There is no bigger proponent of not applying everything we learn to “dating” than me, the one writing this portfolio entry. I find the near-constant comparisons to dating from random, un-related parts of our life to be trite, cliché, unhelpful, and uninspiring. Sorry to disappoint, but no, dating is not just like the mission and girls are not investigators; I’m certainly not going to stalk and shoot anyone, so the hunting reference is bust; and no matter how many times we call it the “ward menu,” we are not at a restaurant and I am not ordering a chimichanga. I have not yet experienced anything, ever, except for this social past time, that would compel me to call up a complete stranger with whom I’m “sure to have a great time” simply because she was referred to me by a mutual acquaintance; the time spent with each other, of course, dripping with romantic undertones (remember: stranger). Furthermore, it is my sincerest, deepest hope that I’ll be able to go throughout the rest of my life never experiencing something like this again. I’m not against dating at all. In fact, I quite like the companionship. But I am against comparing dating to things that have no semblance of dating; these comparisons made solely for the sake of… talking about dating.
So I decided that Goffman can tell us all about dating. While talking with my roommate, I actually said the words “How do you want girls to take you?” See, he’s a “dramaturgical dater.” He talks about going out on dates in a very official way, each partner playing his and her role just as expected. He has a very distinct appearance (the cologne he uses and the shoes he wears and the ice cream he buys for afterward—closest thing we come to a ‘night cap’.) His manner is just as can be expected (he asks the normal questions, like “What’s new and exciting in your life?”) He’s very organized and official and straight-laced. And from that, he’s been perceived and serious, hard to read, even intimidating.
This all came up last night when he was saying how much he appreciates a short text or email or Facebook message from a girl after taking her on a date. I had to ask him “Are you really all that surprised that they don’t do that?” A text or other friendly message is a very casual thing, and he is simply not a casual person, and does not establish a casual relationship. So, the post-date text would be out of context. (Is that called “con-contextual?”) Like we said in class, “we must know how to take others to know how to interact with them.” I don’t think a lot of girls know how to take my roommate. He says “I don’t know why these girls I date can’t show a little interest. Why can’t they meet me halfway?” this coming from a guy who cuts a Saturday night date short by a couple hours if he has Sunday morning church meetings (which really is just when it’s getting started.)
Goffman would be so proud of me for what I told him. I said that his official, organized, neat, intimidating manner is just fine. But you have to expect to be taken as you present yourself. And he’s having Goffman-esque success at it! People are treating him the way that he is acting. We are all giving him the standing ovation, even throwing roses onto the stage and yelling “Encore!” Girls are treating him as serious and efficient and mature by not sending him random text messages. His dude friends see how well he thrives in high-structure situations, and they send him a lot of blind date suggestions. We are surprised that he ends his dates early because he sees his church calling as more important than the last couple hours of a date, which may be the most important time of the date! “Bravo, my friend. Bravo! You are playing your part magnificently! We all know exactly how to take you.”
But, I told him, if you want the random text message and other flirty behavior, then you must present yourself that way. My mother could not be more correct than when she said “To make a friend, you must first be a friend.” Goffman adds “And others will then take you as a friend.”
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Symbolic Interaction
The big question of the class, the lowest common denominator as we move from school of thought to school of thought has been “What is?” As pseudo-theorists, we are in the business of making ontological assumptions. (Am I allowed to talk about business in sociology?) Some ontological assumptions have been that we are what we make, or that we are what we do, or that we are what we consume. All of those are famous and important and somewhat explanatory. But they don’t completely envelope and explain everything about who we are. They all seem to be politically charged in some way (like Marx’s Communism), or the theorist wants to rationalize questionable or selfish behavior (like Freud’s complexes), or the theorist couldn’t take it into other academic fields, so he just dropped it off to with Sociology, like a kid at daycare (like Peter Blau’s Exchange Theory and Nietzsche’s Atomism, which are actually Economics in disguise.)
But finally we have come in our class to the most applicable, meaningful, and substantial of theories; outside of the ontological assumption that we are all children of God and “He has sent [us] here,” of course. Symbolic interaction is true sociology at work. It defines every thing, whether actions or objects or people, in terms of independent meaning depending on independent situations. We first identify what is, and from that we identify what we know. What is so fantastic about this is that here we are studying social science (testing an hypothesis, in the simplest of terms), and we have a theory that by definition is the opposite of scientific. Essentially, any thing could have any meaning in any situation. It’s fool proof: nobody can prove it wrong, so nobody has an obligation to prove it right.
