L’rUerweb.eecs.umich.edu/~ackerm/drafts/review/strauss.part2.pdf · 2008. 11. 9. · (Strauss,...
Transcript of L’rUerweb.eecs.umich.edu/~ackerm/drafts/review/strauss.part2.pdf · 2008. 11. 9. · (Strauss,...
-
Chapter
11
Negotiated
Order
andS
tructu
ralO
rdering
Differential
conceptualizationof
the“nature”
oforder
andchange
andtheir
relationshipsreflects
oneof
thegreat
dividesbetw
eenvarious
sociological
positionsand
traditions.O
rdertranslates
easilyand
frequentlyinto
stabilityand
structure,w
hilechange
translatesinto
instabilityand
interaction.E
verytheory
ofaction
haspronounced
implications
forhow
suchm
attersare
conceived.So,
inthis
concludingchapter
Iw
illfirst
outlinethe
Pragm
atist/interactionistposition
onorder
andchange,
including
my
earlierextension
ofit
throughthe
conceptof
“negotiatedorder.”
Then
Iw
illsuggest
some
implications
ofan
interactionisttheory
ofaction
forextending
stillfurther
theposition
representedby
what
hascom
eto
becalled
“thenegotiated-order
approach.”T
hedetailing
ofthese•
implications
shouldalso
serveas
arem
inderof
them
aterialsand
themes
alreadypresented.
First,Iw
illbrieflysum
marize
some
matters
discussedin
thebook.
After
adeliberately
autobiographicalintroduction
tothis
Prag
matist
derivedinteractionist
theoryof
action(acting),
alengthy
listof
assum
ptions
behindthat
theoryw
aspresented.
These
assumptions
arevery
use
fulfor
understandingthe
Chicago
interactionisttradition
asit
hasbeen
influencedby
Pragm
atism,
andlead
toa
theoryof
actionthat
embodies
‘‘
them.
My
formal
statement
ofthis
theoryis
builtaround
theconcept
oftrajectory
anda
setof
relatedconcepts.
All
ofthese,
includingalso
them
ethodologicalperspectiveand
theconceptof
“conditionalm
atrix,”take
intoaccount
theoverw
helmingly
important
temporality
inherentin
coursesofaction.
Major
topicsthatw
erethen
discussed—alw
aysin
terms
ofaction
andinteraction—
includedw
orkand
itsrelations
with
other-.
forms
ofaction,
thebody,
thoughtprocesses,
symbolizing,
socialw
orldsand
arenas,representation,
theinterplay
ofroutine
andcreative
action,•àn
dthe
relevanceof
theconcept
ofsocial
worlds
tounderstanding
and4stu
dyin
gcontem
porarysociety.
Consideration
ofthese
exemplifying
top
-
i’ieuuaL
eu
L’rU
er
anatru
ctura1
Urciering
247
icsp
rov
ided
anelaboration
ofthe
relativelyspare
initialpresentationc’f
theassu
mptio
ns
and
theoryof
action.
TH
EIN
TE
RA
CT
ION
IST
PO
SIT
ION
When
firstread
ing
Parsons
du
ring
my
grad
uate
stud
ent
years,I
rec’-.ognized
anassu
mptio
nof
histh
atclashed
head
-on
with
my
readin
gdf:
Dew
ey.P
arsonsseem
edto
believeth
atstability—
order—-w
asprim
ary’an
dth
atchange
was
secondary.F
orD
ewey
and
otherP
ragmatists,.
changew
astak
enfor
gran
tedas
centralbut
thedirections
itw
ould
takèJw
ereproblem
atic.T
hedirection
and
redirectionof
changedaction
were
problematic
inthe
senseth
atth
eyw
erenot
strictlydeterm
ined
.H
owever,,
theyw
ereaffected
byw
hat
Dew
eyan
dgenerally
most
peo
ple
callhire.
This
termstan
ds
forstability.
Insociology
itrefers
tothe
more
or,
lessstable
orslow
lychanging
socialentities,
suchas
institutions,orga.’.
nizations,social
classes,stratification
systems,
and
deepcu
ltural
ortional
valu
esB
utth
enagain,
thosestru
ctural
entitiesw
erereg
arded
br’
theP
ragm
atistsan
dthe
Chicago
interactionistsas
neith
erunch
angin
gho1
unchangeable,because
thosestru
ctures
themselves
areconstituted’
ofä-”
tion.H
ereis
Dew
ey’slan
guag
efor
this:
[T]he
permanent
andenduring
iscom
parative.T
hestablest
thingw
ecan
speakof
isnot
freefrom
conditionsset
toit
byother
things...
.The
rateof
-
changeof
some
thingsis
soslow
,oris
sorhythm
ic,that
thesechanges
haveall
theadvantages
ofstability
indealing
with
more
transitoryand
irregularhappenings—
ifw
eknow
enough..
..‘A
thing“absolutely”
stableand
unchangeablew
ouldbe
outof
therange
ofthe
principleof
actionand
reaction,ofresistanceand
leverageas
well
asof
friction....
[I]twould
haveno
applicability,no
potentialityof
useas
measure
andcontrol
ofother’
events.T
odesignate
theslow
erand
theregular
rhythmic
eventsstructure,
andthe
more
rapidand
irregularones
process...expresses
thefunction
ofone
inrespectto
theother.
[Also]
byliteralists
[structure]is
oftenconceived
-
ofas
arigid
framew
orkto
which
allchanges
must
accomm
odateth
emselves.
..
.Whatever
influencesthe
changesofother
thingsis
itselfchanged.T
heidea
ofan
activityproceeding
onlyin
onedirection,
ofan
unmoved
mover,
isa
survival..
.banishedfrom
science,but
remains
tohaunt
ph
ilosophy.
(Dew
ey1927,
pp.71—
73)
To
that
statemen
tof
sixtyyears
ago,now
compare
some
sentencesby
aco
ntem
porary
interactionistquoted
more
brieflyearlier:
:, TheInteractionist
Position
1:FO
rinteractionists,
structuresare
theenduring
temporal
conditionsof
sit--‘,uations.
They
may
betaken
forgranted
bythe
actorsan
d/o
rhidden
fromthem
..
.but structuresare
obdurateand
intrusiveand
mustbe
studiedand
“takeninto
account”in
thepragm
atistanalysesalong
with
socialprocesses.[S
]tructuresare
ultimately
basedin
thecom
mitm
entsof
individualactors
tocollective
action—to
work
ofsom
ekind—
beit
state-building,international
capitalistdevelopm
ent,social
movem
entorganizing,
drugcarteling,
ordoing
sociology.T
hatis.
..structures
must
haveboth
asocial
psychology(thatis
relentlesslysociological)
anda
larger-scaleorganization.
Neither
isadequate
without
theother,
andit
iscom
mitm
entto
collectiveaction
thatultim
atelystructures
sociallife.
(Clarke
1991,pp.
129—30)
The
Prag
matists
gaveto
theseearly
sociologists,an
dconsequently
their.
descen
dan
ts,a
firmphilosophic
basisfor
anan
tideterm
inist
sociology.A
llform
sof
determ
inism
(biological,cultural,
economic,
political,te
ch
nological,etc.)
arerejected
infavor
ofa
positio
nso
mew
here
betw
eenextrem
edeterm
inism
and
nondeterm
inism
.H
arvey
Farb
erman
(1991,pp.481-82)
hasrecently
termed
thisa
“softdeterm
inism
,”citing
Erving
Go
ffin
anan
dG
regoryS
toneas
advocatesof
thisposition.
But
theadjective
•soft
doesnot
reallycap
ture
thep
ersistent
Prag
matist/in
teractionist
po
si:,
tionon
determ
inism
acrossa
century.T
hisis
better
conveyedby
thew
ord
sof
aninteractionist
colleagueof
mine,
Leonard
Schatzm
an:
Ihold
toa
non-mechanistic
determinism
forhum
ansat
least;a
“determin
ist”position
inthe
sensethat
noaction
canoccur
without
oneor
more
conditionsfor
itsoccurrence.
