Action Theories and Postmodernism

Action Theories and Postmodernism

Action theories (also called social action theories) focus on the individual's ability to create meaning and make choices, in contrast to structural theories (functionalism, Marxism) that emphasise the power of social structures to shape behaviour. Postmodernism challenges all previous theories by arguing that the grand narratives of modernity (class, progress, science) are no longer valid.

Weber: Social Action Theory

Max Weber (1864–1920) is the founding figure of action theory.

Key Arguments

• Sociology must focus on social action — behaviour to which individuals attach subjective meaning
• To understand social phenomena, we need verstehen (empathetic understanding) — grasping the actor's own interpretation of their situation
• Structures exist, but they only matter because individuals interpret and act upon them

Four Types of Social Action

Type	Driven By	Example
Instrumentally rational (zweckrational)	Calculated pursuit of a goal	A businessperson choosing the most profitable investment
Value-rational (wertrational)	Commitment to a value, regardless of consequences	A pacifist refusing to fight despite personal risk
Traditional	Custom and habit	Attending church because "we always have"
Affectual	Emotion	Acting out of love, anger, or jealousy

Weber and Structural Factors

• Weber did NOT ignore structure — he argued that both structural factors and meaningful social action must be considered
• His study of The Protestant Ethic showed how ideas (Calvinist beliefs) shaped structural change (the development of capitalism) — challenging Marx's view that the economic base determines ideas
• Weber analysed class (economic position), status (social honour), and party (political power) as three separate dimensions of stratification — not reducible to class alone (contra Marx)

Evaluation of Weber

Strength	Weakness
Recognises that individuals have agency — they are not "cultural dopes"	Still a macro theory — does not fully explore face-to-face interaction
His multi-dimensional view of stratification is more nuanced than Marx's	Structural theories argue Weber underestimates the power of social structures to constrain action
The concept of verstehen has been hugely influential in methodology	Positivists argue verstehen is unscientific — we can never truly know another's subjective meaning
Bridges structural and action approaches	His typology of action is abstract and difficult to apply empirically

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level action theory that focuses on face-to-face interaction and the construction of meaning.

Mead (1934) — Mind, Self, and Society

George Herbert Mead argued that:

• The self is socially constructed through interaction — we develop a sense of self by taking the role of the other (imagining how others see us)
• The self has two components:
• "I": the spontaneous, creative, unpredictable part of the self
• "Me": the socialised part — the attitudes of others that we have internalised
• We use symbols (language, gestures, objects) to communicate meaning — these symbols are shared through interaction
• Meaning is not fixed but constantly negotiated and renegotiated in interaction

Blumer (1969)

Herbert Blumer (Mead's student) identified three core principles:

1. Meaning: people act towards things based on the meanings those things have for them (a police uniform means something different to a law-abiding citizen than to a drug dealer)

2. Interaction: meanings arise through social interaction — they are not inherent in objects

3. Interpretation: individuals interpret and modify meanings through an internal process of reflection

Goffman (1959) — The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Erving Goffman used a dramaturgical analogy — social life is like a theatrical performance:

• Impression management: individuals actively construct the image they present to others
• Front stage: the public self — the performance put on for an audience (e.g., a teacher's confident classroom manner)
• Back stage: the private self — where the performer relaxes and drops the act (e.g., the staffroom)
• Role distance: individuals can distance themselves from a role — performing it while signalling that they are not fully defined by it (a surgeon cracking jokes signals they are more than just a surgeon)
• Stigma (1963): labelled individuals manage "spoiled identities" through various strategies

Evaluation of Symbolic Interactionism

Strength	Weakness
Reveals the complexity of everyday interaction — things we take for granted	Too micro: ignores wider structural forces (class, gender, ethnicity) that shape interaction
Shows that meaning is actively constructed, not given	Cannot explain patterns: if everything is negotiated in interaction, why do class, gender, and ethnic inequalities persist so consistently?
Goffman's dramaturgical approach is insightful and widely applicable	Not a theory of society: it says nothing about why society is structured as it is
Influenced labelling theory (Becker), ethnomethodology, and qualitative methods	Overestimates freedom: structural theorists argue people are MORE constrained than interactionists suggest

Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967) goes further than interactionism — it studies the taken-for-granted methods ("ethno-methods") that people use to make sense of everyday life.

