Erving Goffman's Theory Of Social Interactionism

While sociology revolves around the study of society, we tend to overlook the power one has over his actions. We are prone to overstating the deterministic nature of society on the individual, while ignoring the effect of the individual on the society. The relationship between society and individual tends to be more reciprocal in nature. This is why I feel that the stratification theory is the least convincing approach in studying emotions. Symbolic interactionist theory explains how different aspect of social life holds different meanings to different individuals.

In other words, the meaning of the symbols is developed through human interaction and communication. As a result of this, human interaction is a vital part of society and reality. For instance, by communicating and using language these symbols and their meanings go through an interpretive process in which reality is constructed. Symbolic interaction also states that individuals develop self-concepts through the interaction with others. Self-concepts are an individual 's perception of their own actions, potential, and distinctive characteristics.

Groupthink is a theory of social interaction involved with methods of group decision-making, originally developed by Irving Janis, a social psychologist, in 1972 (Communication Theory). Groupthink was initially described by Janis as the thought processes of people engaged in group decision-making with a deep desire to conform to ‘in-group members’ーrequiring extreme loyalty to group values and the exclusion of those deemed part of an ‘out-group’. In situations when groupthink occurs, the need for members of the group discussion to conform their ideas to those of the group overpowers the individual’s need to evaluate group choices critically, whether or not one fully agrees or supports an alternative answer (Psychology Today). There inlies danger

Everywhere in the world, there are a number of rules that people unknowingly abide without noticing them whatsoever. These set of rules are what makes a society function properly in a social level. Examples of these are shown largely in the psychological field, noticing the reactions of people as they are confronted with a socially awkward situation is known as breaching the social norm. Not only are these rules shown in communities that have a small population but they also range to groups/communities in all sizes. These set of rules are commonly identified as social norms.

They see everything as socially developed and reject the presence of an autonomous target reality. Contextual Constructionists: Conversely Beast (1993) take what is known as a "Logical," "moderate," "moderate or frail" perspective of social constructionism, accepting that some basic reality exists and that not everything is a social improvement? They accept that by selecting from, translating, and arranging this basic reality, people fabricate social developments that have distinctive appearances relying upon the social and social

Intro Norms can be described as the behavioural guidelines that inform group members about the right thing to do in a social situation. Sociologists distinguish between different types of norms, usually in terns of the sanctions that the norms carry. For example, Coordination norms, or folkways can be described as the common practices that members of a society have adopted, more or less by chance. Examples might be driving on the right side of the road, etiquette and language, although they are not usually regarded as being of moral significance. Like folkways, Moral norms, or mores are passed down through the socialisation process, but are more associated with intense feelings of right and wrong.

It’s fascinating to do a contrastive analysis of material and nonmaterial culture, together with exploring sociological factors that unknowingly shape my life. As it kind of offers an insight into the world around me, and opens my eyes to those unnoticed patterns which exist in my society. Hence, let’s discuss these areas in depth next. First and foremost, the big difference between material and nonmaterial culture is: whether tangible or invisible. The former refers to man-made things that people not only give a meaning to them, but also assign a function or value, whereas the latter encompasses abstract ideas and implicit forms of social interaction.

Group Thinking Theory, a study on group decision-making, is developed by Irving Janis. According to Janis, it is “based on human social behavior in which maintaining group solidarity is regarded more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner (Janis, I. 2014). Groupthink is defined as “the mode of thinking when people are deeply involved in a cohesive group and the members are striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternate courses of action” (Janis, I, 2014). Moreover, Janis mentioned that when the group is highly cohesive, isolated from contrary opinions and is ruled by a directive leader who makes his/her wishes known; these conditions will likely encourage them into group thinking.

Social norms tell us what is or what is not acceptable in certain situations. They are an element of culture that is established by people’s perspectives on what they deem socially acceptable amongst each other. Social norms are important in society and in social interactions. Some people break these social construction based on personal development or when they are in a personal space. When one is out in public there are a number of things one would not do because it is socially unacceptable.

1. The meaning of deviance is the result of a process in that it is socially constructed and is constantly changing depending on the context. From this perspective, an individual’s behavior or characteristics’ is not enough to make an act or behavior deviant, instead, it depends on the response that people have towards these acts that outlines what is moral and immoral behavior within a given community. According to Erikson, deviance helps communities maintain some type of social order by clearly outlining what’s considered moral and immoral behavior and changes as people explore their domains and test the limits of their community. Thereby, people that engage in immoral behavior are considered as “deviants,” as they challenge what’s been set as correct behavior by those in positions of influence within a certain community (e.g., policymakers, school board).

Firstly, Johnson disagrees with the individualistic explanation of society as simply a collection of people. Instead, he claims that every individual is always a part of “something larger” and the best way to understand social life is to determine what we participate in and how we participate in it (Johnson 2008: 9,13). He suggests that a collection of people makes up a system, whether they know it or not, and this system in turn lays out “paths of least resistance that shape how people participate.” Also, Johnson claims that systems and individuals are dependent on one another but are separate entities (Johnson 2008: 19). Thus, the sociological imagination for Johnson involves understanding our membership and the way we participate in systems such as race, class, and gender. More importantly, we must understand society not simply as a collection of systems or as a collection of people as individuals, but as both of them concurrently (Johnson 2008:

A balanced point of view is necessary. The subject matter of sociology is society, not the individual. Social determinants of human behavior must be answered by analysis of social structure. When addressing the troubles that people have, sociologists point out that many factors stem from overall problems at the group, society or cultural level rather than at the individual level. In order to solve such problems, it becomes important to move away from individual behavior and to consider group or collective behavior.