There
canbe
noscience
without
conditionedaction
orprocess.
Biological,
class,geography
etc.determ
inisms
areold
andco
nceptually
crude...
.That
humans
createaction
undersom
econditions
andin
spiteofother
conditionsis
axiomatic
with
me.Is
nothuman
interpretationalso
conditioned?(Personal
comm
unication)
Inthis
sociologicalversion
ofthe
end
urin
gphilosophic
issueof
con
straint
versu
sfreedom
ofaction,
theaction
issh
aped
byconditions
but
intu
rnis
shap
edby
activeactors.
Thus,
onecan
sayyes,
theredefinitely
issocial
structu
re,but
itis
not
imm
utab
le,totally
unsh
apab
le,an
dcertainly
not
entirelydeterm
inin
gof
action.T
hisdom
inan
tin
teractionist
persp
ective
was
expressedin
ap
articularly
apt
ph
raseby
oneof
them
ost
imp
ortan
tof
second-generationC
hicagoans,E
verettH
ughes
([1962]1971),
who
assertedth
atin
stitutio
ns
sho
uld
bereg
arded
as“going
concerns,”in
terms
ofthe
changinginterests
and
com
mitm
ents
ofth
eirm
embers.
Therefore,alth
ough
seemingly
stablean
do
rdered
,in
stitutio
ns
shou
ldn
ot
bereified
becausethey
aresubject
tochange
thro
ugh
collectivein
teraction.
Ina
stilllater
versionof
thisperspective,
Barney
Glaser
(1968)an
dI
wro
teab
out
“structu
ralpro
cess”in
ord
erto
suggest
thein
terplay
be-
-
248N
egotiatedO
rderand
Structural
Ordering
..
Negotiated
Order
tween
structurean
dprocess. O
rsaid
anotherw
ay, we
were
signalingth
atstru
ctural,
indudin
gim
mediately
contextual,conditions
affectedin
teraction
but
alsothe
reverse.(See
thediscussion
onthe
conditionalm
atrixin
Chapter
2.)T
heiitheritors
ofthis
sociologicaltradition
stillw
ritein
thesam
ew
ayabout
therelationships
ofstructure
andprocess,
ofstability
andin
stabil
ity,of
orderand
disorder.A
nd
theseterm
srefer
toany
levelw
hethersocietal,
comm
unal,organizational,
suborganizational,or
evenin
teractional.
NE
GO
TIA
TE
DO
RD
ER
In1963,
my
colleaguesand
Ipublish
eda
pap
er(S
trauss,B
ucher,E
hr
lich,S
chatzman,
and
Sabshin
1963)about
the“negotiated
order”that
we
had
notedin
two
men
talhospitals.
Ayear
laterw
eoffered
am
orede
tailedversion
ofthis
concept(S
trauss,B
ucher,E
hrlich,S
abshin,and
Schatzm
an1964).
Itis
no
tsu
rprisin
gth
atthe
conceptw
asquickly
takenu
pby
interactionists,especially
thosein
terestedin
organizations.I
will
quotesom
erem
arks
about
neg
otiated
ord
erm
ade
by
anastu
tein
teractionist
theorist,D
avidM
aines,in
ord
erto
emphasize
theconcept’s
con
tinuityw
iththe
Chicago
traditio
n,
beg
un
around
thetu
rnof
thecen
tury
byT
homas’s
interestin
“socialorganization”
andlater
spelledout
inm
onograp
hic
formby
him
and
Znaniecki
(1918—1920).
Here
isM
aines’sassessm
ent:
The
traditionalsource
ofstrength
inthe
symbolic
interactionist perspectivehas
beenin
therealm
ofsocial
psychology..
..B
ycom
parison,sym
bolicinteractionists
generallyneglected
therealm
ofsocial organization
until the1950s. T
obe
sure,som
eindividuals
worked
within
Ihattradition
onp
rob
lems
of social organizationprior
tothe
1950s, but abasic
conceptual scheme
consistingof
organizingconcepts
andstatem
entsabout
howorganizations
operatew
aslacking.
Anselm
Strauss’publication
ofM
irrorsand
Masks.
([1959]1969)
may
havem
arkeda
turningpoint.
He
candidlyadvocated
them
ergingof social psychology
andsocial organization, arguing, forexam
ple,..,
thatidentities
cannotbe
understoodindependently
ofthe
organizationalcontexts
inw
hichthey
existand
thatsocial
organizationcannot
befu
ily’.
comprehended
without
anappreciation
ofthe
interpersonaldim
ensionàf
human
conduct.T
hem
ergingof
thesetw
oareas
hasbeen
acentral
theme,’ .i.
runningthrough
much
ofthe
subsequentw
orkby
Straussand
hiscolla
borators.
As
aresult
ofthat
work,
am
orefocused
perspectiveon
sócialorganization
beganto
emerge
inthe
1960s.B
ythe
endof
the1970s,
that,
perspectivedeveloped
intoa
systematic
framew
orkfor
thestudy
oforg
á
nizationsand
socialorders.
Itrepresentsthe
currentlydom
inantsuch
per
spectiveto
havebeen
bornfrom
thedom
ainassum
ptionsof
symbolic
interactionjsm
,and
itsfertility
canbe
measured
bythe
rapidlyincreasing
researchactivity
generatedby
it.T
hefram
ework
inquestion
hasbeen
termed
the“negotiated
orderp
er
spective.”Itrecognizes
andattem
ptsto
takeinto
accounttheim
portanceof
understandinginteraction
processesas
well
asthe
structuralfeatures
oforganizational
life.It
stressesthe
pointof
viewthat
oneof
theprincipal
ways
thatthings
getaccom
plishedin
organizationsis
throughpeople
ne
gotiatingw
ithone
another,and
ittakes
thetheoretical
positionthat
bothindividual
actionand
organizationa’constraint
canbe
comprehended
byunderstanding
thenature
andcontexts
ofthose
negotiations.(M
ainesand
Charleton
1985,pp.
271—72)
249
The
originalform
ulationof
theconcept
owed
itsorigin
toan
interp
retation
ofdetailed
fieldobservations
made
inthe
two
mental
hospitalsm
entionedearlier
(aprivate
hospitalan
dthe
acutew
ards
especiallyof
astate
hospital).A
sresearchers,
we
were
attemp
ting
tocap
ture
theflex
ibility
inthe
hospitals’division
oflabor
and
thesu
rprisin
gly
flexiblego
vern
ing
rulesof
actionin
thesein
stitutio
ns
Adecade
later,I
sum
marized
theoriginal
formulation
ofneg
otiated
ord
erin
thesew
ords:
1.W
estated
thatsocial
orderw
asnegotiated
order:in
theorganizations
studied,apparently
therecould
beno
organizationalrelationships
without
accompanying
negotiations.2.
Specificnegotiations
seemed
contingenton
specificstructural
condi
tions:w
honegotiated
with
whom
,w
hen,and
aboutw
hat.So
thenegotia
tionsw
erepatterned,
notaccidental
3.T
heproducts
ofnegotiation
(contracts,understandings,
agreements,
“rules,”and
soforth)
allhadtem
porallimits,for
eventuallythey
would
bereview
ed,reevaluated,
revised,revoked
orrenew
ed.4.
Negotiated
orderhad
tobe
worked
at,and
thebases
ofconcerted
actionneeded
tobe
continuallyreconstituted.
Not
onlyw
erenegotiations
continuallyterm
inated,but
newones
were
alsom
adedaily.
5.T
henegotiated
orderon
anygiven
daycould
beconceived
ofas
thesum
totalof
theorganization’s
rulesand
policies,along
with
whatever
agreements,
understandings,pacts,
contracts,and
otherw
orkingarrange
ments
currentlyobtained.
