Action Theories: Phenomenology & Ethnomethodology (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note
Exam code: 7192
Phenomenology
Phenomenology, a type of interpretivist perspective, was developed by Edward Husserl
He emphasises that the social world is the product of the human mind
It focuses on the shared meanings that people use to make sense of the world around them
Phenomenologists aim to study:
How people experience social life
How we organise our experiences into social categories called 'phenomena' — things we group because we believe they share certain characteristics
E.g., even though different dog breeds have different appearances, we still group them all under the category 'dog'
Reality is socially constructed – nothing has meaning until we give it meaning through interpretation
Schutz's phenomenological sociology
Alfred Schutz argued that the categories and concepts we use are not unique to us — we share them with others
These shared categories are called 'typifications' — common ways of classifying the world that help us understand each other
The meaning of an action depends on its social context
E.g., raising your arm means one thing in a classroom (answering a question) and something completely different at an auction (making a bid)
Typifications
Typifications stabilise meanings, so we all agree on what things mean
This shared understanding allows us to communicate, cooperate, and work together to achieve goals
In Schutz’s view, members of society share assumptions about:
how the world works
what situations mean
what other people’s intentions are
This common-sense knowledge isn’t just knowledge about the world — it actually is the world we live in
Typifications create the natural attitude — the taken-for-granted reality we all share without thinking about it
E.g., in a shop you automatically queue at the checkout without thinking — it’s just the 'normal' way things are done, part of the taken-for-granted reality everyone accepts
Taylor's phenomenological view of suicide
Durkheim treated suicide statistics as objective facts, but Steve Taylor (1982) argued they reflect social meanings rather than absolute truths
Taylor believed we must understand suicide by exploring the meanings and intentions behind the act
He identified four main types of suicide based on the meaning for the individual:
Submissive – escaping life because it is seen as hopeless or inevitable (e.g., terminal illness)
Thanatation – risk-taking where death is possible but not certain (e.g., dangerous stunts)
Sacrifice – ending one’s life to help or save others (e.g., a soldier jumps on a grenade to save fellow soldiers)
Ordinary – suicide as a way of sending a message, with an expectation of survival, though death may still occur (e.g., someone takes an overdose to get a partner’s attention, but dies unexpectedly)
Suicide is not just a result of social forces — it is shaped by the personal meanings people attach to it
Ethnomethodology
Ethnomethodology (EM) was developed by Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology stems from phenomenology
Like Alfred Schutz, Garfinkel rejects the idea that society is a fixed, objective structure 'out there' controlling us
Instead, he believes social order is something people actively create in everyday life
How is social order achieved?
Talcott Parsons (key thinker in functionalism) argues that social order comes from a shared value system that people are socialised into from the top down
E.g., in a classroom, Parsons would say order exists because students have been taught shared values like respect and punctuality
Garfinkel argues that social order is created from the bottom up, through our common-sense knowledge and everyday interactions
EM studies how people make sense of the world and keep it orderly
E.g., Garfinkel would say order is created in a classroom as students and the teacher follow everyday routines — like raising hands to speak — which everyone understands and cooperates with in the moment
Indexicality and reflexivity
Indexicality
According to Garfinkel, indexicality is where meanings are context-dependent and not fixed
E.g., raising your arm means one thing in class (answering a question) and something else at an auction (making a bid)
Indexicality can threaten social order because unclear meanings make communication and cooperation difficult
Reflexivity
Reflexivity is where we use common-sense knowledge to make meanings seem obvious, even when they aren’t
E.g., if someone in a café says, “It’s cold in here,” other people don’t treat it as a random observation — they interpret it as a polite request to close the window
This is similar to Schutz’s idea of typifications (shared categories that create a 'natural attitude')
Reflexivity helps stop indexicality from occurring by preventing confusion and keeps interaction running smoothly
How EM differs from interactionism
Interactionism – looks at the effects of meanings
E.g., how a teacher labelling a student as 'lazy' can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the student eventually underperforms
Ethnomethodology – focuses on the methods or rules people use to produce those meanings in the first place
E.g., studying how teachers and students use tone of voice, seating arrangements, and question–answer routines in class to signal who is 'hard-working' or 'lazy' in the first place
Investigating social meaning
Garfinkel used breaching experiments — deliberately breaking social norms to see how people react
E.g., Garfinkel’s students were told to act like polite strangers or guests in their own homes: parents became confused, anxious, or angry
