BackStage

Well, there are two topics that I really want to write on in this blog. The first is on the existence of a backstage that I talked about way back here. The second is the interplay between agency and structure. As I point out in my interests section, I really do think that coming to an understanding of this is the main purpose of social psychology in sociology — well, at least my main purpose. But, both of these topics are so huge, that I will need to talk about them in chunks. For my sanity and yours. I thought the first thing I would do is address the comment about agency and structure that Belle talks about in her spotlight of my blog that you can find here.

Belle comments:

My work in employment discrimination law demands that I be equally sensitive to organizational constraints and individual choice (although I argue that emerging choices are themselves products of constraint).

Are emerging choices a product of constraint? How much agency is there? Is it an illusion?

Great question!

A blog I found through Orbital Teapot (great blog name, by the way–and great blog), is Architectures of Control. Although I’m relatively new to reading this blog, it is basically about how geographies and products within structure the way we behave. For example, this post discusses how the size of trash bins has an impact on how much we throw away. Lockton comments:

That aperture dimension is important. It (to a large extent) determines the volume of rubbish that can be thrown away in one go. That in turn determines the size of the bins that users of this chute will (probably) have in their houses or flats, and thus how often the bin will have to be emptied. Taking the rubbish out can be a chore; halving the bin size doubles the number of trips to the chute, doubles the inconvenience.

Now how much this changes behavior is still a question to be answered, as he notes. But, this is just one of the many examples of how structure (in this case, the actual physicality of the environment) influences possible choices to be made.

Before I started reading this blog, I spent very little time thinking about how the physical environment acts as a constraint, but it now seems obvious to me. In sociology, Yang Costello writes about how the physical environment of academia socializes us into our profession. The cafe at the law school teaches young lawyers how they are supposed to eat. The decorations in the hall indicate the type of people we should be. She also goes on to talk about how this is problematic in terms of race, class and gender (good read, ya’ll). Anyway, the point is, this research really shows the power of seemingly innocuous forms of structure impact our behavioral choices (and, thus, our agency).

But, the question becomes: When do individuals have opportunities to make choices outside of the current structure? Are there opportunities to do so? I think the answer is YES.

Racialization researchers write about how the “browning of America” through the increase immigration (and growth of population through generations) of Latinos/as and Asians, especially in “new destinations” or areas that have historically unprecedented growth in these immigrants (such as Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa–the Midwest in general, except Illinois which has an historically greater pattern of settlement), challenges the current system and meanings within. The immigrants who are coming into these communities are bringing with them their identities that were created, enacted, and reinforced in their sending communities. Furthermore, while these areas do not have incredibly large populations (currently)–not big enough to have a Portes and Sennsebrenner type of enclave, they do have sufficiently large enough numbers to create and sustain their own businesses and churches. As such, there are sufficient interaction partners that these individuals can turn to in order to continue to enact and legitimate these identities. [damn, that's a lot of to(s)]

I *think* this is what Stryker is talking about when he talks about how open a structure is. Okay, Sheldon Stryker may be my sociological guru and god, but I really wish sometimes he would define his terms better. But, I think this is a safe understanding (I’m still searching through his writings to determine exactly what he means, because he seems to change from one article to another what he means by this).

The point is, these immigrants can enact, successfully, these identities in these new communities. As such, when they interact with “Anglos” they have the ability to challenge the altercasting (the roles, meanings, that others attempt to assign to a person when developing a definition of the situation) performed by these Anglos. And, in challenging, they challenge expectations, roles, etc. which could create change in these expectations, roles, etc. Of course, this is not easy. Power and status limit the ability of immigrants to do this successfully, but the “openness” of the system (where they can go down the street and confirm their identities) creates the possibility for this challenge and the possibility of change.

Yes, this is highly theoretical. No, there is not much evidence this is the case (there is some stuff by racialization researchers, but they do not talk about it really in this terms–damn Columbus Syndrome that Fine talks about in the relation to symbolic interaction, 1993*). But, it makes sense to me. And, as I flush it out, I think there is abundant theory (and tests of these theories) that support the steps of the logic. So, welcome to my dissertation (at least part of it).

*Fine, Gary Alan. 1993. “The Sad Demise, Mysterious Disappearance, and Glorious Triumph of Symbolic Interactionism.” Annual Review of Sociology 19:61-87.