These
includeagreem
entsat
everylevel
ofthe
organization,of
everyclique
andcoalition,
andinclude
covertas
well
asovert
agreements.
6.A
nychanges
impinging
onthe
negotiatedorder-_w
hethersom
ethingord
inary
..
.or
whether
more
unusual.
..
—called
fornegotiation
orreappraisal.
This
meant
consequentchanges
inthe
negotiatedorder.
7.[T
hedaily
negotiationprocess]
notonly
allowed
thedaily
work
toget
donebut
alsoreacted
onthe
more
formalized
andperm
anentorganiza
-
250N
egotiatedO
rderand
StructuralO
rderingIm
plicationsC
oncerningO
rderand
Change
IMP
LIC
AT
ION
SC
ON
CE
RN
ING
OR
DE
RA
ND
CH
AN
GE
tionalrules,
policies,and
establishedconventions
andunderstandings.
Inturn,
thelatter
servedto
setthe
limits
andsom
edirections
ofnegotiation.
What
was
omitted
[fromour
firstform
ulationof
thenegotiated
orderw
as]actors’
theoriesof negotiation
[and]detailing
of negotiationsubprocesses.
Hence.
.no
explicitspecifying
of ‘conditionsand
consequencesassociated
with
thesesubprocesses..
.now
orkingout
ofa
paradigmatic
analysisin
terms
of structural contextsand
negotiationcontexts.
.. virtually
noreferences
tothe
optionsfor
alternativesto
negotiation:coercion,
persuasion,m
anipulation
of contingencies,andso
on. Issuesrelating
torules,norm
s, andthe
likew
erehandled
explicitly,butothers,
relatingto
power, coalition, politics,
andthe
like,w
eretouched
ononly
implicitly.
(Strauss1978,
pp.5—
7)
With
thosequotations
inm
ind,let
uspose
thefollow
ingquestion:
Whathas
beenadded
inthe
chaptersof
thisbook
ona
theoryof
actionto
thenegotiated-order
approach?A
listingand
briefdiscussion
ofsom
e
major
pointsshould
serveto
make
more
recognizablethe
implications
of
thistheory
ofaction
forthe
issueof
“order,”at
variouslevels
oforg
ani
zationaland
interactionalcom
plexity.
1.Im
plicationsfor
SocialO
rder.T
hevarious
interactionalprocesses—
negotiation,persuasion,
manipulation,
education,threat,
andactual
co
ercion—w
illeachhave
different salience, beof
greateror
lesssignificance
.
forparticular
instancesof any
socialorder.
Thus,
governments
ofsom
ena
tion-statesrely
principallyon
varioustypes
offorce
andthe
threatof
1;force,
but
evenso
theym
akem
uchuse
ofpersuasion,
propaganda,and
education,including
socializationof
children.A
lso,certain
forms
of.ne
gotiationare
absolutelyrequisite
forthe
governanceto
bem
aintained
with
relativestability.
Conversely,
evena
“nationof
laws”
andrelative
democracy,
suchas.
theU
nitedS
tatesof A
merica, obviously
isnot free
ofgovernm
ental use.o
f.
coercionor
manipulation
ofcitizens
andof
institutionslike
thepress.
As’
isw
ellunderstood
bythose
who
havebattled
tom
aintainthe
Am
erican.;
Billof
Rights,
theinevitably
changingconditions
ofnational
andlocal
life-
necessitatestrenuous
effortsand
shrewd
interactionalstrategies
ino
rdei
tom
aintaincivil
rights—let
aloneto
extendthese
rightsto
groupspie-’
viouslydenied
orshortchanged: blacks,
wom
en,children,
andm
àieé-..
centlythe
disabled.W
hatis
trueabout
thesalience
ofdifferent
com
ia’.
tionsof
interactionalprocesses
fornations
isequally
soat
other,level4
f.,
organizationalscale.
As
justone
example:
Goffm
an’s“total
institu
tion
(1961a)that
areseem
inglyall
coercionand
manipulation
turn
outalso,tp
251
havenegotiations
overdegrees
ofpersonalfreedom
.G
offman
makes
thisclear
inhis
discussionof
“theunderlife
ofa
publicinstitution”
(1961b),although
mostreaders
seemto
havem
issedthe
importofhis
qualificationof
totalinstitutions
2.Im
plicationsforA
rrangements
andthe
ShapingofC
onditions.In
the
oreticalterm
s,w
hatis
thepru
nary
significanceof
theseinteractional
processes?F
irstof
all,they
constitutenecessary
basesfor
making
thearrangem
entsthat
allowcontinued
interactionto
takeplace.
Without
ar
rangements,
therew
ouldbe
noroutines,
nostandardized
modes
ofco
llective
action,w
hetherrecurrentor
episodic.Innovation
ism
adepossible
bysuch
arrangements,
fashionedeither
onan
adhoc
orm
orelong-range
basis.T
hevarious
interactionalprocesses
areintegral
alsoto
shapingco
nditions
(theavoiding,
preventing,adapting,
manipulating,
monitoring,
changing)at
everylevel
ofthe
conditionalm
atrix.T
hisis
astrue
ofthe
actionsof
persons,w
hichafter
alldo
nottake
placein
interactionalv
acuum
s,as
ofcollective
action.Insofar
asconditions
donot
entirelyco
nstrain
actionbut
arereacted
to,w
eneed
topersuade,
teach,coerce,
and/o
rnegotiate
with
others,w
hetherthey
arepersons,
groups,or
or
gariizations,including
theirrepresentatives.
3.Im
plicationsfor
Body
Processesin
Relation
toSocial
Order
andS
ymbol
izing.The
bodiesof
actorsare
implicated
inthese
interactionalprocesses
asobjects
asw
ellas
agents.So
arethe
variousbody
processes.C
on
sequently
thereare
nosocial
ordersat
anylevel
oforganizational
scalew
herebodies
areirrelevant
orunim
portant.(T
hinkof
slaveryand
racialdiscrim
ination,or
ofthe
nearlyuniversal
societaldom
inanceby
males.)
The
conceptsof
“thebody”
and“body
processes”include
“them
ental.”N
om
ind-bodydualism
canbe
countenanced.So
thoughtprocesses
andselves
areincluded
inthis
calculusof
thebody’s
continualsignificance.
Moreover,
selvesexist
insym
bolicuniverses;
thatis,
symbolizing
isin
tegral
toaction.
Bodies
ordinarilydo
notjust
reactto
stimuli;
theyact
symbolically.
To
put
thism
etaphorically,bodies
surviveonly
insofaras
theybreathe,
more
orless
unconsciously,w
ithinan
embracing
symbolic
atmosphere.
An
additionaland
relatedim
plicationis
thatthey
existand
actand
areacted
uponhistorically.
Individualand
collectivehistory
af
fectscurrent
actionand
identities,affecting
inturn
theirfutures.
Sobiog
raphiesare
ofcrucial
importance.
Sym
bolizingis
integraltointeraction
aroundissues,as
itisto
allaction.T
heprim
aryarena
pro
cess_”d
efu,jg
ofiSsues”__inm
.Lediately
suggestscontests
overthe
rightsof
ownership
overclassifications
andpersp
ectives.K
ennethB
urke(1937)
some
yearsago
offereda
brilliantlyconceived
dictionaryof
terms
tocharacterize
them
assiveshifts
insy
mb
olizatjo
-
dna
tructuraiurciering
Implications
Concerning
Order
andC
hange253
when
largesocial
ordersundergo
radicalchanges.
He
signalizedthe
ini
tialdisaffection
with
theold
orderand
thenthe
development
ofnew
comm
itments
andidentities
aroundnew
symbols.
The
same
symbolic
shiftsoccur
ona
lessradical
andm
assivescale
when
onlyparts
ofsocial
orderschange
andare
replacedby
newer
perspectives,stances,
vocab
ularies,
anddifferent
emphases
oninteractional
forms,
andw
ithap
pear
anceof
differentgenerational,
gender,racial,
ethnic,and
otheridentities.
