|
|
An Analysis of the SelfAn Analysis of the SelfAn analysis of the self through a symbolic interactionist perspective requires consideration of several concepts that constitute the paradigm. The social self is constructed through processes such as taking the role of the other and the myriad of conversations between the “I” and “Me,” as well as the concepts of a situated identity, definition of the situation, and the distinctions between motives and motivations. Through these concepts it will be shown how one could feel disconnected and flustered with a college admissions officer during an interview. First, in understanding the concepts of symbolic interactionism the axioms of the paradigm are essential. Most basically, symbolic interactionism is based on the unique ability of humans to create and interpret symbols. A symbol is a “vocal or other kind of gesture that arouses in the one using it the same response as it arouses in those to whom it is directed” (Hewitt 37). A symbol has no physical connection to that which it is interpreted to represent; it has an “arbitrary relationship” with its meaning. Symbols are not to be confused with natural signs that have relationships established in nature, such as smoke and fire, or dark clouds and rain. These have a relationship based on a learned response by an organism. If generally rain follows dark clouds then the clouds will be a natural sign of rain; the sign was completely originated in nature, it was not arbitrarily created (Hewitt 37-39). Contrastingly symbolic relationships are completely created by humans, the relationships have no connection to natural occurrences. An example of this is human language. It has the immense power to create symbols for objects that have no physical presence or are not physically present during an interaction. Humans respond toward symbols on the basis of the meanings they interpret for them; thus they take part in symbolic interaction (Hewitt 39). Secondly, the meaning of a symbol arises from the social interaction involving the symbol. This implies that all objects, events, and gestures have no inherent meaning. Symbols and objects are only meaningful when humans impose meaning onto them; this allows each individual the ability to set different meanings on the same symbol. One individual can also set different meanings to the same symbol at different times based on how they are ready to respond to that symbol. For example, if a school gymnasium is used for religious services, and also high school dances, the meaning of the gymnasium will vary greatly in the same person based on the context of the situation (Elliot 9/26). The final basic principal rests on the principle that all meanings are not inherent, because of this they can change even in the middle of an interaction. However, in order to make interactions possible the imposed meanings are kept stable so they do not need to be renegotiated before any interaction can take place. This is possible by the fact that children learn the shared meaning of symbols and objects through parents, teachers, and other significant figures in their life. Since the general meaning of symbols and objects is passed on through generations it seems that the meanings are inherent and stable; this is not the case. The meanings are only stable because humans work hard to maintain a stable shared meaning of symbols and objects. The meaning of a symbol interpreted by humans must be shared during an interaction or it would be meaningless (Elliot 9/26). Another major concept of symbolic interactionism is the four parts to any social act. The first part of any act is the impulse. This is the predisposition to respond to a given stimulus in an environment or the “gut reaction” (Elliot 9/29). Secondly, one’s perceptions of the environment come into play. These can be influenced by one’s biological and psychological states. For example, strong emotions can blur one’s perceptions of a situation as when an extremely hungry person finds a stale sandwich and eats it anyway. Thirdly, the manipulation phase is the overt actions taken involving the objects of the environment. This overt action is a result of the impulse and perceptions of the situation and environment. Finally, the consummation stage is the resolution of the interaction with a movement towards some goal attainment. This is where the response of the environment are internalized. Through this foundation an analysis of the self may begin. The subject of the analysis is a female high school senior who feels disconnected and flustered during an admissions interview for Brown University. Throughout this paper this girl will be referred to as Julie. First, the processes of taking the role the specific and generalized other affect Julie’s admissions interview. Taking the role of the specific other is a process by which one will look at their self from the perspective of another person. This is used to understand how another would attach meaning to one’s overt actions before they take place. Once all potential behaviors have been analyzed one will choose the behavior that is most likely to advance them towards their goal (Elliot 9/29). Similarly, taking the role of the generalized other involves not simply taking the role of one specific person, but taking the role of the combination of all who have played a meaningful role in one’s life. The generalized other is a “society in miniature” within a person (Elliot 9/29). In the example with Julie, she may have taken the role of her brother in evaluating her actions during her interview. Since her brother is a freshman at Brown and successfully endured the admissions process, how he would attach meaning to her overt actions would be an accurate gauge on what meanings would be attached to her overt actions by the admissions officer. If Julie’s specific other of her brother would attach the meaning of a student unsuited for Brown University, the principal of dual location states that she would also attach the same meaning to herself (Elliot 10/3). By attaching this meaning to herself she would become nervous and anxious during the interview. By realizing that the meaning being attached to her is not the meaning she would like to present in order to advance her towards to goal of being accepted to Brown, she would become more nervous and more flustered. This is a result of the fact that the anxious behavior she is presenting is not how an “ivy league” student would behave from the perspective of her brother. Julie could have also taken the role of her generalized other in evaluating the meaning of her overt actions. If Julie’s generalized other was underdeveloped at the time of her interview she would have had a difficult time trying to attach meaning to her potential actions from the perspective of the admissions officer. This would cause Julie to feel “disconnected” with the interviewer because she could never anticipate how he or she would attach meaning to her making it difficult to act. By Julie not knowing how to act in order to progress toward her goal of acceptance, she would most definitely become flustered since this is her only opportunity to present the self that she wants to the university. Related to the process of taking the role of