Ibrahim Sa'adu a.k.a gco (B Sc. Sociology)
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
There
are diverse sociological theories- Therefore, we as sociologists should endeavor
to note that most of such theories approach the analysis of social problem from
the structural base. This is not only unique to Sociology but to other social
science disciplines. In the discussion of today, we would restrict our
examination of different theories in sociology to that of Functionalist
contribution to sociological thought This theory aligns perfectly with the
consensus school with the background notion that shared norms and values are
essential for social continuity, order is founded on collective agreement and
that social change is slow and orderly,
Biological Root of Functionalism
·
The fundamental argument of functionalist school revolves around
the organismic analysis of human social structure. This it took after
the biological discipline. This approach attempt for instance In Biology to
know:
·
How human body worked. Examination of part in relation to other
parts,
·
The notion the all parts are important as they jointly maintain
the organism.
Functionalist
adaptation of Biological Principle
·
Theorists in this school strongly believe that societal parts
are interrelated and none can function in isolation of the other. All parts
joined together to form an organic whole. Any examination of any of the parts
is expected to be done by
evaluating its function in relation to its contribution as
they jointly function to maintain
the whole society
TALCOTT PARSONS FOUR FUNCTIONAL IMPERATIVES OF A SYSTEM (A.G.I.L)
Parson argues that
there are 4 functional imperatives that are necessary characteristics of all
existing systems
·
Adaptation:
Capability to respond to external exigencies. There must be a perfect
adaptation to the environment and the adaptation of the environment to its
needs.
·
Goal Attainment:
A system must define and achieve its primary goals.
·
Integration:
Ability to regulate interconnected ness of its component parts.
·
Latency
(pattern maintenance): Ability to furnish, maintain and
renew both the motivation of individual and the cultural pattern that create
and sustain the motivation.
Basic Philosophy/Assumption of Functionalism
·
Functionalists are interested in explaining the origin and
maintenance of order and stability in the society. Human behaviour,
conduct and interrelationship are believed to be structured. There exists
an orderly pattern (organized) located in societal rules. The importance of
social values lies in the provision of blue print or guideline for behaviour.
Human social structure constitutes the aggregate of normative behaviour or the
totality of social relationship governed by norms. Human society is made up of
parts embodied in internalized roles and which function in unism to sustain the
society.
·
Each of the component part of human society functions to maintain
the whole. The societies have certain basic needs to guarantee survival. These
include land, shelter, socialization etc. Societal parts are to work in harmony
or compatible towards sustaining the society-integration. This can only be made
possible through value consensus.
·
Functionalist scholars believe that certain degree of order and
stability is essential for the survival of the social systems. Shared values
are seen to be responsible for orderliness. It integrates social parts,
promotes unity and social solidarity and creates foundation for cooperation among
diverse interest. There is the ascendancy of collective interest over above
individuals' interest so there can be no injurious conflict capable of
destabilizing the entire super structure. There is benefit in peaceful co-existence of the functional groups-
Criticism
The criticism
against functionalism came to its peak in the 1960's and 1970's. The most
germane is the conservative posture displayed by the doctrinal value of the
theory, it promote the hegemony of American society over the rest of the world.
This is closely tied to the notion that "the every pattern has
consequences which contribute to the preservation and survival of the larger
system." This according to Huaco, 1986 is "nothing less than a
celebration of the United States and its World hegemony. Second, it preaches
equilibrium and converting a position of no necessity for change so as to
further promote the interest of the United States. It sees conflict as being
the offshoot of temporary disturbance among the interrelated parts. In short
the decline in the relevance of America in the world order concomitantly spelt
the doom of functionalism.
MARXISM AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIZING
This
represents a radical approach to the known postulations of the
functionalist school of thought. Marx wrote to explain the nature and form of
modern society. This body of idea grew about the time when the popularity of
functionalist paradigm began to wane. This idea constitutes the basis upon
which many political movements and governments in 20th century. The
conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and everchanging
nature of society. It believes that human society is made up of conflicting
interests.
Conflict
around the system of production, and especially in relations of production between
workers and owners were seen by Marx as the essential factor of modern society.
Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and
believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists challenge the
status quo, encourage social revolution (even when this means social
revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the
poor and the weak.
