Running head: CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
Contemporary Social and Organizational Theory
Exam1
Tonya Miller
2/21/12
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
1
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
2
Question #1
Introduction
Classical social theory found its origins in the turmoil of the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth century. According to Powers (2010), Augusta Comte set the groundwork for
sociology during his life from 1798- 1857. The French revolution and the reign of terror
influence Comte and led him to look for ways to solve the social ills of society thus leading to
the beginning of sociology (Powers, 2010)) Later in the nineteenth century Durkheim, Marx, and
Weber, would analyze the ways in which society shaped individuals. These sociologists
developed many of the macro-level and meso-level theories comprising classical sociology
(Powers, 2010).
According to Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, and Virk (2007a), sociologist in the 1900s
built upon the works of the classical sociologist however, their work began to shift from the
macro-level and meso-level to that of micro-level theory. Many changes occurred during the
1900’s influencing this transition. For example, two world wars, the Great Depression, the
development of the New Deal and the rise of the American middle class all played a role in
changing the way sociologists viewed the role of individuals in society. (Calhoun, et al., 2007a,
p.4) This paper addresses the shift from classical to contemporary social theory and the factors
influencing the shift. Additionally, it examines how contemporary sociologists view the impact
of social interactions on social change. Figure 1 and 2 demonstrate the top down approach of
classical and bottoms up approach of contemporary sociology as well as the factors influencing
each.
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
Figure 1
3
Figure 2
Classical Sociology –Top Down
During the 1800s and early 1900s, the average individual in society had little protection
from the decisions and influence of the powerful. Societal transitions from farming communities
to urban regions gave way for the development of capitalism and the industrial revolution. Prior
to the urbanization of society, individuals worked together in small communities to meet the
basic needs of the family and the community. Industrialization and urbanization led to a new
kind of labor distribution and interdependency. No longer could one small community supply all
the needs for its members (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, and Virk, 2007b). Durkheim’s “The
Division of Labor in Society” written in 1893 is an example of how social scientist of this era
focused on macro-level analysis of societal change (Powers, 2010, p.104). In this writing,
Durkheim identified the change from a collective consciousness of right and wrong of the small
farming society to a need for macro-level oversight through laws and social order. He identified
social facts in which certain patterns and beliefs instill in an individual by social pressure and
coercive power (Powers, 2010, p.103). Social facts are an example of Durkheim’s focus on the
top down influence of the individual and a macro-level approach to sociology.
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
4
Karl Marx (1818-1883) focused on the class system and the influence of the capitalist on
the individual worker. Power’s (2010) structured inequality axiom, which states that social
structural arrangements that survive tent to be those that protect the interest of the more powerful
people at the expense of less-powerful is an example of Marx’s macro-level theoretical
influence. Marx’s focus on class struggle and intergroup conflict demonstrates how classical
sociologists viewed social change as top down process in which individuals are influenced by
larger societal changes verse individuals having a role in producing societal change (Powers,
2010)
Max Weber (1864-1820) examined the impact of values on society and identified macrolevel changes produced by these values. Weber identified the Protestant work ethic as a driving
force in creating American culture and work ethic (Calhoun et al., 2007b) Additionally, Weber’s
work was instrumental in describing types of authority and creating an understanding of
organizational structure through his definition of modern bureaucracy. The bureaucratic
structures and influence on the individual worker described by Weber is an example of the mesolevel focus of this classical sociologist (Calhoun et al., 2007b)
Bottom’s Up- The Transition to Contemporary Sociology
“A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing
that ever has.” Margaret Mead (1901-1978) (Brainy quote)
The quote by Margaret Mead offers an example of how society began to view the
impact of the individual on society change during the twentieth century as referenced in figure 2.
The shift from the individual being a recipient of societal forces to an agent, possessing free will,
who can act independently thus creating his own destiny is seen in the works of Symbolic
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
5
Interactionist, George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) (Powers, 2010). Mead asked the question
“how do people manage to adjust to one another?” (Powers, 2010, p.139) The concern with the
micro-level interactions and the effect of these interactions was a pivotal moment for the
transition from classical to contemporary sociology. By bringing to light the concept of agency
and the micro-level influences of an individual‘s free will, Mead helps to complete the circle for
classical sociologist and provide the groundwork for contemporary sociologists (Powers, 2010).
