Sociological Theory - Explain what is meant by the 'actors point of view' in interactionist sociology.

Sophie Baker

Sociological Theory

3. Explain what is meant by the ‘actors point of view’ in interactionist sociology.

Before undertaking the concept of the ‘actor’s point of view’, it is important to illustrate that there are different perspectives within social theory. Interactionists see society somewhat differently from sociologists such as Functionalists and Marxists because they focus more on small-scale interactions, often known as a micro approach. Whereas Functionalism and Marxism concentrate on society as a whole, seen as the macro theory, with individuals being shaped by the social system and therefore Interactionism is seen as a crucial aspect of sociology since the perspective differs. The idea of the ‘actor’s point of view’ stems from interactionist sociology, in particular symbolic interactionism, where many elements of small-scale interactions are given meanings by individuals, i.e. the social actors. A background of interactionist sociology will be given here with the term being explained and critically examined with reference to influential symbolic interactionists.

Prior to explaining the phrase the ‘actor’s point of view’, one must initially understand the theory behind it. Interactionism, also known as social action theory, is concerned with the process of interaction between individuals and the meanings that actors attach to actions thus defining given situations. Social action, according to interactionists, should be grasped in terms of meaning and not explained by how external forces cause individuals to act the way they do (Giddens, 2001). And in this way the interactionist perspective is seen as revolutionary (Charon, 1995) because it indicates the active nature of humans, it questions the scientific possibility for fully comprehending and foreseeing human behaviour. Symbolic interactionists then developed the interactionist idea that social structures were shaped through the social actions of those in society. The theory of symbolic interactionism originated at the University of Chicago in the 1920’s, where sociologists focused on social groups and how they respond to situations.

Founding thinker of the University of Chicago George Mead (1863-1931) initiated symbolic interactionist thought with ideas on the social construction of self. He was largely concerned with symbols within social interaction and believed that language was a form of symbol that helped to define particular objects or events. Mead assumed that the social process is a complicated model of socially constructed meanings and in order to survive individuals must create and live within a world of meaning. Fulcher and Scott exemplify this by writing:

‘A particular knife can be defined as a cooking implement, a letter opener, or a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

‘A particular knife can be defined as a cooking implement, a letter opener, or a means of suicide. Indeed, objects are of course produced with their social meanings in mind.’ (Fulcher and Scott, 2003: 134) So in social interactions these constructions and meanings are used and developed.

The creation of the social self is crucial in understanding the social actor. ‘The possession of a self converts the human being into a special kind of actor, transforms his relation to the world, and gives his action a unique character.’ (Blumer, 1969: 62) Meaning the fact that humans have a self therefore are capable of having self perceptions and can communicate with themselves. A self must be established before any meanings can be created or maintained and this is established through the process of socialisation. An important part of Mead’s theory is the idea of ‘I’ that is your self-concept, built up by reactions of others and ‘Me’, in relation to the social self in a specific social role, which is constructed through reflecting attitudes of others.

The concept of the ‘actor’s point of view’ could be mainly associated with the studies of Erving Goffman. Goffman supposed that:

‘We continually manage the impression that we make on others, that such things as gesture and gaze are crucially important for monitoring and interpreting the behaviour of others.’ (Gilbert, 2001: 5) Meaning that individuals in social interactions are obviously concerned with how they present themselves to others, and how others interpret them. He developed Mead’s ideas of social construction of self to his theory of the social presentation of self. The term the ‘actor’s point of view’ originates from Goffman’s ‘dramaturgical approach.’ The dramaturgical approach, or the dramaturgical model states argued that society is very much like a theatre drama, in which individuals adopt different roles for different social settings. Goffman believed that like children during play, adults also adopt certain roles within social interactions. According to Craib roles are the:

‘Expectations which others have of our behaviour in specific circumstances are like scripts which we then enact, and Goffman is concerned to show how we act, the way in which we manage our performance.’ (Craib, 1992: 89) That is to say then that social interactions are seen as performances in which the social actors taken on specific roles in much the same way as professional actors play theatrical roles. This suggests that all social life is an act that is often referred to as impression management. As Craib wrote;

‘‘Impression management’ is going on all the time, as if we were all advertising agents. We use our physical surroundings as props and maintain areas of privacy ‘backstage’ where we can relax from our performances (the toilet, for example).’ (Craib, 1992: 89) Craib suggests that the distinction between the performance and the relaxed individual is similar to Mead’s notion of ‘I’ and ‘Me.’

Within the idea of dramaturgy Goffman introduced the notion of front and back regions in social spaces in which social actors move in and out of. According to Goffman;

‘Performances often depend upon the segregation of social space into “front regions” and “back regions” (Branaman, 1997) meaning that in the front region the performance is sustained and carried out and the back region is where performers are themselves and often oppose how they have just acted or what they have previously said. Therefore the presentation of self is a collective pursuit. An example of this idea could be taken from a restaurant with regards to the waiters as they move from the kitchen, or the back region, into the dining area i.e. the front region. When a waiter is in the front region, their performance is polite, respectful and well mannered whereas in the back region their role may change, becoming closer to their true selves in that they display disrespect for others (Cuff et al, 1979).

However a key criticism of Goffman’s theory is that it cannot be applied to all societies. As Giddens suggests,

‘Goffman is little more than a cynical observer of white American middle-class mores.’ (Giddens, 1987: 112) and therefore the concept of social interaction being a process of self-presentation is not universal. This criticism can also be applied to the whole theory of symbolic interactionism since it is largely a reflection of typical American culture.

Following on from this then, an actor is a term used in interactionist sociology to describe an individual within a social interaction since individuals act differently in different situations i.e. taking on different roles. Generally speaking it was Goffman who used the term discussed earlier in his dramaturgical metaphor in which individuals are described as:

‘Actors on a stage, and they employ props and scenery in their interactions in order to convince others that they really are what they claim to be.’ (Fulcher and Scott, 2001: 135) So the actor’s point of view means, perhaps how they view themselves as a reflection of other’s reactions but also how they interpret what is occurring around them, enabling them to decide how to act.

When considering Mead’s contribution to interactionism, perhaps the actor’s point of view is most important in relation to the concept of ‘I’ and ‘Me’ where the social actor is both self reflective and self-monitoring. That is to say that the actor’s point of view is basically how they see themselves.

In terms of interactionist sociology then, the social self or the actor reflects the attitudes of others in society. Understanding the actor’s point of view within interactionist sociology is therefore beneficial for sociologists when comprehending the construction of the self in the social interaction, giving arguably more depth to findings compared to adopting say, a Functionalist approach.

In conclusion the actor’s point of view refers both to the actor’s opinion of themselves, which is created through others reactions to and their perspective of different social situations.

………