Marx Basic Argument
·
This conception is often described as materialist conception of
history. Marx developed the theory
of class conflict which is the driving force of history. Marx position
developed in a counter reaction to idealism. This grand theory has formed the
basis of many other research studies and theoretical development in Sociology
and the social sciences. The basic need of life is to survive. In their
socio-material life, man enters into an agreement with significant others. The
relationship guaranty's the production of material life. This involves
technical component known as forces of production—land, technology, scientific
know how, resources, machinery, tools, intellectual knowledge etc.
·
Across diverse ages, there is affinity between the forces of
production in existence and the types of attendant relationships made."
possible and enforced by man. The combination of the two is what Marx referred
to as the economic base or infrastructure of human society. The second aspect
of human society is what he called the superstructure consistently shaped by
the infrastructure. All other institutions are directed and controlled by the
economic structure which assumes the status of the infrastructure in Marx
theoretical analysis. Any
change in the Infrastructure automatically instigates a corresponding change in
the superstructure
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM—MARX THEORY
OF SOCIAL CHANGE, HISTORY OF
HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT
·
In Marx view on economic transition, all epochal succession is
embedded by its destructive worm called contradictions which make them unable
to survive for a long period of time. Major changes in history are the result
of new forces of production. The emergence of each mode ushers in its unique
contradiction. The growth of new forces of production produces an inherent
destructive force against the existing mode thereby replacing the existing
relations of production. Of all historical periods, the economic arrangement of
pre-historic era possessed insulation against economic contradiction— primitive
communism.
Other
mode is characterized by divisive potential of class related struggles—ancient,
feudal capitalism and communism,
·
Primitive
communism: This is characterized by small scale human group with no
developed system of property ownership. All properties are communally owned
with no class division.
·
Ancient mode: This is characterized by increased production mixed with some private
property ownership including slavery such as ancient Greek and Rome,
·
Feudalism:
A society characterized by settled agriculture and feudal property relation.
There exists a class division between landowners and landlesspeasantsand tenant
farmers who were forced to work for the land owners in order to survive.
·
Capitalism:
Characterized by investment in workshops and manufacturing in the 16th
century and by 1789 it has grown to a recordable revolutionary force. Class
antagonism became intensified and simplified with society splitting into two
great camps—the property owners and workers.
The
contradiction lies in the exploitation of one-class by the other—Serfs based on
traditional ties (lords/peasants), employer based on wage labour (employees).
Contradiction according to Cuff et al, 1990 involves that which necessitates
conflict of interest and it includes:
·
The exploitation of many people by few—due lo evil nature,
·
Tension, strain and contradiction between different social
groups—polarization, homogenization and pauperization-
·
The centrality of drastic change via some form of social
revolution engineered by collective consciousness,
Class
and social class struggle then takes a center stage in Marx analysis of
society. This represents -a clear cut conflict of interest that must be
resolved to keep the system alive. The conflict of interest rest in the forces
of production and relations of production—entered into to participate in the
processes of production; the relations between the employers and the employees
on one hand and that of social groups to the means and forces of production.
These are not without right, privileges, duties and obligations.
Means
of production involves part of forces that can be legally owned but labour not
inclusive. There is independent of workers selling their labour in a
contradistinction to what was in effect in the feudal society which is hierarchical and reciprocal in nature.
THE CENTRALITY OF CONFLICT
Human
labour create wealth and this is expropriated in form of profits by the
capitalists—bourgeoisie. There exists a discrepancy between the total wealth
generated by labour and what is parted as rewards for labour—wages. Conflict
lies in private ownership and expropriation of surplus value by the capitalism
who owns only the forces of production with access to the gains of production.
By this Marx referred to capitalism as a tool of exploitation and oppression of
workers and which will eventually destroy itself.
The
development of Communism or socialism marks the final epoch of history and the abinger
of resolution of conflicts inherent in capitalism. Capitalism is compulsory
stage that will usher in communism. Collective ownership will be in force and
wealth sharing will eradicate the exploitative tendency in man; then
contradiction bye-bye and conflict gone forever.
IDEOLOGICAL INHIBITION AND FALSE
CONSCIOUSNESS
·
The superstructure in all known
society is shaped by the infrastructure. Relation of production is reflected
and reproduced in the various institutions, values and beliefs that make up the
superstructure. These collectively produce the domination and subordination of
the oppressed class, Monopolization of politics, law, and ideological apparatus
of the society becomes the exclusives of the dominant group—capitalist.
