Introduction
Sociological conceptualization and situations are best understood with the help of theoretical constructs that help describe the phenomenon in one particular order and sequence giving it a specific meaning. In sociology, a substantial amount of theory has evolved over time.
This theory is informed of the views of the authors and their constituency on the one hand; and, on the other, this theory attempts to explain the reality from a specific vantage point of view. Real social data can be viewed in several ways which often work to reveal the various dimensions of the sociological phenomenon. A thorough grounding in such theory helps the researcher and other students of social phenomenon in coming to a much clearer understanding of the phenomenon itself and helps form a rounded view that is free of methodological bias as the researcher is aware of the very many associate points of view.
Social reality is very complex and multifaceted and hence for coming to grips with such a reality. This paper utilizes a typically sociological and anthropological outlook to examine if the reality as conceived is a social construct. While doing so the paper traverses the various methodological approaches that tend to approach anthropological and sociological issues from well-defined points of view.
Rationalism
Rationalist methods offer universal standards by which actions in given cultures can be interpreted. Rationalists view statements of belief as an explanation, which should therefore be construed literally. In the rationalist perspective, culture is the reflection of human experience, “the codification of man’s purposeful and pragmatic action” Frederic Taylor and Max Weber offer examples of rationalist studies of organizations.
Taylor, in his 1917 Principles of Scientific Management, offers a means to remove the divide between managers and workers and help workers gain maximum productivity. His argument consistently portrays workers as acting rationally within the context of their interactions with managers and offers managers suggestions on how to change workers’ actions through managerial behavior, thereby producing the desired rational response, which is for workers to contribute maximally to the organization’s efficiency.
Like Taylor, Weber (1947) focuses on authority in organizations. He argues that organizations must legitimize their authority for workers to follow “commands”, and identifies three “pure types of legitimacy”: those which rely on a belief in the legality of the authority, those which rely on the belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions, and those which rely on devotion to a specific and exceptional exemplary characteristic of an individual. In each case, Weber views obedience as a rational response to the individual actor’s worldview.
Rationalism has fallen out of favor with many sociologists and anthropologists because it encourages the researcher to view others’ experiences through our subjective understanding of what is rational and what is not. A more comprehensive explanation is given by literature on the emic/etic distinction. Another debate centers on whether culture reflects the human experience, or whether culture establishes human experience. In the latter case, a notion of rationality is itself culturally determined and thus not absolute. Douglas, (1996) has criticized rationalism as well, arguing that it fails to take into account that human behavior is not, in fact, rational all of the time.
Comparative
Like rationalism, comparative methods offer standards by which behavior in a given culture or social reality can be understood. Conventionally, comparative methods are quantitative, using statistical techniques to test propositions and compare cultural traits. Qualitative comparative methods employ categories by which a culture can be described and then compared to other cultures.
Mary Douglas’ (1996 [1970]) “Grid Group Theory” and Dennis Coyle’s (1997) “Cultural Theory of Organizations” are examples of qualitative comparative methods. Comparative researchers often stress that both culture-dependent and culture-independent categories are important to cultural comparisons.
Some literature asserts that comparative methods can be traced back to Victorian-era anthropologists, who focused on the nature of social progress and stages of civilization (evolutionism). Historically, anthropologists espousing comparative methods have assumed a “Unilinear Evolutionism”, which refers to the belief that all societies pass through the same stages of evolution (for example, Tylor, 1871). Unilinear evolutionism fell out of favor as critics pointed out the inherent ethnocentrism in presuming the researcher’s culture to be the most advanced.
In the 20th century, comparative studies, shift from Unilinear Evolutionism to an integrationist perspective, which views culture as an integrated, dynamic, and symbolic system. Steward (1936) put forward the idea of “multilinear evolutionism”, arguing that societies and their technologies develop differently due to their unique historical context and their natural environment. Similarly, it has been contended that a causal and evolutionary relationship exists between the environment, technology, modes of descent, and kinship terminology.
