Transcript Slide 1
Micro-level
Units of Analysis
Macro-level
Dyad Individual
Talking
People have different
conversational styles
their age, class, and gender. , influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic backgrounds, 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 “bad” meaning “incredibly good;” “the bomb;” “the shiznet” “fixin’;” “y’all,” “scoot over”
Talking
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?
Or straight-forward, direct, honest?
NY: “call it like you see it” South: “Billy is so dumb . . .
Bless his little heart!”
Argumentative?
NY: To argue is a sign of respect.
“Good for you!”
South: “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything . . .
to their face.”
Talking
People have different
conversational styles
their age, class, and gender. , influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic backgrounds, 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]
Deborah Tannen Professor of Linguistics Georgetown University
Gender-Differences in Communication Style
General Tendencies; Patterns are a matter of degree, not of absolute differences
Rapport vs. Report
Women 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
without direct confrontation. . Conflict is often perceived as a threat to connection and to be avoided at all costs. Disputes are preferably settled
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. Report
Women 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 Tannen Professor 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
Units of Analysis
Macro-level
Dyad Group Individual Triad
Micro-level
Units of Analysis
Macro-level
Dyad Group Social Institutions Individual Triad Formal Org Bureaucracy
Social Institutions
Family Education Polity Religion Economy Science
Micro-level
Units of Analysis
Macro-level
Dyad Group Social Institutions Individual Triad Formal Org Bureaucracy Society
The Social System
Politics Economy Family Science Religion Education
Institutional Autonomy & Interdependence
Micro-level
Units of Analysis
Symbolic Interaction Dyad Group
Macro-level
Structural-Functional Social Institutions Conflict World Individual Triad Formal Org Bureaucracy Society
Symbolic Interaction
Symbolic Interactionist Approach George Herbert Mead
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?
1863 - 1931
1863 - 1931
Symbolic Interactionist Approach George Herbert Mead
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 Approach George 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.
The “Subjective Element” in Social Action
The Thomas Theorem
“The Definition of the Situation”
“If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”
Interpretative flexibility W. I. Thomas 1863-1947
Symbolic Interaction
Herbert Blumer 1900-1987 How do people go about creating, defining, sharing and using “symbols” to facilitate interaction?
“Interpretative flexibility”
What is a “Symbol?”
Anything that stands for something other than itself.
Anything that carries a particular meaning that is recognized and shared by people.
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 Parsons 1902 - 1979 Robert K. Merton 1910 - 2003
Biological System
Walter B. Cannon 1871 - 1945
System
A system is made up of different parts .
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?
The Social System
1. Identify the
parts
of the system Biological System Individual Cells Tissues (clusters of specialized cells) Organs Body Social System Social Roles Groups Institutions Society
Family Polity
Social Institutions
Education Economy Religion Science Father Mother Son Daughter Brother Sister Aunt Uncle Cousin Grandmother President Senator Congressman Governor Mayor Assemblyman Judge Lawyer Teacher Student Dean Principal “X” Occupation Consumer entrepreneur Superintendent Priest Minister Rabbi Deacon Congregant Researcher Lab tech
Social Functions
FAMILY Socialization; regulation of sexual activity RELIGION Social cohesion; Social control POLITY Setting goals & laws Social control; Defense ECONOMY Production & distribution of goods & services EDUCATION Transmitting requisite skills & knowledge; Socialization; SCIENCE Technology; medicine
The Social System
Politics Economy Family Science Religion Education
Institutional Autonomy & Interdependence
Systemic Interdependence
Poverty & Divorce Church & State Evolution & Special Design
Beliefs Values Attitudes Norms Customs Traditions
Social Institutions
Family Polity Economy Education Religion Science
Unintended Consequences
Adam Smith Thomas Malthus Karl Marx It’s not mere happenstance - there are specifiable and predictable reasons
why
these occur.
We don’t know precisely
what
and
when
- just
why.
Most of the consequences of purposive social action are 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 are called
functions .
stability
of a social system Consequences that
dysfunctions .
disrupt
the social system are called
Functions Manifest Latent Dysfunctions
The Ubiquity/Inevitability of Conflict
Conflict is built-in to the very fabric of society. It is as normal - and healthy - as the air we breathe and most often occurs in socially patterned ways.
People who occupy different social positions - by virtue of occupying different positions - will have different sets of LEGITIMATE interests, values and attitudes.
These differences may be exacerbated by political differences and an 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 that threaten the health of society
The Social System
Politics Economy Family Science Religion Education
Institutional Autonomy & Interdependence
Beliefs Values Attitudes Norms Customs Traditions
Social Institutions
Family Polity Economy Education Religion Science
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 balance of power.”
Billy Graham, 1951
Systemic Interdependence
Church & State Sex Education Evolution & Special Design Textbook Controversies