Psychologists give more attention to mental processes and tend to give more concentration to the inner world of the person often with the use of experimental research, sociologists give more thought to the meanings of what people do through looking at interaction. sociological social psychologists focus more on social order and how it is built up through interaction within daily life.
There are two ways of examining theses processes, through Micro-sociological and Macro- sociological approaches. These differ in the scale of which sociological social psychologists would study. The Micro-sociological – small scale – approach looks at issues of identity and social interaction, where as Macro- sociological – large scale – looks at processes of the world like politics and large scale social structures. This prespective gives little connection between the two processes as if they are carried out independently, this can not be the case as large scale processes are dependent on interaction on a small scale level.
The macro-sociological approaches focus on socio-structural issues: this is how society is structured and able to maintain stability and order or conflict and dominance of some groups over others.
Micro-sociology takes action as part of start then ways society is produced and meanings via interaction. It takes wide picture of social structure as a starting point.
Social psychology is a study which is neither one or the other in basis of study. It takes the mental processes of psychologists theories, and pays particular attention to the social inter action of the individual in certain social groups. Studying these as a basis for social psychology. The advantage of combining both sociology and psychology in terms of theory and research allows possitive argument to arouse between sociologists and psychologists, this opens up the study to new areas, this argument creates a pool of ideas which can be debated further and introduce new theories and new concepts. This study is infinite and will never have a single answer or solid base theory.
Greg add more on in terms of action ï¿½
Explain meads conception of the self as comprising an ‘I’ and ‘Me’.
Mead distinguishes the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ simply by how a person sees them self in a situation – the ‘I’. And the ‘Me’, how they see other people view them in the situation.
To begain to understand and distinguish the difference of ‘I’ and ‘Me’ it must be understood what exactly what the difference is.
By examining the ‘self’ the understanding of ‘I’ and ‘me’ is better understood. The self is not automated, it is constructed through interaction with society, without a society there would be no self as we know it. The development of a self happens though stages. Social interaction within our society is how we develop a sense of self, each self leans the norms roles skills and language in order to be a social being. Every time we enter a new situation we learn new rules, in growing up we learn rules by observing reaction to us and other in situations. The self is a product of social interaction and with out social interaction there would be no self.
Fuck this is a list of notes!
Meads concept of self is defined through how others and how we view us. He argued that children must got though a process of developments taking on the perspectives of others in order to develop a sense of self. His theory argues that chlidern must go though three stages of social and moral developments.
The first stage of aquring a self is the preparatory stage, this is based more on the psychological approach of the motor-sensory skills pre-built in infants, these basic biological drives and instincts soon disappear and the infant becomes used to sequences of behaviour from their carers.
The second stage is when the child starts to learn and use language and begin to learn the adult world. The child will pose attitudes and perspectives to see reaction of those around them to there behaviour. Thus they gain experiance on how others will act towards them in situations.
The third stage is the game stage, in this stage the child will learn how to organise roles, like how to behave in front of strangers at a wedding or with their grandmother. They will learn how to simultaneously orgainse roles and understand inter -relationships.
Mead believed that the child must undergo this socialisation processes to learn how to organise cultural and sub cultural studies, from these they develop a concept of the ‘generalised other’. The ‘generalised other’ is a set of rules or norms set by our communities, these are fluid so are subject to change. People come from differing backgrounds, so there concept of the ‘generalised other’ will differ slightly. It is the rule that people do not question, and is seen to be natraul.
It is noted that by the game stage the child can understand or predict an adults or peirs reaction to a particular action and can act accordingly by understanding the what I would like and need – the ‘I’ from what the ‘me’ the expected response will be. In the context of a child in the game stage the thought process would function something like this:
‘I’ I would like to go out side and play..
‘Me’ Mother will not let me go out and play as it is too late.
The actual process may not be as sequence based as this, we may also think in terms of visualising a process.