The work of Herbert Blumer, a symbolic interactionist, demonstrates how
contemporary sociologists think about social interaction. According to Blumer, “Instead of the
individual being surrounded by an environment of pre-existing objects which play on upon him
and call forth its behavior, the proper picture is that he constructs his objects on the basis of his
ongoing activity.” (Calhoun et al., 2007a, p.72) Although symbolic interactionism is only one of
many contemporary sociological approaches, it is excellent representation of how the changes of
the twentieth century influenced the shift from classical to contemporary sociology. Blumer
wrote “Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Methods in 1969” during an era of redefining
roles and rejection of traditional ways (Calhoun et al., 2007a). I feel that the baby boomer
generation’s rejection of “top down” societal determinism and traditional role influenced
contemporary sociologists who turned their focus away from the macro- level and meso-level
factors and placed it on the individual’s role in society.
The work of Berger and Luckmann also demonstrate the shift to the bottom up approach
taken by contemporary sociologist. In their work concentrating on habitualization of individual’s
activities resulting in institutionalized behavior, Berger and Luckmann present a model in which
the individuals perform an activity over time and pass that activity onto future generations which
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
6
in turn institutionalizes the activity (Calhoun et al., 2007a). Referencing figures 1 and 2, the
bottoms up approach is in contrast to the top down approach to classical sociology.
Discussion
The major shift from classical to contemporary sociology was the paradigm shift from
the influence of society on individuals to the individuals possessing free will and the ability to
change their environment and society through daily interactions. Many historical and
sociological changes help to shape the shift. The impact of the baby boomer generation and the
rise of the American middle class are two of those changes. Figures 1 and 2 in this paper
demonstrate how classical and contemporary sociology view social change and interaction
through two differing lenses.
Question #3
Introduction: Exchange theory’s relationship to Rational Choice Theory
George Homans introduced Exchange theory in his writings “Social Behavior as
Exchange” (Calhoun et al., 2007a). Through the exchange theory, Homans examined human
interaction through the lens of economics whereas individuals attempt to achieve a profitable
outcome from social interaction. Individuals (actors) must determine the relationship between the
cost of the interaction and the reward of that same interaction and determine if it will be of
benefit to him (Calhoun et al., 2007a). The rational choice theory builds upon the framework in
the exchange theory. The rational choice theory simple states that actors will make choices
concerning interactions with others if there is a perceived benefit of this interaction (Powers,
2010 and Calhoun et al., 2007a). At first glance, these, two theories appear to be a simplistic
approach to human interaction. However, the complexity of these theories is evident as factors
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
7
such as extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, delayed verse immediate reward, and the environment in
which the interaction is occurring enter the equation. According to Calhoun et al., (2007a), the
concept of power is another factor that influences the interaction of the actors. An actor who
enters into an interaction with another and is unable to bring equal value to that association finds
himself in a position of obligation therefore creating a power position for the other actor. The
following example explains the complexity of the exchange and rational choice theories.
It is not rationale for a woman to remain in a relationship with a physically abusive man.
Yet, many women “chose” to remain in abusive relationships. In its most simplistic application,
the exchange theory would not apply to this situation. The cost of this relationship would far
outweigh the benefit. However, the exchange theory is applicable when other factors are
considered. The environment of the interactions is an important factor. A woman who lives in a
society that does not allow options to leave the relationship than her environment limits her
rational choices. The perceived love from the man when he is not physically abusive is an
example of an intrinsic reward. This reward of feeling loved outweighs the cost of the physical
abuse and therefore the exchange theory is applicable. Finally, extrinsic rewards, such as
financial security for the woman, influence the continued interaction between these two actors.
The addition of the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of this relationship places the man in a
position of power in the relationship. Since the woman feels that she has nothing to offer in the
relationship the man has the power to control the interactions. The complexity of factors
influencing these actors demonstrates that the exchange and rational choice theories are not
simplistic rather a complex combinations of many factors. Figure 3 illustrates the factors
influence the interaction of the two actors.
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
8
Figure 3
Putman’s Theories of Change
In “Bowling Alone,” Putman (2000) examines the changing landscape of social
capital, the concept that social networks and activities have value, in American culture. The
overall theme of Putman’s book is that America is no longer placing the same value on social
capital as it did just a few generations ago. Putman (2000) provides many examples supporting
the argument that social capital gained from the joining of groups, organizations, social networks
and participation in the democratic process is declining from one generation to the next in
America. The reduced participation in American political process is an area that Putman
examines. The theoretical frameworks of Homan and Berger and Luckmann are useful in
explaining the change Putman describes (Calhoun et al., 2007a). Additionally, Olson’s logic of
collective action provides a theoretical framework in which to examine the recent 2008 elections
that do not correspond with Putman’s noted trends.
