BackStage

I don’t have a great post planned, but since Columbus introduced me to paint.net, I’ve been wanting to share this:

Coleman explains The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism via macro-micro interaction.* While we can debate about there being double arrows or not, it’s an interesting explanation about how individual level beliefs and behaviors affect the social structure (and vice versa).

Quick explanation of chart: In order for the macro level to undergo the change (that the newly dominate Protestant religion resulted in the change of the structure to a capitalist economy) could only occur because of changes that concurrently occurred at the individual level. In this way, beliefs and attitudes created by the new culture caused a change in economic behaviors (behaviors that suggested that accumulating wealth indicated that an individual has a state of grace) led to the change to the capitalist economy at the macro level.

I was introduced to the Coleman boat my first semester in graduate school. I have since used this to explain the micro-macro connection to others, to myself, and in my prelim question (What’s social about social psychology? In your answer trace the history of the field… or something to that affect). It’s a clear case of keeping notes from your very first class.

While I think it’s great the someone from the other side of the aisle in terms of symbolic interaction has gained editorship of Social Psychology Quarterly and, hell, I love the pictures (and some of the other changes, like the very fast turn around time):

(while not so crazy about the font or the tendency to not have the article names on the outside of the journal so I have to pull them off the shelf and look through them to find the article I need); I am really confused by the new subtitle: “The Journal of Microsociologies.”

The mission of the journal hasn’t changed much for many many years (I know, I’ve looked through all the statements from when it was Sociometry, the one year it was Social Psychology in 1978, to its current title). This mission, developing in response to the “crisis” that social psychology underwent (did you know that ASA actually disbanded the section for a few years for lack of leadership and membership?) is:

Social Psychology Quarterly publishes theoretical and empirical papers on the link between the individual and society, including the study of the relations of individuals to one another, as well as to groups, collectivities and institutions. It also includes the study of intra-individual processes insofar as they substantially influence or are influenced by social structure and process. The journal is genuinely interdisciplinary, publishing works by both sociologists and psychologists.

The aim then fits well with Sheldon Stryker’s call to return to the “fundamental insight” of sociological social psychology (see my interests for a tad more on this). The central purpose, then, is to illustrate the relation between the individual and the larger structure. How do they affect and shape one another? Again, my beloved agency and structural constraint. But, I am not sure what is micro about this? Is it the fact that often we look at individuals, selves, identities, and emotions? All things I’m interested in. At the same time, however, most of us do not just look at the micro-level. Heck, as per the mission statement, if we want to look at intrapersonal processes, it must focus on the the effect of the social structure and process on the individual.

I’ve asked many social psychologists in sociology what the hell microsociology is. And, all the professors (some of them frequently published in SPQ), can’t define it. So, like all bad researchers, I turn to Wikipedia which defines microsociology as:

one of the main branches of sociology (contrast with macrosociology and mesosociology) which concerns itself with the nature of everyday human social interactions on a small scale. At the micro level, social statuses and social roles are the most important components of social structure. It is usually based on observation rather than statistics. It is based on the philosophy of phenomenology and includes symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology.

Yeah, so I’m not buying this definition either. In terms of SPQ, enthnomethodology rarely graces its pages. Furthermore, by far the most common method is statistical analysis. This is followed by experiments which is followed by field work (yes, I have data–statistical data–that confirms this). Anyone have a better definition?

I find calling social psychology “microsociology” objectionable. While I am concerned with the experience of the individual, I am only interested in far as it reflects the experience of a wide swath of individuals. The common experience, the way the individual writ large is affected by and affects social structure. I find the term microsociology to provide the impression that social psychologists are separate from other sociologists. It seems to suggest that we are not concerned with social structural conditions that exist across society, which couldn’t be further from the truth. For example, in this post, I discuss how Latinos/as in new destination may be able to change structural meanings. This has implications across the social structure, not just at the micro individual level (of course, there is impact there too). I find this even more disconcerting given the constant need for social psychologists to defend their field.

In his editor’s note, Gary Alan Fine comments:

Social psychology has a special challenge. Given that our colleagues perceive our specialized research programs as apart from the disciplinary heart, publication in generalist journals may be more challenging than for some in other specialties. Social Psychology Quarterly is one of the few journals in which sociological social psychologists know that their research will receive a fair hearing and an attentive audience.

I think calling ourselves microsociologists, beyond accepting it as a classification but taking it on as an identity to mark the front of our flagship journal, increases this challenge. I know of no other field that has as a prelim question: “What is social about social psychology?” Can you imagine that question appearing on a social inequality prelim? Well, what is social about social psychology is that we are concerned with the creation, the change, and the continuity (yay Cs!) of the social structure. Take an argument made by Fine himself:

“social psychology permits the examination of large-scale social issues by means of investigation of small-scale social situations” (Stolte, Fine and Cook 2001: 388).

If the purpose is often to understand larger-scale issues, how is this microsociology?

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.

There is some really exciting work going on in the world of emotions. Whether it’s the use of physiology to study deflection in affect control theory, or simply the continued expansion of current theories to include emotions predictions (i.e. Stets on emotions and identity control theory, Stryker has a new piece on identity theory and emotions, Lawler and Thye’s prolific research on emotions in exchange theory…and I could go on), it seems that emotions research is HOT and will continue to be for a while.

One of the most amazing things I’ve seen on emotions has been done by an artist. Christian Nold had the goal of creating an”emotion map of the area that explores people’s relationship with their local environment.” Basically, Nold took 50 people and had them wear a device that measured both Galvanic Skin Response and and GPS position. The result? A map of emotions or, at very least, arousal! It recorded where people experienced heightened response. He later queried about why they felt arousal in those areas.

Sample map:

Sample map with 40 participants:

See the really cool Greenwich Emotion Map here. He has done this for San Francisco and Stockport too.

Did I mention he makes his data easily available to all? Some point pattern analysis anyone? If only I could get the hang of using R.

This is not his only awesome art project, but is the one that spoke most directly to me.

Can you imagine the possibilities for this in sociological studies?

For example, using electronic diary methods, we could beep individuals to fill out questionnaires through random intervals of the day–and chart their emotions at the same time. How do emotions change based on identities currently enacted? Another idea: We could look at difference in arousal based on geographic location in one’s own neighborhood versus traveling outside. In highly segregated cities, is part of that segregation reinforced through emotional arousal? Traveling into another neighborhood makes individuals feel uncomfortable–whether they are traveling into a “nicer” neighborhood or a more “dangerous” one? Are those that live in more affluent neighborhoods more likely to feel generally happier or better than those in lower class neighborhoods? Could this explain health differences? Does arousal change depending on the others with which we interact? If people selectively choose interactions based on likely emotions experienced (which I think we could argue–as it is generally accepted that individuals seek to enact particular identities, which bring with them particular emotions), does this effect interaction partners? Does the effect on likely interaction partners impact the construction of self and other? Think of the contact hypothesis–what if people avoid contact with certain classes of others because of emotions? Talk about understanding the interplay between structure and agency!!! I could go on and on.

Also of interest is this. Wired explains a governmental program:

Advanced Soldier Sensor Information System and Technology, or ASSIST, project aims to collect what a soldier sees, says and does in a combat zone — and then to weave those events into digital memories, so commanders can have a better sense of how the fight unfolded.

If they can do it in battle, we could do it for everyday life. Yet, getting someone to wear this equipment and agree to share it with us (and a large enough number of people to matter) would be very costly. Still, exciting stuff.

I want to give credit where credit is due. It was Mad Slave that originally found Nold and pointed me in his direction. Thank you, for this you enter the pantheon of heroes.

What other ideas can we think of for this new technology?