4.Im
plicationsforthe
SeveralG
eneralO
rders.In
thesecond
chapter,I
brieflydiscussed
theconcept
of“orders”
andtheir
subtypes:spatial,
temporal,
technological,w
ork,sentim
ental,m
oral,and
estheticorders.
These
areconvenientanalytic
terms
forconceptualizing
clustersofgeneral
conditionsthat
actorshave
totake
intoaccount
when
interacting—or
donot,to
theirperil.A
ctionand
interactionare
playedout,for
instance,overtim
eand
incertain
spaces.H
owever,
thespecifics
ofspace,
time,
work,
sentiment,
andother
typesof
conditionsvary
locallyin
accordancew
ithprecisely
when,
where,
how,
andw
hythe
interactionoccurs.
Insom
esituations,
itisthe
schedulingthatis
irritatinglyconstraining
andin
othersituations
itis
thedeadlines
orthe
pacingof
actionsthat
needto
bem
anaged.L
ocally,too,
oneor
anotherorder
may
behighly
significant,if
onlytem
porarily:too
small
aspace
tow
orkin,
toom
uchoversensifivity
ofyour
co-workers,
ortoo
greata
moral
hazardto
risk.Interactional
processesare
necessaryfor
shapingany
ofthese
clustersand
subclustersof
conditions.
5.Im
plicationsfor
theM
ultiplicityof
Perspectivesand
Resulting
Contin
gencies.E
ndemic
tointeraction
isthe
probabilityof
discrepanciesbe
tween
theperspectives
ofsom
eparticipants
inany
interaction.T
hism
ul
tiplicityofperspectives
derivesfrom
differentialstatuses,
experiences,and
mem
bershipsin
groups,organizations,
andsocial
worlds.
Perspectives
profoundlyinfluence
theactions
andinteractions,
thestances
takenw
ithrespect
tothe
making
anddiscarding
ofarrangem
ents,and
thepreferred
forms
ofinteractional
process(w
hichanyhow
areperceived
asstrategies
bythe
interactants),bethey
manipulation,negotiation,persuasion,
orthe
threatofcoercion.
Inand
ofitself,the
multiplicity
ofperspectives
ensuresa
richnessof
interactionajflow
,because
representativenessvaries
frominteraction
tointeraction
andw
ithinthe
interactionitself.
Multiplicity
alsoguarantees
thatcourses
ofaction,
exceptperhaps
quitebrief
ones,w
illhave
elements
ofsurprise,
willproduce
theirow
ncontingencies
quiteaside
fromthe
externalones.
6.Im
plicationsfor
SocialW
orldsand
Their
Mem
bers.W
ithrespect
toperspectives
andrepresentativeness
incontem
porarysociety,
thep
artici
pationsin
socialw
orldsand
subworlds
areparticularly
significant.O
rga
nizationsare
usuallycom
posedof
mem
bersw
hoare
drawn
fromm
orethan
onesocial
world
orperhaps
evenm
orethan
onesubw
orld.A
sw
ehave
seen,the
social-world
basesare
oftenexplicit b
ut
theycan
alsoenter
intointeraction
implicitly,
silently,unnoted.
This
canbe
allthe
more
so,since
eachinteractant
belongsto
andis
orientedtow
ardvarious
socialw
orldsand
subworlds,
some
ofthem
unknown
tothe
otherinteractants.
Itfollow
sthat
arrangements
andm
odesof
interactioncan
bedeeply
affectedby
thosem
emberships
andthe
correspondingidentities
ofthe
mem
bers.
7.Im
plicationsfor
lrenas.M
ultiplicityof
perspectivesabout
coursesof
actionis
likelyto
bringabout
discussionand
debate,if
notdow
nrightargum
ent.W
hendisagreem
entsare
ona
largescale,
with
many
issuesopen
tocontest,then
thisinteraction
islikely
tobe
referredto
asan
arena.In
thisbook,
Ihave
extendedthat
conceptto
coverconflicts
overissues
arisingat any
scaleof
organization. Forexam
ple, families
andfriendships
founderover
persistentdifferences
ofissues;
theyalso
manage
tobe
maintained,
andsuch
disagreements
aresurm
ountedthrough
oneor
anotheror
combinations
ofinteractional
processes.
8.Im
plicationsforO
rderand
Disorder.
The
existenceand
evolutionof
multiple
perspectivesand
consequentlyof
arenasdoes
notimply
atotally
changeablesocial
unit.O
rderand
disorderexist
coterminously.
Of
course,order
canbe
perceivedfrom
differentstandpoints,
sothat
oneperson’s
ordercan
beanother’s
breakdown
oforder
(“disorder”or
“diso
rgan
ization”).
While
some
perceivedisorder
inA
merican
societybecause
ofw
idespreadbirth
controland
legalizedabortion,
othersfirm
lybelieve
societalorder
isenhanced
becauseof
those“hum
anepractices.”
Or
an
otherexam
ple:T
hecivilw
arcurrently
ragingin
Yugoslavia
representsto
many
non-Yugoslavs, and
presumably
tom
anyY
ugoslaviancitizens
also,a
breakdown
ofthe
nation-statebut
toothers
thew
arrepresents
apath
tom
uchpreferred
socialorders
inthe
formof
severalbreakaw
aynation-
statesbased
inhistorically
distinctiveethnic,
religious,and
politicaltra
ditions. Even
inthe
midstof
ashattering
eventthatm
ostparticipantsand
observersm
ightagree
representsdisorder,
them
assflight
fromP
arisas
theN
aziarmy
approachedthatcity
in1941,even
thisseem
inglycom
pletecollapse
ofcivic
ordercontained
elmen
tsof
order,albeit
atdifferent
organizationallevels.
Surely
itm
adesense
forsom
epeople
toflee
Paris.
Some
Parisians
wisely
chosefeasible
destinationsand
made
arrange
ments
form
eetingfriends
orkin
inthe
eventof
gettingseparated,
andso
on.Interactional
processescertainly
were
takingplace
then—som
eeffec
-
254N
egotiatedO
rderand
StructuralO
rderingThe
Role
ofMatrix
Conditions
tivelyresulting
inthe
savingof
lives,preserv
ing
ofresources,
and
main
tainingof
family
contact.
I’RO
CE
SS
UA
LO
RD
ER
ING
What
thendoes
allofthis
discussionad
dup
toin
terms
ofthe
concepts
oforder
andchange?
Isorder
only“negotiated
order”or
isit
something
more?
Aquick
reviewof
theoriginal
usageof
thisterm
will
showthat
it
referredto
theoverall
orderof
mental
hospitals,and
perhapsof
most
hospitalsin
general(S
trausset
al.1963,
1964).L
ater,in
my
bookon
negotiations(S
trauss1978),
Iw
asconcerned
with
spellingout
andarg
u
ingfor
thecentral place
ofnegotiation
inhum
anaffairs, and
inrelation
to
socialorder.
This
argument
didnot
precludethe
roleof
otherprocesses,
andindeed
theycould
beseen
operatingin
conjunctionw
ithnegotiation
inthe
variousinstances
oftypes
ofnegotiation
exploredin
that book.Y
et
Idid
notthere
addressanalytically
howthe
variousprocesses
combined
or,as
here,their
relationshipsto
otherphenom
ena.M
eanwhile
theterm
negotiatedorder
hasdeveloped
acareer
ofits
own,
aftersom
eyears
ofuse,
mainly
bysym
bolicinteractionists,
coming
to
standfor
flexibleorganizational
arrangements,
thefluidity
ofoverall
in
teractionalpatterns
atany
levelof
scale,and
thatsocial
ordersare
forms
ofactivity:
Apropos,
theastructural
bias[of
which
symbolic
interactiomsm
issom
etim
esaccusedi,
andto
thecontrary,Sym
bolicInteraction.
