Social Structure vs. Social Interaction in Shaping Identity

Introduction: Symbolic Interactionism and the Self

George Herbert Mead's foundational work has been classified under symbolic interactionism — a classification made by Herbert Blumer, who assumed leadership of Mead's social psychology program following Mead's death and who was a sustained advocate of symbolic interactionism for over five decades. Whether Mead himself would have accepted this label is uncertain; however, more to the point, symbolic interactionism as it has developed over the past sixty years has tended to focus on characteristics of the self far more than on symbols or interaction as Blumer originally recommended. Individuals' behaviors in conversation with others within social settings tend to be governed by their perception of themselves. The self functions as a kind of gyroscope, keeping behavior steady and consistent. Moreover, as has been increasingly emphasized in symbolic interactionist principles, people are motivated to confirm their sense of self in the eyes of others (Mead, 1934, as cited in Burke and Stets, 2009).

This paper examines several newer theories of identity and its characteristics. The most recent work on identity processes has also incorporated newer theorizing in the sociology of emotions, for the evident reason that individuals place their identities at risk throughout interaction. Depending on whether people succeed in confirming — or fail in having others confirm — an identity, the emotions that are aroused will shape the subsequent flow of interaction and, over time, the structure of the person's identity system (Mead, 1934, as cited in Burke and Stets, 2009).

Identity as a Reconceptualization of Self

The concept of identity has become one prominent way to reconceptualize the self in recent decades. In general terms, the self is now understood as a collection or set of identities that may be invoked independently or concurrently in situations. When activated, individuals' actions are oriented toward having others confirm an identity or set of identities. Simultaneously, identities can function as filters for perception and interpretation as people mutually take on each other's roles (Mead, 1934, as cited in Burke and Stets, 2009).

The effort to develop a more sophisticated theory of self has therefore remained the central thrust of interactionist theorizing, and several newer theories of identity dynamics have emerged from this effort.

References

Back, L., Woodward, I., Jacobs, R., Inglis, D., Gibson, M., Edles, L.D., & Bennett, A. (2012). Cultural sociology: An introduction. Hoboken: Wiley.

Macionis, J.J., & Plummer, K. (2012). Sociology: A global introduction (5th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. As cited in Burke, P.J., & Stets, J.E. (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nagel, J. (1995). American Indian ethnic renewal: Politics and the resurgence of identity. American Sociological Review, 60, 947–965.

Plummer, K. (2010). Sociology: The basics. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

Stryker, S. (2000). Identity competition: Key to differential social movement involvement. In S. Stryker, T. Owens, & R. White (Eds.), Identity, self, and social movements (pp. 21–40). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P.J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M.S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.