Sociology in Our Social World
Human Language and the Marvel of a College Classroom
A college classroom is a magical place, and this is true mostly because of human language. Human language is distinctive. All other species communicate with a fairly limited number of sounds they can make. Other animals, except perhaps for dolphins, whales, and chimpanzees, communicate only about something that is happening in the present time and location like a threat (Phillips 2013).
Each human language identifies about 50 sounds that come to be designated as meaningful language. In English, this includes such sounds as sss, mmm, nnn, ttt, kkk, bbb, and ooo. We take this designated collection of sounds and combine them in various ways to make words: cat, dog, college, student. This ability to combine sounds into words and words into sentences allows you to say something to your instructor that she or he has never heard any other human say before. The sounds are familiar, as are the words themselves, but you may combine them in a novel way that causes a new idea to occur to your listener. This is actually the root of much humor. For example, you can say a sentence or tell a story that has such a surprising ending that it causes the listener to laugh.
Your animal companions at home clearly have memory. They can recognize you when you get home. Your dog may well remember the other pups in his litter. However, they cannot remember together. They cannot gather to recall and share stories about good-old dad the way you can recall the quirky traits of your professors with friends. Your dogs and cats cannot plan for the future—planning a litter reunion for next summer, for example.
The fact that our communication is a distinctive feature system allows something unique: temporal and spatial sharing. We can remember together our experiences of the past, and we can pass ideas from one person to another. We can discuss the ideas of people who have died and have perhaps been gone for more than a century. A mare cannot transmit to her colt the racing ideas of Man o’ War, the great racehorse of the 1920s, let alone the experiences of horses involved in the Trojan War, or even the triple-crown 1970s derby winner, Secretariat. However, whether in a classroom or a pub, humans can discuss the ideas of Plato, or Muhammad, or Karl Marx. Further, because of words humans can take other perspectives—to vicariously visit the other side of the planet or to go back in history to experience a time when an entirely different set of ideas about life was common.
When we come into a classroom, something mysterious, something amazing, happens. Language allows us to see things from a new point of view. What a remarkable gift that we can share ideas and see things through the eyes of someone different from ourselves, and it is largely because of the human distinctive feature system of communication. What an interesting species to study! What a marvel that we can do so in a classroom.
These ideas of how we construct our individual social worlds and have some control over them represent one approach of symbolic interactionism (known as the Chicago School). Another symbolic interaction approach (the Iowa School) makes a clear link between a person’s individual identity and her or his position within organizations. This connects the micro and the meso level of the social system (Kuhn 1964). If we hold several positions—honors student, club president, daughter, sister, student, athlete, thespian, middle-class person—those positions form our self. We will interpret new situations in light of our social positions, some of which are important and anchor how we see the social world. Once a core self is established, it guides and shapes the way we interact with people in many situations—even in new social settings (Kuhn 1964). Thus, if you are president of an organization and have the responsibility for overseeing the organization, part of your self-esteem, your view of responsible citizenship, and your attitude toward life will be shaped by that position. Thus, the Iowa School of symbolic interaction places less emphasis on individual choice but more on recognizing the link among the micro, meso, and macro levels of society (Carrothers and Benson 2003; Stryker 1980).
To summarize, the modern symbolic interaction theory emphasizes the following:
People continually create and re-create society through interacting with one another.
People interact by communicating with one another through the use of shared symbols.
We learn who we are (our sense of self) and our place in society through interacting with others.
Critique of Symbolic Interaction Theory.
Each theory has its critics, those who disagree with some aspect of the theory. That is how scientists critique their ideas and develop new theories. Although symbolic interaction theory is widely used by sociologists today, it is often criticized for neglecting the macro-level structures of society that affect human behavior. By focusing on interpersonal interactions, large-scale social forces such as an economic depression or a political revolution that shape human destinies are given less consideration. With the focus on the ability of each individual to create his or her meaning in social situations (called agency), symbolic interaction has often been less attuned to important macro-level issues of social class position, social power, historical circumstances, or international conflict between societies (Carter and Fuller 2015; Meltzer, Petras, and Reynolds 1975). For example, if we focused only on how Hector interacts with his family and friends in trying to determine why he dropped out of school, we would overlook macro forces (e.g., how the lack of government supports for poor families impacted his decision to drop out of school). Another critique is that it is difficult to study abstract ideas like the development of the self, key to symbolic interaction theory.
Despite these limitations, theorists from the symbolic interaction perspective have made significant contributions to understanding the development of social identities and interactions that underlie groups, organizations, and societies. Many of these studies are discussed throughout the book.
Rational Choice (Exchange) Theory.
According to rational choice theory, humans are fundamentally concerned with self-interests, making rational decisions based on weighing costs and rewards of the projected outcome of an action. Someone from this perspective would say Hector would picture the situation as if it were a mental balance sheet: For example, on the plus side, staying in school may lead to opportunities not available to the uneducated. On the minus side, school is a negative experience, and the family needs help to feed its members now, so going to school is a “waste of time.” Which side will win depends on Hector’s balance sheet and on family and friends’ influence over the rewards versus costs.
Rational choice theory, also called exchange theory, has its roots in several disciplines—economics, behavioral psychology, anthropology, and philosophy (Cook, O’Brien, and Kollock 1990). Social behavior is seen as an exchange activity—a transaction in which resources are given and received (Blau 1964; Homans 1974). Every interaction involves an exchange of something valued: money, time, material goods, attention, sex, allegiance, and so on. People stay in relationships because they get something from the exchange, and they leave relationships that have more costs than benefits for them. They constantly evaluate whether there is reciprocity or balance in a relationship, so that they are receiving as much as they give. Simply stated, people are more likely to act if they see some reward or success coming from their behavior. The implication is that self-interest for the individual is the guiding element in human