Society and Personality

Interactionist Approach to Social Psychology

Tamotsu Shibutani

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351489188
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Being an "interactionist" approach to social psychology, Society and Personality deals with people, not as isolated individuals, but as participants in groups. The aim of the book is to help the reader develop an orderly perspective—a consistent point of view from which to see his (or her) own conduct and that of his (or her) fellows. Propositions about behavior seen from the viewpoint are presented, and relevant evidence, both descriptive and experimental, is examined and evaluated.

The author draws upon the two great intellectual traditions of pragmatism and psychoanalysis, and attempts to integrate them into a single, consistent approach. All concepts are reduced to behavioristic terms—defined always in terms of what people do. In this way, it is possible to draw freely on these two schools, and at the same time, avoid much of the jargon of both. Other approaches to the study of human behavior are frequently mentioned and sometimes discussed, but the objective is to give the reader one perspective rather than confuse him with many. Of course, this standpoint is presented as only one of many possible ways of looking at people.

Although the book's basic ideas are drawn from two main schools of psychological thought, relevant material has been gathered from other sources as well—sociology, ethnography, linguistics, experimental psychology, and clinical data from psychiatry. One very important extra feature is the List of Personal Documents, compiled by the author to guide interested readers to first-person accounts—biographies, diaries, clinical records—each of which provides a valuable record of human experience.

1

The systematic study of human behavior

During the latter part of the nineteenth century, extensive studies were carried out on the therapeutic uses of hypnotism. Many amazing feats were demonstrated for the scholars attracted to the two rival centers which developed in France, one in Paris under the famed psychiatrist Janet and the other in Nancy under Bernheim. On one occasion Dr. Bernheim instructed a subject that after he had been awakened from his hypnotic trance he would take the umbrella of a colleague, open it, and walk twice up and down the veranda to which the room opened. When awakened, the man picked up the umbrella as instructed. Although he did not open it, he did walk twice up and down the corridor. When asked to account for his peculiar conduct, he replied that he was “taking the air.” Asked if he felt warm, he answered that he did not; however, he insisted that he made a practice of occasionally walking up and down “out here.” When questioned about having an umbrella in his possession belonging to someone else, he was quite surprised. He had thought it was his own, and he hastily returned it to the rack.

To specialists the facts of post-hypnotic suggestion had been well known for a long time, but to a young Viennese physician named Sigmund Freud, who had witnessed such demonstrations during a visit to Nancy in 1899 and had translated two of Bernheim's books into German, this remarkable phenomenon provided the basis for a revolutionary insight. What struck Freud was the fact that a man could do things for reasons of which he himself was unaware, and having performed the deeds he could subsequently invent plausible explanations. When the man with the umbrella was questioned about his strange conduct, he attempted to justify what he was doing by providing respectable reasons. This was not deliberate deception, for he was a person of unquestioned integrity and was speaking in complete sincerity. In much the same manner other people are continually giving reasons for the things they do. When a student is asked why he is attending school, for example, he replies that he wants to broaden his intellectual horizons, to please his parents, to qualify for some desirable position, to maintain prestige in his community, or to be near his fiancee. Actually, there is considerable evidence that many students are not quite sure what they are doing in school. Although it had long been recognized that the explanations people give for their activities are not always reliable, Freud made this observation one of the cornerstones of a systematic theory of human behavior.

Men are continually trying to develop a better understanding of themselves and of their fellows by providing explanations for the things that they do, and social psychologists are only trying to construct tools that will permit the formulation of more reliable explanations. Like Freud, they are looking for a more impersonal way of accounting for human behavior, preferably one that is in line with the accepted canons of modern science. Their aim is to reduce the diverse things that men do to a limited set of general principles, principles that will account even for the fact that men continually explain their deeds—to themselves as well as to others. Furthermore, they seek maximum reliability by introducing greater precision into their formulations and by testing them through an examination of evidence—empirical data that have been collected in an orderly manner. The subject matter of social psychology is very old, but the procedures currently in use have only recently been instituted.

