Sociobiology

As part of the continuing debate on the relative influences of heredity and the environment, there has been renewed interest in sociobiology in recent years. Sociobiology is the systematic study of the biological bases of social behavior. Sociobiologists basically apply naturalist Charles Darwin's principles of natural selection to the study of social behavior. They assume that partic­ular forms of behavior become genetically linked to a species if they contribute to its fitness to sur­vive (van den Berghe, 1978:20). In its extreme form, sociobiology resembles biological determin­ism by suggesting that all behavior is totally the result of genetic or biological factors and that so­cial interactions play no role in shaping people's conduct.

Sociobiology does not seek to describe individ­ual behavior on the level of "Why is Fred more aggressive than Jim?" Rather, sociobiologists focus on how human nature is affected by the genetic composition of a group of people who share certain characteristics (such as men or women, or members of isolated tribal bands). In general, sociobiologists have stressed the basic genetic heritage that is shared by all humans and have shown little interest in speculating about al­leged differences between racial groups or na­tionalities.

The current debate on sociobiology focuses on the work of Edward (Wilson 1975, 1977, 1978), a zoologist at Harvard University. Wilson does not deny the importance of socialization and therefore is not an extreme biological determinist. He does, however, go further than most social scientists by emphasizing the influence of hered­ity on behavior.

Many social scientists have strongly attacked the main tenets of sociobiology as expressed by Wilson and other theorists (C. Campbell, 1986; Kitcher, 1985). Some researchers insist that intel­lectual interest in sociobiology will only deflect serious study of the more significant factor influencing human behavior—socialization. Yet Lois Wladis Hoffman (1985), in her presidential ad­dress to the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, argued that sociobiology poses a valuable challenge to social scientists to better document their own research. Interactionists, for example, could show how social behavior is not programmed by human biology, but instead ad­justs continually to the attitudes and responses of others.

The conflict perspective shares with sociobiol­ogy recognition that human beings do not like to be dominated, yet there the similarity ends. Conflict theorists (like functionalists and interac­tionists) believe that social reality is defined by people's behavior rather than by their genetic structure. Consequently, conflict theorists fear that the sociobiological approach could be used as an argument against efforts to assist disadvantaged people, such as schoolchildren who are nol competing successfully (Caplan, 1978; M. Harris, 1980:514).

In the view of feminist Arleen Rogan (1978:85), sociobiology "opens the door to justify­ing the oppression of one group by another on the basis of biological inferiority." This warning is not without foundation. Already in Singapore, a bustling westernized country in soul beast Asia, parents with less than a college education are rewarded if they agree to be sterilized after the birth of their first or second child. At the same time, parents with degrees are given incentives to have more children. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew promotes this policy by declaring that grad­ual genetic deterioration will cause Singapore's national "levels of competence" to decline (Well­born, 1987:62).

Wilson has argued that there should be parallel studies of human behavior with a focus on both genetic and social causes. Certainly most social scientists would agree with the sociobiologists' contention that there is a biological basis for social behavior. But there is less support for the more extreme positions taken by certain advocates of sociobiology (Cove, 1987).

SELF-IDENTITY AND SOCIALIZATION

We all have various perceptions, feelings, and be­liefs about who we are and what we are like. Many sociologists and psychologists have expressed in­terest in how the individual develops and modi­fies a sense of self because of social interaction. The work of sociologists Charles Horion Cooley and Ceorge Herbert Mead, pioneers of the inter-actionist approach, has been especially useful in furthering our understanding of these important issues.

Sociological Approaches to the Self

Cooley: Looking-Glass Self In the early 1900s, Charles Horion Cooley advanced the belief that we learn who we are by interacting with others. Our view of ourselves, then, comes not only from direct contemplation of our personal qualities, but also from our impressions of how others per­ceive us. Cooley used the phrase looking-glass self to emphasize that the self is the product of our social interactions with other people.

The process of developing a self-identity has three phases. First, we imagine how we appear to others—to relatives, friends, even strangers on the street. Then we imagine how others perceive us (attractive, intelligent, shy, strange, etc.). Fi­nally, we develop some sort of feeling about our­selves, such as respect or shame, as a result of these impressions (Cooley, 1902:152).

