Habitualisation, institutionalisation and legitimation

In arguing the importance of social structure this discussion now turns to the concepts of habitualisation, institutionalisation and legitimation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Charon, 2007). Further, the function of the socio-cultural system is to constrain social members of a society in various ways. These concepts provide the bases for explaining the causes of participant actions, conflicts and resistance as they are manifest in the social environment of this research.

Berger and Luckmann (1966) argued that human behaviour is socially constructed and contextually determined. Unlike other animals, human beings can build their own living organisations unrestricted by biological characteristics because people have great flexibility in relation to their surrounding environment. Hence, infants not only interact with the natural environment but also learn to interact with their artificial environment which is determined by socio-cultural systems (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). As Berger and Luckmann (1966, p. 48) put it:

Not only is the survival of the human infant dependent upon certain social arrangement, the direction of his (sic) organismic development is socially determined. From the moment of birth, man’s organismic development, and indeed a large part of his biological being as such, are subjected to continuing social determined interference.

Because human beings are social in nature, social order is produced and socially constructed by human beings to provide stability for human conduct and also to protect human beings from chaos (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Social order, institutional structures and cultural characteristics provide constraints and opportunities with limitation and guidance for human behaviours (Hayward & Lukes, 2008; Powers, 2004). While it has been argued that symbolic interactionism ignored the existence of social structure (Denzin, 1992; Gouldner, 1970; Maines, 1977; Sauder, 2005), social institutions and structures have also been defined as products of interactions in which “stability and change are context-dependent” (Dennis & Martin, 2007, p. 292). In addressing the allegation that Mead’s views reject the existence of structure in human society. Blumer (1969, p. 75) wrote:

Such a position would be ridiculous. There are such matters as social roles, status positions, rank orders, bureaucratic organizations, and relations between institutions, differential authority arrangements, social codes, norms values and the like. And they are very important.

Nonetheless, institutional change depends on the meanings people give and take from the institution (Dennis & Martin, 2007). Indeed, institutionalisation and legitimisation are essential procedures when constructing social structures and social order (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). The understanding that this brings to this research is that the phenomenon of the employment of foreign carers for older people in Taiwan is shaped by the social processes of institutionalisation and legitimatisation. As Blumer (1969, p. 58) emphasised, “large-scale social organisations have to be seen, studied and explained in terms of the process of interpretation engaged in by the acting participants”.

First, human beings develop and keep performing habits and routines in similar situations. In so doing, the tension of decision making is reduced. Habitualisation therefore, is a process by which habits and routines are formed when human beings engage in their everyday lives (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Second, institutionalisation is the forming of habit and routines to which humans must subscribe. Context and prescriptions of an institution shape the roles and actions of people. In other words, institutions emerge as the central process for constructing social order. Berger and Luckmann (1966, p. 54) describe the correlation between habitualisation and institutionalisation as follows:

Institutionalisation occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualised actions by types of actors. Put differently, any such typification is an institution. What must be stressed is the reciprocity of institutional typifications and the typicality of not only the actions but also the actors in institutions. The typifications of habitualised actions that constitute institutions are always shared ones. They are available to all the members of the particular social groups in question, and the institution itself typifies individual actors as well as individual actions.

By its very nature social group membership is an institution and thus actions are restricted and controlled by social rules. This means that actions are largely

predictable within defined context. For example, people need to conform to systemic policies within their social settings. Yet institutionalisation of social order is also an ongoing process because human needs change and stability must be reasserted in the face of change. For instance, in Taiwan where the structures of family, education and health care are reforming so institutions such as laws and cultural norms are transforming so that social order is sustained.

Following habitualisation and institutionalisation, legitimation is a further social order making process (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). This is an important strategy for ensuring social order because essential values, knowledge and explanations are all developed and provided for social members. There are four levels of legitimation defined by Berger and Luckmann (1966, pp. 94-95). The initial level is the development of linguistic objectifications system which is transmitted from people’s experiences over generations. For example, a child is taught who her parents are and the relationship with her parents and then learns about relationships with other relatives. The second level of legitimation “contains theoretical propositions in a rudimentary form” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 94). For example, people are taught and expected to respect and take responsibility for their older parents in a Chinese society.

The third level of legitimation contains “explicit theories” which are transmitted by individuals who have specific knowledge. Finally, the fourth level of legitimisation is the development of symbolic universes for people. Symbolic universes are “bodies of theoretical tradition that integrate different provinces of meaning and encompass the institutional order in a symbolic totality” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 95). The symbolic universe is seen as a historical product coming from the processes of objectivation, sedimentation and accumulation of people’s knowledge. It integrates both objective and subjective meanings for individuals and collective groups and encompasses individual behaviours as “everything in its right place” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 98).

Hence institutions and rules are legitimated for social members who can then develop a sense of identity and belonging in relation to the social group. But in order to construct a better social environment for social members, the construction of meanings that are shared within the social group is an ongoing process and changes over time. This reflects the argument of Mead (1934) that people are intelligent actors and can produce practical solutions for problems and maintain order in continuously changing social organisations and institutions. Blumer (1971, p. 266) also stated that social problems are products of “a process of collective definition” and “as a set of objective social arrangements with an intrinsic makeup”.

What leads to social change comes from people’s interactions but is also shaped by external and internal forces. Internal force is used to deal with social problems that arise within the society. The term “social problem” was defined by Blumer (1971, p. 266) as a product “of a process of collective definition” and where legitimated policies are imposed to address social problems. An external force is used to deal with confrontations between societies. These propositions provide a vehicle for understanding the changing needs and social movements in Taiwanese, Indonesian and Vietnamese societies. Global capitalism and economic growth pose as the external forces that have brought about social institutional change in these three countries. Issues related to prosperity and the provision of long-term care need is conceived as the internal forces for social change. Legitimation, policies and social institutions therefore dominate social actions and behaviours around these social issues in the three countries. As Buckley and Ghauri (2004) point out globalisation across markets in different regions brings the challenges for policy makers to address institutional issues that are at once local, national, and international

Legitimation therefore has been central to the activities of both host and labour-sending countries in the pursuit of economic prosperity where women from less developed countries have been employed to fill the care gap in Taiwan. From a social constructionist perspective, historical contexts and contingent social relationships should be taken into consideration when exploring a social phenomenon (Friedman, 2006). Indeed, aged care in Taiwan was and is an obligation of adult children and this has been legitimated by Taiwanese law. The shift from

agrarian based to industrial society has seen the majority of adult women in Taiwan move into full-time employment thus removing traditional carers from the aged care system. Through the development of new policies, agreements and institutions foreign carers appeared as the solution to problems of aged care in Taiwan.

Changing social contexts and the behaviours of social members is not an easy process and can bring conflict and resistance (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Power structures therefore become the dominating factor that brings about or inhibits social change (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). In the words of Berger and Luckmann (1966, p. 109), a society that has “better weapons”, “more power” and a “bigger stick” “has a better chance of imposing his (sic) definitions of reality”. In this research, Taiwan represents the society with greater economic power and thus a superior negotiating position relative to the foreign carer source countries. Power relations are also a significant influence on negotiations and communications between foreign carers and Taiwanese host family members.