Human behaviour. Symbolic Interactionist and Dramaturgical Approaches - Essay Example

? Symbolic Interactionist and Dramaturgical Approaches Introduction The need to understand human behaviour has been there for a long time. Many theories have been developed as tools to analyse, interpret, understand, and explain human behaviour. Dramaturgy and symbolic interactionism are two such theories. Dramaturgy is a social theory that postulates that people live their lives as actors who, in every social situation act in order to bring the results they wish. Dramaturgy revolves around the fact that people want to create the best impression of themselves to other people. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that seeks to understand human behaviour in terms of how people react to other people’s actions. This theory postulates that in a social situation, people are likely to react to others based on what they think the counter reaction of the person will be. For instance, if a person says something to a person, that person will answer based on what he or she thinks the other person wants them to answer. This is important because it affects everyday lives. For instance, as Giacalone (1989) says, the way people in the organisation behaves affects the way a customer precipices the quality of the service. These two theories are not only similar, but they are also highly useful in understanding human behaviour. Although the two theories have received much of criticisms, they are necessary in that they are based on natural understanding of the human behaviour. Dramaturgy for instance started with William Shakespeare who was a stage script writer and who claimed that the whole world is a stage. In this regard, Shakespeare argues that people are always acting out, just like people in a theatre and there are a number of implications of these two theories. People’s behaviour can be accurately predicated The first implication of the dramaturgy theory and the symbolic interactionism theory is that they both postulate human behaviour as highly and accurately predictable. If people act in certain ways in order to produce certain results, it s easy to predict the way a person will behave, if only what their motives can be predicated. This applies for both the dramaturgy and the symbolic interactionism theories. For instance, in the case of dramaturgy, if people are going to act in a manner that they will get the best results of what they want, it will be possible to for the other individual to be able to predict how they will act and react. This is both truth and untrue in some ways, because if this was to be the case, then two people reacting to each other would be unable to reach a point where their relations would be sustained. While dramaturgy explains human behaviour, it fails to appreciate that there are deeper issues and interaction factors between people. To begin with, dramaturgy assumes that people will be acting from the same stage; yet, due to social-class differences and power distance, there are more complex interaction factors that affect the way people relate and interact (Lewis et al, 2010). There are however some instances where dramaturgy can be seen in a highly clear way. For instance, at work, people are likely to act in order to seem to be busier and impress the manager. The more the manager seems to be observant of them, the more they are likely to act. In a classroom environment, a student is likely to behave in a manner that leads the teachers and the other students to believe that they are busier than they are. The same issue of actions and faking can be seen in terms of symbolic interactionism. In symbolic interactionism, two things become necessary in the way the people relate among each other. For example is in an interview where an interviewee who is applying for work is asked a question and is likely to answer in the way they think will most impress the interviewer or the panel interviewing him or her. These two examples of how dramaturgy and symbolic interactionism do not give a full account of the how people interact. For instance, although dramaturgy and symbolic interactionism is seems to be playing a place in both the situations, it fails to play a part in both sides. For instance, when an employee acts to look busier, the manager does not display any behaviour that can be explained in terms of dramaturgy. The manager could simply be doing his work and not acting to produce certain results. The same case applies to the situation about the interviewee and the interviewer. While the interviewee may be acting in order to impress the interviewer, the interviewer may not be acting or practicing dramaturgy. Human behaviour is simplistic The other implication of dramaturgy if it was to be used to fully understand human behaviour is that it would mean that human behaviour is extremely simplistic. Dramaturgy cannot be enough to understand the human behaviour and the way people interact. That would be limiting human interaction to an extremely narrow situation. Dramaturgy ignores the concept of trust and how trust is enveloped (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008). The same case may be applied to the symbolic interactionism because people use this method to relate to each other because they don’t trust the other person that will accept them the way they are and therefore look for a way to improve their image (Haralambos, 2008). However, the more people know each other they stop acting, and they bring forward their real persona in a way to be able to relate fully with the others. Both interactionism and dramaturgy fails to capture this in a deeper way. They fail to explain the concept of trust and how trust is built. They also fail to capture the fact that trust is a social process that begins at the “stage” or theatre, and this means that the after the people are done acting it will reach the point of trust where acting is no longer necessary. This will happen even between two people even if there is power distance separating them from each other. Human behaviour will follow certain structures The other issue with dramaturgy and interactionism is that it encloses human behaviour in an enclosure and deemed to only happen in certain ways. However, a closer look at