|
|
"THE
LOGIC OF ACTION: INDETERMINACY, EMOTION, AND HISTORICAL NARRATIVE History and Theory, Theme Issue 40
(December 2001
Duke University wmr@duke.edu ABSTRACT Modern
social theory, by and large, has aimed at reducing the complexity of
action situations to a set of manageable abstractions. But these abstractions,
whether functionalist or linguistic, fail to grasp the indeterminacy
of action situations. Action proceeds
by discovery and combination. The logic of action is serendipitous and
combinative. From these characteristics, a number of consequences flow:
The whole field of our intentions is engaged in each action situation,
and cannot really be understood apart from the situation itself. In
action situations we remain aware of the problems of categorization,
including the dangers of infinite regress and the difficulties of specifying
borders and ranges of categories. In action situations, attention is
in permanent danger of being overwhelmed. We must deal with many features
of action situations outside of attention; in doing so, we must entertain
simultaneously numerous possibilities of action. Emotional expression
is a way of talking about the kinds of possibilities we entertain. Expression
and action have a rebound effect on attention. “Effort” is required
to find appropriate expressions and actions, and rebound effects play
a role in such effort, making it either easier or more difficult. Recent
theoretical trends have failed to capture these irreducible characteristics of
action situations, and have slipped into a number of errors. Language is not
rich in meanings or multivocal, except as put to use in action situations. The
role of “convention” in action situations is problematic, and therefore one
ought not to talk of “culture.” Contrary to the assertions of certain
theorists, actors do not follow strategies, except when they decide to do so.
Actors do not “communicate,” in the sense of exchanging information, except in
specially arranged situations. More frequently, they intervene in the effortful
management of attention of their interlocutors. Dialog, that is, very commonly
becomes a form of cooperative emotional effort. From these
considerations, it follows that the proper method for gaining social knowledge
is to examine the history of action and of emotional effort, and to report
findings in the form of narrative. |