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
9
Application of Theoretical Frameworks to Declining Political Participation
Participating in the voting process of a democratic society is a privilege and an
honor that many throughout history have fought to secure. Yet, according to Putman (2000), this
activity is on a steady decline in American society. “Participation in presidential elections has
declined by roughly a quarter over the last sixty years.” (Putman, 2000, p.31) Examining this
decline through the theoretical framework of Homans’ exchange theory, the act of voting (the
actor’s cost) no longer produces a perceived reward for the actor. Putman offers many reasons as
to why this decline is occurring such as growing distrust of the government, declining
mobilization and fraying social bonds (Putman, 2000, p.32). These are examples of both
extrinsic and intrinsic factors influencing the lack social capital given to the act of voting in
America.
Generational changes are another key element in the decline of voter participation.
Putman states that as a generation, baby boomers and their children are less likely to vote than
their parents (Putman, 2000, p.33). As more baby boomers and future generations enter the
voting age the net outcome will be less participation in the voting process. This change is an
intercohort change or a change that occurs slowly over the course of a generation (Putman, 2000,
p.33). Examining this phenomenon through the lens of Berger’s and Luckmanm’s habitualization
and institutionalization, the argument exist that the voter decline will continue because the
nonvoting habits of the baby boomer generation have become institutionalized into future
generations (Calhoun et al., 2007a). Children who do not observe their parents participating in
the voting process will not have this activity institutionalized into their everyday life. Therefore,
voting does not hold social capital for the actors. As more actors pass the non-voting habit from
one generation to another voting activity will continue to decline.
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
10
Putman’s “Bowling Alone” was published in 2000 therefore he was not able to include
the recent 2008 presidential elections in which a record 56.8% of the voting population turned
out to vote ( Elections.gmu.edu). The spike in voter participation does not correspond to
Putman’s prediction for continued decline based on reduction of social capital and generational
influence. The election phenomenon of 2008 may hold its explanation in some of the concepts
presented in Olson’s logic of collective action. According Calhoun (2007a, pp.113-114), public
goods are those items provided by government to all individuals in the society. These public
goods require financial support from the members of the society. However, Calhoun et al.,
(2007a) points out that even with the appeal of national ideology and patriotism governments
must still place mandatory obligations on society in order to fund the cost of public goods.
Basically, “Philanthropic contributions are not even a significant source of revenue for most
countries.” (Calhoun et al, 2007a, p.114). In summary, the concept suggests that although public
goods are an expectation of government the desire, for the public goods, does not elicit enough
social capital to generate philanthropic support of the goods. The main platform of President
Obama’s campaign was healthcare reform; a public good. Applying the concepts of public
goods and their lack of associated social capital the argument exist that this platform would not
produce a winning election let alone record voter turnout. However, Obama did win the election
running on the platform of healthcare reform through record voter turnout. This outcome
generates several questions for future investigation such as: How was Obama able to overcome
institutionalized generational non-voter habits in order to mobilize a record number of voters?
How was Obama able to produce enough social capital in healthcare reform to utilize it as a
successful political platform? Finally, does the 2008 election represent an intracohort change in
the voting response of America or this a longer lasting change in American voter participation?
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
11
Discussion and suggestions for future research
Although Putman (2000) examines many aspect of social change in “Bowling
Alone,” I chose to use voter participation as the area of focus for this paper because I feel that it
is a glaring example of the lack of American participation in our own culture and society.
Homan, Berger, and Luckmann’s theoretical frameworks are useful when examining the social
analysis related to voter decline presented by Putman. The theories help to explain the lack of
social capital given the act of voting and the generational changes that have produced
generations of institutionalized non-voters. While this paper examined the theoretical
frameworks of Homan, Berger, and Luckmann as they relate to Putman’s analysis of the
changing voter participation, further investigation of the 2008 presidential election as well as
future election cycles would clarify the extent to which Putman’s analysis of voter participation
and generational impact is applicable.
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
12
References
Brainy Quotes.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/margaret_mead.html#ixzz1myetgJGE
Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Pfaff, S., Virk, I., (2007a). Contemporary social theory 2nd
edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Pfaff, S., Virk, I., (2007b). Classical social theory 2nd
edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Powers, C. (2010). Making Sense of Social Theory. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers.
Putman, R. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York, NY: Simon Schuster.
United States Elections Project. http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY EXAM 1
13