Tylor’s (1871) comparative method of studying the nature of descent, residence, and kinship behavior, was developed extensively in the United States through the Human Relations Area Files. Since that time, comparative methods have proliferated organizational studies. Literature has examples of studies that use comparative methods to study trends across organizations over time. These studies identify specific categories and assign organizations to each based on observable behaviors.
Some studies focus on “modern” theories of bureaucracy and postmodernist deconstruction of bureaucracy and critique past studies for their limited nature and failure to capture the complexity of organizations, advocating for organization studies to focus on the analysis of the organization as an enterprise.
Other studies argue that the relationship between culture and business is one of reflection rather than creation: business does not create or shape the surrounding culture but rather reflects whatever culture prevails. To support these arguments, such studies describe modern and post-modern managers through a metaphor of three parallel universes. The first universe, the realm of the modern manager, is the “Technical Universe”, in which managers adhere precisely to the ontology of financial economics: they pursue personal material wealth maximization in a logical, consistent, unremitting fashion.
The second is the “Moral Universe” wherein post-modern managers pursue moral goals instead of financial (i.e. to help the underprivileged, or to enrich the lives of employees). Such studies argue that the third universe, the realm of the 21st-century manager, is that of the “Aesthetic Universe”, wherein managers endeavor to achieve some sort of aesthetic balance and harmony in their chaotic environment.
Organizational studies scholars, primarily management theorists, have also moved in the direction of comparative studies, many of whom endeavor to use quantitative methods, for example through structured surveys that assign different values to different responses, to provide comparative norms from organization to organization, thus defining meaning through objective categories with little or no information “from the native point of view”.
For example, some analytical constructs have offered organizations a fifty-item “Organizational Beliefs Questionnaire”, which is supposed to provide organizations with information on the extent to which beliefs characteristic of organizational excellence are present within their organizations. Organizations are allowed to compare their results with statistical norms from other organizations. Such constructs also recommend that organizations compare their results across departments and over time to measure rates of organizational change.
Similarly and more widely known, Gallup Polls has developed a questionnaire that measures employee attitudes that are linked to high performance and low turnover. Gallup, too, offers organizations the opportunity to compare their results with other organizations.
Other organizational theorists use purely qualitative data, such as that taken from interviews and participant observation, and yet also assign data to categories to compare organization to organization. Edgar Schein’s (1992) work is one such approach. He provides examples of behavior in meetings and during work delegation in two organizations, comparing and contrasting each to describe facets of organizational culture. These include:
- Observed behavioral regularities such as language, rituals around deference, demeanor ( a clear reference is made to Van Mannan, 1991).
- Norms that evolve in working groups, for example, “a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay”.
- Dominant values espoused by an organization (“product quality” or “price leadership”). ( Deal and Kennedey, 1982).
- A philosophy that guides an organization’s policy towards employees and/or customers.
- Rules of the game for getting along in organizations e.g. “the ropes” (Schein, 1968, 1978; Van Maanen, 1991).
Feeling or climate is conveyed in an organization’s physical layout and how members interact with customers and outsiders. Basic assumptions, which are differentiated here from Kluckhohn et al (1952) “dominant values orientations” because such dominant orientations reflect the preferred solution. In Schein’s use of “basic assumptions”, group members would find a behavior based on any other premise inconceivable. He likens his use of “basic assumptions to “theories-in-use”, the implicit assumptions that guide behavior, tells group members how to perceive, think about, and feel things.
Schein finds meanings of an organization’s culture through these elements of culture, which he compares to the same elements in other organizations. Like Schein, Deal, and Kennedy (1982) use categories of behaviors and meanings to compare organizational cultures, although their categories vary from his. Schein and Deal and Kennedy advocate for executives to “manage” their corporate culture through the deliberate “use” of categories, or elements of culture.
Coyle (1997) offers another example of a comparative approach to understanding organizations. His “cultural theory of organizations” uses grid group analysis (based on Douglas, 1996). Coyle believes that as organizations move along the scale they shift from hierarchy to market or from market to hierarchy. The specific type of organizational form is dependent on the values it possesses, thus organizations can have cultures with aspects of both hierarchies and markets and occupy a hybrid form.
