intersubjectivity and interaction order are two crucial concepts in sociology that delve into the nature of social interactions and the shared understandings that underpin them.
Intersubjectivity refers to the shared understandings and experiences that arise from social interactions. It encompasses the ability of individuals to comprehend and respond to the perspectives, intentions, and emotions of others. Intersubjectivity is facilitated by communication, as individuals exchange verbal and nonverbal cues that convey their thoughts, feelings, and intentions.
Interaction order, on the other hand, refers to the system of rules, norms, and expectations that govern social interactions. These norms and expectations govern how individuals interact with each other, maintain social order, and negotiate meaning. They encompass aspects such as turn-taking, politeness, and deference.
Both intersubjectivity and interaction order are essential for understanding how individuals navigate the complexities of social life. Without intersubjectivity, individuals would be unable to form meaningful relationships or engage in effective communication. Without an established interaction order, social interactions would be chaotic and unpredictable.
Key thoughts about intersubjectivity and interaction order in sociology include:
Social interactions are inherently subjective. Individuals interpret social cues and situations based on their own experiences, beliefs, and biases.
Intersubjectivity emerges from shared experiences and communication. As individuals interact, they develop a shared understanding of each other’s perspectives and intentions.
Interaction order provides a framework for social interactions. Norms and expectations guide how individuals interact, maintain social order, and negotiate meaning.
Intersubjectivity and interaction order are mutually reinforcing. Intersubjectivity enables the negotiation of interaction order, while interaction order provides a context for intersubjectivity to develop.
Intersubjectivity and interaction order are dynamic and evolving. As individuals and societies change, so do the norms and expectations that govern social interactions.
The study of intersubjectivity and interaction order has implications for various fields, including:
Social psychology: Understanding the psychological processes that underlie social interactions and shared understandings
Communication studies: Investigating how communication facilitates the development of intersubjectivity and upholds interaction order
Anthropology: Studying the cultural variations in norms, expectations, and interaction styles
Organizational behavior: Analyzing how interaction order and intersubjectivity impact organizational dynamics
Political science: Understanding how intersubjectivity and interaction order influence political processes and decision-making
Symbolic interactionism
symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that emphasizes the role of symbols in shaping human interactions and social reality. It posits that individuals interpret and assign meaning to symbols, which they use to communicate,form relationships, and make sense of the world around them.
Key ideas of symbolic interactionism in sociology include:
The social world is constructed through interaction: Individuals create and maintain social reality through their interactions with others. They interpret and use symbols to negotiate meaning, establish social norms, and define their identities.
Symbols are essential for communication: Symbols are the building blocks of communication, allowing individuals to convey thoughts, feelings, and intentions to others. They can be verbal, nonverbal, or even objects.
Humans are meaning-making creatures: Individuals actively interpret and assign meaning to symbols, which influences their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. This process of meaning-making is central to social interaction and social order.
The self is a social construction: Individuals develop their sense of self through interactions with others. They learn to take on roles, adopt identities, and understand their place in society through social interaction.
Human agency: Individuals are not passive recipients of social structure; they are active agents who shape their own social realities through their interactions and interpretations of symbols.
Symbolic interactionism has been applied to a wide range of sociological phenomena, including:
Social construction of gender: Symbolic interactionism helps to explain how gender is a social construct that is negotiated through interactions and the use of symbols.
Social stigma: Symbolic interactionism helps to explain how individuals who are stigmatized are labeled and treated differently based on their perceived deviance.
Social movements: Symbolic interactionism helps to explain how social movements use symbols and communication to mobilize and empower their members.
Consumer culture: Symbolic interactionism helps to explain how individuals create and maintain their identities through their consumption of goods and services.
Symbolic interactionism is a powerful tool for understanding how individuals make sense of the world around them and how they interact with others. It provides a framework for analyzing social phenomena and for understanding how social order is created and maintained.
- The main idea of SI is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols.
- The main part of human behaviour is not determined by objectives of a situation but more by meaning which people insert to the situation.
- What we name “reality” is a social construct – we invest our attention in it – other things we see as irrelevant
Georg Herbert Mead
George Herbert Mead, an American sociologist and philosopher, is considered one of the founders of symbolic interactionism. He believed that symbols, such as language, are essential for communication and the development of self-awareness.
Mead’s main ideas about symbols in communication include:
Symbols are arbitrary: Symbols do not have inherent meaning; their meaning is assigned by people.
