Theoretical Perspectives of the Individual and the Society - Essay Example

Theoretical Perspectives of the Individual and the Society Introduction It is d that man is a social animal and as such an individual cannot thrive in isolation. Historically, there are two basic theories that attempt to establish the relation between society and human beings. There is the social contract theory which states that a society is a result of a contractual agreement between people. According to this theory since society is created by people therefore the latter has more significance than the social environment (Swingewood, 1998, p.16). As per the second theory which is the organic theory society is considered as an organism. Just like different parts of human body are correlated functionally and cannot exist individually, similarly members of a society are interdependent for all purposes. Hence, this theory affirms that society is more important than its individual members (Rigney, 2001, p.17). However, both these theories have adopted a flawed approach towards individual and society since the relationship between the two is not one-sided. There are modern theorists like Durkheim who claim that society provides social facts to the individual based on which one’s thoughts and actions are formed (Begum & Awan, 2014, p.116). This paper discusses the theories of two sociologists - George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman. The individual in society Symbols or signs indicate the way a person is likely to behave or act in a given circumstance and the way different incidents occur in one’s life. A person would comprise two basic elements. The initial part is the ‘I’ that may denote the “spontaneous, creative self”. This part is likely to act selfishly without thinking the way the society would react or what others believe. The other element comprises me that would represent “socially conscious part of the self that monitors and moderates the I’s impulses” (Wood, 2011, p.111). The second part would evaluate the first in the context of social norms and predefined conventions. The element I still stays indifferent to the traditions and social rules but the me would always take note of those and the way society views different aspects. One may take up an example in this backdrop. In a public place of social set up, an aggressive interaction takes place and the I element in an individual would be tempted to throw abusive words or comments at his target, yet the other part (me) would always attempt to control the I as that element is aware of the probable impact those words might have on the individual’s relationship with the particular person in the long run. Also the second component understands how the individual would be represented in public one such words or remarks flows out of him during the argument. This also explains why a person gives a certain shape to his life and meditates before acting. On one hand a person ponders on his wants and needs and at the same time, he thins of how he will be represented to the others in the society or his surroundings. Now reflecting on one’s self helps in this regard. During reflection the me in the person would observe and restrict the actions of the I and change the same on basis of constant evaluation. Another example might be taken up here. In a social network, an individual might observe the way his friends or other users are reacting to his profile and then might try to modify his personal information of ways of interaction in order to be popular or change the way others think of him. This is the work of me which would thrive to make the individual socially more acceptable and hide his individual impulses. Improving one’s image in a social network therefore reveals the way me interacts and influences the I or one’s identity. Therefore managing the profiles of different social networks might be termed as facework or the face which one would like the world to see. This face may or may not tally with the real self or I. communication style during an online or telephonic conversation would also differ based on who a person is interacting with. An individual would modify his or her way of interacting based on probability of acceptance to the person in front of him or on the other side of conversation. This could be more evident in an online chat between two strangers. This will be based upon what each would want out of the other. While reacting with teachers or parents a person is less likely to use slang or other languages and signs he would use with his friends. (Wood, 2011, pp.111-112). George Herbert Mead’s interpretation of individual in a social situation George Herbert Mead, the nineteenth century American sociologist, in Mind, Self, & Society has explained how the society influences human mind and individuality. He has preferred to adopt a social perspective of human experience rather than individual viewpoint, and has assessed this from the “standpoint of communication as essential to the social order” (Mead, 2009, p.1). The “development of the individuals self, and of his self- consciousness within the field of his experience” (Mead, 2009, p.1) is generally attached to the public context. Mead has philosophized that every individual’s characteristics are formed out of the facts delivered by the society, and the actions are manifestations of individual traits. The organized structure of a society is reflected in the behavioral pattern of each individual. Therefore, individuality is maintained while at the same time the overall social pattern can be deciphered. In other words individuals being part of a society at large reflects the organized structure of the society but the behavioral pattern of each individual is the outcome of his or her own perspective. In other words, the attitude of every human being is reflection of the social facts that he or she experiences, but every individual views own relation with the society from a different angle. Thus the common image of the society as well as the formation of individual selves does not fail to include the differences in individual perspectives, nor does the image of the society oppose the separate perspectives of all individuals (Mead, 2009, p.201). Mead has differentiated between the I and the me as “different phases of the self” (Mead, 2009, p.209). He has defined “me” as an individual’s response to the organized approach of the society, and such approach gets the definition in the manner in which the individual assumes. Thus, no matter what the real picture of the society is, an individual’s behavior pattern is formed in the manner in which he or she makes assumptions regarding the attitude of the society. As for “I”, Mead has stated that it is formed according to the “me”. He has given the example of Greek artists who express their art forms as dictated by the community in which they live. They follow the rules of