NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The Main Difficulties Of Using The Interactionist The Main Difficulties Of Using The Interaction ist Perspective Most of the original work of the interaction ist perspective focused attention on crime and deviance and subsequently, as this perspective lost much of its appeal in the late 1970 s, it has come under increasing attack. Before analysing the specific criticisms that have been levelled at the interaction ist ideas concerning crime deviance, it is it is essential to provide a thorough critique of the more general aspects of interactions. The interaction ist analysis of conventional sociology was intended as a radical departure from positivistic notions inherent in prior social thought and to transcend these with a new sociology, an attempt to stay true to the phenomena by attempting to discover mens understanding of their world. The new micro sociology rejects the existence of objective facts that are studied independently by the scientific forces. To redress this situation, interactions started from the point of asserting very strongly that man is aware of himself and his situation; he is aware of possessing a consciousness and that the main methodological task of the school is to describe phenomenon as they appear to the individual consciousness. Probably themes common general criticism made of interactions is that, although it does redress the over-determination of positivism, it in turn goes too far, by concentrating too much upon the subjective being to the exclusion ofthe effects of social forces upon the individual.
Interactions is accused of lacking a sense of the history of social structure and of viewing individuals as living in a vaccum. As R. Licht man has pointed out in a Marist critique of symbolic interactions: it is overly subjective, lacking an awareness of historical change, it abandons the sense of human beings in a struggle with an alien reality which they both master and to which they are subordinate. Although interactions is adequate for explaining small group interaction, it cannot adequately explain large-scale social organisation and mans relationship with the economic base of society. Consequently, symbolic interactions unable explain social change. Alvin Gouldner, in a fierce attack on Goffmans interactions, charges that he is less concerned with social change than with how people make secondary adjustments to their social world; the fact that ones definition of the situation is determined by a hierarchy of power in society is not considered.
The American branch of symbolic interactions, in particular, has come under intense attack. Gouldner feels that they are guilty of an ideological bias: it is a celebration of conservative values designed for those who have already made it inthe big game, those members of the middle class who generally mask their alienations out of a concern to maintain a respectable appearance. Becker's work on device (which tends to side with the underdog) is, for Gouldner, an illusion of radicalism, for he questions why Becker does not support the under-privileged classes in their fight against the ruling classes. L Shaskolsky has pointed out that symbolic interactions tends to reflect the cultural values of mainstream American life: its interpretation of society is a looking-glass image or what society purports to be.
The American ideas of individuality and choice of action are those most often concentrated upon rather than the equally important themes of power and class domination. Ethnomethodology (a branch of interactions) focuses upon the common-sense world, on the basic ground features and hidden aspects of everyday situations. Reality is constructed by the subjective meanings of individual actors. Ethnomethodology is also often referred to as the sociology of everyday life because of its emphasis upon the often taken for granted techniques that we all use in everyday interaction, such as gestures, conversation and even walking. This strand of interactions has not however, escaped the rath of its critics. Barry Smart argues that it tends to focus upon talk and talk about talk, rather than seeking to get to grips with the social structure; it is a self-indulgent and privatised philosophy.
Ethnomethodology is often considered to be dealing with trivial matters and that it is a Sociology of the Absurd. The interaction ist perspectives on crime and deviance have come under particular attack. Labelling theorists are charged with an over-concentration upon social reaction at the expense of the initial deviant act. Deviant activity cannot always be caused specifically by societal reactions. There appears to be little explaination of the motivation needed to cause particular individuals to deviate and others to conform. As r Akers has pointed out: one sometimes gets the impression from reading the literature that people go about minding their own business and then (wham) bad society comes along with a stigmatized label.
Labelling theory is assuming, therefore, that the victims are passive and powerless with little choice or consciousness. This is an ironic criticism because a chief objective in interactions was to return to man an ability to create his own social world. Although one of the most prominent labelling theorists (Edwin Lemert) attempted to distinguish between primary initial deviance and the secondary social reaction, he did in effect regard as unimportant the motivation for deviant activity. Many criminals may actually have a positive attachment to rule-breaking and it may be continued even when the rule-breaker has every opportunity to return to the status of a non-deviant.
People, therefore, do not rob banks simply because people have labelled them bank robbers. Despite these criticisms, interactonism has made a very significant contribution to sociology which cannot easily be dismissed. Attempts have been made to resolve the main weakness of interactions its inability to explain historical change or the effects social organisation upon the behaviour of individuals. Such attempts have involved the combination of Marxist theory with the most useful aspects of interactions. In practice, this has required the use of interactionist's methods of investigation (such as participant observation) along with Marxist concepts of social analysis (such as social class, exploitation and power).
Free research essays on topics related to: symbolic interactions, social structure, social change, crime and deviance, interaction ist
Research essay sample on Crime And Deviance Symbolic Interactions
