Micro-level

1. Units of Analysis Macro-level Micro-level Dyad Individual

3. Talking People have different conversational styles, influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic backgrounds, their age, class, and gender. NOT referring to differences in the use of language, phrases and the definition of words idiosyncratic usage argot/slang where the same word has very different meanings for different people in different contexts—my three girls, aged 20, 22 & 25 “bad” meaning “incredibly good;” “the bomb;” “the shiznet” “fixin’;” “y’all,” “scoot over”

4. Talking People have different conversational styles, influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic backgrounds, their age, class, and gender. I’m from New York City: loud, obnoxious, aggressive? Or straight-forward, direct, honest? NY: “call it like you see it” South: “Billy is so dumb . . . Bless his little heart!” Argumentative? NY: To argue is a sign of respect. “Good for you!” South: “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything . . . to their face.”

5. Talking People have different conversational styles, influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic backgrounds, their age, class, and gender. But conversational style is rarely recognized by participants in interactions. Unaware that these and other aspects of our backgrounds influence our ways of talking, we think that we are simply saying what we mean and often experience frustration when we feel misinterpreted [of course, others accuse us of the same thing]

6. Deborah Tannen Professor of Linguistics Georgetown University

7. Gender-Differences in Communication Style General Tendencies; Patternsare a matter of degree, not of absolute differences Rapport vs. Report Women Conversations are negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus. Their world is one of connection; intimacy; rapport. Talk is the “glue” that holds relationships together. Conflict is often perceived as a threat to connection and to be avoided at all costs. Disputes are preferably settled without direct confrontation. Consensus building and maintenance. Eye-contact; constant feed-back loop; finishing each other’s sentences; tag questions Talk for long periods of time on the phone - about everything.

8. Gender-Differences in Communication Style Rapport vs. Report Women Children tend to play in sex-separate groups in which very different styles are learned, practiced and reinforced. Girls play in small groups or in pairs; typically have one best friend where everything is shared; not hierarchical; favorite games are jump-rope and hopscotch  everyone gets a turn; no winners or losers; girls compromise to preserve harmony cooperative

9. Gender-Differences in Communication Style Rapport vs. Report Boys play outside, in large groups that are hierarchically structured; there is a leader who gives orders; there are winners and losers; boys use verbal and physical threats competitive Conversations are negotiations in which people try to achieve and maintain the upper-hand if they can, and protect themselves from others’ attempts to put them down and push them around. Their world is one of contestation, of mutual jockeying around for position; for status; independence. Name-calling; jokes. Boys’ relationships are held together by activities. Conflict is the necessary means by which status is negotiated. Men often use opposition to establish connections

10. Gender-Differences in Communication Style Rapport vs. Report Put the two together: [Remember: General Tendencies; Patternsare a matter of degree, not of absolute differences] “How was your day?” “You’re not listening!” “Would you like to stop off at x on the way home?”

11. Deborah Tannen Professor of Linguistics Georgetown University

12. Gender-Differences in Communication Style Implications: Talking at Work Systematic differences in women’s and men’s characteristic styles often put women in a subordinate position in interactions with men. Giving orders: Getting a subordinate to re-write a report: Indirect approach: “Maybe you should . . .” Ritual beginnings and endings: “I’m sorry”/ “Thank you” Asking questions [directions. emergency room] Pitching ideas [confidence/assertiveness vs. doubt/uncertainty] women are more likely to downplay their certainty, men are more likely to downplay their doubts Allocation of credit: Who gets the credit? Who gets the raise?

13. The latest study on girls says they may be as likely to use aggression as boys. Rather than fists, girls express it through manipulation, exclusion and gossip-mongering. Simmons, who visited 30 schools and talked to 300 girls, catalogues acts of aggression, including the silent treatment, note-passing, glaring, gossiping, ganging up, fashion police, and being nice in private/mean in public.

15. Units of Analysis Macro-level Micro-level Group Dyad Individual Triad

17. Units of Analysis Macro-level Micro-level Social Institutions Group Dyad Formal Org Bureaucracy Individual Triad

18. Social Institutions Education Family Religion Polity Science Economy

19. Units of Analysis Macro-level Micro-level Social Institutions Group Dyad Formal Org Bureaucracy Society Individual Triad

20. Politics The Social System Economy Science Family Education Institutional Autonomy & Interdependence Religion

21. Units of Analysis Macro-level Micro-level Structural-Functional Symbolic Interaction Conflict Social Institutions World Group Dyad Formal Org Bureaucracy Society Individual Triad

22. Symbolic Interaction

23. Symbolic Interactionist Approach George Herbert Mead Mead – and others who followed his footsteps – believed that previous approaches ignored the fundamental fact that individuals “think” – they actively perceive, define, and interpret the world around them. Rather than see the actor as a passive puppet blindly responding to stimuli – as did Watson (in Mead’s view) – Mead wanted to understand what goes on between stimulus and response. Do all individuals interpret and define the stimulus in the same manner? 1863 - 1931

24. Symbolic Interactionist Approach George Herbert Mead Rather than see individuals as impelled by either mentalistic – Freud – or biological – Davenport – impulses over which they had no control, Mead wanted to focus on how actors, when confronted with situations, define the objects and situation they encounter, (2) creatively think about possible modes of conduct, (3) imagine the consequences of alternative courses of action, (4) eliminate unlikely possibilities, and finally 1863 - 1931 (5) select what they believe to be the best course of action.

