Interactionist Approaches in Sociology - Essay Example

Interactionist Approaches in Sociology Why interactionist approaches have become popular Sociology is a science that is unlike the rest of the sciences such as the natural sciences. Studying natural science can be done in a different way because the elements being studied do not necessarily depend on each other. However, in sociology, the study involves humans whose actions and behaviors are based on the actions and attitudes of others. All sociological theories seem to be geared towards this phenomenon by appreciating the fact that people’s behavior, attitudes, rationalism and beliefs are based on how the society as a whole looks at things (Denzin, 2001). As a result, all sociological theories that have a sense of interactionism in them provide scholars with a tool and platform to study societies and individuals in a more productive way. As Atkinson and Housley (2003) say, although there are so many sociological theories that have been developed over time, those that have integrationist approaches tend to have a better way of understanding the society. Interactionism in fact can be seen, in a sense, as the unifying theory of sociology (Reynolds & Herman, 2003). Most schools of thought in sociology seem to appreciate the fact that people interact with each other in a way that helps in shaping and determining their attitudes, character and even their consciousness. This is the best explained by interactinist theories, of which there are many. The other thing that is necessary to note with regard to the internationalist theories is that they differ from earlier approaches in that they are more practical and provable than the earlier theories. With interactionism, it is easy to measure and determine various aspects of the social equations. This can be best seen in ethnomethodology. This method of understanding the society looks at the people in their context of action and then tries to determine why and how people think in the way they do. By not necessarily developing a complex theory, ethnomethodology looks at social interactions as an almost automatic mechanism which drives actions and thoughts as well as the rationality of people (Flynn, 1991). Based on this fact, it can then be seen that consciousness of the same people is determined by the processes in the human societies in which they live. Earlier sociological theories were complex and had no easy way of measuring the various variables thus making them more of pseudo-scientific. As the field of sociology has advanced, more scholars have seen themselves gravitating towards the interactionism because of the practicality. As Garfinkel has put it, the study of sociology needs not depend on some very complex theory since it is easier and better to study human beings directly and not necessarily through a complicated theorizing of sociology. Researchers have identified and realized that there is an increasing need to look at society in a different way as opposed in the traditional way that the earlier sociologists did. This in fact makes it easier for sociologists to be able to not only have a better understanding of social behavior but also understand why different societies have developed differently. Garfinkel was the pioneer of ethnomethodology, a way of carrying out social studies without involving a standard theory of a standard methodology to do so. Garfinkel realized that there were problems with the classical sociological theories and therefore intended to design a better platform to use in carrying out social research. His development of ethnomethodology was inspired by Parsonic approaches to social studies which recognized the need to consider human rationality in social studies. However, as Garfinkel claimed, ethnomethodology does not necessarily align itself to Parsonic approaches but is only related to it by the fact that it seeks to solve the same problems. Ethnomethodology As the terms suggests, this is a process of understanding human relations and interaction based on the methods that these humans use to develop and generate knowledge and systems (Lynch, 1997). The main difference between ethnomethodology and all the other theories of sociology is the fact that ethnomethodology refused to consider itself as a theory. Garfinkel argued that the best way to understand how a society works is not by developing a theory that then works as a platform to understand the society, but to try to understand the society directly by observation (Hilbert, 2001). In this regard, instead of developing a theory like all the other theories in sociology, Garfinkel developed ethnomethodology as a way to study the social interactions. Garfinkel was trying to solve a paradox that arises from the very fact that humans are a part of a system and that how they act is based on the interpretation of the meanings they get from the social systems. This approach is evidenced in his attitude towards rationality. Both Garfinkel and Scukt, had problems with the way earlier social theories regarded such issues as human rationality. Yet, unlike Schultz who looked at the issue of rationality as something that should be involved in the social study, Garfinkel realized that rationality is not something that is a part of the society but something that arises from the very actions of the society. In this regard, instead of trying to understand the contribution of rationality in human behavior, Garfinkel argues that rationality is only a byproduct of the actions of people. He did this by studying the members of a jury and decided that people develop the knowledge of the society they live in based on how they understand the various interactions in the same society. In this regard, a member of a jury may be better informed to make a rational decision involving a case in the society he or she lives in, but not in a different society where the member of a jury may not have knowledge of how that society works. In this regard, the judgment