SOCIOLOGY

Table of contents

1. Introduction to sociology………………………………...……………..4-74
2. The individual and the society………………………….…………….75-79
3. Social interaction………………………………………………………80-82
4. Social structure and organization…………………………………….83-86
5. Social change and development8………………………………………7-92
6. Social problem in Kenya……………………………………………...93-96

INTRODUCTION
Sociology is a social science whose study helps us to understand the relationship
between people as individual and as group and the influence of social conditions on
these relationships.
The purpose of teaching sociology to social work trainees is to introduce them to
sociology issues which are considered relevant to understanding social problems and
social change in the society.

Learning sociology will help the trainee to conceptualize the social position and roles
of individuals, groups and communities within social institution and in the social
process.

GENERAL OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, the trainees should be able to;
a) Identify the various sociological concepts that explain the behavior of
individual, group and communities.
b) Understand and explain the concept of social organization.
c) Understand and explain the various social structures in the society.
d) Identify social process in that an individual is subjected to in society.
e) Acquire general knowledge of sociological traits that explain human behavior.
f) Identify major social problems in Kenya.
g) Identify the various elements of culture and explain how they are passed on in
the society.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY
Specific objectives
By the end of this topic, the trainee should be able to;
a) Define the meaning of sociology
b) Trace the origin and development of sociology as a discipline.
c) Explain the scope of sociology
d) Distinguish sociology from other social science.
e) Acquire general knowledge of sociological theories.

INTRODUCTION
Sociology; is the scientific study of human behavior. As the study of humans in their
collective aspect, sociology is concerned with all group activities, economic, social,
political and religious. sociology study such areas as bureaucracy , community deviant
behavior , family , public opinion , social change , social mobility , social
stratification and such specific problems as crime , divorce child abuse and substance
addiction . Sociology tries to determine the law governing human behavior in social
contexts.

Sociology as a science
Sociology can be considered a science as it involves systematic methods of empirical
research analysis of data and assessment of theories. In addition it ask questions
which can be quantified. Sociology uses scientific methods such as experimental
method, historical methods, comparative, structural functional methods.
With the help of methods, sociology studies abstracts as well as concrete facts. It is
viewed as science for the following reason.

a) Facts
On of the main objective of science is the seeking of facts and keeping of high level of
objects so that those facts that are sought for all scientist are independent of their
subjects that is inclination. In this case therefore sociology is a science which bases
its studies on objectivity as opposed to subjectivity in its search for facts for example
in administration of questionnaires. Sociology keeps high level of objectivity in
seeking facts from the respondent.

b) The laws that governs human behavior

Using the positive approach , sociologist are able to establish the laws that govern
human behavior in the same way as natural scientist have established laws that that
govern human behaviuor. In the same way as natural scientist have established laws
that govern natural world.
Positivism asserts that social scientist should study human behavior and apply the
same technique used by natural scientist. It shares many similarities with empirical

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

research method employed by natural scientist such as objectivity in collection of
data. The study of what can only be seen measured and observed with the purpose of
discovering what because things happen.

c) Method of data collection

Sociologist use qualitative and quantitative method of data collection the same way
as natural scientist do. Analysis of human behavior is studied scientifically by the
application of objectives method of data collection such as qualitative interview and
case studies.

Key concepts of sociology

The society
It is a group of people related to each other through persistent relations such as social
status, roles and social networks. It can be also a large social grouping that shares the
same geographical territory and is subject to the same political authority and
dominant cultural expectation.

The family
Is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity, affinity or co- residence. In most
societies, it is the principal institution for socialization of children. Extended from
human ‗family unit ‗by affinity, economy, culture, tradition, honour and friendship
and the concept of the family that are metaphorical or that grow increasingly
inclusive extending to natural hood and humanism.

THE ORIGIN AND SCOPE OF SOCIOLOGY

The emergence of sociology as a discipline

Sociology emerged as a scientific discipline in the early 19th century and as an
academic response to modernity such as industrialization and urbanization. Sociologist
hoped not only to understand what held social organization disintegration.

The world sociology was coined by French thinker Augustine Comte in 1938 from Latin
word socins (companion or associate) and Greek (logos) meaning believe.

Early interview approach into sociology led by Comte was to treat it as much manner
as natural science applying the same method and methodology used in natural science
to the study of phenomena.

In the early 20th Century sociology expanded in USA including both the development
macro sociology interested in the evaluation of societies and micro sociology i.e.
study of every day human interaction on a small scale basis.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

In the 1930‘s in the US Talcott Person developed the structural functionalist theory
which integrated the study of social order and objective aspect of micro and macro
structural factors.

Branches of Sociology
a) Social psychology
This is a discipline that incorporates sociology and psychology in the study of human
interaction and behavior. It tries to identify the mental process that take place in the
course of interaction and how they influence human behaviuor.

b) Rural sociology
It tries to understand the social interaction of people from the rural areas. It is a
result of unique social problem that people face e.g. unemployment, gender, poverty
mobiliosation.

c) Medical sociology
Studies social and mental cause of disease It is a discipline that shows that disease is
caused by germs e.g. bacteria, some are caused by social problem e.g. stresses,
isolation. It studies lifestyle disease e.g. cancer cause by smoking. It is a discipline
that stresses prevention rather than treatment.

d) Industrial sociology
It is a discipline that studies the interaction between the factors of production.

e) Criminology
It studies criminal possession and nature of crime from social point of view.

f) Political
Is a branch that studies how power is shared and distributed in a society? It attempts
to understand the various form of leadership that existed through history.

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES
In sociology, sociological perspectives, theories, or paradigms are complex
theoretical and methodological frameworks used to analyze and explain objects of
social study. They facilitate organizing sociological knowledge. Sociological theory is
constantly evolving, and can never be presumed to be complete.

Theory is informed by epistemological discussions as to the most reliable and valid

social research methods to use in the conduct of social science. Perspectives also
relate to core assumptions regarding the ontological nature of the social world.
Theory is thus informed by historical debates over positivism and ant positivism,

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

debates over the primacy of structure and agency, as well as debates relating to other
fundamental key concepts in the social sciences and humanities in general (e.g.
materialism, idealism, determinism, dialecticism, modernity, globalization, post
modernity, and so on).

Sociological theory vs. social theory

Sociological theory is different from social theory. Social theory focuses on
commentary and critique of modern society rather then explanation and its goals are
intensively political. Prominent social theorists include Jürgen Habermas, Pierre
Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, Erving Goffman, Michel Foucault, Dorothy Smith, Alfred
Schutz, Jeffrey Alexander, and Jacques Derrida.

Sociological theory, on the other hand, is centered on the attempt to understand the
society.[2] Whereas sociological theory relies heavily on the scientific method, is
objective, and does not presume to judge the society, social theory is closer to
philosophy, more subjective, and is much more likely to use the language of values
and judgment, referring to concepts as "good" or "bad". prominent sociological
theorists include Talcott Parsons, Robert K. Merton, Randall Collins, James Samuel
Coleman, Peter Blau, Immanuel Wallerstein, George Homans, Harrison White, Theda
Skocpol, Gerhard Lenski, Pierre van den Berghe and Jonathan H. Turner.

Blurry boundaries affect social science, and there are prominent scholars who could
be seen as being in between social and sociological theories, such as Harold Garfinkel,
Herbert Blumer, and Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Development of sociological theory

Sociological theory is constantly evolving, and can never be presumed to be complete.
New sociological theories built on their predecessors and add to them, but classic
sociological theories are still considered important and current.

Whereas the field of sociology itself and sociological theory by extension is relatively
knew, dating to 18th and 19th centuries (see history of sociology), it is closely tied to
a much older field of social sciences (and social theory) in general. Sociology has
separated itself from the other social sciences with its focus on society, a concept
that goes beyond nation, and includes communities, organizations and relationships.

Some of the key developments that influenced sociological theory were: the rise of
individualism, the appearance of the modern state, industrialization and capitalism,
colonization and globalization, and the world wars. Those and similar developments
challenged contemporary thinkers, inspiring them to question whether existing
theories can explain the observed reality, and to built on them, creating alternate
theories, in search for the explanation of the observed society.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

List of sociological theories
Some of the major general sociological theories (and their variants) include:

 Conflict theory: focuses on the ability of some groups to dominate others, or

resistance to such domination.
 Critical theory: aims to critique and change society, not simply to document
and understand it.
 Ethnomethodology: examines how people make sense out of social life in the
process of living it, as if each were a researcher engaged in enquiry.
 Feminist theory: focuses on how gender inequality has shaped social life.
 Functionalism: focuses on how elements of society need to work together to
have a fully functioning whole.
 Interpretive sociology: This theoretical perspective, based on the work of Max
Weber, proposes that social, economic and historical research can never be
fully empirical or descriptive as one must always approach it with a conceptual
apparatus.
 Network theory: A structural approach to sociology, most closely associated
with the work of Harrison White, which views norms and behaviors as
embedded in chains of social relations.
 Social phenomenology: The social phenomenology of Alfred Schütz influenced
the development of the social constructionism and ethnomethodology.
 Positivism: Social positivists believe that social processes should be studied in
terms of cause and effect using 'the' scientific method.
o Also: Sociological positivism
 Postcolonial theory
 Rational choice theory: models social behavior as the interaction of utility
maximizing individuals.
 Social constructionism: is a sociological theory of knowledge that considers how
social phenomena develop in particular social contexts.
 Structural functionalism: also known as a social systems paradigm, addresses
the functions that various elements of the social system perform in regard to
the entire system.
 Symbolic interactionism: examines how shared meanings and social patterns
are developed in the course of social interactions.
o Dramaturgical perspective - a specialized symbolic interactionism
paradigm developed by Erving Goffman, seeing life as a performance

EVALUATION THEORY
Evaluation is part and parcel of educating – yet it can be experienced as a burden and
an unnecessary intrusion. We explore the theory and practice of evaluation and some
of the key issues for informal and community educators, social pedagogues youth
workers and others. In particular, we examine educators as connoisseurs and critics,

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

and the way in which they can deepen their theory base and become researchers in
practice.

A lot is written about evaluation in education - a great deal of which is misleading and
confused. Many informal educators such as youth workers and social pedagogues are
suspicious of evaluation because they see it as something that is imposed from
outside. It is a thing that we are asked to do; or that people impose on us. As Gitlin
and Smyth (1989) comment, from its Latin origin meaning 'to strengthen' or to
empower, the term evaluation has taken a numerical turn - it is now largely about the
measurement of things - and in the process can easily slip into becoming an end
rather than a means. In this discussion of evaluation we will be focusing on how we
can bring questions of value (rather than numerical worth) back into the centre of the
process. Evaluation is part and parcel of educating. To be informal educators we are
constantly called upon to make judgements, to make theory, and to discern whether
what is happening is for the good. We have, in Elliot W. Eisner‘s words, to be
connoisseurs and critics. In this piece we explore some important dimensions of this
process; the theories involved; the significance of viewing ourselves as action
researchers; and some issues and possibilities around evaluation in informal and
community education, youth work and social pedagogy. However, first we need to
spend a little bit of time on the notion of evaluation itself.

On evaluation
Much of the current interest in evaluation theory and practice can be directly linked
to the expansion of government programmes (often described as the 'New Deal')
during the 1930s in the United States and the implementation of various initiatives
during the 1960s (such as Kennedy's 'War on Poverty') (see Shadish, Cork and Leviton
1991). From the 1960s-on 'evaluation' grew as an activity, a specialist field of
employment with its own professional bodies, and as a body of theory. With large
sums of state money flowing into new agencies (with projects and programmes often
controlled or influenced by people previously excluded from such political power)
officials and politicians looked to increased monitoring and review both to curb what
they saw as 'abuses', and to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of their
programmes. A less charitable reading would be that they were both increasingly
concerned with micro-managing initiatives and in controlling the activities of new
agencies and groups. Their efforts were aided in this by developments in social
scientific research. Of special note here are the activities of Kurt Lewin and the
interest in action research after the Second World War.

As a starter I want to offer an orienting definition:

Evaluation is the systematic exploration and judgement of working processes,

experiences and outcomes. It pays special attention to aims, values, perceptions,
needs and resources.

There are several things that need to be said about this.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

First, evaluation entails gathering, ordering and making judgments about information
in a methodical way. It is a research process.

Second, evaluation is something more than monitoring. Monitoring is largely about

'watching' or keeping track and may well involve things like performance indicators.
Evaluation involves making careful judgements about the worth, significance and
meaning of phenomenon.

Third, evaluation is very sophisticated. There is no simple way of making good

judgements. It involves, for example, developing criteria or standards that are both
meaningful and honour the work and those involved.

Fourth, evaluation operates at a number of levels. It is used to explore and judge

practice and programmes and projects (see below).

Last, evaluation if it is to have any meaning must look at the people involved, the
processes and any outcomes we can identify. Appreciating and getting of flavour of
these involves dialogue. This makes the focus enquiry rather than measurement -
although some measurement might be involved (Rowlands 1991). The result has to be
an emphasis upon negotiation and consensus concerning the process of evaluation,
and the conclusions reached.

Three key dimensions

Basically, evaluation is either about proving something is working or needed, or

improving practice or a project (Rogers and Smith 2006). The first often arises out of
our accountability to funders, managers and, crucially, the people are working with.
The second is born of a wish to do what we do better. We look to evaluation as an aid
to strengthen our practice, organization and programmes (Chelimsky 1997: 97-188).

To help make sense of the development of evaluation I want to explore three key
dimensions or distinctions and some of the theory associated.

Programme or practice evaluation? First, it is helpful to make a distinction between

programme and project evaluation, and practice evaluation. Much of the growth in
evaluation has been driven by the former.

Programme and project evaluation. This form of evaluation is typically concerned

with making judgements about the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of
pieces of work. Here evaluation is essentially a management tool. Judgements are
made in order to reward the agency or the workers, and/or to provide feedback so
that future work can be improved or altered. The former may well be related to some
form of payment by results such as the giving of bonuses for ‗successful‘ activities,
the invoking of penalty clauses for those deemed not to have met the objectives set
for it and to decisions about giving further funding. The latter is important and
necessary for the development of work.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Practice evaluation. This form of evaluation is directed at the enhancement of work
undertaken with particular individuals and groups, and to the development of
participants (including the informal educator). It tends to be an integral part of the
working process. In order to respond to a situation workers have to make sense of
what is going on, and how they can best intervene (or not intervene). Similarly, other
participants may also be encouraged or take it upon themselves to make judgments
about the situation. In other words, they evaluate the situation and their part in it.
Such evaluation is sometimes described as educative or pedagogical as it seeks to
foster learning. But this is only part of the process. The learning involved is oriented
to future or further action. It is also informed by certain values and commitments
(informal educators need to have an appreciation of what might make for human
flourishing and what is ‗good‘). For this reason we can say the approach is concerned
with praxis – action that is informed and committed

These two forms of evaluation will tend to pull in different directions. Both are
necessary – but just how they are experienced will depend on the next two
dimensions.

Summative or formative evaluation

Evaluations can be summative or formative. Evaluation can be primarily directed at

one of two ends:

 To enable people and agencies make judgments about the work undertaken; to
identify their knowledge, attitudes and skills, and to understand the changes
that have occurred in these; and to increase their ability to assess their
learning and performance (formative evaluation).
 To enable people and agencies to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the
objectives of the programme or project, or to demonstrate they have achieved
the standard required (summative evaluation).

Either can be applied to a programme or to the work of an individual. Our experience

of evaluation is likely to be different according to the underlying purpose. If it is to
provide feedback so that programmes or practice can be developed we are less likely,
for example, to be defensive about our activities. Such evaluation isn‘t necessarily a
comfortable exercise, and we may well experience it as punishing – especially if it is
imposed on us (see below). Often a lot more is riding on a summative evaluation. It
can mean the difference between having work and being unemployed!

Banking or dialogical evaluation

Last, it is necessary to explore the extent to which evaluation is dialogical. As we

have already seen much evaluation is imposed or required by people external to the
situation. The nature of the relationship between those requiring evaluation and
those being evaluated is, thus of fundamental importance. Here we might useful
employ two contrasting models. We can usefully contrast the dominant or traditional

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 model that tend to see the people involved in a project as objects, with an
alternative, dialogical approach that views all those involved as subjects. This division
has many affinities to Freire‘s (1972) split between banking and dialogical models of
education. The characteristics of the traditional (banking) approach to evaluation:

a) A search for objectivity and a ‗scientific approach‘, through standardized

procedures. The values used in this approach… often reflect the priorities of the
evaluator.
b) An over-reliance on quantitative measures. Qualitative aspects…, being difficult to
measure, tend to be ignored.
c) A high degree of managerial control, whereby managers can influence the
questions being asked Other people, who may be affected by the findings of an
evaluation, may have little input, either in shaping the questions to be asked or
reflecting on the findings.
d) Outsiders are usually contracted to be evaluator in the belief that his will increase
objectivity, and there may be a negative perception of them by those being
evaluated‘.

The characteristics of the alternative (dialogical) approach to evaluation

a) Evaluation is viewed as an integral part of the development or change process and

involves ‗reflection-action‘. Subjectivity is recognized and appreciated.
b) There is a focus on dialogue, enquiry rather than measurement, and a tendency to use
less formal methods like unstructured interviews and participant observation.
c) It is approached as an ‗empowering processes rather than control by an external body.
There is recognition that different individuals and groups will have different perceptions.
Negotiation and consensus is valued concerning the process of evaluation, and the
conclusions reached, and recommendations made
d) The evaluator takes on the role of facilitator, rather than being an objective and neutral
outsider. Such evaluation may well be undertaken by ‗insiders‘ - people directly involved
in the project or programme.

We can see in these contrasting models important questions about power and control, the
way in which those directly involved in programmes and projects are viewed. Dialogical
evaluation places the responsibility for evaluation squarely on the educators and the other
participants in the setting (Jeffs and Smith 2005: 85-92).

Thinking about indicators

The key part of evaluation, some may argue, is framing the questions we want to ask,
and the information we want to collect such that the answers provide us with the
indicators of change. Unfortunately, as we have seen, much of the talk and practice
around indicators in evaluation has been linked to rather crude measures of
performance and the need to justify funding (Rogers and Smith 2006). We want to
explore the sort of indicators that might be more fitting to the work we do.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

In common usage an indicator points to something; it is a sign or symptom. The
difficulty facing us is working out just what we are seeing might be a sign of. In
informal education – and any authentic education – the results of our labours may only
become apparent some time later in the way that people live their lives. In addition,
any changes in behaviour we see may be specific to the situation or relationship (see
below). Further, it is often difficult to identify who or what was significant in bringing
about change. Last, when we look at, or evaluate, the work, as E Lesley Sewell (1966)
put it, we tend to see what we are looking for. For these reasons a lot of the
outcomes that are claimed in evaluations and reports about work with particular
groups or individuals have to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Luckily, in trying to make sense of our work and the sorts of indicators that might be
useful in evaluation, we can draw upon wisdom about practice, broader research
findings, and our values.

Exhibit 2: Evaluation - what might we need indicators for?

We want to suggest four possible areas that we might want indicators for:

The number of people we are in contact with and working with. In general, as
informal educators we should expect to make and maintain a lot of contacts. This is
so people know about us, and the opportunities and support we can offer. We can also
expect to involve smaller numbers of participants in groups and projects, and an even
smaller number as ‗clients‘ in intensive work. The numbers we might expect - and the
balance between them - will differ from project to project (Jeffs and Smith 2005:
116-121). However, through dialogue it does seem possible to come some agreement
about these - and in the process we gain a useful tool for evaluation.

The nature of the opportunities we offer. We should expect to be asked questions

about the nature and range of opportunities we offer. For example, do young people
have a chance to talk freely and have fun; expand and enlarge their experience, and
learn? As informal educators we should also expect to work with people to build
varied programmes and groups and activities with different foci.

The quality of relationships available. Many of us talk about our work in terms of
‗building relationships‘. By this we often mean that we work both through
relationship, and for relationship (see Smith and Smith forthcoming). This has come
under attack from those advocating targeted and more outcome-oriented work.
However, the little sustained research that has been done confirms that it is the
relationships that informal educators and social pedagogues form with people, and
encourage them to develop with others, that really matters (see Hirsch 2005).
Unfortunately identifying sensible indicators of progress is not easy - and the job of
evaluation becomes difficult as a result.

How well people work together and for others. Within many of the arenas where
informal education flourishes there is a valuing of working so that people may

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

organize things for themselves, and be of service to others. The respect in which this
held is also backed up by research. We know, for example, that people involved in
running groups generally grow in self-confidence and develop a range of skills (Elsdon
1995). We also know that those communities where a significant number of people are
involved in organizing groups and activities are healthier, have more positive
experiences of education, are more active economically, and have less crime (Putnam
1999). (Taken from Rogers and Smith 2006)

For some of these areas it is fairly easy to work out indicators. However, when it
comes to things like relationships, as Lesley Sewell noted many years ago, ‗Much of it
is intangible and can be felt in atmosphere and spirit. Appraisal of this inevitably
depends to some extent on the beholders themselves‘ (1966: 6). There are some
outward signs – like the way people talk to each other. In the end though, informal
education is fundamentally an act of faith. However, our faith can be sustained and
strengthened by reflection and exploration.

On being connoisseurs and critics

Informal education involves more than gaining and exercising technical knowledge and
skills. It depends on us also cultivating a kind of artistry. In this sense, educators are
not engineers applying their skills to carry out a plan or drawing, they are artists who
are able to improvise and devise new ways of looking at things. We have to work
within a personal but shared idea of the ‗good‘ – an appreciation of what might make
for human flourishing and well. What is more, there is little that is routine or
predictable in our work. As a result, central to what we do as educators is the ability
to 'think on our feet'. Informal education is driven by conversation and by certain
values and commitments (Jeffs and Smith 2005).

Describing informal education as an art does sound a bit pretentious. It may also
appear twee. But there is a serious point here. When we listen to other educators, for
example in team meetings, or have the chance to observe them in action, we
inevitably form judgments about their ability. At one level, for example, we might be
impressed by someone's knowledge of the income support system or of the effects of
different drugs. However, such knowledge is useless if it cannot be used in the best
way. We may be informed and be able to draw on a range of techniques, yet the thing
that makes us special is the way in which we are able to combine these and improvise
regarding the particular situation. It is this quality that we are describing as artistry.

For Donald Schön (1987: 13) artistry is an exercise of intelligence, a kind of knowing.
Through engaging with our experiences we are able to develop maxims about, for
example, group work or working with an individual. In other words, we learn to
appreciate - to be aware and to understand - what we have experienced. We become
what Eisner (1985; 1998) describes as 'connoisseurs'. This involves very different
qualities to those required by dominant models of evaluation.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Connoisseurship is the art of appreciation. It can be displayed in any realm in which
the character, import, or value of objects, situations, and performances is distributed
and variable, including educational practice. (Eisner 1998: 63)

The word connoisseurship comes from the Latin cognoscere, to know (Eisner 1998: 6).
It involves the ability to see, not merely to look. To do this we have to develop the
ability to name and appreciate the different dimensions of situations and
experiences, and the way they relate one to another. We have to be able to draw
upon, and make use of, a wide array of information. We also have to be able to place
our experiences and understandings in a wider context, and connect them with our
values and commitments. Connoisseurship is something that needs to be worked at –
but it is not a technical exercise. The bringing together of the different elements into
a whole involves artistry.

However, educators need to become something more than connoisseurs. We need to

become critics.

If connoisseurship is the art of appreciation, criticism is the art of disclosure.

