|
Objectives:
Class Preparation Part I: Symbolic Interactions, Public Discourse, and Persuasion Symbolic interactionism and dramaturgy are related theoretical perspectives. Both explain how we use words, symbols, movements, and behaviors to convey meaning about who we are, what we think, and how we feel about and interpret what goes on around us. These theories help us understand how we develop our views of the world and how we present those views to others -- and how this affects how we interpret what others do. Both theoretical pesepctives are closely tied to identity. We all (probably) have multiple identies. You do not "act" the same way at work and at home. How you present yourself to the world depends on which of several kinds of identities that you carry is "on display" and identity expression is strongly related to the environment and events around us. Of special interest in this course are the group and role identities that we adopt and present to the world. These forms of identity are critical to two processes. One is the development of social solidary from the ritualized and shared identities we have as members of social categories (such as class or race) and as members of formal and non-formal organizations, including communities. The other process is the development of role identities that we create over time as we become actors in social structures. Any indivdual can call upon these multiple identities to interpret what an event or condition means to him/her and we may see and present ourselves differently to others based on which identity "speaks for us" in a given setting or situation. We even "practice" our role playing in our minds when we imagine ourselves engaging in some interchange, like making a short presentation in this class. Historically much of our presentation of ourselves in different roles occurred in person. Today, we can and many of us do express our roles in social media. Symbolic interactionism focuses on the interactive expressions of identity through exchanges between individuals and groups. Dramaturgy on the other hand focuses much more on interactions that are more formal in character and where there is an "audience" in some sense that observes the interaction. I think of dramatury as more of a "public performance" of who I am and what I think and feel. Dramaturgical theororizing focuses on how how we react to the dialogue -- to the other individuals in the discussion (as in the debates typical of politicla campaigning in the US) and how we conform (or not) to the often unwritten or unstated "rules" for discussion that apply in a given setting. Dramaturgy incorporates rules of exchange (like listening in a focused way to what the other person or people are saying), taking turns, engaging in question and response. In many cases, dramaturgical expressions of identity are goal oriented, directed toward convincing others of a specific interpretation of social phenomena. Despite these differences I personally often find it difficult to distinguish between these two settings in which we express identity. Our use of these two theoretical perspectives in this class will focus on the role of symbolic interactions and dramaturgical exchanges in creating and maintaining social structures. Our focus will be community and the structures embedded within communities. These include formal structures like the police force, the school system, homeowners' associations, and clubs and informal structures often based on shared interests like my "group of walkers". Many informal and even some formal structures are temporary in nature -- groups of people with shared passions, interests, goals, or objectives may come together and form structures that last only as long as the factor that created their shared sense of identity persists. Many efforts to achieve change or protest a given condition form these kinds of temporary structures. There are two chapters in Turner for this Week, Chapter 6 on symbolic interaction (pp. 96-116) and Chapter 7 on dramaturgical theory (pp. 117-135). I think it is helpful with these two perspectives to FIRST read Turner's list of key points at the end of each chapter and then read the full text. With the exception of one short biography the remainder of your preparation this week is to watch some videos. The speakers are individuals who have played significant roles in leading change in the communities where they lived and worked or on the larger stage of state or nation. I dip back somewhat in history with these individuals because I want you to use symbolic interactionism and dramaturgy to understand how they present themselves to their audiences and also examine how they all express theoretical ideas in their presenations. In this sense your task is twofold -- use the theories to understand "who" the speakers are in this public guise and use all of the theories, including interactionism and dramaturgy, to see how they go about creating change at the community level. The only order to the presentations is alphabetical. Please do watch all of the videos. Here are some more detailed instructions about what I am asking you to do.Warning: I am asking you to listen to and seriously consider very divergent views about the nature of the social problems, issues and needs that we face in the United States and globally today. I suspect that some of these perspectives may cause us to be somewhat uncomfortable. You probably will not "like" some of the orators. I am not trying to make you uncomfortable, but rather asking you to practice your critical thinking skills. Most civil discourse ultimately focuses on changing policies or how we use public resources. Civil discourse can only occur if the people involved are capable of listening carefully to each other, taking the other's ideas seriously, trying hard to understand everyone's perspective, and fairly evaluating those ideas. Civil discourse is the farthest thing possible from ideology and ideological responses to problems issues and needs. Ideological responses have one answer -- usually the same one solution for EVERY