Post-Human Futures by Carrigan Mark;Porpora Douglas V.;

Author:Carrigan, Mark;Porpora, Douglas V.; [Carrigan, Mark;Porpora, Douglas V.;]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Published: 2021-11-15T00:00:00+00:00

Notes

1 This is needed because it may seem irrelevant to articulate a structural perspective with a symbolic interactionist theory, which has often been considered to lack interest in the existence of social institutions, of bureaucracies, power structures and stratifications of any kind. This reputation, however, is undeserved. As shown by Maines (1977, 1988), Stryker (1980), and Fine and Kleinman (1983; see also Fine [1991, 1992]), the interactionist movement is not homogeneous, and more than generally acknowledged, it takes into account the structure of social settings as a determinant of behaviour. But it has not done so in a truly systematic way. Contrary to theories such as the “negotiated order theory” (Strauss 1978), for which the regularity observable in members’ behaviour does not result from their conformity to official and institutional rules but from a series of ongoing negotiations and compromises, from the combination and interaction of priorities, mutual constraints and individual aspirations. It is not productive to oppose “Everything is negotiable” to “Nothing is negotiable” (Day & Day 1977; Strong & Dingwall 1983, Dingwall & Strong 1985). As demonstrated by Blumer (1969) and Maines (1977), many symbolic interactionists take structures into account in a more constructed way, defining the specificity of the contexts in which they were doing research and giving considerable importance to structural constraints when describing actors’ behaviour. ‘Structuralist’ symbolic interactionists, from Hughes (1945, 1958) to Freidson (1976, 1986), developed a less “subjectivist” framework than theoreticians more attracted by social psychology, such as Shibutani (2017). Symbolic interactionist work taking into account the social structure relies on a less rigid and less stable conception of the structure than does the functionalist tradition (which is why, from the latter perspective, the interactionist definition of the structure often seemed non-existent).

2 For an analysis of how appropriateness judgements compare with the symbolic interactionist theory of the ‘definition of the situation’, see Lazega (1992, 2016).

3 Here the extension of actors’ accountability does not measure their degree of responsibility. The extension of their accountability measures the possibility or impossibility for others to represent social control to which the actors answer for their actions.

4 See www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/14/automating-poverty-algorithms-punish-poor (14 October 2019) revealing how unemployment benefits, child support, housing and food subsidies and much more are being scrambled online. Vast sums are being spent by governments across the industrialized and developing worlds on “automating poverty” and in the process, turning the needs of vulnerable citizens into numbers, replacing the judgement of human caseworkers with the cold, bloodless decision- making of machines.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.