, we have to do a great deal of interpretive work to figure out how to understand each interaction we face. Additionally, as the readings in the following text will argue, our past experiences matter in how we interpret the world. This is why people who meet for the first time, especially when they come from very different backgrounds, have to spend so much more energy to understand one another than do people who see each other every day.