..has
createda
negotiatedapproach
tosocial order,atalllevels
of organizationalscale, thatfundam
entallyhas
changedthe
way
we
conceiveof
allinstitutions
(seeespecially
Strauss1978).
(Farberman
1991,p.481)
Given
therhetorical
historyof
theconcept
ofnegotiated
order,it
may.
betoo
lateto
substitutea
newone,
but
Iw
illattem
ptthis.
Isuggest.tw
q..
neww
ordsin
combination:
processualordering.
My
useof
av
erb—
ord
er
ing—instead
ofthe
usualnoun
ism
eantto
emphasize
thecreative
:or
constructiveaspect of
interaction,the“w
orkingat”
and“w
orkingouto
f”.
orderingin
theface
ofinevitable
contingencies,sm
alland
large.ThiS
same
conceptionis
embodied
inE
verettH
ughes’sim
ageryof
institu
tioni
as“going
concerns,”noted
afew
pagesago,
andof
courseby
thei’rg
-1
matists.T
heG
erman
sociologist Hans
Joas(1992)
hasrecently
hig
hlig
hted
.
thisem
phasison
creativityby
theA
merican
Pragm
atistsand
theearly.
Chicago
interactionists.T
hisconcept
ofprocessual
orderingof
creativityis
meant
toem
brace
255
even
1m
aintopic
discussedin
thisbook,
andof
coursem
anym
ore.If
elaboratedthrough
furtherresearch
andthought,
thisconcept
hasthe
potentialfor
developingw
hatis
manifestly
stilla
verycrude
theoreticalschem
efor
understandingw
hatis
involvedin
anytype
ofordering.
Yet
thisleaves
unanswered
thequestion
ofthe
relationshipsbtw
eenthis
newconcept
(processualordering)
andthe
olderone
(negotiatedorder).
Itis
stillm
ybelief
thatthough
negotiationis
otilyone
ofthe
interacrionalprocesses,
itm
ustbe
am
ajorC
ontributorto.any
socialor
dering.A
srem
arkedearlier,
evenpredom
inantlycoercive
ordersulti
mately
requireand
producenegotiation,
andlots
ofit.
This
takesplace
notonly
among
theoppressors
themselves
asw
ellas
among
theo
ppressed,
but
alsobetw
eenboth.
The
same
istrue
ofpredom
inantlym
a-.nipülative
orders,since
them
anipulatorsare
likelyto
needallies
who
inturn
will
expectsom
ething.in
exchangefor
theirservices
orS
upport.E
xchanging,trading
off,bargaining
wheeling
anddealing,
com
pro
mis
ing,power
brokering,engaging
incollusion,
andeven
coerciveneg
otiat
ingare
threadedthroughout
theinteractions
aroundspace,
time,
wrk
,sen
timen
t_resu
lting
inthe
reificationsthat
arecom
monly
referredto
ascivil
orsocial
orders.V
How
ever,more
generallythe
conceptofnegotiatedorder
was
designedto
refernotm
erelyto
negotiationand
negotiativeprocesses.
Italsopoints
tothe
lackof
fixityof
Socialorder,
itstem
poral,m
obile,and
unstablecharacter,
andthe
flexibilityof
interactantsfaced
with
theneed
toact
throughinteractional
processesin
specificlocalized
situationsw
hereal
thoughrules
andregulations
existneverthejesa
theseare
notnecessarily
preciselyprescriptive
orperem
ptoriiycO
nstraflzg.M
yintent
incoining
theconcept
ofprocessual
orderingis
notm
erelyto
capturethe
same
atthbutesof
interactionbut
toextend,
deepen,and
make
possiblea
more
detailedunderstanding
ofnegotiated
orders.V
TH
EN
EC
ES
Sfly
OF
PR
OC
ES
SU
AL
OR
DE
RIN
GA
ND
TH
EF
OU
ND
AT
ION
AL
RO
LE
OF
MA
TR
IXC
ON
DIT
ION
S
This
sectionw
illconsist
ofa
simple
example
thatis
designedto
bepersuasively
instru
ctive
andto
leadto
anadditional
andim
portantth
eoretical
point.C
onsiderthe
characteristicsof
am
oreor
lesscom
pletelyroutinized
thoughcom
plexset
ofprocedures:
routinesurgery.
Inthis
typeof
surgery,every
procedurehas
beenso
oftenpracticed
thathazardis
minim
aland
contingenciesare
preparedfor
with
additionallyw
ell-tried
procedures.T
heequipm
entis
familiar
and“in
order.”B
eforethe
actualsurgery,patients
havebeen
preparedby
standardprocedures,and
-
256N
egotiatedO
rderand
StructuralO
rderingThe
RoleofM
atrixC
onditions
aftersurgery
theyare
takencare
ofby
equallyroutine
proceduresboth
in
theoperating
roomand
inthe
postopw
ard.A
lltheactors
inthis
drama—
physician(s),nurses, and
others—know
theirw
ell-rehearsedparts.
Given
nom
ajorcontingencies,
everythingproceeds
smoothly
andthere
isno
likelihoodof
disagreement
overeither
medical
ornursing
carepro
ce
dures.T
hisunruffled
pictureof
aroutinized
orderis
completely
deceptive.
History
isblotted
outby
ahighly
focusedpresent.
The
contentioushis-
toryof
antisepsisis
totallyin
thebackground,
forantiseptic
procedures
aretaken
completely
forgranted.
The
jurisdictionalarena
battlesover
*
who
shouldcontrol
theanesthesia
alsois
shroudedin
pasthistory
(per
hapsrem
embered
bythe
anesthesiologistfrom
hisor
herstudent
years
when
thelegendary
strifew
asinvoked.)
The
surgicaltechnology—
both
theprocedures
andthe
equipment—
alsohave
theirhistories:
Sociologi
callythese
arerelevant
tothe
surgicalaction
butordinarily
noneof
the
actorsnotices
them.
Backgrounded
alsoare
items
fromother
levelsof
theconditional
ma-
;
trix:for
instance,the
differentialtraining
ofeach
typeof
professional,or
theusual
highdegree
ofstatus,
privilege,and
power
ofthe
surgeons
within
thehospital
andthe
comparable
accessibilityof
theirresources.
I
couldcontinue
tüs
listfor
quitea
while—
including,for
instance,that
surgeryand
surgeonsare
repletew
ithsym
bolism(for
instance,rep
re
sentingthe
epitome
ofskilled
andlife-saving
medical
work),
imagery
of
magic, aw
e, anxiety, bodilyvulnerability,
andpotential
deathheightened
byfrequent
visibilityin
bothcom
mon
andm
ediadiscourse.
Each
and
everyprocedure
takenfor
grantedtoday
hasits
historyas
doeach
ofthe
participatingprofessions
and“the”
hospitalitself
(seeW
iener,F
ager-
haugh,S
trauss,and
Suczek
1979).So
doa
fewim
ponderablesthat
mightjust
haveentered
thisparticular
surgicalepisode.
Suppose,
forexam
ple,that
thesurgeon
isJew
ishor
an
African
Am
erican.T
odaythat
makes
nodifference
whatever
inthe
in
teractionaround
thepatient,
butconsider
what
thatinteraction
might
havelooked
likew
henJew
sand
African
Am
ericansw
erefirstbecom
ing
surgeonsor
asw
omen
noware
increasinglydoing.
The
pointcan
be
underlinedby
notinganother
statusthat
iscurrently
changingand
en
teringthe
surgicaltheater
andsurgical
wards:
The
statusof
patien
ts
and/o
rsurgeons
with
HIV
isan
issueunder
debateand
scrutiny, making’
many
ordinarilyroutine
operatiQns
anythingbut
completely
routine.
