Four Concepts of Social Structure DOUGLAS V. PORPORA

Abstract

Social structure is one ofthe most central concepts in sociology. Yet there is wide disagreement about what it means. This disagreement is consequential because differences in the way sociologists conceptualize social structure lead to very different approaches to sociology. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, because there is so much dispute about what social structure means or should mean, in the first part ofthis paper I will simply present without argument four different conceptions of social structure that are prominent in the field. Although the alternative conceptions I will examine are not necessarily exhaustive, they do represent what are probably the most commonly held views. Examining them, therefore, should significantly advance our thinking on this important but elusive concept. The second objective of this paper, which I will pursue in a subsequent discussion, is to make a case in favor of one of these four alternatives, namely one that traditionally has been associated with Marx.As far as the views that will be considered are concerned, social structure refers to one of the following: I . Patterns of aggregate behavior that are stable over time 2 . Lawlike regularities that govern the behavior ofsocial facts 3. Systems of human relationships among social positions 4. Collective rules and resources that structure behaviorThe first conception is most closely associated with exchange theorists, notably Homans ( I 975), and some symbolic interactionists, but most recently has been given a strong defense by Collins ( I 98 I ) . Looking at Collins's defense in particular, I will argue that this conception leads to a methodological individualist approach to sociology that is ultimately. unable to explain a wide range of macrosocial phenomena such as deindustrialization, power and economic crisis. The second conception represents the view of the so-called

A research about the relationship of psychological safety and organizational politics perception with compulsory citizenship behavior and the pressures behind compulsory citizenship behavior

“…Scholars instead support the argument that OCB is not based on the genuine, spontaneous "good will" of the individual (Gadot, 2006). Instead, it emerges in response to external pressures by significant and powerful others in the workplace (i.e., managers or co-workers) who wish to increase the employees' work load by involving them in duties that are beyond the scope of their job description (Porpara, 1989). …”

Expanding the boundaries of compulsory citizenship behavior: Its impact on some organizational outputs

“…Compulsory citizenship behaviour (CCB), defined as employees' involuntary extra-role work activities that have positive effects to the organization (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006), has long been over hooked; and its negative consequences greatly need to be discovered. In fact, CCB represents a much more negative reflection of extra-role behavior (Porpora, 1989). Fundamental research question of this research is to explore whether compulsory citizenship behavior (CCB), which has transformed into an obligation by diverging from its voluntary basis (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006), has the negative impacts within organization on individuals' organizational attitudes and behaviors, such as intention to quit, burnout, innovativeness, job stress, job performance and social loafing.…”

Poder: dimensões relacional, discursiva e performática

“…Esse contexto relacional é primordial porque é ele que dá aos indivíduos específicos aquilo que Pierre Bourdieu chamou de um "quantum de força social" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992: 230). O artigo de Emirbayer é apenas uma instância dentro de um cenário recente composto por trabalhos que buscam desenvolver uma sociologia relacional (Donati, 2010;Vandenberghe, 1999), movimento esse que está contido em uma grande virada para o realismo sociológico (Bhaskar, 1998;Hedstrom, 2005;Porpora, 1989;Smith, 2010) e que traz uma nova 3. Interessante: no artigo de Dahl (1957: 203) "The concept of power", o autor explicitamente afirma que "se mantém consciente da possível identidade entre 'poder' e 'causa', e do conjunto de problemas que essa identidade pode acarretar".…”