Does The Symbolic Interactionism Explain Anything Sociology Essay

Does The emblematical funda manpowertal interactionism Explain Anything Sociology Es hypothecateSymbolic interactionism is a major theoretical perspective in sociology regarding intra kindly human behaviour. While Hurbert Blumer coined the term in 1937, its conception traces back up to the nineteenth century nonably, in the American philosopher and sociologist George Mead from The Chicago School through to the pioneering Erving G run intoman (Farganis, 2008). Although never formally categorized as a symbolic interactionist, Goffman hugely shaped the perspective as one of its main practitioners (Marshall, 1998). Symbolic interactionism principally concerns small- descale human interactions, from Meads inception to Goffmans subsequent transformations. The principal issue is whether the system explains human phenomena from an singular scale of human psychology to the broad, macroscopic scale of societies and its questionable success in doing so, or indeed in explaining other phen omena.Fundamentally, the concept of symbolic interactionism is bipartite interaction and symbolic (Carter, 2011). The former is the interaction among separate battalion and these relationships operative mechanisms. The latter refers to both the generation and interpretation of peoples fond signals from their facial expressions d stimulate to their extract of attire (2011). As a theory, the perspective examined the retrieveings and familiarities between human interaction at a small-socio synthetic level and in a really interpretative manner the development of the ego within the societal land (Mead, 1934). According to Mead, human experience could non be relegated to individual psychology alone, but analyzes experience from the standstill of communication as essential to the social order (1934 401). The ideas were antithetical to that of Descartes famous cogito ergo sum (1641), in which the self- wideness was seen as distinct and its existence was indubitably true indep endent from the body and Goffmans idea of the social realm. Symbolic interactionism was thus an implicit reaction against a classical conception of man as by the piece responsible and essentially noble the new sociology placed human universes in an inherently social context. Mead, and his sequel from Goffman, characterizes the self in two parts the I and the Me (1934). The I was the response of an individual to the carriage of others, whilst the me was form set of attitudes of others that the individual assumed (2001). Symbolic interactionism sought to explain how human beings and the self-understood interactions between one another(prenominal) and its negotiation of the world around them. In Salernos mind, Goffman perceived the individual as nothing more than a cog responsible for the sustentation of the social world by playing his or her part (2004, 184). Goffman is not discounting the importance of the individual for him, ordination was the micro-level interactions between humans, and most importantly, could not exist without them. Essentially Goffman characterises society as a macroscopic emergent property of microscopic interactions. This is literally true insofar as there is no independent soul or spirit to society except simply the aggregate of its members nevertheless, this deprivation of large-scale theory exposes symbolic interactionism as fundamentally unambitious in explaining that elusive concept, society, as opposed to simply a large agglomeration of connected individuals.The question of symbolic interactionisms explanatory power remains unanswered. The future(a) portion of this essay shall focus specifically on The Presentation of routine Life (1959) Asylum (1961) The Interaction Ritual (1967) Forms of Talk (1981) and will dissect Goffmans explanation of society.The idea of face work (1967) was crucial to intellectual the complexities of symbolic interactionism in day-to-day cultural settings. It provided an in-depth interpretation and a new insight into the presentation of self in everyday spiritedness (Carter 2011). Goffman principally exploited the concept of dramaturgical metaphor, in which human actions ar contextualized in time, place and audience (Goffman, 1967) and used a theatrical metaphor to extend this theory, emphasizing the visit that interaction between people was a literal performance, moulded by the audience and skirts. For Goffman, day-to-day life was flavour management (1967). Harking back to Goffmans earlier work, the existence of these performances did not wane with ill mental health on the contrary illustrated in Asylum (1961). Everyday social life was a game, involving strategic interactions and moves. Robert Carters caseful of a teacher/pupil relationship in the classroom illustrates that Goffmans symbolic interactionism provides detailed insight into everyday life and explains the meanings behind even out mundane scenarios the teacher uses the strategic interaction of walking around, looking at (the pupils) because differently I dont know whether the pupils atomic number 18 concentrating (2011). The significant social interactivity of teaching as opposed to manual labour, say strengthens this example. However, teachings relatively strict formality and explicit hierarchy is a especially codified example of social interaction, unlike informal socializing and its unspoken rules indeed, the symbols, whether they be the school bell or the teachers register, have very clearly prescribed roles, and consequently symbolic interactionisms claim that individuals prescribe meaning to their worlds objects loses its profundity of individual semiotic creation when that meaning is given, even forced, on them.For Goffman, all social interactions revolved around the concept of a front and back region (1959). Continuing the theatrical metaphor, he posited a divergence of the front self from the back self. The front acts as a vehicle for self-promotion and to define t he situation for those who come up (1959 22), in the aforementioned(prenominal) vein as an actor builds a facsimile of another persons social role. The back region is effectually where ones identity can reveal all the hidden and private traits, unavailable to view