A critical but subtle aspect of Cooley's looking-glass sell is that the self results from an individu­al's "imagination" of how others view him or her. As a result, we can develop self-identities based on incorrect perceptions of how others see us. A student may react strongly to a teacher's critic ism and decide (wrongly) that the instructor views the student as stupid. This can easily be converted into a negative self-identity through the following process: (1) the teacher criticized me; (2) the teacher must think that I'm stupid; (3) I am stu­pid. Yet self-identities are also subject to change. I f the student above received an "A" at the end of the course, the person might no longer feel stu­pid.

Mead: Stages of the Self Ceorge Herbert Mead (1930:706) acknowledged to Charles Horton Cooley that he was "profoundly indebted" to Cooley's "insight and constructive thought." We are in turn indebted to Mead for continuing Cooley's exploration of interactionist theory and for his contributions to sociological understanding of the self. Mead (1934, 1964a) developed a useful model of the process by which the self emerges, defined by three distinct stages.

During the preparatory stage, children merely imitate the people around them, especially family members with whom they continually interact. Thus, a small child will bang on a piece of wood while a parent is engaged in carpentry work or will try to throw a ball if an older sibling is doing so nearby.

As they grow older, children grow more adept at the use of symbols. Symbols are the gestures, objects, and language which form the basis of human communication. By interacting with rela­tives and friends, as well as by watching cartoons on television and looking at picture books, chil­dren begin to understand the use of symbols. Like spoken languages, symbols vary from cul­ture to culture and even between subcultures. "Thumbs up" is not always a positive gesture; nodding the head up and down does not always mean "yes." As part of the socialization process, children learn the symbols of their particular cul­ture (Ekman et al., 1984).

The social significance of symbols is also recog­nized by functionalists and conflict theorists. Ac­cording lo functionalists, the unifying force of a nation's flag or anthem serves to maintain the sta­bility and solidarity of a society. However, from л conflict perspective, symbols can underscore the divisiveness of a society. This is certainly the case for signs which suggest that certain types of peo­ple, such as women and blacks, are not welcome.

Mead was among the first to analyze the rela­tionship of symbols lo socialization. As children develop skill in communicating through symbols, they gradually become more aware of social rela­tionships. As a result, during the play stage, the child becomes able to imitate the actions of oth­ers, including adults. Just as an actor "becomes" a character, a child becomes a doctor, parent, su­perhero, or ship captain.

Mead noted that an important aspect of the play stage is role taking. Role taking is the process of mentally assuming the perspective of another, thereby enabling one to respond from that imag­ined viewpoint. For example, a young child will gradually learn when it is best to ask a parent for favors. If the parent usually comes home from work in a bad mood, the child will wait until after dinner when the parent is more relaxed and approachable. Although for children role taking may involve conforming to the behavior of oth­ers. For adolescents and adults role taking is more selective and creative (R. Turner, 1962).

In Mead's third stage, the game stage, the child of about 8 or 9 years old begins to consider sev­eral tasks and relationships simultaneously. At this point in development, children grasp not only their own social positions, but also those of others around them. Consider a girl or boy of this age who is part of a scout troop out on a weekend hike in the mountains. The child must under­stand what he or she is expected to do, but also must recognize the responsibilities of other scouts (as well as the leaders). Ibis is the final stage of development under Mead's model: the- child can now respond to numerous members of the social environment.

Mead uses the term generalized others to refer to the child's awareness of the attitudes, view­points, and expectations of society as a whole. Simply put, this concept suggests that when an individual acts, he or she takes into account an entire group of people. For example, a child who reaches this level of development will not act courteously merely to please a particular parent. Rather, the child comes to understand that cour­tesy is a widespread social value endorsed by par­ents, teachers, and religious leaders.

At this developmental stage, children can take a more sophisticated view of people and the social environment. They now understand what spe­cific occupations and social positions are and no longer equate Mr. Williams only with the role of "librarian" or Ms. Franks only with "principal." It has become clear to the child that Mr. Williams can be a librarian, a parent, and a marathon run­ner at the same time and that Ms. Franks is but one of many principals in our society. Thus, the child has reached a new level of sophistication in his or her observations of individuals and institu­tions.