Criticism, as Dewey pointed out in Art as Experience, has at is end the re-education of
perception... The task of the critic is to help us to see.
Thus… connoisseurship provides criticism with its subject matter. Connoisseurship is
private, but criticism is public. Connoisseurs simply need to appreciate what they
encounter. Critics, however, must render these qualities vivid by the artful use of
critical disclosure. (Eisner 1985: 92-93)

Criticism can be approached as the process of enabling others to see the qualities of
something. As Eisner (1998: 6) puts it, ‗effective criticism functions as the midwife to
perception. It helps it come into being, then later refines it and helps it to become
more acute‘. The significance of this for those who want to be educators is, thus,
clear. Educators also need to develop the ability to work with others so that they may
discover the truth in situations, experiences and phenomenon.

Educators as action researchers

Schön (1987) talks about professionals being ‗researchers in the practice context‘. As
Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 223) put it, ‗research is a frame of mind – a perspective
people take towards objects and activities‘. For them, and for us here, it is something
that we can all undertake. It isn‘t confined to people with long and specialist
training. It involves (Stringer 1999: 5):

• A problem to be investigated.

• A process of enquiry

• Explanations that enable people to understand the nature of the problem

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Within the action research tradition there have been two basic orientations. The
British tradition - especially that linked to education - tends to view action research
as research oriented toward the enhancement of direct practice. For example, Carr
and Kemmis provide a classic definition:

Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by

participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and
justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices,
and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr and
Kemmis 1986: 162).

The second tradition, perhaps more widely approached within the social welfare field
- and most certainly the broader understanding in the USA - is of action research as
'the systematic collection of information that is designed to bring about social change'
(Bogdan and Biklen 1992: 223). Bogdan and Biklen continue by saying that its
practitioners marshal evidence or data to expose unjust practices or environmental
dangers and recommend actions for change. It has been linked into traditions of
citizen‘s action and community organizing, but in more recent years has been
adopted by workers in very different fields.

In many respects, this distinction mirrors one we have already been using – between
programme evaluation and practice evaluation. In the latter, we may well set out to
explore a particular piece of work. We may think of it as a case study – a detailed
examination of one setting, or a single subject, a single depository of documents, or
one particular event (Merriam 1988). We can explore what we did as educators: what
were our aims and concerns; how did we act; what were we thinking and feeling and
so on? We can look at what may have been going on for other participants; the
conversations and interactions that took place; and what people may have learnt and
how this may have affected their behaviour. Through doing this we can develop our
abilities as connoisseurs and critics. We can enhance what we are able to take into
future encounters.

When evaluating a programme or project we may ask other participants to join with
us to explore and judge the processes they have been involved in (especially if we are
concerned with a more dialogical approach to evaluation). Our concern is to collect
information, to reflect upon it, and to make some judgements as to the worth of the
project or programme, and how it may be improved. This takes us into the realm of
what a number of writers have called community-based action research. We have set
out one example of this below.

Exhibit 3: Stringer on community-based action research

A fundamental premise of community-based action research is that it commences

with an interest in the problems of a group, a community, or an organization. Its
purpose is to assist people in extending their understanding of their situation and thus
resolving problems that confront them….

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Community-based action research is always enacted through an explicit set of social
values. In modern, democratic social contexts, it is seen as a process of inquiry that
has the following characteristics:

 It is democratic, enabling the participation of all people.

 It is equitable, acknowledging people‘s equality of worth.
 It is liberating, providing freedom from oppressive, debilitating conditions.
 It is life enhancing, enabling the expression of people‘s full human potential.
(Stringer 1999: 9-10)

The action research process

Action research works through three basic phases:

Look - building a picture and gathering information. When evaluating we define and
describe the problem to be investigated and the context in which it is set. We also
describe what all the participants (educators, group members, managers etc.) have
been doing.

Think – interpreting and explaining. When evaluating we analyse and interpret the
situation. We reflect on what participants have been doing. We look at areas of
success and any deficiencies, issues or problems.

Act – resolving issues and problems. In evaluation we judge the worth, effectiveness,
appropriateness, and outcomes of those activities. We act to formulate solutions to
any problems.

We could contrast with a more traditional, banking, style of research in which an

outsider (or just the educators working on their own) collect information, organize it,
and come to some conclusions as to the success or otherwise of the work.

Some issues when evaluating informal education

In recent years informal educators have been put under great pressure to provide
‗output indicators‘, ‗qualitative criteria‘, ‗objective success measures‘ and ‗adequate
assessment criteria‘. Those working with young people have been encouraged to show
how young people have developed ‗personally and socially through participation‘. We
face a number of problems when asked to approach our work in such ways. As we
have already seen, our way of working as informal educators places us within a more
dialogical framework. Evaluating our work in a more bureaucratic and less inclusive
fashion may well compromise or cut across our work.

There are also some basic practical problems. Here we explore four particular issues
identified by Jeffs and Smith (2005) with respect to programme or project
evaluations.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

The problem of multiple influences. The different things that influence the way
people behave can‘t be easily broken down. For example, an informal educator
working with a project to reduce teen crime on two estates might notice that the one
with a youth club open every weekday evening has less crime than the estate without
such provision. But what will this variation, if it even exists, prove? It could be
explained, as research has shown, by differences in the ethos of local schools,
policing practices, housing, unemployment rates, and the willingness of people to
report offences.

The problem of indirect impact

Those who may have been affected by the work of informal educators are often not
easily identified. It may be possible to list those who have been worked with directly
over a period of time. However, much contact is sporadic and may even take the form
of a single encounter. The indirect impact is just about impossible to quantify. Our
efforts may result in significant changes in the lives of people we do not work with.
This can happen as those we work with directly develop. Consider, for example, how
we reflect on conversations that others recount to us, or ideas that we acquire
second- or third-hand. Good informal education aims to achieve a ripple effect. We
hope to encourage learning through conversation and example and can only have a
limited idea of what the true impact might be.

The problem of evidence

Change can rarely be monitored even on an individual basis. For example, informal
educators who focus on alcohol abuse within a particular group can face an
insurmountable problem if challenged to provide evidence of success. They will not
be able to measure use levels prior to intervention, during contact or subsequent to
the completion of their work. In the end all the educator will be able to offer, at
best, is vague evidence relating to contact or anecdotal material.

The problem of timescale

Change of the sort with which informal educators are concerned does not happen
overnight. Changes in values, and the ways that people come to appreciate
themselves and others, are notoriously hard to identify - especially as they are
happening. What may seem ordinary at the time can, with hindsight, be recognized as
special.

Workarounds

There are two classic routes around such practical problems. We can use both as
informal educators.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

The first is to undertake the sort of participatory action research we have been
discussing here. When setting up and running programmes and projects we can build
in participatory research and evaluation from the start. We make it part of our way of
working. Participants are routinely invited and involved in evaluation. We encourage
them to think about the processes they have been participating in, the way in which
they have changed and so on. This can be done in ways that fit in with the general run
of things that we do as informal educators.

The second route is to make linkages between our own activities as informal
educators and the general research literature. An example here is group or club
membership. We may find it very hard to identify the concrete benefits for individuals
from being member of a particular group such as a football team or social club. What
we can do, however, is to look to the general research on such matters. We know, for
example, that involvement in such groups builds social capital. We have evidence
that:

In those countries where the state invested most in cultural and sporting facilities
young people responded by investing more of their own time in such activities
(Gauthier and Furstenberg 2001).
The more involved people are in structured leisure activities, good social contacts
with friends, and participation in the arts, cultural activities and sport, the more
likely they are to do well educationally, and the less likely they are to be involved
even in low-level delinquency (Larson and Verma 1999).
There appears to be a strong relationship between the possession of social capital and
better health. ‗As a rough rule of thumb, if you belong to no groups but decide to join
one, you cut your risk of dying over the next year in half. If you smoke and belong to
no groups, it‘s a toss-up statistically whether you should stop smoking or start joining‘
(ibid.: 331). Regular club attendance, volunteering, entertaining, or church
attendance is the happiness equivalent of getting a college degree or more than
doubling your income. Civic connections rival marriage and affluence as predictors of
life happiness (Putnam 2000: 333).
This approach can work where there is some freedom in the way that you can respond to
funders and others with regard to evaluation. Where you are forced to fill in forms that
require the answers to certain set questions we can still use the evaluations that we have
undertaken in a participatory manner – and there may even be room to bring in some
references to the broader literature. The key here is to remember that we are educators –
and that we have a responsibility foster learning, not only among those we work with in a
project or programme, but also among funders, managers and policymakers. We need to
view their requests for information as opportunities to work at deepening their appreciation
and understanding of informal education and the issues and questions with which we work.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

CONCLUSION
The purpose of evaluation, as Everitt et al (1992: 129) is to reflect critically on the
effectiveness of personal and professional practice. It is to contribute to the development
of ‗good‘ rather than ‗correct‘ practice.

Missing from the instrumental and technicist ways of evaluating teaching are the kinds of
educative relationships that permit the asking of moral, ethical and political questions
about the ‗rightness‘ of actions. When based upon educative (as distinct from managerial)
relations, evaluative practices become concerned with breaking down structured silences
and narrow prejudices. (Gitlin and Smyth 1989: 161)

Evaluation is not primarily about the counting and measuring of things. It entails valuing –
and to do this we have to develop as connoisseurs and critics. We have also to ensure that
this process of ‗looking, thinking and acting‘ is participative.

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

Social exchange theory is a social psychological and sociological perspective that
explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between
parties. Social exchange theory posits that all human relationships are formed by the
use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. The
theory has roots in economics, psychology and sociology.

Social exchange theory features many of the main assumptions found in rational
choice theory and structuralism.

Basic Concepts
The basic concepts addressed in social exchange theory are: Cost, Benefit, Outcome,
Comparison Level, Satisfaction, and Dependence. Benefits include things such as
material or financial gains, social status, and emotional comforts. Costs generally
consist of sacrifices of time, money, or lost opportunities. Outcome is defined to be
the difference between the benefits and the costs:

OUTCOME = BENEFITS - COSTS

Note that because individuals have different expectations of relationships, an

individual's satisfaction with a relationship depends on more than just the outcome.
For any two people with the same outcome, their level of satisfaction may differ
based on their expectations. One person may not expect very large outcomes, and
therefore would be more easily satisfied in relationships than someone who expects
more. This notion of satisfaction is formalized as the difference between the outcome
and the comparison level:

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 SATISFACTION = OUTCOME - COMPARISON LEVEL

Satisfaction is not enough to determine whether a person stays within a relationship

or leaves for an alternative. That is to say, there are people who stay in unhappy
relationships as well as those who leave happy relationships. What determines
whether an individual stays in a relationship or leaves is the set of alternate
relationships available. If there are many alternatives available to an individual, than
that individual is less dependent on the relationship. This notion of dependence is
formalized as the difference between the outcome and the "comparison level of
alternatives":

DEPENDENCE = OUTCOME - COMPARISON LEVEL OF ALTERNATIVES

Note that the set of potential alternatives can be governed both by extrinsic and
intrinsic factors. An example of an extrinsic factor would be that the person is from a
sparsely populated town, and an example of an intrinsic factor would be that a person
is very shy about meeting new people. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors affect the
set of people available to an individual for forming an alternate relationship, and thus
affect the level of dependence of the individual on his or her current relationship.

When deciding whether to leave the relationship, an individual considers the

alternatives. There are other considerations, such as the barriers to leaving the
relationship. Such barriers include things such as avoiding a fight, dealing with a
shared financial account, etc. There are also considerations of the investments that
an individual has made in the relationship. For instance, a couple that has spent many
years together have invested a lot of time into a relationship, and this must be
weighted against the benefits gained from an alternative relationships.

Critiques
Katherine Miller outlines several major objections to or problems with the social
exchange theory as developed from early seminal works (Miller 2005):

 The theory reduces human interaction to a purely rational process that arises
from economic theory.
 The theory favors openness as it was developed in the 1970s when ideas of
freedom and openness were preferred, but there may be times when openness
isn‘t the best option in a relationship.
 The theory assumes that the ultimate goal of a relationship is intimacy when
this might not always be the case.
 The theory places relationships in a linear structure, when some relationships
might skip steps or go backwards in terms of intimacy.

It also is strongly seated in an individualist mindset, which may limit its application in
and description of collectivist cultures.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Applications
Currently, Social Exchange Theory materializes in many different situations with the
same idea of the exchange of resources. Homans once summarized the theory by
stating:

Social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material

ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige. Persons that give much to
others try to get much from them, and persons that get much from others are
under pressure to give much to them. This process of influence tends to work
out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchanges. For a person in an exchange,
what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward, and
his behavior changes less as the difference of the two, profit, tends to a
maximum ("Theories Used in Research").

Other applications that developed include fields such as anthropology, as evidenced in

an article by Harumi Befu, which discusses cultural and social ideas and norms such as
gift-giving and marriage.

Social Exchange Theory under Scrutiny:

A Positive Critique of its Economic-Behaviorist Formulations

Exchange theory has become one of the most ambitious social, especially socio-
psychological, theories. Social exchange theory‘s fundamental premise is that
human behavior is an exchange of rewards between actors. This is the rationale
for the claim that social exchange can serve as a general paradigm for
sociology and anthropology as well as social psychology. The present critique is
aimed at rational choice and behaviorist variants of social exchange theory
rather than at the theory as such. First, the main assumptions of (these
variants of) social exchange theory are presented. This is followed by a critique
of these assumptions at two levels. The first level pertains to the treatment of
social interaction as an exchange, and the second to the status of social
exchange as an economic or psychological phenomenon. Other criticisms of
exchange theory are also presented.
The exchange approach in sociology [is] the economic analysis of
noneconomic social situations (Emerson, 1976, p. 336).

In recent years, one of the most ambitious sociological, particularly socio-

psychological, theories has been social exchange theory (Alexander, 1990; Cook,
2000), in turn a subset of the rational choice model predicated on a ―paradigm of
rational action borrowed from economics‖ (Coleman, 1986, p. 10), viz. expected
utility models imported from microeconomics (Macy and Flache, 1995). Notably, some

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

of its proponents see social exchange theory as a prominent instance of ―sociological
1
miniaturism‖ (or sociological social psychology ) that ostensibly allows the
―examination of large-scale social issues by means of the investigation of small-scale
social situations‖, or simply ―seeing the big through the small‖ (Stolte, Fine, and
Cook, 2001, p. 388).

The question can arise as to the reasons readers need to know about social exchange
theory. An important reason is exchange theory‘s ambition to be a sort of integrative
theoretical paradigm for social science, social psychology in particular, which derives
from the corresponding claim of the rational choice model and behaviorism, as its key
bases and sources. Another reason is exchange theory‘s self-description as an
interdisciplinary theoretical endeavor putatively spanning social-science disciplinary
boundaries, especially those between sociology, economics, psychology and political
science. So is the moment that exchange theory, especially its economic variant, is
intimately linked with ―public choice‖ or ―rational choice‖ approaches, which are
more familiar to social and political theorists. A corollary reason is then that
exchange theory involves or revolves around the issue of how standard economic
frameworks, notably market metaphors and analogies, are applied to social analysis in
recent times.

This paper scrutinizes these approaches and claims of exchange theory. The
examination is organized in three parts. The first part contains the key concepts and
assumptions of social exchange theory as presented by its representatives. The second
part involves a critique of social exchange theory at two levels, viz. the treatment of
social interaction as exchange, and then of social exchange as an extension of
economic and/or behavioral (psychological) phenomena. Adduced in the third part are
some other criticisms of exchange theory. A key criticism is that modern exchange
theory is neither a completely original nor satisfactory paradigm for social science in
virtue of being a mixture of elements from psychological behaviorism and orthodox
economics as more or less discredited theoretical traditions, as well as (unwittingly)
restating and misinterpreting some classical sociological and anthropological ideas
(e.g. Simmel, Mauss). On the account of that mixture, the theory appears as an
attempt to resurrect the double ‗ghost‘ of behaviorism and utilitarianism, in respect
of this restatement, a sort of déjà vu expedition to ‗rediscover America.‘

Concepts and Assumptions of Social Exchange Theory

Human Behavior/Social Interaction as Exchange

Exchange theory is based on the premise that human behavior or social interaction is
an exchange of activity, tangible and intangible (Homans, 1961, p.12-3), particularly
of rewards and costs (Homans 1961, p. 317-8). It treats the exchange of benefits,
notably giving others something more valuable to them than is costly to the giver, and

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

vice versa (Homans, 1961, pp. 61-63), as the underlying basis or open secret of human
behavior (Homans, 1961, p. 317) and so a phenomenon permeating all social life
(Coleman, 1990, p. 37). Not only is the market permeated by exchange but also the
non-economic realm--the social relations situated between extremes of intimacy,
self-interest or cost-benefit calculation and disinterested, expressive behavior (Blau,
1964, pp. 88-91). Social exchange is composed of actions of purposive actors that
presuppose constellations of their interests and resources.

The complex of interdependent exchange processes constitutes the market

functioning within a definite social and institutional structure, though admittedly the
latter has not been systematically examined within rational choice theory. Since
these processes are assumed to be governed by reciprocal relations—viz. exchange is
defined as social interaction characterized by reciprocal stimuli—they would not
continue in the long-run if reciprocity were violated. The concept of exchange ratio
or balance-imbalance, leading to the concepts of power, dependence, and cohesion,
is implied in the attribute of reciprocal reinforcements (Emerson, 1969, pp. 387-9). In
consequence, exchange theory examines the processes establishing and sustaining
reciprocity in social relations, or the mutual gratifications between individuals. The
basic assumption of exchange theory is that individuals establish and continue social
relations on the basis of their expectations that such relations will be mutually
advantageous. The initial impetus for social interaction is provided by the exchange of
benefits, intrinsic and extrinsic, independently of normative obligations (Blau, 1994,
pp. 152-6).

Social “Exchange” as an Extension of Economic Exchanges

In the context of conceptualizing social interaction as an exchange of rewards and

costs, a plea is sometimes made for rehabilitation of economic man (Homans
1961:79). Specifically, the plea is in the direction of transforming homo economicus
from a rational egoist (Hechter and Kanazawa, 1997) or an asocial subject (‗rational
fool‘ as termed by Sen, 1977) to a new actor holding not only utilitarian or hedonistic
but also altruistic or social values, and for whom long-term cost-benefit calculation
would be an exception rather than rule (Homans, 1961, pp. 79-80). Curiously, some
rational choice theorists (Abell, 1991) would call such an actor homo sociologicus
rather than homo economicus. Though the notion of homo economicus and related
concepts and principles are viewed as applicable to social exchange (Coleman, 1990,
pp. 37-9; Michener, Cohen, Sorensen, 1977), the latter is often distinguished from its
economic form. In this view, economic exchange features precise specifications of
transactions and prevalence of extrinsic rewards, especially material gains.

By contrast, social exchange is characterized by unspecified personal obligations and

trust as well as intrinsic--in conjunction with extrinsic--rewards, thus occupying the
middle ground between pure calculation of advantage and pure expression of love
(Blau, 1994, p. 91). The persistence and extension of social exchange are conditioned

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

by bonds based on personal trust, unlike economic transactions that rely on
impersonal markets and legal regulations. Moreover, unlike economic exchange, this
bond created by reciprocal benefits of extrinsic character is the principal output
rather than side-effect of social exchange (Blau, 1994, pp. 152-6). Hence, exchange
theory is said to center on ―enduring long-term social relations‖, as distinguished
from ―one-shot transactions‖ in the market realm (Cook, 2000, p. 687).

Still, economic models of social exchange (and rational choice) are not immune to
internal contradictions, which can admittedly (Markovsky et al. 1997, p. 833) be self-
defeating. Thus, while recognizing the differences between market and social
exchange (Cook, 2000, Stole et al., 2001), making the latter a distinct phenomenon
vis-à-vis the former, exchange theorists do not see them as an impediment to
applying standard economic models of rational choice. Further, some regard models
of economic exchange as universal and so applicable to ―extra-economic exchange‖
(Macy and Flache, 1995) or ―social situations‖ (Emerson, 1977). Admittedly, modern
social exchange theory uses ―concepts and principles borrowed from microeconomics‖
(Cook, 2000, p. 687). For example, the principle of diminishing marginal utility
originally pertaining to market transactions is extended to extra-economic relations
on the ground that the present realization of expectations has a dampening effect on
future attainment, though such effects are counteracted by rising aspirations (Blau,
1964, pp. 148-9; Coleman, 1990, pp. 37-42).

Adopting the rule of diminishing marginal utility, social exchange theory sees the
underlying assumption of utility maximization (i.e. optimum or equilibrium) in its
domain as little different from that in economics, though admittedly no exact price
can be attached to ‗invaluable goods‘ (Arrow 1997) and their utility is not
independent or separable. Since for social exchange theorists the principle of
marginal utility is applicable to exchanges of non-economic character (Blau, 1994, pp.
158-9), they extend the assumption of utility optimization (and satisficing) beyond the
market. Thus, some (Coleman, 1994, p. 159) argue that maximization of utility is a
universal engine of action for both economic and non-economic actors (individual or
corporate) that leads to the attainment of equilibrium in which the divergence
between utility and control of events/goods is minimized. Because actors are assumed
to aim at gaining utility by relinquishing control, power is attained not for its own
sake but is instrumental in obtaining wealth, thus seeking the first is the means to
2
gaining the second (Coleman, 1973).

Arguably, they attempt to maximize their realization of interests as a single action

principle and a reduction in the discrepancy between utility and control ensues from
exchanges to the point where equilibrium is reached (Coleman, 1990, p. 39). In
retrospect, this is a restatement of Pareto‘s definition of market equilibrium as the
outcome of an opposition between tastes (demand) and the obstacles for their
attainment (resource scarcity). At first sight, this extension of standard economic

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

concepts like utility, equilibrium and optimum into non-economic domains suggests
that exchange theory purports to erase or mitigate social-science disciplinary
boundaries, especially those between economics and other disciplines. However, in
most cases the underlying rationale or (un)intended outcome of such an extension is
subsuming these disciplines under economics as the ‗queen of social science‘, which
epitomizes academic economic imperialism rather than an interdisciplinary project.
Then, the extension of marginal utility and other marginalist concepts indicate that
social exchange theory is primarily a more specific variation of the rational choice
model—notably, closely tied to public choice as the economic analysis of politics--
rather than an autonomous theoretical paradigm. So does the extension of other
related economic concepts.

Thus, social exchange theorists also transplant the concepts of supply-demand,

market and just price, imperfect competition, costs, profits, etc. from economic to
extra-economic phenomena. They view the equilibrium between supply and demand
as determining the exchange ratio between two non-economic goods by analogy to
3
market exchange . Also, they treat the concept of elasticity of market supply and
demand as also applicable to social relations, particularly interrelations in and
structures of groups. Some extend the theory of imperfect and monopolistic
competition, with its assumptions of market imperfections (e.g. product
differentiation, small numbers of firms, entry constraints, incomplete information), to
competition in status and other social rewards. Other examples of extending
economic concepts to ‗non-economic situations‘ include (direct, fixed, variable,
marginal, investment, opportunity) costs, benefits, profit, income, etc. (Blau ,1994,
pp. 158-159; Coleman, 1990, pp. 719-769; Homans, 1990, pp. 77-81).

Such attempts to ground social exchange on market principles introduce variables,

such as material interests and initial control of goods, used in turn to predict the
value of events, the resources obtained and the patterns of control at equilibrium
(Coleman, 1972). They borrow their assumptions or parameters from the standard
theory of market exchange or perfect competition premised on the assumptions of
product homogeneity, multiple firms, perfect information, rational self-interest in
gains, stable homogenous interests or preferences, divisible goods, etc. Still, some
exercises (Michener et al., 1977) in what critics see as indiscriminate borrowing (Lie,
1997) realize that such assumptions are too stringent when applied to social (and even
economic) relations suggesting the need for their qualification or relaxation. For
example, they acknowledge that imperfect knowledge or incomplete information is
present in social relations (and economic exchanges) and leads to inefficiencies. Also,
they allow that actors have motivations or purposes other than self-interest, viz.
altruism, equity, or status, though by relaxing this assumption the (rational choice)
model admittedly loses some of its predictive power. Finally, they admit that the
proposition of foregoing ownership or power--by giving up control for the sake of
gaining utility (Coleman, 1994, p. 169)--through market transactions, while plausible

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

for material goods, is dubious for non-material variables, including information
(Michener et al., 1977)

Power as the Outcome Of Exchange Relations

In the rational choice model overall, admittedly the ―power concept is a

generalization of the wealth concept in economic theory‖ (Fararo, 2001, p. 266). This
also applies to (much of) social exchange theory as (if) a subset of the rational choice
model (Coleman 1990), though with some differences. These differences are mostly
secondary or terminological: social exchange theory typically conceptualizes power in
terms of (material) resources and their exchanges (though its advocates may and do
claim that resources are a broader category than wealth). Specifically, they treat
power as a derivative of unreciprocated exchange transactions in respect of
‗resources‘.