Religious beliefs and other values reflect and legitimize the relation of production.
·
The capitalist produce the dominant ideas and these justify their
power and privilege and present them innocent or shield them from probable
wrath of the oppressed class, in an age when absolute monarchs reigned, it is
not surprising that the dominant ideas Suggested that kings and queens had a
divine right from God to rule. In our own age of free market capitalism, it is
again unsurprising that the dominant ideas are those of sovereign individuals
who make free choices. The idea in this context represents the ruling class
ideology which is a distortion of reality or paints a false picture of society.
·
Oppression is disguised under the principle or illusion of
equality and freedom driving capitalism. These are operated to further the
exploitative interest of the owners of the means of production. Exploitative
situations are viewed as normal, natural, right and proper thus translating
worker into the realm of false consciousness. This will slow down the detection
of contradictions but Marx believes that this will eventually be overcome.
·
This realization transforms workers from being "workers in
itself" to "worker for itself." It is in this liberated communist society could human fulfill
their potential for creativity in societies where one class dominates the rest
it is impossible.
EVALUATION
It
gave s new insight into the area of conflict and 'the inherent
disadvantage of capitalism- Modern economic development in all its ramifications came into existence through unequal
social relation driven by conflict rather than agreement of the classes. Marx
theory helps situate historical evidence into common framework for easier
comprehension. It has been made amenable to expansion, refineationand criticism.
Marx theory as any other grand theory cannot be subjected to
empirical testing. The theory's central prescriptions has been misguided—a
simple collapse of the Soviet republics which represents a socialist enclave
attested to the fact that the intentions of Marx has been thwarted by the
operators of communism. Finally, capitalism in modern day has taken a different
turn from what it used [o b-e in the time of Marx.
EMILE DURKHEIM (Social Facts)
What is Social Fact? – Summary and review
Emile Durkheim's
ground breaking article "What is Social Fact?" is one of the better
known articulations of the "building blocks" of functionalist and structuralism sociology. Durkheim defines social facts as
predominantly "things", that is real agents, that should be at the
focal point of the study of society. For Durkheim social facts are
everything of social or cultural nature which works to determine an
individual's life. Social facts can be social norms, values, conventions, rules
and other social structures.
Social facts may be material or nonmaterial: Material includes:
technology, housing arrangements, population distribution, etc. WHILE Nonmaterial: norms, values, roles (ways of acting, thinking and
feeling), systems (language, currency, professional practices)
Social
facts according to Durkheim exist outside and regardless of the individual who
only works to sustain them by yielding to their power on him (similar to
Durkheim's Totemic Principle). This means that social facts
are external to us, and they are acquired through society of coerced by it.
Deviation from social facts can result in various types of sanctions. They
function as "sui generis" generals, meaning ideas that are
independent of their actual private cases.
At
the basis of the thesis Durkheim set forth in "What is Social Fact?"
lies the perception of the individual grossly conditioned by social realities
that form the boundaries of accepted behavior.
Social
facts are quite simply the things that you like brushing your teeth, voting, shopping,
going to church, paying taxes, yielding to pedestrians and so on and so forth.
None of these things are done on your account, they are done because they are
social facts that must be abided and therefore have real power over you. The
way we manage our lives according to Durkheim is "What is Social
Fact?" is always related to the workings of elaborate networks of social
facts.
Durkheim
gives the example of suicide rates,
found to be higher with protestant communities compares with catholic ones. The
fact that denomination had to do with suicide was proof for Durkheim to the
function of social facts because it demonstrated how even taking your own life
dependant on society rather than individual choice.
Social
fact is a term created by Emile Durkheim to indicate social patterns that
are external to individuals. Things such as customs and social values exist
outside individuals, whereas psychological drives and motivation exist inside
individuals. Social facts, therefore, are not to be explained by biology or
psychology, but instead by society.
SOCIOLOGY OF MAX WEBER (Social Action, Bureaucracy, Ideal
Type, Authority, The protestant Ethnic)
Max Weber (1864-1920)
According
to the standard interpretation, Weber, conceived of sociology as a
comprehensive science of social action,
His
initial theoretical focus is
on the subjective meaning that humans attach to their actions and interactions
within specific social contexts.
Social
Action
In
this connection, Weber distinguishes between four major-types of social action:
1)
Zweckrational
2)
Wertrational
3)
Affective action
4)
Traditional action
1.