Also
onem
orecluster
ofconditions
ofprim
eim
portance:the
masØ
industrialenterprises—
pharmaceutical,
medical
supply,and
mediçal
equipment
especially—w
ithoutw
hichcontem
porarym
edicalpractiçç
would
beinconceivable. T
heindustries
areparalleled
within
thehosp
jal
bydepartm
entsand
specializedpersonnel:
pharmacy,
pharmacists,.ajM
257
pharm
acolo
gist
5;central
supplydepartm
entsand
theirw
orkers;bio
technicians
andtheir.staffs.
All
playtheir
background.roleseven
when
sur
geryand
itstreatm
entare
uneventfuland
routine.W
hensurgery
ism
orecom
plexor
exceedinglyintricate,
thenthe
kindsof
conditionsand
contingendesthat
canaffect
thecourse
ofinteraction
greatlyincrease
and,analytically
speaking,are
much
more
visible.T
heprocessual
orderingthen
ism
uchm
oreevident.
Italso
existsfor
routinesituations
andactions;
itisjust
lessevident.
Ifthis
isso
forsm
allprojects
likeaccepting
apatientfor
surgeryand
seeinghim
orher
througha
courseof
surgicaltreatm
ent,think
ofw
hatisinvolved
inthe
processualordering
ofa
largeproject,
anorganization
ofany
size—or
anentire
nation-state!A
nim
portantim
plicationof
thisexam
pleabout
surgeryand
itsex
tension
toless
routineordering
isthat
theconditional
matrix
entersinto
theordering
inoften
completely
unnotedbut
essentialw
ays.Som
eare
soindirectin
theirinfluence
thatperhapsonly
aresearcher
cantake
thetim
eand
energyand
possessthe
requisiteskills
totrack
theirconditional
paths.In
sayingthis,Iam
leadingup
tothe
pointthat
matrix
conditionsare
foundatio
lthroughout
theprocessual
orderingthat
resultsin
socialorders.
This
isa
somew
hatdifferent
butrelated
pointthat
Ihave
oftenm
adeelsew
here(cf.S
trauss1985;C
orbjrtand
Strauss
1988;seealso
Becker
1982;M
étraux1991;
Star
1991);nam
ely,that
actionsessential
togetting
work
accomplished
arefrequently
invisibleto
anyonew
hois
abystander
orw
hoonly
seespart
ofthe
work
process.T
hisrelative
invisibilityis
som
etim
esdeliberately
furtheredby
thosew
horeceive
orretain
them
ostbenefit
fromthe
invisibility,so
that“this
isa
profoundlypolitical
pro
cess”(Star
1991,p.
281;see
alsoF
larroway
1989).In
theexam
pleabove,
itisthe
surgeonsw
hocontinue
togetthe
mostm
oneyand
prestigerather
thanany
ofthe
many
subsidiaryW
orkersw
houltim
atelym
akerecovery
r:from
surgerypossible;
butit
isthe
politicalskills
ofthe
medical
pro
fession
thathaveensured
continuedeconom
icand
occupationaldom
inanceY
etthe
emphasis
onthe
power
anddom
inanceaspects
oflargely
unrec
:ognized
actors,although
useful,oughtnot
topreem
ptthe
more
inclusiveissue—
_thatto
understandthe
creationformafion
maintainm
g..stsbijty-
andch
angin
g..ch
angeal
natureofany
order,the
interlockingim
pactsof
conditions[including
them
oral(A
ddelson1990)]
atvariousm
atrixlevels
needto
berecognized,
orat
leastsom
ewhat
apprehended.O
therwise
justiceis
notdone
tothe
complexity
ofthe
processualordering
ofsocial
orders.T
heinteractjonlstview
oforder
isthat
itis
created,and
ism
aintainedor
:changed
indesired
directionsthrough
action.O
rder(ing)is
notsom
ethingthat
isto
beunderstood
onlyin
terms
ofconcepts
ofeffective
comm
unjcation
(Lyotard)
orthe
dominant
influenceofco
nsep
us
(Haberm
as)and
surelynot
bythe
people-lessabstractions
ofvarious
typesof
systems
-
prde—D
isorder,Stability—
Instability,andC
hange259
eU
udL
eU
iiraeraria
tructu
ra1
Ordering
theory(L
uhman).
What
Iamasserting
isnecessary—
atleastim
pliedinthc
interactionisttheory
ofaction—
isconsideration
ofthe
collectivew
orkiri.out
ofordering,
involvingself-interactive
actorsand
thevarious
inte
ra-.
fiveprocesses.
[SeeB
ecker(1986,
pp.11—
13)for
anotherrecent
phrasingof
thispoint;
seealso
Gerson
(Forthcom
ing)for
aw
onderfullydeta
ilddem
onstrationof
itin
histracing
ofthe
evolutionof
biologicaltheories’
andresearch.]
Hence
theterm
processualordering
Hence
alsoif
wear
tobe
accurate,w
em
ust
thin
kof
ath
eory
ofacting
rather
thana
theo
ry’ó
faction.
Inthis
book,trajectoryhas
beenthe
simunarizing
conceptfor
thi4
.interactionist
theory.
OR
DE
R-D
ISO
RD
ER
,S
TA
BIL
ITY
-INS
TA
BIL
ITY
,A
ND
CH
AN
GE
,.
This
conceptand
theassum
ptionson
which
itrests
(see,respectively,
Chap
ters2
and1)
haveone
lastim
plicationpertaining
tothe
issueof.J
orderand
changethat
was
touchedon
above.There
Inoted
theopposing
stancesof
Parsons,
thefunctionalist,
andthe
Pragm
atists/interactionistson
thatissue.
Ifyou
examine
closelyD
ewey’s
argument
inthose
same
pages,you
cansee
thecom
plexityof
thisissue.
The
openingphrase
ofD
ewey’s
statement
“theperm
anentand
enduringis
comparative”
set
thefram
eof
hisargum
ent.H
eis
balancingthe
prioritiesof
stabilityand
thoseof
change:som
etimes
thereis
anadvantage
inem
phasizingstab
ility,
but
notalw
aysor
forall
purposes.D
ewey’s
Pragm
atistperspective
leadsto
aprim
aryfocus
onthe
interactionbetw
eenhum
ansas
activeagents
andrelatively
stableconditions
(or“structure”)
andbetw
eenthe
former
andcontingencies
asw
ell.So
heis
alsoem
phasizingthe
interac
tionbetw
eenthe
routine(stable)
andthe
novel(change),
theroutine
providinga
nondeterministic
framew
orkfor
action,which
inturn
canbe
affectedby
actorsand
theiractions.
(This
same
positionw
asexplored
inC
hapter8,
concerningthe
interplayof
theroutine
andthe
novel,but
statedin
sociologicalterm
s.)T
heearly
Chicago
interactionistsw
ouldnot
haveread
thisparticular
passageof
Dew
ey’sbut
surelyhad
absorbedits
generalthrust
froma
readingof
hisprevious
writings.
The
analysisofT
homas
andZ
naniecki(1918—1920)
centeredaround
theconceptualcouplet
ofsocial
organizationand
socialdisorganization.
This
was
theirterm
inologyfor
socialorder
andsocial
disorder.B
oththey
andsociologists
fromother
traditionshave
tendedto
equatestability
with
orderand
instabilityw
ithchange.
(Though
thosesam
einteractionist
au
thorsem
phasizedthat
socialdisorganization
couldbe
acondition
forindividual
andcollective
creativity.)T
hisseem
sreasonable,b
ut
thispair
ingdoes
notfit
well
with
my
theoryof
action.M
yreasoning
isas
follows.
The
basicinteractionist
assumptions,
plus
observations, suggest
atleast
aprelim
inary
lineof
thinkingth
atrefuses
toreify
anyof
theseterm
s.In
fact,it
rejectsthe
conceptof
“disorder”since
thena
dichotomy
isassum
edbetw
eenorder
andchange.
