II. The Development of Exchange Theory and Its
Compatibility with Conflict Theory
Exchange theory is one of the three closely related modern
sociological theories. It is recognized as "a well-established approach to the study of social process and
structure in the social sciences"(Ritzer,1990), which has been
affected by other intellectual currents and science disciplines. However, its theoretic merit has not been fully addressed in social scientific research.
 |
 your view
After reading this
article, please let us know what you think. We'll post the most
interesting comments.
send your RESPONSE
|
In contrast to the development of contemporary conflict
theory, the formation of modern exchange theory is not so
smooth as any other theory. It takes many years for
sociologists to realize the central strength of exchange
theory as an independent theoretic approach for "its broad
applicability across substantive areas and its ability to
cross-cut levels of analysis"(Ritzer,1990). One of the
reasons for the slow pace for this theory, according to
Michael Hechter, "is the long tradition in sociology of
debunking theories in which actors are viewed as 'rational'
and as seeking to maximize their utilities'" (Hechter,1991).
Because of the unfair bias against thinking in the terms of
classical economics as displayed in Talcott Parson's early
critique of utilitarianism and as demonstrated in Vilfredo
Pareto's disillusionment with economics, the basic ideas of
utilitarianism came to sociology in a round-about way via
behaviorism. Therefore, we can see the different traditions
in the exchange behaviorists as George C. Homans and the
structural exchange theorist Peter M. Blau. However, the
major tenets of the exchange theory still reflect the idea of
utilitarianism.
It is only in the recent decades, modern exchange theory
with either the behavior tradition in psychology or the
utilitarian heritage in economics theory, become one of the
most prominent theoretical perspectives in sociology in
dealing with the related issues of inequality, power and
conflict which are the most favorable topics for conflict
theorists. Exchange theory "offers a dynamic conceptual
scheme for understanding the relationship between
individualist and society--a blueprint, as it were, for
understanding the mechanism of integration between structure
and process"(Cook et al.,1990).
Among the most prominent exchange theorists, George C.
Homans distinguishes himself in the behavioristic approach
while Peter M. Blau has been noted for his structural exchange
theory. The contribution made by Richard Emerson was also
regarded as important because his work "marked the beginning
of a new stage in the development of social exchange
theory'(Mole and Cook, 1995:215).
While based fundamental propositions on psychological
principles, Homans envisages social behavior as an exchange of
activity, tangible or intangible, and more or less rewarding
or costly, between at least two persons'(Homans, 1961).
According to his point of view, actors are profit seekers who
want to maximize their wealth while interacting with others.
I agree to Ritzer's point of view that It is insufficient to
use Homans' exchange theory to explain human being's mental
status such as norms and values and the large-scale social
structure, although he argues that "structure can be
understood if we adequately understand elementary social
behavior" (Ritzer, 1996).
Unlike Homans' exchange theory, Blau developed his
exchange theory in another direction. His goal was "an
understanding of social structure on the basis of an analysis
of the processes that govern the relations between individual
and groups. The basis question... is how social life becomes
organized into increasingly complex structures of associations
among men. Blau focused on the process of exchange, direct
much of human behavior and underlies relationship among
individuals as well as among groups. He was more concerned
about the mechanism that lead to the change of social
structure.
In his inductive reasoning, Blau envisaged a four-stage
sequence leading from interpersonal exchange to social
structure to social change. While trying to use a bundle of
exchange concepts and implicit principle to bridge the
micro/macro gap, Blau initiates his efforts in supplementing
the exchange concepts to understand more complex social
process of institutionalization. Therefore, he attaches great
importance on the abstract concepts such as value, conscience,
ideas, and impression, strains and social norms that bond
society together. It is through Blau's works that account of
the emergence of large-scale organizations and institutions
governed by cultural norms and values.
According to Peter Blau, "rewards that are exchanged can
be either intrinsic(love, affection, respect) or
extrinsic(money, physical labor) the parties cannot always
reward each other equally; when there is inequality in the
exchange, a difference of power will emerge within an
association"(in Ritzer,1996).
Peter Blau is concerned with what holds large-scale social
units together and what tears them apart. Therefore, he takes
pains in discussing groups, organization, collectivities,
societies, norms and values. Peter Blau's exchange theory is
usually regarded as macro theoretical perspective. Yet his
primary concerns, in Ritzer's words, are only "with face to
face relations"(Ritzer, 1996).
Armed with network theory in analyzing Power-dependence,
Emerson tried to deal with social structure and social change
by using "social relations and social networks as building
blocks that spanned different levels of analysis"(Molm and
Cook,1995). As Karen Cook points out that "it is the idea of
exchange network structure that is central to micro to more
macro levels of analysis through the study of exchange
networks structures". "The use of the notion in exchange
networks, allows for the development of theory that bridges
the conceptual gap between isolated individuals or dyad and
larger aggregates or collections of individuals(e.g. formal
groups or associations, organizations, neighborhoods,
political parties, etc.).
