Chapter1: Introduction: Sociological Theory

Conceptualizing Structure and Role

Though Mead's synthesis provided the initial conceptual breakthrough, it did not satisfactorily resolve the problem of how participation in the structure of society shapes individual conduct, and vice versa. In an effort to resolve this vagueness, sociological inquiry began to focus on the concept of role. Individuals were seen as playing roles associated with positions in larger networks of positions. With this vision, efforts to understand more about social structures and how individuals are implicated in them intensified during the 1920s and 1930s. This line of inquiry became known as role theory.

Robert Park's Role Theory

Robert Park (1864-1944), who came to the University of Chicago near the end of Mead's career, was one of the first to extend Mead's ideas through an emphasis on roles. As Park observed, "everybody is always and everywhere, more or less consciously, playing a role." But Park stressed that roles are linked to structural positions in society and that self is intimately linked to playing roles within the confines of the positions of social structure:

The conceptions which men form of themselves seem to depend upon their vocations, and in general upon the role they seek to play in communities~ and social groups in which they live, as well as upon the recognition and status which society accords them in these roles. It is status, i.e., recognition by the co--unity, that confers upon the individual the character of a person, since a person is an individual who has status, not necessarily legal, but social.

Park's analysis stressed that self emerges from the multiple roles that people play. In turn, roles are connected to positions~ in social structures. This kind of analysis shifts attention to the nature of society and how its structure influences the processes outlined in Mead's synthesis.

Jacob Moreno's Role Theory

Inspired in part by Mead's concept of role taking and by his own earlier studies in Europe, Jacob Moreno (1892-1974) was one of the first to develop the concept of role playing. In Who Shall Survive and in many publications in the journals that he founded in America, Moreno began to view social organization as a network of roles that constrain and channel behavior . In his early works, Moreno distinguished different types of roles: (a) "psychosomatic roles," in which behavior is related to basic biological needs, as conditioned by culture, and in which role enactment is typically unconscious; (b)"psychodramatic roles," in which individuals behave in accordance with the specific expectations of a particular social context; and (c) "social roles," in which individuals conform to the more~ general expectations of various conventional social categories (for example, worker, Christian, mother, and father).

Despite the suggestiveness of these distinctions, their importance comes not so much from their substantive content as from their intent: to conceptualize social structures as organized networks of expectations that require varying types of role enactments by individuals. In this way, analysis can move beyond the vague Meadian conceptualization of society as coordinated activity ~regulated by the generalized other to a conceptualization of social organization as various types of interrelated role enactments regulated by varying types of expectations.

Ralph Linton's Role Theory

Shortly after Moreno's publication of Who Shall Survive, the anthropologist Ralph Linton (1893-1953) further conceptualized the nature of social organization, and the individual's embeddedness in it, by distinguishing among the concepts of role, status, and individuals:

A status, as distinct from the individual who may occupy it, is simply a collection of rights and duties.... A role represents the dynamic aspect of status. The individual is socially assigned to a status and occupies it with relation to other statuses. When he puts the rights and duties which constitute the status into effect, he is performing a role.

This passage contains several important conceptual distinctions. Social structure reveals several distinct elements: (a) a network of positions, (b) a corresponding system of expectations, and (c) patterns of behavior that are enacted for the expectations of particular networks of interrelated positions. In retrospect, these distinctions might appear self-evident and trivial, but they made possible the subsequent elaboration of many interactionist concepts:

1. Linton's distinctions allow us to conceptualize society as dear-cut variables: the nature and kinds of interrelations among positions and the types of expectations attending these positions.

2. The variables Mead denoted by the concepts of mind and self can be analytically distinguished from both social structure (positions and expectations) and behavior (role enactment).

3. BY conceptually separating the processes o f role taking and imaginative rehearsal from both social structure~ and behavior, the points of articulation between society and the individual can be move clearly marked, because role taking pertains to covert interpretations of the expectations attending networks of statuses and role denotes the enactment of these expectations as mediated by self.

Thus, by offering move conceptual insight into the nature of social organization, Park, Morono, and Linton provided a needed supplement to Mead's suggestive concepts. Now, it would be possible to understand more precisely the interrelations among mind, serf, and society.

THE RISE OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

The first well-developed theoretical perspective to emerge from Mead's synthesis was "symbolic interactionism," a term coined by Herbert Blumer (1900-1987) who took over Mead's social psychology course after Mead's death and who for some fifty years championed a particular interpretation of Mead's ideas. Blumer's advocacy did not go unchallenged, however, and an alternative school of thought emerged at the State University of Iowa, a challenge led by several scholars but principal]y by Manford Kuhn. The poles around which these two and their aides debated have been labeled the Iowa and Chicago Schools of symbolic interactionism. These labels are misleading because Blumner had left Chicago by midcentury, and Kuhn died shortly thereafter. Moreover, much of the Iowa School tradition had shined to symbolic interactionists at Indiana University by the 1960s, and so the Iowa-Chicago School dichotomy is more a label of convenience than a real indication of where the debate occurred. Still, in the 1950s and 1960s, the debate about how to develop theoretical explanations among those who identified with Mead's legacy was intense, if somewhat dispersed among universities. Indeed, today this very same debate has been repliicated by new protagonists.