However, what makes symbolic interaction to useful is that it doesn’t claim to be predictive; but rather, descriptive. We act in our natural ways, and it conforms to those actions. The symbols conform to our actions. S.I. doesn’t force us to justify our actions or get us riled up and motivated to change the world. (Really, that’s why we have the other social sciences. Let them boss us around.) S.I. reminds us that we are different people in different situations.
One of my best friends acts completely different around friends than he does around his uncles, who mostly raised him on account of his deceased father. Other theories would take the role similar to that of the disappointed girlfriend who might break up with him because he’s “a completely different person when you’re around your uncles.” But S.I. seems to tell the girlfriend off. “Well,” S.I. says. “His uncles take him as a different object, and so he acts differently. Of course he is a completely different person! He’s being treated completely differently!”
My mission president made an attribute out of being taken as a different object to different people. I served in Taiwan, and they speak differently there than the Mainland Chinese do, much like the difference between the US and Britain. So, when speaking to someone from China, President would match that person’s accent. When he met a native Taiwanese person, he would speak and act to mirror that person.
The moral problem to be dispelled with this idea of changing from interaction to interaction is that we are not being true to ourselves. Or at least that’s the sanctimony that your neighborhood motivational speaker is reciting. But what defines a ‘self?’ Where does a ‘self’ come from? Is there a ‘self’ factory in China and we all have to keep the same ‘self’ that we are issued from childhood? S.I. says that our relationships are our respective ‘selves.’ If we act the exact same way regardless of the situation, then we are limiting our ‘selves’ to one kind of group. That may explain why people get awkward: they are not willing to have their ‘selves’ be taken in a different way than they usually are.
But finally we have come in our class to the most applicable, meaningful, and substantial of theories; outside of the ontological assumption that we are all children of God and “He has sent [us] here,” of course. Symbolic interaction is true sociology at work. It defines every thing, whether actions or objects or people, in terms of independent meaning depending on independent situations. We first identify what is, and from that we identify what we know. What is so fantastic about this is that here we are studying social science (testing an hypothesis, in the simplest of terms), and we have a theory that by definition is the opposite of scientific. Essentially, any thing could have any meaning in any situation. It’s fool proof: nobody can prove it wrong, so nobody has an obligation to prove it right.
However, what makes symbolic interaction to useful is that it doesn’t claim to be predictive; but rather, descriptive. We act in our natural ways, and it conforms to those actions. The symbols conform to our actions. S.I. doesn’t force us to justify our actions or get us riled up and motivated to change the world. (Really, that’s why we have the other social sciences. Let them boss us around.) S.I. reminds us that we are different people in different situations.
One of my best friends acts completely different around friends than he does around his uncles, who mostly raised him on account of his deceased father. Other theories would take the role similar to that of the disappointed girlfriend who might break up with him because he’s “a completely different person when you’re around your uncles.” But S.I. seems to tell the girlfriend off. “Well,” S.I. says. “His uncles take him as a different object, and so he acts differently. Of course he is a completely different person! He’s being treated completely differently!”
My mission president made an attribute out of being taken as a different object to different people. I served in Taiwan, and they speak differently there than the Mainland Chinese do, much like the difference between the US and Britain. So, when speaking to someone from China, President would match that person’s accent. When he met a native Taiwanese person, he would speak and act to mirror that person.
The moral problem to be dispelled with this idea of changing from interaction to interaction is that we are not being true to ourselves. Or at least that’s the sanctimony that your neighborhood motivational speaker is reciting. But what defines a ‘self?’ Where does a ‘self’ come from? Is there a ‘self’ factory in China and we all have to keep the same ‘self’ that we are issued from childhood? S.I. says that our relationships are our respective ‘selves.’ If we act the exact same way regardless of the situation, then we are limiting our ‘selves’ to one kind of group. That may explain why people get awkward: they are not willing to have their ‘selves’ be taken in a different way than they usually are.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)