Social studies have been approached by many as an attempt to make sense of the world we live in; on the other hand it is strongly keen on treating society’s illnesses throughout this prior understanding of these social phenomena. In effect, and as a new science, the many fields and planks of sociology offer non-categorical assumptions based on observations and interpretations; therefore, many socialists diverge in their standpoints asserting the absence of concrete evidence to the absolute truth. The following report aims at clarifying the relatedness in human practices and their observability on the macro level; both sides will be analyzed thoroughly based on the text book The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, a general conclusion will be drawn by the end of the report.
Category-Boundeness in the general sense is the direct link existing between a certain category of people and their practices/activities. These ‘action-doers’ are thus bound by a definite mechanical logic into falling into specific patterns of behavior; as a result, the same category of people will most likely act in a similar manner and on countless occasions. To illustrate, let us consider the following instances directly quoted from the book: “‘He sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment,’ ‘She diagnosed lymphoma,’ ‘He arrested them for disturbing the peace,’ ‘She fired him on the spot.’” In the previous examples the reader may infer the following as being the responsible agents for these practices; explicitly, ‘a judge’, ‘a doctor’, ‘an officer of the law’ and ‘an employer’. Based on these findings, many behavioral analysts assume that ‘Category-Boundeness’ is a legit determination of comportment patterns as it serves as a basis in the understanding of communities on a grander scale (Macro social). Nevertheless, this ‘Category-Boundeness’ may also be considered as a double edged-sword, where in some cases it is simply impossible to grossly relate human practices to particular doers.
Certain activities are not bound to a specific category of persons and are by consequence difficult or rather improbable to predict. Human nature is far too complex to comprise in such a narrow scope and some individuals can be tricky to categorize in a specific area of behavioral instances; that is to say, while a select few might be inclined to act in particular manner, others are prone to act in an utter opposition to their predecessors. Besides, certain actions can be considered as too general to attribute to only one group of people; in the following examples we may determine such comportments: “‘He committed suicide’,’ ‘she interrupted them,’ ‘He complained about the heat.’” Apart from gender or singular/plural distinction, these agents cannot be determined, nor can these actions be assigned to a precise grouping of individuals. In a nutshell, ‘Category-Boundeness’ may be referred to as a constraint or limitation to the study of human practices on the ‘Macro-Level’.
Some activities can be easily assessed and determined while others are simply too vague to categorize. It can also be assumed that certain people are predisposed to particular behavior in particular circumstances whereas in other cases the same assumptions cannot be stated. As a general conclusion, one may interpret the facts that some behavioral patterns can be predicted due to the essence of human nature, in the case of a crying baby, the mother can clearly determine the cause of such behavior and may also predict an upcoming one. Ironically, that same human nature, due to its complexity, may sometimes occur as a constraint to the exact analysis of human practices; in other words, people’s behavior becomes absolutely unpredictable. All in all, the study of the human-nexus and their behavioral patterns needs constant monitoring and observation as to establish the exactness of the findings.
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.