


Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The concept of structures in social theory, their relationship with individual actions, and the distinction between triggering causes and structuring causes. Using examples from philosophy, it discusses how structures impose constraints on our actions and shape our choices. The text also touches upon the interdependence of resources, collective expectations, and personal attitudes in shaping social structures.
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Social Explanation and Social Structure I. What is a social structure? Social structures are theoretical entities, postulated to do work in a social theory. Examples: the wage-labor system of industrial capitalism; the heteronormative/bionormative nuclear family; the internal organization of an American university. What work do structures do in a social theory? a) They are invoked in structural explanations; b) They enable us to identify and critique structural injustice; c) They provide the context for human agency; d) They are, in some sense, constituted by actions of and relations between individuals. Today I will focus mostly on (a) and, to a lesser extent, (b). II. What is a structural explanation? Structural explanations consider the phenomenon to be explained as part of a larger phenomenon that sets constraints on the behavior of the interdependent parts. Reference to the structured whole highlights those local constraints. [Example: throwing a penny into a pool.] A. Garfinkel (1981) on questions, contrasts, and presuppositions. “Suppose that, in a class I am teaching, I announce that the course will be “graded on a curve,” that is, that I have decided beforehand what the overall distribution of grades is going to be. Let us say, for the sake of the example, that I decide that there will be one A, 24 Bs, and 25 Cs. The finals come in, and let us say Mary gets the A. She wrote an original and thoughtful final.” (Garfinkel 1981, 41)
Plinko): if we ask why a particular ball ended up where it did, why it landed there is a matter of chance. However, if the question is: Why do so few balls fall at each end (i.e., occupy those positions)? We can explain this by the structure of the board.