Social Identity / Social Interaction / Social Interactionism

As we noted in the previous module, one of the primary, powerful, and unavoidable ways that we come to see ourselves, others, and the social world is through interactions with other persons—family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and even strangers! This module examines the work of several sociologists that have explored the nature and impact of such interactions. In addition, the TED talk video offers a perspective on differences and similarities regarding interaction among “introverts” and “extroverts” by best-selling author Susan Cain.

Main Ideas:

• Georg Simmel’s “dyad and triad”
• Bibb Latane and John Darley’s “social loafing”
• George Herbert Mead’s “I, me, and generalized other”
• Erving Goffman’s “dramaturgy”
• Charles Horton Cooley’s “looking-glass self”

Brief Summaries of Each

Georg Simmel (1858-1918)
George Simmel was a German sociologist who was most interested in studying human interaction, including the impact that the number of persons in a group may have on interaction. In this regard, he discussed the dyad and triad. A dyad was the most basic form of human interaction, and consisted on two persons. And, a triad was a three person group. He noticed that the nature of interaction changed when one more person was added to a dyad to make a triad. For example, in a triad:

• If one person exits the interaction, there remains human interaction between the two remaining persons;
• Coalitions may form between two members of the triad in response to another member of the triad; and,
• Three sets of dyads are present within the triad, which offers a variety of human interaction.

In the language of the course, Simmel was trying to determine if there was more than simply what meets the eye in human interaction patterns…and concluded that there was! More specifically, he believed that the number of persons involved in human interaction makes a difference with respect to the nature and relative quality of the interaction and, ultimately, to human relationships.

Latane and Darley
Bibb Latane and John Darley were social psychologists who, during the 1960s, also became interested in the connection between the size of a group and the nature of human interaction. For example, in one much publicized case, they studied the stabbing of a woman in New York City in 1964 while no less than 38 residents who were in close proximity and heard her screams did absolutely nothing to respond. They concluded that all 38 residents simply believed that someone else would respond; another way to say this is: the larger the group, the less responsible each member of the group feels for what may occur in their midst.

This phenomenon is called “social loafing.” Think about it. Have you seen it happen? What about in a college classroom of 30 students when the professor is trying to get students to respond to different prompts. Maybe 3-5 students respond, and respond regularly, which makes it even easier for others in the class to “socially loaf”…simply because they can be largely inconspicuous in a class comprised of that many people.

Social loafing…a great concept. If you are interested, look up some of the other studies that these to researchers did to illustrate the power of social loafing! The size of the group DOES seem to make a difference with respect to individual responsibility of group members, as well as to the nature and quality of human interaction.

George Herbert Mead
Mead was an American sociologist who is often credited with being a forerunner of a particular “school” of sociology that is now called “symbolic interactionism” (feel free to explore further online if you wish). Symbolic interactionism also focuses on human interactions with a particular eye towards the ways in which human interactions in smaller groups and in larger groups contribute to or shape human identity.

One of Mead’s contributions was to suggest that a person’s social identity was comprised on three component parts: the I, the Me, and the Generalized Other. He used the concept of “the I” to illustrate that aspect of every person that is creative or imaginative; “the I” is that part of the self that can be characterized as individualistic or free-thinking. In contrast, Mead used “the Me” to depict that aspect of every person that responds to and reflects the interests of other persons, other groups, and “other things;” “the Me” is that part of the self that can be characterized as conformist or willing to be controlled by external forces. Mead used the concept of “the Generalized Other” to represent other groups or “other things” that exert some level of influence on every person. In fact, Mead suggests that various forms of “the Generalized Other” have powerful effects on the shaping of a person’s identity. Some examples of “the Generalized Other” are: peer groups; athletic teams; family; social class; church; America; race; one’s “generation.”

So, for Mead, one’s identity is formed via a dynamic process in which a person interacts regularly and continuously with others, other groups, and other things. Every person both conforms to the interests exerted from these interactions as well as maintains some level of individuality through it all. Needless to say, such interactions have considerable impact on how we come to see ourselves, other, and all other things in the social world.

Erving Goffman
Goffman was an American sociologist who also was interested in human interaction. More specifically, he compared human interactions with the theater, and called it “dramaturgy.” That is, he believed that everyone plays “roles”—quite intentionally—based on how they want others to see them. He also believed that people are quite willing to play different roles with different people, with different groups of people, or as circumstances warrant. In other words, with one group of friends, we “act” one way, but with another group of friends we “act” quite a different way. Or, in one social setting (e.g., family) we “act” a particular way, but when we go to another social setting (e.g., school), we “act” quite differently. According to Goffman, how a person “acts” has everything to do with the particular impressions that they desire to make on the particular group with whom they are, at any given moment, associating. Of course, the purpose for trying to cultivate particular impressions has everything to do with wanting to be associated with particular persons, groups of persons, or other social entities.

Charles Horton Cooley
Cooley was an American sociologist, most notably at the University of Michigan. One of the concepts for which Cooley is famous is called the looking-glass self, a concept that he first used in 1902. Similar to Goffman’s idea of dramaturgy and to Mead’s idea of “the Me,” the idea of the looking-glass self is that we look to others to determine what we will “look like;” others are a mirror (or looking-glass) into which we peer to give us an idea of who we should be and what we should do. Said another way, we take our cues from what we think that others want us to be and to do. These interactions with others and other groups, then, are absolutely vital in shaping our social identity or, in the context of this course, how we see ourselves, others, and all other parts of social life. If we look into the mirror of a particular group of friends and conclude that “we want to be the person that they want us to be”—acknowledging that they want us to look a certain way, act a certain way, not hang out with a certain other group of people, be interested in certain kinds of music, and not to care about school—then that is the person that we become, even though it may not be for forever…especially if we are just 10 years old at the time! ;>)

please wath the video below too in addition to the notes above to answer the essay questions .

https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_…

1. Drawing from Simmel as well as Latane and Darley, comment on how social interactions may change based on the size of a group.
(15 points out of a total of 60)

2. Mead uses the terms “I, me, and generalized other” to explain how one’s identity is shaped. Explain.
(15 points out of a total of 60)

3. Both Goffman and Cooley seem to suggest that persons’ identities are shaped by how they want others to see them. Explain what they mean, and then comment on the extent to which you agree/disagree with them.
(15 points out of a total of 60)

4. Susan Cain explains that humans interact differently. Identify three important “learnings” from her TED talk.
(15 points out of a total of 60)

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.