This
interac
tionst
lineof
thinkingem
phasizesthe
activityof
“defining.”W
hetherevents
andinstitutions
seemrelatively
unchangingor
rapidlychanging
issurely
am
atterof
differentialperspectives
thataffect perceptions
ofpar
ticularactors
atparticular
times
andplaces
andin
particularsituations.
What
isone
actor’srapidly,
evendrastically
changingw
orldis
another’srelatively
unchanging,stable
world.
Ifboth
actorsagree,
itm
ayonly
bethat
althoughtheir
experiencesand
perceptionsdo
infact
differm
arkedly,
nonethelessthe
convergenceof
definitionis
profoundlyaffected
byperspective
asrelated
tothe
particularitiesof
time,
place,and
situation.P
erspectives,experiences,
andselective
perceptionall
havean
interre
latedbearing
uponhow
personsand
collectivitiesdefine
andco
nseq
uen
tiallyact
toward
events.Y
ouw
illundoubtedly
findthat
lastassertion
noncontestable,if
seemingly
banal.A
more
radicalstatem
entm
ightbe
thatthere
isno
surefirew
ayto
provethe
degreeof
changeor
stabilitycharacterizing
agiven
place,tim
e,or
situation,no
matter
howscientific
theclaim
may
beabout
thecriteria
forassessing
orm
easuringit.
Scien
fistsalso
haveperspectives
andtheir
definitionsof
change-stabilityare
frequentlyfound
debatableby
colleagues,suspect
bylaypersons,
andlater
generationsw
illsurely
revisetheir
definitionsand
estimates.
Perhaps
noone
would
disagreew
iththe
generalstatem
entthat
some
thingsare
changingrapidly
while
othersare
changingslow
ly—leaving
asidew
hichspecific
onesbelong
toeach
set.A
sD
ewey
wrote,
“therate
ofchange
ofsom
ethings
isso
slow.
..that
thesechanges
haveall
theadvantages
ofstability
indealing
with
more
transitoryhappenings—
ifw
eknow
enough”(1927,p.
71).H
isstatem
entapplies
notonly
toscien
fistsbut to
everyactor
inthis
world
ofours—
thoughnot,alas, his
proviso.T
hekey
questionsthen
forevery
actorare,
What
ischanging,
what
aspectof
it,in
what
directionand
atw
hatrate?
And
sohow
dothese
affectm
e(or
us)and
howshall
I(w
e)act?
Isthe
world
“goingto
hellin
ahandbag”
oris
itravishingly
andrefreshingly
changingfor
thebetter?
The
world
referredto
cannotm
eaneverything
but
implies
some
implicit
orexplicit
ranking:Som
echanges
areview
edas
more
essentialto
theactor’s
definitionof
changeor
stability,and
inevitablyw
ithreference
toparts
ratherthan
thetotality
ofthe
symbolized
world.
Sothe
issueis
notw
hethersocial
scientists,or
anyoneelse,
canassess
changeand
itsproperties
accuratelyr
evenapproxim
ately.Social
scientists,Ireason,
donothave
tosolve
theunsolvable—
isthe
world
changingrapidly
oris
itnot,
andw
hichparts
ofit,
etc.?R
ather,our
main
issueis
tostudy
howspecific
institutions, organizations,social w
orlds,and
othercollectivifies
answer
suchkey
questionsas
were
listedabove.
-
Negotiated
Order
andStructural
Ordering
,d—
Djso
rd,
Stability—Instability,
andC
hange261
260Schatzm
aflsuggests
thatthe
ideaof
socialorder
isso
significant:
[B]ecause
ofthe
natureof
thestake
peoplehave
init—
astake
inpositio
ns
identityand
itscontrol—
alsoa
stake,n
itscom
fort—[ifl
oneis
uncomfort
able,[theni
one“calls
for”changes.
Theirony
is..
.thatthe
callis
almost
always
forparticular
changesw
hichm
ightaffect an
uncomfortable
aspectof
orderthat
appearsto
exist.[Soj
On
theone
hand,order
isubiquitous
1live
init,
findcom
fort,predictability
orrelative
certaintyin
it.C
hangeoccasionally
threatensm
ystake
init,..
.my
senseof
familiarity, know
ingand
control overm
ystake. O
nthe.other
hand, attim
es,ideologically, I see
orderas
affordinglow
qualityof
lifefor
selfor
othersand
soI
want
some
change, butonly
theright kind.
..
.SoI
tryoccasionally
toferm
ent changeor
steerongoing
changein
theright
direction.(Personal
comm
unication)
Return
nowto
thesem
anticsof
theusual
pairingof
thefollow
ingsociological
terms:
stabiIityinstabffitY(or
change)and
order-disorder(or
inT
homas
andZ
naniecki’Slexicon,
socialorganization
andsocial
disor-ganization). Is
thereonly
onedim
ension,ru
nnin
gfrom
verystable
(order)to
veryunstable
(disorder)?If
so, where
doeschange
belong?Is
it always
destabilizing?D
oesit
varybetw
eenonly
slightlydestabilizing
tovery
much
so?D
oesit
neverprom
otestability?
And
isa
highdegree
oforder
notalso
somew
hatchangeable
insom
eof
itscom
ponents?C
onversely,does
so-calleddisorder
(asduring
asocial revolution)
retainno
elements
ofstability?
(To
quoteS
chatzman
again:“If
Ican
anticipatechange
andfeel
predictive[aboutiti
thenchange
ispart
of‘order.’
IfI
amunhappy
with
some
aspectsof
order, I‘call’
forchange—
[butlcertain
kindsonly.”)
Where
aninteractioniS
ttheory
ofacting
appearsto
leadis
notm
erelyto
asocial
constructiViSt,
andcertainly
notto
aradically
relativisticview
ofsocial
orderand
socialchange.
How
ever, where
it takesus
needsto
beclearly
stated.A
tany
levelof
analysis,from
classicalsociology’s
socialorder
toG
offman’s
interactioflalorder,
orderrefers
torelatively
predict-able
events.T
hesein
turn
arepredictable
becauseroutines
(whether
sim-.
plepro
cedures
orthe
rulesand
regulationsand
structuresof
complex
organizationsor
ofinstitutions)
havebeen
createdby
thosew
hohave
enoughpow
eror
influenceto
definethem
asso.
Now
,the
usualinteractioflist
viewabout
socialdisorder—
andin
teractionists
arenot
alonein
thisview
—is
thatdisorder
iscreated
byevents,
thatare
eitherunpredictable
ornot
predicted;hence
routinesare
ren
deredproblem
aticin
greateror
lessdegree.
The
eventsthem
selves.largely
occurbecause
actorsw
hoare
discontentedw
ithcertain
aspectsO
fthe
orderare
attempting
tobring
aboutchange.
Whether
theysucceed
or
not,som
em
easureof
disorderis
precipitated.(O
fcourse,
disordercan):-c
occurtem
porarilythrough
physicaldisru
ptio
n1
asin
earthquak
es1’
merely
bethe
by-productof
remote
orexternal
eventssuch
asw
arsor
conquest.)T
hisperspective
onorder—
arather
comm
onsenseone—
implies
thatdisorder
isa
usefulanalytic
concept,but
Ido
notbelieve
itis.
There
isalw
aysorder;
thew
orldnever
doesgo
completely
topieces,
exceptper
hapsbriefly
intotal
mass
panics.E
venin
panics,how
ever,com
pletedisintegration
isan
illusionbecause
intheater
firepanics
them
adrush
istow
ardthe
exitsand
notto
anywhere
else;likew
isew
henpersons
orfam
iliesflee
invadingarm
iesthey
some
actirrationally
but
othersact
with
fullrationality.
Such
breakdowns
asoccur
duringperiods
ofsocial
disintegrationconsequently
providechanged
conditionsthat
bearon
subsequentactions,
whether
actorsperceive
thisclearly
ornot.
Ordering
isongoing.