ZWECKRATIONAL
can be defined as action in which the means to attain a particular goal are
rationally chosen. It can be roughly translated as "technocratic thinking.
2. WERTRATIONAL OR VALUE-ORIENTED
RATIONALITY is characterized by striving for a goal which in itself may not
be rational, but which is pursued through rational means. The values come from
within an ethical, religious, philosophical or even holistic context – they are
not rationally "chosen."
3. AFFECTIVE ACTION
is based on the emotional state of the person rather than in the rational
weighing of means and ends. Sentiments are powerful forces in motivating human
behavior
4. TRADITIONAL ACTION – The
final type Weber labels; this is action guided by customs or habit. People
engage in this type of action often unthinkingly because it is simply always
done."
Weber's
typology is intended to be a comprehensive list-of the types of meaning, men and
women give to their conduct across, socio-cultural systems. As an advocate of multiple causation of human
behavior,-Weber was-well aware that most behavior is caused, by a mix of these
motivations.
He
developed the typology because he was primarily concerned with modern society and
how it differs from societies of the past. He proposed that the basic
distinguishing feature of modern, society was a characteristic shift in the motivation
of individual’s behaviors.
In
modern society the efficient application of means to ends (Zweckrational) has
come to dominate and replace other springs of social behavior.
His
classification of types, of action provides a basis for his investigation of the
social evolutionary process in which behavior had come to be increasingly
dominated by goal-oriented rationality (Zweckrational)-- less and less by
tradition, values or emotions.
The
major thrust of his work attempts to identify the factors that have brought
about this "rationalization" of the West. While his sociology begins
with' the individual motivators of social action, Weber does not stay,
exclusively focused, on either the idealist or the social-psychological level.
He proposed that the basic
distinguishing feature of modern society was best viewed in terms of this
characteristic shift in motivation; he rooted that shift in the growth of bureaucracy
and industrialism.
IDEAL TYPE
Weber's
discussion of social action is an example of the use of an ideal-type. An ideal
type provides the basic method for historical- comparative study. It is not meant
to refer to the "best" or to some moral ideal, but rather to typical
or "logically consistent" features of social institutions or behaviors.
An
ideal type is an analytical construct that serves as a measuring rod for social
observers to determine the extent to which concrete social institutions are similar
and how, they differ from some
defined measure.
The
ideal type involves determining the features of a social institution that would
be present if the institution were a logically consistent whole, not affected
by other institutions, concerns and interests.
The
ideal type never corresponds to concrete realty but is a description to which
we can compare reality.
BUREAUCRACY
Weber's
focus on the trend of rationalization, led him to concern himself with the operation
and expansion of large-scale enterprises in both the public, and private sectors
of modern societies.
In
order to study these organizations, both historically and in contemporary
Society, Weber developed the characteristics of an ideal-type bureaucracy;
1)
Hierarchy of Authority
2)
Impersonality
3)
Written Rules of Conduct
4)
Promotion based on Achievement
5)
Specialized Division of Labour
6)
Efficiency
According
to Weber, bureaucracies are goal-oriented organizations designed according to
rational principles in order to efficiently attain their goals. Offices are
ranked in a hierarchical order, with information flowing up the chain of command,
directives flowing down (Pyramidical Structures)
Operations
of the organizations are characterized by impersonal rules that explicitly
state duties, responsibilities, standardized procedures and conduct of office
holders. Offices are highly specialized. Appointments to these offices are made
according to specialized qualifications rather than ascribed criteria.
All
of these ideal characteristics have
one goal; to promote the efficient attainment of the organization's
goals.
The
bureaucratic coordination of the action of large numbers of people has the
dominant structural feature of modern societies. It is only through this
organizational device that large-scale planning and coordination, both for the
modern state and the modern economy become possible
The
consequences of the growth in the power and scope of these organizations is the
key in understanding our world.
AUTHORITY
Weber's discussion of authority
relations also provides insight into what is happening in the modern world.
·
On what basis do men and women claim authority over others?
·
Why do men and women give obedience to authority figures?
Again,
he uses the ideal type to begin to address these questions. 'Weber distinguished
three main types of authority;
1)
Traditional Authority
2)
Rational-Legal Authority
3)
Charismatic Authority
RATIONAL-LEGAL AUTHORITY
Rational-Legal
Authority is anchored in impersonal
rules that have been legally established. This type of authority (which
parallels the growth of Zweckrational) has come to characterize social relations
in modern societies.