While assuming that social bonds result from reciprocated benefactions, they see
unilateral services are the ultimate source of differentiation in power (and status).
This simultaneous generation of social bonds and power differentiation is called the
paradox of social exchange. The ultimate form of the first is pure expression of love,
and the extreme case of the latter is potlatch in its primitive and modern variations
(Blau, 1994, pp. 158-9; Nisbet, pp. 1970:65-6). This process of power differentiation
has social structural effects like asymmetries in relations between members of
different groups, as superiority in group resources is transmitted into the superior
prestige of individuals accruing to them by membership independently of personal
factors (Blau, 1994, pp. 146-7). In conventional economics, market exchange is a
primary determining phenomenon in relation to power as secondary and derivative. In
a similar vein, economic-behavioral models of social exchange treat exchange as more
fundamental than power, explicitly (Emerson, 1969, pp. 385-6) or implicitly (Cook,
1990, pp. 115-6) on the market-style assumption that the latter largely emerges and
evolves in a complex structure of exchanges of resources.

Arguably, since these exchanges are governed by the objective structure of

alternatives, the latter determines power (and dependence) and gives it the
character of a structural variable residing within exchange networks. No doubt, power
has been a subject of intense interest among social theorists for long time and an
organizing concept for much of their theory, classical (viz. Marx, Weber, Simmel) and
(post-) modern (e.g. Bourdieu, Habermas, Foucault) alike. Social exchange theory
purports to provide some additional insights that would ostensibly enhance our,
including public choice, understanding of power and related phenomena, which can
be intriguing to readers. As hinted above and elaborated below, exchange theory‘s
key insights in this respect are, first, the equation of power with resources or wealth
and, second, the association between power and dependence. While to many readers
these insights may appear déjà vu—viz. the first in orthodox economics, including
public choice, the second in behaviorist psychology--social exchange theory entertains

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

high ambitions about its contribution to the theoretical (and empirical) analysis of
power, which justifies and clarifies how the latter fits into this study.

As regards its second key insight, specifically for exchange theory the inverse
association between power and dependence characterizes their relations, so
(non)reciprocity in the latter generates the problem of (in)equality or (a)symmetry in
power (Emerson, 1962, pp. 31-41). In recent exchange theory, this perspective has
become known as the ―power-dependence theory of Emerson‖ (Molm and Peterson,
1999). In this view, reciprocal or balanced exchange relations do not always imply the
absence of power, however. Power (though not domination) may still be operative
rather than neutralized in such relations because actors can continue to exercise
control over each other‘s actions. Two or more power-dependence relations
constitute a power network that tends to closure. A major process in such networks is
the legitimation or transformation of power into authority as balanced and directed
power exerted only in ways specified by group norms (Emerson, 1969, pp. 395-397)
and thus a social structural rather than personal phenomenon residing in dyads.
Arguably, the nature of network connections--positive, negative and mixed--and
resource scarcity by virtue of being factors altering dependency relations determine
the locus of power in exchange networks, a view that seeks to go beyond dyadic social
exchange to more ‗macro‘ levels (Yamaguchi, Gillmore and Cook, 1988). This shift of
attention from isolated dyads to exchange networks (attributed to Emerson 1972) is a
key feature of modern social exchange theory for its recent advocates (Molm, 1991,
p. 475). However, some modify or replace such network models by a process view
that advances an identity model of power associated with a participation level in
exchange networks, as set by actors‘ standards of identities (Burke, 1997, pp. 135-7).

In rational choice versions of exchange theory, the distribution of power among actors
is determined by the ‗availability of resources from alternative exchange relations‘ in
networks consisting only of negative connections like competition and conflict
(Yamaguchi et al., 1988, p. 851). In turn, the ‗local scarcity of resources‘ determines
power distribution in exchange networks with solely positive connections such as
cooperation. And, in networks of mixed connections, the distribution of power is
conditional on a conjunction of network positions--e.g., the distance from the
sources--and the control of resources. Overall, rational choice models of exchange
typically equate power with the total value of economic resources (Yamaguchi, 1997,
p. 840) or wealth. Specifically, the power ratio between actors is the reciprocal
magnitude of the exchange rates between them--the less resources actor A exchanges
with B, the higher A‘s power over B--with these rates (or marginal utilities of
exchanges with alternative partners) being equal in market-like equilibrium (so
optimum). Attaining the latter implies establishing uniform power ratios or
approximately symmetrical power-dependence relations between actors in networks.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

According to some exchange theorists, actors can exercise both reward and
punishment or coercive power, though the first is a more likely strategy for powerful
actors, and the second for the weak, in exchanges (Molm, 1989, pp. 1417-8). In this
view, the risk of retaliation and fear of loss, however, discourage the strategic use of
coercive power (Molm, 1997, p. 130) on the part of weak actors since they are too
dependent on their powerful counterparts to use such strategies. Arguably, the
dynamics of power in social exchange, expressed in the frequency and distribution of
outcomes, is governed by two variables. One is the structure of power in exchange
networks--i.e., a structural equivalent to the potential power derived from
dependence relations--the other its strategic use. Reportedly, structural power and
strategic action are weakly correlated, though both have strong effects on exchange
outcomes. Specifically, strategic action is observed to have a more profound impact
on punishment power, and structural power on its reward counterpart. In turn,
strategic action, viz. the strategic use of coercive power, is employed to recompense
for the lack of structural power rather than intensify or mediate its effects, for
powerful actors have less need to utilize such strategies (Molm, 1990, p. 447).

In this view, the frequency and distribution of exchange is the indicator of satisfaction
from exchange relations, which is determined by the amount and balance of power.
The greater average power or balance, the more symmetrical distribution of exchange
and so the greater satisfaction, and vice versa. Hence, this satisfaction derives from
relative power positions via the expectation entailed in each position, with higher
(lower) ‗nodes‘ producing high (low) expectations (Molm, 1991, p. 493). As to the
effect of the degree of reciprocity vs. negotiation in social exchange on power
distribution within networks, presumably reciprocal exchanges exhibit lower strategic
power uses (Molm and Peterson, 1999), just as greater perceptions of fairness (Molm,
Peterson, and Takahashi, 2003).

In some variants of exchange theory, power exhibits a direct correlation to the

centrality of actors‘ network positions (Bonacich, 1987), with exceptions where
central positions do not necessarily imply superior power, which is either a
proposition (Markovsky et al., 1990, p. 300; Willer, 1986, p. 441) or a concession
(Cook and Yamaguchi, 1990, p. 297). By contrast, some conceive power as a function
not so much of actors‘ position in exchange networks as of their actions, viz. identity
models of network exchanges in which power is linked with participating in these
based on certain participation reference standards (Burke, 1997, pp. 135-6). These
models differ from their structural counterparts in that power does not inhere to any
particular position in an exchange network but expresses the capacity of one actor to
control those resources the others seek, so the equation has two parts (Burke, 1997,
p. 149).

By contrast, structural theories assume that power differentiation is determined more

by ‗transitive power‘ in organized networks or hierarchies than by that in dyadic

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

exchange relations (Friedkin, 1991). These theories denote exchange relations
positive if they are contingent on each other or mutually reinforcing, and negative if
they preclude one another. They derive measures of centrality within exchange
networks from process models of social influence assuming that such processes
generate and shapes the societal organization of network status. For instance, an
integrated variant of these models applies a social-structural perspective on choice
shifts by linking these to interpersonal interactions or polarization in small groups,
thus making influence network the crucial construct in the analysis of group dynamics
(Friedkin, 1999).

Some exchange theorists relax the rational choice argument for the determination of
power by exchanges of resources within network structures (Willer et al., 1989).
Describing it as a relational and unobservable phenomenon, they view power as
determined by multiple rather than single structural conditions, including resource
exchanges. They suggest that a substantial departure from some baseline value of
expected outcomes is indicative of power use in exchange relations, thus of grounding
power in a resource flow linking any pair of positions in a network. In such networks,
power transitivity exists if a resource flow between at least three positions is
operative. Overall, power is structurally generated in exchange networks via exclusion
and inclusion, or hierarchy and mobility, and is proportional to the ability to avoid
being excluded. In this rendition of exchange theory, excludability becomes the major
factor determining individual and network realms or power positions, though critics
(Cook and Yamaguchi, 1990, pp. 297-300) object that the connection between power-
dependence and exclusion is not articulated. It defines exclusion in the sense that
some actors are effectively prevented from obtaining valuable resources like wealth
(and so power and status) by social-structural conditions that affect (and stem from)
resource availability, valuation and transfers between individual and collective actors
(Markovsky et al., 1988).

Thus, the power of micro-units within exchange networks to access these resources is
to some degree the function of macro-social structures. Technically, this version of
exchange theory assumes that to every network position and its holder accrues
relative power analytically predicted by a graph-theoretic power index (GPI) that
indicates the number of points earned and distributed in resource exchanges and is
based on the equation of power to the availability of alternative exchange relations.
GPI calculations in multi-exchange networks are simplified by using the concept of
network domains as independent (sub) networks in the sense that power use and
change in one domain do not have impact on that in the others. In sum, both
exchanges of resources and configurations of network positions determine power and
its use, as manifested in resource distributions. Yet, some exchange theorists object
that this procedure of power estimation via the accumulation and distribution of
resource points may perpetuate the rational-choice myth that social actors wish solely
to accumulate wealth (Burke, 1997, p. 149).

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Forms of Social Exchange

On the basis of the number, interconnections, and objectives of actors, social

exchange is divided into restricted, dyadic or bilateral and generalized, network or
multilateral. In some views, the distinction between restricted and generalized
exchange is pertinent if these operate according to differing principles, viz. equality
in the first, and mutual trust in the second (Roloff 1981:20-2). Early behaviorist-
rational choice versions of exchange theory (e.g. Homans and Blau) treats restricted
exchanges as primary in relation to their generalized forms. They dismiss generalized
exchange in virtue of being founded on normative conformity or social expectations
stipulating that actors provide free services rather than on voluntary actions seeking
mutual gratifications in contrast to dyadic exchanges. Some accuse the theory of
generalized exchange for committing the tautological fallacy of explaining behavior
by cultural norms prescribing such conduct and so for overlooking the crucial insight
that exchanges do not hinge on social obligations (Blau, 1994, pp. 156-8), especially
exogenously imposed rules involving regulatory constraints, thus limiting freedom of
choice (Yamaguchi, 1997, p. 841).

Instead, they redefine social (and economic) exchange as a type of choice behavior.
Presumably, actors in social exchange make choices freely in regard to other
interactants or alternative courses of action while guided by cost-benefit
considerations, though no formal bargaining and explicit contracts on reciprocation
are involved (Molm, 1990, pp. 427-9). The satisfaction of actors‘ preferences becomes
the prime mover of exchanges: exchange processes are outcomes of their attempts to
satisfy their needs (Cook, 1990, pp. 115-116) rather than live up to social
expectations, values, and rules. Admittedly, alternatives for exchange transactions as
well as their outcomes are influenced by a group‘s network that prevents or mitigates
by various social sanctions, including moral disapproval, failures of reciprocation.

Yet, exchange theory typically treats these sanctions and the underlying social norms
as secondary explanatory factors in relation to expected returns in the belief that
they do not generate (though may sustain) such transactions (Blau, 1994, p. 158).
Generally, it, especially its rational-choice rendition, conceives exchange behavior as
mostly, to use Weber‘s terms, instrumental-rational rather than (also) value-rational
well as traditional and affective (or emotional) action, despite some recent attempts
in the second direction, e.g. affect theories (Lawler, 2001; Molm, 1991). In Paretian
terms, it conceptualizes social exchange as driven largely by logico-rational elements
such as material interests in resources, while downplaying non-rational variables like
sentiments and their rationalizations (residues and derivations). This feature of
exchange theory helps explain why its advocates avoid reference to, or criticize and
dubiously reinterpret, Weber, Pareto and other classical sociologists and
anthropologists (as implicitly admitted by Cook, 2000).

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Social-Psychological (Behavioral) Assumptions
A principal socio-psychological or behavioral-motivational assumption of exchange
theory is that of human behavior as a function of reward and punishment, pleasure
and pain, cost and benefit, gain and loss, pay-off, and the like (Homans, 1961, p. 12).
Presumably, by generating such pay-offs, exchange transactions institutionalize or
pattern social interaction (Cook, 1990, pp. 115-6). Early exchange theorists (e.g.
Homans, Emerson) regard this assumption as common to both behavioral psychology
and conventional economics, with the two dominant models of social exchange, the
behaviorist-operant and the economic-rational choice (Ekeh, 1974, p. 115; Roloff,
1981, pp. 33-59), originating in these two disciplines, respectively.

However, some of them see the rational choice approach as but a special case of
behavioral psychology (Homans, 1990, pp. 85-6), a view that the exponents of this
approach (e.g. Coleman 1990, p. 11) reject. In this view, among social laws only
economic ones approach level of generality in virtue of being grounded on universal
behaviorist psychological principles (Homans, 1990, pp. 77-81), though they
admittedly emerge and function solely within definite institutional conditions like
markets, property rights, legal guarantees, or cultural rules (Elster, 1989; Willer et
al., 1989). Thus, early exchange theorists (like Homans) describe such market laws as
the law of supply and demand as derivations from psychological propositions or
behavioral propensities, though under certain institutional parameters. They
explicitly pursue and justify psychological reductionism on the ground that
sociological laws are not very general or pertinent. Notably, they treat the rational
choice propositions about social exchange, by virtue of referring to individual actions
and treating institutions as their aggregate outcomes, as psychological and thus
universal, and not sociological.

If so, then these propositions assume on the heroic function of explaining and
predicting virtually all social phenomena, economic and non-economic alike. For
example, some exchange theorists propose that social status--denoted as a special
capital (Blau, 1994, pp. 160-1) whose function is to obtain material gains--is subject
to the operation of the law of supply and demand, just as are economic variables. The
role of wealth or money in economics is in social exchange theory matched by status
(Blau, 1994, pp.146-7), approval (Homans, 1990, pp. 77-9), reputation and related
non-economic variables assumed in turn to be rationally used for obtaining efficiency
gains within exchange systems (Raub and Weesie, 1990, pp. 653-4).
Overall, for leading exchange theorists (Homans, 1971), the key propositions of their
theory are much like those of economics, viz. rational pursuit of self-interest, by
assuming that actors are more likely to engage in an action, the more valuable its
reward, and conversely. In turn, by virtue of making no reference to the conditions
and positions of a social system‘s integration or equilibrium, they are not functional
or macro-sociological propositions. Relatedly, like general sociological theory, that of

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

social exchange becomes a set of explanations and predictions using psychological
propositions, of which rational choice is (as seen) a special case. Presumably, the only
general propositions in sociology are psychological, not social, because no general
sociological propositions holding for all societies or groups exist (Homans, 1990). Since
its perceived psychological, including individualistic, foundations make rational choice
theory a branch of behavioral psychology, exchange theory cum the ―economic
analysis of noneconomic social situations‖ (Emerson, 1976, p. 336) is an application of
the behaviorist approach. (This is a sort of anathema for economists and rational
choice theorists in sociology, e.g. Coleman 1990).

The initial behavioral approach--as pioneered by Homans, as perhaps the first modern
exchange and even rational choice theorist (Coleman and Lindenberg, 1989; Fararo,
2001—is elaborated in the model of operant psychology treated as the theoretical
foundation. The model uses concepts such as operant stimulus, discriminatory
stimulus and reinforcing stimulus, and views not the actor but the relationship as the
unit of analysis (Emerson, 1969, pp. 379/95). It distinguishes exchange networks from
groups in that they are structures created by exchange processes among different
individual and collective actors--i.e., as sets of two or more connected exchanges—
thus extending these processes from direct dyadic to indirect multi-agent forms. In an
extension of this model, exchange networks meet individual needs and cause or
constrain the emergence of social structures--rather than vice versa--by producing
differentiation among individuals and groups on the basis of asymmetrical access to
valuable resources like wealth, power, prestige, or privilege (Cook, 1990, pp. 115-6).
A further related claim is that the assumption that institutional structures are
―generated‖ via the concatenation of individual exchanges makes exchange theory a
―theory of social structure [sic!]‖ (Cook, 2000, p. 687).

Another key behavioral assumption of social exchange theory is that of distributive

justice, equity or fairness in non-economic relations. In neoclassical economics, the
principle of distributive justice implies equivalence of the marginal productivity or
efficiency and the earnings of production factors like labor (wages), capital (interest),
and entrepreneurship (profit). By analogy, early social exchange theory defines
distributive justice in terms of equivalence or proportionality between the investment
in and the (money or psychic) profit from non-economic exchanges (Homans, 1961, p.
264) and contending a la economics that only if both parties make profit will such
transactions continue. In modern social exchange theory (and social psychology), most
definitions of (distributive) justice or fairness are mainly variations on this theme
(e.g., Jasso, 1999; Molm, Peterson, and Takahashi 2003; Younts and Mueller, 2001).
For illustration, some redefine distributive justice in terms of ‗how people evaluate
the fairness of the reward distributions that result from allocations or exchange,
typically by comparing actual rewards to some standard of ‗just reward‘‖ (Molm, et
al. 2003:128-9).

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

In social exchange theory, most analyses of distributive justice emphasize its
subjective dimensions or actors‘ perceptions of the relation of rewards to a certain
distribution rule of ‗just reward‘ (Alwin, 1987). In short, the equation or proportion
between actual and subjectively expected rewards measures distributive justice. This
approach rests on the premise that equity or fairness is ‗in the eye of the beholder‘
(Molm et al., 2003), thus making distributive justice a sort of socio-psychological
phenomenon. Arguably, individuals‘ expected and actual rewards from exchange
constitutes the socio-psychological process of justice evaluation (Shepelak and Alwin,
1986). Reportedly, actors perceive inequalities in exchange as legitimate and just to
the extent that their cause is attributed to themselves rather than others (Shepelak,
1987). Since social factors affect individual expectations, admittedly both objective
and expected level--influenced by subjective reference groups and standards--of well-
being determine the assessment of satisfaction or distributive justice as subjectively
experienced.
The relationship between the criteria of evaluation (e.g., skills, performance, or
seniority) and the distribution of valuable resources, which expresses or approximates
distributive justice, is specified by a distributional rule by analogy to the marginal
productivity principle in economics. For example, the fairness of earnings is estimated
according to criteria like merit and need affecting actors‘ judgment of perceived
equity (Jasso and Rossi, 1977). Overall, this view makes the extent of perceived
injustice—e.g. ‗unjust under-reward‘ and ‗unjust over-reward‘--in rewards a function
of scarcity and inequality (Jasso 1999). Arguably, since (if) the distribution rule is
adopted or subjectively perceived as legitimate, the relations between evaluation
criteria and distributive rewards will be perceived as equitable or not depending on
whether or not individual reward expectations, based on the rule, are fulfilled or
frustrated.

This implies the expectation that the psycho-social unrest due to distributive injustice
will arise only if the distribution standard is (perceived as being) violated (Cook,
1975). In addition, some exchange theorists reintroduce procedural distributive
justice stating that ‗judgments of fairness are a function not only of outcomes in
relation to some standard but of the processes or procedures through which outcomes
are obtained‘ (Molm et al. 2003:129). Thus, they examine how the processes of
negotiation and reciprocation—i.e. negotiated and reciprocal exchange with their
different ‗procedural dimensions‘--affect perceptions or judgments of fairness. Their
finding is that negotiations as putatively ‗fair procedures‘ produce the ‘untended
consequence of reducing the perception that exchange is fair and just‘, and
reciprocal exchange is a ‗process for building relationships in which other actors are
perceived as fair and cooperative‘ (Molm et al. 2003:129). In general, social exchange
theory predicts that definite behavioral consequences will ensue from (in)justice
perception and experience (Markovsky et al., 1984).
In this regard, some exchange theorists propose social comparison functions
(Markovsky et al., 1984) on the ground that judgments of distributive justice are
based on comparisons across individuals, groups, societies, or distributional standards.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

In this view, social comparisons cause perceptions or emotions of (in)justice as well as
justice-restoring mechanisms and actions. Used in modern social psychology, such
functions reflect the idea that justice (and happiness) as well as affect and
identification are comparative categories or outcomes of interpersonal and inter-
group evaluations, a generalization of Veblen‘s theme of ‗invidious comparison‘. The
social comparison function has a domain of ordinal and ratio-measured investments
and rewards unlike that of economic distribution where these variables are numerical
(Markovsky et al., 1984). Finally, as to the relationship of distributive justice to
power, equity or fairness norms reportedly legitimate behavioral inequality in
exchange relations and thus favor powerful actors rather than neutralize such effects
to the advantage of the weak (Molm, Quist, and Wiseley, 1994). This finding thus
supports the legitimation hypothesis of distributive justice vs. the balance hypothesis

Critique of Social Exchange Theory

Two Levels of Critique

Social exchange theory can be examined and criticized at two levels of analysis. The
first level pertains to the treatment of human behavior or social life as exchange; the
second to the reduction of social interaction or ‗exchange‘ to economic transaction or
a psychological process.
At the first level, contemporary social exchange theory is far from being fully original
and novel. Many exchange theorists, knowingly or (more often) not, just restate some
classical sociological ideas, notably those of Simmel, and to that extent their theory
4
might be designated ‗rational choice crossed with classical sociology‘ . For instance,
Simmel posits that many interpersonal relations can be interpreted as exchange, that
the latter is the ―purest and most developed kind of social interaction based on
reciprocity‖ to the effect ―every interaction is an exchange‖ and is founded on the
―scheme of giving and returning equivalence.‖ It is curious that many of modern
exchange theorists seem either unaware of the origins or anticipations of their theory
in classical sociology—thus appearing as if trying to ‗discover America‘ again--or are
prone to disregard these in favor of those from neoclassical economics or behavioral
psychology.

As some of its adherents admit, most of social exchange theory ―combines roots in
behaviorism [...] with concepts and principled borrowed from microeconomics‖
(Cook, 2000, p. 687), a combination that virtually excludes relevant sociological and
anthropological ideas as incongruent. For example, economic and psychological
versions of exchange theory hardly contain relevant references to classical
sociological (and anthropological) works, including even those of Simmel and Weber
as putative early ‗rational choice‘ sociologists (Kiser and Hechter 1998). Contrast this
negligence with their numerous references to (neo)classical economics (e.g. Smith,
Bentnam, Marshall, Edgeworth, etc.) and behavioral psychology (e.g. Skinner). In one
respect, social exchange theory tends to ground itself in standard and partly
discredited economic concepts and models like homo economicus, self-interest,

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

profit, utility maximization, cost-benefit calculation, complete information,
cognition, and foresight, etc. In another, it places itself in the equally compromised
behaviorist frame of reference, e.g. ‗Skinner‘s box‘ (Deutsch, 1971), with its reliance
on the operant psychology of stimuli, responses, mutual reinforcements, rewards and
punishments, etc. The first applies to rational choice models of exchange, second to
behavioral ones, though a synthesis mixing both is found in many exchange theorists
starting with Homans and Emerson.