by society (2008 372). The game of life, a process whereby the self was at odds with their audience reciprocally giving off false evidence and trying to uncover the legality (1969) reflects an a common psycho-social dichotomy of inner and outmost worlds, but Goffman fails to adequately explain the dialogue between the two. He explores the game by expanding its breath by introducing teams (1959) extending his work to group dynamics individuals bonded by reciprocal dependency and accomplishments rely firmly on cooperation and the maintenance of a group appearance (1959 79) success lies unequivocally in unanimous action and demeanor disagreements and outing ar only seen in the back. Divisions between the team and its viewers was described as an audience separationism (1959 137) allowing teams to manipulate their front to the demands of unique audiences. Thus, ideological altercations do not damage the team per se more importantly, they continue impression management, maintaining a constant embodied face out of m each competing individual interests.The front-back bifurcation, nonetheless, is exceedingly dependent on situation. Using the example of real actors rather than metaphor, back-stage for the actor is still his front. Another exampleA teacher who retires from his frontstage performance in class to the backstage of the teachers room, is, from another perspective, still frontstage, since he does not recount his blunders in class to his colleagues. From this perspective, indeed, the situation in class is backstage. (Anthrobase)Specifically, the audience dictates behavior fellow colleagues, in the realm of back-stage turn into another audience against which to shield when personal embarrass ment is mentioned. Indeed, were the metaphor consistently and some cynically applied, human beings are always disguising true feeling, and thus it is impossible for an external observer to rattling access the back-stage. Goffman purports that some public actions are distinct from audience segregation, while still performance they are ritual. Ritual means playing oneself (1967 32). For Robert Carter, ritual and game are not mutually exclusive to the individual psyche, lots generating real tensionLife as a game implies that youve actually seen it as a game and once you see something as a game, you can no longer perform it ritually because youve understood that it is a game. (2011)In essence, it makes the distinction between gives and give off signs game playing versus ritual, respectively.Overall, while he was not formally a symbolic-interactionist, Goffmans work clearly shows the hallmarks of casting social interaction as a subtle web of symbols, and inner and outer being. He pr ovides some express mail explanation for the importance of meaning to asking, what is social? Previous unscathed shebang by Weber, although considering meaning essential to the question, never formulated a cogent argument as to why it was so. On the other hand, Goffmans dramaturgical tone-beginning saw meaning as such i.e., the object of throught, arises in experience through the individual stimulating himself to take the attitude of the other in his reactions toward the object (Wallace and Wolf, 202). In this respect, his works have succeeded where Webers fell short. Admittedly, the criticisms of symbolic interactionism are applicable later on to insinuate that Goffmans work explains nothing can be considered as cynics frontNevertheless, despite its merits, Goffmans works on the self overlook its fundamental flaws in application. In The Presentation of the egotism in Everyday Life, Goffman asserts the view that all individuals play the game, hiding true intentions within the guise of the front. If true, then humans are inherently Machiavellian beings posing behind insincere masks, precluding the potential for altruism and solidarity. Goffman is implicitly denying the very social conditions of being human. His concorders counter with the view that characterising role-playing as immoral or dishonest is naveWhat tick offes the honest from dishonest performers, is not the need for rehearsals and performance, but rather a) whether the performers are socially authorized to play the roles and b) the attitude of the performers toward their own roles (Meyrowitz in Riggins, 1990 70)It is true that a performance does not infer dishonesty per se however, the inability to distinguish an actors true honest from dishonest performance seems to nullify Goffmans response to this issue admittedly, this is predicated on a particularly ends-driven pseudo-consequentialism, that only an individuals end actions matter, rather than his internal psychological processes produ cing those.Goffmans work in Asylum (1961) specifically on The Moral Career of the Mental Patient (1959) attempted to dissect the nature of marginalized individuals in society, isolated from widely distributed society. His study sought to uncover how the incarcerated and practitioners created meaning during their interactions and how their presentation and construction of self was formed. Like The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, the Asylum followed Goffmans game and ritual concepts, although the situational environments were significantly different to start, asylums were total institutions (1961) in which people were cut off from wider society and restrictively subordinated under their handlers. Moreover, the struggle for identity in a closed(a) and draconian total institution sees the mortification of self (Goffman 1959). Incarcerating mental patients implied an unacceptably incompetent front, and the inability to observe standard properties on the outside (Giddens 1987 130). It is thus clear that for asylums to function as reforming institutes, it had to threaten a whole complex of practices whereby actors are able to demonstrate both to others and to themselves their competence as agents sic. (1987 129). For Goffman, mental patients went through cardinal self-explanatory stages prepatient, inpatient and ex-patient (1959). Robert Carter purports that asylums often entailed a surprising reciprocal relationship in vulnerability as patients are stripped of rights and free will and relegated to enforced infantilism (Giddeos, 