Individual Identities vs Social Identities - Case Study Example

All individual identities are also social identities Full December 7, 2009 The individual alters society through the actions of individuals and in the process forming groups, organizations and establishments. And, mutually, society affects the self through its common language and definitions that encourage a person to take the position of the other, participate in social interaction, and contemplate (Abrams 1990). Because identity arises from and mirrors society, the sociological approach to understanding the self and its identities attests that we should likewise comprehend the society in which the individual is living, and remember that the self is constantly operating in a social context in which other selves live. This paper concentrates principally on the relationship between the individual and society from a sociological perspective. Generally, sociologists are curious in comprehending the essence of society or social structure: its forms and patterns, the manners by which it evolves and changes. Two major paradigms in sociology are the structural-functional paradigm and the symbolic interaction paradigm. The Structural-Functional Paradigm The structural-functional perspective is a reference for constructing theory that views society as a complex system whose parts work together to advance unity and constancy. As its name conveys, this perspective places prominence on social structure, or any comparatively stable pattern of social behaviour (Becker 1960). Social behaviour accords our lives structure, whether it is in families, the workplace, or the classroom. Second, this perspective searches for a structure’s social functions, or outcomes for the activity of society as a whole. All social structure, from a simple handshake to complicated religious ceremonies, performs to maintain society going, at least in its present condition. The Symbolic-Interaction Paradigm The structural-functional has a macro-level orientation, meaning a broad focus on social structures that shape society as a whole (Abrams 1990). Macro-level sociology takes in the big picture, rather like observing a city from high above in a helicopter and seeing how highways help people move from place to place or how housing differs in rich and poor neighbourhoods. Sociology also has a micro level orientation, a close up focus on social interaction in specific situations. Exploring urban life in this way occurs at street level, perhaps observing how children interact on a school playground or how pedestrians respond to homeless people. The symbolic-interaction perspective, then is a framework for building theory that sees society as the product of the everyday interactions of individuals. How does “society” result from the ongoing experiences of tens of millions of people? One answer is that society amounts to the shared reality that people construct as they interact with one another. That is, human beings are creatures who live in a world of symbols, attaching meaning to virtually everything. Reality, therefore, is simply how we define our surroundings, our obligations toward others, even our own identities (Blumer 1960). Certainly, this process of definition is subjective and varies from person to person. For example, one person may define a homeless man as “just a bum looking for a handout” and ignore him, but another person might see the man as a “fellow human being in need” and offer help. In the same way, one individual may feel a sense of security passing by a police officer walking the beat while another may be seized by nervous anxiety. Sociologists who take a symbolic-interaction approach, therefore, view society as a complex, ever-changing mosaic of subjective meanings (Abrams 1990). Relationship between Society and Identity The structural-functional perspective looks at society as a system of interrelated parts that is relatively stable because of widespread agreement on what is morally desirable. Each part has a particular function in society as a whole. For structural functionalists, identity consists of internalized role expectations (Blumer 1969). Core questions of this perspective include: how is society integrated? What are the major parts of society? How are these parts interrelated? What are the consequences of each part for the overall operation of society? The symbolic-interaction perspective, on the other hand, looks at the relationship between individual and society as an ongoing process of social interaction in specific settings based on symbolic communication. Individual perceptions of reality are variable and changing. Core questions include: How is society experienced? How do human beings interact to create, maintain and change social patterns? How do individuals try to shape the reality that others perceive? How does individual behaviour change from one situation to another? The symbolic interaction paradigm reminds us that society basically amounts to people-interacting. That is, micro-level sociology tries to convey how individuals actually experience society. The other side of the coin is that, by focusing on day to day interactions, the symbolic-interaction paradigm ignores larger social structures, effects of culture, and factors such as class, gender and race (Blumer 1969). Concept of Identity At the deep core of any society regardless of the size is the individual.  Each individual composes societies and are influenced by them every day.  From the early days of sociology as a science, intellectuals have constantly studied the question of how the individual and the society exist side by side. The structural-functionalist approach perceives identity of people with regard to their structural roles in society, from where they fulfil society’s requirement for association and agreement. Individuals perform roles but these actions exist in the framework of the social structures within which the individuals live. On the other hand, the symbolic-interactionist perspective perceives identity as evolving out of social interaction. The identity is a comprehending part of the self. The capacity to place meanings and to convey them to others and to itself is made plausible by language, which compresses meanings in the form of symbols (Becker 1960). When one’s identity is encased as a group of symbols to which one may acknowledge to itself as an object, as it responds to any other symbol, the self has become apparent. The self is a uniquely human capability which allows people to meditate on their nature and the social world through communication and language (Abrams 1990). Identification then is a method of naming, of situating oneself in socially built classifications, with language playing a key role in this method. Applying the sociological perspectives The fullest understanding of society comes from using the sociological perspective with a combination of the two perspectives. Using the school system in the United States as a topic, the application of the perspectives is applied below. The youth in the United States are encouraged to attend school. Mothers and fathers drive their young sons and daughters to school everyday and then pick them up in the afternoon. Majority of the population have either completed secondary or tertiary education. Countless successful people in business and politics have completed their education to find jobs or enter into business. Sociological insights can be derived from the two theoretical paradigms regarding this familiar part of everyday life. A structural-functional approach directs attention to the ways schools help society to operate. Their manifest functions include providing education, mental conditioning, and an opportunity to interact with other learners or students. School has important latent functions as well, from fostering social relationships to preparing the youth for hundreds of thousands of different jobs. Perhaps most important, school encourages competition and the pursuit of success, both of which are central to our way of life. However, school also has dysfunctional consequences. For instance, colleges and universities are sometimes used as a haven for drug selling and gang formation. Not only does this indirectly support impaired groups, it also may negatively influence students who are serious in pursuing academic achievement. At a micro-level, schools are a complex drama of face to face interaction. In part, school is guided by the students’, teachers’, staffs’ assigned positions and the rules of the game. But students and teachers are also spontaneous and unpredictable. Informed by the symbolic-interaction paradigm, school is seen as a system than as an ongoing process. From this point of view, too, we expect each student to understand the academic learning a little differently. Some thrive in a setting of stiff competition, whereas for others, pure enjoyment of learning may be greater that the need to excel. Beyond different attitudes toward competition, students also shape their particular realities according to the various prejudices, jealousies and ambitions they bring to school. Likewise, the behaviour of any student changes over time. A freshman in college, for instance, may feel self-conscious during the first days in school. In time, however, most students fit in comfortably in school and with their classmates. Conclusion Society is not a condition which stands separate from the individuals of which it is a component. A society or an organization is simply an association of individuals. The ideas that are being understood in sociology are the connections which associate the group together or connect it to other individuals or associations as components of a much bigger group. The two theoretical paradigms-structural functional and symbolic-interaction provide different insights, but none is more correct than the others. Applied to any issue, each paradigm generates its own interpretations so that, to appreciate fully the power of the sociological perspective, one should become familiar with the two. Together, they stimulate debates and controversies. WORD COUNT: 1514 References Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A., 1990, Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Becker, H. S., 1960, Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 20-31. Blumer, H., 1969, Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Read More