Skip to main content

Interaction and Social Structure

Some of the most powerful approaches in sociology are those that analyse the interactions of individuals. These are often seen as in opposition to more abstract views of social structure. I want to argue that this is not the case and that the two approaches are complementary and imply each other. I will develop this argument in this post and will take the argument further in a later post.
Interaction is the result of ongoing mutual constructions of the situation and of the attitudes and actions of its participants. Each participant constructs a representation and account and so negotiates a shared understanding that is sufficient to justify their actions as appropriate and so to ensure that the actions of the participants mesh or coordinate. Participants mutually—simultaneously and interdependently, but always imperfectly—legitimate their own actions and shape the actions of others by attempting to define limits to the options open to them. Each participant holds to an understanding of what he or she believes to be the case and what they believe others to believe. Thomas Scheff has seen this as the basis of consensus. Interactionists stress that such a consensus and meshing of actions is a contingent accomplishment: there may always be failures of understanding and mutual ignorance, leading to deviance, conflict, and a lack of coordination.

Through this process, individuals create a network of interactions among individuals. These individuals contribute to the production of what Goffman called an interaction order. This network of interactions, both face-to-face and mediated, may stretch across the whole population of a territory and beyond. My argument is that in producing this interaction order the individuals also contribute to the production of the social relations that comprise the ‘macro’ structure of their society. Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson showed long ago that these relations are the unintended and often unacknowledged results of the intentional acts of individuals.

For example, entering a shop to purchase groceries or clothing contributes to the reproduction of the relations of consumption and production: market relations, property relations, employment relations, monetary and credit relations, and so on. Similarly, making tax payments, drawing benefits, and engaging with polling station staff to cast a vote contribute to the production of political relations of governance: relations of citizenship, enforceable rights, relations of political representation, and so on.

Thus, we may identify property, employment, and monetary relations and also see these, in their combination, defining class relations. We may identify relations of schooling and examination, relations of parenting and socialisation, etc. And we may see all of these as involved in the movement of the individuals from one occupation to another and so as comprising , in their combination, relations of social mobility. We can study the mobility structures through the statistical associations among occupational categories, as the statistical rates that are the externally measurable reflection of the ‘social facts’ of occupational structure and social mobility. The structures of relations are real but not substantive. It is in this sense that Karl Mannheim in his 1932 essay ‘Towards a Sociology of the Mind’ said that ‘capitalism’ can be seen as ‘a system of patterns which govern the relevant actions of the individual’ and which ‘exists only in a fluid state of interlocking actions’.

Thus, the outcome of interaction is a social structure of ‘macro’ relations that exist virtually within (that are ‘underlying’) the interaction order. This is the relational structure of a society, a structure of institutions and other ‘structural parts’ that underpin individual actions. It was, again, Mannheim who said that ‘The problems and alternatives which the single individual faces in his actions are presented to him in a given social framework. It is this framework which structures the role of the person and in which his actions and expressions take on a new sense’.
In my next post I will look further at the nature of social structure.
Originally Posted July 30 2017. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

This post has now moved. Please now check at  https://www.johnscottcbe.com/blog/ All my existing posts have been archived at the new site, which is now regularly updated as part of my expanded sociology website. Please consult the site for information on social theory, the history of sociology, social structure (especially elites, power, class, and economic sociology), and research methods (especially social network analysis). Thanks John Scott
Post a Comment
Read more

Narratives of Nothing

It is often remarked that you can have a sociology of anything. It is not so often said that you can have a sociology of nothing, but this is exactly what Susie Scott of Sussex University is trying to develop. We are familiar with ideas about non-places since the work of Marc Augé and Rob Shields, and George Ritzer has elaborated ideas of non-things and non-people in his book on  The Globalization of Nothing , but Susie aims at a far more general approach to nothing at all.  As part of her project on the Sociology of Nothing, extending her interactionist work on everyday life, she is collecting personal stories of non-doing, non-being, and non-having, exploring ideas and feelings about those things that are lost, missing, or have never happened. Details on the project can be found at  https://nothingnarratives.wordpress.com/about     Stories submitted to the website on Narratives of Nothing include:  a mother wanting space to ‘do nothi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Integration and Social Structure

In my previous post I set out a view of the relationship between the interaction order and social structure. I want now to discuss the forms of integration or malintegration that exist at each level. These issues were famously discussed by David Lockwood in an article of 1964 through his distinction between ‘social integration’ and ‘system integration’ (in  Explorations in Social Change , edited by Zollschan and Hirsch). My claim is that social integration should be seen as relating to the interaction order and system integration as relating to the macro-level social structure. A state of social integration exists when interacting individuals and groups establish shared understandings that permit a coordination of their actions. They produce a negotiated order that underpins their joint action. Where there are failures in mutual understanding and a resulting lack of coordination, there is social disorder, rather than social order, and the potential for social disintegration. This...
Post a Comment
Read more