One of the first issues of social theory, regardless of what your choice question is what is the basic unit of social life? Although not explicitly raised, always choose a unit of analysis from which to build theory.
In social theory there are many alternatives in this regard. A unit is very traditional social action, this in turn relates to the idea that people are the basic element of social life (Weber, 1964 [1920]; Parsons, 1949, Schutz & Luckmann, 1977 [1973 ]). Another unit is an interaction, the relationship between ego and alter (Parsons, 1951, Coleman, 1990), in this logic can also include communication as the basic unit (Luhmann, 1995 [1984]). Other theorists prefer from an already constituted social unit, be it practice or a particular community (Bourdieu 1990, Giddens, 1984, White, 2008)
How can observe the election the previous revision of basic unit and theoretical solutions have no necessary relationship. The theory of James Coleman (1990) based his theory is a rational action perspective committed to methodological individualism, but the basic unit that tries to explain are interactions, exchanges, negotiations etc. In fact, the initial discussion of rights is designed to understand trade and transfer of rights between actors. It uses a single explanatory model, but to explain the basic unit is an interaction.
The second observation is that, despite all differences, in reality the interaction is the most common proposal for the basic unit of social life. In the rest of the section will hold that the proposed-action alternative or a social structure already established, are insufficient.
Luhmann (1995 [1984]) has developed some of the clearest arguments to criticize the idea that action can be the basic unit of social life. Similarly, it has criticized the idea that person or the individual has primacy as an analytical unit (Burt, 1992, pp. 181-194), which represent a form of most basic element of social life (White, 2008).
But perhaps more effective to note that the theoretical objectives of making that choice can be achieved in the same way using the interaction as the basic unit. If we defend the action as the basic unit because the actor is prior to society, or defend a version of methodological individualism, Coleman's example is sufficient to show that all these decisions are compatible with use as a basic interaction. On the other hand, the interaction is not tiene los problemas que usar la acción como unidad básica tiene.
En relación a la elección de una estructura social ya dada, parte importante del impulso de estas ideas es evitar los problemas que trae pensar en un actor constituido no socialmente, y que todos los seres humanos siempre aparecen en comunidades ya existentes. Bajo esta perspectiva, una preocupación por una unidad básica aparece como similar a la tradición del contrato social en su intento de explicar un presunto y mítico nacimiento de lo social a partir de una situación pre-social Se argumenta que la situación pre-social no ha existido nunca y es en principio impensable. Más aún, se defiende la idea que hay diferentes niveles in social life and that these levels are not reducible to each other, so the interaction can not be given priority as an explanation, the explanations are not only from the bottom up, and may well be explained by recursive processes in its own level. Also, it looks really interesting are the patterns explain these structures 'Henco, the task of sociology That Can Be seen as the logic of Analyzing and Consequences of social rule systems' (Klüver, 2000, pg. 1)
At this point, you can remember back to choose the interaction is consistent with these theoretical and conceptual concerns. Parsons explains the solution of double contingency through a pre-social element of sharing values, "and thus independent of what one thinks of the solution, shows that interaction as a basic unit choice does not imply a reductionist view of what individual or social. Luhmann's case also shows that choosing an interaction (communication) as a basic element without prejudice to devote to speak of social systems, and to choose interaction is not necessarily choose what happens in "small groups" [1] . In other words, one can choose the interaction as a basic and still stay within explanations of systemic order or higher levels.
In summary, we see that all the analytical objectives behind the other choices can be made into the choice of the interaction as a basic element of social life. In this sense, the interaction represents the most flexible of positions, and commits the least assumptions. While this may be seen as an advantage, it allows critical observations: that the interaction can be compatible with all theoretical perspectives simply because they do not contribute too much, and does not solve any basic questions and dilemmas (which is what we do in the Next post)
[1] In the terminology of Luhmann (1995 [1984]), in fact interaction is used as a synonym for small-group interactions, but we prefer to use a more general interaction as attributable to any level of actor and any form of interaction. Luhmann uses to refer to communication more generally, and therefore useful to distinguish interaction to refer to a specific form. But that solution in turn implies that limit interactions to mediation of meaning-a topic which we do not yet enter. In this sense, it would be useful to have a different word to refer to interaction that is more general mode abstract
0 comments:
Post a Comment