Social action theory is a critical theory in sociology that holds that society is constructed through the interactions and meanings of the people who make up society.
Max Weberoriginated social action theory. He examined social action within a number of sociological fields, ranging from class behavior to politics and religion.
Key TakeawaysSocial action theories examine the motives and meanings of individuals as they decide to take on their behaviors.Max Weber (1864-1920), the originator of social action theory believed that there are four types of social action, two rational, and two social.The symbolic interactionist school of social action theory posits that social actions are created through the meanings that people create in situations.Goffman’s dramaturgical theory, meanwhile, envisions all human action as taking place on a stage, with actors undertaking actions based on the “front” or image they want to project to the world.
Key Takeaways
Types of Social Action
Branches of Social Action Theory
Weber (1936) used this term to refer to the attempts of social scientists to understand both the intent and context of human action.
Weber defined four basic types of social action. These are:
Of these four types of social action, the last two are considered to be more rationalized, and less social than the first two.
Weber proposed that the basic distinguishing feature of modern society was a shift in the motivation of individual behaviors.
The biggest idea insymbolic interactionismis that people’s self-concepts are based on their understanding of how others perceive them. This is called the looking-glass self (Cooley, 1902)
As a result, people act Their actions are based on the meaning that they give to situations, people, and so forth.
This is why symbolic interactionism considers it to be a key role of sociologists to understand these specific meanings in order to understand peoples” actions.
People also, in the view of symbolic interactionism, are constantly taking on the role of “the other.” This “other” is what society expects of people, as well as the different norms and values of different roles in society (Blumer, 1986).
This means that they are thinking about how people see them and acting accordingly. This is an active and conscious process. Regardless, social roles can change over time.
The interpretation of one’s social roles is in itself up to interpretation.
For example, what is considered to constitute “being a parent” may differ dramatically from one individual to another (Thompson, 2016).
Labeling theoryfocuses on how the meanings that people attach to situations or other people can have consequences as to how they and the ones being labeled behavior (Becker, 1963)One of the largest arguments of labeling theory is that the people in power generally have more ability to impose their definitions on situations than those without.As a result, labeling theory demands that sociologists understand where people are located in this societal power structure in order to fully understand the process of labeling and identity construction (Thompson, 2016).
Labeling theoryfocuses on how the meanings that people attach to situations or other people can have consequences as to how they and the ones being labeled behavior (Becker, 1963)
One of the largest arguments of labeling theory is that the people in power generally have more ability to impose their definitions on situations than those without.
As a result, labeling theory demands that sociologists understand where people are located in this societal power structure in order to fully understand the process of labeling and identity construction (Thompson, 2016).
Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical model of social action likens ordinary social interaction to theatrical performance.Thus, the setting, or context, of interaction is considered to be a stage. The people who act are actors; and, those who watch are the audience.The roles that people take in interaction are performances strategically crafted to project particular images to others, the audience.When people act in a social world, they create a front to project a certain, desired image of themselves. In order to create this front, they manipulate the setting in which they perform, their appearance, and how they behave.This manipulation constitutes impression management, and actors must constantly be on guard to control their expression on stage.These fronts are neither fully sincere nor fully contrived, and most people go between sincerity and cynicism throughout their lives and roles.Because constantly acting out social roles is demanding in people’s front-stage lives, they also have back-stage areas where they can drop their front and be more relaxed, or closed to their “true selves.” (Wood, 2004)
Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical model of social action likens ordinary social interaction to theatrical performance.
Thus, the setting, or context, of interaction is considered to be a stage. The people who act are actors; and, those who watch are the audience.
The roles that people take in interaction are performances strategically crafted to project particular images to others, the audience.
When people act in a social world, they create a front to project a certain, desired image of themselves. In order to create this front, they manipulate the setting in which they perform, their appearance, and how they behave.
This manipulation constitutes impression management, and actors must constantly be on guard to control their expression on stage.
These fronts are neither fully sincere nor fully contrived, and most people go between sincerity and cynicism throughout their lives and roles.
Because constantly acting out social roles is demanding in people’s front-stage lives, they also have back-stage areas where they can drop their front and be more relaxed, or closed to their “true selves.” (Wood, 2004)
Critical Evaluation
Social action theories have both received great amounts of praise and criticism. Social action theories have been favored over structuralist theories of action because they recognize that people are complex, attach their own meanings to the world, and that motives are diverse and can vary from person to person.
Labeling theory, in particular, has also highlighted the importance of small-level interactions in shaping people’s identities and the fact that those with power are more able to define others.
For example, a number of criminologists have used labeling theory to explain why certain groups (such as childhood delinquents) are more likely to commit future crimes than others, and that those who mostly put these labels on children are those in power, such as school administrators.
Nonetheless, social action theory has received equal criticism for not paying sufficient attention to how social structures constrain action; and ignoring power distribution in society, such as influence gaps between classes, genders and ethnicities.
Labeling theory has been criticized for being deterministic — assuming that “powerless” people given labels are bound to assume them (Tuomela, 2012).
Social Action Theory vs. Structuralism
This perspective emphasizes the role of individual identity. To understand how human actions work, sociologists must understand an individual’s own motives for acting (Thompson, 2016).
References
Baehr, P. (2001).The “iron cage” and the “shell as hard as steel”: Parsons, Weber, and the Stahlhartes Gehäuse metaphor in the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.History and Theory, 40(2), 153-169.
Becker, H. S. (1963).Outsiders(Vol. 1973). New York: Free Press.
Blumer, H. (1986).Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Univ of California Press.
Campbell, C. (1996). On the concept of motive in sociology.Sociology,30(1), 101-114.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Looking-glass self. The production of reality:Essays and readings on social interaction, 6,126-128.
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (2014).From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Routledge.
Goffman, E. (2002).The presentation of self in everyday life.1959. Garden City, NY, 259.
Gouldner, A. W. (1954).Patterns of industrial bureaucracy.
Parsons, T. (1947). Certain primary sources and patterns of aggression in the social structure of the Western world.Psychiatry, 10(2), 167-181.
Sager, F., & Rosser, C. (2009). Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of modern bureaucracy.Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1136-1147.
Swedberg, R., (1998).Max Weber and the Idea of Economic Sociology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Thompson, K. (2018)Max Weber:The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Revise Sociology.
Thompson, K. (2016). Social Action Theory.
Tuomela, R. (2012).A theory of social action(Vol. 171). Springer Science & Business Media.
Weber, M. (1905).Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. Berlin.
Weber, M. (1921).The City.
Weber, M. (1930).The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons(reprint 1958).
Weber, M. (1936).Social actions.
Weber, M., & Kalberg, S. (2013).The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.
Wood, J. T. (2004). Communication theories in action: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 118– 122). Wadsworth.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard UniversityCharlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson
Research Assistant at Harvard University
Undergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
