Blau's social exchange theory of Blau's social exchange theory evaluation

Blau's theory is based on Homans psychological theory of exchange though. Yet he was reluctant to accept Homans' reduction of all social processes to psychological phenomena. Blau's view of the nature of the overall effect of social structure avoids psychological reductionism and gives sociology a special object. There is no doubt that compared to Homans' psychological reductionism. Blau's view is more in line with the sociological tradition and more acceptable to most sociologists.

Brau's view of man is consistent with that of other structural-functionalists, and unlike Homans' view of man, Brau emphasizes the economic basis of social exchange more than Homans does, but ignores the psychology of behavior that Homans emphasizes. Rather than being close to Homans' view of man, Blau's view of man is closer to that of Parsons and Merton. Although Blau viewed economic motivation according to the traditional concepts of "gain" and "acquisition," he believed that people are rationally motivated to pursue particular goals. People are rationally motivated to pursue specific goals, the acquisition of which is limited by constraints in the social structure. People are free to choose their goals. But only within the limits allowed by the structure. Blau summarizes his view of social structure as follows, "My conception of social structure begins with a simple, concrete definition of its components and their relations. The components of social structure are the groups or classes of people, such as men and women, racial groups, or socio-economic strata; these are the places of people in different groups and classes. The interconnections within and between these parts are the social relationships of people in different groups and classes. This social guna system is expressed in their social interaction and communication processes." Although Blau's conception of social structure is not quite the same as that of Structural Functionalism and Structural Functionalism's conception of social structure. But there is no fundamental difference. Blau's theory improves on Homans' theory from a sociological point of view, but it has also been criticized for some of its own flaws:

(1) The greatest weakness of Blau's theory is that it relies on a very important premise, namely, that human behavior is guided by exchange. Such processes are given. It cannot be adequately demonstrated or explained. If a person is willing to accept the premise about the importance of exchange in social relations, he will follow Blau's theory, on the contrary. If a person cannot accept this important premise. To accept Blau's theory is impossible.

(2) Blau's definition of collective organization is so broad that it encompasses the full range of phenomena from small groups to complex organizations. Except for community studies. Most fields of sociology fall under Blau's category of collective organization.

(3) Blau's sociological stance is much stronger than Homans. He seeks to analyze the differences between and within collectives. This effort is laudable, but his theory falls short of this goal. Blau identifies some important differences, but fails to analyze them in depth.

Despite the shortcomings of Blau's work. But it is semi-classical in sociological theory. As Margaret Poloma puts it, "Because he saw power and oppression as social phenomena. It goes beyond traditional functionalism. Without the limitations of static functional theory, it attempts to draw the reader's attention to the dynamic aspects of the creation and maintenance of social structures. Thus, his analysis is not only micro but also macro, he is concerned with micro as well as macro societies, and he seeks to demonstrate how certain basic principles can be applied to both micro and macro phenomena. These aspects of his theory are undoubtedly more striking than the deficiencies.