Symbolic Interactionism and Dramaturgy

05-Appelrouth-4991.qxd 10/19/2006 3:11 PM Page 157 5 SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND DRAMATURGY Key Concepts Herbert Blumer Erving Goffman Meaning Impression Management Significant Gestures Definition of the Situation Interpretation Front Joint Action Backstage Self: Performer/Character Arlie Russell Hochschild Merchant of Morality Total Institutions Feeling Rules Mortification of Self Emotion Work Secondary Adjustments Emotional Labor Deference/Demeanor Commodification of Feeling A cardinal principle of symbolic interactionism is that any empirically oriented scheme of human society, however derived, must respect the fact that in the first and last instances human society consists of people engaging in action. ~Blumer (1969:7) 157 05-Appelrouth-4991.qxd 10/19/2006 3:11 PM Page 158 158 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY IN THE CONTEMPORARY ERA onsider the following commonplace scenario: You hop on a bus only to find that most of the seats are already taken. However, you notice an empty seat C nearby on which a passenger has placed his briefcase. As you approach the seat, you try to make eye contact with the passenger seated next to it, only to find that he pretends not to notice you. Pausing for a moment, you spot another empty seat at the rear of the bus. What do you do? A. Attempt to make eye contact, say, “Excuse me, may I sit here” and wait for the passenger to move his briefcase. B. Pick up the passenger’s briefcase and politely hand it to him as you proceed to sit down. C. Stomp your feet and angrily blurt out, “Hey buddy, I paid for this ride—move your bag or I’ll do it for you,” and then sit down with a sigh of disdain next to the passenger. D. Mutter some less-than-kind words as you pass the rider on your way to the back of the bus. The purpose of this quiz lies not primarily in determining your answer but, rather, in calling your attention to the richness and complexity of social life that can be found under the surface of your response. Nothing short of a well-choreographed ballet is per- formed during this encounter. From determining the “definition of situation” as you read the meaning of the passenger’s briefcase placed on the empty seat and his attempt to avoid eye contact, to controlling (or not) your emotional reaction, the scene is a give- and-take dance of gestures. While it may seem to unfold spontaneously, such an encounter illustrates the constructed and ritualized nature of everyday interaction. For no one answer above is “right,” but each sheds light on how the meaning of gestures arises out of interaction and on the expectation that one’s self is to be treated with ceremonial care. In this chapter we take up such issues through the works of three sociologists who have made significant contributions to interactionist approaches to social life. Such approaches highlight how the self and society are created and recreated during the course of interaction. We begin with an overview of the work of Herbert Blumer. In addition to coining the term “symbolic interactionism,” it was Blumer who set out the central theoretical and methodological principles that continue to shape much of the work in this field. We then turn to a discussion of Erving Goffman and his development of “dramaturgy,” a perspective that is informed not only by symbolic interactionism but also by Émile Durkheim’s insights into the ritual and moral realms of society. We con- clude the chapter with a look at the work of Arlie Russell Hochschild, whose analyses of emotions expanded the theoretical and empirical terrain of symbolic interactionism. Moreover, Hochschild’s examination of gender and family dynamics in contemporary American society has provided important insights into the relationship between self- identity and broader social conditions. HERBERT BLUMER (1900–1987): A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Herbert Blumer was born in St. Louis, Missouri, and attended the nearby University of Missouri, where he completed his undergraduate education as well as his master’s degree. After working for a couple of years as an instructor, he tried his hand at 05-Appelrouth-4991.qxd 10/19/2006 3:11 PM Page 159 Symbolic Interactionism and Dramaturgy 159 professional football, playing for the Chicago Cardinals (now the Arizona Cardinals). While with the Cardinals he enrolled at the University of Chicago, where he earned his doctorate in 1928. At that time the sociology department was solidifying its reputation as a leading voice in the discipline. Known as the “Chicago School,” the department was at the forefront in developing a sociology that, through detailed, empirical studies, explores how individuals understand and negotiate their everyday life.1 Blumer himself played a principal role in advancing the department’s framework for the discipline while serving on the faculty from 1927 to 1952. His next move took him to the University of California, Berkeley, where he was hired to chair the school’s nascent sociology