Choose One Of The Two Questions To Write On Essays

Choose One Of The Two Questions To Write On Essays Must Be At Least 5

Choose one of the two questions to write on. Essays must be at least 5 pages (not including title page and abstract - abstract not necessary), and double-spaced. Essays must be in APA format and sources must be properly cited.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

This essay explores two significant sociological perspectives: symbolic interactionism as demonstrated through the works of George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman, and ethnomethodology as discussed in recent sociological readings. By analyzing these theories, the paper aims to understand the nature of the self, social interaction, and the routines that constitute everyday social life. The discussion will focus on the foundational concepts of each perspective, exemplify their application, and critically assess their implications for understanding individual identity and social order.

Analysis of Symbolic Interactionism based on GH Mead

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological framework that emphasizes the subjective meaning and the interpretive processes through which individuals construct social reality. George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), a pioneering figure in this perspective, posited that human development is rooted in social interaction, and that the individual's sense of self emerges through communicative processes involving symbols, notably language. Mead’s concept of “the self” involves two components: the “I,” which represents the spontaneous, impulsive aspect of the self, and the “me,” which is the organized set of attitudes and expectations of others that an individual internalizes (Mead, 1934). The self, according to Mead, is not innate but develops through social experience, especially via role-taking, where individuals simulate others’ perspectives to anticipate responses and ascribe meaning to their actions.

Mead emphasized that the self is a social process. He argued that the “self” arises from the capacity to see oneself from the standpoint of others—what he called “taking the role of the other.” This process is fundamental for the development of self-awareness, empathy, and social coordination. The act of communication involving symbols, especially language, allows individuals to interpret the world and organize social life around shared meanings (Blumer, 1969). Thus, symbolic interactionism considers the self as dynamic and constructed through ongoing social interactions, rooted in shared symbols and meanings.

Goffman's Demonstration of Key Components of Symbolic Interactionism

Erving Goffman (1922–1982) expanded the symbolic interactionist perspective through his dramaturgical approach, illustrating how individuals perform roles in everyday life to create social identities. Goffman viewed social interaction as a theatrical performance, where people are actors presenting themselves through “front stage” and “back stage” behaviors. His concept of “ impression management” aligns with Mead’s idea that individuals continuously interpret and present symbols to shape how others perceive them (Goffman, 1959).

Goffman’s work demonstrates that the self is not an immutable entity but a surface that individuals manipulate depending on the social context. The “self,” in his view, is a product of performances that conform to social expectations, which can change across different settings and audiences. For instance, a person may present a more professional demeanor at work than with friends, reflecting varying roles and social scripts (Goffman, 1959). This aligns with Mead’s notion that the self is continually reconstructed through social interaction and role-taking. Goffman’s portrayal emphasizes the fluidity of identity, supported by symbolic processes, and highlights that the self is a social construct rather than an unchanging core.

Is the Self Immutable or Fluid?

Given Goffman’s perspective, it is reasonable to argue that the individual person does not possess an immutable, unchanging self. His dramaturgical approach suggests that identity is a series of performances influenced by social circumstances, roles, and expectations. The self is not a static essence but a flexible, adaptable surface shaped by ongoing interactions and social cues (Goffman, 1959). This view diverges from more essentialist notions of the self as an unalterable core, instead emphasizing that our sense of identity is constructed, negotiated, and reshaped in social contexts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Mead’s symbolic interactionism and Goffman’s dramaturgical theory demonstrate that the self is a social product, fluid and malleable rather than fixed. The process of role-taking and performance constructs the individual’s identity within social interactions based on shared symbols and social expectations. Recognizing the mutable nature of the self underscores the importance of social context and interaction in shaping personal identity and social reality.

References

• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of social behavior. University of Chicago Press.