Social interaction free essay sample

Essay Question – Which is more important in shaping individual identity: social structure or social interaction? In the past the idea of identity was easily defined, people knew who they were as defined by their traditions and religion. Identities were shared and people existed as part of a community where identity was established and integrated in a natural order. However, as capitalism developed and modern societies rapidly changed, so did people’s view of themselves. Today people change their identities in a chameleon like way in search of their ‘true selves’ moulding into the situations they find themselves (Macionis Plummer 2012, pp.228-229). The question therefore remains, how does a person’s individual identity develop? This essay examines whether individual identity is shaped by our social interactions within our immediate environment or by the structures that make up our broader social context by examining past sociological theoretical perspectives. The argument will surmise that an individual’s identity is neither a result of social interaction or social structure independently, rather, that our identity is formed by both, dependently in different situations and times in our lives. Identity is about belonging, it is about what you have in common but also about what differentiates you from others in combination with your social relationships (Weeks, cited in Macionis Plummer 2012, p.228). There has often been a distinction made between individual and collective identity as distinct from one another, the former being unique to oneself and how one differs, the latter being shared by the greater collectively and how one is similar. Both have typically been accepted as uniquely independent (Jenkins 2008, pp.37-38). Recent views suggest that both emerge out of similarity and difference to make up our individual identity. From a macro sociological perspective identity is shaped by the outer, the greater systems and structures to which we are immersed in. From a micro sociological perspective identity is shaped by the inner, how we feel about and relate to ourselves and others. According to Back et al. (2012, p.97) we are not born with an existing conscious perception of ourselves, rather we learn this through our bodily experience and social interaction. This is socialisation  and it takes on a very important role. It is through these interactions, signs and symbols that identities are formed. Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead were two of the first symbolic interactionists. Symbolic interationalists study how people use symbols to make sense of their world and communicate with others. They posit that people evaluate themselves by comparing themselves to others (Henslin, Possamai, Possamai- Inesedy 2011, pp.26-27). Cooley believed that the self was socially created through interaction. The term he phrased the ‘looking-glass self’ encompasses three elements, firstly; imagining how we appear to the people around us, then interpreting their reactions, and finally developing our self-concept as a result. This can either be a positive or negative self-concept depending on the interpretation and even if this interpretation is inaccurate it still forms the basis of how we see ourselves (Henslin, Possamai, Possamai- Inesedy 2011, p.55). Similarly, Mead states that there cannot be a core self as distinct from the self that emerges through social experience. Mead’s argument is that social interaction is essential to gaining a sense of oneself and he believed that human behaviour was learnt as a result of social interaction (Germov Poole 2011, p.40). Mead’s concept of self is that self is inseparable from society, and this social interaction involves looking at ourselves as others would see us (Macionis Plummer 2012, p.214). Accordingly, the self has two components; the ‘I’ and ‘me’. The ‘I’ is the self as subject, the active part of self that responds to others, whereas the ‘me’ is the self as object, the part that is interactive with others (Henslin, Possamai, Possamai- Inesedy 2011, p.56). Irving Goffman (1959) also surmised that we act differently in different situations and this is what forms the basis of his dramaturgical analysis. He believed that socialisation consists of learning to perform on a stage and likened everyday life to acting out roles in a play. Goffman states that we have front and back stages, meaning we have a self-image and an image we portray to the public and the efforts we employ to manage these images is what he called impression management. At any point in time we may have a number of roles whether this is mother, student or employee, and how we perceive ourselves and what we present to others differs at any given time depending on the role we take on (Henslin, Possamai, Possamai- Inesedy 2011, p.90). This social interaction is what he suggests is a form of maintaining one’s  face or a particular mask we put on to present ourselves in a socially desirable way. This is what is termed the interaction order (Germov Poole 2011, p.41). The view that social interaction is important to identity can be supported by evidence contextualised in the nature; nurture debate. This has been shown through the discovery of feral children who later become assimilated into regular life. Feral children who have been left with little or no human contact are often unable to function as social beings (Henslin, Possamai, Possamai- Inesedy 2011, p.53; Macionis Plummer 2012, pp.209-211). This supports the notion that social interaction is central to individual identity in that the self develops as we gain a sense of others. However, to suggest that social interaction is the only input to developing identity has been criticised as missing the broader macro level influence. Alternate theories presented by Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons and Herbert Spencer address this. From the perspective of Durkheim and Parsons the identity emerges not from social interaction, but from social structure. While Cooley, Mead and Goffman focus on the up close face to face study of social life, Durkheim and Parsons explore the larger scale social structures such as state and economy. This perspective suggests that we are influenced by the social structure in which we find ourselves. Social structure refers to the framework in which societies exist and the way in which society is organised with typical group patterns which shape behaviour (Henslin, Possamai, Possamai- Inesedy 2011, p.77). Social structures include social institutions, culture, social class and status as well as the groups to which we belong and these can differ by society. Durkheim believed that patterns of behaviour form structures and that society is rooted in collective life. His functionalist approach suggests that social order is maintained through the sum of all the functioning parts and individuals are moulded by the broader social structures and systems in which they exist. We as individuals when faced with temptations are reeled in by the constraints of society as it regulates us through moral discipline (Macionis Plummer 2012, p.125). Parsons theory of structural functionalism was based on the works of Durkheim and Weber. Parsons believed that society is an organism made up of interrelated parts where social structures are dependent on each other and in order for society to function smoothly these parts must work together. He purported that any social system has four functional  prerequisites and these are the problems that society must solve to survive (Parsons 1996, p.23). Similarly, Spencer saw the social as a functioning structure. He argues that societies have functioning structures just as bodies do and these structures evolve over time much like the body grows and adapts to the environment (Plummer 2010, pp.32-33). However, debate continues over whether structure in itself can solely be responsible for how one defines their identity. Criticism of the functionalist approach is that we are not merely puppets or prisoners of the societies in which we find ourselves whose behaviour is bound by the forces at hand. More recent theories suggest that both structure and interaction merge to form identity whether this is individual or collective as how we define ourselves within a group. In Giddens theory of structuration which he defines as the structuring of social relations across time and space, in virtue of the duality of structure (Giddens 1984, p. 376), he suggests that human agency and social structure are in a relationship with each other; that structures can only exist in and through social action. This duality of structure refers to the fact that structures are both produced by, as well as the medium of human action (Craib 2011, pp.29-34). This means that whilst a social structure exists with its institutions, social classes and established ways of doing things; these can also be produced, reproduced or transformed. However, as individuals we are also not limitless in our actions. Giddens draws an anology to ‘language as a structure’; whilst there are rules of syntax which govern the reproduction of speech, they also generate the totality of speech-acts, being language (Giddens, cited in Craib 2011, p.29). Those that break the rules face consequences and this is the same as social life. We are governed by unconscious rules of social order to which we adhere to or face rejection. In conclusion, whilst there has been much debate over whether social structure or social interaction is more important in shaping individual identity, both are equally important. When looking at society as it is today, we cannot solely look to one theorist’s viewpoint to explain the complexity of identity. Each viewpoint unto itself cannot explain individual identity in its entirety. Whilst Cooley, Mead, and Goffman’s perspectives offer clear reasons for interaction being significant in forming identity particularly when looking at socialisation processes, we cannot dismiss the structural perspectives of  Durkheim and Parsons as central to the formation of identity. Giddens dichotomy seems to point us in the right direction. We must consider that human agency and social structure are in relationship to one another and as such are central to the formation of individual identity. Humans are not passively accepting of structure, or solitary beings, we all engage in social interaction with others which shifts and guides the structures in which we find ourselves and helps us to form our individual identities.