Whoever
callssom
easpect
ofthe
orderingby
thenam
eof
disorder(or
some
synonymfor
it)does
sofrom
aperspective,one
thatwe
needto
knowfor
accuratelyaccounting
forthis
interpretativeclaim
.1
Incontrast,
“socialchange”
isa
usefulanalytic
concept,but
onlyif
we
carefullyseparate
theperspectival—
socialconstructivist—
issuefrom
theone
nowbeing
discussed,thatis,How
ischange
(orsocialchange)
relatedto
(social)order
anddisorder?
Change
cannotpossibly
beeither
equiv
alenttodisorder
(assuming
itexists)or
antitheticaltoorder
becauseitcan
enhanceor
diminish
theone
orthe
other.C
ontributoryto
each,it
isthe
servantof
neither.H
owever,
changeand
lackof
changeare
perceivedby
actorsas
more
orless
relevantto
themselves,
andw
hoact
asappropriately
aspos
siblew
ithregard
tothese
accordingto
theirow
nlights.
Som
etimes
theirlights
provedisastrous
forthem
selvesor
foroth
ers.2
Whether
ornot
we
would
judgethem
bytheir
resultsis,
again,not
thequestion.
Im
aintain
thatour
analytictask
isdarified
ifthe
conceptof
changeis
distin
guishedconceptually
fromthe
order-disorderdim
ension,w
ithspecfIc
questionsto
beasked
abouttheir
perceivedrespective
relationshipsas
theyem
ergein
particulartim
es,places,andsituations—
andthrough
par
ticularinteractions.
All
ofthis
isnot
todeny
theubiquitous
natureof
change.C
hangeis
ceaseless:S
ometim
esit
isdiscernible
(butto
whom
andw
hen?)and
sometim
esnot
(likewise).
An
interactionisttheory
ofacting
follows
throughon
itsow
nassum
ptions,opting
forthe
primacy
ofcollective
action.It
thereforeem
phasizescontingencies
andthe
inevitablechanges
broughtabout
bythem
.B
utat
thesam
etim
eit
cannot,m
ustnot,
failto
linkcontingencies
andaction
tothe
more
slowly
moving,
more
stableelem
entsof
thesocial
environment
createdand
maintained
sometim
esm
anygenerations
ago.T
oround
offthis
chapterI
offer:“A
noteto
Shakespeare”
written
byan
anonymous
literarycritic:
-
ailu
truC
tura
lU
rcte
ring
Ham
let:“T
obe
ornot
tobe,
thatis
thequestion.”
...
Oh,
come
nowS
hakespeare,you
knowvery
well
thatH
amlet’s
inactionis
onlyanother
formof
action.Y
ouare
cleverlym
akingus
followhis
innerdebate,
which
ofcourse
mirrors
them
orevisible
interactionbeing
playedout
among
thefull
castof
characters—H
amlet’s
mother,
stepfather,friends,
Ophelia,
thecourt,and
Ham
lethimself.
Therein
liesthe
question:practical
forthe
Prince,
seemingly
philosophicalbut
actuallyof
significancefor
allof
us,w
hogen
erationby
generationreinterpret
hisenigm
aticansw
ers.C
annyS
hak
espeare
tohave
presentedus
with
suchan
ambiguous
world:
acreated
orderlystructure—
orperhaps
astructured
orderingof
reality?
NO
TE
S
1.A
graphicillustration
ofthis
was
Hedrick
Smith’s
documentary
portrayalof
Russia,
shown
onT
Vsom
em
onthspost-G
orbachev.V
iewers
were
shown
anum
berof
scenesreflecting
intenseanger
atthe
enormous
risein
pricesand
toward
theavarice
ofprivate
speculators,w
hileseveral
entrepreneursw
ithen
thusiasmor
incalm
rationaltones
explainedthe
many
opportunitiesnow
op
ening
bothfor
themselves
andthe
countrythrough
anem
ergentprivate
economy.
Respectively
theyw
ereshow
ingthe
two
facesof
theord
er/diso
rder,
comm
on-sense
definition.2.
Iborrowthis
usagefrom
thehistorians
Com
mager
andM
orrison,who
oncesuggested
aboutK
ingG
eorgeIll’s
policytow
ardthe
Am
ericancolonies
thatw
hateverhis
intentions,his
lightsw
erevery
dim.
References
Ablon,J.
1984.L
ittlePeople
ofA
merica:
TheSocial
Dim
ensionsof
Dw
arfism.
New
York:
Praeger.
Addelson,
K.
1990.“S
ome
Moral
Issuesin
Public
Problem
sof
Reproduction.”
SocialProblem
s37:1—
17.A
lexander,T
homas
1987.John
Dew
ey’sTheory
of Art,
Experience,
andN
ature.A
lbany,
NY
:State
University
ofN
ewY
orkPress.
Bakhtin,M
.[1968]
1984.Rabelais
andH
isW
orld. Translated
byH
.lswolsky.B
loomington,
IN:
IndianaU
niversityPress.
Baszanger,
I.1992.
“Les
chantiersd’un
interactionnisteam
ericain.”Pp.
11-63in
LaT
rame
dela
negociation:Sociologie
qualitativeet
interactionnisme,
editedby
I.B
aszanger.Paris:
L’H
armattan.
Becker,
H.
1970.Sociological
Work.
Chicago:
Aldine.
Becker,
H.
1982.A
rtW
orlds.B
erkeley,C
A:
University
ofC
alifornia.B
ecker,H
.1986.
Doing
Things
Together.E
vanston,IL:
Northw
esternU
niversity.B
ecker,H
.,G
eer,B.,
Riesm
an,D
.and
Weiss,
R.
(eds.).1968.
Institutionsand
thePerson:
Essays
Presentedto
Everett
C.H
ughes.C
hicago:A
ldine.B
erger,P.
andL
uckmann,
T.1966.
TheSocial
Construction
ofReality.
Garden
City,
NY
:D
oubleday.B
irrer,C
.1979.
Multiple
Sclerosis:A
PersonalV
iew.
Springfield,
IL:T
homas.
Blum
er,H.
1937.“Social
Psychology.”
Pp.144—
98in
Man
andSociety,edited
byE.
Schm
idt.N
ewY
ork:P
rentice-Hall.
Blum
er,H
.1946.
“Collective
Behavior.”
Pp.170—
200in
New
Outline
of theP
rinciples
of Sociology,edited
byA
.L
ee.N
ewY
ork:B
arnesand
Noble.
Blum
er,H
.1948.
“SociologicalT
heoryin
IndustrialR
elations.”A
merican
Sociological
Review
12:271—78.
Blum
er,H
.1969.
Symbolic
Interaction.E
nglewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Blum
er,H
.1990.
Industrializationas
anA
gentofSocial
Change:A
Critical A
nalis
editedw
ithan
Introductionby
David
R.
Maines
andT
homas
J.M
orrioneH
awthorne,
NY
:A
ldinede
Gruyter.
Bucher,
B.and
Schatzm
an,L.
1964.“N
egotiatinga
Division
ofL
abotam
ongP
rofessionalsin
theState
Mental
Hospitals.”
Psychiatry27:266—
77.B
urke,J.(ed.).
1991.M
orrisJanow
itz:O
nSocial
Order
andSocial
Control.
eago:U
niversityof
Chicago
Press.B
urke,K
.1936.
Permanence
andC
hange.N
ewY
ork:N
ewR
epublic.B
urke,K
.1937.
Attitudes
Tow
ardH
istory.N
ewY
ork:N
ewR
epublic.B
urke,K
.1945.
AG
ramm
arof M
otives.N
ewY
ork:Prentice-H
all.B
urke,K
.1950.
AR
hetoricofM
otives.N
ewY
ork:Prentice-H
all.B
usch,L.
1982.“H
istory,N
egotiationand
Structure
inA
griculturalR
esearo.h”U
rbanL
fe11:368—
84.
263