25. Symbolic Interactionist Approach George Herbert Mead Rather than focus attention on the larger structure of society – the inequalities inherent in a capitalist economy that were stressed by Marx – Mead wanted to focus on the practical face-to-face, day-to-day activities of people in their more immediate social setting. How do they communicate? How are “symbols” created, defined, and shared by interacting individuals? How is “reality” socially constructed from the ground up? Since action is created by the actor out of what he perceives, interprets, and judges, to fully understand it the analyst would have to see the situation as the actor sees it, perceive objects as the actor perceives them, ascertain the meanings they have for the actor, and follow the actor’s line of conduct as the actor organizes it and modifies it during its course. 1863 - 1931

26. The “Subjective Element” in Social Action The Thomas Theorem “The Definition of the Situation” “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” Interpretative flexibility W. I. Thomas 1863-1947

27. Symbolic Interaction Herbert Blumer 1900-1987 How do people go about creating, defining, sharing and using “symbols” to facilitate interaction? “Interpretative flexibility”

28. What is a “Symbol?” Anything that stands for something other than itself. Anything that carries a particular meaning that is recognized and shared by people. A word A hairstyle A cross A whistle A piece of jewelry on a finger A flashing light A flag A raised fist A gesture A manner of dressing

31. Structural – Functional Analysis Social Systems

32. Structural – Functional Analysis Harvard University Robert K. Merton 1910 - 2003 Talcott Parsons 1902 - 1979

33. Biological System Walter B. Cannon 1871 - 1945

34. System A system is made up of different parts. Parts can beindependently isolated and analyzed. How does each contribute to the smooth operation of the total system? Whatfunctions do they serve? Parts are interdependent. Whatever happens in one part reverberates throughout the entire system. How does each part affect all of the others? The normal state of the system isequilibrium and stability. How is it maintained?

35. The Social System 1. Identify thepartsof the system Biological System Social System Social Roles Individual Cells Tissues (clusters of specialized cells) Groups Institutions Organs Society Body

36. Social Institutions Family Polity Education Economy Religion Science Father Mother Son Daughter Brother Sister Aunt Uncle Cousin Grandmother Priest Minister Rabbi Deacon Congregant Researcher Lab tech President Senator Congressman Governor Mayor Assemblyman Judge Lawyer Teacher Student Dean Principal Superintendent “X” Occupation Consumer entrepreneur

37. Social Functions FAMILY Socialization; regulation of sexual activity RELIGION Social cohesion; Social control POLITY Setting goals & laws Social control; Defense EDUCATION Transmitting requisite skills & knowledge; Socialization; ECONOMY Production & distribution of goods & services SCIENCE Technology; medicine

38. Politics The Social System Economy Science Family Education Institutional Autonomy & Interdependence Religion

39. Systemic Interdependence Poverty & Divorce Church & State Evolution & Special Design

40. Social Institutions Family Polity Economy Education Religion Science Beliefs Values Attitudes Norms Customs Traditions

41. Unintended Consequences Adam Smith Thomas Malthus Karl Marx It’s not mere happenstance - there are specifiable and predictable reasons why these occur. We don’t know precisely what and when - just why. Most of the consequences of purposive social action are unintended.

42. Structural-Functional Analysis All social actions and behaviors have multiple consequences, some of which are intended (manifest), the vast majority of which are unintended and unanticipated (latent). Consequences that contribute to thestability of a social system are called functions. Consequences that disruptthe social system are called dysfunctions.

43. Manifest Latent Functions Dysfunctions

44. The Ubiquity/Inevitability of Conflict Conflict is built-in to the very fabric of society. It is as normal - and healthy - as the air we breathe and most often occurs in socially patterned ways. People who occupy different social positions - by virtue of occupying different positions - will have different sets of LEGITIMATE interests, values and attitudes. These differences may be exacerbated by political differences and an all too familiar pattern appears: (1) Circling the wagons and polarizing the issues (2) Drawing and responding to caricatures of opponents (3) Selective perception (4) Talking past one another - looking to “score” off the other person

45. Early Structural - Functional Analysis Major emphasis on “functions” - those consequences that contribute to the stability of the social system. • Analogy with biological system: • bacteria and viruses - which are “outside” of the • body - “attack” and threaten the health of the body • conflict and social disruptions are like diseases that • threaten the health of society

46. Politics The Social System Economy Science Family Education Institutional Autonomy & Interdependence Religion

47. Social Institutions Family Polity Economy Education Religion Science Beliefs Values Attitudes Norms Customs Traditions

48. Systemic Interdependence Church & State

50. “The Christian people of America will not sit idly by . . . . They are going to vote as a bloc for the man with the strongest moral and spiritual platform, regardless of his views on other matters. I believe we can hold the balance of power.” Billy Graham, 1951