Then observe that the choice of interaction as the basic unit can also dissolve some classic dilemmas of sociology. In particular, we can solve the problem of the relationship actor and structure. Traditionally we have theories that emphasize or actor or the structure, leading to raise in the end, for example, only individuals exist (and that structures are not capable of separate causal). The search for a way to overcome the dichotomy, and understand that social life is both a product of the action of the actors, but where there are structures in place has been a constant in social theory in recent decades (Giddens, 1984 , Alexander, 1988; Bourdieu, 1990, Archer 1995).
But you can not argue that these efforts have been successful. For Giddens and Bourdieu can see that although the guidelines are similar, they are accused of inconsistent problems (Berg van den, 1998) . In both cases we have the idea that actors generate actions by using a structure that simultaneously enables and constrains their actions. But in the case of Giddens is criticized because it 'eliminates' the structure by providing that the rules are in people. And in the case of Bourdieu criticism is that 'eliminates' the actor who only reproduce their habitus (King, 2000) . Beyond useful or accurate criticism, the fact is they can not overcome the dichotomy, to be easily reducible to one perspective.
For Alexander (1988) the situation is even simpler: The solution of the problem is reduced to recognize that there exists agency and structure. But a theory should specify the forms of their relationship.
Archer (1995) emphasizes the need to separate the structure and the actors, and to understand their relationship. The structure is something that exists before the actors, is an effect of the actions of past players, but that affects the present situation, such as demographic structure. But if this is true, then we are becoming a major conceptual problem something that, if it involves long causal chains, provides no conceptual problem or mystery about it (Healy, 1998): actors took X action with consequences and it affects other actions X '. Be cyclical, in fact we can define the relation as there is a situation where actors did X and that created a situation Y '. The structure would have a separate causal capacity, but while some might say that is just the aggregate decisions of individual actors, and the fact that players are past is irrelevant, it just means that the consequences of actions.
In other words, we can see that when the actor or the structure, we tend to create a mysterious conceptual problem difficult to solve. When we start from the interaction, the problem simply disappears. Suppose the simplest case of a dyad. In this case, it is clear that there are actors and decision makers. Similarly, for each actor is also true that you can not make any determination: alter represents a limit. And remember that the most basic intuition of the structure, which comes from Durkheim, is precisely that of an actor who meets limits set by other actors. In other words, the situation of interaction we have, at the same time, agency and structure.
Moreover, all other interactions in which the actor are not involved and create a structure that affects my decisions (while also being the result of decisions of actors). How they relate to the players affected, for example, the possibility of diffusion of innovations, and that is a purely structural effect, which comes from a feature of the structure of interactions, but at the same time is generated by the different interactions. 'The main point is That We Do Not Need dualism (and Some form of reification) to Explain That real people and actors face Environmental Other features They Did not choose and design' (Dépelteau, 2008, pg. 65). Actor and structure thinking mystifies a situation that when we think of interactions appears to be something very simple and does not represent a major problem.
If you think the social interaction as the basic fact allows us to overcome the problem of agency and structure, this represents a sufficient advantage of this approach.
0 comments:
Post a Comment