Action Theories: Weber & Symbolic Interactionism (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note

Weber's social action theory

• Structural theories (e.g., functionalism, Marxism) are macro, top-down, and deterministic — they focus on large-scale social structures shaping behaviour

• Action theories are the opposite — micro, bottom-up approaches focusing on individual interactions and subjective meanings

• Max Weber, a founding figure in sociology, argued that a complete understanding of human behaviour must combine both structural and action perspectives

• Weber believed adequate sociological explanations require two levels of analysis:

  • Level of cause – explaining behaviour in terms of structural factors (e.g., economic conditions, laws, institutions)

  • Level of meaning – understanding subjective meanings that individuals attach to their actions

Calvinism and capitalism

• Weber's theory can be illustrated by his study The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

• In this study, he develops the idea that culture and belief systems can influence economic behaviour

• At the level of cause, Weber argues that the Protestant Reformation did more than change religious institutions — it introduced new worldviews - a new belief system called Calvinism

  • Calvinism promoted a work ethic that brought about the rise of capitalism

  • It promoted disciplined work, frugality, and reinvestment, thereby fostering the spirit of modern capitalism

• At the level of meaning, work was seen as a religious calling for Calvinists

  • They glorified God's name through their labours, which motivated them to work hard, live frugally and accumulate wealth

  • Calvinists were not trying to build capitalism — they were living out a religious ethic

  • Their economic behaviour only made sense when interpreted through their religious worldview

• Over time, Calvinists' work ethic unintentionally helped give rise to modern capitalism

Types of action

• Weber argued that there are countless subjective meanings people attach to actions, but classified them into four main types:

  • Instrumentally rational – calculated and goal-oriented action, e.g., maximising profit by paying low wages

  • Value-rational – action towards a goal for its own sake, e.g., worshipping a God to gain entry to heaven

  • Traditional – routine, habitual action with little conscious thought, e.g., following customs because 'it has always been done that way'

  • Affectual – emotion-driven action, e.g., violence sparked by anger

Evaluation of social action theory

Strengths

• Balances structure and agency

  • Weber's theory avoids overemphasising structural factors by recognising that both social forces and personal meanings shape action

• Richer explanations

  • Highlights that to explain behaviour fully, we must understand not only what people do but also why they believe it matters

Criticisms

• Too individualistic

  • Schutz (1972) argues that Weber's theory overlooks the shared nature of meanings

  • E.g., a handshake is meaningful because everyone present understands it in the same way

• Difficult to apply

  • Some actions can fit multiple categories in Weber's typology

  • E.g., among the Trobriand Islanders, exchanging ritual gifts with others on neighbouring islands could be seen as a traditional action or an instrumentally rational action to strengthen trading relationships

Symbolic interactionism

• Like other action theories, symbolic interactionism focuses on our ability to create the social world through our actions and interactions

• It examines how people create and interpret meaning through interaction and the use of symbols, especially language

George Herbert Mead

• Mead observed that, unlike animals, humans do not respond to stimuli in an automatic, pre-determined way

  • E.g., if a dog sees food, it will automatically salivate and approach it – there is no conscious interpretation by the dog

• Humans, by contrast, interpret the meaning of a stimulus before responding

  • E.g., if someone raises their hand, we first decide whether they are waving hello, asking a question, or signalling for help before responding

• In Mead's view:

  • We interpret others’ meanings by taking the role of the other — seeing ourselves from another’s perspective

  • This ability develops through social interaction, such as imitative play in childhood

  • To function as members of society, we must see ourselves as others see us

  • Through shared symbols, especially language, we learn the behaviours expected of us

Labelling theory

• The best-known application of interactionist ideas is labelling theory, e.g., Howard Becker (1971)

• Three key concepts underpin labelling theory:

  • Definition of the situation – the meaning we attach to a situation influences how we act within it

    • E.g., if a teacher defines a boy as 'troublesome', they may treat him more harshly, which can affect his behaviour

  • Looking-glass self – our self-concept (our idea of who we are) is shaped by how we believe others see us

    • E.g., if others see us as 'troublesome', we may internalise this view and act accordingly, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy

  • Career – the sequence of stages a person moves through, shaped by labels and reactions from others; in this context, often a deviant career

    • E.g., a student labelled as a 'troublemaker' may be excluded, mix with other excluded peers, and gradually take on a deviant identity, leading to further rule-breaking

Goffman’s dramaturgical model

• Labelling theory often portrays individuals as passive victims of others’ labels

• Goffman, however, describes how we actively construct our 'self' by managing others’ impressions of us

• Social life is like theatre — we are actors performing roles, resting 'backstage' between performances

Impression management

• We seek to project a particular image to our audience and control the impressions our performance creates

• We use techniques such as language, gestures, dress, and make-up to present a convincing role

Roles

• Goffman rejects the functionalist view that roles are tightly scripted and internalised

• He argues for role distance — a gap between our real self and our roles (e.g., an actor is not truly the character they play)

• Roles are only loosely scripted, giving us freedom in how we perform them (e.g., some parents are strict, others easy-going)

Evaluation of symbolic interactionism

Strengths

• Focus on agency and free will

  • Interactionism avoids the determinism of structural theories by showing that individuals can negotiate and resist social meanings

Criticisms

• Ignores wider structures

  • Critics argue that interactionism focuses on face-to-face interactions and ignores wider social structures, such as class inequality, and fails to explain where labels and meanings originate

• Lacks explanatory power

  • Interactionism can't explain consistent patterns in behaviour; functionalists argue these are the result of shared norms

• Limitations of the dramaturgical analogy

  • In reality, people are both actors and audience simultaneously, and interactions are often improvised rather than rehearsed