By understanding the values an organization “possesses” and the context of that organization, Coyle contends that it is possible to “plot” the form of the organization and determine which form its culture takes based on what is the best “fit” with its environment.
Comparative methods are useful to organizational research in that they address the rationalist shortfall of subjectivity by using quantitative methods and/or categories that are, ideally, objective. Despite this, comparative studies still leave room for a huge amount of subjectivity on the part of the researcher.
Consider the infamous “Hawthorne study” (see Schwartzman, 1993). Researchers set out to compare the experiences of various employees of a specific organization. In addition to a myriad of additional methodological concerns, through the way that they constructed and conducted their interviews, the researchers were found to have unduly influenced the outcome of their study, in essence generating their hypothesis while testing it.
Relativism
Relativism encompasses both methodological and ethical principles. The methodological principle of relativism, which asserts that any belief of custom must be understood in its cultural context, reflecting a distinctive world view. The relativist methodological principle is strongly influenced by studies that objected to evolutionism as speculative, arguing that observation is more appropriate and useful than speculation. This construct rejects any biological basis for culture, using language as an example. Language is independent of race; a person of any race can speak any language. This theory sees culture as more independent of biological characteristics than language.
This view is countered by Branislaw Malinowski (1944), who advocates for an individual’s full psychological and biological reality to be drawn into the analysis of culture. However, the earlier quoted theory did agree with Malinowski’s insistence on the study of any culture from “the native point of view”, meaning that if it is our serious purpose to understand the thoughts of a people, the whole analysis of experience must be based on their concepts, not ours.
Forms of relativism fall into three categories: descriptive, normative, and epistemological. In descriptive relativism, differences between cultures are seen as producing diverse social and psychological understandings among different peoples. Descriptive relativism is present in the work of Tylor (1871), who authored the first recorded definition of culture: “the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (in Kluckholn and Kroeber, 1952).
Some other assertions relate to the fact that culture determines both what is regarded as correct behavior and what is regarded as a normal psychological state. Descriptive relativism is also exemplified by the viewpoint of an ethnologist and an Objway (his spelling) who uses ethnographic methods to describe Objway tales, heritage, and ceremonies.
Normative relativism places emphasis on the notion that there are no universal standards to “judge” cultures against each other. Context and environment provide cultures with their rationality and logic. Because context and environment can vary, it is best to develop categories within a culture and then compare categories between cultures.
Examples of purely normative relativism can be found in studies of Native American spiritual traditions. An epistemological approach to relativism sees cultural diversity as limitless. For epistemologists, humankind is inherently culturally variable, thus any generalizations or general theories of culture are fallacious. Epistemological approaches to relativism closely overlap with, and sometimes also fall into the category of Semiotics / Semiology.
Edward Sapir’s (1963) work on genuine culture is an example of epistemological relativism. He describes three “senses of culture” as the term is used. The first is technical, often used by ethnologists, and sees any socially inherited element in the life of man (both spiritual and material) as an appropriate description of civilization. Sapir suggests the term ‘civilization’ is more appropriate for this sense. The second, more common in general usage, refers to a conventional ideal of refinement (what we consider “high” culture) and should, in Sapir’s view, be referred to as ‘refinement’.
The third, he contends, is the most difficult to define, and is the truest, or most genuine, sense of the word culture. It illustrates the emphasis on spiritual possessions of a group versus an individual, thereby referring to psychological or pseudo-psychological backgrounds of national civilization. “Genuine culture” is “inherently harmonious, balanced, and self-satisfactory” (314) It is “ideal” but this does not presuppose that it is efficient.
In opposition to functionalist views, Sapir asserts that genuine culture consists of more than just the means to an end, but displays a continued sophistication with no real opposition between the concept of culture as a group and the concept of culture as an individual. He further contends that culture is creative versus static, the act of bending form to will. Therefore, in genuine culture, the past is adapted and not rejected. It requires intimate contact and is physically bounded.
