Perspectives in Sociological Social Psychology
In the context of sociological behavioral patterns, there are three distinct perspective of psychology. One of them is the notion of symbolic interactionist. In this context, it reveals the connotation of the meanings of situation in according to the interactions we have with others. The lines of thoughts are therefore connected to a situational interactional stance. The symbols inscribed in the mindsets of various persons as they interact depict their change in the behavior. The norms and cultural beliefs at this point therefore are transferred from one generation to the next on the account of interaction (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 2013). The network of interaction brought on board acts as a catalyst for the change of behavior from one place to another. The fundamental basis of symbolic interactionism stems from the fact that society and individual cannot be separated hence various individuals’ behavior are molded by the society in which they live. In trying to creating a high level of autonomy, there is the notion of agency where an individual would have the authority and the liberty to think and act independently (James, & Prout, 2015).
It is however important to note that as one exercise their autonomy, their social interaction tend to impede them from overlapping and instead tend to be restricted to the societal norms that must be approved by those we interact. So the choices of actions we take according to the symbolic interactionism are limited by the thoughts of those we interact and share these choices. An example of symbolic interactionism is seen in the same sex marriage (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2015). The current context of many societies demand that this act of same sex marriage be scrapped out of the system. Some individuals might have the autonomy of carrying out such marriages but indeed it is affecting them in the sense that it is not accepted in some interaction contexts.
The next perspective is the social structure and personality. This perspective accentuate that our social behavior is determined by the larger societal behavioral characteristics which are have been practiced for a long period of time and proven to be substantially good. In this line of thought, it should be noted that most individuals are usually inclined into behaving in a manner that reflect the global societal setting (Pearce, 2013). As postulated by Marx and Durkheim, the set of norms and rules that governs the social life are derived from the fact they are deemed to be persistence with the human moral behavior and they have a sense of stability and predictability. This perspective is based on three distinct principles. The principle of proximity that dictates that the people tend to be inclined to those social structure that affects thier lives the most (Cote, & Levine, 2014). Secondly, there is the notion of psychology which dictates the propensity with which people tend to internalize and conceptualize the various immediate experiences that they have over the years and their consistency in transforming their lives. Lastly, there is the principle of the components which determines the elements that affect the behaviors and attitudes of various individuals (Pennebaker, Paez, & Rim, 2013).
With alignment to component as a principle of social structure and personality perspective, the level of income, an individual’s status, the roles and the networks one has, affect the way they interact. For example, from the real world, it is believed that the female gender is generally weaker than the male gender. This is attributed to the general physical characteristics that these people have (James, & Prout, 2015). In this line of thought, the female gender is usually associated with the light works while the men are associated with heavy duty roles in the society. This mode of thinking and societal behavior, even though, has been criticized, it remains the norms since it has been acquired for a long time and its persistence has made it to be known and be accepted by many in the society. This consistency seen here is seen to have made the women in the society to accept the supportive role to women while the men take the mantle of controlling the family by having authority over the women (Gergen, & Davis, 2013).
Aligning with the principle of proximity, a better example comes from the real world where the aspect of job loss has a very detrimental effect on the dependents of those who have lost the job. It should be noted that unemployment would mean that one would lack the source of income for which would makes them depend on others (James, & Prout, 2015). It is therefore something that not only affect the family relationships but also the work relations and the social status of a person. It is consequently conserved proximal since it affects the immediate beneficiary and also occurs very often. The fact that society works through institutions provides a platform where this virtue is directly linked to the behavioral conduct that we depict to the society (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2015).
Aside from proximity, there is the notion of psychology which dictates how we perceive and tackle certain structural forces postulated by the society over a long period of time. The psychological distress one undergoes when they go against certain norms considered moral makes one behave in a specific way. A critical example here is from the movies where the movie maker is expected to reveal the moral lesson from the whole construct but in real sense they would want to depict their own motives and perceptions of the world. they are therefore forces to cast the behavioral characteristics which are deemed accepted by all (Pennebaker, Paez, & Rim, 2013).
The third perspective is the group process that revolved around the interaction that involves more than two people and how various personalities respond to such scenarios. It should be noted that in this context, there are four distinct processes that needs to scrutinized. These entails the power that would give one the stamina and courage to relate with others (Cote, & Levine, 2014). Additionally, there is the notion of status which dictates the kinds of group one interacts with. for example, in the real world, one would interact with those in the corporate world in the event that he is a senior banker of a big and prominent institution (Gergen, & Davis, 2013). Another process is the justice where one compares their actions with those moral standards brought forward at every point time in the society. The last process is the notion of legitimacy where one ascertained the level of authenticity to those they interact with. This form is maintained on the account they exhibit some high sense of legitimacy in their actions and speech.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (2013). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. Oxford University Press.
Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2014). Identity, formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Psychology Press.
Gergen, M. M., & Davis, S. N. (2013). Toward a new psychology of gender: A reader. Routledge.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2015). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective.
James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (2015). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. Routledge.
Pearce, P. L. (2013). The social psychology of tourist behaviour: International Series in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 3). Elsevier.
Pennebaker, J. W., Paez, D., & Rim, B. (2013). Collective memory of political events: Social psychological perspectives. Psychology Press.