Modern exchange theory cum a mix of behaviorism and microeconomics justifies its
disregard of sociological ideas on meta-theoretical or doctrinaire grounds that their
holist or cultural crust is incompatible with its individualist, utilitarian and behaviorist
core. It neglects or dismisses the classical sociological-anthropological conception of
generalized, ‗rule-governed‘ (Weber‘s expression) and symbolic social exchange (e.g.
Durkheim, Mauss, Malinowski) in favor of that of restricted, normatively independent,
and pseudo-market exchanges. The issue is not whether which conception is more
adequate but the disjuncture of an ostensibly sociological theory with the tradition of
sociology and its curious continuity with (and borrowing from) orthodox economics
and behaviorism. Still, this path makes the modern exchange paradigm appear less
adequate as a sociological (or socio-psychological) theory than perhaps would have
been the case if the other route were followed. In particular, admittedly ―one
limitation of [social exchange theory] is the relative inattention to issues of cultural
context and cross-cultural variations in the norms and rules that regulate social
exchange. Ironically, this is the strength of early studies of social exchange within
anthropology‖ (Cook, 2000, 688).

What prominent exchange theorists (Emerson) call the ‗economic analysis of

noneconomic social situations‖ as the presumed differentia specifica of their theory
transforms the latter into a particular subtype of the rational choice model (Coleman,
1990; Cook, 2000; Macy and Flache, 1995), though some of those instrumental in this
transformation (Blau, 1994) recently reject this view. Admittedly, rational choice
models, as originating in standard micro-economics, ―form the basis‖ (Cook, 2000, p.
687) for social exchange theory. In conjunction with this economic basis, the latter
has also evolved into a sort of sub-field of behavioral or operant psychology in
Emerson-Homans‘ formulations, amid some misgivings (Coleman, 1990, pp. 11-16)
favoring an exclusively rational choice model. In either case, like most of the rational
choice model, social exchange theory is, for its viability and validity, subservient to or
‗parasitic‘ on these two sociologically extraneous and alien paradigms rather than
being a truly sociological endeavor. Consequently, it stands and falls with utilitarian
economic theory and psychological behaviorism, as partly discredited or revised
paradigms even within their own fields. In this sense, exchange theory (to quote
Schumpeter‘s comment on welfare economics) ‗only revives Benthamite [and the
Skinnerian] tradition.‘ That social exchange theory‘s proclivity for economic-
behavioral roots and formulations vs. sociological-anthropological ones is dubious is
elaborated below. Notably, the flaws of its economic and behavioral versions can be

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

exposed by comparing and contrasting with them the exchange theory presented,
anticipated, or inspired by classical sociology/anthropology. So, this is not a critique
of social exchange theory as such but only of its economic-behaviorist variants.

Is All Social Interaction Exchange?

Most exchange theorists reiterate or echo an early sociological or anthropological
idea--as present or implicit in, for example, Simmel and Malinowski--of social
interaction as exchange. However, they ignore or downplay the observation that
social interaction is, Simmel emphasizes, the more comprehensive concept and
exchange the narrower, by reducing the former to the latter. While Simmel views
exchange as the ‗purest sociological occurrence‘ or the ‗most complete form‘ of
social interaction he commits or implies no such economic-style reductionism. By
contrast, most rational choice models of exchange fail to distinguish the latter as a
form of social interaction with reciprocal outcomes (Burgess and Nielsen, 1974; Molm
et al. 2003) rather than a universal process found in virtually all society.

Despite its claim to be a sociological paradigm, exchange theory in its rational choice
and behavioral varieties fails to recognize the distinctive social character of
exchanges that are not fully reducible to their particular economic and/or
psychological dimensions. It overlooks that social exchange represents, as Simmel
puts it, a sociological phenomenon sui generis by virtue of being originally determined
by society as well as subsequently socially regulated by inter-personal and inter-group
commitments eventually conducive to impersonal rules and institutions. As critics
object, based on its central proposition that the rational operation of economic and
psychological processes defines social behavior as an exchange of rewards, and that
institutional structures arise and exist as just more complex forms or outcomes of
such processes, exchange theory misconceives the societal framework of exchanges
by offering a mechanistic portrayal of human action (Mitchell, 1978, p. 168). In this
view, its depiction of actors as motivated by reward vs. punishment and profit vs.
cost reflects social exchange theory‘s parasitic reliance on reductive psychology and
economics. Alternatively, it overlooks or dismisses the self-emergent or pre-existing
properties of macro-phenomena relative to individual units and their actions in favor
of ‗ad hoc quality of utilitarian rationalities‘ (Mitchell, 1978, p. 168) as the presumed
prime mover of social structures regarded as collections or results of these unit acts.
Admittedly, exchange theory treats social structures as ―generated through the
formation of [individual] exchange relations‖ (Cook, 2000, p. 687).

For critics, what is at issue, however, is not only this rational choice micro-
aggregation to generate macro-outcomes—even for some economists (Arrow 1994) a
dubious procedure--but also, to paraphrase Weber, co-determination of individual
actions by (what Blau calls) the large social structure, including institutions, thus
beyond interpersonal networks as ‗substructures‘. If these processes are intertwined
with, or co-determined by, each other, a key problem exchange theory overlooks, yet
needs to solve, pertains to the ways thereby macro-social structure affect actors in

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

their exchanges and pursuit of interest within networks. Admittedly, a possible
solution is linking individual actions, via relations in networks of exchanges or micro-
structures, with macro-social structures instead of assuming--as most economists do--
that the latter are generated by ingrained individual propensities like some
‗propensity to exchange‘ (Willer, Markovsky, and Patton, 1989).

Thus, even some exchange theorists (Willer, et al., 1989) consider the macro-to-micro
approach from social structure (not local networks) to individual exchange (agency)
more in accordance with the sociological tradition, particularly Marx and Weber, than
the micro-to-macro model characteristic of rational choice theory. Such an approach
treats outcomes from exchanges like exchange rates as generated by connecting
individual actions with macro-social structures as different from network sub- or
micro-structures. This admits that just as it is implausible to reduce human
interaction to an exchange of rewards, so is it to treat ‗large social structure‘ as an
aggregate outcome or composition effect of individual exchanges propelled by
utilitarian or behavioral considerations. If so, then this casts doubt on the claim that
exchange theory ―offers significant insights about the nature and operation of social
structure‖ (Stolte et al., 2001, p. 410), even that it is ―a theory of social structure‖
(Cook, 2000, p. 687). (In fact, what modern exchange theorists, following Emerson,
call ‗structure‘ is what Blau denotes as sub- or micro-structures, like exchange
networks, distinguished from large or macro-social structure.) Also, it doubts the
general argument of ‗sociological miniaturism‘ (or social psychology) that the
phenomena usually ‗taken as characteristic of the microbehavioral level of analysis
transcend that level of analysis and apply on macrolevels of analysis as well‖ (Stolte
et al., 2001, p. 409).

Can Social Exchange Be Reduced to Economic Exchange?

The second level of critique of exchange theory involves the relationship between
economic and social exchange. Economic and behaviorist models tend to reduce social
exchange to a set of market-like exchanges of material objects driven by extrinsic
motivations like gain, even when it declaratively distinguishes between the two. For
instance, this reduction is implicit in the claim that exchange theory is ‗well-suited
for grasping material/extrinsic exchange‖ (Stolte et al., 2001, p. 411) insofar as this
means that social exchanges are subsumed under the latter. A related claim is that
exchange theory brings to sociology a ―clear conception of the material and resource
basis of social action‖ (Cook, 2000, p. 688).

These claims assume or imply that not just economic but social exchange is induced
by pursuit of material resources (wealth) and/or hedonistic motives (pleasure). As
some exchange theorists (Homans, Emerson) suggest, the economic postulate of
utility maximization is a special case of the general hedonistic ‗law‘ of pleasure
optimization, as is loss minimization relative to pain avoidance. This highlights their
project for, even most of modern, social exchange theory as an extension and

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

combination of behaviorist, including hedonistic, psychology and utilitarian
microeconomics (Cook 2000).
A critical alternative to the reduction of social exchange to economic and behavioral
laws is explaining market transactions (and psychological tendencies) by sociological
principles in light of the societal organization and embeddedness of the economy,
including markets. This explanation is the mark of economic sociology, notably
sociology of markets, which thus differs from social exchange (and rational choice)
theory. In retrospect, the reduction of non-economic to market exchanges commits,
for better or (more likely) worse, an inversion of the traditional sociological and
anthropological treatment (e.g. Simmel, Malinowski) of the latter as a particular form
of social exchange. Notably, rational choice models extend the ‗economic approach‘
from market to social exchange and reduce the latter to the former, while ‗stirring a
bit of [behavioral psychology] to improve the flavour‘ (Hodgson 2000). However, this
economic reductionism seems dubious even to some rational choice theorists (Boudon
1996) on the underlying premise social exchange is a distinct phenomenon not
reducible to its particular market elements. In addition to the fundamental difference
in comprehensiveness, underscored in early sociology (Simmel) and anthropology
(Malinowski) but neglected in rational choice and behaviorist models, the differences
between economic and social exchange are numerous and substantial.

Thus, even the exchange of material goods in the market is, as Simmel stresses, not a
purely economic fact as treated in orthodox microeconomics. For, as he puts it, ―such
a fact--i.e. one whose content would be exhausted in the image of economics--does
not exist [but is one of] the purest and most primitive forms of socialization‖.
Further, Simmel observes that even when considered an economic phenomenon,
market exchange far from exhausting analysis becomes the subject of sociological
(and psychological) analyses examining its ―preconditions in non-economic concepts
and facts and its consequences for non-economic values and relationships‖. In some
views, economic and social exchange differ in that in the former the focus is on
material goods and the associated gains and sacrifices in contrast to the latter where
relationships are central mostly regardless of such benefits (Burns, 1990). In Simmel‘s
words, if the exchange of economic values entails the notion of sacrifice of a useful
good and cost-benefit calculation, most social exchanges involve no such sacrifices
and calculations. For instance, when, as he puts it, ―we exchange love for love, we do
not sacrifice any [material] good‖.

Unlike market exchange involving an objective appraisal of the goods exchanged in

the form of a definite value or money price, social exchanges are based on what
Simmel calls a purely subjective impulse independent of an exact exchanging rate.
Inter alia, this is evidenced by the indefinite ‗subjective impulse‘ and reciprocity in
gift exchange, including Christmas presents (Solnick and Hemenway, 1996) as (in Levi-
Strauss‘ words) a ‗gigantic potlatch‘, in which determining an accurate economic
value or monetary price is not feasible or sensible. As Simmel argues, to the extent
that it involves equivalence of power and balanced relations, economic exchange is

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

the typical instrument for combining distributive justice, though formal and relative,
with changes in ownership by multiplying the number of values experienced.

By contrast, he suggests that distributive justice in social exchanges is more difficult

to attain or ascertain given its ‗pure subjectivity‘ and indefinite terms of exchange
like rates and time of transactions (Burgess and Nielsen, 1974). If so, then various
attempts at transplanting the concept of distributive justice from economic to social
exchange are just analogies and metaphors at best. Reportedly, while in economic
exchange inequality or injustice can be measured with great precision, this is not so
in social exchanges (Curtis, 1986).

Other Criticisms of Social Exchange Theory

Restricted And Generalized Exchange. Social exchange theory‘s treatment of the

relationship between restricted or bilateral and generalized or multilateral exchanges
seems inadequate, even contradictory. The theory, especially its rational choice and
behaviorist formulation, claims that restricted exchange is primary vs. its generalized
form on the ground that the former implies the crucial insight that exchanges are
motivated by mutual rewards rather than social norms and obligations assumed to
5
underlie the latter (Blau, 1994, Homans, 1990). Since the restricted type rests on
dyads, and its generalized counterpart on social systems (Uehara, 1990) or networks
of exchanges (Bearman, 1997), this claim contradicts modern social exchange theory‘s
(see above) alleged orientation to focusing on exchange networks rather than dyads.
Though exchange networks involve pairs of dyads and so bilateral exchanges, they are
better seen as sites or systems of generalized exchange rather than collections of
dyadic ones. For example, the market as a peculiar exchange network represents a
system of generalized or multilateral economic transactions rather than a mere
collection of dyadic isolated restricted or bilateral exchanges. The same applies
mutatis mutandis to the polity and culture understood as networks or systems of
political and symbolic exchange respectively, as illustrated by Parsons‘ AGIL scheme.
In addition, the above claim neglects the fact that generalized exchange is more
complex (Bearman, 1997) and conducive to social order--an overarching theme of
rational choice models --than the restricted type (Levi-Strauss, 1971, p. 305). At the
minimum, reportedly social cohesion is best promoted by a blend of dyadic and
collective exchange systems (Uehara, 1990).
Historically, though generalized exchange is probably more characteristic of
traditional than modern societies, some (Levi-Strauss, 1971, p. 306) invoke what is
called the ‗gigantic potlatch‘ (manifested in Christmas gifts) as a major feature of
these latter. In this view, such a system of generalized reciprocal exchange is based
on social expectations or normative obligations rather than seeking mutual
gratifications in strictly economic terms. As even some economists admit, (Christmas)
gifts received are often more socially valuable to recipients than their economic
values or market prices (Solnick and Hemenway, 1996, p. 1304). Also, recent studies
(Kranton, 1996) find that in contemporary Oriental societies (Egypt), gift or reciprocal

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

exchanges, that coexist with and often replace market exchange, are permeated by
social connections, influence, rank and related extra-economic and group
considerations rather than individual profit calculi. These observations clearly
contradict the claim of most economists and rational choice theorists that economic
and social exchange such considerations are irrelevant relative to cost-benefit
calculations. In particular, they are inconsistent with some rational choice theorists‘
estimation that between 1/10 and 1/3 of Christmas gifts‘ market-economic value is
destroyed by giving, since people supposedly do not particularly value what they
receive (Waldfogel, 1996, p. 1306). Overall, they indicate that in modern Western
(and other) societies generalized exchange is far from irrelevant relative to its
restricted type, thus suggesting that the theory of the latter is not only self-
contradictory but also empirically unsupported.

In addition, social exchange can be conceived in terms of interchanges between

various groups, organizations, or systems, not only of individual transactions. Thus,
each social system, e.g. economic, political, communal, and cultural, can be, as
Pareto, Parsons and others suggest, assumed to exchange ‗inputs‘ and ‗outputs‘ with
the other systems. Notably, these interchanges between social systems represent
multilateral or collective rather than bilateral or individual exchange. In Parsons‘
formulation (the AGIL scheme), the interchanges between the media of exchange,
such as wealth, power, influence, and solidarity, correspond to and mediate those
between macro-social systems like economy, politics, community, and culture,
respectively. In light of these macroscopic attributes of social interchanges, no
wonder some insiders criticize exchange theory for attributing primacy to exchanges
at micro levels (e.g. Coleman, 1988).

In this view, social exchange theory confines itself to individual-level relations and so
fails to establish the micro-macro transition—seen as a key virtue of neoclassical
economics--from dyadic to generalized exchanges (yet see Bearman 1997), in addition
to introducing dubious ad hoc hypotheses. Admittedly, ‗[there are] two deficiencies in
work that introduced ‗exchange theory‘ into sociology. One was the limitation to
microsocial relations, which abandons the principal virtue of economic theory, its
ability to make the micro-macro transition from pair relations to system. The other
was the attempt to introduce principles in and ad hoc fashion [e.g. ‗distributive
justice‘ and ‗norm of reciprocity]‖ (Coleman, 1988:96).

If so, such versions of exchange theory are unable to establish an analytical

compromise, by taking into account the empirical interplay, between restricted or
micro and generalized or macro exchanges. This interplay can lead to dual or plural
social exchange. Reportedly (Uehara, 1990), exchange networks of low density and
intensity correspond to dyadic or restricted exchanges, and those of high-
density/intensity to generalized or multilateral exchange ones. Though individual
dyadic exchange can be the starting point, it is influenced by collective

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

considerations and so immersed in diffuse systems or networks of generalized
exchanges (as Malinowski classically shows for the Kula system.) Relatedly, in such
systems market exchange takes on the form of socio-cultural interaction --just as in
Weber‘s framework economic behavior is a special case of social action--rather than
the other way round, as in rational choice models. The reality and possibility of such
relations between social interaction and market transactions suggest the need for
reconsidering, if not turning on its head, current exchange theory. Instead of
construing all human behavior as quasi-market exchange, it may be sociologically
more sensible to conceptualize the later (and other economic activity) as a particular
form of social action (Weber) or interaction (Simmel), an approach taken in economic
sociology, including sociology of markets.

Socio-Psychological Assumptions
Even if all the propositions of social exchange theory are valid, it seems handicapped
by its behavioral assumptions derived from reductive psychology. Just as rational
choice versions of exchange theory stand or fall with neoclassical economics and
utilitarianism, so is the destiny of its psychological variants tied with behaviorism. A
critique of behaviorist as well as rational choice models may even seem redundant in
light of the partly discredited place of utilitarianism and behaviorism, as ostensibly
universal theoretical paradigms, in social science and philosophy, thus casting doubt
on a social exchange theory based on them. This particularly holds true insofar as
social exchange, like rational choice, theory seeks to become ―an inclusive and
universally applicable [utilitarian-behaviorist] construct that simultaneously explains
everything and therefore nothing‖ (Smelser, 1992, p. 403), i.e. a ‗theory of
everything [under the sun]‘ (Hodgson, 1998:178).
Like rational choice, exchange theory can hardly be deemed more satisfactory than
its initial target, structuralism-functionalism or macro-sociology overall (Mulkay,
1971, p. 225), as even by some of its exponents admit recently (Blau, 1994). One
reason is that behavioral models of exchange (Homans, Emerson et al.) lack
explanatory value vis-à-vis macro-social phenomena, especially institutions, because
it neglects or downplays the impact of structural variables, viz. institutional (as
distinguished from personal) power, authority relations, coercion, stratification, and
political centralization, on individual exchanges (Mitchell, 1978, pp. 46-48). Since
these models perform conceptual insulation of (pairs of) actors from this macro-social
reality, they can deal only with the simplest forms of exchange like dyadic direct
exchanges.
As noted, for many exchange theorists since Homans, their behavioral assumptions
make for a universal model of human nature in the image of (as utilitarian economists
like Edgeworth put it) a ‗pleasure machine‘, rational egoist, or optimizing agent, so a
sort of homo economicus.

A problem with such a model is that over-rational actors can degenerate into
irrational subjects (‗rational fools‘), since admittedly ‗hyper-rationality [is]

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

irrationality‘ (Elster 1989, p. 9). Generally, a major problem of social exchange
6
theory, just as catallactics or the pure economic model of markets, is socio-
psychological or behavioral, because human beings have a ―hard time doing what
homo economicus does so easily: [optimizing, calculating]‖ (Blinder, 1997, p. 9).
Another problem with the behavioral-rationalist model of actors is that economic and
other exchanges cannot be treated, as economists do since Smith, as the result of
some ingrained human ‗propensity to truck, barter, and exchange‘ but as embedded
in society. Notably, market exchange is historically and culturally contingent,
emerging under certain social conditions, including institutionalized markets, private
property and legal systems, as shown by various cases of negation of these
preconditions, especially private property (Willer et al., 1989). Yet, the behavioral
treatment of social exchange as the outcome of the operation of operant psychology,
viz. reinforcement stimuli as incentives (Emerson, 1969), misconstrues its nature as,
in Simmel‘s words, a sociological category sui generis inhering to society rather than
isolated individuals.
As critics object, behavioral models first eliminate macro variables like structures and
institutions and then reconstruct them on psychical grounds, and thus have
constricted scope (Willer et al., 1989), almost equivalent to that of Skinner-type
behaviorism (Deutsch 1971). Consequently, not much is really structural in ostensibly
‗structural‘ models of social exchange. What they call social structures are sets of
interpersonal relations, notably clusters of exchanges or exchange networks, and thus
micro-categories rather than macro, systemic, and impersonal phenomena as,
ironically, defined in some non-behavioral models (Blau, 1994, pp. 140-152).
Behavioral ‗structural‘ models of exchange give the impression as if exchange
networks were the only social structures, just as their rational choice counterparts
reduce ‗structure‘ to markets.
Both models gloss over or downplay the fact that exchange processes admittedly take
place within a setting of complex institutional structures (Blau, 1994, p. 151). This
admission leads some exchange-turned-structural theorists (e.g. Blau) to reject the
behavioral (Homans) and rational choice (Coleman) argument that the study of how
individual exchange relations at the micro-level form macro-structures is the man task
of social theory in favor of examining how these latter affect the former in a process
of societal structuring. In this view, macro variables are not only influenced by micro
relations, but shape individual life chances in all their components like wealth,
health, power, autonomy, identity, leisure, cultural variety, or secure family life. If
so, then the life chances of individuals represent structural effects in the sense of
opportunities supplied or denied by social structure. Admittedly, the latter governs
not only individual life chances by providing opportunities for and placing restraints
on social exchange, but also shapes socio-psychological or interpersonal processes
contrary to behaviorist models a la Homans.
The adequacy of behavioral models also can be questioned with respect to the
postulated motivations for exchange. Typically, both rational choice and behavioral
models postulate that utilitarian, hedonistic, egoistic, or extrinsic motivations are
primary in social exchange relative to opposite motives. Further, they tend to dissolve

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

the latter into the former, as exemplified by the dissolution of altruism and related
motivations into egoism, which even some rational choice theorists suspect (e.g.
Elster, 1998). To counteract such tendencies, some (formerly) exchange theorists
(Blau) state that, as distinguished from material rewards in economic exchange,
approval is a basic reward of social exchanges and cannot be gained by a selfish
disregard for others, so consistent egoistic behavior a la rational-choice is discredited
by seeking approbation. This leads to the suggestion that social exchange theory
cannot be treated as simply a variant of rational choice theory (Blau, 1994, p. 152)
contrary as the latter‘s exponents claims. In this view, though exchange operates on
the basis of some rational pursuit of rewards, social relations with their rewarding
experience are the prime benefit or primary outcome relative to which material gains
are incidental. Admittedly, the motivations for such relationships, such as the
‗pleasure of socializing‘, for their own sake rather than just for material gain govern
most social exchange.
Critics object that material and ideal interests can be mutually exclusive forces, and
thus hardly reconciled in the juxtaposition of Spencerian-Benthamite utilitarianism
with its economic model of self-interest and Durkhemian normativism based on moral
code (Mitchell, 1978, pp. 75-78). Alternatively, they suggest that, despite some
metaphysical collectivist implications, Durkheim-Mauss‘ morality postulate may prove
more satisfactory as the analytical solution to the problem of social order than post-
hoc utilitarian rationalities, since (if) ‗rational construction of society‘ based on
Benthamite utilitarianism can be self-defeating, so ultimately irrational, in
accordance with the ‗hyper-rationality = irrationality‘ equation (Elster 1989:8-9).
Both behavioral and rational choice models tend to minimize the role of non-
economic motivations like power and status in social exchange compared to that of
economic ones (profit). In a more plausible alternative, some sociologists (Kemper
and Collins, 1990) suggest that power and prestige be considered two basic generative
processes, relational dimensions or motives of micro-social interaction, including
exchange, that are aggregated into macro-structures. In this view, material,
variables, by not indicating relations between actors, are not social in the same way
as power and status, and thus incapable of aggregation into structures at the macro
level, which in turn differ from exchange networks. This shows again that it is
inaccurate to treat networks of exchanges as structures, as done in ‗structural‘
exchange theory, but as instances of personal interaction, micro- or sub-structures,
miniature social structures (Burke, 1997, p. 134). As some structural exchange
theorists (Blau) imply, treating exchange networks as ‗structure‘ can be contradictory
if social structures are understood as macro and impersonal phenomena. Further, the
existence and operation of micro exchange networks, just as macro structures, can be
predicated on power and status rather only wealth or materialistic ends. Thus,
analyses suggest that a positive interaction exists between high group cohesion and
the transformation of power into authority and prestige (Kemper and Collins, 1990).
Notably, as even some economists admit, the ‗assumption that individuals pursue
their own materialistic ends, which economists employ to explain individual behavior
in the marketplace, pales in innocence alongside the actions those who seek political
power have taken to achieve their ends‘ (Mueller 1996:405). The same can mutatis

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

mutandis be said of the pursuit of materialistic ends compared to status seeking, as
Veblen and others contend and demonstrate.

