Evaluate patterns of behavior through sociological skills ✓ Solved

SOC 1010, Introduction to Sociology 1 Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 4. Evaluate patterns of behavior through sociological skills and theory. 4.1 Plan a breaching experiment. 4.2 Execute a breaching experiment. 6. Explain how social structure shapes an individual’s life chances.

Social interaction describes the behaviors of two or more people whereby there is reciprocal influence when in contact with one another. Think about the last time you went out to eat. You engaged in interaction with your dining partner(s) and with the server, and indirectly with the chef. Did you interact solely based on how you like to act?

Did you wear clothing based on what is comfortable (e.g., did you wear clothing)? Did you bring your own soda? How you answer these questions depends somewhat on the influence you wish to have on others, as well as your adherence to social control and norms. In Unit II, you read about Erving Goffman’s ideas on presentation of self. We will expand on these ideas as we discuss some of the micro-interactions that create social structure.

Goffman, a Canadian sociologist, developed what he called Dramaturgy to analyze social behavior. He viewed interaction as analogous to the stage, arguing that we are all actors on stage, playing various parts/roles in a performance to convince others of who we are. You have probably heard the quote from Shakespeare, “All the world’s a stage.” According to Goffman, we actively try to control people’s impressions of ourselves on that stage every time we are in the presence of others. Sociologists refer to the ways we manipulate impressions as impression management.

We manage our interactions by first managing the situation in which we find ourselves. To do this, we define the situation for our fellow actors. Doing so results in having some control over how the situation will proceed based on our definition. Of course, it is possible there will be a larger defining situation that engulfs our own interaction.

For example, if you are at a business meeting, the stage and script are somewhat set. You are not likely to attempt to turn it into a picnic when others are already accepting the meeting definition. However, you do have some control, and how you wield it will determine your actions. At the meeting, you can manage how others view you by performing your role in a specific way. If you want others to think that you are smart and motivated, you will be sure to offer suggestions and take on responsibilities, thereby defining for others (including your boss) who you are.

Notice that your actions here are role-taking because the behaviors attached to a smart, motivated, businessperson are already set in place and are part of the macro social structure. Additionally, you are conforming to that structure by re-creating the behaviors associated with the role.

We are all actors who intentionally try to sell others on the image we want to convey. To do this, we use several tools (called props, appearance, and manner) in ways that are conducive to our role. For example, in the above case of a business meeting, you would wear business attire and bring your laptop and any pertinent files necessary to complete your role at the meeting.

You would also make sure that your behavior was businesslike and your tone serious. Notice that within these microstructures, people have some autonomy to change their actions. In the above example, you might have decided not to accept the role of businessperson and walked into the meeting wearing shorts and a t-shirt, asking who wants to play tennis. Would that change the interaction between your coworkers and you? Of course it would.

The point is that a change to structure is possible because we create and re-create structure every day. By conforming to the set structure, we tacitly agree that we approve of the structure. Deviant behavior in sociology is any behavior that does not conform to norms.

Deviant behavior does not meet the expectations of a group or a society as a whole. By this point in the semester, it should be evident that we have many mechanisms built into our social life that bring about conformity. The largest among these mechanisms is the socialization process itself.

Almost from birth, we teach our children what society expects of them and the sanctions brought to bear when children fail to meet the expectations. We expect children to conform to the customs and traditions of their group. They also learn a system of values that provides justification and motivation for wanting to do certain types of things that meet the approval of parents.

Likewise, we teach values for wanting to refrain from behavior that would merit disapproval. Socialization results in the development of a system of internal or self-controls—a self-regulating conscience, that incorporates the internalized values and norms of parents and peers. For example, many people value the ideals of “do no harm.” For some, “do unto others” is an internal pressure to not be hurtful to others.

In addition to internal controls, conformity is encouraged through external mechanisms. Society dislikes people going fast through school zones. To encourage conformity in school zones, having to pay speeding fines exceeds the benefits of speeding. We choose to go the speed limit, not because we dislike speeding, but because there is a law in place that results in a really big monetary fine.

Thus, each day, every person experiences pressures to meet the expectations of others. Over time, these obligations become part of the structure of society. The obligations are to those in our primary and secondary groups, as well as to formal groups such as corporations, unions, professional associations, and churches.

Sanctions for not fulfilling these obligations vary depending on to whom we owe the obligations, and to the degree of importance that the obligations hold to society. For example, not fulfilling an obligation to a friend to meet for drinks results in minor sanctions. Not meeting an important client for drinks may well result in the loss of a job.

When law violations occur, external formal mechanisms of social control—the police, courts, and correctional systems—come into play. Sometimes, negative consequences result from deviant behavior. For example, large-scale deviance may harm stability, and it may induce distrust and ill will.