Scientific Knowledge and Common Sense

Although the fascination with which children behold the world apparently loses its edge with age, most people retain some measure of curiosity, and the quest for knowledge is one of mankinds stable interests. While we sometimes think of knowledge as something esoteric, the exigencies of daily life require our having some kind of working conception of what is happening in order to make intelligent decisions, to avoid unnecessary discomfort, and to attain all kinds of gratifications with minimal effort. Because of his specialized knowledge, a mechanic on vacation can drive his automobile over isolated areas without suffering the anxieties that plague the average motorist. The difference between the service rendered by a doctor who happens to be at the scene of an accident and the inept though well meaning efforts of other passers-by is one of knowledge. The effective pursuit of one's interests as well as the planning of a better life requires knowing something about the world and the creatures inhabiting it. Knowledge, then, is not something separate and standing by itself—only to be contemplated in intellectual exercises. It is intricately involved in the processes through which human life is sustained.

Most of the beliefs providing the basis for daily living consist of what is called “common sense.” This term refers to our working conception of reality—the characteristics of various physical objects, of expected sequences of events, and of the traits called “human nature.” A sensible person knows that he will not be greeted on the street by a dead man whose funeral he has just attended; he knows that men cannot walk through stone walls; and he would be quite shaken if the different parts of a friend's face became detached and rearranged. Although people who are psychotic may have such experiences, it is taken for granted that such events are impossible in the “real” world. Many popular beliefs have developed through countless experiences over many generations, and they survive because they are found useful in meeting the requirements of daily life. From day to day we are confronted by the necessity of making a variety of decisions, and for this most of us must depend a great deal upon common sense knowledge—even though it is usually inexact and sometimes completely groundless. For example, medical men have long known that leprosy is not nearly as contagious as tuberculosis or syphilis, but those who are unfamiliar with the scientific appraisal of the disease still dread and ostracize lepers.

Because of its fabulous achievements, men in our age tend to look upon science in awe; yet the difference between common sense and scientific knowledge is only one of degree. Scientific knowledge enjoys the great prestige that it does today precisely because it provides such highly effective instruments for adjustment. The development of the theory of microbes, for example, has made mandatory the institution of specific measures to insure antiseptic cleanliness, especially in surgery. In spite of the high death rate such procedures had previously been resisted by most doctors as unnecessary and wasteful; until such knowledge was established, the complications following surgery could not be traced to the unseen agents of infection. The more accurate the explanations, then, the more useful they are in forming judgments and in planning programs of action. Scientific knowledge represents a codification of the best that men have thus far been able to achieve, explicitly stated and tested through empirical evidence. But it is far from perfect and is subject to constant revision; indeed, progressively more reliable knowledge is continually developing. Scientific research may be regarded as a type of activity that has evolved gradually in the efforts of men to find more effective ways of coping with their difficulties.

Of course, many of the regularities in nature have been recognized intuitively long before scientists got around to formulating their principles. Cheese and wine were being made and meat and fish were being preserved through smoking before bacteriologists and chemists were able to explain the process. Soap was invented before the theory of ions, and the selective breeding of domesticated animals took place long before Mendel formulated his laws of genetics. Many other practical problems have been solved before men understood what they were doing. The demand for scientific knowledge, however, often arises in those areas in which common sense proves inadequate, as men attempt to improve upon practices hitherto resting upon popular beliefs.

Men have apparently always been curious about human behavior. This is not strange: the solution of some of the most mundane problems of daily life requires our knowing something about human beings. One is called upon to choose friends, to select a mate, to make decisions about a career, or to pass judgment upon an acquaintance who has violated a rule. Uneasiness in the presence of strangers arises from uncertainty. Men cannot act with confidence unless they can anticipate, within reasonable limits, what others are likely to do. One cannot even walk across a street without faith that the driver of an approaching automobile is not doing his best to strike down pedestrians.