Despite points of disagreement, all symbolic interactionists share a common legacy of assumptions taken from Mead. These points of convergence are what make symbolic interactionism a distinctive theoretical perspective.

Humans as Symbol Users Symbolic interactionists, as their name implies, place enormous emphasis on the capacity of humans to create and use symbols. In contrast with other animals, whose symbolic capacities~ are limited or nonexistent, the very essence of humans and the world that they create flows from their ability to symbolically represent one another, objects, ideas, and virtually any phase of their experience. Without the capacity to create symbols and to use them in human affairs, patterns of social organization among humans could not be created, maintained, or changed. Humans have become, to a very great degree, liberated from instinctual and biological programming and thus must rely on their symbol-using powers to adapt and survive in the world.

Symbolic Communication Humans use symbols to communicate with one another. By virtue of their capacity to agree on the meaning of vocal and bodily gestures, humans can effectively communicate. Symbolic communication is, of course, extremely complex, because people use more than word or language symbols in communication. They also use facial gestures, voice tones, body countenance, and other symbolic gestures that have common meaning and understanding,

Interaction and Role Taking By reading and interpreting the gestures of others, humans communicate and interact. They become able to mutually read each other, to anticipate each other's responses, and to adjust to each other. Mead termed this basic capacity "taking the role of the other," or role taking-- the ability to see the other's attitudes and dispositions to act. Interactionists still emphasize the process of role taking as the basic mechanism by which interaction occurs. For example, the late Arnold Rose, who was one of the leaders of contemporary interactionism, indicated that role taking "means that the individual communicator imagines--evokes within himself--how the recipient understands that communication." Or, as another modern interactionist, Sheldon Stryker, has emphasized, role taking is "anticipating the responses of others with one in some social act.''19 And, as Alfred Lindesmith and Anselm Strauss stressed, role taking is "imaginatively assuming the position or point of view of another person."

Without the ability to read gestures and to use these gestures as a basis for putting oneself in the position of others, interaction could not occur. And, without interaction, social organization could not exist.

Interaction, Humans, and Society Just as Mead emphasized that mind,self, and society are intimately connected, so symbolic interactionists ~analyzed the relation between the genesis of "humanness" and patterns of interaction.What makes humans unique as a species and enables each individual to possess distinctive characteristics is the result of interaction in society. Conversely, what makes society possible are the capacities that humans acquire as they grow and mature in society

Symbolic interactionists tended to emphasize the same human capacities as Mead: the genesis of mind and self~ Mind is the capacity to think to symbolically denote, weigh, assess, anticipate, map, and construct courses of action.Although Mead's term. mind, is rarely used today, the processes that this term denotes are given great emphasis. As Rose indicated, "Thinking is the process by which possible symbolic solutions and other future courses of action ate examined, assessed for their relative advantages and disadvantages in terms~ of the values of the individual, and one of them chosen for action.''

Moreover, the concept of mind has been reformulated to embrace what W I. Thomas (1863-1947) termed the definition of the situation, With the capacities of mind, actors can name, categorize, and orient themselves to constellations of objects--including themselves as objects--in all situations. In this way they can assess, weigh, and sort out appropriate lines of conduct.

Table 13.1 Covergence and Divergence in the Chicago and Iowa Schools of Symbolic Interactionism




Theoretical Issues~ Convergence of Schools

The nature of humans Humans create and use symbols to denote aspects

of the world around them.

What makes humans unique are their symbolic

capacities. Humans are capable of symbolically

denoting and invoking objects, which can then

shape their definitions of social situations and,

hence, their actions.

Humans are capable of self-reflection and evalua-

tion. They see themselves as objects in most social

situations.

The nature of interaction Interaction depends on people's capacities to emit

and interpret gestures.

Role taking is the key mechanism of interaction

because~ it enables~ actors to view the other's per-

spective, as well as that of others and groups not

physically present.

Role taking and mind operate together by allow-

ing actors to use the perspectives~ of others and

groups as a basis for their deliberations, or defini-

tions of situations, before acting. In this way, peo

ple can adjust their responses~ to each other and to

social situations.

The nature of social organization Social structure is created, maintained, and

changed by process of symbolic interaction.

It is not possible to understand patterns of social

organization-even the most elaborate-without

knowledge of the symbolic process among indi-

viduals who ultimately make up this pattern..

The nature of sociological methods Sociological methods must focus on the process

by which people define situations and select

coups of action,

Methods must focus on individual persons.

the nature of sociological theory Theory~ must be about priests of interaction and

seek to isolate out the conditions under which

general types~ of behaviors and interactions are

likely to occur,

Divergence of Schools Convergence~ of Schools

Chicago School Iowa School

Humans with minds can introject any Humans with minds can define situations,

object into a situation, but there tends to be consistency in the

objects that they introject into situations.