As critics suggest, though the main motivating force of utilitarianism and

behaviorism—seeking utility or reward in economic as well as social exchange--can be
included as a particular ingredient in a general theory of motivation (Turner, 1987;
Zetterberg, 1966), it is too simplistic. This resurfaces the limitations of an exchange
theory that extends utilitarian-behavioral models of motivation beyond economic
transactions to social exchange admittedly (Blau 1994) premised on relations rather
than material gain, thus remaining a version of rational choice utilitarianism. As
critics observe, the theory essentially retains the principal motivational mechanism of
the latter in one form or another, viz. maximization of utility (or profit), diminishing
marginal utility, cost-benefit calculus (Turner, 1987), despite some attempts at
positing generic classes of utilities, by including both material and symbolic motives
or resources.

Power and Social Exchange

In consequence of their utilitarian-behaviorist bias, rational choice and psychological
models fail to establish an adequate relationship between power and social exchange.
A major problem with these models is their treatment of power as a microscopic and
personal phenomenon generated by (unequal or unreciprocated) exchanges within
exchange networks, which fails to do justice to its macro, impersonal, or structural
attributes. As critics (Mitchell, 1978, p. 78) charge, they dubiously assume that
subjective interpretations by subjects, with their false consciousness,
rationalizations, or ignorance, rather than the objective structural conditions of
exchange define power, including domination, exploitation and legitimation. In this
view, the main deficiency of rational choice models is taking social order as the non-
problematic outcome of utilitarian rationality (self-interest), for which classical
sociological theory can, by including both the objective and subjective factors of
legitimate and illegitimate power, is a sensible alternative.
Most of these (and behavioral) models fail to distinguish personal power resting on
(unequal) inter-individual exchanges from impersonal or structural power rooted in
institutional and related conditions, probably due to their conflation between macro
structures and micro interactions, including exchange networks construed as
‗structure‘. Admittedly, the first type of power emerging and located at the micro-
level of face-to-face interactions in essence differs from the second inhering to the
macro-level of institutions (Blau, 1994, pp. 163). In this view, the second type, as
epitomized in economic and political domination, does not hinge on personal
interactions but on social-structural processes, and thus implies impersonal and
indirect power in contrast to the first. Prima facie, this view attempts to rehabilitate
classical sociological theories of power, notably Weber‘s ideas of economic and
political power, viz. ‗domination by virtue of a constellation of interest‘ and
‗domination by virtue of authority, as well as Marx‘s class-based conceptions. So do

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

other exchange theorists (Willer et al., 1989) by restating Marx-Weber‘s arguments to
the effect that sociologically power is an agent-social structure rather than intra- or
inter-agency problem and suggesting that only in this sense can power be considered
a relational phenomenon as its prevalent classical meaning.

Even when dealing with exchange networks, rational choice and behavioral models
fail to reach a concept of structural impersonal power, as they construe these clusters
of micro-interaction as ‗structures‘. Dubiously treating exchange networks as
‗structure‘, these models overlook those genuine, macro-structures and processes,
viz. institutions, beyond micro-interaction settings. To see how dubious this approach
is, imagine an economics that is only microscopic dealing with processes within
exchange networks or ‗structures‘ like markets and firms while neglecting or
excluding macro-economic structure or economy as a whole. By doing so rational
choice and behavioral models make it appear as if nothing (relevant) exists outside
networks of exchanges or explicit and implicit ‗markets‘ and the power deriving from
them. In particular, rational-choice exchange theory, by extending the economic
theory of markets to non-economic phenomena, views market-like exchanges of
‗resources‘ and their distribution as the generator of power differentiation as well as
institutions and other social structures. Like the neoclassical (Edgeworth) ―pure
catallactics‖ of markets, social exchange theory via a sort of market-style alchemy
converts power and institutions into derivations of resource exchanges between
individuals within networks. And, even some of its early advocates (e.g. Blau) try to
go beyond current exchange theory (and market catallaxy) by proposing that
impersonal power as rooted in macro-social structures crucially affects exchanges of
resources and their distribution. This implies that exchange/distribution is, to use
Weber‘s terms, a set of ‗power constellations‘ or what J. S. Mill calls a ‗matter of
human institution‘ rather than the other way round.

Distributive Justice. As hinted, the principle of distributive justice in social exchange

seems highly questionable. Transplanted from neoclassical economics--where it has
the definite form of equivalence or proportionality between productive contributions
and distributive rewards, viz. marginal productivity of labor and wages—admittedly
(Coleman 1988), it becomes an ad hoc principle or indefinite criterion in social
exchange theory. This admission indirectly concedes that the principle of distributive
justice is virtually inapplicable to social as opposed to economic exchange. Thus, in
economic exchange greater productive contributions than rewards (e.g. wages) signify
distributive injustice or exploitation: for instance (as a neoclassical economists,
Pigou, puts it), workers are ―exploited in the sense that they are paid less than the
value which their marginal net product has for the firms which employ them‖.
However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain and measure precisely such
variables as wages and marginal net product and thereby the degree of distributive
justice or fairness in social exchange. Hence, though some subjective elements are
present in its economic form, distributive justice in social exchange becomes a

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

pseudo-psychological, indefinite, and imprecise concept that, like most concepts
borrowed from economics, is to be used as a metaphor at best.

CONCLUSION

The principal objective of this paper has been to reexamine social exchange theory,
as one of the more ambitious contemporary sociological or socio-psychological
theories by presenting and reassessing the arguments of its adherents and those of its
critics. The key conclusion is that exchange theory has become a variant or mutant of
the rational choice model and behaviorism given the predominance of its economic
and behavioral versions often combined (Cook 2000). In essence, it embraces the
―basic behavioral assumptions of operant psychology and utility theory in economics
regarding utility maximization, rationality, learning and deprivation-satiation‖ (Baron
and Hannan, 1994, p. 1133). In particular, social exchange (like rational choice)
theory in its ―efforts to extend microeconomic models to extraeconomic exchange‖
(Macy and Flache, 1995, p. 73), claims, for example, that group pressure and member
conformity ―better be viewed as two sides of a transaction involving the exchange of
utility or reward‖ (Emerson, 1976, p. 336). Admittedly, the perceived ―rigor,
parsimony, and analytic power of rational choice has prompted sociologists to extend
the theory beyond market transactions to exchanges of symbolic and nonfungible
resources such as social approval, security, and even love‖ (Macy and Flache, 1995, p.
73). The outcome of such efforts has been social exchange theory, notably its rational
choice version. Prima facie, this makes exchange (and rational choice) theory
‗parasitic‘ on utilitarian economics and psychological behaviorism as partly
compromised paradigms in social science rather than an autonomous theoretical
endeavor.
A possible alternative to these formulations of social exchange theory can be a more
sociological perspective drawing upon the insights of classical sociology and
anthropology--in conjunction with, rather than subordinated to, those of utilitarian
economics and behaviorism—and more empirically-historically grounded. For
illustration, a key assumption of this perspective is that, as Weber states, non-
economic exchange and other ‗forms of social action follow "laws of their own", and
even apart from this fact, they may always be co-determined by other than economic
causes.‘ Moreover, market-economic exchange itself is often ‗influenced by the
autonomous structure of social action within which it exists‘. However, a further
elaboration of these issues is outside the scope of this paper.
Stolte et al. (2001, p. 388) argue that since (sociological) social psychology‘s
distinctive contribution is sociological miniaturism, it is ―not fundamentally social
psychological, but, in contrast, is a form of microsociology‖, seemingly a far cry from
Homan and in part Emerson. Further, it is argued that sociological social psychology
thus understood ―will be linked inexorably to concerns of macrosociology‖ (Stolte et
al., 2001, p. 388).

A possible implication of Coleman‘s assertion that seeking power or control is

instrumental to gaining wealth or money would be that social actors (including

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

American millionaires and billionaires) run for political office (including the
presidency) to maximize their economic assets. Thereby, they are no more than rent-
seekers, as asserted by public choice as the economic theory of politics.

Blau (1964, pp. 155-6) asserts that the relationship between the fair rate and the
going rate in social exchange parallels that between just, normal or equilibrium price
and market or average price in economic transactions.
One might describe exchange theory as ‗rational choice crossed with classical
sociology‘. Still, as a matter of proportion, exchange theory is admittedly (Cook 2000)
more rational choice (and behaviorism) than classical sociology.

Podolny and Baron (1997, p. 691) examine the bearing of social networks on intra-
organizational mobility (in a corporation) and report that individuals can experience
―negative reputational consequences in an organization by dropping person-to-person
ties no longer valuable. The individual may need to preserve ties no longer
instrumentally valuable because of norms against the breaking of ties. The presence
of such constraints calls into question the value of conceptualizing workplace
networks in highly strategic and voluntary terms.‖

Edgeworth defines catallactics as the ―mathematics of a perfect market.‖ In this

sense, he sees economic science as resting on the ―mathematical theory of
catallactics‖ or market exchange.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

Social learning theory is derived from the work of Albert Bandura which proposed that
social learning occurred through four main stages of imitation:

 close contact,
 imitation of superiors,
 understanding of concepts,
 role model behavior

For the article on social learning theory in psychology and education see social
cognitive theory. It consists of three parts: observing, imitating, and reinforcements

Julian Rotter moved away from theories based on psychosis and behaviorism, and
developed a learning theory. In Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1945), Rotter
suggests that the effect of behavior has an impact on the motivation of people to
engage in that specific behavior. People wish to avoid negative consequences, while
desiring positive results or effects. If one expects a positive outcome from a behavior,
or thinks there is a high probability of a positive outcome, then they will be more
likely to engage in that behavior. The behavior is reinforced, with positive outcomes,
leading a person to repeat the behavior. This social learning theory suggests that

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

behavior is influenced by these environmental factors or stimulus, and not
psychological factors alone.

Albert Bandura (1977) expanded on Rotter's idea, as well as earlier work by Miller &
Dollard (1941), and is related to social learning theories of Vygotsky and Lave. This
theory incorporates aspects of behavioral and cognitive learning. Behavioral learning
assumes that people's environment (surroundings) cause people to behave in certain
ways. Cognitive learning presumes that psychological factors are important for
influencing how one behaves. Social learning suggests a combination of environmental
(social) and psychological factors influence behavior. Social learning theory outlines
three requirements for people to learn and model behavior include attention:
retention (remembering what one observed), reproduction (ability to reproduce the
behavior), and motivation (good reason) to want to adopt the behavior.

Criminology

In criminology, Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess (1966) developed social learning
theory to explain deviancy by combining variables which encouraged delinquency
(e.g. the social pressure from delinquent peers) with variables that discouraged
delinquency (e.g. the parental response to discovering delinquency in their children).

The first two stages were used by Edwin Sutherland in his Differential Association
Theory. Sutherland‘s model for learning in a social environment depends on the
cultural conflict between different factions in a society over who has the power to
determine what is deviant. But his ideas were difficult to put into operation and
measure quantitatively. Burgess, a behavioral sociologist, and Akers revised
Sutherland‘s theory and included the idea of reinforcement, which increases or
decreases the strength of a behavior, and applied the principles of Operant
Psychology, which holds that behavior is a function of its consequences and can be
really bad in some cases.(Pfohl, 1994).

Functionalism had been the dominant paradigm but, in the 1960s, there was a shift
towards Social Control Theories, Conflict Criminology, and Labeling Theories that
tried to explain the emerging and more radical social environment. Moreover, people
believed that they could observe behavior and see the process of social learning, e.g.,
parents watched their own children and saw the influence of other children on their
own; they could also see what kind of effect they had on their own children, i.e. the
processes of differential association and reinforcement. The conservative political
parties were advocating an increase in punishment to deter crime. Unlike Labeling
Theory, Social Learning Theory actually supports the use of punishment which
translates into longer sentences for those convicted, and helps to explain the increase
in the prison population that began in the early 1970s (Livingston, 1996).

Unlike situational crime prevention, the theory ignores the opportunistic nature of
crime (Jeffery, 1990: 261-2). To learn one must first observe criminal behavior, but
where was this behavior learned? The theory does explain how criminal behavior is

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

‗transmitted‘ from one person to another, which can explain increases in types of
crimes, but it does not consider how criminal acting can be prevented (Jeffery, 1990:
252) although it may be fairly assumed that the processes of learning behaviors can be
changed.

There is also a definite problem. What may be reinforcement for one person may not
be for another. Also, reinforcements can be both social involving attention and
behavior between more than one person, and non-social reinforcement would not
involve this interaction (Burgess & Akers: 1966) Social Learning Theory has been used
in mentoring programs that should, in theory, prevent some future criminal behavior.
The idea behind mentoring programs is that an adult is paired with a child, who
supposedly learns from the behavior of the adult and is positively reinforced for good
behavior (Jones-Brown, 1997). In the classroom, a teacher may use the theory by
changing the seating arrangements to pair a behaving child and a misbehaving child,
but the outcome may be that the behaving child begins not satisfying

Serial Murder and Social Learning Theory

Hale (1993) applied the social learning theory to serial murder using Amsel's
frustration theory. In frustration theory, humiliation is the result of a no reward
situation, which is a reward that is not given when a reward had been given in the
past. When an individual is conditioned to be rewarded they anticipate it to happen in
the future, but when they are presented with a no reward situation this creates an
unconditioned frustration response, otherwise called humiliation. Signs associated
with the humiliating experience form a conditioned anticipatory frustration response,
which triggers specific internal stimuli. These stimuli prevent an individual from
future humiliation. During childhood, serial killers experience many humiliating
situations and with unbalanced nonreward situations and no reward situations, they
perceive all situations as nonreward and develop the inability to distinguish between
the two. They anticipate humiliation in every encounter that they come across. When
it comes to choosing their victims serial killers do not go back to the person who
caused the humiliation. According to Dollard and Miller's (1939, 1950) theory of
learning, the individual is ―instigated‖ toward a behavior, which is some antecedent
condition of which the predicted response is the consequences. For a serial killer,
frustration gets in the way of an instigated goal and their built up aggression must be
released. Their behavior is seen as a delayed and indirect release of aggression. They
are unable to release their aggression on their source of frustration and are forced to
choose more vulnerable individuals to act on (Singer and Hensley, 2004). The child
learns to expect humiliation or a negative situation from the past, which then causes
frustration or aggression. Jerome Henry Brudos felt he was never accepted by his
mother. Brudos transferred his hatred for his mother to other women through his
mutilation of their bodies. For Brudos, the murder of strange women served as a
catharsis for the humiliation he endured through his mother's rejection (Hale, 1993).
In all of these instances the serial killer was presented with some form of humiliation
as a child, and learned to vent their anger through aggression.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Applications

The applications of social learning theory have been important in the history of
education policies in the United States. The zone of proximal development is used as
a basis for early intervention programs such as Head Start. Social learning theory can
also be seen in the TV and movie rating system that is used in the United States. The
rating system is designed to let all parents know what the programs that their
children are watching contain. The ratings are based on age appropriate material to
help parents decide if certain content is appropriate for their child to watch. Some
content may be harmful to children who do not have the cognitive ability to process
certain content; however the child may model the behaviors seen on TV.

Locus of Control is an important consideration when helping students in higher

education environments perform better academically. Cassandra B. Whyte indicated
in the 1970's and 1980's that by encouraging students to accept personal responsibility
for their educational outcomes, better academic performance will usually be
forthcoming if ability levels are present. More frequent successful academic
performance will result as thoughts and belief in the need for personal effort toward
the academic task is rewarded. As successful experiences increase in frequency, the
student usually incorporates the confidence that hard work often can be rewarded
with positive academic outcomes.

Guided participation is seen in schools across the United States and all around the
world in language classes when the teacher says a phrase and asks the class to repeat
the phrase. The other part to guided participation is when the student goes home and
practices on their own. Guided participation is also seen with parents who are trying
to teach their own children how to speak.

Portraitising is another technique that is used widely across the United States. Most
academic subjects take advantage of portraitising , however mathematics is one of
the best examples. As students move through their education they learn skills in
mathematics that they will build on throughout their scholastic careers. A student
who has never taken a basic math class and does not understand the principles of
addition and subtraction will not be able to understand algebra. The process of
learning math is a portraitising technique because the knowledge builds on itself over
time.

Social Learning Theory (Bandura)

Bandura‘s Social Learning Theory posits that people learn from one another, via
observation, imitation, and modeling. The theory has often been called a bridge
between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses
attention, memory, and motivation.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

People learn through observing others‘ behavior, attitudes, and outcomes of those
behaviors. ―Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from
observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on
later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.‖ (Bandura). Social
learning theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction
between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences.

Necessary conditions for effective modeling:

1. Attention — various factors increase or decrease the amount of attention paid.

Includes distinctiveness, affective valence, prevalence, complexity, functional
value. One‘s characteristics (e.g. sensory capacities, arousal level, perceptual
set, past reinforcement) affect attention.
2. Retention — remembering what you paid attention to. Includes symbolic
coding, mental images, cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, motor
rehearsal
3. Reproduction — reproducing the image. Including physical capabilities, and
self-observation of reproduction.
4. Motivation — having a good reason to imitate. Includes motives such as past
(i.e. traditional behaviorism), promised (imagined incentives) and vicarious
(seeing and recalling the reinforced model)

Bandura believed in ―reciprocal determinism‖, that is, the world and a person‘s
behavior cause each other, while behaviorism essentially states that one‘s
environment causes one‘s behavior, Bandura, who was studying adolescent
aggression, found this too simplistic, and so in addition he suggested that behavior
causes environment as well. Later, Bandura soon considered personality as an
interaction between three components: the environment, behavior, and one‘s
psychological processes (one‘s ability to entertain images in minds and language).

Social learning theory has sometimes been called a bridge between behaviorist and
cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and
motivation. The theory is related to Vygotsky‘s Social Development Theory and Lave‘s
Situated Learning, which also emphasize the importance of social learning.

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory focuses on the learning that occurs within a social context. It
considers that people learn from one another, including such concepts as
observational learning, imitation, and modeling. Among others Albert Bandura is
considered the leading proponent of this theory.

General principles of social learning theory follows:

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

1. People can learn by observing the behavior is of others and the outcomes of those
behaviors.

2. Learning can occur without a change in behavior. Behaviorists say that learning has
to be represented by a permanent change in behavior, in contrast social learning
theorists say that because people can learn through observation alone, their learning
may not necessarily be shown in their performance. Learning may or may not result in
a behavior change.

3. Cognition plays a role in learning. Over the last 30 years social learning theory has
become increasingly cognitive in its interpretation of human learning. Awareness and
expectations of future reinforcements or punishments can have a major effect on the
behaviors that people exhibit.

4. Social learning theory can be considered a bridge or a transition between

behaviorist learning theories and cognitive learning theories.

How the environment reinforces and punishes modeling:

People are often reinforced for modeling the behavior of others. Bandura suggested
that the environment also reinforces modeling. This is in several possible ways:

1, The observer is reinforced by the model. For example a student who changes dress
to fit in with a certain group of students has a strong likelihood of being accepted and
thus reinforced by that group.

2. The observer is reinforced by a third person. The observer might be modeling the
actions of someone else, for example, an outstanding class leader or student. The
teacher notices this and compliments and praises the observer for modeling such
behavior thus reinforcing that behavior.

3. The imitated behavior itself leads to reinforcing consequences. Many behaviors that
we learn from others produce satisfying or reinforcing results. For example, a student
in my multimedia class could observe how the extra work a classmate does is fun. This
student in turn would do the same extra work and also receive enjoyment.

4. Consequences of the model‘s behavior affect the observers behavior vicariously.

This is known as vicarious reinforcement. This is where in the model is reinforced for
a response and then the observer shows an increase in that same response. Bandura
illustrated this by having students watch a film of a model hitting a inflated clown
doll. One group of children saw the model being praised for such action. Without
being reinforced, the group of children began to also hit the doll.

Contemporary social learning perspective of reinforcement and punishment:

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

1. Contemporary theory proposes that both reinforcement and punishment have
indirect effects on learning. They are not the sole or main cause.

2. Reinforcement and punishment influence the extent to which an individual exhibits

a behavior that has been learned.

3. The expectation of reinforcement influences cognitive processes that promote

learning. Therefore attention pays a critical role in learning. And attention is
influenced by the expectation of reinforcement. An example would be, where the
teacher tells a group of students that what they will study next is not on the test.
Students will not pay attention, because they do not expect to know the information
for a test.

Cognitive factors in social learning:

Social learning theory has cognitive factors as well as behaviorist factors (actually
operant factors).

1. Learning without performance: Bandura makes a distinction between learning

through observation and the actual imitation of what has been learned.

2. Cognitive processing during learning: Social learning theorists contend that

attention is a critical factor in learning.

3. Expectations: As a result of being reinforced, people form expectations about the

consequences that future behaviors are likely to bring. They expect certain behaviors
to bring reinforcements and others to bring punishment. The learner needs to be
aware however, of the response reinforcements and response punishment.
Reinforcement increases a response only when the learner is aware of that
connection.

4. Reciprocal causation: Bandura proposed that behavior can influence both the
environment and the person. In fact each of these three variables, the person, the
behavior, and the environment can have an influence on each other.

5. Modeling: There are different types of models. There is the live model, and actual
person demonstrating the behavior. There can also be a symbolic model, which can be
a person or action portrayed in some other medium, , such as television, videotape,
computer programs.

Behaviors that can be learned through modeling:

Many behaviors can be learned, at least partly, through modeling. Examples that can
be cited are, students can watch parents read, students can watch the
demonstrations of mathematics problems, or seen someone acting bravely and a
fearful situation. Aggression can be learned through models. Much research indicate

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

that children become more aggressive when they observed aggressive or violent
models. Moral thinking and moral behavior are influenced by observation and
modeling. This includes moral judgments regarding right and wrong which can in part,
develop through modeling.

Conditions necessary for effective modeling to occur:

Bandura mentions four conditions that are necessary before an individual can
successfully model the behavior of someone else:

1. Attention: the person must first pay attention to the model.

2. Retention: the observer must be able to remember the behavior that has been
observed. One way of increasing this is using the technique of rehearsal.

3. Motor reproduction: the third condition is the ability to replicate the behavior that
the model has just demonstrated. This means that the observer has to be able to
replicate the action, which could be a problem with a learner who is not ready
developmentally to replicate the action. For example, little children have difficulty
doing complex physical motion.

4. Motivation: the final necessary ingredient for modeling to occur is motivation,

learners must want to demonstrate what they have learned. Remember that since
these four conditions vary among individuals, different people will reproduce the
same behavior differently.

Effects of modeling on behavior:

 Modeling teaches new behaviors.

 Modeling influences the frequency of previously learned behaviors.
 Modeling may encourage previously forbidden behaviors.
 Modeling increases the frequency of similar behaviors. For example a student
might see a friend excel in basketball and he tries to excel in football because
he is not tall enough for basketball.

Self efficacy:

People are more likely to engage in certain behaviors when they believe they are
capable of executing those behaviors successfully. This means that they will have high
self-efficacy. In layman's terms self-efficacy could be looked as self confidence
towards learning.

How self-efficacy affects behavior:

Joy of activities: individuals typically choose activities they feel they will be
successful in doing.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Effort and persistence: individuals will tend to put more effort end activities and
behaviors they consider to be successful in achieving.

Learning and achievement: students with high self-efficacy tend to be better students
and achieve more.