These experiments showed that everyday order is not automatic — it’s created and repaired by the people involved
For Garfinkel, social order is participant-produced — made by members of society themselves
Evaluation of ethnomethodology
Strengths
Challenges determinism
EM rejects the idea that people are passive puppets of a social system
It suggests that all social behaviour is socially constructed and depends on the unconscious sharing and mirroring of commonsensical rules about how interaction and conversation should be conducted
Criticisms
Findings often trivial
Critics like Craib argue that EM points out the obvious
E.g., one study found that usually one person speaks at a time in telephone conversations
Ignores how power and inequality
Structuralists say it overlooks how class, patriarchy, and power shape what 'commonsense' means
E.g., Marxists argue that commonsense knowledge is often just ruling-class ideology that helps maintain capitalism
Structuration theory
Some sociologists argue that both structural theories (e.g., functionalism, Marxism) and action theories have valid points
We can experience society as an external structure that influences our behaviour, but also feel that we make independent choices
E.g., laws regulate behaviour, but we still have the option to follow or break them
To combine these perspectives, Anthony Giddens (1984) developed structuration theory
The duality of structure
Structure and action (agency) are interdependent — neither exists without the other
Social structures (e.g., norms, institutions) shape human actions, but they are also created and sustained by those actions
Structures give us the rules and resources to act, while our actions maintain or alter those structures
Giddens calls this relationship structuration
Example
Language is a structure that exists independently of individuals and guides behaviour — if we ignore grammar, we may not be understood
However, language only exists because people use it
Through speaking and writing, we reproduce the structure
Over time, we can change it by creating new words, meanings, and rules
Reproduction of structures
According to Giddens, structure has two elements:
Rules – the norms, customs, and laws that shape behaviour
Resources – material resources (e.g., money) and control over others (e.g., power)
Everyday actions usually reinforce existing structures
E.g., using English grammar keeps the language intact
But actions can also transform structures
E.g., adding new words changes the language over time
Change through agency
We constantly reflect on our actions and adjust them
Change can occur when:
People deliberately act differently from established norms
Actions unintentionally create new patterns
E.g., the Calvinists’ belief in work as a religious duty unintentionally contributed to the rise of capitalism
Evaluation of structuration theory
Strengths
Bridges structure and action
Structuration theory overcomes the traditional divide between structure and action in sociology by showing that they are interconnected
Criticisms
Overstates individuals’ ability to change structures
Margaret Archer (1995) argues that Giddens underestimates how much structures can resist change
E.g., enslaved people may want to abolish slavery but lack the means to do so
Downplays inequality
Critics say Giddens doesn’t fully address how powerful institutions like the state, economy, or class systems limit the ability to reshape society
Examiner Tips and Tricks
There are many action theories to learn, so creating a summary table is a great way to organise the content and see the differences clearly.
Here’s a concise version you can memorise and adapt:
Theory | Key sociologists | View of human behaviour | Key reason |
|---|---|---|---|
Weber’s social action theory | Max Weber | Both structure & action matter | Combines structural causes with subjective meanings |
Symbolic interactionism | Mead, Blumer, Goffman | Micro, bottom-up | People create meaning through interaction & symbols |
Labelling theory | Thomas, Cooley, Becker, Lemert | Identities shaped by labels | Labels lead to self-fulfilling prophecies & deviant careers |
Phenomenology | Husserl, Schutz | Reality is socially constructed | Shared categories (typifications) shape how we make sense of the world |
Ethnomethodology | Garfinkel, Zimmerman | Order is created from the bottom-up | Everyday routines & methods actively create and repair social order |
Structuration theory | Giddens | Structure & agency interdependent | Structures shape actions, but are also reproduced & changed by them |
How to use this in an essay:
In a 20-mark essay, you may be asked to contrast action theories with structural theories
You don’t need to cover every action theory — focus on a few and compare them with structural theories
Back up your points with examples (e.g., Weber’s Calvinism, labelling in education, Goffman’s dramaturgy) for AO2 marks
Worked Example
Here is an example of a 20-mark essay question on theory and methods:
Applying material from Item C and your knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of social action theories in explaining human behaviour.
[20 marks]
Model Answer:
Social action theories focus on micro meanings and free will, whereas structural theories emphasise power and constraint. Social action is clearly useful because much behaviour only makes sense when we know what it means to the actor. The risk is ignoring where meanings and labels come from, and who has the power to impose them.
