Essay on The Genesis of self and social control
The issue about the nature and role of individual identity has been widely discussed by sociologists. According to Robert Brym and John Lie (2009), the connection between the individual identity and the larger society is a “focus” for many sociologists, including George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman (p. 13). Both sociologists were focused on the study of individual identity, placing emphasis on the role of interaction with other people. The studies of George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman contributed to the development of symbolic interactionism as their views have very much in common (Burkitt, 1991). However, there are certain differences between George Herbert Mead’s and Erving Goffman’s interpretations of the constitution and reproduction of individual identity. From sociological perspective, the concept of individual identity refers to the study of the relationships between individual behaviors and collectivity. The ideas of George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman regarding individual identity are influential in shaping the model of individual identity. According to Richard Jenkins (2014), “individual identity – embodied in selfhood – is not a meaningful proposition in isolation from the human world of other people”(p. 42). Both Mead and Goffman make efforts to interpret the constitution and reproduction of individual identity, but they do it in different ways.
The major goal of this paper is to compare and contrast George Herbert Mead’s and Erving Goffman’s interpretations of the constitution and reproduction of individual identity. Besides, it is necessary to define whether one of these approaches to individual identity superior to the other.
George Herbert Mead’s interpretations of the constitution
and reproduction of individual identity
George Herbert Mead’s interpretation of the constitution and reproduction of individual identity is based on psychological approach to the study of the role of interaction with other people. As the sociologist, Mead is interested in the study of identity, placing emphasis on its development in social context. He states that identity is part of the individual’s character (Mead, 1925; Goffman, 1971).
Actually, George Herbert Mead’s original and groundbreaking conception of the interrelationship of self and society is influential. Mead’s understanding of the self reflects the role of the intersubjective character of social action (Jenkins, 2014). He explores various issues regarding the construction of individual identity, including how an individual’s sense of identity can be derived from the relationship of the self to the other (Burkitt, 1991). In other words, Mead believes that through an individual’s interaction, it is possible to arrive at a sense of identity (Mead, 1925; Brym & Lie, 2009). One’s own individual identity can be achieved through the application of general conception of society.
In addition, Mead introduces a number of different categories and dichotomies, which help to better understand the nature of self and society. Mead’s interpretation of intersubjectivity is one of the most important issues in the field. In his works, Mead’s ideas are connected with the desire to have an understanding of life “as a process and not a series of static physicochemical situations” (Mead, 1925, p. 251). Mead rejects the use of metaphysical explanations regarding life processes. He is focused on subjective explanation of life, placing emphasis on the understanding of self as the product of the so-called social act. According to Mead (1925), “selves exist only in relation to other selves”(p. 278). This fact means that selves depend on others, and they cannot exist without a community of other individuals. The major argument made by Mead is that the social refers to the form of generalization of others, influencing the development of one’s own individual identity, which implies that “the mind is itself intersubjectively constituted” (Mead, 1925).
According to Mead, individual identity can be described as the product of human communication that provides certain roles to individuals. Actually, the concept of the role forms the basis of his study of identity. Mead was a philosopher and psychologist; therefore, his view of individual identity is based on some philosophical thinking. He managed to create a “theory of the social origin of human selves” (Goffman, E.1971, p.28). According to Mead, it is impossible to separate the theory of human behavior from the theory of the mind. He developed the concept of social behaviorism to emphasize the role of individual identity and behavior in social interaction.
For Mead, the concept of “the self” is connected with symbolic experience of individuals (Mead, 1934). Mead believes that reality is established in the process of human interaction. He writes,
Symbolization constitutes objects not constituted before, objects that would not exist except for the context of social relationships wherein symbolization occurs. Language does not simply symbolize a situation or object which is already there in advance; it makes possible the existence or appearance of that situation or object, for it is a part of the mechanism whereby that situation or object is created (Mead, 1934, p. 78).
Mead believes that individual identity influences the mind to make people interact with one another. The mind becomes a tool used to promoted active participation in the community activities (Mead, 1934).
Erving Goffman’s interpretations of the constitution
and reproduction of individual identity
Erving Goffman’s interpretation of the constitution and reproduction of individual identity is based on different aspects of individual’s personality. Goffman states that there are different meanings of the term “identity”. He defines three meanings: “social identity”, “personal identity” and “ego identity” (qtd. in Manning, 1992, p. 98). Goffman’s interpretation of identity is based on the connection between social identity and individual identity. Together, social identity and individual identity reflect some significant aspects of self, which are “socially in play with others, affecting them and affected by them” (Burns, p. 26). Goffman’s works are developed to highlight the role of individual identity in social development. He gives explanation to the self in order to effectively manage social interaction. Yet, the understanding of Goffman’s ideas leads to the underestimation of the complexity of the theoretical perspective developed by him. Goffman discusses the peculiarities of performing social interaction and the ways to sustain social order (Goffman, 1970; Goffman, 1967). According to Burkitt (1991), “Goffman refuses to broach the question of which is the most real, the presentational front or the self of the actor who is behind it”(p.70). In his theoretical approach to the study of individual identity, he is focused on two selves: “the self who is a mask and the residual self that it hides” (Burkitt, 1991, p. 70).