Factors in the development of self efficacy:

In general students typically have a good sense of what they can and cannot do,
therefore they have fairly accurate opinions about their own self-efficacy. In my
multimedia program, the challenge is to increase student self-efficacy. There are
many factors which affect self efficacy. Some of these factors can be; previous
successes and failures, messages received from others, and successes and failures of
others. Note example of ACS and Cliff & Vanessa.

Self regulation:

Self-regulation has come to be more emphasized in social learning theory. Self-

regulation is when the individual has his own ideas about what is appropriate or
inappropriate behavior and chooses actions accordingly. There are several aspects of
self regulation:

 Setting standards and goals

 Self observation
 Self judge
 Self reaction

Promoting self-regulation can be an important technique. This is usually done by

teaching the individual to reward himself after doing the needed behavior. For
example, a graduate student will tell himself to complete a certain chapter before
taking a break and relaxing.

Self instructions:

An effective strategy is to teach learners to give themselves instructions that guide

their behavior. There are five steps to achieve this goal:

 Cognitive modeling
 Overt external guidance
 Overt self guidance
 Faded, overt self guidance
 covert self instruction

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Self monitoring and self reinforcement:

These are two ways that people can control their own behavior. First they monitor
and observe their own behavior, sometimes even scoring behavior. Secondly, people
are also able to change their behavior by reinforcing themselves, by giving are
withholding reinforcement.

Educational implications of social learning theory:

Social learning theory has numerous implications for classroom use.

1. Students often learn a great deal simply by observing other people.

2. Describing the consequences of behavior is can effectively increase the appropriate

behaviors and decrease inappropriate ones. This can involve discussing with learners
about the rewards and consequences of various behaviors.

3. Modeling provides an alternative to shaping for teaching new behaviors. Instead of

using shaping, which is operant conditioning; modeling can provide a faster, more
efficient means for teaching new behavior. To promote effective modeling a teacher
must make sure that the four essential conditions exist; attention, retention, motor
reproduction, and motivation.

4. Teachers and parents must model appropriate behaviors and take care that they do
not model inappropriate behaviors.

5. Teachers should expose students to a variety of other models. This technique is

especially important to break down traditional stereotypes.

6. Students must believe that they are capable of accomplishing school tasks. Thus it
is very important to develop a sense of self-efficacy for students. Teachers can
promote such self-efficacy by having students receive confidence-building messages,
watch others be successful, and experience success on their own. .

7. Teachers should help students set realistic expectations for their academic
accomplishments. In general in my class that means making sure that expectations are
not set too low. I want to realistically challenge my students. However, sometimes
the task is beyond a student's ability, example would be the cancer group.

8. Self-regulation techniques provide an effective method for improving student

behavior.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM

Structural functionalism is a broad perspective in sociology and anthropology which

sets out to interpret society as a structure with interrelated parts. Functionalism
addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements;
namely norms,] customs, traditions and institutions. A common analogy, popularized
by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the
proper functioning of the "body" as a whole. In the most basic terms, it simply
emphasizes "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom,
or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system." For
Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism" came to describe a particular stage in the
methodological development of social science, rather than a specific school of
thought. Parsons called his own theory for action theory and argued again and again
that the term structural-functionalism was a misleading and inappropriate label to use
as a name of his theory.

Theory

Classical functionalist theories are defined by a tendency towards biological analogy

and notions of social evolutionism:

Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology
as the science providing the closest and most compatible model for social science.
Biology has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualizing the structure and the
function of social systems and to analyzing processes of evolution via mechanisms of
adaptation ... functionalism strongly emphasizes the pre-eminence of the social world
over its individual parts (i.e. its constituent actors, human subjects).

Whilst one may regard functionalism as a logical extension of the organic analogies for
society presented by political philosophers such as Rousseau, sociology draws firmer
attention to those institutions unique to industrialized capitalist society (or
modernity). Functionalism also has an anthropological basis in the work of theorists
such as Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-
Brown's specific usage that the prefix 'structural' emerged.[5]

Durkheim proposed that most stateless, "primitive" societies, lacking strong

centralised institutions, are based on an association of corporate-descent groups.
Structural functionalism also took on Malinowski's argument that the basic building
block of society is the nuclear family, and that the clan is an outgrowth, not vice
versa. Durkheim was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain
internal stability and survive over time. He proposed that such societies tend to be
segmented, with equivalent parts held together by shared values, common symbols
or, as his nephew Marcel Mauss held, systems of exchanges. In modern, complicated
societies, members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

interdependence. Based on the metaphor above of an organism in which many parts
function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that complicated societies
are held together by organic solidarity.

These views were upheld by Radcliffe-Brown, who, following Comte, believed that
society constitutes a separate "level" of reality, distinct from both biological and
inorganic matter. Explanations of social phenomena had therefore to be constructed
within this level, individuals being merely transient occupants of comparatively stable
social roles. The central concern of structural functionalism is a continuation of the
Durkheimian task of explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion needed by
societies to endure over time. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and
fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various
parts (or social institutions) working together in an unconscious, quasi-automatic
fashion toward achieving an overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural
phenomena are therefore seen as functional in the sense of working together, and are
effectively deemed to have "lives" of their own. They are primarily analyzed in terms
of this function. The individual is significant not in and of himself but rather in terms
of his status, his position in patterns of social relations, and the behaviours associated
with his status. The social structure, then, is the network of statuses connected by
associated roles.

It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservativism. The

tendency to emphasise "cohesive systems", however, leads functionalist theories to be
contrasted with "conflict theories" which instead emphasise social problems and
inequalities.

Prominent Theorists
Herbert Spencer, a British philosopher famous for applying the theory of natural
selection to society, was in many ways the first true sociological functionalist;[7] in
fact, while Durkheim is widely considered the most important functionalist among
positivist theorists, it is well known that much of his analysis was culled from reading
Spencer's work, especially his Principles of Sociology (1874-96).

While most avoid the tedious tasks of reading Spencer's massive volumes (filled as
they are with long passages explicating the organic analogy, with reference to cells,
simple organisms, animals, humans and society), there are some important insights
that have quietly influenced many contemporary theorists, including Talcott Parsons,
in his early work "The Structure of Social Action" (1937), Cultural anthropology, too,
uses functionalism consistently.

This evolutionary model, unlike most 19th century evolutionary theories, is cyclical,
beginning with the differentiation and increasing complication of an organic or "super-
organic" (Spencer's term for a social system) body, followed by a fluctuating state of
equilibrium and disequilibrium] (or a state of adjustment and adaptation), and,
finally, a stage of disintegration or dissolution. Following Thomas Malthus' population

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

principles, Spencer concluded that society is constantly facing selection pressures
(internal and external) that force it to adapt its internal structure through
differentiation.

Every solution, however, causes a new set of selection pressures that threaten
society's viability. It should be noted that Spencer was not a determinist in the sense
that he never said that

1. selection pressures will be felt in time to change them;

2. they will be felt and reacted to; or
3. the solutions will always work.

In fact, he was in many ways a political sociologist, and recognised that the degree of
centralised and consolidated authority in a given polity could make or break its ability
to adapt. In other words, he saw a general trend towards the centralisation of power
as leading to stagnation and, ultimately, pressure to decentralise.

More specifically, Spencer recognised three functional needs or prerequisites that

produce selection pressures: they are regulatory, operative (production) and
distributive. He argued that all societies need to solve problems of control and
coordination, production of goods, services and ideas, and, finally, to find ways of
distributing these resources.

Initially, in tribal societies, these three needs are inseparable, and the kinship system
is the dominant structure that satisfies them. As many scholars have noted, all
institutions are subsumed under kinship organisation, but, with increasing population
(both in terms of sheer numbers and density), problems emerge with regards to
feeding individuals, creating new forms of organisation — consider the emergent
division of labour —, coordinating and controlling various differentiated social units,
and developing systems of resource distribution.

The solution, as Spencer sees it, is to differentiate structures to fulfill more

specialised functions; thus a chief or "big man" emerges, soon followed by a group of
lieutenants, and later kings and administrators.

Perhaps Spencer's greatest obstacle to being widely discussed in modern sociology is

the fact that much of his social philosophy is rooted in the social and historical
context of Ancient Egyptian times. He coined the term "survival of the fittest" in
discussing the simple fact that small tribes or societies tend to be defeated or
conquered by larger ones. Of course, many sociologists still use him (knowingly or
otherwise) in their analyses, as is especially the case in the recent re-emergence of
evolutionary theory.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons was heavily influenced by Durkheim and Max Weber, synthesising
much of their work into his action theory, which he based on the system-theoretical
concept and the methodological principle of voluntary action. He held that "the social
system is made up of the actions of individuals. His starting point, accordingly, is the
interaction between two individuals faced with a variety of choices about how they
might act, choices that are influenced and constrained by a number of physical and
social factors.

Parsons determined that each individual has expectations of the other's action and
reaction to his own behavior, and that these expectations would (if successful) be
"derived" from the accepted norms and values of the society they inhabit. As Parsons
himself emphasised, however, in a general context there would never exist any
perfect "fit" between behaviours and norms, so such a relation is never complete or
"perfect."

Social norms were always problematic for Parsons, who never claimed (as has often
been alleged) that social norms were generally accepted and agreed upon, should this
prevent some kind of universal law. Whether social norms were accepted or not was
for Parsons simply a historical question.

As behaviors are repeated in more interactions, and these expectations are

entrenched or institutionalised, a role is created. Parsons defines a "role" as the
normatively-regulated participation "of a person in a concrete process of social
interaction with specific, concrete role-partners." Although any individual,
theoretically, can fulfill any role, the individual is expected to conform to the norms
governing the nature of the role they fulfill.

Furthermore, one person can and does fulfill many different roles at the same time.
In one sense, an individual can be seen to be a "composition" of the roles he inhabits.
Certainly, today, when asked to describe themselves, most people would answer with
reference to their societal roles.

Parsons later developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complement
each other in fulfilling functions for society. Some roles are bound up in institutions
and social structures (economic, educational, legal and even gender-based). These
are functional in the sense that they assist society in operating and fulfill its
functional needs so that society runs smoothly.

A society where there is no conflict, where everyone knows what is expected of him,
and where these expectations are consistently met, is in a perfect state of
equilibrium. The key processes for Parsons in attaining this equilibrium are
socialisation and social control. Socialisation is important because it is the mechanism
for transferring the accepted norms and values of society to the individuals within the

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

system. Perfect socialisation occurs when these norms and values are completely
internalised, when they become part of the individual's personality.

Parson states that "this point [...] is independent of the sense in which [the]
individual is concretely autonomous or creative rather than 'passive' or 'conforming',
for individuality and reativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena of the
institutionalization of expectations"; they are culturally constructed.

Socialisation is supported by the positive and negative sanctioning of role behaviours

that do or do not meet these expectations. A punishment could be informal, like a
snigger or gossip, or more formalised, through institutions such as prisons and mental
homes. If these two processes were perfect, society would become static and
unchanging, and in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.

Parsons recognises this, stating that he treats "the structure of the system as
problematic and subject to change," and that his concept of the tendency towards
equilibrium "does not imply the empirical dominance of stability over change." He
does, however, believe that these changes occur in a relatively smooth way.

Individuals in interaction with changing situations adapt through a process of "role

bargaining." Once the roles are established, they create norms that guide further
action and are thus institutionalised, creating stability across social interactions.
Where the adaptation process cannot adjust, due to sharp shocks or immediate
radical change, structural dissolution occurs and either new structures (and therefore
a new system) are formed, or society dies. This model of social change has been
described as a "moving equilibrium," and emphasises a desire for social order.

Davis and Moore

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) gave an argument for social stratification
based on the idea of "functional necessity" (also known as the Davis-Moore
hypothesis). They argue that the most difficult jobs in any society have the highest
incomes in order to motivate individuals to fill the roles needed by the division of
labour. Thus inequality serves social stability.

This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles: the
argument is both that the individuals who are the most deserving are the highest
rewarded, and that a system of unequal rewards is necessary, otherwise no
individuals would perform as needed for the society to function. The problem is that
these rewards are supposed to be based upon objective merit, rather than subjective
"motivations." The argument also does not clearly establish why some positions are
worth more than others, which they may benefit more people in society, e.g.,
teachers compared to athletes and movie stars. Critics have suggested that structural
inequality (inherited wealth, family power, etc.) is itself a cause of individual success
or failure, not a consequence of it.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Robert Merton

Robert K. Merton was a functionalist and he fundamentally agreed with Parsons‘

theory. However, he acknowledged that it was problematic, believing that it was too
generalized [Holmwood, 2005:100]. Merton tended to emphasise middle range theory
rather than a grand theory, meaning that he was able to deal specifically with some
of the limitations in Parsons‘ theory. He identified 3 main limitations: functional
unity, universal functionalism and indispensability [Ritzer in Gingrich, 1999]. He also
developed the concept of deviance and made the distinction between manifest and
latent functions.

Merton criticised functional unity, saying that not all parts of a modern, complex
society work for the functional unity of society. Some institutions and structures may
have other functions, and some may even be generally dysfunctional, or be functional
for some while being dysfunctional for others. This is because not all structures are
functional for society as a whole. Some practices are only functional for a dominant
individual or a group [Holmwood, 2005:91]. Here Merton introduces the concepts of
power and coercion into functionalism and identifies the sites of tension which may
lead to struggle or conflict. Merton states that by recognizing and examining the
dysfunctional aspects of society we can explain the development and persistence of
alternatives. Thus, as Holmwood states, ―Merton explicitly made power and conflict
central issues for research within a functionalist paradigm‖ [2005:91].

Merton also noted that there may be functional alternatives to the institutions and
structures currently fulfilling the functions of society. This means that the institutions
that currently exist are not indispensable to society. Merton states that ―just as the
same item may have multiple functions, so may the same function be diversely
fulfilled by alternative items‖ [cited in Holmwood, 2005:91]. This notion of functional
alternatives is important because it reduces the tendency of functionalism to imply
approval of the status quo.

Merton‘s theory of deviance is derived from Durkheim‘s idea of anomie. It is central in

explaining how internal changes can occur in a system. For Merton, anomie means a
discontinuity between cultural goals and the accepted methods available for reaching
them.

Merton believes that there are 5 situations facing an actor.

 Conformity occurs when an individual has the means and desire to achieve the
cultural goals socialised into him.
 Innovation occurs when an individual strives to attain the accepted cultural
goals but chooses to do so in novel or unaccepted method.
 Ritualism occurs when an individual continues to do things as proscribed by
society but forfeits the achievement of the goals.
 Retreatism is the rejection of both the means and the goals of society.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

  Rebellion is a combination of the rejection of societal goals and means and a
substitution of other goals and means.

Thus it can be seen that change can occur internally in society through either
innovation or rebellion. It is true that society will attempt to control these individuals
and negate the changes, but as the innovation or rebellion builds momentum, society
will eventually adapt or face dissolution.

The last of Merton‘s important contributions to functionalism was his distinction

between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions refer to the conscious
intentions of actors; latent functions are the objective consequences of their actions,
which are often unintended [Holmwood, 2005:90]. Merton used the example of the
Hopi rain dance to show that sometimes an individual‘s understanding of their motive
for an action may not fully explain why that action continues to be performed.
Sometimes actions fulfill a function of which the actor is unaware, and this is the
latent function of an action. 2.14.08

Almond and Powell

In the 1970s, political scientists Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell introduced a
structural-functionalist approach to comparing political systems. They argued that, in
order to understand a political system, it is necessary to understand not only its
institutions (or structures) but also their respective functions. They also insisted that
these institutions, to be properly understood, must be placed in a meaningful and
dynamic historical context.

This idea stood in marked contrast to prevalent approaches in the field of

comparative politics — the state-society theory and the dependency theory. These
were the descendants of David Easton's system theory in international relations, a
mechanistic view that saw all political systems as essentially the same, subject to the
same laws of "stimulus and response" — or inputs and outputs — while paying little
attention to unique characteristics. The structural-functional approach is based on
the view that a political system is made up of several key components, including
interest groups, political parties and branches of government.

In addition to structures, Almond and Powell showed that a political system consists
of various functions, chief among them political socialisation, recruitment and
communication: socialisation refers to the way in which societies pass along their
values and beliefs to succeeding generations, and in political terms describes the
process by which a society inculcates civic virtues, or the habits of effective
citizenship; recruitment denotes the process by which a political system generates
interest, engagement and participation from citizens; and communication refers to
the way that a system promulgates its values and information.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Structural functionalism and unilateral descent

In their attempt to explain the social stability of African "primitive" stateless societies
where they undertook their fieldwork, Evans-Pritchard (1940) and Meyer Fortes (1945)
argued that the Tallensi and the Nuer were primarily organised around unilineal
descent groups. Such groups are characterised by common purposes, such as
administering property or defending against attacks; they form a permanent social
structure that persists well beyond the lifespan of their members. In the case of the
Tallensi and the Nuer, these corporate groups were based on kinship which in turn
fitted into the larger structures of unilineal descent; consequently Evans-Pritchard's
and Fortes' model is called "descent theory". Moreover, in this African context
territorial divisions were aligned with lineages; descent theory therefore synthesised
both blood and soil as two sides of one coin (cf. Kuper, 1988:195). Affinal ties with
the parent through whom descent is not reckoned, however, are considered to be
merely complementary or secondary (Fortes created the concept of "complementary
filiation"), with the reckoning of kinship through descent being considered the primary
organising force of social systems. Because of its strong emphasis on unilineal
descent, this new kinship theory came to be called "descent theory".

Before long, descent theory had found its critics. Many African tribal societies seemed
to fit this neat model rather well, although Africanists, such as Richards, also argued
that Fortes and Evans-Pritchard had deliberately downplayed internal contradictions
and overemphasised the stability of the local lineage systems and their significance
for the organisation of society. However, in many Asian settings the problems were
even more obvious. In Papua New Guinea, the local patrilineal descent groups were
fragmented and contained large amounts of non-agnates. Status distinctions did not
depend on descent, and genealogies were too short to account for social solidarity
through identification with a common ancestor. In particular, the phenomenon of
cognatic (or bilateral) kinship posed a serious problem to the proposition that descent
groups are the primary element behind the social structures of "primitive" societies.

Leach's (1966) critique came in the form of the classical Malinowskian argument,
pointing out that "in Evans-Pritchard's studies of the Nuer and also in Fortes's studies
of the Tallensi unilineal descent turns out to be largely an ideal concept to which the
empirical facts are only adapted by means of fictions." (1966:8). People's self-
interest, manoeuvring, manipulation and competition had been ignored. Moreover,
descent theory neglected the significance of marriage and affinal ties, which were
emphasised by Levi-Strauss' structural anthropology, at the expense of
overemphasising the role of descent. To quote Leach: "The evident importance
attached to matrilateral and affinal kinship connections is not so much explained as
explained away."

Decline of functionalism

Structural functionalism reached the peak of its influence in the 1940s and 1950s, and
by the 1960s was in rapid decline. By the 1980s, its place was taken in Europe by

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

more conflict-oriented approaches, and more recently by 'structuralism'.[30] While
some of the critical approaches also gained popularity in the United States, the
mainstream of the discipline has instead shifted to a myriad of empirically-oriented
middle-range theories with no overarching theoretical orientation. To most
sociologists, functionalism is now "as dead as a dodo".

As the influence of both functionalism and Marxism in the 1960s began to wane, the
linguistic and cultural turns led to myriad new movements in the social sciences:
"According to Giddens, the orthodox consensus terminated in the late 1960s and 1970s
as the middle ground shared by otherwise competing perspectives gave way and was
replaced by a baffling variety of competing perspectives. This third 'generation' of
social theory includes phenomenologically inspired approaches, critical theory,
ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, post-structuralism, and
theories written in the tradition of hermeneutics and ordinary language philosophy."

While absent from empirical sociology, functionalist themes remained detectable in

sociological theory, most notably in the works of Luhmann and Giddens. There are,
however, signs of an incipient revival, as functionalist claims have recently been
bolstered by developments in multilevel selection theory and in empirical research on
how groups solve social dilemmas. Recent developments in evolutionary theory—
especially by biologist David Sloan Wilson and anthropologists Robert Boyd and Peter
Richerson—have provided strong support for structural functionalism in the form of
multilevel selection theory. In this theory, culture and social structure are seen as a
Darwinian (biological or cultural) adaptation at the group level.

Criticisms

In the 1960s, functionalism was criticized for being unable to account for social
change, or for structural contradictions and conflict (and thus was often called
"consensus theory"). The refutation of the second criticism of functionalism, that it is
static and has no concept of change, has already been articulated above, concluding
that while Parsons‘ theory allows for change, it is an orderly process of change
[Parsons, 1961:38], a moving equilibrium. Therefore referring to Parsons‘ theory of
society as static is inaccurate. It is true that it does place emphasis on equilibrium
and the maintenance or quick return to social order, but this is a product of the time
in which Parsons was writing (post-World War II, and the start of the cold war).
Society was in upheaval and fear abounded. At the time social order was crucial, and
this is reflected in Parsons' tendency to promote equilibrium and social order rather
than social change.

Furthermore, Durkheim favored a radical form of guild socialism along with

functionalist explanations. Also, Marxism, while acknowledging social contradictions,
still uses functionalist explanations. Parsons' evolutionary theory describes the
differentiation and reintegration systems and subsystems and thus at least temporary
conflict before reintegration (ibid). "The fact that functional analysis can be seen by

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

some as inherently conservative and by others as inherently radical suggests that it
may be inherently neither one nor the other." (Merton 1957: 39)

Stronger criticisms include the epistemological argument that functionalism is

tautologous, that is it attempts to account for the development of social institutions
solely through recourse to the effects that are attributed to them and thereby
explains the two circularly. However, Parsons drew directly on many of Durkheim‘s
concepts in creating his theory. Certainly Durkheim was one of the first theorists to
explain a phenomenon with reference to the function it served for society. He said,
―the determination of function is…necessary for the complete explanation of the
phenomena‖ [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. However Durkheim made a clear distinction
between historical and functional analysis, saying, ―when…the explanation of a social
phenomenon is undertaken, we must seek separately the efficient cause which
produces it and the function it fulfills‖ [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. If Durkheim made
this distinction, then it is unlikely that Parsons did not. However Merton does
explicitly state that functional analysis does not seek to explain why the action
happened in the first instance, but why it continues or is reproduced. He says that
―latent functions …go far towards explaining the continuance of the pattern‖ [cited in
Elster, 1990:130, emphasis added]. Therefore it can be argued that functionalism
does not explain the original cause of a phenomenon with reference to its effect, and
is therefore, not teleological.

Another criticism describes the ontological argument that society can not have
"needs" as a human being does, and even if society does have needs they need not be
met. Anthony Giddens argues that functionalist explanations may all be rewritten as
historical accounts of individual human actions and consequences (see Structuration
theory).

A further criticism directed at functionalism is that it contains no sense of agency,

that individuals are seen as puppets, acting as their role requires. Yet Holmwood
states that the most sophisticated forms of functionalism are based on ―a highly
developed concept of action‖ [2005:107], and as was explained above, Parsons took
as his starting point the individual and their actions. His theory did not however
articulate how these actors exercise their agency in opposition to the socialisation
and inculcation of accepted norms. As has been shown above, Merton addressed this
limitation through his concept of deviance, and so it can be seen that functionalism
allows for agency. It cannot, however, explain why individuals choose to accept or
reject the accepted norms, why and in what circumstances they choose to exercise
their agency, and this does remain a considerable limitation of the theory.

Further criticisms have been levelled at functionalism by proponents of other social

theories, particularly conflict theorists, Marxists, feminists and postmodernists.
Conflict theorists criticised functionalism‘s concept of systems as giving far too much
weight to integration and consensus, and neglecting independence and conflict
[Holmwood, 2005:100]. Lockwood [in Holmwood, 2005:101], in line with conflict
theory, suggested that Parsons‘ theory missed the concept of system contradiction.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

He did not account for those parts of the system that might have tendencies to mal-
integration. According to Lockwood, it was these tendencies that come to the surface
as opposition and conflict among actors. However Parsons‘ thought that the issues of
conflict and cooperation were very much intertwined and sought to account for both
in his model [Holmwood, 2005:103]. In this however he was limited by his analysis of
an ‗ideal type‘ of society which was characterised by consensus. Merton, through his
critique of functional unity, introduced into functionalism an explicit analysis of
tension and conflict.

