Weber’s “Essential Paradox of Social Action”: What Can Sociology of the Unintended Learn from Public Policy Analysis?

• Authors: Adriana Mica

Title variants

PL

“Paradoks działania społecznego” Webera Czego socjologia niezamierzonego może nauczyć się od analizy polityk publicznych?

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Within social sciences, the peculiarity of the sociological investigation of the unintended is the focus on paradoxical outcomes, and the analysis of these in relation to purposive social action. Although the analysis recurrently uses examples from public policy, if it comes to theory, the vocabulary employed speaks of contrarian and ironic effects of social action, or purposive social action, and not of social intervention. The inquiry thus arises: What can sociology of the unintended learn from public policy analysis? In order to answer this question, I look at framings and critical appraisal of Weber’s “essential paradox of social action” (Merton 1936) — i.e., the paradox of rational ascetism — in authors who are representative for sociology of the unintended and public policy of the unintended. The findings of the comparison and confrontation are synthesized in two main lessons for sociologists. The first stresses the need to include the structural and ideological circumstances in the analysis of paradoxes. The second indicates that the paradoxes are tricky because they might work as narrative sequences which have the tendency to focus the attention on the spectacular and ironic aspects of processes in the detriment of others.

PL

W obrębie nauk społecznych osobliwością socjologii w śledzeniu niezamierzonego jest koncentracja na paradoksalnych efektach oraz ich analiza w relacji do celowego działania społecznego.Mimo że w analizach wciąż używane są przykłady z zakresu polityk publicznych, od strony teoretycznej stosowane słownictwo odnosi się do sprzecznych i ironicznych efektów działania społecznego lub celowego działania społecznego a nie interwencji społecznej. Pojawia się więc pytanie: Czego socjologia niezamierzonego może nauczyć się od analizy polityk publicznych? W celu udzielenia odpowiedzi na to pytanie rozpatruję ujęcia i krytyki weberowskiego „paradoksu działania społecznego” — tj. paradoksu racjonalnego ascetyzmu — w pracach autorów reprezentujących socjologię niezamierzonego oraz analizę polityk publicznych niezamierzonego. Wnioski z tego porównania ujęte zostają w dwie „lekcje” dla socjologów. W pierwszej lekcji podkreśla się potrzebę włączenia do analizy paradoksów okoliczności strukturalnych i ideologicznych. W drugiej lekcji wskazuje się, że paradoksy bywają zdradliwe, gdyż funkcjonują jako sekwencje narracyjne kierujące uwagę kosztem innych na spektakularne i ironiczne aspekty procesów społecznych.

Keywords

PL

sociology of the unintended; public policy of the unintended; Max Weber; paradox of rational ascetism; Sam Sieber; Albert O. Hirschman

• Publisher: Instytut Profilaktyki Społecznej i Resocjalizacji UW
• Journal: Profilaktyka Społeczna i Resocjalizacja
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 23
• Pages: 71-95