In addition, Goffman discusses the nature of the concept of embarrassment that can be characterized as an individual’s possibility to participate in face-to-face interaction. It may occur “whenever an individual is felt to have projected incompatible definition of himself before those present” (Goffman, 1967, p. 97). Actually, these projections occur in certain social environment where incompatible principles of social interaction are prevalent. In case of the conflict between these principles, embarrassment performs its social function. Social encounter is based on face-to-face interaction. Social construction of the self is associated with social encounter.
In general, Goffman states that each self is socially constructed and requires the appropriate social interaction. He helps to assess the role of an individual’s ability to influence the formation of individual identity under social conditions, which not only shape human actions, but also limit them (Burns, 2002). The self that has been constructed in social interaction is active, aimed at realization of one’s own plans and desires (Goffman, 1967; Burns, 2002).
The key similarities and differences between George Herbert Mead’s and Erving Goffman’s interpretations of the constitution and reproduction of individual identity
Like Mead, Goffman provided many different categories, which are still applied to the field of sociology. He explores the significance of the rituals of social interaction and reveals the key dimensions of the self. The constitution of identity, according to Goffman, is connected with the presentation of self with little real substance. Mead’s approach places emphasis on the role of social interaction in the construction of the self.
However, Goffman has developed the idea of the concept of identity more systematically. According to Goffman, every individual faces considerable problems in his/her life that require modeling one’s self and making it perceptible to others (Goffman, 1970). The works of Goffman have direct relation to symbolic interactionism. As the major characteristic of symbolic interactionism is the use of symbols, such as language, in human interaction in order to develop socially constructed reality, Goffman’s views regarding the role of individual identity and its constitution are relevant. Similar to Mead’s approach, Goffman refers to the significance of social intercourse. In general, from the symbolic interactionist perspective, socialization influences individual identity. Due to the interaction of the self and society, it is possible to perceive social meanings, reinterpret them and give adequate response (Burkitt, 1991). In other words, socialization can be defined as the continual formation of individual identity over time. According to Goffman (1971),“role is the basic unit of socialization” (p.105). Due to roles, individuals have an opportunity to perform concrete tasks in society and achieve success. Besides, roles help to highlight the qualities of individuals, their self-image and responses of others.
In fact, the theories of Mead and Goffman help to better understand the impact of identity on social interaction and assess the effectiveness of symbolic interactionism. Goffman is focused on subjectivity of social life. He compares social interaction to different elements of social life, including “a carefully staged play”, “defined roles” and other elements that influence interaction. Social life can be viewed as real-life drama, in which each individual performs its role. As a result, it is impossible to separate an individual’s identity from an individual’s performance. He writes,
A correctly staged and performed character leads the audience to impute a self to a performed character, but his imputation – this self – is a product of a scene that comes off and is not a cause of it. The self, then, as a performed character, is not an organic unit that has a specific location …it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented (Goffman,1971, p.23)
Goffman characterizes identity as “a dramatic effect” because it equates the self and the mind. The self can be viewed as an effect, if identity is performed. In other words, the self becomes the major source of a wide range of activities performed by individuals, as well as their beliefs and ideas. Goffman considers that the capabilities of individual identities play a significant role in the realization of social performance. These views are not connected with Mead’s theory of the self. According to researchers, Goffman’s dramaturgical theory regarding the role of the self and identity differs from Mead’s views in the field of social psychology (Manning, 1992; Mead, 1925).
In contrast to Goffman’s views, Mead provides an opportunity to see the distinction between the two parts of “the self” – the “I”, which characterizes immediate consciousness, and the “me”, which defines the product of performance or interaction of an individual (Mead, 1925). This fact means that Mead’s explanation of “the self” is taken from the practical action of an individual and social interaction (Brym, & Lie, 2009; Manning, 1992).
Conclusion
Thus, it is necessary to conclude that George Herbert Mead’s and Erving Goffman’s interpretations of the constitution and reproduction of individual identity have very much in common, but, at the same time, there are certain differences between them. One of these approaches to individual identity is superior to the other. Goffman’s approach provides more systematic understanding of the presentation of one’s individual identity in social interaction. The sociological concept of identity, according to both Mead and Goffman, was established as individual characteristic combined with social interaction. The self can be viewed as an individual’s identity. Goffman’s ideas highlight the significance of cooperation between individuals. Goffman’s approach is more influential than Mead’s approach, although Goffman explored some themes developed by Mead in his works. In general, two theorists Mead and Goffman contributed to the study of sociology that has a strong impact on the way sociology as a science is represented now. Their works share some similarities regarding the construction of identity.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...