Mead is best known for this theory of the self. According to Mead (1964b), the se/f represents the sum total of people's conscious perception of their identity as distinct from others, just as it did for Cooley. However, Mead's theory of the self was shaped by his overall view of socialization as a lifelong process. As people mature, the self changes and begins to reflect greater concern about the reactions of others: we act toward an­other person as if the other were one's own self. Mead used the term significant others to refer to those individuals who are most important in the development of the self. Parents, friends, co-workers, coaches, and teachers are often among those who play a major role in shaping a person’s self.

Goffman: Impression Management As was seen in Chapter 1, the interactionist approach, which owes a great deal to both Cooley and Mead, em­phasizes the micro (or small-scale) level of analy­sis. Thus, this sociological perspective is especially suited to an examination of how the self develops. Erving Goffman, a contemporary sociologist as­sociated with the interactionist approach, has shown that many of our daily activities involve attempts to convey impressions of who we are.

Early in life, the individual learns to slant his or her presentation of the self in order to create dis­tinctive appearances and to satisfy particular au­diences. Goffman (1959) refers to this altering of the presentation of the self as impression manage­ment. One everyday example is evident in the promotion of credit cards. Sociologists Lloyd Klein and Marianna King (1983) point out that television commercials bombard potential users with the message that credit cards are the pass­ports to a better life—hence, the name Visa. Such image building began in the 1970s as Americans were told that "when you carry Master Charge, you carry clout." Many viewers are indeed per­suaded that they can change the presentation of their selves—and display a much more desirable social image—merely by flashing a credit card.

In examining such everyday social interactions, Goffman makes so many explicit parallels to the theatrical stage that his view has been termed the dramaturgical approach. According to this per­spective, people can be seen as resembling per­formers in action. For example, clerks may try to appear busier than they actually are if a supervi­sor happens to be watching them. Waiters and waitresses may "not see" a customer who wants more coffee if they are on a break.

Face-work is another aspect of the self to which Goffman (1959) has drawn attention. Maintain­ing the proper image can be essential to contin­ued social interaction; face-saving behavior must be initiated if the self suffers because of embar­rassment or some form of rejection. To study impression management and face-work, sociolo­gist Bernard Berk (1977) conducted participant-observation research at more than 70 dances ar­ranged for singles in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and New York. Berk notes that certain techniques are used to overcome the stigma of being at a singles dance; for example, coming with a friend projects an image of popularity and also allows the excuse that one came at the friend's insistence. In response to a rejection, a person may engage in face-work by saying that "I really wasn't feeling well anyway" or "there isn't an interesting person in this entire crowd."

Don't people see through these conscious ef­forts at impression management? Don't people sometimes blunder in their performances? The answer is "yes" to both questions. Yet Goffman points out that we tend to ignore such mistakes or apparent stage management in our encounters. Therefore, the sound of a stomach rumbling in a quiet room is almost always ignored. We tolerate clumsy and offensive statements from those who we know "mean well." Goffman (1967) has used the term studied nonobser~uan.ce to refer to such polite behavior which is intended to allow saving face.

Goffman's approach is generally regarded as an insightful perspective on everyday life, but it is not without its critics. Writing from a conflict per­spective, sociologist Alvin Gouldner (1970) sees Goffman's work as implicitly reaffirming the sta­tus quo, including social class inequalities. In his view, Goffman's emphasis on our role as func­tionaries within large organizations tends to ig­nore the broader social structure (and thereby aids in its perpetuation). Using Gouldner's cri­tique, one might ask if women and minorities are expected to deceive both themselves and others while paying homage to those in power? In em­ploying impression management and the other concepts developed by Goffman, sociologists must remember that by describing social reality one is not necessarily endorsing its harsh impact on many individuals and groups (S. Williams, 1986:357-358).

Goffman's work represented a logical progres­sion of the sociological efforts begun by Cooley and Mead. Cooley stressed the process by which we come to view ourselves; Mead focused on how we learn to interact with others; Goffman empha­sized the ways in which we consciously create im­ages of ourselves for others.