Deviance can also have positive consequences, which is why society, in a sense, needs deviants. Each time a group defines a particular act as deviant, it teaches people acceptable social behavior. For example, in most states, people believe smoking to be deviant behavior due to health costs and hygiene factors.

These states have outlawed smoking in public buildings to promote smoke-free behaviors. Another useful consequence of deviance is that it strengthens group norms and values. When something happens within a community, people react in ways that reinforce group values.

Think of ways a group might consider your own behavior deviant. How might some of the behaviors of our country generate accusations of deviance (whether deservedly or not)? Who decides what is deviant?

Paper For Above Instructions

In sociology, understanding patterns of behavior and their implications on social life is essential in analyzing how individuals from different backgrounds navigate their thoughts and actions. This paper aims to evaluate these patterns through the lens of Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory while also planning and executing a breaching experiment to provide practical insight into the observations made.

Goffman's Dramaturgical approach to social interaction conceptualizes life as a theatrical performance. Every interaction can be viewed as a play where individuals act, recite lines, and present themselves in certain ways to convey particular impressions to an audience (Goffman, 1959). In doing so, individuals use various tools—appearance, setting, and manner—to manage the impressions they provide. This concept forms a foundation for understanding the variability in social behaviors across contexts and individuals.

This next section illustrates how to plan a breaching experiment that reflects these theoretical principles. The objective of this experiment is to challenge social norms through intentional violation, prompting varied responses from social actors. An example could be dining at a fine restaurant dressed in casual clothing and refraining from standard dining etiquette, such as using utensils or speaking very loudly. These actions contradict established restaurant norms and encourage interaction and responses from other diners and staff.

By intentionally creating a disruption in expected behaviors, the experiment aims to place social expectations into relief and examine how these standards govern daily life. Common reactions to such breaches, including surprise, disapproval, or engagement, can illustrate the extent to which social structures dictate individual behavior and the necessity of adhering to these rules for social harmony. The responses obtained from this experiment would serve to highlight the conflict between personal choice and societal expectations.

Furthermore, to understand how social structure shapes individual life chances, one must acknowledge the role of socialization. According to Macionis (2017), this process begins at an early age when society embeds core values and norms in individuals through family interactions, education, and media. Thus, as one navigates life, hierarchical structures—economic, cultural, and social—play a pivotal role in determining the opportunities available. For instance, an individual from a low-income background might struggle against structural barriers that limit access to education and career growth, contrasting with peers from more privileged backgrounds who have more abundant resources. Such differences underscore the uneven playing field shaped by societal constructs.

Furthermore, deviant behavior challenges standard norms and, at times, serves to strengthen or change societal perspectives. As Becker (1963) posits, once a group defines an act as deviant, it promotes a shared response within the community. Through varied responses to deviance, groups may align their norms and values more closely and reinforce existing structures, or challenge them outright. Deviance thus has a dual aspect; it can maintain societal cohesion or instigate change.

The interaction between individual behaviors and social structures signifies a more nuanced dialogue in sociology—one where outcomes hinge upon the presence or absence of deviating from norm conformity. A recent case such as the Trayvon Martin incident illustrates how societal definitions of deviant behavior differ significantly due to underlying factors such as race and socio-economic status (Crenshaw, 2017). The implications of such disparities speak volumes about how structural elements can dictate perceptions of morality, legality, and justice.

Consequently, to probe deeper into social patterns through sociological skills and theoretical frameworks, it is indispensable to utilize a broad spectrum of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. This includes employing case studies, surveys, and direct observational techniques to gather data and provide insights into societal dynamics. It is necessary to recognize that behavior is not purely a product of individual characteristics; rather, it is influenced by a complex interplay of broader social factors.

To conclude, analyzing social behavior through Goffman’s theories and conducting a breaching experiment illustrates how deeply ingrained norms govern individual actions. By engaging with frameworks and methodologies in sociology, one gains a more profound understanding of how patterns of behavior emerge, how they are sustained through social interaction, and their implications for life chances and deviance. Ultimately, this enriches our comprehension of the sociological roots shaping everyday life.

References

• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press.
• Crenshaw, K. (2017). On Intersectionality: Essential writings. New York, NY: The New Press.
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Social Science Research Centre.
• Macionis, J. J. (2017). Sociology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
• Witt, J. (2015). SOC 101: Introduction to Sociology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Harris, N. R. (2013). Surveillance, social control and planning: Citizen-engagement in the detection and investigation of breaches of planning regulations. Town Planning Review, 84(2).
• Mollenkopf, J. (2001). The social control of cities: A comparative perspective. French Politics, Culture and Society, 19(2), 137.
• Brannigan, A. (1997). Self control, social control and evolutionary psychology: Towards an integrated perspective on crime. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39(4).
• Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1990). The social control of crime: A theory of the social sources of social control. Social Forces, 69(4), 1137-1157.
• Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.