TRADITIONAL
AUTHORITY:
Traditional
authority often dominates pre-modern societies. It is based on the belief in
the sanctity of tradition, of "the eternal yesterday."
CHARISMATIC
AUTHORITY:
Finally,
charismatic authority rests on the appeal of leaders who claim allegiance
because of the force of their extra-ordinary personalities.
Again,
it should be kept in mind that Weber is describing an ideal type; he was aware
that in empirical reality,
mixtures will be found in the legitimization of authority.
CAUSALITY
Weber
firmly believed in the
multi-causality of social phenomenon. He expressed this causality in terms of
probabilities. Prediction becomes possible, Weber believed, only within a
system of theory that focus our concern on a few social forces out of the
wealth of forces and their interactions that make up empirical reality. Within such
constraints, causal certainty in social research is not attainable (nor is it
attainable outside the laboratory in natural sciences).
The
best that can be done is to focus our theories on the most
important-relationships between social forces and to forecast from that theory
in terms of probabilities.
Weber's
system invokes both ideas and material factors as interactive components in the
socio-cultural evolutionary process. Weber attempted to show that the relations
between ideas and social structures were multiple and varied, and that causal
connections went in both directions.
While
Weber basically agreed with Marx that economic factors were the key in understanding
the social system, he gave much greater emphasis to the influence and
interaction of ideas and values on socio-cultural evolutions.
THE
PROTESTANT ETHIC
Weber's
concerns with the meaning that people give to their factions allowed him to understand
the drift of historical change. He believed that rational action within a system
of rational legal authority is at the heart of modern society.
His
sociology was first and foremost an attempt to explore and explain this traditional
to rational action. “What was it about
the West, he asks, that is causing this shift? In an effort to understand
these causes, Weber examined the religious and economic systems of many civilizations.
Weber
came to believe that the rationalization of action can only be realized when
traditional ways of life are abandoned. Weber's task-was to uncover the forces
in the West that caused people to abandon their traditional religious value
orientation and encouraged them to develop a desire for acquiring goods and
wealth.
After
careful study, Weber came to the hypothesis that the Protestant ethic broke the
hold of tradition while it encouraged men to apply themselves rationally to their
work.
Calvinism,
he found, had developed a set of beliefs around, the concept of predestination.
It was believed by followers of Calvin that one could not do good works or
perform acts of faith to assure your place in heaven. You were either among the
"elect" (in which case you were in) or you were not. However, wealth
was taken as a sign (by you and your neighbors) that you were one of the God's
elect, thereby providing encouragement for people to acquire health.
The
Protestant ethic therefore provided religious sanctions that fostered a spirit
of rigorous discipline, encouraging men to apply themselves rationally to acquire
wealth.
Weber
studied non-Western cultures as well. He found that several of these pre-industrial
societies had the technological infrastructure and other necessary preconditions
to begin capitalism and economic expansion. However, capitalism failed to emerge.
The
only force missing were the positive sanctions to abandon 'traditional' ways. While
Weber does not believe that the Protestant ethic was the only cause of the rise
of capitalism, he believed it to be a powerful force in fostering its emergence.
ERVING GOFFMAN’S SOCIOLOGY
(1922-1982)
DRAMATURGY – INTERACTION ORDER
Erving
Goffman (1922-1982) was one of the most astute sociological observers of the
dynamics of everyday life and his Contribution to micro-sociology is
immense. Goffman (1982) was interested in what he called the "Interaction Order", a more specific part of the social order. In
exploring the interactional order, Goffman tried to answer the basic sociological
question initially raised by Emile Durkheim: what makes society possible?
For
Goffman, the answer does not lie at the level of macro-sociological structures
but at the interaction level. The interactional order is the largely invisible
and unspoken norms, and rituals (such as greetings and salutations) that
members of society follow. While in situation of what Goffman calls
co-presence (face-to-face situations between two or more people); for Goffman,
norms constitute the grammar of
interaction so, that interactions are not driven by social actors;
individual motives and intentions "but by their management of invisible situational
norms and the impact of these norms on the self.