problem, issue or need. Ideological responses leave little room to no room for shared responsibility for outcomes. On the other hand, civil discourse is inherently tied to conflict. It is the how the conflict is conducted that makes the difference between civil discourse and just plain fighting. Specifically, I ask you to engage in three components of critical thinking. Critical Thinking: Seeing and Interpreting the Public Identity. These individuals express their role identity in very distinctive ways. And they often use strong symbols to express their ideas. I would argue that all of these presentations lie well within the bounds of civil discourse, albeit quite intense discourse in some cases. Try to identify the role that each individual has assumed. Think about how they see themselves -- and how that is reflected in how they present themselves to you. Specifically focus on their use of symbols and rhetoric style. For example, how do the symbols of Detroit that Boggs mentions create an image of Detroit in your mind? Is it the same or different than other mental images you have of this city today or in the past?In short "who are they" in terms of identity and their self-vision of their role and tasks in society? How does their use symbols and style affect the ways in which you participate in or withdraw from the discourse as a member of the audience? Critical Thinking: Understanding Someone Else's World View and Experience. One of the most crucial "jobs" you have as a critical thinker is to discover the purposes and questions driving an author, comprehend his/her major concepts, find the argument or logic of what s/he proposes, and then think through the implications of using the theory to understand a PIN or develop a pollicy or an intervention based on the theory. What ideas of the evolutionary, functional, critical and exchange theorists we have read about are reflected in what they say? What do their ideas and the ways in which they present them tell you about the speakers' perspectives on how to solve social problems, needs and issues? Identify at least two theoretical perspectives in the presentations. Critical Thinking: Self-Reflection Whether you agree with the speaker or not, can you step out of "your presentation of yourself" and think about ways you could use their ideas to change the way you understand communities and their problems, issues and needs? What do you think is valuable about each speaker's perspectives, experience, and theoretical ideas in understanding the processes occurring in many communities in the United States and globally today? Focus on how you can use their ideas to understand and interpret the civil discourse about your PIN. Please be prepared to give us two examples of how any of these presentations "changed your mind" about something. Please look at these two resources in order. First, read this biography of Grace Lee Boggs, one of Detroit's most famous social activists. It's very short -- but it tells you who Grace Boggs was "is" and how she saw herself (she died in October 2015). THEN watch this interview where she talks about the changes that have occurred in Detroit over the past 35 years and how she sees the process and its outcomes. This interview was taped when Detroit was at the nadir of economic collapse. This video by past Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Leadership in a Changing World was made in 2018. Given the time in which he made this presentation and what has happened since, his comments have probably taken on a much more "partisan political" sense for most people than was intended when he made it. I am not trying to convince you of Governor Bush's political ideas or involve you in partisan political discussions between parties or within either one. Governor Bush was not making a "campaign" speech. This was an invited presentation at Brown University as part of their preeminent programs in leadership and governance. There are, near the end of the presentation, some comments about interactions between Governor Bush and President Trump. These comments fall well within the bounds of civil discourse and honestly occupy only a few minutes of the recording. It is a LONG recording. Ignore the lengthy introduction of Governor Bush -- the first six minutes. Governor Bush speaks until for about 35 minutes (ending at time marker 41.10), after which he takes questions from the audience. I am not asking you to listen to the questions or his responses. In brief, please listen from time marker 6.00 to 41.10. Robert LooksTwice, Lakota Sioux. Children of the Plains. Malcolm X's "fiery speech" made in 1962 very shortly after a confrontation between the Los Angeles Police Department at a mosque. The confrontation resulted several injuries and the death of one member of the Nation of Islam and led Malcolm X to make this impassioned speech. Colin Powell Our Youth Must Be Ready to Lead. Colin Powell was the first African-American Secretary of State, appointed by George W. bush in 2001. He was also the first (I believe) African-american to serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military. Gloria Steinem on Why You Should Be a Feminist, founder of Ms Magazine and early feminist. Critical Thinking: Applying what You Hear. Please be prepared to respond to each of these questions in class. Question 1: What key issues that could be addressed at the community level emerged in the talks? Question 2: Please bring a WRITTEN list to class of two or three key concepts based on any two of the theoretical perspectives we have studied to date -- based on comments that reflect each concept. Give examples of the comments that caught your attention. The theories include everything to date -- not just symbolic interaction and dramaturgical theory. Question 3: Your third task is to bring a list of at least three examples of how the ideas presented in this discourse can provide insights into the potential role of communities in addressing your PIN. Basically, what can you apply from what you heard to your PIN? You do NOT need to look at these before class |
