Interactionism and Reflexivity - Essay Example

Interactionism and Reflexivity: Interactionism refers to the way the people relate to society. There are many subtopics that add up to form what is known as Interactionism. Phenomenology, ethnography, symbolic interaction and social construction are four areas that our covered by Interactionism. In later years, as work on Interactionism increased and expanded, it was renamed as “Symbolic Interactionism”. George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer are among the pioneers of the theory. According to them, human beings are social products, and they move towards things that have meanings for them, and those things help in finally shaping their personalities and defining who they really are. (“ Interactionism”) There are two philosophical roots of Interactionism: one is Phenomenology and the second is Ethnography. Phenomenology is study of the construction of experience or consciousness. It is the study of “Phenomena”. It explains why things appear, as they are, what role they play in our lives or how we experience them and finally how experiences influence us. It includes all our sensory powers and capabilities of hearing, seeing, touching and everything that make up an “experience”. This may include all animate and inanimate objects. It studies the entire structure of an experience, starting from a thought or intention and finally translating into action. The intermediate processes, from thought to action are all studied by Phenomenology. This includes, foremost, how we perceive things, what thoughts and imagination they provoke in our mind and memory, what emotions are aroused, how will towards that task, and finally, how the action is taken or executed. Edmund Husserl was among the pioneers of the Phenomenology when it was first launched in early 20th century. He believed that the center of all experience is intention. It is not what final experience will bring about that decides how an individual will perceive or what individual will learn from it. It is what individual intend to get from experience that decides the meaning of the experience for the individual. (Smith, 2003) Ethnography on the other hand, is the collection of writings based on qualitative and quantitative details of human social phenomena. It is derived from fieldwork and includes study of traveling and office records. It takes into account all aspects of research, because it believes that the components of system don’t exist separately and therefore cannot be studied independently of each other. The influence of one part on the other has to be taken into consideration. For a successful ethnography to take place, it is important that ethnographer lives among his subjects of study for a year or so, while at the same time do not involve or attach himself to any subject that might color his studies. But that the same time it is important for him to develop good relationships with his subjects, as they will eventually help him in his learning. In order to improve the quality of the results, they might go on to learn the language, live in their style, wear their clothes etc to get a better feel of the place and culture. (“ Ethnography”) Ervin Goffman, a Canadian-born sociologist, has made one of the greatest contributions to sociological social psychology. He introduced to us, what is known as micro-sociology or the face-to –face interactions. He also explained in detail the"dramaturgical approach” to human interaction. Goffman believed that there was no single truth with a capital T, but infact each individual had a different idea of what is truth which he held as right and real. He also argued that humans did not act in a similar fashion at all times. Time, people involved, context, event, importance of event are among some of determinants of how we will act in a certain situation. Thus an individual or the self is the collection of his behaviors in different situations. The reason why individuals act differently in different situations is because they r desirable of audience’s approval. A successful perfomance is one in which the audience percieve the actor as an individual wanted to been percieved. This was elaborated in his theory of “ darmaturgy” presented in his book called “ The presentation of self in everday life”. (“Dramaturgy”) In brief, darmaturgical persepctive assumes that human behaivors have no cause and are not definite. They change with social interactions. And therefore the identity of an individual is not constant throughout the “ drama” of life. One performed differently in different scenes of life. Thus to Goffman life is a drama and people,actors. They acted in order to “ impress” their audience, known as “ management of impression”.they had simantheously two personalities, one “back stage” and other “front stage”. They are both separated from each other but they might be interuptions in actions or impression when the “back stage” performance affects the “front stage” performance , that is when the audience see what the actor did not wish them to see. At the front stage the actor fulfill his role as the situation required and audience desired. An individual learns about his role and his duties by communicating with different people. This new person may not be the real individual but one conforming with the rules and norms of the society. parts of self are not pleasant or do not conform to the norms are concealed through the process of “ mystication”. Goffman studied the performances actors in groups or teams. . He believed that each one actor acted in a cooperative manner to achieve the goals of the group. He refers to a “shill”, a person who gives the most visible signals to audience as to what kind of response the actors are trying to derive from them. . Thus actors may need to conceal parts of their self, which do not help in attainment of groups’ goals. This also brings about cooperation and harmony in groups because each one is aware of the fact that disagreement will lead to failure of their performance. Thus the pressure to conform to the rules is more in such situations than in individual performances. However, this does not mean that perfect harmony exists between team members. There will be arguments and disagreements, but only in absence of the audience. Hence here again, there is “front stage” performance of the team and a “back stage” performance. In this later work of “Stigma”, Goffman explores the interactionism of marginalized groups of people. The pressure on marginalized or stigmatized groups to act in a certain manner, different from what their stigmatized behavior, is higher and more intense than those who are not stigmatized. They have to be apt at “ impression management”, that they have to work harder at maintaining a certain impression on people so that they can successfully interact with people and no other hand limit the access of others into their stigmatized selves or lives. Because of their stigmas, the “ discredited” individuals may have problems in gaining acceptance of people and as a result may suffer from feelings of alienation. (Barnhart) Reflexivity is the awareness of the fact that a researcher can never be truly and completely detached from its subject and that his studies will be biased to some extent. “Reflexivity requires an awareness of the researchers contribution to the construction of meanings throughout the research process, and an acknowledgment of the impossibility of remaining outside of ones subject matter while conducting research. Reflexivity then, urges us "to explore the ways in which a researchers involvement with a particular study influences, acts upon and informs such research." (Nightingale and Cromby, 1999, p. 228)(“What is Reflexivity?”)   