Marxism which was revived soon after the emergence of conflict theory, criticised
professional sociology (functionalism and conflict theory alike) for being partisan to
advanced welfare capitalism [Holmwood, 2005:103]. Gouldner [in Holmwood,
2005:103] thought that Parsons‘ theory specifically was an expression of the dominant
interests of welfare capitalism, that it justified institutions with reference to the
function they fulfill for society. It may be that Parsons‘ work implied or articulated
that certain institutions were necessary to fulfill the functional prerequisites of
society, but whether or not this is the case, Merton explicitly states that institutions
are not indispensable and that there are functional alternatives. That he does not
identify any alternatives to the current institutions does reflect a conservative bias,
which as has been stated before is a product of the specific time that he was writing
in.

As functionalism‘s prominence was ending, feminism was on the rise, and it

attempted a radical criticism of functionalism. It believed that functionalism
neglected the suppression of women within the family structure. Holmwood
[2005:103] shows, however, that Parsons did in fact describe the situations where
tensions and conflict existed or were about to take place, even if he did not
articulate those conflicts. Some feminists agree, suggesting that Parsons‘ provided
accurate descriptions of these situations. [Johnson in Holmwood, 2005:103]. On the
other hand, Parsons recognised that he had oversimplified his functional analysis of
women in relation to work and the family, and focused on the positive functions of
the family for society and not on its dysfunctions for women. Merton, too, although
addressing situations where function and dysfunction occurred simultaneously, lacked
a ―feminist sensibility‖ [Holmwood, 2005:103], although I repeat this was likely a
product of the desire for social order.

Postmodernism, as theory, is critical of claims of objectivity. Therefore the idea of

grand theory that can explain society in all its forms is treated with skepticism at the
very least. This critique is important because it exposes the danger that grand theory
can pose, when not seen as a limited perspective, as one way of understanding
society.

Jeffrey Alexander (1985) sees functionalism as a broad school rather than a specific
method or system, such as Parson's, which is capable of taking equilibrium (stability)
as a reference-point rather than assumption and treats structural differentiation as a
major form of social change. "The name 'functionalism' implies a difference of method

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

or interpretation that does not exist." (Davis 1967: 401) This removes the determinism
criticized above. Cohen argues that rather than needs a society has dispositional
facts: features of the social environment that support the existence of particular
social institutions but do not cause them. (ibid)

CONFLICT THEORY
Conflict theories are perspectives in social science which emphasize the social,
political or material inequality of a social group, which critique the broad socio-
political system, or which otherwise detract from structural functionalism and
ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials,
such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies.

Certain conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in
traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels, conflict theory
does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for
instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict.

In classical sociology

Of the classical founders of social science, conflict theory is most commonly

associated with Karl Marx (1818-1883). Based on a dialectical materialist account
history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would
inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction. Marx ushered in
radical change, advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from the ruling
classes.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman
and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a
word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried
on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended,
either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of
the contending classes.

Two early conflict theorists were the Polish-Austrian sociologist and political theorist
Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909) and the American sociologist and paleontologist
Lester F. Ward (1841-1913). Although Ward and Gumplowicz developed their theories
independently they had much in common and approached conflict from a
comprehensive anthropological and evolutionary point-of-view as opposed to Marx's
rather exclusive focus on economic factors.

Gumplowicz, in "Outlines of Sociology" (1884), describes how civilization has been

shaped by conflict between cultures and ethnic groups. Gumplowicz theorized that
large complex human societies evolved from the war and conquest. States become
organized around the domination of one group by another: masters and slaves.
Eventually a complex caste system develops. Horowitz says that Gumplowicz

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

understood conflict in all it's forms: "class conflict, race conflict and ethnic conflict",
and calls him one of the fathers of Conflict Theory.

What happened in India, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome may sometime happen in
modern Europe. European civilization may perish, over flooded by barbaric tribes. But
if any one believes that we are safe from such catastrophes he is perhaps yielding to
an all too optimistic delusion. There are no barbaric tribes in our neighborhood to be
sure — but let no one be deceived, their instincts lie latent in the populace of
European states.

Ward directly attacked and attempted to systematically refute the elite business
class's lassiez faire philosophy as espoused by the hugely popular social philosopher
Herbert Spencer. Ward's "Dynamic Sociology" (1883) was an extended thesis on how to
reduce conflict and competition in society and thus optimize human progress. At the
most basic level Ward saw human nature itself to be deeply conflicted between self-
aggrandizement and altruism, between emotion and intellect, and between male and
female. These conflicts would be then reflected in society and Ward assumed there
had been a "perpetual and vigorous struggle" among various "social forces" that shaped
civilization. Ward was more optimistic than Marx and Gumplowicz and believed that it
was possible to build on and reform present social structures with the help
sociological analysis.

Durkheim (1858-1917) saw society as a functioning organism. Functionalism concerns

"the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice,
its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system", The chief form
of social conflict that Durkheim addressed was crime. Durkheim saw crime as "a factor
in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies." The collective conscience
defines certain acts as "criminal." Crime thus plays a role in the evolution of morality
and law: "[it] implies not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but
that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes."

Weber's (1864-1920) approach to conflict is contrasted with that of Marx. While Marx
focused on the way individual behavior is conditioned by social structure, Weber
emphasized the importance of "social action," i.e., the ability of individuals to affect
their social relationships.

Modern approaches

C. Wright Mills has been called the founder of modern conflict theory. In Mills's view,
social structures are created through conflict between people with differing interests
and resources. Individuals and resources, in turn, are influenced by these structures
and by the "unequal distribution of power and resources in the society." The power
elite of American society, (i.e., the military-industrial complex) had "emerged from
the fusion of the corporate elite, the Pentagon, and the executive branch of
government." Mills argued that the interests of this elite were opposed to those of the
people. He theorized that the policies of the power elite would result in "increased

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

escalation of conflict, production of weapons of mass destruction, and possibly the
annihilation of the human race."

Gene Sharp (born 21 January 1928) is a Professor Emeritus of political science at the
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and Nobel Peace Prize nominee. He is known
for his extensive writings on nonviolent struggle, which have influenced numerous
anti-government resistance movements around the world. In 1983 he founded the
Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit organization devoted to studies and promotion
of the use of nonviolent action in conflicts worldwide. Sharp's key theme is that power
is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who
are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state - regardless of its
particular structural organization - ultimately derives from the subjects of the state.
His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience
to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power. Sharp
has been called both the "Machiavelli of nonviolence" and the "Clausewitz of
nonviolent warfare." Sharp's scholarship has influenced resistance organizations
around the world. Most recently the protest movement that toppled President
Mubarak of Egypt drew extensively on his ideas, as well as the youth movement in
Tunisia and the earlier ones in the Eastern European color revolutions that had
previously been inspired by Sharp's work. The Albert Einstein Institution's web site
offers many of Gene Sharp works for download, in English and in over sixty
translations.

A recent articulation of conflict theory is found in Alan Sears' (Canadian sociologist)

book A Good Book, in Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking (2008):

 Societies are defined by inequality that produces conflict, rather than which
produces order and consensus. This conflict based on inequality can only be
overcome through a fundamental transformation of the existing relations in the
society, and is productive of new social relations.

 The disadvantaged have structural interests that run counter to the status quo,
which, once they are assumed, will lead to social change. Thus, they are
viewed as agents of change rather than objects one should feel sympathy for.

 Human potential (e.g., capacity for creativity) is suppressed by conditions of

exploitation and oppression, which are necessary in any society with an
unequal division of labour. These and other qualities do not necessarily have to
be stunted due to the requirements of the so-called "civilizing process," or
"functional necessity": creativity is actually an engine for economic
development and change.

 The role of theory is in realizing human potential and transforming society,

rather than maintaining the power structure. The opposite aim of theory would
be the objectivity and detachment associated with positivism, where theory is
a neutral, explanatory tool.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

  Consensus is a euphemism for ideology. Genuine consensus is not achieved,
rather the more powerful in societies are able to impose their conceptions on
others and have them accept their discourses. Consensus does not preserve
social order, it entrenches stratification, e.g., the American dream.

 The State serves the particular interests of the most powerful while claiming to
represent the interests of all. Representation of disadvantaged groups in State
processes may cultivate the notion of full participation, but this is an
illusion/ideology.

 Inequality on a global level is characterized by the purposeful

underdevelopment of Third World countries, both during colonization and after
national independence. The global system (i.e., development agencies such as
World Bank and IMF) benefits the most powerful countries and multi-national
corporations, rather than the subjects of development, through economic,
political, and military actions.

Although Sears associates the conflict theory approach with Marxism, he argues that it
is the foundation for much "feminist, post-modernist, anti-racist, and lesbian-gay
liberationist theories.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM THEORY

Symbolic interactions is a major sociological perspective that places emphasis on
micro-scale social interaction, which is particularly important in subfields such as
urban sociology and social psychology. Symbolic interactions is derived from American
pragmatism, especially the work of George Herbert Mead and Charles Cooley. Herbert
Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term and put forward an
influential summary of the perspective: people act toward things based on the
meaning those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social
interaction and modified through interpretation. Blumer was also influenced by John
Dewey, who insisted that human beings are best understood in relation to their
environment.

Sociologists working in this tradition have researched a wide range of topics using a
variety of research methods. However, the majority of interactionist research uses
qualitative research methods, like participant observation, to study aspects of (1)
social interaction and/or (2) individuals' selves. Participant observation allows
researchers to access symbols and meanings, as in Howard S. Becker's Art Worlds
(1982) and Arlie Hochschild's The Managed Heart (1983). Sociological areas that have
been particularly influenced by symbolic interactionism include the sociology of
emotions, deviance/criminology, collective behavior/social movements, and the
sociology of sex. Interactionist concepts that have gained widespread usage include
definition of the situation, emotion work, impression management, looking glass self,
and total institution. Semiology is connected to this discipline, but unlike those

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

elements of semiology which are about the structures of language, interactionists
typically are more interested in the ways in which meaning is fluid and ambiguous.

Symbolic interaction theory describes the family as a unit of interacting personalities.

This theory focuses attention on the way that people interact through symbols:

o words, gestures, rules, and roles.

The symbolic interaction perspective is based on how humans develop a complex set
of symbols to give meaning to the world (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). Meaning evolves
from their interactions in their environment and with people. These interactions are
subjectively interpreted through existing symbols. Understanding these symbols is
important in understanding human behavior. Interactions with larger societal
processes influence the individual, and vice-versa. It is through interaction that
humans develop a concept of larger social structures and also of self concept. Society
affects behavior through constraints by societal norms and values. Self concept also
affects behavior. Symbolic interactionism‘s unique contributions to family studies are

1. families are social groups and

2. that individuals develop both a concept of self and their identities

through social interaction.

Symbolic interactionism is the way we learn to interpret and give meaning to the
world though our interactions with others.

Individuals are not born with a sense of self but develop self concepts through social
interaction. Self concept is developed through the process of interaction and
communication with others. Self concept is shaped by the reactions of significant
others and by our perceptions of their reactions. Self concept, once developed,
provides an important motive for behavior. Self fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for
our expectations, and/or other‘s expectations of us to evoke expected responses.
Humans interact and develop roles in the family according to symbols used to describe
the family. These roles are based on the symbolic meaning attached to each role.

How family members react to a situation is determined by how they interpret the
situation. So, it is important to understand the symbols the family uses to understand
their interactions and behaviors.

In a family, complicated sets of meanings are transmitted through symbols that

permit each member to communicate with each other and share experiences
(Peterson, 1986).

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Core Principles of Social Interaction Theory
1. Meaning
Meaning itself is not inherent in objects. Human beings act toward things on the basis
of the meanings that they have assigned to them. Meaning arises in the process of
interaction between people. That is, it takes place in the context of relationships
whether with family or community
Meanings are handled in and modified through an interpretive process used by the
person in dealing with things him or her encounters. Once people define a situation as
real, it's very real in its consequences
2. Language
As human beings we have the unique ability to name things. As children interact with
family, peers, and others, they learn language and, concurrently, they learn the
social meanings attached to certain words. That is, language is the source of meaning.
Meaning arises out of social interactions with one another, and language is the
vehicle. In Mead‘s view, social life and communication between people are possible
only when we understand and can use a common language, (Wood, 1997).
3. Thought or “Minding”
Ability distinctly different from animals in that we have the ability to think about
things rather than simply reacting instinctually. An inner conversation with oneself. A
reflective pause through which we modify our interpretation of symbols as an ability
to take the role of ―The Other‖
Major Premises of Symbolic Interaction Theory
1. Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meaning they have;
These things do not have an inherent or unvarying meaning
Rather, their meanings differ depending on how we define and respond to them
how we define, or give meaning to the things we encounter will shape our
actions toward them
Therefore, if we wish to understand human behavior we must know how people
define the things— objects, events, individuals, groups, structures—they encounter in
their environment

2. The meaning attributed to those things arises out of social interaction with
others
We are not born knowing the meanings of things

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 We don‘t learn these meanings simply through individual experiences, but
rather through the interactions with others
3. These meanings are modified through an interpretive process
the meanings of the things we encounter, though formed by social interaction,
are altered through our understandings
An individual‘s interpretation of the meaning will guide and determine action

Major Assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism Theory;

a. People are unique creatures because of their ability to use symbols.
b. People become distinctively human through their interaction with
others.
c. People are conscious and self-reflective beings who actively shape their
own behavior.
d. People are purposeful creatures who act in and toward situations.
e. Human society consists of people engaging in symbolic interaction.
f. The ‗social act‘ should be the fundamental unit of social psychological
analysis.
g. To understand people‘s social acts, we need to use methods that enable
us to discern the meanings they attribute to these acts.
Major Concepts, Definitions and Terms
Identities - the self meanings in a role.
Language – A system of symbols shared with other members of society, used for
the purposes of communication and representation
Looking Glass Self - the mental image that results from taking the role of the
other. Imaging how we look to another person.
Meaning – the purpose or significance attributed to something. Meaning is
determined by how we respond to and make use of it
Mind – A process of mental activity consisting of self, interaction, And
reflection, based on socially acquired symbols. Does not refer to an inner psychic
world separated from society.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 Naming or Labeling - Name-calling can be devastating because it forces us to
view ourselves. Through a warped mirror. Name calling like stupid can lead to a self –
fulfilling prophecy. If a person sees himself as stupid he is likely to act stupid.
Roles refer to ―collections of expectations that define regularized patterns of
behavior within family life‖ (Peterson, 1986, p. 22).
Roles within the family may include but not be limited to the following:
nurturer, socialize, provider, and decision-maker.
Role-taking is the ability to see oneself as an object, in other words, to be able
to see how others perceive oneself.
Role-taking allows the individual to monitor and coordinate personal behavior
in order to facilitate interaction with others and also to anticipate the responses of
other individuals.
Role conflict refers to the situation in which there are conflicting expectations
about a specified role.
Role making is the ―process of improvising, exploring, and judging what is
appropriate on the basis of the situation and the response of others at the moment‖
(Peterson, 1986, p. 23).
The Self
o According to Mead, self does not exist at birth but is developed through
interaction with others
o emerges from the social interaction of humans in which the individual takes on
the role of the "other" and internalizes the attitudes and perceptions of others
through those interactions
The interaction of an individual‘s self-conception ("I") and the generalized, perceived view that others
have of the individual ("Me")

o The ongoing process of combining the ―I‖ and the ―ME.‖

“I”
o An individual‘s self-conception
o The subjective self
“Me” - The “Generalized Other”
o the generalized, perceived view that others have of the individual

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

o The mental image of oneself that is based on expectations and responses from
others
 The image of the self seen in other people's reactions


Self-concept
The image we have of who and what we are (formed in childhood by how significant
others treat/respond to us). The self-concept is not fixed and unchanging – if in
childhood your teachers tell you you‘re stupid, but later in life your teachers and
friends begin to treat you as if you‘re very bright, your self-concept is likely to
change.
Self-fulfilling prophecy
The tendency for our expectations to evoke responses in others that confirm what we
originally anticipated. Each one of us affects how others view themselves. Our
expectations evoke responses that confirm what we originally anticipated.
Phenomenon: The way I choose to see the world creates the world I see.

Significant symbol
1. A word or gesture that has a common meaning to an individual and others;

Social Act
Behavior that in some way takes into account the ―other‖ person, group or social
organization, and is guided by what they do. It emerges through the process of
communication and interaction.

Symbol manipulation
The means through which we motivate others to action through the use of symbols

Sociology and Other Social Science

It shares big with other discipline that also deals with the study of the human society,
which includes:-
- Anthropology
- Psychology
- History
- Political science
- Economics

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 a) Sociology and anthropology
Deals with study of social cultural nature of human society. It tiers to understand the
origins meaning and importance of culture trends, cultural control in shaping of
human society. In relation to sociology, anthropology helps socialist by showing how
culture is transmitted and how it affect human beings.

b) Economics.
Seeks to analyze and describe the production and distribution of goods and services. It
deals with how man distributes the scarce resource in the society. They are related in
that it shows how man allocates scarce resource interns of distribution affects human
behaviuor in the society.

c) Sociology and history

History is the study of past human activities and events and how they have shaped the
development of society. Sociology analysis human action, association, group,
institution and how they have shaped human behavior.

d) Sociology and psychology

It‘s the study of human behavior and mental process. It entails the application of
knowledge of human mental activities, its causes and treatment of mental illness.
Sociology depends on psychology for the explanation of deviant behavior and external
mental process.

e) Sociology and political science

It‘s the study of power and authority and how it is exercised in the society. It helps us
understand issues of power including use and abuse which bring about cohesion in the
society.

REVISION QUESTION
1. Define the meaning of sociology
2. Trace the origin and development of sociology as a discipline.
3. Explain the scope of sociology
4. Distinguish sociology from other social science.
5. Acquire general knowledge of sociological theories.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 CHAPTER TWO
THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE SOCIETY
Specific objectives
At the end of this topic, the trainee should be able to;
a) define the concept of society
b) Describe how the society can be studied scientifically.
c) Define the concept of culture
d) Identify the various element of culture
e) Explain how culture is passed from one generation to another.
f) Explain the concept of socialization
g) State the function of socialization
h) Identify the various agents of socialization
i) Explain how individual behaviuor is controlled in the society.

Society
Society refers to a totally of human grouping i.e. independent , large and having
its own culture and line between physical bound group which give them
identification for example in the society.

The community is a group of people bound together by physical boundaries for

example by lakes, valleys and having the same interest.

Characteristics of human society

- People sharing same culture and language.
- It has physical boundary that define their territory.
- They are independent large and autonomous.
- They are dynamic characterized by constant change opposed to being static.
This is necessary if society is to adopt changing environment.
- Have symbols of identification i.e. cultural heritage value, belief and norms.

Culture
Culture is the totally of land, socially transmitted. It includes the ideas, values and
customs of groups of people. It simplifies much today interaction.

Components of culture
They are also known as elements of culture of a society and they include;

i) social norms

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 They are standard behavior maintained by the society. For a norm to become
significant it must be widely shared and understood. They can be classified into
two;-
Formal norms- are established standard of behaviour written down and involve
strict rules for punishment of violations. Informal norms - are generally understood
but are precisely recorded e.g. standard of proper dressing.
ii) language
Language is an absence system of word meaning and symbol for all aspect and
culture. It include speech, symbol gestures etc. it is not exclusively human speech.
People depend upon language for the use and transmission of culture.

iii) values
Are collective conceptions of what is considered good, desirable and proper. They
indicate what people in a given culture prepare as well as what the final important
and morally right or wrong.
Value influence people behaviour and measure of evaluating the action of others. It is
a from value attached to something in culture that laws are derived for example
value of private property given meaning for every society.

iv) symbols
It refers to anything that cause a particular meaning recognized by people who share
culture. Every symbol has a given meaning for every society.

v) customs
Are socially transmitted norms regarded by a given group of people who share a given
belief. It is regarded as a social life in that no body would want to face the sanctions
with its violation.

vi) Folk ways.

Are socially approved behaviour pattern of every life and individual members of the
group confirm both them spontaneous for fear of punishment.

vii) moves
Are taboos governing group behaviour and action. They serve to restrain individuals
from act and behaviour considered to be improper by those members for fear of
meeting social sanctions by group members i.e. cursor of member from society.

viii) public opinion

It relate to what and how we think about others. This is away we shape our actions
for behavour for fear of public disapproval. Public opinion their mistakes, individual
restrain from immoral or anti social activities

Concept of Cultural

Cultural assimilation

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Is the process where by authority group adopting the custom and attitude of
prevailing culture for example language assimilation is the processive process for
where by a speech community of a language shift to speaking of the other language.

Cultural assimilation
Is the exchange of cultural features that result when a group comes into continuous
first hand. The origin cultural patterns of either both groups remain distinct.

Cultural shock
It refers to the anxiety feeling (surprise, uncertainty and confusion) feel people have
when they enter into a different culture or social environment such as foreign
country.

Cultural relativism
It‘s the principle that an individual human belief and activities should be understood
in terms of his or her own culture.

Cultural continuity
Can be defined as the absence of social change i.e. things remain the same because
social change is a continuous process in all society, however when society, their
structure which are inherently resistance to change and in this sense we talk about
them being social continuity.

SOCIALIZATION
Is a complex, lifelong process. The socialization is a process of social interaction by
which people acquire the knowledge, attitude values and behavior essential for
effective participation in society. It‘s a process of becoming a social being, a process
that is continuous throughout ones life. The cases of children reared under condition
of extreme isolation illustrate importance of socialization.

THEORIES OF SOCIALIZATION
While the social scientist acknowledges that are biological organism, biological factors
have not been fully integrated into psychological theory. The theories of socialization
emphasized in sociology today continue to emphasize social structures, learning and
social interaction.

(a) Social learning theory

One view of socialization occurs is that we are socialized through positive and
negative reinforcement by our parents, friends‘ society and that we observe and
imitate socialized behavior around us. The two process emphasized and conditioning
and observational learning.

Conditional learning

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Is a form of learning in which the consequence of behavior determines the probability
of its future occurrence. Consequences of behavior that increases the chance of a
behavior are reinforcement; constituencies that reduce the probability of its future
are punishment. Socialization occurs when a person‗s behavior is shaped by the
reinforcement and punishing activities of other people and groups.

Observational learning
Through observation, people may learn both a certain mode of behavior and that of
behaviour and that of behavior may elicit certain rewards or punishment. Bandura
(1965) observational learning also referred to as modeling or imitation occurs hen
people reproduce the response they observe in other people either real or fictional.

(b) Cognitive development theory

Another view emphasize that a child development occurs in step with his / her
cognitive development. Through learning is fundamental part of socialization what
and how a person learns depends on his or her ability to understand and interpreter
the world, something that progresses through several stages by Swiss psychologist
jean Piaet ( 1926/ 1955)

Sensori-motor stage (birth – 18 months)

Child learns through their sense and movement. Their initial inability to distinguish
between themselves and the environment limits the kind of socialization. Gradually
they realized that they exist independent of the things that are around them.

Pre- operational stage (stage 11/2 – 7 yrs)

A major accomplishment of this stage is representation thought made possible by
learning symbols and language. They identify things so closely for them making it
difficult to distinguish the real from the make believe.

Concrete operational stage (7- 12 yrs)

The children learn to think abstractly able to separate symbols with things they
represent them. They see things the way others do. Thinking becomes more focused
on concrete, tangible and complexity that can be reached.

Formal operation stage 12- adulthood

Children now develop abstract argument and develop variety ways of looking at
problem.