Contemporary organizational ethnographies use relativist methods (most commonly epistemological combined with semiotic approaches as well). Letkeman’s (2002) “Government Cutbacks, Job Loss, and Blaming the Managerial Messenger; trauma and subjective perception” is a good example of staying firmly grounded in the “native point of view” while acknowledging the existence of multiple contradictory points of view.
Based on interview data from members of a workplace that had just experienced extreme stress and internal conflict during a period of downsizing due to government budget cuts; the author argues that seemingly irrational responses of dismissed employees warrant recognition as “subjectively rational”. He further points out that threats to self-interest, and failure in general, are often individually decontextualized and subjectively defined, by the affected and by mainstream society in general.
Young (1989) provides another example of relativist organizational ethnography. Young demonstrates, through the use of different perspectives on 3 key events within an organization, that, “stated collectivity also assert[s] division” (p 103) because the events are instances of “collective ritual emphasizing group unity” yet interviewees also described them in terms that demonstrated differences between departments.
Conversely, some organizational ethnographers do not remain consistently relativist and, as a result, allow their subjectivity to cloud their conclusions. One example is found in Kasmir’s (2001) “Corporation, Self, and Enterprise at the Saturn Automobile Plant”. Kasmir explores corporate and worker discourses on one dimension of work and ideology at Saturn: the regime of the enterprise. An enterprise regime is described as one in which self-reliance, personal responsibility, boldness, and a willingness to take risks in the pursuit of goals – are regarded as human virtues and promoted as such.
She concludes that Saturn uses enterprise to manage the meaning of work and self and to shift the boundary between corporation and self, thereby “mining” workers’ aspirations and identities, “exploiting” them to extract profit. Kasmir veers from the “native point of view” to pass her value judgment in her conclusion. She has offered no evidence of employees who describe being exploited.
The concept of making profits and empowering employees to become more fulfilled does not inherently lead to “exploitation”, which is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly)”. Further, the notion of “boundaries between corporation and self”, as we see in Hamada’s (1995) description of culture clashes between Japanese and American workers, is also a culturally based concept, not an inherent value.
Hamada (1995), however, also allowed subjectivity to influence his conclusions, though in a much more subtle fashion. Hamada’s otherwise excellent organizational ethnography analyzes a case of alleged sexual harassment in an American subsidiary of a Japanese multinational firm and captures a “movement of meanings” concerning gender, race, and class. Hamada “denounces [es] the frozen gaze of the outside observer”, advocating for employing the “native point of view” combined with the observations of an objective outsider over a significant time.
However, even while pointing out shifting meanings evident in individuals’ discourses over time, by the end of the paper, Hamada speaks as if sexual harassment did not occur. Yet, he had offered no proof of this, simply the perspectives of American females who said it did occur and several men (all but one Japanese) who said it did not. Unless Hamada and Kasmir or their editors have left important discourses out of their articles for the sake of length, each provides a cautionary tale for those seeking to draw any conclusions while remaining consistently relativist.
Relativism is useful to organizational studies in that it offers the basis of ethnographic methods, provides an antidote to the problem of the researcher’s subjectivity (when applied consistently), and allows for a pluralistic view of cultures that could be useful given the quickly changing nature of most organizational life. Despite this, relativism, too, has its shortfalls. Critics of relativism argue that it makes it impossible to provide a useful description because it precludes the ability to formulate comparisons. The inability to offer an objective basis for comparative analysis makes it difficult to describe differences within or between organizations.
Semiology and Semiotics
Semiology and Semiotics, as methodological principles, suggest that a grasp of the “native’s point of view” is not a matter of simple description (as in relativism) but a complex process of interpretation mediated by a semiologic or semiotic system. Two primary thinkers shape approaches to these methods in anthropology. In some constructs of semiology, signs are meaningful only to other signs, while in other semiological constructs semiotics, symbolism is to be studied not as abstract and ideal codes, but as it is used and created in the context of social life.
The major difference between the two approaches is that one uses language as the model for the sign system and employs an essentially dyadic (signified and signifier) system, while the other does not use the language model and employs a triadic (signified, signifier, and context) system.