that a member of the jury can give on one case (rationality of the member of the jury) is not only dependent on that member’s understanding of that society but also on context. Criticism of other theories Ethnomethodology looks at itself as superior to the other theories of sociology because it reckons that creating theories to study social processes is not the proper way to so things, with regard to understanding human behavior. In this regard, ethnomethodology tries to use better ways to understand the human relations by for instance getting rid of theories and looking for a direct studying of human behavior. Creativity of Ethnomethodology The genius of ethnomethodology is the fact that it separates itself from the classical approaches to sociology by avoiding complex theorizing (Cantor et al, 2006). This is done by overlooking the theory and developing better ways to way study humans. Garfinkel may have realized that the fact that sociology is done by human beings, there is a paradox that may arise in creating a theory to study human beings since this theory is designed by the same human beings. He argued that developing a theory, especially a complex one, to study social behavior would inherently interfere with the very process of doing so. Ethnomethodology provides for an alternative that uses an interactionism approach while minimizing the theory part (Tolmie, 2012). Criticism of ethnomethodology The main criticism of ethnomethodology is of course its lack of a standard theory. Those who disagree with this method argue that the lack of a theory may be a setback while using it. The other issue that critics have with ethnomethodology is the fact that it lacks standard method of carrying out a study and this is seen as a hindrance to useful research using ethnomethodology. Phenomenology Edmund Husserl was the pioneer of phenomenology as a way to study human behavior. This approach has been criticized a lot especially due to its dependence on introspection. Phenomenology as introduced by Hersel has a number of issues which make it harder to utilize in the study of the human actions and human societies. First, unlike most integrationist theories, phenomenology depends too much on things that are hard to measure such as the subjectivity. Phenomenology looks in the subconscious of things unlike the more pragmatic theories which look at the why of human behavior. Phenomenology seems to rely more on the internal working of a person’s mind and how this affects their personality and thoughts as opposed to depending on the role of human relations as being an inherent part of the reason why people behave in a certain way. The main criticism of phenomenology is its difficulty of application and it is harder for those who use this as a way to study human behavior to be able to measure the outcomes. This is one of the theories which is most criticized by ethnomethodology due to its excess dependency on theory that is not based on reality (Herman, 1994). Edmund Husser, unlike Garfinkel believed that it is easier to understand human relations by looking at how the internal conscious of people. The main variance between phenomenology and ethnomethodology is the fact the ethnomethodology looks at the outside while phenomenology looks at the inside and tries to understand the human behavior from this insidious point of view. The works of Edmund Husser was then improved upon by Alfred Schütz who tried to bridge between sociological and phenomenological theories. Alfred Schütz was influenced by the work of Edmund Husserl and later tried to bridge the various gaps between the sociological approaches and phenomenology. The two main issues with these two scholars (Edmund Husserl and Alfred Schütz) and their approach to sociology was their ignorance of the common sense issues with regard to the social interactions. Phenomenology seems to ignore the big role that human relations play in structuring and shaping the human behaviors. It is this that Garfinkel criticized and argued that understanding the social structures in any societies need not use complex theories (Garfinkel, 1991). Phenomenology as put forward by both Edmund Husserl and Alfred Schütz puts forward a very complex theory to understand study and understand behavior. On the other hand Garfinkel’s argument was that one should not assume anything about the society until everything has been set out. This is the main issue that Garfinkel tried to solve with his new method of understanding the society and social behavior. This new platform, for it can hardly be called a theory, depends on minimizing the theory part and maximizing the observation part. This contradicts most sociological theories and especially phenomenology and in most cases. Garfinkel argues, contrary to phenomenological approaches that developing too complex theories about sociology contaminate the very act of studying the subjects thus leading to misleading results in any such studies. Reference list: Atkinson, P. & Housley, W. (2003). Interactionism: an essay in sociological amnesia. New York, NY: Sage Publications. Cantor, G. et al. (2006). Companion to the History of Modern Science. London, UK: Routledge. Denzin, N. (2001). Interpretive interactionism. New York, NY: Sage Publications. Flynn, P. (1991). The Ethnomethodological Movement: Sociosemiotic Interpretations. Hoboken, NJ: Walter de Gruyter,. Garfinkel, H. (1991). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Herman, J. (1994). Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology. London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield. Hilbert, R. (2001). The Classical Roots of Ethnomethodology: Durkheim, Weber, and Garfinkel. New York, NY: UNC Press Books. Lynch, M. (1997). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,. Reynolds, L.T. & Herman, N.J. (2003). Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. New York, NY: Rowman Altamira. Tolmie, P. (2012). Ethnomethodology at Work. London, Uk: Ashgate Publishing. Read More