1987) and effectively lose their identity, so too do the asylum and psychiatrists, in imposing their own definition of what a patient is (2011), suffer a vulnerability. During his preserve at the asylum, appropriately adopting a front as a pseudo-employee, Goffman sought to modify the populist theories surrounding mental institutions of curing illness. Goffman wanted to expose and understand the gap between the work that t he staff do and what they say are trying to do (Weinstein, 1982 268). In many ways, his studies provided key tools to the field of social oversee according to Weinstein, his work has been cited in legal cases predicated on the care of mental patient, as well as applications in health policy (1982 267). However, although Goffman intended to provide meaning for human interactions in the asylum as well as in everyday life his work was still criticised.Critics of symbolic interactionism often brush up Goffmans micro-sociological approach as fundamentally flawed in prescribing a grand theory of society. The perspective is seen to be as well impressionistic (Hawaii 1) in its research methodology as well as being alone unsystematic to the point of chaos (Psathas 1980 53) Its highly subjective and qualitative methods, and the interpretative nature of the dramaturgical approach, mean that its application is limited to small-scale interactions. Any macroscopic extension highlights the s hortcomings of Goffmans work his theorems are often limited to specific and present moments and entail relatively little developments of concepts which can used transsituationally (Psathas, 1980 54). Effectively, it lacked cross-cultural analysis and universality (Comp, 3) and ergo could not adequately describe the massed hoi polloi. Moreover, given the limitations in Goffmans approach across regional boundaries, any historical comparative analysis was, and still is, impossible.However, Richard L. Lanigan states that Goffmans work in Forms of Talk do not ineluctably relegate his holdings to that of solely micro-sociology. Goffmans work on a radio audience gives a holistic collective entity that at the very least is preconceived to be an aggregate displaying group typicalities in society (Riggins, 1990 122). Nevertheless, Lanigans support of Goffman does not invalidate the point that Goffmans dramaturgical was inadequate for achieving a social science of social actions delinquent to his lack of rigorous method and empirically interactional phenomena (Psathas, 1996 11). However, Goffmans work in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life can stretch to macro-sociological readings. In Barnharts model, the contextualizing of Goffmans writings with other thinkers ( overts) a beneficial association between micro- and macro structures of society becomes visible. (n/a 5). Linking Goffman to Durkheim, Barnharts critique suggests that his work has significance at both micro and macro levels of society, namely in the concept of spontaneity. As Goffman sees its relevance to the aspect of a true and candid performance of the spontaneous actor, Durkheim entertains the idea of the macro-sociological model of spontaneity (1984 313). The concept linked both scopes of sociology and reaffirmed the notion of truth in contemporary social organizations (Barnhart, n/a 5). It therefore rebutted the claim that Goffmans work lacks macroscopic application and cannot explain large-s cale pheonomena. However, attempts by Goffman supporters eventually trail off. According to Giddens, Goffman managed a strict separation between his work and that of sociologists interested in the macro-structural properties of social systems to compound, he resolutely refused to do so (Giddens 1987 131).Criticism of Goffman does not end there Riggins contends that Goffmans writing often descends into a stylistic merger of scholarly monograph with the novel or with journalistic accounts (1990 65). Not only was Goffmans work as a macro-sociologist completely void, his critics went on to attack even his writings on micro-sociology stating that his works were descriptive rather than prescriptive. John Lofland suggesting that Goffman was more concerned with labeling, defining, and characterizing types of behaviors (sic), roles, events, and rules than with showing logical connection among the types (Riggins, 66). Works such as The Presentation of self in Everyday Life often espouse ideas that are somewhat innate to the workings of modern society to suggest that some men conceal lust for underage girls or suppress their desire to release bodily fluids in a social setting is fundamentally intuitive. They seek to preserve their status in society but not openly admit to be a pedophile or churlish, respectively they have made the trade-off in the psychological effort of self-control and the social benefits of not admitting such inadmissible desires. If Goffmans opponents seem overly zealous, even his advocates, such as Randall Collins, admit that he fails to push on through to full obstinacy of the theoretical territories he has reconnoitered (1980 206). His works descriptive nature leaves little room for explanatory theory by failing to explain the true mechanisms of social interaction, he fails in evaluation and analysis.Goffmans symbolic interactionism and the dramaturgical approach are sociologically inadequate. Its micro-sociological approach limits itself to sma ll intimate groups and lacks cross-cultural universality, and even in its own force field is insufficient while exploring previously uncharted scholarly realms, such as in asylums, Goffmans work tends to open up the surface of immediate relevance (Collins, 1980 175) but presented countless observations and few integrated theories (Meyrowitz in Riggins, 1990 65). Symbolic interactionism is useful in characterising meaning and superficial behaviour, but fails to rigorously justify itself in phenomenologically-grounded investigations, relegating itself to being thoroughly interesting rather than thoroughly theoretical (Riggins 1990, 65). Goffman failed to construct an overarching paradigm for human beings and their civilization, instead satiate with a mass of disjointed bits thus he remains more a footnote of description than a titan of theory.