president, daughter, sister, student, athlete, thespian, middle-class person—those positions form our self. We will interpret new situations in light of our social positions, some of which are important and anchor how we see the social world. Once a core self is established, it guides and shapes the way we interact with people in many situations—even in new social settings (Kuhn 1964). Thus, if you are president of an organization and have the responsibility for overseeing the organization, part of your self-esteem, your view of responsible citizenship, and your attitude toward life will be shaped by that position. Thus, the Iowa School of symbolic interaction places less emphasis on individual choice but more on recognizing the link among the micro, meso, and macro levels of society (Carrothers and Benson 2003; Stryker 1980).
To summarize, the modern symbolic interaction theory emphasizes the following:
People continually create and re-create society through interacting with one another.
People interact by communicating with one another through the use of shared symbols.
We learn who we are (our sense of self) and our place in society through interacting with others.
Critique of Symbolic Interaction Theory.
Each theory has its critics, those who disagree with some aspect of the theory. That is how scientists critique their ideas and develop new theories. Although symbolic interaction theory is widely used by sociologists today, it is often criticized for neglecting the macro-level structures of society that affect human behavior. By focusing on interpersonal interactions, large-scale social forces such as an economic depression or a political revolution that shape human destinies are given less consideration. With the focus on the ability of each individual to create his or her meaning in social situations (called agency), symbolic interaction has often been less attuned to important macro-level issues of social class position, social power, historical circumstances, or international conflict between societies (Carter and Fuller 2015; Meltzer, Petras, and Reynolds 1975). For example, if we focused only on how Hector interacts with his family and friends in trying to determine why he dropped out of school, we would overlook macro forces (e.g., how the lack of government supports for poor families impacted his decision to drop out of school). Another critique is that it is difficult to study abstract ideas like the development of the self, key to symbolic interaction theory.
Despite these limitations, theorists from the symbolic interaction perspective have made significant contributions to understanding the development of social identities and interactions that underlie groups, organizations, and societies. Many of these studies are discussed throughout the book.
Rational Choice (Exchange) Theory.
According to rational choice theory, humans are fundamentally concerned with self-interests, making rational decisions based on weighing costs and rewards of the projected outcome of an action. Someone from this perspective would say Hector would picture the situation as if it were a mental balance sheet: For example, on the plus side, staying in school may lead to opportunities not available to the uneducated. On the minus side, school is a negative experience, and the family needs help to feed its members now, so going to school is a “waste of time.” Which side will win depends on Hector’s balance sheet and on family and friends’ influence over the rewards versus costs.
Rational choice theory, also called exchange theory, has its roots in several disciplines—economics, behavioral psychology, anthropology, and philosophy (Cook, O’Brien, and Kollock 1990). Social behavior is seen as an exchange activity—a transaction in which resources are given and received (Blau 1964; Homans 1974). Every interaction involves an exchange of something valued: money, time, material goods, attention, sex, allegiance, and so on. People stay in relationships because they get something from the exchange, and they leave relationships that have more costs than benefits for them. They constantly evaluate whether there is reciprocity or balance in a relationship, so that they are receiving as much as they give. Simply stated, people are more likely to act if they see some reward or success coming from their behavior. The implication is that self-interest for the individual is the guiding element in human interaction.
▲ According to rational choice theory, people avoid cost or pain and seek benefits. Thus, people in authority try to control others—like this woman—by imposing cost for behaviors that are unwanted. The cost for this woman for speeding is an expensive ticket, and the city council and police hope it will lead to more desired behaviors in her future.
© iStock/Pamela Moore
In summary, rational choice theory involves the following key ideas:
Human beings are mostly self-centered, and self-interest drives their behavior.
Humans calculate costs and benefits (rewards) in making decisions.
Humans are rational in that they weigh choices to maximize their own benefits and minimize costs.
Every interaction involves exchanges entailing rewards and penalties or expenditures.
A key element in exchanges is reciprocity—a balance in the exchange of benefits.
People keep a mental ledger in their heads about whether they owe someone else or that person owes them.
Critique of Rational Choice Theory.
Rational choice theorists see human conduct as self-centered, with rational behavior implying that people seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs. They give little attention to micro-level internal mental processes, such as self-reflection. Charitable, unselfish, or altruistic behavior is not easily explained by this view. Why would a soldier sacrifice his or her life to save a comrade? Why would a starving person in a Nazi concentration camp share a crust of bread with another? Proponents of rational choice counter the criticism by arguing that if a person feels good about helping another that, in itself, is a reward that compensates for the cost.
Thinking Sociologically
How can symbolic interaction and rational choice perspectives help explain everyday behavior? For example, how might a theorist from each perspective explain why people tend to hold the door for a person walking behind them? How would each of the previous micro theories answer this question a bit differently?
Meso- and Macro-Level Theories
Meso- and macro-level theories consider large units in the social world: organizations (e.g., General Motors or the Episcopal Church), institutions (such as family, education, religion, health care, politics, or economies), societies (e.g., Canada or Mexico), or global systems (e.g., the World Trade Organization or World Bank). For example, Hector’s government at the national and international levels affects his life in a variety of ways. As Brazil industrializes, the nature of jobs and the modes of communication change. Local village cultures adjust as the entire nation gains more uniformity of values, beliefs, and norms. Similarly, resources such as access to clean water may be allotted at the local level, but local communities need national and sometimes international support to access resources, as illustrated by tribal elders from Tanzania in the photo on the next page. We can begin to understand how the process of modernization influences Hector, this village in Tanzania, and other people around