Emerson's network analysis on power is an important and
useful synthesized approach in studying large-scale structure
such as corporations and nation-states. His more structural
efforts has greatly influenced the contemporary exchange
theory into an integrative micro-macro approach and is quite
similar to that of Collins paradigms. Although his network
theory is relatively new and undeveloped, his idea is also
helpful in understanding modern international relation.
According to his theory, networks are transitive. "If there is
a tie between A and B and B and C, there is likely to be a tie
between A and C. The result is that there is more likely to
be a network involving A, B and C"(Ritzer,1996).
The fundamental difference between exchange theory and
conflict theory is that, "the basic unit of analysis to the
exchange theorist is the social relationship (Ritzer,1996)"
while the conflict theorists major interests are in the
"social structure" illustrated by "interest groups", "class"
and the "world system" and "states".
Although there are differences between exchange theorists
and conflict theorists in their level of analysis, they have
the approximately same ideas on the individuals. Exchange
theorists regard individuals as the profit-seekers who want
to maximize benefits while interacting with others and
conflict theorists also see people as self-interested, thus
clash are possible because sets of interests may be inherently
antagonistic. They all believe that human actions are
predicable and controllable because human being have goals for
their actions.
Both exchange and conflict theorists are
concerned about the results and consequences of the human
behaviors while the former attach more to the individual
level, the later address particularly to the collective
outcome. That is the reason for exchange theory to be defined
as "methodologically individualism" and for conflict theory to
be labeled as "anti-individualism". In the light of this
statement, there will be great benefits to both conflict and
exchange theories if the rational elements of both
perspectives are highlighted and advocated and the irrational
elements can be carefully avoided while conducting research in
the empirical world.
Although there is high possibility for the compatibility
of conflict theory with exchange theory, the differences
between these theories should be distinguished clearly before
any comment on the theory per se. Exchange theory has been
more influenced by other discipline and theories including
rational choice theory. Therefore, it is considered more
applicable in studying a wide range of topics. While Homans'
exchange theory emphasized on micro level, and Peter Blau's
structural exchange theory focused on macro level, Emerson's
efforts in linking micro level to macro structure is similar
to the paradigmatic integration advocated by rational choice
theorists in their attempts (mainly in Coleman's) on studying
micro/macro issues.
While addressing to the same individual
behaviors, rational choice theorists are more concerned about
the impacts on individuals by institutional constraints and
the aggregation mechanism as well as information. Therefore,
"the collective actions", "public goods" and "group
solidarity" are very important concepts in rational choice
theory which are similar to the concepts in conflict theory,
though the later is not so concerned with the sociological
models that "respect individuals and leave much room for
individuals' own informed choices of actors (Friedman and
Hechter,1988).
However, unlike exchange and rational choice theorists,
some conflict theorists (such as Collins) did not see people
as wholly rational. Collins think that people are venerable
to emotional appeals in their efforts to find
satisfaction.(Ritzer,1996).
If there is any weaknesses in these two theories, I share
the criticisms on exchange theory that human behaviors are not
always controllable and human being do not always calculate
their cost. Exchange theory is not omnipotent in helping
people understand social phenomena in spite of the fact that
it has the major merits. In addition to this, there remains
problems such as reductionism and tautological logics in
exchange theory, especially in Homan's theory. Blau's
concepts are criticized for being too vague as some conflicts
theorists concepts and models have the same fate.
In conflict
theory, Wallerstein's concepts are criticized by Ritzer and
Collins as too vague while Collins' own concepts and models
are criticized by Turner as vague and metaphorical too.
Turner argues that Collins "rarely defines concepts precisely,
and he shifts his vocabulary in ways that often make it
difficult to get a clear grasp of even such central concepts
as resources, power, coercion, property, wealth, negotiations,
encounters, rituals and structures"(Turner, 1991).
I do not
completely disagree with Turner's comment on this point, because
Collins' shortcoming is not impairable and irremediable.
However, I share Turners' ideas that Collins writes so well
and so engagingly that the problems of slipper and vagueness
become unavoidable. Moreover, when Collins builds his theory,
he assumes that readers(sociologists) are familiar with the
major sociological concepts, and it is impossible and
unnecessary for a single writer to define more than 400
propositions in a single book (Conflict Sociology)as clear as
possible.
Turner is quite right when he commented another
shortcoming ofined simply through a particular perspective.
In studying international relation, different perspectives can
be used do explain a certain social phenomena such as trade
behaviors. Here we come to the third part of this paper.
(1997)(to be continued)
