Advertisement

Role Dynamics in Encounters

Chapter

Abstarct

Despite its importance to sociological analysis, the concept of roles remains rather vaguely conceptualized. Part of the reason for this vagueness is that roles organize the behaviors through which other microdynamic processes operate; and as a consequence, role dynamics become complex. Just listing the many dimensions of roles can best bring home this point. For instance, roles are cultural in that there is usually a script or set of expectations for how individuals should behave in a particular situation or in a status position (Linton 1936; Goffman 1959, 1967); roles are cognitive in that persons carry in their stocks of knowledge inventories of roles and elements of roles that they use to interpret the actions of others and to orchestrate their behaviors in order to make a role for themselves (Turner 1962, 1988, 2002); roles are the mechanism by which persons come to understand the dispositions and to anticipate the likely actions of others during the course of interaction (Mead 1934); roles are the anchor that gives individuals a sense that they are experiencing the same reality (Schutz 1932 [1967]); roles are played on a stage or in an ecological location and often involve the use of props to bring off a line of conduct (Goffman 1959); roles are what give meaning to ecological settings, props, and use-spaces (Goffman 1963, 1967, 1971); roles are used strategically to bring off a performance and to secure resources, and conversely, roles can be the means by which resources are mobilized for exchanges with others and, at times become a resource in and of themselves (Callero 1994); roles are the vehicle by which individuals verify their various levels of self (Burke 1980; Burke and Stets 2009; Stryker 1980); roles are also the vehicle by which other transactional needs are realized, allowing persons to secure resources in exchange, to feel included in ongoing activity, to achieve a sense of trust, and to experience a sense of facticity (Turner 2002, 2008); roles are the means for signaling which elements of culture to what degree are relevant in normatizing encounters (Turner 1962, 1968, 2002); roles are both behavioral adjuncts to status (Park 1926) and the means and resources for asserting status (Clark 1990); and roles are the vehicle by which emotions are often displayed to others (Moreno 1934 [1953]; Turner 2008).

Keywords

Negative Emotion Generalize Role Complementary Role Role Element Relevant Element 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Linton, R. 1936. The Study of Man. New York: D. Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
  2. Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  3. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  4. Turner, R. H. 1962. “Role Taking: Process Versus Conformity.” In Human Behavior and Social Processes, A. Rose, Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 20–40.Google Scholar
  5. Turner, J. H. 1988. A Theory of Social Interaction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Turner, J. H. 2002. Face-to-Face: Toward a Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Schutz, A. [1932] 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in Public: Micro Studies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Callero, P. L. 1994. “From Role-Playing to Role-Using: Understanding Role as Resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly 57:228–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke, P. J. 1980. “The Self: Measurement Implications from a Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” Social Psychology Quarterly 43:18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke, P. and J. E. Stets. 2009. Identity Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stryker, S. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  15. Turner, J. H. 2008. “Emotions and Social Structure: Toward a General Theory.” In Emotions and Social Structure, D. Robinson and J. Clay-Warner, eds. New York: Elsevier, pp. 319–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Turner, R. H. 1968. “Roles: Sociological Aspects.” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Turner, R. H. 2002. “Roles.” In J. H. Turner, Ed. Handbook of Sociological Theory New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  18. Park, R. E. 1926. “Behind Our Masks.” Survey Graphic 56:120–38.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, C. 1990. Misery Loves Company: Sympathy in Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Moreno, J. 1953 [1934]. Who Shall Survive? New York: Beacon House.Google Scholar
  21. Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribners.Google Scholar
  22. Kohler, W. 1947. Gestalt Psychology. New York: LiverlightGoogle Scholar
  23. Koffka, K. [1935] 1955. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Heider, F. 1946. “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization.” Journal of Psychology 2:107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Newcomb, T. M. 1942. Personality and Social Change. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar
  27. Newcomb, T. M. 1953. “An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts.” Psychological Review 60:393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harary, F. 1969. Graph Theory. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  29. Cartwright, D. and F. Harary. 1956. “Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider’s Theory.” Psychological Review 63:277–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turner, J. H. 2007a. Human Emotions: A Sociological Theory. Oxford: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Weiner, B. 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weiner, B. 2006. Social Motivation, Justice, and the Moral Emotions: An Attributional Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Kemper T. D. and R. Collins. 1990. “Dimensions of Microinteraction.” American Journal of Sociology 96:32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawler, E. J. 2001.”An Affect Theory of Social Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 107:321–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ridgeway, C. 1994. “Affect.” In Group Processes: Sociological Analyses, M. Foschi and E. J. Lawler, Eds. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 205–30.Google Scholar
  36. Ridgeway, C. L. and C. Johnson. 1990. “What is the Relationship Between Socioemotional Behavior and Status in Task Groups?” American Journal of Sociology 95:1189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Clark, C. 1987. “Sympathy Biography and Sympathy Margin.” American Journal of Sociology 93:290–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations