Strengths and Weaknesses of Interpretive Methodology for Understanding Social Life - Essay Example

Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of interpretive methodology for understanding social life The interpretive method of understanding social lifeis one based upon what Herbert Blumer has termed "symbolic interactionism" (Blumer, 1986). Essentially developed from the ideas of American pragmatism, this type of interpretive methodology suggests, as Herbert Mead showed, that people are both what might be termed social products but also that they exhibit unique personal and creative qualities. Blumer suggested that people react to things according to the value that they give to them, but that those values are socially constructed. Thus the supposed dichotomy between social and personal is in fact a fallacy:- human beings need to be understood as both social and personal animals in order for genuine comprehension of them to occur. The apparent contradiction between the social and the personal is a reflection of the eternal state of flux that appears to occur within the social sciences: Moreover, there are sciences to which eternal youth is granted, and the historical disciplines are among them--all those to which the eternally onward flowing stream of culture perpetually brings new problems. At the very heart of their task lies not only the transciency of all ideal types but also at the same time the inevitability of new ones....The history of the social sciences is and remains a continuous process passing from the attempt to order reality analytically through the construction of concepts--the dissolution of the analytical constructs so constructed through the expansion and shift of the scientific horizon--and the reformulation anew of concepts on the foundations thus transformed . . (Weber, 1997) This constant shifting should not be regarded as a weakness but rather as the strength of disciplines that are in a condition of continuous improvement rather than stagnant paralysis. The major methodology adopted social interactionists is the qualitative approach in which a researcher will use participant observation in order to analyse both social interaction and the unique individual characteristics. The observer needs to use three basic principles in order to understand the people that he is studying: 1) Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things. 2) The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and society. 3) These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters. (Blumer, 1962) The strength of this process is that both the social and individual elements of human behaviour/interaction are considered - and this is an approach that makes sense on an instinctual and anecdotal basis. The vital dynamic for the researcher to contemplate is that "by interpreting or defining each other's actions instead of merely reaction to each other's actions . . . their response is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which is they attach to such actions" (Blumer, 1962). The overarching paradigm behind this approach was that laid out by Max Weber in his groundbreaking work (Weber, 1978). Weber suggested that the rise of positivistic sciences to the point at which all analysis, whether of natural or human occurrences was perceived as being suitable for the scientific method. The famous image that he uses for this pure positivism is that it places human beings within an "iron cage" (Weber, 1978). Weber argues that this iron cage has resulted from the attempt to over-rationalize the world and thus demystify it. The method of evaluating human behaviour based upon pure rationality depends upon an attempt to explain everything, to make all transparent, rather than admitting that many observations are impossible to fit within a neat, rationalistic viewpoint. Weber suggests that it is only through understanding the true complexity of social behaviour - rather than attempting to simplify it through the scientific method, that it can be understood. Observation of the individual idiosyncrasies of human behaviour is essential for placing it within the social context. It is fieldwork in which the sociologist removes him/herself from the comfort of the university setting and actually lives within the society/social group that they are studying that will lead to genuine knowledge of it. Weber also suggested that there are three types of political leadership, authority and domination, and these must be considered when evaluating the social relations of a society. There is charismatic domination, traditional domination and legal domination (Turner, 2000). The individual finds himself in various stances vis--vis these various forms of domination, and how he positions himself defines his success (or otherwise) within a particular society. Charismatic domination revolves around familial and religious cultural forces. Traditional domination is characterized by systems such as feudalism and patriarchs. Legal domination occurs most often within the modern state in the form of laws and bureaucracy. These may be regarded as the wider social environment that an individual must negotiate in order to succeed within the world. Weber also suggested that whole social, racial and cultural groups can be considered through their interaction with the various forms of domination: For the Jew the social order of the world was conceived to have been turned into the opposite of that promised for the future, but in the future it was to be overturned so that Jewry could be once again dominant. The world was conceived as neither eternal nor unchangeable, but rather as being created. Its present structure was a product of man's actions, above all those of the Jews, and God's reaction to them. Hence the world was a historical product designed to give way to the truly God-ordained order. There existed in addition a highly rational religious ethic of social conduct; it was free of magic and all forms of irrational quest for salvation; it was inwardly worlds apart from the path of salvation offered by Asiatic religions. To a large extent this ethic still underlies contemporary Middle Eastern and European ethic. World-historical interest in Jewry rests upon this fact. Thus, in considering the conditions of Jewry's evolution, we stand at a turning point of the whole cultural development of the West and the Middle East. (Weber, 1999) The sociologist embarking upon a process of interpretive methodology may consider such broad factors, while also concentrating upon the individual uniqueness of the particular group/individuals that are being studied. Weber's methodology is attractive, but needs to be combined with at least some attempt at paradigm-creation and models to explain human social behaviour. The fieldwork model which Weber suggested was essentially a reflection of some trends within sociology that were already occurring. Bronislaw Mallinowski is regarded as the first anthropologist/sociologist to employ the modern method of fieldwork that is called participant observation. He not only observing the customs of the Trobianders (the West Pacific Islanders he studied) but also lived among them and learned to speak their language fluently. Essentially he became one of them while he lived there, taking part in their everyday activities. Mallinowski described that normal quantitative research, in which he "took a village census, wrote down genealogies, drew up plans and collected the terms of kinship" were "dead material" that led "no further into the understanding of real native mentality or behaviour." There are a number of problems associated with this kind of close fieldwork that is entailed within the interpretive methodology. The immersion techniques developed a century ago may result in culture shock for the participants. Culture shock involves the tension and disorientation that may be involved