Table of Contents
Exchange and Power in Social Life
Exchange and Power in Social Life
Peter M. Blau
With a New Introduction by the Author
Originally published in 1964 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Transaction paperback edition published by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Published 1986 by Transaction Publishers
Published 2017 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
New material this edition copyright 1986 by Taylor & Francis
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 85-24580
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Blau, Peter Michael.
Exchange and power in social life.
Reprint. Originally published: New York : Wiley, cl964.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 1-56000-634-X (paper)
1. Social groups. 2. Social exchange. 3. Social structure. 4. Power (Social sciences). I. Title.
HM131.B59 1986 302.3
ISBN 0-88738-628-8 (pbk.) | 85-24580 |
ISBN 13: 978-0-88738-628-2 (pbk)
To Zena
Introduction to the Transaction Edition
Peter MBlau
It has been more than twenty years since this book was originally published, and my orientation to sociological theorizing has naturally changed in the last two decades. In this introduction to the second edition, I wish to discuss the changes that have occurred in my theoretical views.
The microsociological analysis of the process underlying social relations and roles Is often distinguished from the macrosociological analysis of broader social structures and institutions In societies and communities. In this book, I concentrate on the microsociological analysis of the processes of reciprocity and Imbalance that govern social life and relations among people, and then use this analysis as a basis for the development of some theoretical ideas about the macrosociological study of social structure.
The implicit assumption is that macrosociological theory rests on the foundation of microsociological theory. This is the assumption I have come to question. My assumption now is that macrosociological and microsociological analysis involve different theoretical approaches and employ different concepts. They entail quite different perspectives on social life which, although not directly translatable into each other, are by no means contradictory or Incompatible. In the foreword to this edition I shall first explain how I became interested In the exchange theory presented here; next, briefly outline the main points of the macrostructural theory I have more recently developed; and conclude by indicating the connection between the two theoretical schemes.
The basic ideas underlying the theory of social exchange originally occurred to me a third of a century ago while I was engaged in a case study of government officials for my Ph.D. dissertation. The study was largely based on nonparticipant observation in two public agencies. From the outset of my observation of a law enforcement agency under study, I noticed that colleagues frequently consulted one another about responsibilities. Although the official regulations required that agents who encountered a problem ask the advice of the supervisor and not that of a colleague, there was rarely a time in the large office where they worked when I did not observe one or more pairs engaged in discussing one of their cases. Lunch periods were filled with shop talk, involving either one official telling the others about interesting issues he had encountered in a case or one asking the opinion of the others how best to handle an intricate problem. This practice of unofficial consultations, which were prohibited but tolerated, impressed me immediately as of great sociological interest. I conceptualized such transactions as social exchanges in which each gains something while paying a price. One official receives help without having to expose his or her difficulties to the supervisor, in return for paying the consultant respect, which is implicit in requesting advice. Repeated instances of this kind raise the second persons informal status at the cost of devoting time and effort to advising others.
My study of government officials was inspired by Merton, whose lectures introduced me to Webers theory of bureaucracy, and by my interest in research on informal relations in work groups, which I had studied in Arensbergs course on industrial sociology. My objective was to apply the procedures developed in empirical studies of industrial work groups to research on officials in a government bureaucracy. When the results were later published as The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, Homans review of the book noted that its title is misleading because it is not so much about bureaucracy as about informal relations in work groups. This comment had a sleeper effect on me and influenced the direction of my research years later. But before that, my analysis had apparently stimulated Homans thinking, and his work, in turn, influenced mine.
When Homans gave a guest lecture at the University of Chicago, where I was a junior assistant professor in the 1950s, it greatly surprised me when this prominent sociologist quoted my discussion on consultation at length and used it as the basis of the analysis he presented, which was his first paper on exchange theory (1958). His focus on my analysis and his subsequent elaboration of exchange theory (Homans, 1961) rekindled my interest in the study of social exchange.
What particularly attracted me to the concept of social exchange is that I consider it the prototype of a social phenomenon and thus an elemental process or particle of social life well suited for sociological inquiry. Many of the subjects we study in our surveys are not social in the same generic sense but socially generated properties of persons. Peoples attitudes, votes, educational careers, and occupations are certainly socially conditioned and usually oriented toward other people, but these factors themselves refer to the acting and thinking of individuals, not to a social process. Social exchange differs from such variables in that it pertains directly to the process of give-and-take between two or more persons, centering attention on the dependence of egos conduct, not on egos prior conditioning, background, experience, or traits, but rather on alters conduct, which in turn is contingent on egos past and expected future interaction with alter. My main disagreement with Homans theory is rooted in this conception of the peculiarly social nature of exchange, which implies that it cannot be reduced to or derived from psychological principles that govern the motives of individuals, as Homans aims to do. The objective of exchange theory is, in my view, to explain social life in terms of exchange principles by analyzing the reciprocal processes composing exchange, not to explain why individuals participate in certain exchange relations in terms of the motives and the underlying psychological principles (just as the psychologists objective is not to explain psychological tendencies and motives in terms of the underlying physiological processes). In sociology, not only the