A Theory of the Self for the Sociology of Morality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASRXXX10.1177/0003122411433762S 433762tets and CarterAmerican Sociological Review 2011 American Sociological Review 77(1) 120 –140 A Theory of the Self for © American Sociological Association 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0003122411433762 the Sociology of Morality http://asr.sagepub.com Jan E. Stetsa and Michael J. Carterb Abstract Sociology has seen a renewed interest in the study of morality. However, a theory of the self that explains individual variation in moral behavior and emotions is noticeably absent. In this study, we use identity theory to explain this variability. According to identity theory, actors are self-regulating entities whose goal is to verify their identities. An individual’s moral identity—wherever it falls on the moral–immoral continuum—guides behavior, and people experience negative emotions when identity verification does not ensue. Furthermore, the identity verification process occurs within situations that have cultural expectations—that is, framing rules and feeling rules—regarding how individuals should act and feel. These cultural expectations also influence the degree to which people behave morally. We test these assumptions on a sample of more than 350 university students. We investigate whether the moral identity and framing situations in moral terms influences behavior and feelings. Findings reveal that the identity process and framing of situations as moral are significantly associated with moral action and moral emotions of guilt and shame. Keywords emotions, identity, morality, self The sociology of morality is experiencing a Sociological theory and research is needed to resurgence in the discipline (Abend 2010). understand this variability. For this, we need a This is timely given the culture of unchecked theory of the self. We rely on identity theory in consumption and greed that contributed to the sociology (Stryker [1980] 2002; Stryker and 2008 downturn of the U.S. economy. Sociolo- Burke 2000) to explain the internal operations gists are re-examining issues discussed in ear- of the self. We apply these internal operations lier work, such as the relationship between the to reveal individuals’ variability as moral moral order and market society (Fourcade and actors, and we test this theory on a sample of Healy 2007), class and morality (Sayer 2010), college students. and moral order and community (Vaisey 2007). We focus on the identity verification pro- While morality helps maintain the social order, cess in identity theory (Burke and Stets 2009). we must be careful not to reify the impact of social institutions on moral behavior and dis- aUniversity of California, Riverside count the self as an agent of moral action. If we bCalifornia State University, Northridge recognize social actors as moral actors, then at issue is why some individuals behave morally Corresponding Author: Jan E. Stets, Department of Sociology, University and others less so, and why some feel bad of California, Riverside, CA 92508 for immoral actions while others do not. E-mail: [email protected] Stets and Carter 121 Identity theory assumes that humans actively impossible without a moral system, as indi- engage in goal-directed action as they interact viduals will act solely in their own interest, with their environment. People continuously disregarding the collective interest. Self- evaluate their actions in relation to their inter- serving action leads to anomic conditions and nal identity standard. Their identity standard is pathological for society; happiness results defines who they are along various dimen- from social systems with strong moral orders. sions such as being (more or less) moral. Durkheim’s theorizing revealed much about Identity verification occurs when individuals’ macro-level moral processes. However, at the perceptions of who they are in situations cor- micro level, he did not provide insight into respond to their identity standard. Non-verifi- why some people behave morally while oth- cation between their identity standard and ers do not. Not everyone behaves morally, so who they are in situations generates negative what explains this variation? The answer may emotions. Additionally, the identity verifica- reside in how individuals see themselves in tion process occurs within settings that are moral terms and behave accordingly. framed as (more or less) relevant to one’s Like Durkheim, Goffman (1967) empha- identity. Identity theorists have not thor- sized the importance of ritual activity. Goffman oughly examined the framing of situations. saw interaction as characterized by rituals of This study investigates how the internal iden- openings and closings, entrances and exits, tity process and framing of surrounding situ- and corrections for deviant behavior. Interac- ations are associated with moral behavior and tion is also composed of particular frames moral feelings. (Goffman 1974). Frames provide meaning for individuals during interaction, organizing and determining appropriate roles and behaviors BACKGROUND to be enacted. Unlike Durkheim, Goffman Broadly speaking, morality represents cul- emphasized the self in interactions (Goffman tural codes that specify what is right or 1959). His analysis of the self shows how wrong, good or bad, or acceptable or unac- individuals work at presenting a strategic ceptable in a society (Turner 2010; Turner image of themselves to others, in a manner and Stets 2006). Traditionally, as seen in the similar to how actors play out a script on work of Durkheim, Goffman, and Collins, the stage (Goffman 1959). In playing their part, sociology of morality emphasizes how moral- individuals inform others that they are adher- ity binds people together through a common ing to the cultural script. When individuals system of rules and expectations during inter- commit blunders and role playing fails, they actions. Durkheim (1965) revealed how feel embarrassed and modify their behavior, morality emerges from the collective effer- realigning actions with cultural expectations vescence that occurs when people congregate that preserve social interaction. In Goffman’s in groups. In his studies of Aboriginals, he work, actors are attuned more to cultural and noted that religious and moral practices stem moral codes than to their identities and stable from ritual worship of cultural symbols self-views. Individuals are motivated to (totems) that are attributed a sacred quality behave in a certain way to effectively play out and arouse strong emotions in interaction. a cultural script rather than—as we will The power of cultural symbols resides in their argue—to verify their identities. ability to define appropriate moral behavior. Collins (2004) extends these analyses of Actions conforming to these expectations are ritual interaction. Ritual interactions include virtuous; actions violating these expectations elements such as the physical co-presence of cause outrage. individuals, a common focus of attention, a For Durkheim (1961), morality controls common emotional mood, symbolic represen- and integrates members of a society and tations of a common focus, and a sense of thereby generates social solidarity. Society is moral virtue about symbols that mark group 122 American Sociological Review 77(1) membership. As ritual activity continues in an moral principles, affects moral behavior. For interaction, emotions are aroused and build. two decades, Blasi advanced an understand- Repeated and highly rhythmic ritual activity ing of the role of the self and identity in moral among group members produces collective action, and this theory has gained appeal effervescence—including positive emotions among many psychologists (e.g., Aquino et and moral feelings—that generate group soli- al. 2009; Aquino and Reed 2002; Frimer and darity. Walker 2009; Hardy 2006; Lapsley and Like Durkheim, Collins takes seriously the Narvaez 2004; Narvaez and Lapsley 2009). role of emotions in the moral order. He main- Recent work involves studying how central or tains that the motive underlying behavior in important the moral identity is in determining interaction is to experience and maximize moral action (Aquino et al. 2009; Frimer and emotional energy. Positive emotional energy Walker 2009). mobilizes individuals to initiate interactions; In the current research, we present a model negative energy fails to instigate interactions. of moral action that examines the cognitive Collins sees interactions that provide the most (i.e., identity) and affective (i.e., emotional) emotional energy as fostering the moral order, parts of the self. Indeed, Blasi (1999) but we will argue that the self and identity acknowledged that moral emotions motivate help build and maintain the moral order moral behavior and the moral identity. For through moral actions and moral emotions. example, empathy motivates altruistic behav- This is consistent with Weber’s ([1922] 1968) ior whereas shame and guilt inhibit harmful view that we need to examine patterns of behavior. More recently, psychologists (Haidt individuals’ actions—patterns that form the 2001; Hardy 2006; Hoffman 2000) and neu- basis of social structures. roscientists (Greene et al. 2001) have been Weber (1978) saw moral values as residing investigating the relationship between moral within individuals. People carry beliefs about judgments, moral behavior, and emotions. what is good/bad or right/wrong, and these However, to advance the study of morality, beliefs influence their behavior. Weber we need a theoretical model that explicitly believed that scientists can investigate