Model Of Individualism

Weber judges this image of the institutional precept quasi-mechanistic too naturalistic. Therefore, for the naturalist, if the individual gave a subjective meaning to his behavior, the action would be social. So, the individual is both subject and object . Consequently, his behavior is partially explicable with a discernment (by an interpretative method) of the meaning that the individual attributes to the things that pushed him to action.

T. Parsons is trying to register for the sequence of this reflection. Indeed, it is the combination of objective and subjective approaches to the sociological analysis of social behavior that Parsons tries to achieve with his voluntarily institutionalized model of individualism. Thus, the existence of

Therefore, for G. H. Mead (1934) and A. Shultz, human capacity comes from social reality and can assign a common sense to social facts especially to the concepts of the "self" and its dual, "the other". So, the result of their interdependencies in gestural forms, especially verbal, themselves, symbols of previous and similar understandings is the meaning that individuals give themselves. Shultz 's research is extended to more complex social structures including those united to the notions of us and of them. The conclusions of Mead and Shultz will push Berger and Lukman to do other things, that is, to redirect their research as part of the participation of understanding in the social construction of reality. Therefore, they highlight the following definition: the continuous evolution of human construction has been the social reality, fruit of social interdependence, in which the "self" and the culture (common beliefs and knowledge) are themselves under construction perpetual. Then, the reaction of the individual would no longer be like that of a "normed self" but varies according to the conditions, his mental faculties, and the beliefs and common knowledge of the moment. In this context, the abnormal does not exist anymore because the possibility of an action not conforming to the "self" is the attestation of its update and that, of course, of its dual, "the other ". Moreover, for Berger and Lukman the product of an institutionalization development remains the construction of social reality. There is no doubt that the distinctive acts of this transformation are the importance of cognition and the absence of institutional structures. As a result, without resorting to structures, direct action on the individual through his cognition is common beliefs and knowledge. What differentiates the original symbolic interactionism, with Berger and Lukman 's model, is that it contains the possibility of internalizing certain cultural objects in value and