Action theory
From Geography
Contents |
General overview on Action Theory
Initially action theory was developed as a critique against scientific naturalism with the purpose to better describe the workings of reality (Wirklichkeit) (O. T. Kramsch, personal communication, September 10th, 2011). Action theory has been mainly grounded in the work of Max Weber (Werlen, 2009, p. 1), followed by Benno Werlen, the phenomenological approach by Alfred Schütz and Talcott Parsons. Benno Werlen used the structuration theory to revise the approach as a remedy for the weaknesses of classical action theory (Werlen, 2009). Werlen developed a practice-theoretical social geography of ‘everyday regionalizations’ (2009). A priori to the above-mentioned theories is the normative action theory of Talcott Parsons. Parson did the first attempt to acknowledge the relevance of subjective meaning to society. Weber’s theory was inspiration also for Schütz´s phenomenological approach (B. Werlen, personal communication, September 10th, 2011). See more on Schütz's theory of man.
Weber's action theory
Action differs from behaviour (see also: Behavior vs. action ), in the sense that action is an intentional activity, which requires awareness of the actor (consciously making choices (Campbell, 1981, p. 178)) whereas behaviour requires a stimulus (ibid., p. 173). Behaviour consists of purely mechanical bodily movements without intentions (ibid.). Action can be seen as a process of carrying out an activity or the flow of human activity. Though, an act is a completed goal-oriented activity (B. Werlen, personal communication, September 10th, 2011). Weber distinguishes action from behaviour in general by saying that a movement is not an action unless it has subjective meaning for the person(s) involved. (Campbell, 1981, p. 173). Actions are intentional thus and always have intentional and unintentional (or unforeseen) consequences (B. Werlen, personal communication, September 10th, 2011).
What is important, is that Weber as a sociologist was searching to find a way to understand society. His action theory was thus only a tool to approach understanding society as a whole. This is why Weber was especially interested in what he called social action. Weber emphasizes the importance of interpreting society in terms of the meaningful social relations in the form of patterns of interaction (Campbell, 1981, p. 179); this is based on the significance of individual action (ibid., p. 170) by which behavior of others is taken into account. This implies that action is not directed “towards things” but regards “feelings”, “intentions” and “motives” of others. If individual action is directed towards things, this action can be only considered social if the things are of significance to others (ibid., p. 173). Social action then forms a key role as a transformative power in the course of human history and shifting socio-economic and socio-cultural realities. (Werlen, 2009, p. 1). Werlen notes that it is human´s actions and social actions that produce social life (Werlen, 2009, p. 2). The most important connection between space and the action theory is that space is constructed by the knowing and the acting subject (B. Werlen, personal communication, September 10th, 2011). The social aspect of action also lies in the identification of “typical social action” by Weber (Campbell, 1981, p. 174) which can be identified by the transmission of “standard meanings”. The latter are “common symbols”. One then start to consider individual action as “instance of a type of activity” which is particularly common in the given society. In that sense also the actor considers his action “as socially recognized” (ibid.). This is why Weber also comes to speak about “patterns of action”. In order to avoid causal deterministic generalization Weber came up with the concept of “ideal types” (ibid., pp. 174-176) which helped him “to build a composite picture” of individual action. That way Weber still held up the idea that actors can choose their values and decide on themselves although they are “affected by social relationships” and take the given “authority structure” as a basic criterion in their decision-making (ibid., p. 178). These are thus factors which in part limit the agency of the individual. What applies to the ideal types Weber distinguishes four types of human action ('ideal types'), namely the goal-rational type, the value-rational conduct, affectional type and the traditionalist type. These serve to describe how individuals give meaning to their actions (ibid., pp. 177-178). See more on Weber’s theory of man. What is important though is to keep in mind that every individual action uses to be a mix of different ideal types (ibid., p. 179).
All the conceptualization about individual and social action and ideal types serve Weber as ”building-block” to understand society. His analysis thus relies mainly on the reduction of social phenomena “to meaningful patterns interactions” (ibid.). By studying social actions one can get insight in global life conditions. Only individuals can be an actor; collectives, states or social groups cannot produce actions. Nevertheless persons can act in the name of a collective or they can coordinate their actions with the actions of other members of a certain group. Spatial patterns are constituted by and through actions. They are both conditions and means of actions (B. Werlen, personal communication, September 10th, 2011).
References
- Werlen, B. (2009). Everyday Regionalzations. In: International encyclopedia for human geography. Elsevier.
- Campbell, T. (1981). May Weber: An Action Theory. In Campbell, T. (Eds.), Seven theories of Human Soceity. Calvedon Press: Oxford.
- Kramsch, O. Lecture concerning The First Spatial Turn, September 2010
- Werlen, B. Lecture concerning Everyday Regionalizations, September 2010
Contributors
- Page published by Marjolein Selten & Fleur van der Zandt - ...
- Page enhanced, page outline enhanced and links added by Aafke Brus --AafkeBrus - 17:16, 20th of October 2011 (CEST)
- Links added by--GijsJansen 20:47, 20th of October 2011 (CEST)
- Page edited by Janna Völpel, JannaVolpel 14:25, 7th of May 2012 (CEST)
- Page enhanced by --HennyLi - 18:41, 4 October 2012 (CEST)
- Page slightly enhanced by Iris van der Wal - 15:40, October 24th 2012