Mead and Blumer argue that people create society through interaction and shared symbols. We learn what gestures and roles mean and act accordingly. This helps explain why two people in the same situation can behave differently: they define the situation differently. However, symbolic interactionism struggles to show why some definitions ‘stick’ more than others.
Becker’s labelling theory goes further. Once someone is labelled as a ‘troublemaker’ or ‘deviant’, others treat them accordingly, and the person may live up to it: a self-fulfilling prophecy. In schools, teacher expectations can affect achievement, which shows how micro processes produce real results. This is very useful for explaining how behaviour takes shape through interaction. Yet critics point out that labelling theory is vague about why certain groups attract negative labels in the first place. Class, gender and ethnicity stereotypes matter here, so labelling theory needs a structural lens to be fully useful.
Goffman’s dramaturgical approach adds another layer. People ‘perform’ roles for different audiences, managing impressions front stage and relaxing back stage. E.g., a doctor presents professionalism with patients and behaves more casually with friends. This is useful because it explains the flexibility of identity and why people switch behaviour across settings. In reality, some roles are backed by institutions and power (e.g., the medical profession), so not everyone can choose to perform any identity successfully. That means the approach risks overstating free will, as the Item suggests.
Phenomenology and ethnomethodology (Schutz; Garfinkel) reveal the background rules of ordinary life. Schutz calls our common-sense categories typifications. Garfinkel’s ‘breaching experiments’ show how people rush to repair order when unspoken rules are broken. This is useful because it reveals the invisible rules that hold everyday life together; however, focusing on tiny interactions can ignore inequality and social change. We learn the rules—but who benefits from these rules, and who has the power to define them?
We must consider structural critiques. Functionalists argue that behaviour is shaped by socialisation into shared norms via family and school. That explains the regularity of behaviour across society—something micro approaches struggle with. Marxists emphasise capitalism and ideology, suggesting choices are channelled by class inequality and sometimes false consciousness. Feminists highlight patriarchy; Heidensohn, for instance, shows how women’s behaviour is constrained by formal and informal controls, limiting ‘free’ choice. These perspectives speak directly to the Item’s focus on power differences and criticise the usefulness of social action theories. However, structural theories can become over-deterministic, missing the small choices, negotiations and resistances that social action explains well.
A more convincing answer bridges levels. Giddens’ structuration theory argues that structure and action are interdependent. Rules and resources shape what we can do, but they persist only because people reproduce them—and people can change them. Law is a good example. It constrains behaviour (we cannot simply offend without consequences), yet laws are created, interpreted and revised through human action. This integrated view fits the Item well because it recognises micro meanings and structural power.
Social action theories are very useful for explaining the processes of behaviour—how people interpret situations, manage identities and how labels become real. They are strongest for understanding variation and meaning. On their own, though, they are less useful for explaining patterned inequalities by class, gender and ethnicity because they often underplay power and structure.
Word count: 599 words
Mark band: 17-20 marks
Marking Commentary:
This essay is top band because it demonstrates wide knowledge of social action theories and sociologists (e.g., Becker, Goffman, Mead and Blumer, Schutz, Garfinkel, Heidensohn, Giddens) and keeps focused on the debate between action and structural theories.
The response opts for breadth rather than depth, covering a range of perspectives with concise explanations. It consistently uses the micro/free-will vs power-differences contrast to frame points, and the material is applied accurately and with sensitivity
Evaluation is clear: each perspective is weighed for usefulness and limits. Structural critiques develop a debate to a clear, balanced judgement and the inclusion of Giddens’ structuration shows awareness of middle-ground arguments.
Use of examples (teacher expectations, patriarchy, law) underpins claims, making the answer analytical, balanced, and evidence-based — securely within the 17–20 mark band.
Step-by-step structure:
Paragraph 1: Introduces the debate between social action theories and structural theories
Paragraph 2: Outlines symbolic interactionism and includes an evaluative point
Paragraph 3: Explains labelling theory with key terms, examples (e.g., self-fulfilling prophecy) and an evaluative point
Paragraph 4: Describes Goffman’s dramaturgy with an illustrative example and an evaluative point
Paragraph 5: Outlines phenomenology and ethnomethodology with an evaluative point
Paragraph 6: Pivots to structural theories as a critique to set up the debate and includes an evaluative point
Paragraph 7: Presents Giddens’ structuration as a compromise, with supporting concepts, key terms and an example
Paragraph 8: Conclusion with final judgement that social action theories are necessary but insufficient on their own; a combined approach is most useful
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?
