Methodological individualism, like many other social and philosophical concepts, is not univocally defined. According to one widespread interpretation, it is a form of atomism that is unable to account for the real nature of social life and the structural constraints that influence action. This interpretation of methodological individualism is rejected because it is incorrect both conceptually and historically. There is no equivalence between methodological individualism and atomism: the latter is a simplistic variant of the former. Two different approaches can be distinguished within the tradition of methodological individualism: one is atomistic, and the other non-atomistic. The atomistic approach, which neglects many socio-cultural constraints that influence the individual, deals with fictional situations and unrealistic hypotheses about human agency (standard economic models provide good examples of this kind of individualism). By contrast, the non-atomistic approach – which is supported by Hayek – is centered on the real historical and socio-cultural characteristics of humans and social interactions, and takes full account of the effects of social conditioning on agency (see Boettke 2012, p. 147). Since the aim of this book is to clarify the real sociological presuppositions of social life, as well as the meaning of Hayek’s philosophy of action, it focuses exclusively on the non-atomistic variant of methodological individualism. While it may seem somewhat paradoxical, the idea that the individual is hermeneutically autonomous (an idea central to Hayek) it is strictly related to the recognition of the importance of social conditioning. The hermeneutical theory of action is incompatible with atomism because the former, in contrast to the latter, considers agency to be historical, socio-culturally situated, and related to intersubjectivity.

The Two Sociologies

Human Autonomy and Social Systems

In this chapter we attempt to synthesize two relevant bodies of social theory which can be used to understand how human beings—consumers, distributors, producers, and regulators—act in relation to energy systems. The two key words are actions and systems. Practice theories deal with how social life is constituted by practices, or is a product thereof, and with how “people perform the actions that compose practices” (Schatzki 2015: 27). Complexity theory is a general framework of reference which deals with systems which are emergent in character: that is to say they cannot be understood by an analytical programme which seeks to explain them in terms of the properties of their components taken alone. Our approach here is to begin with two sections which in somewhat brutal summary outline the essentials of social theories of practices and complexity theory. We then continue with a discussion of practice and action to show how they are interrelated into a web of interconnected practices. In a similar vein we develop a complexity theory founded discussion of the constraining and enabling role of systems. We then proceed to attempt a synthesis of practice theory and complexity theory with specific reference to how such a synthesis can help us to understand and shape the whole emergent complex system which incorporates institutions and humans and is reconstructed or reshaped by the interaction of all of these entities in daily life. On the basis of this synthesis we will try to make some policy recommendations which will really be about how policy makers should understand what they are trying to influence because such an understanding is foundational to effective intervention.

Energy Systems and Energy-Related Practices

Phd Title: Developing self-care at work

ABSTRACT

This PhD Study explored the practical development of self-care at work. The study enabled an understanding of self-care at work as a phenomena, and enabled the practitioners involved to free themselves from ideological and other chains holding them back from developing their own self-care at work, to such a point that in the end, they realised ‘I matter’ at work, and that self-care at work matters. The findings show that it is not normal for there to be a focus on ‘me’ and consider self truly during the working day, and that many people see clients, colleagues or their boss as ‘king’ consistently putting them first before considering self. The findings also show if we do not self-care at work, and, we keep working when we are feeling under ‘par’ it is uncomfortable for us to work in this way, and the quality of the services we offer can suffer.
In the implications for practice, this PhD study offers a simple conceptual framework for developing self-care at work, with a series of sequential stages and inter-connected prompts. It also offers a self observational reflective prompt to support those who choose to deepen their level of self observation, and self awareness. Self-Care at work comes in a number of guises, no one size fits all. Periods of self observation, and trying new ways of caring for self at work enables individuals to develop their own unique self-care at work approach. Self-Care at work includes not only traditionally cited aspects in workplace well-being such as exercise and nutrition, it also includes preparing and planning for work, maintaining perspective, learning to say ‘no’, and, the willingness to make self-care at work an ongoing self inquiry process, using self observation, and reflective moments. With simple yet profound effects, using the physical body as a barometer on a daily basis, guiding what works and what doesn’t work is fundamental to developing and deepening self-care at work. A profound impact of this study for practitioners is that in committing to making self-care at work a living inquiry and, breaking out of patterns or ideals getting in the way of self-care at work, self confidence can deepen, as can a deeper sense of self worth. Equally, developing self-care at work made a difference to the quality of services practitioners offered. Realising ‘I matter at work’ and that self-care at work matters whilst simple, and a ‘no brainer’ is profound, and deeply emancipating.

/pdf/developing-self-care-at-work-1pro6olmfa.pdf

Developing self-care at work

Soziologische Zeitdiagnosen beschreiben und erklaren nicht nur die gesellschaftlichen Zustande und Zukunftsaussichten; eine Bewertung als funktional oder dysfunktional, Chance oder Krise, gut oder schlecht tritt hinzu. Solchen Bewertungen konnen zwei ganz unterschiedliche Referenzen zu Grunde liegen: das gesellschaftliche Ganze oder das einzelne Individuum. Manche Zeitdiagnosen wahlen nur einen dieser beiden Bezugspunkte; in anderen Analysen stehen beide nebeneinander, und dann konnen einzelne Bewertungen mit Blick auf die Gesellschaft anders ausfallen als mit Blick auf das Individuum, oder bestimmte Gegebenheiten und Entwicklungen ergeben fur beide Bezuge dieselbe positive oder negative Bewertung. Auch kompliziertere Einschatzungen sind vorstellbar — etwa derart, dass ein spezifischer diagnostizierter Tatbestand sich zunachst als positiv fur die Individuen erweist, aber gesellschaftlich dysfunktional ist, was sich dann langerfristig auch negativ auf die Individuen auswirkt.

The Two Sociologies

Citations

Human Autonomy and Social Systems

Energy Systems and Energy-Related Practices

Developing self-care at work

Individuelle Akteure: Opfer und Gestalter gesellschaftlicher Dynamiken

The Objective and Subjective Components of Class in Relation to Schooling in Industrial Societies: The Contribution of Giddens and Parkin*

Related Papers (5)

The constitution of society

The Sociological Imagination

The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration

Studies in Ethnomethodology

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life