Symbols are shared: In order for communication to occur, people must share a common understanding of symbols.
Symbols are the basis of language: Language is a system of symbols that allows us to communicate complex ideas and feelings.
Symbols are used to take the role of the other: By taking the role of the other, we can understand how others see the world and how they might respond to our actions.
Symbols are used to develop a sense of self: Our sense of self is developed through our interactions with others and the symbols we use to communicate.
Mead’s ideas about symbols in communication have been influential in various fields, including:
Child development: Mead’s theory of the “I” and the “Me” has been used to explain how children develop a sense of self.
Social psychology: Mead’s concept of role-taking has been used to explain how we understand and respond to others’ behavior.
Communication studies: Mead’s work has been used to analyze the role of symbols in communication and persuasion.
Anthropology: Mead’s work has been used to compare and contrast the use of symbols in different cultures.
Mead’s ideas about symbols in communication provide a valuable framework for understanding how we use language and other symbols to interact with each other and develop our sense of self.
- Interaction of individuals is analyzed afterward. The individual assigns meanings to interactions. These meanings are shared and transformed to symbols regulating behaviour.
- Personality is not an indivisible part of our biological basis and it is not a result of development of the human brain
- He shows that studying of individual personality can not be divided from studying of society
- Both parts of SELF are developing by two types of activity:
- Play – The first phase of socialization
- The “I” self is presented in the activity “play” – does not include other people – “play on something”
- Game – The second phase of socialization
- The “Me” self is presented in the activity “game” which includes rules and roles – other people are part of this
- Human action is based on symbols
- The individual recognize the meaning of the symbols during the process of socialization
- Understanding two parts of the personality
- I: active part of self
- Me: the part of self which is seen by others
Erwing Goffmann
Erving Goffman, a renowned American sociologist, made seminal contributions to the understanding of interaction order.His work emphasized the theatrical nature of social interactions and the intricate dynamics that govern them.
Goffman’s key ideas about interaction order include:
Social interactions as a social drama: Goffman viewed social interactions as akin to theatrical performances,where individuals act out roles and strive to maintain a desired impression on others.
Facework: Individuals seek to maintain their social ‘face,’ which encompasses their self-image and social standing.They employ various strategies, such as deference, apologies, and humor, to manage their face and preserve social harmony.
Territorial control: Individuals establish territories, both physical and metaphorical, to assert their identity and maintain control over their interactions. This includes personal space, social circles, and institutional spaces.
Frame analysis: Goffman introduced the concept of ‘frames’ to explain how individuals categorize and interpret social interactions. Frames provide a context for understanding what is considered appropriate or inappropriate behavior in specific situations.
Interaction rituals: Goffman identified various interaction rituals that individuals use to maintain social order and establish common ground. These rituals include greetings, apologies, and expressions of gratitude.
Bathos and incongruity: Goffman explored how individuals navigate moments of bathos, or embarrassing or awkward situations, and how they employ strategies to maintain composure and minimize disruptions to the interaction order.
Goffman’s insights into interaction order have had a profound impact on various fields, including social psychology,communication studies, and anthropology. His work continues to inspire research on the complexities of social interactions and the mechanisms that govern them.
- Much of his work was about organization of everyday behavior – interaction order
- He contributed to the concept of “framing” (frame analysis) to game theory (the concept of strategic interaction)
- Goffman often employed qualitative approaches, specifically ethnography
- most famously in his study of social aspects of mental illness, in particular the functioning of total institutions
- His contributions are valued as a bridge between “agency-and-structure” for popularizing:
- Social constructionism, symbolic interaction, conversation analyss
- He defined “impression management” as an acceptable image to present self to others.
- That includes also concealing inappropriate info
frame analysis is a sociological approach that emphasizes how individuals categorize and interpret social situations. It was developed by Erving Goffman in his 1974 book Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Frame analysis is the study of how individuals organize and interpret information. Frames are cognitive structures that provide a context for understanding events and experiences. They can be thought of as mental boxes that we use to categorize and label things.
Goffman identified four key elements of frame analysis:
Keying: This is the process of reinterpreting an event in a new way. For example, a casual conversation with a friend might be keyed as romantic if both people are flirting.
Frame switching: This is the process of moving from one frame to another. For example, a child might switch from play mode to learning mode when it is time for school.
