The theory is a micro sociological theory because it stresses the influence which the significant others have on an individual’s perception of himself which consequently affects the way the individual behaves through constant adjustments. The theory is rooted In the symbolic interactionist perspective which emphasises a micro-level analysis of human behaviour In order to understand the motive and meanings of behaviour. Theorists who come under the umbrella of symbolic interactionist perspective include; George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman, Herbert Blummer, Howard Becker, Norman Denzin, etc (Ogunbameru, 2013). All theorists under this perspective contributed to the explanation of the individual’s self concept directly or indirectly through their various scholarly expositions acknowledged all over the world. In an effort to do justice to this topic, the following is an outline of the
Thus the collective actions are visible for the researcher through language that was used to describe their actions, themselves and the consequences. This signs and symbols is the empirical data that enables the researcher to gain knowledge on their role and influence on the construction of the social reality, but still it is not only conditioned
Giddens believes that this has a “duality of structure”. He says that social practice has both a structural and an agency-component. Individual behavior is restricted in the structural component but at the same time makes it achievable. Giddens also talks about the social cycle. He believes that once sociologists or theorists, after detailed research, share their theories and concepts with the world
The article exploited the man’s empathy and used his empathy to influence his beliefs. Having empathy is a liability when taking moral action rather than a guide because having empathy leads to bias, a lack of reason, and confusion between empathy and compassion. One’s empathy is a hindrance because having empathy can lead to being unfairly biased for or against a certain cause, idea, or person. An example of this
I believe that I have matured beyond the stage of relativism and dualism onto the commitment stage because of my ability to use a combination of reason, valid evidence, and opinion to formulate theories about certain topics. Dualism can be summarized as a stage in development where the factors for decision making are mostly limited to solid facts and verified evidence. Relativism is when opinions are used to formulate a thesis, and as mentioned in the original discussion post, that they all carry equal weight. A potential issue with the relativist mindset could be that the students at this stage do not allow for the hesitation needed for successful decision making. Due to the fact that I consider myself at the commitment stage, I do not think
There are two definitions for the word ‘narrative’. One, in a literary sense, is ‘a spoken or written account of connected events; a story’. The other, in a social context, is ‘a representation of a particular situation or process in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values’. In everyday life, people subscribe to these social narratives as part of what it means to exist in a society. It is exactly this kind of acceptance of authority in ‘conforming’ to these narratives that this novel seeks to question.
The theoretical background most suitable for framing my research question is the symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism views human behaviors the creation of meaning through social interactions with those meanings conditioning subsequent interactions. This theory focuses on the individual level and is a micro theory. A micro theory is aimed at understanding the social life at the intimate level of individuals and their interactions. The authors associated with this theory are George Mead, Charles Cooley and W.I.
While it is true that certain individual rights are sacrificed for the good of the community as a whole, it does not necessarily follow and conform these societal norms because there Individuality in its purest form is dangerous. Restricted individuality is ideal because it appeases the masses (which apparently feel quite strongly about their individuality) while ensuring social order. But the social order always comes with the price of conformity, proving that conformity is necessary. These findings challenge the work of earlier researchers, who tended to assume that individuality is an unalienable right. Ultimately, what is at stake here is conformity becoming dangerous because it denies people’s individuality.
“The Sociological Imagination”, written C. Wright Mills, illustrates the importance of individuals having an understanding of their relationship to society (2000). The perspective, created by the author, allows people to grasp the interconnection of their position in society to the institutions and history which have allowed for that position to exist. To understand one’s self through the sociological imagination method gives individuals the ability to see how their personal troubles are consequences of larger public issues; thus their personal troubles cannot solely be solved by their perseverance. Further, realizing that one’s position in life is determined largely by institutional and historical context will help them navigate the system
Bandura describes an agent as someone who intentionally influences one’s functioning and life circumstances; “In this view, people are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflecting. They are contributors to their life circumstances not just products of them” (Bandura, 2005, p. 1). Self-Efficacy was developed by Albert Bandura’s as part of a larger theory, the Social Learning Theory (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010), which has progressed into the Social Cognitive Theory (Levin, Culkin, & Perrotto, 2001). Social Cognitive Theory was presented by Bandura in
In light of this, Rawls points to the shortcomings and common criticisms of the Utilitarian model for justifying punishment. One fundamental criticism, and moral dilemma, is that it sanctions an innocent person being punished for the benefit of society. On the other hand, however, Utilitarianism agrees that punishment is to be put into effect only in the event of the violation of a law. Utilitarianism seeks to limit the use of punishment by declaring it justifiable only if it can be shown to foster effectively the good of society. Consequently, the Utilitarian principle is accused of justifying too much.