Perspectives in Sociological Social Psychology (SSP)
Rohall, Milkie, and Lucas (hereafter RML) have organized this chapter around three perspectives that focus on sociological social psychology. They are: 1) Symbolic Interaction (SI), 2) Social Structure and Personality, and 3) Group Processes. RML (2007:29) use Gil Musolf’s (2003a) definition of agency which is a key word in both sociology and SSP. Agency is the “ability to act and think independently from the constraints imposed by social conditions.”
Symbolic Interactionism (SI)
Symbolic Interactionism has its roots in British Enlightenment thought. British thinkers came to accept the notion that both the mind and social context (environment) have a dialectical relationship. In other words, as social contexts change, so do people’s attitudes, identity, etc. These social psychological aspects of people, in turn, change societal contexts. The key concept that RML (2007:29) are describing in this section is adaptation.
One of the more important symbolic interactionists was Herbert Blumer. Blumer established some basic ideas in SI. First, meanings are created when we interact with each other. Second, those shared meanings guide our behavior. Third, we interpret those meanings depending on the context we find ourselves in (RML 2007:31).
One of the more interesting parts of SI concerns symbols, language and how meaning arises. Language is shaped by culture and we construct meanings within that culture. Consider the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that suggest that language shapes one’s culture, which is the premise of Guy Deutscher’s recent book entitled Through the Language Glass. Deutscher (2010:3) quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson’s succinct observation:
We infer the spirit of the nation in great measure from the language, which is a sort of monument, to which each forcible individual in a course of many hundred years has contributed a stone. (originally in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Nominalist and Realist.” Essays: Second Series (2010 [1844])
We interpet and use symbols, meanings, and language (aspects of nonmaterial culture) in a subjective way. RML (2007:35) write, “people base future behavior on their subjective interpretation of a present situation.” What if we interpret situations differently? A famous psychologist, Oliver Sach’s wrote an interesting book of case studies where people process information abnormally. Sach’s book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, gives us a lot to think about in terms of processing, interpreting, and sharing meanings with others, especially if we are “psychologically wired” differently from most people.
If were anything close to a truism in sociology, it would have to be the Thomas Theorem. Regardless of the semester or the type of student (graduate, undergraduate, sociology or other), I make sure that students learn about W.I. Thomas’ theorem. The point of this theorem is that we as scientists should accept that when people believe a situation or some part of their life is real, then then they will guide their actions within that belief. It also suggests behaviors that we observe and label as irrational or “crazy” are just the opposite.
A final note about the history of SI is warranted. Two “schools” of SI have generated a lot of thought and research (RML 2007:35-37). The first is the Chicago school which tended towards a qualitative approach, especially pre-WWII. Blumer is associated with the post-WWII school. The other “school” of SI at Indiana and Iowa was positivistic and quantitative.
Social Structure and Personality
The social structure and personality approach has three parts, the components principle, the proximity principle, and the psychology principle (RML 2007:38-42). The components principle involves the relationship of statuses, roles, and social networks with a person’s personality. Think about your personality and how much of it is shaped by your social position in life. In the film People Like Us, Joe Queenan, a social commentator, was quoted about life in America is like permanent high school.
Previous societies had to fear death from… Mongols and Vikings and cholera and smallpox, and what we fear most is criticism…”People will think I’m not cool.” It’s permanent high school. I mean you’re 50 years old and you’re still worried about what your friends think about your records and stuff like that.
How did the cliques and friends you had shape your view of yourself and others? How did it feel to be a member of the in-group? To be an outsider?
The proximity principle suggests that “we often feel the effects of society through the interpersonal interaction and communication with people around us (RML 2007:41, orig. House 1992).” This principle was an important ingredient in the book Click, by Ori and Rom Brafman. The Brafman brothers argued that “just a few feet make a difference” in whether one person “clicks” or forms a close bond with another person. Proximity fosters casual conversations that led to greater chances for collaboration that can last a lifetime.
The final principle, psychology, looks at what how we process those experiences listed above. the process of socialization, which we will continually analyze throughout this course, is crucial with internalizing norms, attitudes, and beliefs.
Group Processes Perspective
RML (2007:45-47) list several social processes that have captivated sociologists since sociology emerged in the mid-19th century. Power, status, justice, and legitimacy processes influence our sense of self and how we regard others. Be aware that RML list only a few social processes but others are important too (i.e. socialization). As a matter of fact, I typically fold power, status, and legitimacy into the larger concept of stratification.
The size and structure of groups influences our behavior. Early sociologist Georg Simmel spent a great deal of time describing social interaction patterns in dyad and triad groupings. More recently, Malcolm Gladwell (2002:175) discussed the Rule of 150 in his book Tipping Point. There is a “sweet spot” in terms of the number of people needed to spread an idea in a group or society. The number is around 150. If the group is larger than that, cohesion is tough to maintain. Too few, and the idea does not get critical mass. So, group size does not only influence how individuals relate to one another, group size plays a large role in social change (ideology, innovative products, etc.).
Interactions may be between different groups (inter) or within a group (intra) (RML 2007:49-50). For instance, a lot of attention is focused on religious conflict between people of different faiths or denominations. Less attention, however, is given to fights within a denomination (i.e. the Baptist) or within a congregation. The friction between richer members and poorer members in a church is an example of intra-group conflict.
RESOURCES
Brafman, Ori, and Rom Brafman. 2010. Click: The Magic of Instant Connections. Random House, Inc.
Center for New American Media, and Picture Projects. People Like Us: Social Class in America. http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/ (Accessed December 8, 2010).
Deutscher, Guy. 2010. Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. Macmillan.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. 2010. “Essays: Second Series.” Nominalist and Realist. http://www.rwe.org/works/Essays-2nd_Series_8_Nominalist.htm (Accessed December 8, 2010).
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2002. The Tipping Point: How Little Things can Make a Big Difference. Hachette Digital, Inc.
Sacks, Oliver W. 1998. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales. Simon and Schuster.