Frame alignment: This is the process of ensuring that everyone involved in an interaction is interpreting it in the same way. For example, a teacher might use cues such as tone of voice and body language to align the frames of their students.
Frame strain: This is the tension that arises when different people interpret an event in different ways. For example, a conflict between two friends might arise because they are interpreting a situation differently.
Frame analysis has been applied to a wide range of sociological phenomena, including:
Social movements: Social movements use frames to help them mobilize support and achieve their goals.
Consumer culture: Consumer culture is full of frames that shape how we see products and services.
Mass media: The mass media use frames to tell stories and persuade people.
Everyday life: We use frames all the time to make sense of the world around us.
Frame analysis is a valuable tool for understanding how individuals interpret and make sense of the world around them.It can also help us to understand how social phenomena are created and maintained.
Harold Garfinkel
- He defined a term “ethnometodology” in 1967
- He was rooted in symbolic interactionism of GHM and phenomenology – studying phenomens from a human perspective
- It is a method which explores a daily reality of life
- Social interactions and communication processes
- It uses methods which can be used for studying how people communicate to understand and interprete actions of others
- People apply methods which are already established
- Many of these methods must be axiomatic otherwise any communication would not be possible
- It creates a certain order in a daily communication
- He did experiments with his students
- They were supposed to breach the standard rules in conversation
- They had to ask about specific details in standard general questions
- He claims that these phrases are the basic element of social life – if it is disrupted the conversation fails
Alfred Schutz
- Phenomenology is a study things as they appear
- Social phenomenology is concerned with how people use ordinary, everyday interactions to produce feeling of reality and intersubjectivity
- Schutz et al are principally concerned with the happenings of everyday life or what Schutz refers to as the lifeworld
- His main interest were two questions
- Ontological : appearance of the lifeworld and reciprocal understanding
- Methodological: how should look the science which is engaged in this type of lifeworld and methods which is possible to use for it.
- Lifeworld is an intersubjective world constrained by the preexisting social and cultural structures created by their predecessors
- Schutz dives more into a difference between intimate face to face relationships and distant and impersonal relationships
- He divided the lifeworld to subworlds
- 1. the social reality that has been directly experienced
- 2. the social reality that is on the horizon of direct experience
- The former consists of the UMWELT (environment) – is defined by perception of the agents
- A fellow-man who shares with me a community
- This is an environment of consociates
- In contrast of those are three options where Schutz does not see his fellow-man
- 1 The world of contemporaries mitwelt
- 2 The world of predecessors vorwelt
- 3 The world of successors folgewelt
- Ït represents the past and the future or the presence which is not happening at the same place
- Schutz was interested in documenting the transition from direct to indirect experience
- And the series of experiences in between
- He wanted to map the progressive anonymisation of the contemporaries
- Which was a measurement of increasing anonymity of my absent friend…
Arlie Russel Hochschild
- She focuses on human emotions which underlie moral beliefs, practices and social life generally
- Human emotions are social (joy, sadness, anger, elation, jealousy, envy, despair)
- Kundera “lítost” – indefinable longing mixed with remorse and grief
- It is not that non-Czechs never feel litost, she notes; it is that they are not, in the same way, invited to lift out and affirm the feeling—instead of to disregard or suppress it.
- We evaluate the fit between feeling and context inlight of what she calls “feeling rules”
- We are constantly managing our feelings in order to keep these rules
- Framing rules governing how we situations
- Example:
- The norm that women should be at home is a framing rule, while the norm to feel happy about being at home, or to feel guilty about being absent, is a feeling rule.
- Emotional Labour
- in The Managed Heart Hochschild writes of how flight attendants are trained to control passengers’ feelings during times of turbulence and dangerous situations while suppressing their own fear or anxiety.
- Bill collectors, too, are often trained to imagine debtors as lazy or dishonest, and so to feel suspicious and be intimidating.
- Global care chain – to refer to a pattern of women leaving their own families to care for children of well-off families
- The Second Shift applies her perspectiove to the American family
- Most mothers work for pay outisde the home – that is the revolution
- She traces links between a couple’s division of labor and underlying “economy of gratitude”
- Working parents in US put in long hours at work
- This work is much more rewarding than their home lives
- She found a fifth of these working parents feeling their work as home and home as work.
- The result is creating a “hypothetical self” – a self we could be if only we had time”