micro-level macro-level individual dyad units of analysis
TRANSCRIPT
Micro-level Macro-level
Individual
Dyad
Units of Analysis
People have different conversational styles, influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic backgrounds, their age, class, and gender.
NOT referring to differences in the use of language, phrases and the definition of words
idiosyncratic usage argot/slang where the same word has very different meanings for different people in different contexts—my three girls, aged 20, 22 & 25
Talking
“bad” meaning “incredibly good;” “the bomb;” “the shiznet”“fixin’;” “y’all,” “scoot over”
People have different conversational styles, influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic backgrounds, their age, class, and gender.
I’m from New York City: loud, obnoxious, aggressive?
Talking
Or
straight-forward, direct, honest?
Argumentative?
NY: To argue is a sign of respect.
NY: “call it like you see it”
South: “Billy is so dumb . . .
South: “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t sayanything . . . to their face.”
“Good for you!”
Bless his little heart!”
People have different conversational styles, influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic backgrounds, their age, class, and gender.
But conversational style is rarely recognized by participants in interactions. Unaware that these and other aspects of our backgrounds influence our ways of talking, we think that we are simply saying what we mean and often experience frustration when we feel misinterpreted
[of course, others accuse us of the same thing]
Talking
Deborah TannenProfessor of Linguistics Georgetown University
Gender-Differences in Communication Style
General Tendencies; Patterns are a matter of degree, not of absolute differences
Rapport vs. ReportWomen
Conversations are negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus.
Their world is one of connection; intimacy; rapport. Talk is the “glue” that holds relationships together. Conflict is often perceived as a threat
to connection and to be avoided at all costs. Disputes are preferably settled without direct confrontation. Consensus building and maintenance.
Eye-contact; constant feed-back loop; finishing each other’s sentences; tag questions
Talk for long periods of time on the phone - about everything.
Gender-Differences in Communication Style
Rapport vs. ReportWomen
Children tend to play in sex-separate groups in which very different styles are learned, practiced and reinforced.
Girls play in small groups or in pairs; typically have one best friend where everything is shared;
not hierarchical; favorite games are jump-rope and hopscotch everyone gets a turn;
no winners or losers; girls compromise to preserve harmony cooperative
Gender-Differences in Communication Style
Rapport vs. Report
Boys play outside, in large groups that are hierarchically structured; there is a leader who gives orders;
there are winners and losers; boys use verbal and physical threats competitive
Conversations are negotiations in which people try to achieve and maintain the upper-hand if they can, and protect themselves from others’ attempts to put them down and push them around.
Their world is one of contestation, of mutual jockeying around for position; for status; independence.
Name-calling; jokes. Boys’ relationships are held together by activities.
Conflict is the necessary means by which status is negotiated. Men often use opposition to establish connections
Gender-Differences in Communication Style
Rapport vs. Report
Put the two together: [Remember: General Tendencies; Patterns are a matter of degree, not of absolute differences]
“How was your day?”
“You’re not listening!”
“Would you like to stop off at x on the way home?”
Deborah TannenProfessor of Linguistics Georgetown University
Gender-Differences in Communication Style
Implications: Talking at Work
Systematic differences in women’s and men’s characteristic styles often put women in a subordinate position in interactions with men.
Giving orders: Getting a subordinate to re-write a report:
Indirect approach: “Maybe you should . . .”
Ritual beginnings and endings: “I’m sorry”/ “Thank you”
Asking questions [directions. emergency room]
Pitching ideas [confidence/assertiveness vs. doubt/uncertainty] women are more likely to downplay their certainty, men are more likely to downplay their doubts
Allocation of credit: Who gets the credit? Who gets the raise?
The latest study on girls says they may be as likely to use aggression as boys. Rather than fists, girls express it through manipulation, exclusion and gossip-mongering.
Simmons, who visited 30 schools and talked to 300 girls, catalogues acts of aggression, including the silent treatment, note-passing, glaring, gossiping, ganging up, fashion police, and being nice in private/mean in public.
Micro-level Macro-level
Individual
Dyad
Triad
Group
Units of Analysis
Micro-level Macro-level
Individual
Dyad
Triad
Group
Formal OrgBureaucracy
SocialInstitutions
Units of Analysis
Social Institutions
Family
Polity
Economy
Education
Religion
Science
Micro-level Macro-level
Individual
Dyad
Triad
Group
Formal OrgBureaucracy
SocialInstitutions
Society
Units of Analysis
Family
Economy Science
Education
Religion
Politics
The Social System
InstitutionalAutonomy &
Interdependence
Micro-level Macro-level
Individual
Dyad
Triad
Group
Formal OrgBureaucracy
SocialInstitutions
Society
World
Units of Analysis
Symbolic InteractionStructural-Functional
Conflict
Symbolic Interaction
Symbolic Interactionist ApproachGeorge Herbert Mead
1863 - 1931
Mead – and others who followed his footsteps – believed that previous approaches ignored the fundamental fact that individuals “think” – they actively perceive, define, and interpret the world around them.
Rather than see the actor as a passive puppet blindly responding to stimuli – as did Watson (in Mead’s view) – Mead wanted to understand what goes on between stimulus and response. Do all individuals interpret and define the stimulus in the same manner?
