SM  Vol.2 No.4 , October 2012
Agency at Work: A Dynamic Interpretive Approach
Author(s) Colin Campbell
ABSTRACT
Roy’s 1950s paper “Banana Time” is used as the basis for an exploration of the nature and relationship of agency and action. Roy’s activity in playing his “game of work” is shown to be a feature of individual conduct that, despite possessing subjective meaning, is largely neglected by contemporary sociologists, mainly because of its covert character. What an examination of this aspect of his conduct suggests is the need to revise the conventional observational approach to the definition of the unit act by recognising that there may well be an additional actor’s covert definition sitting within the accepted social definition and that it is therefore necessary to use the criterion of attentionality to identify the unit act. An analysis of Roy’s game of work also helps to shed light on the possible relationship between action and agency, revealing that while the power of agency enables individuals to act, it is also frequently necessary for individuals to act in order to maintain or restore their power of agency. Finally, a consideration of the function fulfilled by Roy’s game of work shows that a behaviourist- stimulus-response analysis of conduct is not at odds either with voluntarism or the adoption of the actor’s standpoint. This is because Roy demonstrates how actors are themselves lay behaviourists, fully aware of how they need to manipulate stimuli in order to produce desired responses in themselves.

Cite this paper
Campbell, C. (2012). Agency at Work: A Dynamic Interpretive Approach. Sociology Mind, 2, 355-361. doi: 10.4236/sm.2012.24047.
References
[1]   Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. (1984). The penguin dictionary of sociology. London: Penguin Books.

[2]   Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109-137. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109

[3]   Alexander, J. C. (1992). Recent sociological theory between agency and social structure. Schweiz. Z. Soziol./Rev. Suisse Social., 1, 7-11.

[4]   Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

[5]   Campbell, C. (2009). Distinguishing the power of agency from agentic power: A note on weber and the “black box” of personal agency. Sociological Theory, 27, 407-418. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01355.x

[6]   Campbell, C. (2011). Limits to agency: Exploring the unintended (and unattended) consequences of action. In A. Mica, A. Peisert, & J. Winczorek (Eds.), Sociology and the unintended: Robert merton revisited (pp. 45-62). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

[7]   Elster, J. (1983). Sour grapes: Studies in the subversion of rationality. Cambridge: CUP

[8]   Fuchs, S. (2001). Beyond agency. Sociological Theory, 19, 24-40. doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00126

[9]   Gilbert, G. N. & Peter, A. (1983). Accounts and actions: Surrey conferences on sociological theory and methods. Aldershot: Gower.

[10]   Jary, D., & Jary, J. (1991). Collins dictionary of sociology. London: HarperCollins.

[11]   Marshall, G. (1994). The concise Oxford Dictionary of sociology. Oxford: OUP.

[12]   Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabulary of motives. American Sociological Review, 5, 904-913. doi:10.2307/2084524

[13]   Roy, D. F. (1959). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18, 158-168.

[14]   Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

[15]   Schutz, A. (1973). The problem of social reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

[16]   Silverman, D. (1970). The theory of organisations. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

[17]   Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The Free Press.

[18]   Weber, M. (1965). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Unwin University Books.

[19]   White, A. R. (1964). Attention. Oxford: Blackwell.

 
 
Top