There are 4 main agents of socialation that mead belived where the main attributes to becoming a self. Listed in order of the most influenced, the family, the school, the peer group and the Mass Media. These all influence a child of what is the ‘genralised other; in a society or the norm.
In Goffmans Damaturgical perspective what is the significance of the back stage?
Goffamans used the metaphor of ‘theatrical performance’ to describe interaction, he used this to help to understand the ‘expressive’ aspect of social interaction. That we express our selves, through preformace.
Goffman highlighted the way in which people display their social character as by communicating self-impressions and, using ‘props’and scrips in particular social scenes.
Goffmans belived that social life is like a theatrical performance and we are all performers upon a stage, we present images that we intend to influence others in converstion and action and how the would view a situation.
It is thought that when we are not performing we are, as it could be that non-performance is performance.
Humans are not straight forward but this is not a negative thing, if we were always on the surface and emtions were always seen society would not work as it does now and if we always acted on impulse things would also be very different. Our artificial front to our society means we don’t get hurt.
Goffmans metaphor introduces the idea that we play out roles dependent on the situation we encounter – the front region, he also said we drop these roles when relaxing and when we don’t have to use them. This is called the back region.
The back region is usually a privet space where we feel we do not have to ‘preform’ to others and we feel we can be our selves in this space.
The defining of the front and back regions gives the understanding of how we should act in each space, in a work place – the front region – we would not behave or ‘act’ as we might in our back space or homes.
The things that occur in the back stage are nesssacery for the front stage to function. If they did not front stage may not happen, in the example of a reustraunt the kitchen is a place of where things are busy and the workers often act as they would in a social context, but in the dining room the waiting staff must be controlled and act very differently.
It is thought that we act or perform in the back stage as this is learned behaviour, so we act out different roles in this space.
The back region sometimes becomes a front region, say if people have house guests they will act differently from when they are alone.
Childern and often elderly people will slip details of the back stage to the front stage as they may not yet have learned the role of descrency, or are trying to annoy or upset members of there family.
The back stage of some places can be very serious and mormid, in a abititour the workers have been knoen to play foot ball with dead animals heads, this softens the experience of working in such atmospheres and adds hummor to a situation. This is called role distance.
In ethnomethodological terms what is meant by indexicality?
An Ethomethodologist studies conversational code and shows how this is treated as fact, what is seen to be the real case in what is said in a situation or understood in context.
Conversation is not just about action, it is about the use of action within conversation, and converstion is a constructive part of action.
Indexicality is the meaning of something within the context of the situation at present, language may be used differently in different situations.
For example, working in a kitchen we prepare all salad food stuffs in the morring before the restruant opens, we chop onions for salads and put them in a large chilled room in containers. We do not chop any more red onions at any other point of the day. When a new worker is asked to collect ‘a red onion’ at 4 p.m , her work colluge expects them to collect a container of red onions, instead the new worker collects a single red onion.
When explained to the new worker that they wanted a container of red onions or ‘a red onion’ they learn that within the context of this situation language used may have a different meaning at this point in converstion. However if the work collouge had asked the new worker in the morning, when they were chopping salad stuffs for a red onion, they would expect them to bring a single red onion. So the context in asking for ‘a red onion’ changes in context of the situation. Experience in situations will help to understand different contexts of language.
In conversation analytic studies what are adjacency pairs?
Conversation has an organised structure. During conversation only one person speaks at a time and other(s) listen. It has a sequentially organised structure.
If people talk at the same time, the conversation must undergo repair work if the conversation overlaps. Indication for one person to talk after another is given by speech actions, these tie a conversation together so it flows fluidly and it is understood when it is the right point to contribuate to the conversation. These speak actions are replies with in conversation, things like invitations, requests, greetings.
These are known as adjacency pairs, in the case where an unexpected reply to a conversation request is required more conversational work is required than with the expected reply.
In adjacent pairs there are to responses, these are the preferred response and the dispreferred response. In the case of an invitation the preferred response would be acceptance and the dispreferred would be a refusal. In a request acceptance would be preferred and refusal would be dispreferred.