Meanings and Situations (RLE Social Theory) by Arthur Brittan

Author:Arthur Brittan [Brittan, Arthur]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Psychology, Social Psychology, Social Science, Sociology, General, Social Theory
ISBN: 9781000155860
Google: 4jHvDwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2020-08-26T03:51:44+00:00

2. Rhetoric and the social order

At the more general level sociologists have seen language as being a functional imperative in the same way as they have identified the moral—ethical system as a functional imperative. Language has an integrative function — it binds men together (so it is argued) by creating common symbols, common values, common understandings. It follows that the problem of social order is one in which common rules are discovered which enable men to relate to each other. These common rules are expressed in the symbols of religious authority (God), or they are expressed in the symbols of the political authority (the state, the law, etc.), or more commonly they are expressed in the everyday rules of social intercourse (habits, customs, mores, etc.). In whatever way they are manifested they are supposed to represent the common set of understandings and rules which together are considered to be necessary for the continued operation and survival of a society. Social interaction can only take place in a climate of mutually understood rules and their symbolic manifestations.

The problem of social order, as conceived of by Parsons following Hobbes, is to explain the fact that men find these symbols binding and agree to accept their authority. It has been argued that these common understandings have been interpreted for men before they are socialized, the moral order is ‘there’ as some form of ubiquitous set of meanings which newly-born children will be forced to accept as given and, indeed, will be expected to internalize in order to become members of their society. This view of society is very often a feature of the structuralist—functionalist model and its associated absolutist view of man. I agree with Jack Douglas21 when he argues that, until recently, sociologists have been committed to this absolutist view of man and society. Certainly, this viewpoint is explicit in Durkheim; it is the cornerstone of the positivist influence in social science. Rhetorical devices are, in this respect, supposed to be at the disposal of the larger social order. Hence, in addressing each other, men are merely reflecting the forms of address which they find in their culture, where culture is defined as a system of common understandings.

Within limits, this argument has certain force, although it does not enable us to really understand how men in interaction really go about constructing moral and social meanings. There is, in the concept of mutual and reciprocal conduct, a far larger area of indeterminacy than is allowed in the official doctrine. The construction of new meanings and the confirmation of old meanings is problematic, not certain or given. Granted that politicians, priests, lovers, capitalists, trade-union leaders, deviants, official definers, all use their own typical rhetorics which seem to be standardized for some typical routines. This does not imply that they are always rigidly adhered to, or that they are continuously utilized to reaffirm old meanings.

We have already spoken about the essential openness of language and what Mead and other symbolic interactionists call ‘breadth of perspective’.

Download

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