Structural approaches:
Adopt from a macro approach
Structural approaches see identities formed by the wider social forces making up social structure of society
Individuals are seen like puppets or programmed robot, who are socialized and manipulated by social institutions.
Criticisms of structural approaches:
Individuals are seen as puppets- this is what Garfinkel (1984) called ‘cultural dopes’- controlled by the social structure with little input from the individual.
Structural approaches don’t like to recognise that individual have free will, and have a role in carving out their own identities, being with others.
Social action approaches:
Adopt from a micro approach
Emphasis on the role of individuals in creating culture and defining their identities, and is concerned with the meaning of interpretations individuals give to situtaions as they interact with other individuals and groups in the socialization process.
Social action approach see individuals having control over the formation of their identities, rather than identities simply formed by the social structure.
The way that interation between individuals can form and change indentities is illustrated in works by Goffman, Mead and Cooley.
The ‘looking-glass self’
Mead argues that as children grow up, they learn to develop a sense of themselves – their self-concept – and the qualities they have that make them different from others.
They begin to develop an idea of how others see them
Cooley used the idea of the looking-glass to explain this.
‘Looking-glass self’: our image of ourselves is reflected back to us in the views of others.
People are so consious abouot how they look and how others see them, that they begin to modfiy and change their view of themselves and their behaviour.
Self-concept or our individual identity is a social construction.
Goffman: the presentation of self and impression management.
Goffman(1990) sees society like a stage- people acting like actors.
In society people try to project particular impressions of themselves – ‘the presentation of self’ – manipulating how other see them.
Impression Management – the way individuals try to convice others of the identity they wish to assert by giving particular impressions of themselves to other people.
People’s failure to establish their chosen identity through such impression management then spoils their preferred identity.
Criticisms of social action approaches
Individuals are seen as having too much control over their identity formation.
We are able to choose some aspects of our identity, but we are limited because of certain factors such as social disapproval that may arise if values and norms are not complied with, by the need to work and earn money to feed themselves of their families, or to purchase the consumer goods necessary to assert an alternative identity.
A third way: structuration
Giddens (2006) argues that there is a middle way between these structure and action approaches – Structuration.
Social sturcture limted the way people react/behave also adapt different identities.
Social action and social structure are independent.
Activity
1 Explain what Garfinkel meant by a ‘cultural dope’ and Goffman by ‘impression management’.
2 Suggest ways in which you try to manage the impressions of yourself that you give to other people , drawing on things like behavour, speech, dress, consumer goods, personal appearand and so on. Do yoou always succeed in giving the impression you want? Explain why or why not you might succeed.
3 With reference to Cooley’s idea of the ‘looking-glass self’, explain, with examples, how the reactions of others might encourage people to change how they view themselves.
4 Write a short essay, about one and a half sides of A4 paper, answering the following question: Examine different sociological approaches to the formation of identities through socialization. (500 words)