human behaviour reveals that there are more to human behaviour than acting out in order to impress. This can be seen in Maslow’s (1943) theory of human needs. According to this theory, the need for dignity, influence and power only arises once the person has been able to achieve the basic needs. Since dramaturgy seems to revolve around image management and impression management, it may not be adequate enough to explain behaviour of human beings at a point where they are not concerned about their image or the impression they make on each other. The other issue with dramaturgy and symbolic interactionism is the fact that they both assume that people will always behave in a way to increase their image, or what is called image saving. Sometimes this may not be entirely true because of one major reason. For instance since people are programmed to take care of other people, this theory cannot not account for the actions of philanthropy. It is not all behaviour that is geared towards face saving or impression management, and these two theories fails to look at this issue. These two sociological theories are good in explaining human behaviour, but they have a problem in regard to the fact that they postulate a cynical view of understanding of people and their behaviour. The two theories seem to be based on the argument that people are inherently selfish and will only act in a way that they are bound to benefit. However, this cannot be clear people are also hardwired to protect the people close to them. The closeness between two individuals can be measured in terms of blood relations and in terms of emotional relations (Andersen and Taylor, 2006). These two bonds dilute the relevance of dramaturgy as a sociological concept because those who are joined by blood or emotion can act in openness and be able to receive each other. This can be seen in close friendships where an individual can be who they are without acting out. Although the theories’ the phenomenon about the backstage, which is where the actors go to be who they are without the masks, this does not capture everything. The on stage and backstage phenomenon of dramaturgy is not usually an on and off thing and the theory postulates. Rather, it is a succession. For instance, when people are not familiar with each other, they are most likely to act in order to impress each other. Once these people are familiar with each other, they will be able to warm up and be more open with each other. This means that people can graduate from dramaturgy and have more open relations which are based on openness and freedom to one’s self. Criticisms Dramaturgy has been criticised as not being a comprehensive tool to understand human behaviour in a social situation. For instance, some have argued that context plays a principal role in Dramaturgy as opposed to the reason for human behaviour (Kirby, 2000). Some sociologists have argued that this theory is only practical and applicable in a total institution scenario where individuals have at least two basic similarities; Have a common unifying trait Individuals in a total institution are likely to have something in common that has brought them into the institution. For instance, two criminals in a prison have been brought together in a prison for their inability to observe the law. Likewise, two children in an orphanage have been brought together by their luck. Other examples include people in a monastery, army barracks etc. These people all have something that joins them together, and that has made them to be in the situation they are in. Are separated from the mainstream society Total institutions are also segregated from the mainstream society and therefore, the context of human interaction is affected. This can be seen in the examples that are given above. For example, people in a prison, care homes, orphanages are separated from the main society and enclosed in a smaller less organic society. Dramaturgy may be most applicable in this kind of situation because of a number of factors. For instance, an individual within this kind of a situation may feel the need to increase their stakes of survival in order to be better off than others in the same institution. Conclusion Both the dramaturgy and symbolic interactionism are a good way to understand human behaviour and can be used in a number of situations. Human beings are created to look for survival ways, and this involves creating an image of self to others that will help in getting what they want from the others. In this regard, dramaturgy is a good explanation of human behaviour in terms of understanding how humans behave. The same applies to symbolic interactionism in which human beings are seen to interact with each other in a way that will produce the best reaction from the others. These two theories provide a highly good platform for understanding and explaining human behaviour. However, they fail to capture some truly important elements of human behaviour. They both limit human behaviour and actions to a highly thin context and fail to explore a much broader platform. In other words, human behaviour is oversimplified by the very essence of these two theories. They both therefore need to be expanded or merged with other sociological theories in order to make more sense of human behaviour. These two theories are also developed to understand the cause of human behaviour rather than understand the reason for human behaviour. Dramaturgy for instance is too concerned with the impact of context on human behaviour and therefore fails to understand why people behave the way they do. This alone limits the understanding of human behaviour because ht emotive of human behaviour can give a better insight into the same. Bibliography: Andersen, M. et al., 2006. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, 4th Ed. Stamfoed, CN: Cengage Learning. Giacalone, R., 1989. Impression Management in the Organization. London: Routledge. Haralambos, M., 2008. Sociology: themes and perspectives. New York City, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Limited. Kirby, M., 2000. Sociology in Perspective: Sociology in Perspective for AQA Series. London : Heinemann. Lewis, M. et al., 2010. Handbook of emotions 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–96 Read More