Symbolic Interactionist ApproachGeorge Herbert Mead
1863 - 1931
Rather than see individuals as impelled by either mentalistic – Freud – or biological – Davenport – impulses over which they had no control, Mead wanted to focus on how actors, when confronted with situations,
(1) define the objects and situation they encounter,
(2) creatively think about possible modes of conduct,
(3) imagine the consequences of alternative courses of action,
(4) eliminate unlikely possibilities, and finally
(5) select what they believe to be the best course of action.
Symbolic Interactionist ApproachGeorge Herbert Mead
1863 - 1931
Rather than focus attention on the larger structure of society – the inequalities inherent in a capitalist economy that were stressed by Marx – Mead wanted to focus on the practical face-to-face, day-to-day activities of people in their more immediate social setting. How do they communicate? How are “symbols” created, defined, and shared by interacting individuals? How is “reality” socially constructed from the ground up?
Since action is created by the actor out of what he perceives, interprets, and judges, to fully understand it the analyst would have to see the situation as the actor sees it, perceive objects as the actor perceives them, ascertain the meanings they have for the actor, and follow the actor’s line of conduct as the actor organizes it and modifies it during its course.
W. I. Thomas1863-1947
The Thomas Theorem“The Definition of the Situation”
The “Subjective Element” in Social Action
“If men define situations as real, they arereal in their consequences.”
Interpretative flexibility
Symbolic Interaction
Herbert Blumer1900-1987
How do people go about creating, defining, sharing and using “symbols” to facilitate interaction?
“Interpretative flexibility”
What is a “Symbol?”
Anything that carries a particular meaning that is recognized and shared by people.
Anything that stands for something other than itself.
A word
A cross
A flashing light
A raised fist
A manner of dressing
A hairstyle
A whistle
A piece of jewelry on a finger
A flag
A gesture
Structural – Functional Analysis
Social Systems
Structural – Functional Analysis
Harvard University
Talcott Parsons1902 - 1979
Robert K. Merton1910 - 2003
BiologicalSystem
Walter B. Cannon1871 - 1945
System
Parts can be independently isolated and analyzed.
How does each contribute to the smooth operation of
the total system? What functions do they serve?
Parts are interdependent. Whatever happens in one part
reverberates throughout the entire system.
How does each part affect all of the others?
The normal state of the system is equilibrium and stability.
How is it maintained?
A system is made up of different parts.
The Social System
1. Identify the parts of the system
Biological System Social System
Individual Cells
Tissues (clusters ofspecialized cells)
Organs
Social Roles
Groups
Institutions
Body Society
Social InstitutionsFamily Polity EconomyEducation Religion Science
FatherMotherSonDaughterBrotherSisterAuntUncleCousinGrandmother
PresidentSenatorCongressmanGovernorMayorAssemblymanJudgeLawyer
TeacherStudentDeanPrincipalSuperintendent
“X” OccupationConsumerentrepreneur
PriestMinister RabbiDeaconCongregant
ResearcherLab tech
Social Functions
FAMILYSocialization; regulationof sexual activity
RELIGIONSocial cohesion;Social control
POLITYSetting goals & lawsSocial control;Defense
EDUCATIONTransmitting requisiteskills & knowledge;Socialization;
ECONOMYProduction & distributionof goods & services
SCIENCETechnology; medicine
Family
Economy Science
Education
Religion
Politics
The Social System
InstitutionalAutonomy &
Interdependence
Systemic Interdependence
Church&
State
Evolution&
Special Design
Poverty&
Divorce
Social Institutions
Family Polity Economy Education Religion Science
Beliefs
Values
Attitudes
Norms
Customs
Traditions
Unintended Consequences
Adam Smith Thomas Malthus Karl Marx
It’s not mere happenstance - there are specifiable andpredictable reasons why these occur.
We don’t know precisely what and when - just why.
Most of the consequences of purposive social actionare unintended.
Structural-Functional Analysis
All social actions and behaviors have multiple consequences,
some of which are intended (manifest), the vast majority of
which are unintended and unanticipated (latent).
Consequences that contribute to the stability of a social system
are called functions.
Consequences that disrupt the social system are called
dysfunctions.
Manifest Latent
Functions
Dysfunctions
Conflict is built-in to the very fabric of society. It is as normal - and healthy - as the air we breathe and mostoften occurs in socially patterned ways.
The Ubiquity/Inevitability of Conflict
People who occupy different social positions - by virtueof occupying different positions - will have different sets of LEGITIMATE interests, values and attitudes.
These differences may be exacerbated by political differences andan all too familiar pattern appears:
(1) Circling the wagons and polarizing the issues
(2) Drawing and responding to caricatures of opponents
(3) Selective perception
(4) Talking past one another - looking to “score” off the other person
Early Structural - Functional Analysis
Major emphasis on “functions” - those consequences that contribute to the stability of the social system.
Analogy with biological system:
bacteria and viruses - which are “outside” of the body - “attack” and threaten the health of the body
conflict and social disruptions are like diseases thatthreaten the health of society
Family
Economy Science
Education
Religion
Politics
The Social System
InstitutionalAutonomy &
Interdependence
Social Institutions
Family Polity Economy Education Religion Science
Beliefs
Values
Attitudes
Norms
Customs
Traditions
Systemic Interdependence
Church&
State
“The Christian people of America will not sit idly by . . . .They are going to vote as a bloc for the man with the strongest moral and spiritual platform, regardless of his views on other matters. I believe we can hold the balanceof power.”
Billy Graham, 1951
Systemic Interdependence
Church&
State
Evolution&
Special Design
TextbookControversies
SexEducation