Contributors

author

Adriana Mica

• Instytut Stosowanych Nauk Społecznych UW

References

• Baert, Patrick (1991) Unintended Consequences: A Typology and Examples. „International Sociology” 6 (2): 201-210.
• Beck, Ulrich, Wolfgang Bonss, Christoph Lau (2003) The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme. „Theory, Culture & Society” 20 (2): 1-33.
• Boudon, Raymond (1982) The Unintended Consequences of Social Action. London: Macmillan.
• Brooks, Harvey (1986) The Typology of Surprises in Technology, Institutions and Development. [in:] William C. Clark, R. E. Munn, eds., Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 325-350.
• Callon, Michel (1998) An Essay on Framing and Overflowing: Economic Externalities Revisited by Sociology. [in:] Michel Callon, ed., The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, pp. 244-269.
• Campbell, Colin (1982) A Dubious Distinction? An Inquiry into the Value and Use of Merton’s Concepts of Manifest and Latent Function. “American Sociological Review” 47 (1): 29-44.
• Cherkaoui, Mohamed (2007) Good Intentions: Max Weber and the Paradox of Unintended Consequences. Oxford: Bardwell Press.
• Coase, Ronald. H (1960) The Problem of Social Cost. “Journal of Law and Economics” 3: 1-44.
• Cowen, Tyler (1998) Do Economists Use Social Mechanisms to Explain? [in:] Peter Hedström, Richard Swedberg, eds., Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125-146.
• DeMuth, Christopher (2009) Unintended Consequences and Intended Non-Consequences. AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies.
• Elster, Jon (2007) Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Elster, Jon (2009) Alexis de Tocqueville: The First Social Scientist. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ferguson, Adam. (1966 [1767]) An Essay on Civil Society. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Fine, Gary Alan (2006) The Chaining of Social Problems: Solutions and Unintended Consequences in the Age of Betrayal. “Social Problems” 53 (1) : 3-17.
• Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Grabosky, Peter (1995) Counterproductive regulation. “International Journal of the Sociology of Law” 23 (4): 347-369.
• Granovetter, Mark (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. “American Journal of Sociology” 91 (3): 481-510.
• Gross, Matthias (2003) Sociologists of the Unexpected: Edward A. Ross and Georg Simmel on the Unintended Consequences of Modernity. “The American Sociologist” 34 (4): 40-58.
• Gross, Matthias (2010) Ignorance and Surprise. Science, Society, and Ecological Design. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Haraway, Donna (1991) Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. [in:] Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books, pp. 183-202.
• Hedström, Peter, Lars Udehn (2011) Analytical Sociology and Theories of the Middle Range. [in:] Peter Hedström, Peter Bearman, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25-47.
• Hirschman, Albert O. (1967) The Principle of the Hiding Hand. “The Public Interest” 6: 10-23.
• Hirschman, Albert O. (1977) The Passions and the Interests. Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Hirschman. Albert O. (1991) The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Cambridge, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Hood, Christopher, Guy Peters (2004) The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox?. “Journal of Public Administration Research” 14 (3): 267-282.
• Hoyle, Eric, Mike Wallace. 2008. Two Faces of Organizational Irony: Endemic and Pragmatic. “Organization Studies” 29 (11): 1427-1447.
• Lal, Deepak (2001) Unintended Consequences. The Impact of Factor Endowments, Culture, and Politics on Long-Run Economic Performance. Cambridge,d London: The MIT Press.
• Linares, Francisco (2009) Weak and Strong Unintended Consequences: Agent’s Rationality and Predictability of Outcomes in Systems of Action. “The Open Sociology Journal” 2: 1-9.
• Luhmann, Niklas, edited, with an Introduction, by William Rasch (2002) Theories of Distinction: Redescribing the Describtions of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Margetts, Helen, Perri 6, Christopher Hood, eds., (2010) Paradoxes of Modernization. Unintended Consequences of Public Policy Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Marx, Gary T. (1974) Ironies of Social Control: Authorities as Contributors to Deviance Through Escalation, Nonenforcement and Covert Facilitation. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association meetings, Toronto.
• Mennell, Stephen (1977) “Individual” Action and Its “Social” Consequences in the Work of Norbert Elias. “Human Figurations. Essays for Norbert Elias”. Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, pp. 99-109.
• Merton, Robert K. (1936) The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. “American Sociological Review” 1 (6): 894-904.
• Merton, Robert K. (1938) Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England. “Osiris” 4: 360-632.
• Merton, Robert K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
• Mica, Adriana, Arkadiusz Peisert, Jan Winczorek, eds., (2011) Sociology and the Unintended. Robert Merton Revisited. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien: Peter Lang.
• Michel, Robert (1968 [1915]) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies in Modern Democracy. New York: Free Press.
• Opp, Karl-Dieter (1979). The Emergence and Effects of Social Norms. A Confrontation of Some Hypotheses of Sociology and Economics. „Kyklos” 32 (4): 775-801.
• Parsons, Talcott (1966) The Structure of Social Action. A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. New York: The Free Press.
• Polanyi, Karl (1944) The Great Transformation. New York: Holt, Rinehart.
• Poole, Marshall Scott, Andrew H. van de Ven (1989) Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. “The Academy of Management Review” 14 (4): 562-578.
• Portes, Alejandro (2000) The Hidden Abode: Sociology as Analysis of the Unexpected: 1999 Presidential Address. “American Sociological Review” 65 (1): 1-18.
• Portes, Alejandro (2010) Economic Sociology: A Systematic Inquiry. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Rasch, William (2002) Introduction: The Self-Positing Society [in:] Luhmann, Niklas, edited, with an Introduction, by William Rasch, Theories of Distinction: Redescribing the Describtions of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 1-30.
• Roots, Roger I. (2004) When Laws Backfire: Unintended Consequences of Public Policy. “American Behavioral Scientist” 47 (11): 1376-1394.
• Rosen, Harvey S. (2002) Public Finance. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Schneider, Louis (1975) The Sociological Way of Looking at the World. New York, St. Louis, San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
• Schneider, Louis (1990) Paradox and Society: The Work of Bernard Mandeville. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
• Scott, James C. (1999) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
• Sieber, Sam (1981) Fatal Remedies. The Ironies of Social Intervention. New York: Plenum.
• Swedberg, Richard (2007) Max Weber’s Interpretive Economic Sociology. “American Behavioral Scientist” 50 (8): 1035-1055.
• Swedberg, Richard, Ola Agevall (2005) The Max Weber Dictionary. Key Words and Central Concepts. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Symonds, Michael, Jason Pudsey (2008) The Concept of “Paradox” in the Work of Max Weber. “Sociology” 42 (2): 223-241.
• Tenner, Edward (1997) Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Thompson, Michael, Richard Ellis, Aaron Wildavsky (1990) Cultural Theory. Boulder, Oxford: Westview Press.
• Turner, Bryan S. (2007) Introduction. [in:] Mahomed Cherkaoui, Good Intentions: Max Weber and the Paradox of Unintended Consequences. Oxford: Bardwell Press, pp. ix-xiii.
• Udehn, Lars (2002) The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism. “Annual Review of Sociology” 28: 479-507.
• van Krieken, Robert (1998) Norbert Elias. London, New York: Routledge.
• Van Parijs, Pierre (1982) Perverse Effects and Social Contradictions: Analytical Vindication of Dialectics?. “The British Journal of Sociology” 33 (4): 589-603.
• Vildawsky, Aaron (1980) The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London: Macmillan.
• Vildawsky, Aaron (1988) Searching for Safety. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
• Weber, Max. (1978 [1922]) Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Weber, Max (1985 [1905]) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin.
• Winczorek, Jan (2011) Why Do Procedures Have Unexpected Outcomes? [in:] Adriana Mica, Arkadiusz Peisert, Jan Winczorek, eds., Sociology and the Unintended. Robert Merton Revisited. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien: Peter Lang, pp. 307-334.