Sociological Perspectives
However, in time, contending theories spread to propagate the idea that humans are not as simple or predictable as natural process, they were unlike atoms and molecules, nor did they just amount to cells and tissues and certainly they were not impersonal waves of energy and magnetism. Humans as agents had free-will; they thought and acted, not just reacted like inanimate units or animals. Humans are the products of determinants but they were conscious and could change the society and institutions that governed them in turn. Meaning was given to human agency and action.
- Symbolic Interactionism
- Labelling Theory
- Ethnomethodolgy
Interpretivism
- Stresses the importance of micro relations
- Everything has a symbolic meaning which we interpret and respond to in more or less predictable ways...
- Behaviour and individuals are labelled and responded to accordingly
- Patient, schizophrenic, mentally ill, disabled...
- Attempts to identify and clarify the meaning of structures and experiences from the participant’s point of view...
Rationalism V Interpretivism.
Rationalism believes that rationality and reason are the guiding factors when any decision or action is undertaken by a human. It has faith in reason as the answer in realising all human endeavours.
Interpretivists would say that isn’t the necessary case.
Much of the force of interpretivism derives from the point that human behaviour is intentional (thus we must capture the intentions of the agent in our research) and rule-governed (voting provides a good example, or playing Monopoly). It points to a sharp disjunction between explanation and understanding (erklärung and verstehen), and between studying people (social science) and studying the natural world (physical science).
The general view towards Interpretivism:
The general confusion over the question of whether or not an Interpretivist methodology is "unscientific" comes mainly from the way in which the concept of "science" tends to be defined. Thus, in our society, for example:
1. The natural sciences are assumed to represent a model of scientific methodology.
2. Positivist sociology aims to apply the methodology of the natural sciences; therefore, it is scientific.
3. Interactionist sociology is non-positivist and rejects positivist forms of methodology.
4. Therefore, Interpretive sociology is "unscientific".
However if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there may be different ways of producing "scientific" forms of knowledge, the question of whether or not Interpretivism is "scientific" is largely irrelevant.
This basic idea - namely, that there may be different ways of producing reliable and valid knowledge which depend to some degree on the nature of the subject matter being studied - will assume increasing importance in investigating "knowledge" and "methodology".