Two aspects of the first theory, in particular, remain heavily influential among linguists today, language as an abstract system and the notion of the social contract. In his view, individual elements that make up a language system, like words, for example, have meaning only to each other. To understand such elements of a language system, a listener must be bound by what some literature calls a “social contract”, connecting all members of a speech community.
Final Views on Functionalism and Ethnography
Functionalism is a critical concept in anthropological literature; however, it has been defined in less than clear terms. The label “functionalism” is used in a variety of ways both within anthropology and throughout the social sciences. These can be grouped into five categories, (1) the methodological principle, (2) “structural functionalism”, (3) “holism” social theory, (4) “rationalism” theory, and (5) structuralism.
As a methodological principle, functionalism advocates ethnography and is primarily associated with Bronislaw Malinowski(1931). In this view, there is an underlying belief that the components of a socio-cultural system are meaningfully interrelated, they have functions that connect or relate to one another and should be studied accordingly.
The second category, “structural functionalism”, is similar to the underlying belief system of the methodological principle category and is frequently connected to A. R. Radcliff-Brown’s(1952) theory of functionalism. Structural functionalism can be understood as a theory that most or all culturally patterned beliefs and behaviors maintain a given social system. Culture can be seen through behavior and belief patterns. In turn, these patterns function to perpetuate the society or group in which they are found.
The third category, the “holism” social theory, is aligned with both Edward Evans-Pritchard’s (1963) and Bronislaw Malinowski’s theories of functionalism. It differs from structural-functionalism because it rejects the idea that culturally patterned beliefs and behaviors function to perpetuate a social structure. The “holism” social theory argues that there is a holistic sense of social life. A given social group lives based on a certain system because of its intrinsic value and significance to them. The system does have a function; however, that function may have a variety of possible purposes, only one of which may perpetuate that system, while the others are “aesthetic” or otherwise significant.
An interesting issue in the sociological investigation of reality is presented by an ethnographic methodology. ethnographic research is very personal; thus the personality and personal dispositions of the researcher become an important element (Stapleton, 1984). Russell found, as an ethnographer that her gender, nationality, use of language, size, and age determined how the two sets of participants on the trust divide line, i.e. the students and the teachers, related and interacted with her. Russel acknowledges due to her personal characteristics as a researcher it was apparent that she was able to establish rapport and gain trust much faster when compared to others.
Russel goes on to clarify that these trust relationships altered and formed to maturity throughout her fieldwork, finally determining the type and quality of data collected. Russel says Being English, white, aged 23–24 and female influenced students’ and teachers’ behavior and affected the nature of the information gathered. I am a white, female, novice ethnographer conducting fieldwork in another country. My age (23–24 at the time of fieldwork), smallness in height, and build influenced how students and teachers interacted with me. (Russel, 2005)
The ethnographer reveals her research object, though veiled, at many places as gaining an insight into the deviant behavior of non-conformist students. She utilized the information gathering tool of ‘hanging around’ a group of students identified by each school as not being able to ‘cope’ in school. Ethnographers deemed that shadowing students for a day was an effective way to immediately gaining trust. However, the real identification of the researcher with the research came with her engaging in activities such as playing cards and eating lunch with students sitting on the yard floor during recess which convinced most researched students that the ethnographer was after all not a teacher.
Due to her age, which was nearer to that of students when compared to that of teachers Russel claims that her degree of connection with the students was greater compared to her relations with teachers. Her age worked as a passport for her to gain entry into such students’ activities. Russel acknowledges that the obtention of equal insight from both teachers and students would have been problematic since she wanted to acquire a valid in-depth view of the students’ perspective. This revealed her veiled preferred research objective which lay in students’ constituency. Russel bases this singling of her research object on the notion that the relationship between the researched and the researcher is unique in ethnography has been recognized (Hammersley, 1992; Spradley, 1980).
The researcher is immersed in the field for some time and enters into close and prolonged interaction with people in their everyday lives (Hammersley, 1992), thus making the connection a personal and individual one: Rather than studying people, ethnography means learning from people. (Spradley, 1980: 3). Russel says that her profile and capabilities and the situation warranted that she utilizes one unique relationship with one set of research with students. In this, her young age stood out as one of the most enabling factors.