Key Ideas

• Social order is not imposed by structures but is accomplished by members of society through their everyday interactions
• People use background assumptions (indexicality) to make sense of what others say and do — much of social life depends on shared but unstated understandings
• These assumptions are normally invisible — they only become apparent when they are disrupted

Garfinkel's Breaching Experiments

Garfinkel tested this by conducting breaching experiments — deliberately violating taken-for-granted social norms to reveal the background expectations that sustain social order:

• Students were asked to behave as lodgers in their own homes — being excessively polite and formal. Family members reacted with confusion, anger, and distress
• Students were asked to demand clarification of every casual remark ("What do you mean by 'How are you?'"). Conversations rapidly broke down
• These experiments revealed how fragile social order is — it depends on cooperation and shared assumptions that are usually invisible

Evaluation of Ethnomethodology

Strength	Weakness
Reveals the hidden work that goes into maintaining social order	Trivial: critics argue it studies trivia (how people have conversations) rather than important sociological issues (inequality, power, conflict)
Breaching experiments are a creative methodological tool	Unethical: breaching experiments can cause distress to unwitting participants
Shows that social order is an active achievement, not a given	Ignores power: who has the power to define the "background assumptions"? Ethnomethodology does not ask this question

Structuration Theory

Giddens (1984) — The Constitution of Society:

• Attempted to bridge the gap between structure and action through the concept of structuration
• Duality of structure: structures (rules, resources) both enable and constrain action, but they only exist because people reproduce them through their actions
• Structures do not exist independently of human action — they are recreated every time people act according to (or against) established rules
• Example: the English language is a structure that constrains how we communicate — but it only exists because millions of people use it daily; they could change it
• Individuals have agency — the capacity to act differently — but their choices are shaped by the structures they inhabit

Evaluation of Giddens

Strength	Weakness
Resolves the structure/agency debate by showing they are inseparable	Abstract: difficult to apply to specific empirical research
Recognises that people both create and are created by society	Archer (1995): argues Giddens conflates structure and agency — they should be analysed separately because structure pre-exists any individual's action
Widely influential across sociology	Does not specify when structures constrain more than enable, or vice versa

Postmodernism

Postmodernists argue that we have moved from a modern to a postmodern era, and that the theories of modernity (functionalism, Marxism, feminism) are no longer valid.

Key Ideas

Lyotard (1984) — The Postmodern Condition:

• Modernity was characterised by metanarratives (grand theories/big stories) that claimed to explain the whole of society: Marxism (class struggle leads to communism), functionalism (society evolves towards equilibrium), Enlightenment (science and reason lead to progress)
• Postmodernity involves the "incredulity towards metanarratives" — we no longer believe in these grand stories
• No single theory can explain the complexity, diversity, and fragmentation of contemporary life
• Knowledge is plural — there are many truths, not one truth

Baudrillard (1981, 1994) — Simulacra and Hyperreality:

• We live in a world of simulacra — copies without originals, images that bear no relation to reality
• The media does not represent reality; it creates reality — we live in hyperreality, where the distinction between real and simulated has collapsed
• Example: reality TV, social media personas, political "spin" — the image IS the reality
• Consumer culture means identity is constructed through consumption (what you buy, wear, watch) rather than through class, work, or tradition

Bauman (1992, 2000) — Liquid Modernity:

• Modern society was solid — stable institutions (class, family, career, nation) provided fixed identities and predictable life courses
• Postmodern (or "late modern") society is liquid — everything is fluid, unstable, and constantly changing
• Identities are no longer fixed by class, gender, or ethnicity — they are chosen, constructed, and changed through consumption and lifestyle
• This creates both freedom (choice, diversity) and insecurity (nothing is certain, no one knows what the future holds)

Postmodernism and Identity

• In postmodern society, identity is:
• Fragmented: people have multiple, shifting identities (worker, parent, gamer, activist) rather than one stable class identity
• Constructed through consumption: "you are what you buy" — identity is expressed through brands, fashion, music, and lifestyle choices
• Fluid: identities can be tried on and discarded — social media allows constant reinvention
• Not determined by structural factors (class, gender, ethnicity) — individuals choose who to be

Evaluation of Postmodernism

Strength	Weakness
Recognises increased diversity, choice, and fragmentation in contemporary life	Self-contradictory: postmodernism claims there are no grand truths, but this is itself a grand truth claim
Challenges the dogmatism of Marxism and functionalism — no single theory explains everything	Ignores continuing structural inequalities: class, gender, and ethnic inequalities persist — they have not been dissolved by consumer choice
Baudrillard's media analysis is prescient (social media, fake news, deepfakes)	Phipps (2014) and Marxists: postmodernism is politically passive — if there are no grand narratives, there is no basis for collective action against injustice
Highlights the importance of culture, media, and consumption in shaping identity	Exaggerates change: most people's lives are still shaped by their class position, gender, and ethnicity — not by free-floating identity choices
	Late modernists (Giddens, Beck): we are in late modernity, not postmodernity — structural forces still operate, but in new ways

Exam Tip

For Paper 3, you must be able to explain action theories AND evaluate them against structural theories. The strongest candidates use Giddens' structuration theory as a bridge — showing the examiner they understand that structure and action are not simply opposed but interact. When discussing postmodernism, always include the critique that it ignores material inequality — this shows sophisticated AO3.