Agents of socialization
Every social experience, we have affects us in at least a small way, however, several
familiar setting have special importance in the specialization process. These include;
- The family.
- Peer group
- School

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 - Mass media

i) the family
The family has the greatest impact o socialization, infants totally dependent on
others and the responsibility totally falls on parents and other family member to
socialize the young ones teaching skills and values, beliefs.

ii) the school

Schooling enlarges children social worlds to include people with backgrounds different
from their own. In the process they learn the importance society attaches to race and
gender.

REVISION QUESTIONS
1. Describe how the society can be studied scientifically.
2. Define the concept of culture
3. Identify the various element of culture
4. Explain how culture is passed from one generation to another.
5. Explain the concept of socialization
6. State the function of socialization
7. Identify the various agents of socialization
8. Explain how individual behavior is controlled in the society.

CHAPTER THREE
SOCIAL INTERACTION

Specific objectives
At the end of this topic, the trainee should be able to;
a) define social interaction
b) describe the role of the family in social interaction
c) appropriate and relate to various ethnic and kinship groups in the
processes of interaction
d) Identify social institution and their functions.

INTRODUCTION

The meaning of social interaction

Social interaction is a mutual influence that individual and group have on one another
in an attempt to solve problems or in their striving towards a goal.

The family

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

A family is a social institution found in alls societies that unit people in a cooperative
group to oversee the bearing and rising of children.

Functions of a family

i) Satisfaction of sexual needs

It is the first essential function of the family. A society cannot survive unless it has a
system of replacing its member fro one generation to other.
It provides the stable institutionalized means with specific individual occupying the
social roles of mother and father.

ii) socialization
The family is the first and most important setting for child rearing. It continues
throughout the life cycle

iii) material and emotional security

It can serve as offering physical protection, emotional support and financial support
thus people living in a family tend to be healthier than people living a lone.

iv) social
Legitimate birth into a family gives the individual a stable place in the society
children inherit from their parents not only the maternal goods but also social status .
they belong to the same race , ethnicity religion and social class.

Types of family
Extended family
It is a family unit that includes parents, children as well as other kin.

Nuclear family
This is a family unit composed of one or two parents and their children. It is also
called conjugal family meaning it‘s based on marriage.

Kinship and ethnicity

This is a social bond based on blood, marriage or adoption. Ethnicity it refers and
belonging to a nation or member of a distinguished possessing their own customary
ways or culture or a shared cultural heritage.

Marriage
Is a sanctioned relationship usually involving economic operation as well as sexual
activity and child bearing that people expect to be enduring.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Types of marriage
- Monogamous marriage. It is a type of marriage involving two parties that is
husband and wife.
- Polygamous marriage. This is a type of marriage that takes two forms
(a) Polygyny marriage. This is a type of marriage that unites one man with two or
more females.
(b) Polyandry. This is a type of marriage that unite one female and the two or
more males.

Marital roles
It refers to duties and responsibilities that one undertakes in the marriage that is role
of husband and wife in marriage.
Descent
This is a system by which members of a society traces kinship over generations. Lower
income countries trace kinship through the father and mother side of the family.

Forms of descent

i) Patrilineal descent.
This is a form of descent that traces kinship through the males so that property flows
room father to son.

ii) Matrilineal descent

It traces the kinship through the mother side so that the property passes through
mother to daughter. It is common in Indian culture.

iii) Bilateral descent

It is two sided trace of kinship through both the mother and father side.
Group dynamics
It refers to group changes due to internal or external or external forces. Forces that
influence the working of a community and organization. It relates to the interaction,
cohesiveness, disruptive or restraining force observed in groups.

Types of group dynamics

We have two types of group dynamics;
- primary group
- Secondary group.

i) Primary group
Is a small group whose member share personal and enduring relationship? In this
group people spend a great deal of time together engaging in a wide range of
activities and they know one another pretty well. Members of primary group help
one another in many ways, but they generally think of their group as and end in its
self rather than as a means of other ends.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 ii) Secondary group
This is a large and impersonal social group whose members pursue a specific goal
or activity. It is joined by secondary relationship. Which involves weak emotional
ties and little personal knowledge of one another e.g. students in a college course
may not see each other as the end of college.

REVISION QUESTIONS
1. define social interaction
2. describe the role of the family in social interaction
3. Discuss the appropriate and relate to various ethnic and kinship groups in
the processes of interaction
4. Identify social institution and their functions.

CHAPTER FOUR
SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
Specific objectives
By the end of this topic, the trainee should be able to;
1. define social structure and organization
2. identify various types of social organization
3. discuss the functions of social organization
4. define social satisfaction
5. explain social stratification
6. explain the functions of social stratification
7. explain the concept mobility
8. Identify various types of social mobility.

INTRODUCTION

Social Organization
Social organization is a state of being or condition in a society in when various
institution function in accordance with implied purpose.
It is characterized by different elements in the society such as family, politics, and
religion economics among others. It is the interdependence of social institution groups
and society that assist to achieve social order and stability in the society.
They are governed by norms, values and beliefs. They have subgroup within large
units for example institution such as political, economic and religion which have
subgroup in the society.

Types of social organization

Social organization is mainly grouped into two major groups;

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 - formal organization
- informal organization

(a) Formal organization.

They are complex organization that has been established for the main purpose of
achieving a certain goal, aim or objective. They posses‘ rules designed to anticipate
and shape behavior to achieve these goals. They have formal status and structures
with close mechanism of communication and authority for example hospitals, prisons
etc.

(b) Informal organization

Is simple organization that activities are carried out without clearly defined goals or
roles. Do not have clearly line of authority or status. They share similar
characteristics and importance of organization is to assist these people in the course
of interaction e.g. family groups and communities.
Functions of social organization
- They are designed to achieve certain goals, aims and objectives in the society.
- By the use of rules and regulation by formal organization individuals and group
behavior are shaped in expected and accepted ways.
- It assist in social interaction in that thy give people the opportunity to interact,
socialize and share their diverse social problems.
- It brings about operation of different element of the society in that family
plays its part in procreations and socialization.
- Provides a sense of belonging and identify to its members e.g. Schools,
families, hospitals.
- They are a major source of employment to many people e.g. from such places
as schools, hospitals, prisons, military.
- It determines social structure of a given society and plays the role of relating
the society with the outside world.
- Acts as a source of unity in. they bring people together and improve their
social, economic, cultural and psychological well being.

Social Structure, Stratification, Mobility and Organization

Social structure
It‘s a pattern of social relation that arises from people roles and status when people
interact. The pattern of social relation that emerge reflects to a larger extent their
social status and roles.

Social status
This is the social position that an individual holds in a group or social ranking of a
group when compared to other groups.
An individual status dictates the rights and privileges to which the person is entitled.
It is usually based income, prestige, education.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Types of status
We have two types of status
- ascribed status
- achieve status

Ascribed status
It is acquired by an individual at birth through wealth, religion, race, age, social
studying. This form of status is attained by who you are rather than what you have
done. An example is the son of president. He enjoys privileges not because he has
done something that makes him enjoy but because he is from royal family.

Achieved status
This is mainly acquired because of what you have done through your own efforts or
choice. For example the student who works hard and completes the necessary further
studies or experience to attain a desired position is said to be his / her way to achieve
specific status position in the society like being a lawyer, doctor, pilot, teacher or
even an accountant. Another example is a poor man in a village assisting people and
later being rewarded as an area member of parliament. His status will have been
achieved through is hard work.

Social role
Social role is the behavior or appropriate to a given status, that is the part one played
patterns of behavior rights and duties e.g. the person notifying the role of a mother
should show love and commitment to the duties of a house while at the same time
should expect obedience and cooperation from their children and spouse.

Social stratification
AC Ogburn & Nimkoft view social stratification as the process by which individuals and
group are ranked into more as less enduring of status.
Is the diffusion of population into two or more layers of which is relatively
homogenous and between which are different in privileges restriction reward and
obligation. It demonstrates ranking order in a society often demonstrates social
inequality.
Researches generally agree that the population of any society or country can be
divided into upper class, lower, middle class, working class.

Basic / sources of social stratification

Differentiation of roles in a society
Some occupations are seen to be more important than others hence given more
reward for example medicine and law.

Education

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

Determines upward mobility in a society e.g. a person who owns a degree in society is
seen to hold a high status than a primary level education.

Social mobility
Is the ability of persons to move upward or down ward within social classes that exist
in the society.

Types of social mobility

- vertical mobility
- horizontal mobility
- intergenerational mobility
- intergenerational mobility

i) vertical mobility
refers to changes in status of an individual as he/ she moves up or down the social
ladder e.g the manager of the department in a supper market has achieved upward
mobility.
The mobility is accompanied by an increase in income overall responsibility. On the
other hand an headmaster of a certain school who is demoted to ordinary teacher
faces downward vertical mobility.

ii) horizontal mobility

It refers to social movement on the same social plane an individual who makes an
occupational change that does not affect his or social status displays horizontal
mobility e.g. Provincial Commissioner of rift valley province is transferred to be a pc
of Nyanza province.

iii) Intergenerational mobility

It refers to social mobility that take place in generation e.g. the daughter of a
peasant farmer who earns a university education goes to have realized
intergenerational mobility. On the other hand downward mobility may take place in
the case of a peasant farmer whose father is a medical doctor.

iv) Intra – generational mobility

It refers a change in social status of an individual or group of individual within the
same generation e.g. suppose that five children are born into one family rather than
moderate means. After high school four of the children enters job market at medium
law level who‘s the 5th child works part time while attending college.

After college graduation the 5th child enters cooperative of a higher level and after
there years, he is promoted to a top management position while he has attained
upward mobility, his brother and sister have remained at the same social – economic
level.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 Factors affecting social mobility in the society

Positive factors
- Division of labour. People are employed based on their skills and expertise.
- Marriage. One can be married to a rich family hence moved from lower class to
high class.
- Family background. It is seen in terms of inheritance. Those from rich families
will acquire available resource hence upward mobility.
- Different fertility rate. Seen in terms of children people have. People with
more children are seen to be senior and those with no children are seen to be
misfits in the society.
- Economic progress. The performance in the economy in terms of profitability.
If the economy is progressing, more people will be promoted and hence will be
employed hence social mobility.

Negative factors
- Gender discrimination
- Religious belief
- Class discrimination. Rich people discriminate the poor ones.

REVISION QUESTION
1. define social structure and organization
2. identify various types of social organization
3. discuss the functions of social organization
4. explain social stratification and explain the functions of social
stratification
5. Explain the concept mobility and identify various types of social
mobility.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 CHAPTER FIVE

SOCIAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

Specific Objectives
By the end of this topic, the trainee should be able to;
a) Explain the various approaches to study social change
b) Differentiate between planned and unplanned social change
c) Identify and explain elements of social system that change
d) Explain the role of social change
e) Explain the meaning of development
f) Differentiate between directive and in directive approaches to Development
g) Discuss the concept of self-help development- ―harambee‖ in Kenya

INTRODUCTION
Social change ,
It refers to gradual transformation of individual group and behaviour of those groups
and behavior of that group in the society.
It comprises transformation of social belief norms attitude and values.
It is an inevitable phenomenon or situation in human societies because these human
societies are not static i.e. dynamic (change from time to time.)

Characteristic of Social Change

- It can either in large scale or small scale in nature.
- A small scale social change may involve just a few individual in the society.
Whereas a large scale affects almost every body in the society.
- The duration of change (time). Time determines whether change is to be
referred as gradual or abrupt hence it can be either long term, short term in
nature. A long term change is quite different from with something which
overnight e.g. an overthrow of a government is a short term social change since
it can take place overnight.
- Change has some kind of direction. It can take place either positive or negative
direction. Positive change can be taken as a change for society betterment
while the negative change it brings problems to the society such as war disease
outbreak.
- It is unpredictable expect for the planned aspect of social change.

Causes of Social Change in the Society

It can be caused by;
- Science of technology. The current error has been called the arrow of science
and technology because of the massive technological knows how by human
being which has been improved, their standard of living e.g. improved

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 transport, comm., and services. It causes social change through globalization
i.e. the situation where the world shares the same values & attitudes due to
availability of information through the internet.
- Contact between two different cultures. It can be caused by contact between
two different culture which share the different norms and beliefs. It can take
place through the cultural assimilation and culturalization.
- Political leadership. It is a source of social change in that leadership is
endorsed, has the power to decide for the community power refers to ability of
an individual or group of individual to influence the behavior of others wither
willingly or unwillingly e.g the change of government system from communism
to democracy i.e. one party state to multiparty democracy.
- Economic factors. Such as change from agricultural to manufacturing the mode
of production of goods in society has changed so that people do not depend on
subsistence agricultural but instead deal with commercial.
- Environmental factor. Can occur through natural calamities.
- Religion. Where one person changes from one denominator to the other.

THEORIES CHANGE

Conflict theory
- Karl max is usually tough as one of the greatest writer on social conflict.
- He saw conflict in economic terms based on struggle for scarce resources
between the rulings classing (bourecreoisie).
- The rule called (proletarian) is stressed that each group share common ethnic
status basing ground political value which conflict with either group.
- In most cases social change in conflict perspectives is marked by an equal
balance of groups such as ruling class the other one as the ruled class.
- The ruled class will continually seek gained recognition by the ruling class and
the leader of the ruling class will seek to denier that recognition and organize
activity which demonstrates that is delayed.
- The power situation between the ruling and ruled class may change as a result
of change in increase the possibility of society resistance or actual revolution
by the ruled class.
- These factors that can lead to social change are leadership, aspiration,
capacity of organization, their rule in spear heading their interest into the
ruling class.

Modernization Theory
- Is the recent theory which has been used to explain the disparity between
development of country in terms of wealth and political progress.
- It stress that the world is divided into major division i.e. traditional and
modern.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 - The traditional is characterized by underdevelopment poverty and people in
this area do not strive to improve their well being . In traditional society,
work is done in circular form as opposed in linear form. It is done in a way in
which our fore fathers have been doing it and no attempt.
- The modern society is characterized by individual‘s handwork and attempt to
change wellbeing. They use modern society and it‘s done in a linear form as
opposed to circular form.
- They are open to change and flexible to adopt new ways of life.
- They are illiterate and look forward to improve the situation of their lives since
work is not done the way in which our forefathers used to do it.
- Modernization theories argued that traditional society (3rd world countries) can
only develop if they apply the ways in which modern society (developed
countries) used to develop. In this case emphasis is laid down on transfer of
new from developing to developed courtiers so as to spread up social change.
- _Developing countries should follow the foot steps of developed countries by
emphasizing individualism handwork, literacy and open mindness in tackling
their problems

Short Coming of This Theory

1. Assumes that social, political and cultural different from those of developed
countries.
2. It assumes lack of technological know how in developing countries which is
abundant in develop countries.
3. It leads to dependency. Adoption of materialization theory lead to dependency
of developing world to the developed world e.g. dependence on technological
man power in other professions who will be responsible to incite the
transformation of this technology.

Structure and Functionalism Theory

- Is the one of the most recent theory of the 20th century. It is associated with
components like Talcott parsons Robert Marlon.
- The main assumption of the theory is that society is highly structured into
various parts and each part of the society has a function to perform.
- The parts interact and interrelate with other parts of the society in order to
bring equilibrium (stability) of the enter system.
- Every part of the society works towards attaining even goal which later leads to
promotion of stability of all the society.
- Functionalism theory has been used to explain social change intern of how
various change in the society interrelate e.g. the family and religion work hand
in hand to ensure that there is steady values and norms in the society.
- Talcott persons identified four requirements in which society can achieve
equilibrium.
They are;

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

  Adaption to the environment. Various parts of the society must adapt to the
environment for their day to day social, economic, political and cultural
environment. In order to perform or achieve equilibrium.
 Goals. Every society structure has a goal to perform and later these goals
promote harmony in the society.
 Integration. Various structures within the society have interacted and
interrelate performing their function and later these promotes access to
privileges in the society.
 Latent and manifest function. Structure in the society while performing their
function (manifest) as well as an intended and recognized (latent) function. It
can be used to explain the way in which social change can happen if the system
or parts of the society work in harmony to avoid social disorder.

Conflict / Limitation of This Theory

- It is not practical especially where unit is not available i.e. the theory work in
system where people have a common goal.
- It ignores the presence of conflict as a source of social change. Since it insist in
interaction among the parts of the society.

Classical Evolutional Theory

- Was a dominant characteristic of the 19th c. It was based on the thinking that
the civilized man or society had evolved or progressed from a backward to
present civilized stages or status.
- The key proponent was Charles Darwin and Morgan who urged that society
development or progression as in linear manner or approach.
- It claims that man evolved from a primitive to a modern stage, what he
acquires with development from savagery to civilized stage.
- This theory fail to appreciate that fact that society as much as they grow from
within they also grow by borrowing ideas or institutions from other already
society hence it‘s not necessary following the strict linear progression.

Classical Diffusion Theory

It holds that correction of social change in society is mainly from outside (external)
the social change comes about as a result of society interacting with external society.

Critics
It neither does nor takes into account correction of social change from outside within
the society (internal) cause of social change.

NATURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 - Planned social change.
- Unplanned social change.

Planed Social Change

- It refers to that change which people arrange themselves on steps of how to
effect social change. it is characterized by a concerted effort to transform
people ‗s way of life and other social pressure by using a well stipulated way to
achieve the goal.
- It can be done through education, company mobilization and using government
policy e.g. family planning etc so as to speed the rate of sex change.

Unplanned Social Change

- It refers to the kind of social change that happens spontaneously i.e. without
notice or an individual knowing.
- It is characterized by abrupt changes in social system or in the way in which
people behave or believe in as a result of spontaneous change.
- It is usually manifested by natural calamities such as floods, fire, suicide bomb
etc which cause diverse changes in society.

ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SYSTEM THAT CHANGE

- Values and sentiments.
- Norms ( rules in a game )
- Beliefs
- Goals( economic goals, political, cultural and social)
- Status roles ( task allocation )
- Functions in terms of reward and penalties.

REVISION QUESTIONS

1. Explain the various approaches to study social change

2. Differentiate between planned and unplanned social change
3. Identify and explain elements of social system that change
4. Explain the role of social change
5. Explain the meaning of development
6. Differentiate between directive and in directive approaches to Development
7. Discuss the concept of self-help development- ―harambee‖ in Kenya.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

 CHAPTER SIX

SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN KENYA

Specific Objectives
By the end of this topic the trainee should be able to;
a) Differentiate between personal and social problems
b) Identify and analyses the major social problems in Kenya
c) Describe the conformity and deviance

INTRODUCTION

Problems in Kenya are multi-folded. There are social problems, economic problems,
health problems and education problems as well. These problems are interrelated.
Kenyans have problems in their social fields that are in most cases associated with
health problems as well. In this topic we are going to discus social problems which
include the following among others;
 Poverty
 Political problems
 Unemployment
 Drug abuse

POVERTY

Poverty is a condition in which a person or a community lacks essential for minimum

standards of living .These essentials include material resources such as access to
information, education, health care among others.

Causes of poverty

1. Social causes

There are many social causes of poverty. For example disable people may not be able
to do activities likely to give them income. This will lead to poverty due to the
inability to work. This may result to borrowing as a means of sustaining their
livelihood.

2. Individual problems.

These are caused by individual perception about life in general. This may lead to
individual dropping out of school which may later result to poverty.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

3. Discrimination by gender or ethnic community

In some Kenyan communities, it is not easy for women to obtain formal employment
as men are favoured. This has contributed to a great poverty to women.
Discrimination by ethnicity also prevents people from marginalized communities from
access to the national resources. These leads to poverty among the marginalized
ethnic communities in that they lack infrastructure for economic development

iv) Brain Drain

Most taught Kenyan people especially the youth leave the country as well as their
communities to look for better jobs outside. This makes the exploitation of available
recourses that need export knowledge remain unutilized leading to poverty in
community as well as the country

Political problems
Lack of transparency in the management of resources on the country contribution to
political problems. The recent political problems in Kenya are the elections that took
place in 2007-2008.
The caused massive destructions among Kenyans. Many people were killed and
thousands were displaced becoming internally displaced people and the famous IDPs.
This has contributed to a lot of poverty especially among the displaced people and
those who lost the property including individuals whom they were depending for their
livelihood.

Unemployment
If the government does not provide job opportunities for its people, their living
condition or standards may not improve. This will lead to people moving to urban
areas looking for employment. Because of the little or lack of money, they end up
living in urban slums which is mainly characterized by a lot of poverty, people living
bellow a dollar by day. This may also lead to other social problems.

Effects of poverty in Kenya

1. Leads to high crime rate. Poor individuals struggle to obtain basic needs such
as food by stealing or through corrupt deeds.
2. Leads to the increase suicide cases in Kenya. This is mainly because of the
hopelessness in the life of people.

UNEMPLOYMENT
Kenya is a country with many obstacles to overcome. Despite being the regional hub
for commerce, it‘s economic and health situations are dire. Unemployment is high
and life expectancy is low. The unemployment rate in Kenya was estimated as 40% as
of 2008. This is the same as of 2001 estimates. Economic process in Kenya has been
slow and plaque with corruption. The economy is also relevant on several goods
whose prices have remained low. Kenyans unemployment rate is 188th in the world.

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

This unemployment has affected the youth. This has forced the government to
increase youth development trust fund and kazi Kwa vijana to reduce this rate. But
corruption and nepotism is still affecting the initiative. This has forced a number of
youth to move to urban slums. Unemployment is a social problem in Kenya.

CRIME AND DELIQUENCY

There is a high rate of crimes in all regions in Kenya, particularly in Nairobi, Mombasa
and Kisumu. Car jacking is among the urban areas. Pickpockets‘ and thieves carry out
―snatch and run‖ crimes on the city. All these are caused by lack of employment and
young people are forced to look for other ways of country a living. It is very common
in urban poor and in rural areas is characterized by cattle rustling. It is a social
problem which needs attention from stalk holders.

DRUG ABUSE
Drug abuse has become a major social issue in Kenya especially in Mombasa is
affected by issue of drugs more than any other part of the country. Young in the early
20s have been affected by the drugs in demographic. Women in Mombasa have held
public protests, asking the government to more quickly to arrest young people using
narcotics.
In Mombasa and Kilindini, there are approximately 40 masking 9meaning places in
Kiswahili) where drug abusers meet to share drugs. Bhang smoking until recently has
been drug of choice, but heroin injection is becoming increasingly popular. 70% of the
drug abusers have been admitted that they are using heroine.
In addition and drug abuse, the trafficking of illegal drugs in the country has become
a major issue as well. An estimated 100 million dollars is trafficked within the
country each year.

Cattle raiding

The northern Kenya and eastern Uganda regions are very insecure. For a number of
years there have been a number of cattle raids going on, terrorizing the civilian
population and killing hundreds of people. This has affected the economy of those
regions and poor living conditions in such areas.

Violence against Women

Violence against women and girls is one of the most widespread violations of human
rights. It includes physical, sexual, psychological and economical abuse and it cuts
across all boundaries of age, race, culture, wealth and geography. It takes place at
home, streets, schools, workplace, farm fields, during conflicts and crisis. It has
many manifestations from the most universally prevalent forms of domestic and

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com

sexual violence to harmful practices, abuse during pregnancy, so-called honour
killings and other types of feticides.

Child abuse

This is the physical, sexual, emotional mistreatment or neglect of children. It can also
be defined as the maltreatment or any act or series of commission or commission by
parents or care givers that results to harm potential for harm or threat of harm to a
child abuse in Kenya occurs in child‘s homes. With the smaller amount occurring in
the organization schools, or the community the child interacts with. In Kenya there
are four major categories of child abuse.
 Neglect
 Physical abuse
 Psychological/emotional abuse`
 Child sexual abuse.

REVISION QUESTION
1. Differentiate between personal and social problems
2. Identify and analyses the major social problems in Kenya
3. Describe the conformity and deviance

Buy certified notes from www.kenyanexams.com