For instance, Russell proves the point of her age helping her by stating that, “Females may have discussed intimate issues more readily due to my gender, but my age also contributed to the participants feeling comfortable when discussing intimate secrets. Although I was denied access to certain significant sites such as the males’ toilets, males still shared areas of their private lives with me. Some discussed their home lives; others mentioned their sexual behavior. Given our relative closeness in age, some males felt they should impress me by informing me how they engaged in adult activities.
The students’ sexuality and mine influenced the students’ behavior and thus data collected. Some males experienced ridicule due to my presence; classmates would infer that I was their girlfriend. Some males would flirt with me and embellish the idea of sexual innuendo. One male would joke about our being alone during interviews.
Some females laughed at the boys’ attempts at chatting me up. Such instances were an effect of my age, sexuality and attempt to fit in with the teenagers”. (Russel, 2005) Thus the fact that Russel was young enough to be classified as an elder student improved her data quality substantially. The above discussion proves more emphatically that reality is a social construct with its interpretation very much dependent on the methodology and interpretation.
Works Cited
Taylor, Frederic T. (1917) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Weber, Max. (1947/1963), “The ideal-type”, in Max Weber, Max Miller, S.M. Miller, Walter Garrison Runciman, and Max Weber, Power and Bureaucracy, New York: Thomas Y Crowell.
Douglas, Mary. (1996) Natural Symbols: explorations in cosmology. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 3ed (1st ed. 1970).
Coyle, Dennis J. (1997) “A Cultural Theory of Organizations”, in Culture Matter: Essays in Honor of Aaron Wildavsky, Richard J. Ellis and Michael Thompson Boulder: Westview Press.
Tylor, Sir Edward Burnett (1871). Primitive Culture, Boston. In Kluckhohn, Clyde, A. L. Kroeber, Alfred G. Meyer, Wayne Untereiner (1952), Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.
Schein, Edgar (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van Maanen, J. (1991), The Smile Factory: Work at Disneyland, in P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.58-76.
Deal, Terrence E., and Allen A. Kennedy, (1982) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schwartzman, Helen B. (1993). Ethnography in Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. (1944). The Scientific Theory of Culture.
Kluckhohn, Clyde, A. L. Kroeber, Alfred G. Meyer, Wayne Untereiner (1952), Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.
Sapir, Edward. (1963) “Culture, Genuine and Spurious” in Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality, David G. Mandelbaum, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Letkemann, Paul G., (2002) “Government Cutbacks, Job Loss, and “Blaming the Managerial Messenger”: Trauma and Subjective Perception” in Anthropology of Work Review, 29 – 33.
Young, Ed (1989) “On the Naming of the Rose: interests and multiple meanings as elements of organizational culture”, in Schein, Edgar (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey – Bass, pp 187-206.
Kasmir, Sharyyn. (2001) “Corporation, Self, and Enterprise at the Saturn Automobile Plant” in Anthropology of Work Review, XXII: 4, pp. 8-12.
Hamada, Tomoko. (1995) “Inventing Cultural Others in Organizations; a case for relational and temporal reflexivity in a multinational firm”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31; 1 pp 162-185.
Malinowski Bronislaw. (1931) “Culture.” ESS 4 :621-46.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952) Structure and Function in Primitive Societies. London: Routledge.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1963) Essays in Social Anthropology. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Stapleton, M.G. (1984) ‘Education and Racism: A Study of the Teachers’ and Pupils’ Relations in the Schooling of Black Boys’. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Aston University, Birmingham.
Russell, L. (2005), It’s a question of trust: balancing the relationship between students and teachers in ethnographic fieldwork, in Qualitative Research, Vol. 5, No.2, pp. 181-199.
Hammersley, M. (1992) What’s Wrong With Ethnography? Methodological Explorations. London: Routledge.
Spradley, J.P. (1980) Participant Observation. London: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.