Because
our social identities are shaped by our status and role sets, Goffman (1959)
uses the metaphor of the theater to analyze social life as DRAMATURGY - the fact that members of society are comparable to actors
playing roles on stage. Since most of our behavior takes place in the presence
of others, we are indeed constantly performing roles for an audience. The script
we are enacting may have been written by society but a believable and competent
performance involves more than just going through the motions. For instance,
all teachers are acutely aware of the performing character of their Job and
they know their performance is assessed be different audiences (such as
students, administrators, and parents). Being in the classroom is being in stage.
Central
to-dramaturgy is the distinction between front and back regions.
THE FRONT-REGION is
comparable to the stage where the performance occurs: the classroom for a teacher,
the showroom for a car salesman, the dining room of a restaurant for a waiter.
The front region is what the audience sees – a carefully choreographed and
ordered performance.
THE BACK-REGION
is the equivalent of the theatrical backstage; all the activity that the
audience does not see but that is crucial to the competent performance in the
front region. It can be the teacher's office where she completes all her
preparation work in order to be ready for the next class. It can also be the kitchen
of a restaurant or the back offices of the car dealership. The back region is where
people can relax from the norms of interaction that prevail in the front
region. Teaching, waiting on diners, or selling cars involve, putting one's
self at risk of a faulty performance, especially if the audience is less than cooperative
(inattentive students, picky diners or difficult potential car owners).
In
other words, performing involves some tension that can be released in the back region.
This is why in many settings, it is essential to keep a clear separation between
front and back regions. If the audience had access to the back region, the
performance might be compromise. These examples also illustrate that individual’s
performance actually depends not just on one’s abilities but on other social
actors as well, what Goffman calls PERFORMANCE TEAMS. Performance teams are
all the actors involved in a given performance: teaching teams may involve teachers
as well as teacher's aides, and
administrative assistants. In a restaurant, the whole kitchen staff constitutes
a performance team.
Whatever
role we are playing in any given situation (even the most familiar and
informal, such as a gathering of friends), there is no avoiding the fact that
being in society means being on stage. Our self is essentially public. As a
result, the quality of our performances is essential to our sense of self. More
than that, we put our self on
the line every time we engage in interaction. As much as possible, in our
presentation of self, we try to shape how people, perceive us and what kind of impression
we make on the audience. Goffman calls, this process IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT. There are many ways
in which one tries to convey favorable impressions through the use of objects
(owning a luxury car helps
convey the image of financial success), clothes, as well as body language. The
way we talk, move, how we look and dress, our mannerisms, etc; all convey
symbolic information about us to the audience regarding our social class,
religion, sexual, orientation or ethnicity.
Some
information we give voluntarily by disclosing it, but some we give off, whether
we like it or not. We cannot control the impressions conveyed by the color of our
skin, our weight or other traits that might not work in our favor. Finally,
what traits will be perceived favorably might depend on the characteristics of
the audience and the social
expectations attached to whatever social role we happen to be playing and the
general culture in which the interaction takes place. This means that
interaction is a complex and risky business for one's self and yet, it is routine
that we manage it constantly, without major incidents.
But
incidents do happen sometimes and as a result, the performance is not convincing
and the social actor is unsuccessful at producing a positive impression or the
barrier between from and back regions gets broken down allowing the audience to
see the back region. Such cases produce embarrassment, that is, the awareness that
one’s self has been damaged. Embarrassment can result from ordinary
occurrences: a rumbling stomach, spilling a drink as well as in any form
of behavior inappropriate for a given situation. Goffman shows that in such
situations, the common response is to ignore the faux pass therefore giving the
failing performer a chance to save face thereby helping to maintain the
normative order of the interaction rather than letting it become awkward or derail
it completely — a process Goffman call STUDIED
NONOBSERVANCE. In other words, participants in an interaction support each
other's self, therefore, making interactive participation a moral
commitment.
Embarrassment
is also a tool of social control, playing jokes on other people or inflicting
public humiliation can be a sanction for not following the group's norms. It can
also be a marker of social power: who embarrasses who depends on the respective
statuses of the individual involved. It would be inappropriate for low-level
employee to deliberately embarrass a superior. Embarrassment is not just
something experienced by failing, performers; it can also be a consequence for collective
actions. This explains why most large companies have public relations
departments in charge of preventing public embarrassment or controlling it and to
avoid a "public relations nightmare." The energy giant Enron faced
such embarrassment when recording of phone calls by Enron traders revealed how
the company had deliberately detailed the power supply in California in 2000, causing
an energy crisis. “When individuals possess traits that damage their identity
permanently and prevent their full participation in society, they carry a
stigma” (Goffman, 1963). A STIGMA is
an attribute that spoils an individual's identity; Goffman distinguishes three types
of stigma:
1)
Defects of the body
2)
Defects of character, such as mental illness,
3)
Extremist political or religious beliefs or drug addiction;
membership in socially devalued groups such as racial and ethnic minorities or
gender.