when an individual moves from the culture he knows into one in which little or nothing may be familiar. Malinowski graphically revealed the pressures that immersion can have on an individual. In his personal diaries he reveals his sexual fantasies that were catalyzed by contact with the native people, as well as the feelings of self-loathing that went along with them. He often felt ineffective, depressed and frustrated all at the same time. The fieldworker may be changed permanently by their fieldwork. They may see the world in a different way, with new priorities and interests. These effects are neither 'good' nor 'bad' but must be taken into account when a fieldworker is deciding upon research within a particular culture. This is especially the case when the culture being studied does not fall into the idyllic, or at least interesting, "noble savage" type society. Turnbull's experience with the Ik people is a classic example of this. By any objective standards the Ik do not live up to any particular standards of compassion or humanity, and the anthropologist was effected by the experience. First there is the basic ethical question of using other human beings as subjects for study. In the sciences, ethical panels need to be instituted before experiments can include human subjects, and anthropologists, while not actually 'experimenting' on human subjects they do have an influence. Second, the bringing of western ways through the fieldworker's very presence in the society may influence the society for the worse. The anthropologist becomes part of the very thing that she is studying. A related ethical problem is when, or if, the fieldworker should become involved in the affairs of the society that he is studying. Should he intervene when infanticide is occurring in a society An example of this is the Iba people, who always practiced twin infanticide: they were either thrown into a river immediately after birth or allowed to die of exposure in fishing baskets on the banks of the river. Should the fieldworker try to physically stop the infanticide Probably not for both practical and ethical reasons (Podolefsky, 2002). Practically, an attempt to intervene would involve complete alienation from the people and perhaps even a wider conflict occurring. Ethically, the fieldworker should not enforce his own moral standards upon the people he is studying, however repugnant the practices they are indulging in. The idea that fieldworkers should not interfere is a fairly recent idea:- moral relativism, in which no one culture is regarded as superior to any other has only really been developed since WWII. One of the most interesting variants within the idea of interpretive methodology is found within the work of Erving Goffman. Goffman suggests that the model of theatrical performance is a suitable one for understanding human behaviour within social situations. Goffman states that "when an individual plays a part he implicitly requests his observers to take seriously the impression that is fostered before them" (Goffman, 1959). The individual may create a particular role that he/she thinks is in adherence to the social norms that exist, and yet relies upon the observers to understand the "impression" that is being given to them. The social researcher needs to analyse the interactions that are taking place, often concentrating upon the manner in which the impression is either understood or not understood. Goffman argues that the "performance" is in fact more important than the substantive reality of a person. The individual needs to enter a particular social environment "wearing a look", and it is how this look is judged - or as Goffman suggests, often misjudged - which effects social environments. One of the weaknesses of Goffman's paradigm is that in many ways it moves little beyond the "all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" vision offered several centuries before by Shakespeare. Yet there are some deeper realizations that are useful for the sociologist. Thus he stated that "stigma is the process be which the reaction of others spoils normal identity" (Goffman, 1959). Thus the individual is seen as being constantly subject to the social expectations of others:- the stigma belongs to those people who do not fit within the norms that society supposedly sets for them. But Goffman also argues that 'society' is in fact made up of a series of individuals who live under a kind of collective misconception that they need to follow norms that have been handed down to them. Goffman's famous comment that "society is an insane asylum run by inmates" may be contrasted with "the world, in truth, is a wedding" (Goffman, 1959). The symbolic interactions of society may actually trap people, whether they appear to be 'good' (a wedding) or 'bad' (an insane asylum). For Goffman, it is the dramaturgical context within which individuals live their lives that needs to be considered. To conclude, the interpretive methodology of sociology is a varied and diverse type of approach, as has been shown in this analysis. Within societies, and especially modern ones, there is often a tension between the human being as individual and the human being as a social animal. This tension is reflected in the manner in which interpretive methodology seeks to consider both the broad social context of human behaviour and the individual idiosyncrasies of particular people. While the tension may exist in actual life, within the methodology the two sides of human experience actually complement one another. Thus the social environment cannot be fully understood without considering the particular individuals and their effect upon it; at the same time the individual cannot be fully comprehended without delving into the surrounding social milieu. Perhaps Max Weber, in his discussion of the relationship between the materialistic and the spiritual, reflects the situation best: But one can, of course, not aim to replace a one-sided materialistic with an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and of history. Each is equally possible, but each, if it does not serve as the preparation, but as the conclusion of an investigation, accomplish equally little in the interest of historical truth. (Weber, 2003) The researcher thus needs to use the chosen paradigm as a tool rather than an end in itself. If the sociologist comes into a society convinced that the social structure is more important than individual characteristics (or visa-versa), then she will be fatally hampered in her analysis. The tools need to be fitted to the experience that is occurring for the researcher through their interaction with the people. _____________________________ Works Cited Becker, Howard. What is a Case Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 1992. Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, Berkeley: 1986. ---------------------. "Society as Symbolic Interaction". In Rose, Arnold Human Behaviour and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach. Houghton-Mifflin, New York: 1962. Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor, New York: 1959. Malinowski, Bronksi. Argonauts of the West Pacific. Waveland, New York: 1984. Podolefsky, Aaron. Applying Anthropology: An Introductory Reader, Mc-Graw Hill, New York: 2002. Turner, Stephen. The Cambridge Companion to Weber. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2000. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley: 1978. ----------. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Free Press, New York: 1997. -----------. Essays in Economic Sociology. Princeton University Press, Princeton: 1999. -----------. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Dover, New York: 2003. ---------------. The Sociology of Religion. Beacon Press, New York: 1993. ---------------. Weber: Political Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1994. Read More