the community based on which they express their visions like heroic figures or certain deities. However, each artist infuses in their artworks an originality which differentiates one artist from the other. Thus, the focus is on the unconventional which is also in the case of impulsive actions which means “uncontrolled conduct” (Mead, 209, p.210). In this case, the formation of “I” is not the true reflection of the “me”. In events when an individual is expressing his views, he may be contradicting or opposing the views of others. If, however, his emotional constraint is to such an extent then he may end up expressing himself in a violent manner which may be against the legitimate conduct of a peaceful society. In this case, it is the situation that defines the “me”. Every society demarcates certain parameters within which an individual can express his views. However, given the level of emotional stress an individual may fail to comply with the limits and can assert himself in a violent manner. Thus, “I” becomes the dominant element over the “me”. Every individual tends to conduct actions based on the outlook of other people in the group, and so when an individual is restrained from interacting with people then a situation arises when reaction becomes uncontrollable (Mead, 2009, p.210). Erving Goffman and his theory of individual and society In a public gathering an individual normally wishes to satisfy his dormant needs and portray himself in a way which will make others think of him the way he wants. A dark skinned person might want to be more socially acceptable among the whites and imitate their mannerisms or a person form low economic status may try to obscure his identity from others and pretend to be from a well-to-do background with the aid of sophisticated costumes and jewelries. These could be termed as social signs which are used by people to make them acceptable the way they would like to. A social group may be identified with some common social signs or indicators. Individuals belonging to a specific club or country are often identified by some common principles which would distinguish them form the other circles and in a way directs an individual member to behave and act in a prescribed manner. Again, it is undeniable that one needs to “develop a persona which suits their individual needs which allows for free expression in a chosen way as well as providing security and acceptance from the environment. (Noack, 1992, p.186)” Yet, persona refers to something collective or group actions which in turn reveals that the similar kind of role or act could be performed by another individual also. The twentieth century Canadian born sociologist, Erving Goffman in his work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life has used theatre as metaphor to explain the mutual relationship between the society and the individual. In this book, Goffman has focused on “the way in which the individual in ordinary work situations presents himself and his activity to others, the ways in which he guides and controls the impression they form of him, and the kinds of things he may and may not do while sustaining his performance before them” (Goffman, 1999, preface). In any social gathering, people carry the tendency to learn as much information as possible about others including their socioeconomic background, their self-worth, their perspectives and attitudes. The general idea is to get a practical idea of the concerned individual so as to learn the way he or she perceives things. This will help people to learn what they can expect from that individual and what that individual can expect from them. This will guide people to act accordingly during mutual interactions. According to Goffman, with every social interaction the information that emerges of an individual is both presented and absorbed. In case of any interaction, two kinds of impressions are formed of an individual – one that is provided voluntarily by the person through verbal communication, and the other that is provided through non-verbal communication, i.e. the image of the self that the individual desires to project to others. The information that is voluntarily given is conveyed through verbal signs, and one which the individual prefers to communicate in social circles. The second kind of information is given off which means other people interpret based on the individual’s non-verbal actions. If the individual is not previously acquainted then people study his body language and accordingly interpret based on comparisons made with similar individuals that they have previously known. It is generally assumed that people with similar attributes gather in a specific social gathering. On the other hand, if the individual is previously known then people make assumptions based on previous experience of that person for “predicting his present and future behavior” (Goffman, 2010, p.38). Conclusion The current century has witnessed a dramatic change in the association between an individual and the society. Mead views individuals as a result of social process, and a person’s behavioral pattern develops according to the expected responses of others. Thus Mead indicates that individuals act and behave according to the social condition. He argues that individuals behave based on their perspective of the self as well as the expected perception of others about the self. Goffman has taken a similar approach by stating that people gather up multitude of identities in order to make themselves presentable to the others.. In each situation, an individual finds a specific form of interaction appropriate based on the circumstance. When interacting with a previously known person, the individual will express the identity that is embedded in his self. On the other hand, when interacting with previously unknown person, then he will improvise so as to deliver an image of the self according to his perceived notion of how the other person will want to see him as. References Begum, S. & Awan, A.B. (2014) Individual and Society: A Socio- Philosophical Account of Iqbal’s thought. South Asian Studies, Vol.29, No.1, pp.115-123 Goffman, E. (1999) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Peter Smith Publisher Goffman, E. (2010) The Presentation of Self, pp.38-44, In Wadsworth (ed) Wadsworth Classic Readings in Sociology, Cengage Learning Mead, G.H. (2009) Mind, Self, & Society, Univ. of Chicago Press Noack, A. (1992) On a Jungian approach to dance movement therapy, pp.182-202, In Payne, H. (ed.) Dance Movement Therapy: Theory and Practice, Routledge Rigney, D. (2001) The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to Social Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Swingewood, A. (1998) Origins of Sociology, pp.14-32, In Smith, M. (ed) Early Modern Social Theory, Canadian Scholars’ Press Wood, J.T. (2011) Communication in our lives: 6th ed, Cengage Learning Read More