department. He spent the next twenty-five years at Berkeley, becoming a favorite professor among the students. His own reputation within the profession is revealed in part by his serving as secretary-treasurer and, in 1956, as SOURCE: American Sociological Association; used with permission. president of the American Sociological Association (ASA). Blumer also served as editor of one of the discipline’s leading journals, American Journal of Sociology, from 1941 to 1952. In addition, in 1983 the ASA presented him with the award for a Career of Distinguished Scholarship. Herbert Blumer died in April 1987. INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCES AND CORE IDEAS While at the University of Chicago as a student and as a professor, Blumer was in the company of many of the leading figures in American sociology. Yet, his greatest intellectual debt is owed not to a sociologist but to a philosopher, George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). In fact, Blumer’s single most important contribution to sociology lies in his fashioning Mead’s pragmatist philosophy into one of the discipline’s major theoretical perspectives: symbolic interactionism. As such, this section focuses primarily on outlining Mead’s work and the ideas stemming directly from it. At the center of symbolic interactionism is Mead’s view of the self. For Mead, the self does not passively react to its environment but, rather, actively creates the conditions to which it responds. Mead presented his views as a counter to those associated with behavioral psychology (an avowedly empirical branch of psychology committed 1There are a number of works that examine the Chicago School and its impact on sociology. Three such books that may be of interest to readers are Martin Bulmer’s (1984) The Chicago School of Sociology, Robert Faris’s (1967) Chicago Sociology, 1920–1932, and Lewis and Smith’s (1980) American Sociology and Pragmatism. All are published by the University of Chicago Press. 05-Appelrouth-4991.qxd 10/19/2006 3:11 PM Page 160 160 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY IN THE CONTEMPORARY ERA to studying only observable actions) and its leading proponent John B. Watson (1878–1958).2 It is against this picture of a passive, nonreflexive self that Mead developed his own theoretical framework, which he labeled “social behaviorism.” For Mead, an essential aspect of the self is the mind. Instead of an ephemeral “black box” that is inaccessible to investigation, however, Mead viewed the mind as a behavioral process that entails a “conversation of significant gestures,” that is, an internal dialogue of words and actions whose meanings are shared by all those involved in a social act. In this internal conversation, the individual becomes an object to him- or herself through “taking the attitude of the other” and arouses in his or her own mind the same responses to one’s potential action that are aroused in other persons.3 Individuals then shape their actions on the basis of the imagined responses they attribute to others. Moreover, as we symbolically test alternative lines of conduct, we temporarily suspend our behaviors. Within the delay of responses produced by such testing lies the crux of intelligent behavior: controlling one’s present action with reference to ideas about the future consequences. Yet, self-control of what we say and do is in actuality a form of social control, as we check our behaviors—discarding some options while pursuing others— against the responses that we anticipate will be elicited from others. Significant Others Sheldon Stryker and Identity Theory Raised in St. Paul, Minnesota, Sheldon Stryker stayed close to home while pursuing his education. He earned his B.A. (1948), M.A. (1950), and Ph.D. (1955) from the University of Minnesota. In 1951, Stryker joined the faculty at Indiana University, where he would remain until his retirement in 2002. He served as director of the National Institute of Mental Health’s training program in social psychology from 1977 to 2000. His contributions to the fields of social psychology and symbolic interactionism were officially recognized by his colleagues in the form of the Cooley-Mead Award for Lifetime Contributions to Social Psychology from the American Sociological Association (1986) and the George Herbert Mead Award for Lifetime Achievement from the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (2000). Much of Stryker’s work is dedicated to developing and testing identity theory, a perspective that draws from and extends the ideas set out by George Herbert Mead. In fact, Stryker’s theory offers a counter to the dominant strand of 2Behaviorists argue that understanding the self must be confined to studying the relationship between visible stimuli and the learned responses that are associated with them. This is tied to their assertion that human behavior differs little in principle from animal behavior: both can be explained and predicted on the basis of laws that govern the association of behavioral responses to external stimuli.

Load more