Although self is an important object, it is Self is the most important object in the

not the only object, definition of a situation.

Humans weigh, assess, and map coupes of Humans weigh, assess, and map coupe of

action before action, but humans can action but they do so through the prisms

potentially alter their definitions and of their core ~self and the groups in which

actions, this self is anchored.

Interaction is a constant process of role Interaction depends on the process of role

taking with others and groups, taking.

Others and groups thus becomes objects The expectations of others and norms of

that are involved in people's definitions of the situation are important considerations

situations, in arriving at definitions of situations.

Self is another important object that People's core self is the most important con-

enters into people's definitions, sideration and constraint on interaction.

People's definitions of situations involve

weighing and assessing objects and then

mapping courses of action,

Interaction involves~ constantly shifting Interaction most often involves actions that

definitions and changing patterns of conform to situational expectations as miti-

action and interaction, gated by the requirements of the core self,

Social structure is constructed by actors Social structures are composed of net-

adjusting their responses to each other, works of positions with attendant expecta-

tions or norms.

Social structure ~s one of many objects that Although symbolic interactions create and

actors introject into their definitions of sit- change structures, once these structures

uations, are created they constrain interaction.

Social structure is subject to constant Social structures are thus relatively stable,

realignments as actors' definitions and especially when people's core self is

behaviors change, forcing new adjust invested in particular networks of posi-

ments from others, tions.

Sociological methods must penetrate the Sociological methods must measure with

actors' mental world and see how they reliable instruments actors' symbolic

construct courses of action, processes.

Researchers must be attuned to the multi- Research should be directed toward defin-

pie, varied, ever-shifting, and often inde- ing and measuring those variables that

terminate influences on definitions of ~causally influence behaviors.

situations and actions.

Research must therefore use observational, R~earch must therefore use structured

geographical, and unstructured interview measuring instruments, such as question-

techniques if it is to penetrate people's naires, to get reliable and valid measures~

definitional process and consider of key variables~.

changes in these process.

Only sensitizing concepts are possible in Sociology can develop precisely defined

sociology, concepts with clear empirical measure.

Deductive theory is thus not possible in Theory ~n thus be deductive, with a lim-

socioiogy. ited number of general propositions sub-

suming lower-order prop~itions and

empirical generalizations on sp~ific

phases~ of symbolic interaction.

At best, theory can offer general and ten- Theory can offer abstract explanations

tative descriptions and interpretations of that can allow predictions of behavior and

behaviors and patterns of interaction, interactions

As the concept of the definition of the situation underscores, self remains the key concept in the interactionist literature. Emphasis in the interactionist orientation is on (a) the emergence of self-conceptions--relatively stable and enduring conceptions that people have about themselves--and (b) the ability to derive self-images--pictures of oneself as an object in social situations. Self is thus a major object that people inject into their definitions of situations. It shapes much of what people see, feel, and do in the world ~around them.

Society, or relatively stable patterns of interaction, is seen by interactionlsts as possible only by virtue of people's capacities to define situations and, most particularly, to view themselves as objects in situations. Society can exist by virtue of human capacities for thinking and defining as well as for self-reflection and evaluation.

In sum, these points of emphasis constitute the core of the interactionist approach. Yet, there are many points of disagreement among symbolic interactions with respect to not only substantive issues but methodological and theoretical ones as well. In Table 13.1, the points of agreement are listed in the second column on the left, and the points of disagreement ~are delineated in the two right columns. For the most part, those leaning toward the Iowa pole see social structures of positions and roles as more constraining than do those at the Chicago pole. Along with this emphasis on constraints of social structure, the other major arena of disagreement is over the nature of methods and theory, where some emphasize more precise methods and formal theory while others stress more observational methods using sensitizing concepts to offer descriptions of events.

Ethnomethodological Theory

In the 1960s, a new kind of interactionist theorizing emerged. This approach drew more from the phenomenological tradition of Alfred Schutz than from the pragmatist tradition of George Herbert Mead and proposed an alternative approach to analyzing interaction: explore the methods used by people to construct a sense of ongoing reality~ This emphasis became known as ethnomethodology. As this label underscores, ethnomethodology is the study of ("ology") the interpersonal "methods" that people ("ethno") use. Like Edmund Husserl and Schutz, ethnomethodologists ask how people create and sustain for each other the presumption that the social world has a real character.

THE REFLEXIVE AND INDEXICAL NATURE OF INTERACTION

Schutz postulated one basic reality-the paramount--in which people's conduct of their everyday affairs occurs. Most early ethnomethodologists, however, were less interested in whether or not there is one or multiple "realities,""lifeworlds," or "natural attitudes." Far more important in ethnomethodological analysis was the development of concepts and principles that could help explain how people construct, maintain, and change their lines of conduct as they seek to sustain the presumption that they share the same reality. At the core of ethnomethodological analysis are two basic assumptions about (1) the reflexive and (2) the indexical nature of all interaction.