the other is the conversation that occurs between the “I” and the “Me” in every interaction. This conversation represents the first two parts of any social act as defined above, and takes place right before the manipulation stage. The “I” is the impulse of any action and is spontaneous as well as unorganized. The “Me” is the generalized other “to which behavior is oriented” (Elliot 10/1). The conversation begins with the “I” having an impulse to act; the “Me” considers what meaning would be attached to that impulse if one were to carry it out. Thus the conversation ensues until a behavior that will move one towards their goal of the interaction is reached. However, sometimes the impulse of the “I” is so powerful that even when the “Me” establishes what meaning will be attached to an action, and that meaning is negative, the impulse carries out the action in spite of the “Me’s” response (Elliot 10/1). An example of this is when I child is being reprimanded. If a child is punished and sent to their room they may protest and complain, this is the “I” impulse stage. Then almost immediately after they calm down and go to their room because the “Me” said that if the protesting continues the parent will only become angrier. Here the “Me” took into account the role of the parent (Hewitt 59-60). In essence, “the ‘I’ gives propulsion and the ‘Me’ gives direction to behavior” (Elliot 10/1). In the example with Julie’s interview, several “I Me” conversations occur with every question asked. The admissions officer may strike a chord with Julie by, for instance, making a tactless statement concerning women’s rights. Here the impulse of the “I” may be very strong and Julie responds to their statement very emotionally and criticizes the admissions officer fervently. Even though the overt action was carried out Julie’s “Me” still told her that the officer may not accept the criticism well which would have an adverse affect on her chances of being accepted. This realization of the “I Me” conversation would make her nervous and flustered since her goal of the interaction is to become closer to acceptance to Brown, and her behavior sent her further away from that goal. Another process that could play a part in an admissions interview is typification. Typification is the process by which one forms expectation about “types” of peoples’ behavior based on commonalities in groups of people. They are learned from significant figures in one’s life such as parents, teachers, siblings, and many others. They can also be learned vicariously by watching the interactions of others or through television. These vicarious typifications are generally crude and lack subtleties of a “type” of person and are known as anonymous typifications or stereotypes (Elliot 10/3). A general typification is, for instance, that a man in a business suit is at least of a middle class socio economic status and employed at a reputable business simply because of his attire. Another typification can be made of a surgeon through his general demeanor if they are cold or caring and so on (Hewitt 154-156). There are five bases for an individual to make a typification. The first is on a basis of probability, or the subjective understanding of what is likely to be true. A second is through a cause-effect relationship. If a certain personality trait is always present when one displays consistent psychological or behavioral patterns then that trait may be typified. Another is a means-ends relationship. If certain conditions are always necessary for a characteristic to occur, and that characteristic occurs, then it is assumed that those conditions were present. A fourth is based on morality, or simply what one believes should be, and therefore is. Finally, substantive congruity states that if there is consistency between objects and characteristics then they will follow each other (Elliot 10/3). The process of typification can be applied to the example of Julie’s admissions interview. As shown in Davis and Schmidt’s article “The Obnoxious and the Nice” the typifications of both obnoxious and nice people show how two people cannot connect during an interaction leaving both uneasy. A general definition of an obnoxious person is one who tries to impose their self on one who does not want. A nice person contrasts by allowing others to impose their selves on them (Davis). For instance, if Julie has a negative typification, or stereotype, of the admissions officer because he or she is black, then her whole demeanor may be agitated. If Julie had not had much interaction with people of color in her lifetime it is easy for her to maintain the negative stereotype of black people as stated by the contact hypothesis (Elliot 10/2). Her focus would be on how she expects the officer to negatively act towards her, putting her in a defensive position and creating both a sense of disconnectedness and uneasiness. Another example is that the admissions officer may be typified as obnoxious to Julie by their intruding on her visual space, their voice on her auditory space, their physical bulk on their proxemic space, and even their smell on her olfactory space. If the admissions officer is “overly ugly, loud, fat, stinky, or grabby” they will be typified as obnoxious (Davis). Obnoxious behavior by the officer will irritate and frustrate Julie during her interview. Another example is if Julie is sensitive in general; physical imposition by the admissions officer would likely overload her sense receptors. This physical imposition would give her a sense of being disconnected since her focus is more on the obnoxious behavior than the interview itself (Davis). Through Julie’s typification of the admissions officer as obnoxious she is agitated and flustered as well as disconnected from the officer. Another concept that played a part in Julie’s interview is both her perceived definition of the situation. The definition of a situation is defined as an organized way of perceiving objects, meanings, and others, in order to act toward them in a coherent structured way (Hewitt 76). The definition of a situation tells what behaviors are likely to unfold and who the actors will likely be in the situation. The definition also encapsulates where the situation is located relative to other situations, and the goals that will be pursued by the self and by others (Hewitt 76). If there is no predefined definition of the situation then an actor’s first obligation is to focus on establishing the definition. Without a definition of the situation one does not have confidence in “who is present and what is going on” throughout the situation (Hewitt 63). Thus, an organized definition of the situation is necessary for successful behavior to occur. If there is no organized definition or the definition is not shared then actors in a situation will feel “paralyzed.” Works Cited Davis, Murray S., and Catherine J. Schmidt. “The Obnoxious and the Nice: Some Sociological Consequences of Two Psychological Types.” 3 Nov. 1977: 201-213. Elliot, Gregory. Class Lecture. Sociology 2. Providence. 9 Sept. 2003 – 6 Oct. 2003. Hewitt, John P. Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2003. Patrick Flaherty ClassNotesOnline. Click for a free resource for teacher websites
|
|
