Because motive
From Geography
In-Order-to Motive
The practical future-orientated directedness and expectations of the everyday life-world is expressed in what schutz call the 'in-order-to motive'. As actors we explain ourselves in terms of our won projects- the motivating lived experiend by saying that we do something(let us say, go to the store) 'in-order-to achieve' an objective(say, to buy food).
Because Motive
This is of course , derived from Max Weber but Alfred Schütz argues that there is another meaning-context which Weber fails to distinguish. This comes into picture only when we look back on our activities or those of others. It is the context of because motives which we attribute to ourselves and other by hindsight through selecting out some features of the situation as it was before the action in question and then regarding these features as the reasons for - in the sense of causes of - the action. This is to explain action by reference to the past (‘I hit him because I was very angry’) rather than the future ( ‘I hit him in order to teach him a lesson’) . Schutz accurately points out that the difference is not merely a verbal one, for although it is true that I can use the word because to assert an in-order-to motive( ‘I hit him because I wanted to get away’) other because statements (genuine ones) cannot be translated in to in-order-to statements - thus we would not say. 'I hit him in order to be angry’. The crucial difference is that a because motive makes an essential reference to something preceding the act in question. While in-order-to motives indicates a certain degree for freedom of action, because motives have a more deterministic character. As explained above, in the because motives, action can be seen as an 'automatic' and fixed respons. Its a logical outcome of the given stimuli and has a deterministic character. Alfred Schütz accepts accepts that many 'relevances' are imposed by a social group but argues there are 'intrinsic relevances spontaneously chosen by the individual' (Campell, 1981). Schütz argues both, because motives and in-order-to motives are used by human agents within their subjective conciousness.
There is an important similarity between the two sorts of motives in that both refer to the past in one way or another. Because motive statements refer straightforwardly to past events as the causes of action, while in-order-to motive statements involve fantasizing the projected events as past, thus putting them, as he says , in the future perfect tens (‘I will have done x or y’/ This is something on which he has to insist in order to retain the thesis that meaning is attributed to behaviour by looking back on it. and not in the actual experiencing of it.
Summarizing
Because Motives
- are essential references to something preceding the act in question
- refer straightforwardly to past events as the cause of action
- are Deterministic.
References:
Campbell, T. (1981) Seven theories of Human Society. Clarendon Press, Oxford203-204
Contributors
- page edited by Jesper Remmen--JesperRemmen 14:39, 22 October 2012 (CEST)
- page edited by Stefan Ramaker--StefanRamaker 11:34, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