Because
stigmas always carry negative evaluations, stigmatized individuals develop
coping strategies to protect their selves when dealing with "normal".
Individuals may try to hide their stigma if it can be disguised and limit its
social impact on one's identity. Other stigmas such as major physical
deformities or handicaps are so visible that they become a subject's master
status. One coping strategy may be withdrawal by limiting one's participation
in society. Another consists in creating a social movement to fight the
negative stereotype attached to a given stigma. For instance, the International Size Acceptance Society (ISAS) was created to
fight discrimination against obese people and the corresponding prejudice etc.
THE POWER OF INTERACTION DYNAMICS
The
maintenance of a barrier between front and back region is essential for
impression management and the preservation of the self. However, based on his
work in a mental hospital, Goffman, (1961) shows, those societies develop
places for stigmatized individuals where such separation does not exist; total
institutions. A total institution is a place where inmate’s lives come under
the complete control of the institution, such as prisons, mental institutions,
concentration camps. Total institutions are closed to the outside world.
According to Goffman, becoming an inmate in a total institution involves a
process of “mortification of the self."
Mortification
of the self means that inmates are subjected to degrading and humiliating
treatments designed (as they are the result of deliberate policy on the part of
the institution's staff) to remove any trace of individual identity. For
instance, personal clothing and items are confiscated, inmates are strip
searched, their heads are shaved and they are issued an ID number. The point of
such treatment is to mark a clear separation between the inmates' former selves
and their institutional selves. Inmates are constantly under surveillance and
they have no privacy. Minute behavior is observed and assessed, and if necessary,
sanctioned. Inmates enjoy no back region. This constant profanation of the self
by the staff and the coping strategies of the inmates to maintain a sense of
identity are the main interactional dynamics in total institutions.
In
the summer of 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1991) conducted an experiment
as the Stanford Prison Experiment that dramatically illustrated the power of
dramaturgy and roles in shaping behavior. His team selected 24 applicants to
become participant in the experiment (individuals suffering from mental
problems were not selected). Twelve would be guards; twelve would be prisoners
in a simulated prison located in the basement of the psychology department at
Stanford. The experiment would be videotaped and was supposed to last two weeks
but had to be stopped after six days.
Upon arrival, the prisoners were subjected to degrading treatment such as strip
searches and delousing, being put in a uniform and chained at the ankle. They
were called by ID numbers rather than their names, another profanation of the
self. The guards, all dressed in uniform as well were wearing shades (to
promote anonymity) and given whistle and belly club and instructed to maintain
order whatever it took, within some limits.
Zimbardo
was surprised how quickly prisoners and guards "became" their roles in
the most extreme fashion. Guards imposed arbitrary and degrading punishments
whereas prisoners became accustomed to their impersonal status and endured escalating
humiliations from the guards. For their part, the prisoners exhibited pathological
and withdrawn behavior. .Early attempts at rebellion had been crushed by the guards
who managed to destroy any group solidarity that might have existed among
prisoners.
Considering
Goffman's analysis of total institutions along with Zimbardo's experiment; the
behavior of some American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at
Camp, X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay is not surprising at all. The Abu Ghraib prison
and Camp X-ray are total institutions – The prisoners ethnically different from
the guards are completely left at the mercy of the guards, who engage in the
same dehumanizing treatments that Goffman and Zimbardo had observed. Individual
psychology does not explain such behaviors. The power of roles and social
situations is enough to shape behavior in the most extreme fashion. It is fair to
assume that any institution that has the characteristics of a total
institution will produce these types of behaviors irrespective of the actual
individuals who end up there as guards inmates. This explains why the pictures
from Zimbardo's experiment, Abu Ghraib and Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay show
remarkable similarities: they are all total institutions structured in a
similar fashion using similar processes and producing similar effects. Zimbardo
summarized the similarities in his latest book, The Lucifer Effect - Understanding
How Good People Turn Evil.
