Causation (sociology)
Causation refers to the existence of "cause and effect" relationships between multiple variables.[1] Causation presumes that variables, which act in a predictable manner, can produce change in related variables and that this relationship can be deduced through direct and repeated observation.[2] Theories of causation underpin social research as it aims to deduce causal relationships between structural phenomena and individuals and explain these relationships through the application and development of theory.[3] Due to divergence amongst theoretical and methodological approaches, different theories, namely functionalism, all maintain varying conceptions on the nature of causality and causal relationships. Similarly, a multiplicity of causes have led to the distinction between necessary and sufficient causes.
Logical formulation of the causal relationship
- A and B represent some form of phenomena (either concrete or abstract),
- A is statistically related to B in so far as an observed change in A will produce a proportional change in B,
- If the change to A precedes the change to B and the change is not caused by an intervening variable (spurious relationship) then:
- A is said to have a causal relationship (either sufficient or necessary) to B.[4]
This nature, extent, and scope of this relationship, however, must be further defined through further research that accounts for the weaknesses and limitations of preceding works.[3]
Causation and social research
Classical conceptions of causation have demonstrably informed the development of social research and different methodological approaches, as the vast majority of research seeks to explain phenomena in terms of cause and effect.
Sufficient and necessary causes
Causality, within sociology, has been the subject of epistemological debates, particularly concerning the
To this end, Weber identified two types of causation;
- adequate causation refers to a context in which any one of a number of sufficient factors could be responsible for prompting an event (the absence of a single factor would not have led to a different outcome).
- chance causation refers to a situation in which one factor was of particular importance for the occurrence of a particular event.[5]
Several causes, either sufficient or necessary, often intersect and interact with one another to produce a given phenomena and, as such, theories of single or essential causality are often not adequate for social research. For this reason, statistical models that can account for and control several variables are prevalent in social research.[3]
A functionalist theory of causation
Normative conceptions of causation, that have served to inform the development of social research standards, is largely associated with
In relation to culture, causality underpins the logic surrounding socio-cultural norms and deviance.[7] Social structures serve the function of establishing, propagating, and enforcing both cultural and legal norms and, as such, play an indispensable role in constituting and maintaining social order; for these standards to be effective, however, they must be applied universally and in a predictable manner. If this holds, norm violations and punishment can be said to have a causal relationship in that the violation of a standard directly produces equivalent sanctions. Through punishment, standards are then visibly reaffirmed throughout the general populace. All humanistic societies, to varying degrees, function on some principle of causality.[7]
Elective affinity
The concept of elective affinity was used by Max Weber to describe the relationship between capitalism and the Protestant ethic and differs from a purely deterministic account of individual behavior.[8] The Newtonian notion of causality underpins the deterministic camp of the structure-agency debate whereas interactionist paradigms emphasize the rational choices that more or less free individuals make in light of broader social forces that guide them.[9] Rather than social forces playing an essentialized role in determining the life course; rational individuals make personal choices based on the knowledge, experiences, and resources they have at their disposal. As such, elective affinity serves to incorporate both structuralist and agent-focused paradigms by incorporating the (admittedly varying) capacity of social actors to make choices in light of their personal experiences and resources. Such a distinction, however, is largely theoretical and is further confounded by Weber's use of the Ideal type schema. Furthermore, the level of primacy allotted to agency and structure varies between different social theories and, correspondingly, different notions of causal relationships.
References
- ISBN 0-07-828576-3.
- )
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-061424-9.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 48–52.
- ^ Shilling, Chris; Mellor, Philip, A. (2001). Sociological Ambition : Elementary Forms of Social and Moral Life. London, GBR: SAGE Publications (US).
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ S2CID 143748747.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ ISBN 9780415757614.
- S2CID 144465593.
- S2CID 143956473.