Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of rational action theory and symbolic interactionist theory:
Broadly speaking, there are two distinct ways to determine the motives of the bahavior of individuals in society. One can look at the individuals, and how they seek to meet their own needs and desires in social encounters, or one can look at how the encounter itself influences the behavior of the individuals taking part in it.
The first of these approaches starts with the assumption that that what people do more often than not makes sense, and that their actions are governed by their desires; that is, by self-interest. This is the essential feature of rational action theory (RAT); as the name implies, it begins from the premise that people act rationally. As Coleman (1990, p. 152) puts it, a social interchange "contains two self-interested, utility-maximizing actors;" both of whom are seeking their own advantage in their mutual involvement.
An alternative premise is that what people do in social encounters grows out of the particular circumstances of the encounter, as each participant plays a role defined by the encounter itself. This is the essential feature of symbolic interactionist theory (SI); according to Blumer (quoted in Wallace and Wolf, 1991, p. 2560, "the meaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which other persons act toward the person with regard to the thing." Individuals' motives, then, do not arise in isolation, but in the context of their interaction. Rational action theory grew out of economics, and the social encounters it first had in mind were business transactions. The suggestion of rational action theorists, though, is that the same logic applies to all encounters. If I join you in playing a softball game, it is likely that I enjoy your company, or softball, or both; why else would I do it?
Symbolic interactionists, however, argue that a softball game for...