Exchange (sociology)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles exchange theory and exchange (sociology) thematically overlap. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. 217.214.151.46 01:56 AM, Aug 12, 2020 (CEST)

In sociology different to exchange concepts used. In one form or another, all classical sociological authors have considered the subject of exchange. Well-known sociologists in the field of exchange theory were Marcel Mauss , Franz Oppenheimer , Claude Lévi-Strauss , George C. Homans , Peter Blau , Peter Ekeh ; in Germany, Bálint Balla , Lars Clausen and Peter Kappelhoff should be mentioned.

In some sociological theories, the concept of reciprocity (sociology) is used to deal with questions of the same kind.

General

There is no uniform sociology of exchange, but one can distinguish three theoretical starting points for theories.

If one takes as an example the mutual exchange of the marriage vows between bride and groom, one could either (a) as a civil contract between two different- sex actors for the mutual exclusive use of their sexual organs, or (b) as a mutually donated sacrament, by virtue of which Christianity persists, or (c) see it as an institutional and thus generic pacification of an intended animal driving force or will-form.

The three theoretical approaches are briefly outlined here:

Exchange concepts

Exchange, seen from the point of view of the individual

Here sociological theorists - such as Homans or Blau - assume that individuals (actors) always act when there is an exchange (individualistic, paired, antagonistic point of view). Regardless of what they exchange in individual cases, sociologically there are always “ social sanctions ”. "Positive" sanctions are e.g. B. Congratulations or goods; as "negative" z. B. Insults or threats. Often only positive or ambivalent sanctions are dealt with in exchange theory , but more general approaches also include negative sanctions .

In the distribution conflict , the actors face each other with opposing interests . One advantage is the other disadvantage: when it comes to positive sanctions, everyone tries to spend as little as possible and to gain as much as possible from the opponent. In economics , this strategy, which only deals with positive sanctions (e.g. goods for money in markets ), is called the “minimax principle”. If one also takes into account opposing relationships and negative social sanctions (e.g. acts of violence against acts of violence, for example in war ), then the person who exchanges tries to minimize his losses and to maximize those of the opponent.

criticism

In the meantime, Zafirovski [2005] critically points out that this exchange theory, based on Homans and Blau, has become a variant or mutation of the behavioristic rational choice model, and that the methodological simplification achieved has its price in comparison For classical and other approaches in sociology, extra-economic motivations, norms and institutions as well as their history are usually neglected.

Exchange, seen from the collective point of view

Here it is assumed - for example by Durkheim or Mauss - that whole collectives behave socially in exchange ( community , system -related, group- centered view). Controlled by the consideration of group preservation, the actors exchange (mostly positive) sanctions with one another. Examples are the exchange of women between several clans with all common exogamy rules , the kula , but also the stock exchange . The collective is always involved; whoever does not follow the exchange norms can be punished in his name by 'everyone'.

The actors share a common interest in the wellbeing of the collective, which does not exclude individual self-interest (and to that extent antagonism). So everyone who swaps always makes a compromise with himself and with his exchange partner in favor of the collective, once as a loyal member (e.g.) of a community and once with a view to his own advantage. The collective is 'always there', which is expressed in a stable way in 'generally' valid rituals (e.g. the handshake) or in legal norms (e.g. commercial law ). Because of this ambiguity of all exchange behavior, one speaks of an amphibolic exchange .

Exchange, seen from the point of view of the human species

Here theorists - such as Claessens or Clausen - include in some forms of exchange that the (animal) nature of humans themselves also has an impact ( biosociological , anthropological, synagonistic perspective).

Here, the participants of an exchange behave so that the survival of the species man is promoted towards nature and other species. It is therefore an institution to be examined not only sociologically but also anthropologically . This is mainly about reproduction, child care and fighting ability. The most common example of this is the dyad between the infant and the permanent carer (mostly, but not necessarily, the mother ), where it is assumed that both are biologically supported and the happier the other, the better off they are.

Social perception of the exchange

It can be assumed that forms of exchange are socially perceived and communicated differently than a sociological (including anthropological) analysis would result. As with the question of the fairness (also equivalence ) of an exchange, this depends on the prevailing values , or it is judged differently by representatives of conflicting values.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See Milan Zafirovski, Social Exchange Theory under Scrutiny. A Positive Critique of its Economic-Behaviorist Formulations. ( Memento of the original from September 24, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 172 kB) in: "Electronic Journal of Sociology", 2005, p. 31, ISSN, 1198 3655. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.sociology.org

literature

See also