Structural Approaches to Our Understanding of Society - Essay Example

Structural approaches to our understanding of society of the School] of the Teacher] The major point of this paper is that the multidisciplinary field of social development needs some common theoretical concepts for community development practice. There are several major theories and concepts discussed in the paper that shape the approach to understanding society. These concerns are related to three classical theoretical frameworks: structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. These seemingly disparate theories take on a deeper meaning when tied to Giddens' structuration theory. Giddens' theoretical perspective is essential for practitioners because of its link between macro and microstructures and the ability of the community to influence macro and micro changes through cultural patterns and norms (modalities). Introduction There are at least three major limitations of theory for community developers. First, it can be argued that the profession is undergirded with theories from so many disciplines that it is difficult for practitioners to sort through them all. Second, the balkanization of theory is compounded by theoreticians whose language is cumbersome and fraught with jargon that scares away most practitioners. Third, the culture of the community development profession consists of many practitioners who often want to dispense with theory and "get down to earth." They want studies to shed light on issues such as urban slum life, growth versus the environment, globalization or a range of other issues that need immediate attention. The purpose of this paper is to ask what is essential about theory and to identify several theories that are essential for community development research and practice. Bhattacharyya's (1995) definition of community development as solidarity and agency is offered as a starting point to select theories that are most relevant for the field. I argue that the most important issues for community development theory concern structure, power and shared meaning. These are expressed in functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interaction theory. Structural approach: functionalism Structure is about organizations and group capacity to bring about or stop change. In essence, structure is related to the Giddens' concept of agency or capacity building. The theoretical concept concerned with structure is known as structural functionalism. It is also called systems theory, equilibrium theory, or simply functionalism. According to this theoretical framework, societies contain certain interdependent structures, each of which performs certain functions for the maintenance of society. Structures refer to organizations and institutions such as health care, educational entities, businesses and non-profit groups, or informal groups. Functions refer to their purpose, mission, and what they do in society. These structures form the basis of a social system. Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton are the theorists most often associated with this theory. According to Merton (1968), social systems have manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are intentional and recognized. In contrast, latent functions may be unintentional and not recognized. For example, it could be argued that the manifest function of urban planning is to assure well-organized and efficiently functioning cities, whereas the latent function is to allocate advantages to certain interests such as those involved with the growth machine or real estate developers. Functionalists such as Parsons argue that structures often contribute to their own maintenance, not particularly to a greater societal good. Concern for order and stability also led functionalists to focus on social change and its sources. They view conflict and stability as two sides of the same coin. If the community developer wants to build community capacity, she will have to pay attention to the organizational capacity for stimulating or inhibiting change. Structural functionalism helps one to understand how the status quo is maintained. Some critics claim its fallacy is that it does not offer much insight about change, social dynamics, and existing structures (Turner, 1998). Power and conflict theory Power is the third key issue for community development. Power is about who controls or has access to resources (land, labor, capital and knowledge). If community development is about building capacity, then concerns about power are pivotal. Insights about power tend to be found in political science or political sociology. Theorists that are more contemporary have added to the richness of the literature. Foucault (1985), in his later writings, argued that where there is power, there is resistance. He examines the struggles against the power of men over women, administration over the ways people live and of psychiatry over the mentally ill. He sees power as a feature of all human relations. It has a fluidity in the sense that power can be reversed and there are different degrees of power. Foucault's focus extends beyond conventional politics at the state level to the organizations and institutions of civil society and to interpersonal relations. Wallerstein (1984) applied Marxist theory to understand the logic behind the expansion of capitalism to a globalized system, which needs to continually expand its boundaries. "Political states" such as Japan, the UK and the USA are the core-developed states based on higher-level skills and capitalization. These states dominate the peripheral areas, with weak states economically dependent on the "core." The low-technology states form a buffer zone to prevent outright conflict between the core and the periphery. Some have applied Wallerstein's world system theory to regional economics, with places like Appalachia serving as a "periphery" to global market forces. In essence, conflict theory suggests that conflict is an integral part of social life. There are conflicts between economic classes, ethnic groups, young and old, male against female, or one race versus another. There are conflicts among developed "core" countries and those that are less developed. It is argued these conflicts result because power, wealth, and prestige are not available to everyone. Some groups are excluded from dominant discourse. It is assumed that those who hold or control desirable goods and services or who dominate culture will protect their own interests at the expense of others. Conflict theorists such as Coser, Dahrendorf, and Simmel have looked at the integrative aspects of conflict and its value as a force that contributes to order and stability. Conflict can be constructive when it forces people with common interests to make gains to benefit them all. Racial inequalities or other social problems might never be resolved at all unless there is conflict to disturb the status quo. Simmel discusses how conflict can be resolved in a variety of ways, including disappearance of the conflict, victory for one of the parties, compromise, conciliation, and irreconcilability (Schellenberg, 1996). This theoretical framework about power of one party over another and the potential for conflict is not intended to be exhaustive--but, it points to some of the major concerns that can guide community development practice. Conflict theory can help communities understand competing interests among groups or if power is concentrated in the hands of a few or more broadly distributed. One can also explore how communities can use conflict to upset the equilibrium through protests, economic boycotts, peaceful resistance, or other ranges of possibilities, especially if competing groups or institutions refuse to budge or negotiate. While conflict theory is an essential tool for capacity building, it should be noted that critics claim it is limited because it ignores the less controversial and more orderly parts of our society. (Turner, 1998). It does not help us understand the role of symbols in building solidarity. This leads us to another theoretical framework about shared meaning. Symbolic interactionism Shared meaning is the fourth key concern about community development. If community development is about building or strengthening solidarity, then practitioners must be concerned about the meaning that people give to places, people, and events. Symbolic interactionism is about symbols. Herbert Blumer (1969) gave this name to the theory because it emphasizes that human interaction is symbolic rather than a mechanical pattern of stimulus and interaction. For symbolic interactionists, the meaning of a situation is not fixed but is constructed by participants as they anticipate the responses of others. Mead (1982) explored the importance of symbols, especially language, in shaping the meaning of the one who makes the gesture as well as the one who receives it. Goffman (1959) argued that individuals "give" and "give off" signs that provide information to others on how to respond. There may be a "front" such as social status, clothing, gestures, or a physical setting. Individuals may conceal elements of themselves that contradict general social values and present themselves to exemplify accredited values. Such encounters can be viewed as a form of drama in which the "audience" and "team players" interact. In his last work, Goffman (1986) examined how individuals frame or interpret events. It involves group or individual rules about what is to be "pictured in the frame" and what should be excluded. For example, a community developer's framework about a community event might exclude ideas such as "citizens are apathetic." It will probably include our shared "rules" such as "participation is important." The emphasis is on the active, interpretive, and constructive capacities of individuals in the creation of a social reality. It assumes that social life is possible because people communicate through symbols. For example, when the traffic light is red, it means stop, or when the thumb is up, it means everything is fine. Flora, Flora, and Tapp (2000) investigated how two opposing community narratives moved through the stages of frustration, confrontation, negotiation, and reconciliation. Their case study could be viewed as the employment of symbolic interactionism. Among the symbols that humans use, language seems to be the most important because it allows people to communicate and construct their version of reality. Symbolic interactionism contends that people interpret the world through symbols, and they stand back and think of themselves as objects. For example, a group of Native Americans view a mountain as a sacred place for prayer and healing, and they react negatively when someone tries to develop it or alter their access to the mountain. Developers, foresters, tourism leaders, and others are likely to have other meanings about the mountain. Different individuals or groups attach a different meaning to a particular event, and these interpretations are likely to be viewed by others as a form of deviance, which may be accepted, rejected, or fought over. Social interactionists contend that one way we build meaning is by observing what other people do, and by imitating them and following their guidance. Gidden's structuration theory In his structuration theory, Anthony Giddens (1989), offers a perspective that is more fluid and process-oriented than either the macro or the micro approaches. Giddens introduces a third dimension, or an "in-between" level of analysis, which is neither macro nor micro. It has to do with the cultural traditions, beliefs, and norms of society, and how the actors draw upon those in their behavior (Collins 1988: 399). For Giddens, those normative patterns of society exist "outside of time and space" (Collins, 1988, pp. 398-399), meaning they are neither properties of the empirical social system, nor of the individual actors. Their actuality consists in the moments when individuals reach up to that level of society's traditions and norms, in their behavior. People also draw upon and act upon thought patterns or cultural "molds," for example, the notion of reciprocity--getting something in return for something else. Cultural traditions and patterns become modalities by virtue of placing them on Giddens' analytical scheme. They represent a third level, which is in between individualistic behavior and the macro structures. Even though the reality of modalities may be only momentary, when people actually reach up to them in their behavior, we can better visualize the social process and the role of culture and normative patterns. "Actors draw upon the modalities of structuration in reproduction of systems of interaction" (Giddens, 1984, p. 28). Social structure is upheld and existing divisions of society carry on through those "mental molds." Giddens' concept of modalities is the link between macro and micro theories. Modalities are part of the analytical scheme in a particular place. For example, individualism in the United States is a strong modality and can keep citizens from becoming united to take action. The notion of a common good is another American modality, which can be used to transform a divided community into a greater sense of solidarity. Modalities can be used to influence the macro or micro level of social change. Analytically, Giddens' structuration theory stands as the middle ground between the micro and the macro theories, where we have also placed the issue of agency and solidarity (see Figure 2). Giddens' structuration theory suggests that the micro theories associated with symbolic interactionism can influence cultural and traditional norms and patterns (modalities) and vice versa. While the symbolic interactionist tend to ignore structure, Giddens' mid-level theory about modalities is a crucial link between symbolic interactionism and the macro conflict and "structural functionalist theories (Giddens, 1984). Social Action theory Max Weber's social action theory was originally cast at an "in-between level." If his theory were not explicit, it was at least implicit in his intentions. Weber attempted to view society as a fluid process, for analytical purposes dissecting it into various components (Turner, 1998, p. 17) much like Giddens does. Although Weber never attempted an analytical model of society along those lines, some observers have categorized Weber as a micro-theorist because of his subjective interpretation of behavior and its meaning to the actor. Others argue that Weber is a strong macro-theorist. Our understanding is that his intentions actually lie closer to Giddens' perspective that a three-tiered model is better suited to grasp the complexities of social action and the interplay between the symbolic meaning and the structural forces of society. Weber's writings suggest he is constantly preoccupied with the interplay between the symbolic meaning and the structural forces of society. This is especially obvious in his attempts to explain the rise of modern capitalism through the interplay of social structural conditions and the religious beliefs of Protestantism. He followed similar analyses for non-Western societies in his sociology of religion volumes. What Giddens lays down in theory, Weber actually performs in his works, bridging the macro, and the micro dimensions by his attention to society's traditions and norms and how they become transformed, independently of the macro structural forces of society, through people interpreting and reinterpreting them. Similarly, Gaventa and Staniszkis demonstrate how one can connect communities or groups to structure in a way that is not fixed or mechanical. In contrast to debates about whether structure shapes action to determine social phenomena or the reverse, Giddens believes that structure exists in and through the activities of human agents. He views it as a form of "dualism" in which neither can exist without the other. When humans express themselves as actors and when they engage in the monitoring of the ongoing flow of activities, they are contributing to structure and their own agency. He contends that social systems are often the result of the unanticipated outcome of human action. Giddens viewed time and space as crucial variables. Many interactions are face-to-face, and hence are rooted in the same space and time. However, with the advent of new technologies, there can be interaction across different times and spaces. Community developers are likely to feel some kinship with Giddens because he has a dynamic rather than a static concept of the world. He recognizes the interplay of humans in shaping and being shaped by structure. Critics are likely to argue that he has oversubscribed to the concept about the power of human agency. Our space limits the response to such critiques; we cannot provide a fuller exploration of Giddens' theoretical insights. Conclusions We have defined community development by its intention to build solidarity and agency (capacity building). There are three classical theories that are essential for community development practice. They include the macro theories of structural functionalism, conflict theory that relates to capacity building, and symbolic interactionism that is associated with solidarity building. We have provided some case studies that illustrate the importance of these theories to community development practice. We have focused on Anthony Giddens' structuration theory because Giddens links macro and micro theories through his concept of modalities that represent the level where social solidarity is established. Modalities are symbolic norms and patterns that can be found in community cultures and traditions. Modalities are shaped by structures and power differences. However, they can also be transformed to influence structure and address power differences. For example, a community can transform its belief about the common good to build a stronger sense of unity and to take appropriate action steps rather than feel powerless. Our discussion of modalities is interspersed with examples from Appalachia and Poland. Bibliography: 1. Bhattacharyya, J. 1995. Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community development. Human Organization 54(1): 60-68. 2. Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. New York: Prentice-Hall. 3. Coser, L. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press. 4. Dahrendolf, R. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 5. Flora, C. B., J. L. Flora, & R. J. Tapp. 2000. Meat, meth and Mexicans: Community responses to increasing ethnic diversity. Journal of the Community Development Society 31(2): 277-299. 6. Foucault, M. 1985. The Use of Pleasure. The History of Sexuality. Volume 2. New York: Panthenon. 7. Gaventa, J. L. 1980. Power and Politics: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 8. Giddens, A. 1989. A reply to my critics. Pp. 249-301 in D. Held & J.B. Thompson (eds.), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. 9. Goffman, E. 1986. Frame Anlaysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. 10. Mead, G. H. 1982. The Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 11. Merton, R. K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. Rev. ed. New York: The Free Press. 12. Schellenberg, J. A. 1996. Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research and Practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York. 13. Turner, J. H. 1998. The Structure of Sociological Theory. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 14. Wallerstein, I. 1984. The development of the concept of development. Sociological Theory 2: 102-116. 15. Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. A.M. Henderson & T. Parsons (Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. 16. Ronald J. Hustedde, Associate Professor Read More