Reflexivity can be categorized into two types: Personal Reflexivity and Epistemological Reflexivity. The first kind is one in which are own being, beliefs, goals, views about life, society and politics etc shape our research. It is when; though we try not to be biased, still we influence our research and its results with our own views. It also means how research has changed us, as no one remains uninfluenced by his subjects or the environment he lives in for certain time. On the other hand, Epistemological Reflexivity is a kind of reverse process in which we go back and question the very assumptions on the basis on which we have started a research. It argues how the assumptions or the framework has limited our findings of the truth, in case the assumptions were eliminated or changed what differences that would have brought to our research and its results. Further it argues that if we continue to assume what we assume, then how will our researches being affected and the “effects” are taken into consideration. (Willig, 2001)(“What is Reflexivity?”) It can be said that reflexivity is kind of self-examination where we examine how “what is being examined or studied” has affected us. In social theory, Reflexivity checks how certain theories of a discipline apply with equal force to the discipline itself. It argues that a researcher also affects the observations he is trying to collect and study and how those observations change him during the process. His effect on his observations or subjects and the effect of observations on him will both influence his final results. It is believed that Reflexivity is also type of self-fulfilling prophecy that is when a certain thing has be assumed or predicted then everyone involved will adjust him or her accordingly, hence the maintaining the assumption ‘s authenticity Anthony Giddens is among the few sociologists who have contributed massively in the subject of “ reflexivity”. He has brought new ideas about the nature of sociology, developed the theory of structuration and studied the effects of modernity of our lives. He has explained the “ Duality of Structure” – the relationship between Agency and Structure. He believed that Agency influences its structure a lot .For example, a subject affects the environment or structure that he lives in, that no structure can exist without its inhabitants, but at the same time inhabitants cannot be studied independently, separated from its structure. Thus duality occur, both Agency and structure cannot exist separately but be studied together. However, the structure has both enabling and hindering capabilities. While it defines the limits of the Agency, at the same time it may help to improve and enhance the quality of Agency. He also believed that there exists a special kind of social cycle in which once certain sociological ideas have been formed, the agencies shape them selves accordingly, kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. As a result, the self is not a constant, but changes as the understandings of social scientific knowledge increases. Once, we have learned something new, we will adjust ourselves to it—this relationship is known as “ Double hermeneutic”. He believed that it is knowledge that gives the power to change us. He states as knowledge flows in, we learn about the causes and consequences of our actions. We learn why we did what we did in the past and also what consequences will it bring if we continue with same actions in future. Thus, we keep changing ourselves as our knowledge improves. Moreover, we do not adopt everything we learn, we only adopt things or change those things about ourselves and lives that will fit into our stories of ourselves and our lives, stories that will explain who we are, why are we the way we are and why are we, where we stand today. (“Reflexivity”) In Giddens’ words: "A persons identity is not to be found in behaviour, nor - important though this is - in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going. The individuals biography, if she is to maintain regular interaction with others in the day-to-day world, cannot be wholly fictive. It must continually integrate events which occur in the external world, and sort them into the ongoing story about the self.".(Giddens,1991, 54) He believes that in today world, we have to create our own selves,unlike in the past, when most people lived according to what was expected from them, to the roles they were given. He believes this can be most fullfilling and stressful experience. While we can choose to be who ever we are, at the same time we are aware of the consequences. What to do? How to act? Who to be? These are focal questions for everyone living in circumstances of late modernity - and ones which, on some level or another, all of us answer, either discursively or through day-to-day social behavior. (Giddens, 1991,70) These choices arise from the institutions that surround us and we in turn define them—thus there is a two-way relationship between the ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ aspects of the society. Individual’s choices about identity, self and relationships affect larger aspects of society, markets, globalization and multinationals. He believes that media plays an important role in formation of one’s identity. Films, news, advertisements, soap operas and celebrities – all change the questions like “who we are?” and “what we want from life?” While Interactionism deals with micro-sociology, reflexivity deals with both micro and macro aspects of sociology. Interactionism defines how an individual or groups of individuals act or what they want while reflexivity defines how individuals act and how knowledge and institutions affect their actions and how they in turn affect society and institutions. Thus reflexivity can be said to give more emphasis on the power of an individual to change him compared to interactionism. However, both believe that self is not a constant and that it keeps changing with circumstances. Interactionism believes that it changes with the demand of the audience as it argues that the individuals are overly concerned with pleasing others. They act in order to impress their audience and are disturbed if the audience is not pleased or see something that the actor did not wish them to see. But reflexivity believes that self only adopts and changes parts of itself that aren’t in harmony with a person ‘own idea of self and his life’s narrative. Further, interactionism believes that individuals act on “front stage” as they are expected to, conforming to rules and laws of the society. Thus society decides for individuals how they should act. However, reflexivity argues that individuals decide who they want to be, though it is influenced by outside factors but the individuals make still the final choice. Thus reflexivity and interactionism are both define the relationship of an individual to society, but while former studies a two-way relationship between the two, the latter emphases on the one-way relationship. Bibliography: 1) Smith, D.W (2003,Nov, 16). Phenomology. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy Web site: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/#1 2) Interactionism. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved March 25 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionism 3) Ethnography. In Britannica Concise Encyclopedia [Web]. Retrieved March 25 2007, from http://www.answers.com/topic/ethnography 4) Dramaturgy. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved March 25 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramaturgy 5) Barnhart, A.D Erving Goffman: the presentation of self in everyday life". Retrieved March 27, 2007, from Sociology at Hewett Web site: http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/CURRIC/soc/goffman.htm 6) What is reflexivity? Retrieved March 27, 2007, Web site: http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/michael/qual_reflexivity.htm 7) Reflexivity. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved March 25 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29 Read More