Successful participation in society also requires a minimum understanding of oneself. Some may feel that they lack sufficient ability to do their work effectively. Others may feel guilty about hating their parents, their inability to control their tempers, or their excessive preoccupation with sex. Still others may be disturbed about their compulsive eating, smoking, masturbation, or daydreaming.

In handling such difficulties men generally rely upon popular beliefs. But common sense is sometimes wise and sometimes stupid, for no distinction is made between the accumulated wisdom of the ages and the current and local superstitions. Many Americans are convinced, for example, that beauty, charm, wealth, and an abundance of handsome suitors will make any young woman happy; yet successful actresses and heiresses with all these treasures are known to have committed suicide, insisting that they had “nothing to live for.” Many parents believe that the happiness and success of their children depend upon their acquiring a home in a “nice” neighborhood, providing a separate room for each well stocked with toys, getting the best available medical care, and participating in various community activities. In spite of the sacrifices that are made in their behalf, however, the recipients of such “advantages” sometimes become criminals or are driven to insanity. Furthermore, many popular beliefs are contradictory. Francis Bacon once collected a number of generalizations about human behavior from fables, proverbs, and maxims and was able to find an antithesis for each one. Thus, it is often claimed that “absence makes the heart grow fonder.” This is plausible, but so is the contention: “out of sight; out of mind.” These observations all suggest that something better than common sense is required.

Social scientists are finding themselves under increasing pressure to provide knowledge that is more reliable. The pressure is intensified by the fact that we are beset with practical problems of great magnitude. The incidence of mental disorders is frightening. With the increasing concentration of political power, the success of a single lunatic could conceivably spell ruin for millions. Advancing knowledge in the physical sciences has made war so destructive that for the first time in human history the extermination of the species has become a distinct possibility. The need for reliable knowledge about human behavior is now felt to be more urgent than ever, and in an age in which science is idolized it is not strange that men are in increasing numbers turning hopefully toward the application of the procedures that have proved so successful in other fields to the study of man. Although it may not be entirely justified by the results achieved thus far, there seems to be an increasing faith in the ability of social scientists to provide answers that constitute an improvement over common sense.

The efforts of students of human behavior to emulate the better established disciplines have had both desirable and misleading results. Problems have been selected with greater care, and there has been more precision in the formulation and testing of hypotheses. With increasing recognition of the importance of empirical verification far more emphasis has been placed upon the orderly collection and analysis of data. Serious efforts are being made to design experi ments, however crude the initial results may be.

Unfortunately, however, there has also been a blind imitation of the external paraphernalia of the successful sciences, which in some instances may be hindering the development of verified knowledge. Unable to resist the lure of a technical vocabulary, social scientists have developed a forbidding jargon. Sometimes the specialized terms are essential for making distinctions not ordinarily made in popular discourse, but many of the terms are only synonyms for words in daily use. Impressed with the elaborate procedures used in other fields, social scientists have also developed complex techniques for indirect observation and measurement. In some cases these ingenious devices have facilitated the study of subject matter which had hitherto been difficult to observe, but all too often they have been used to investigate insignificant problems, resulting sometimes in an incredible expenditure of effort to confirm some trivial point. The most unfortunate consequence of concentrating so much attention upon technical elegance has been the limitation of inquiries to problems easily studied by the approved research techniques. Some have even refused to study admittedly important problems on the ground that procedures do not exist for the precise measurement of relevant data. As one critic has observed, the preoccupation with perfecting technical apparatus is much like concentrating all one's efforts upon polishing his glasses rather than putting them on in order to see.¹

Unfortunately, merely copying the superficial characteristics of the older sciences does not automatically provide reliable knowledge. Some students of human behavior proclaim loudly that they are “scientists” and insist upon being accorded the privileges and respect commensurate with such a designation. But such claims appear to be premature. What is reliably known about human behavior is still elementary, and most generalizations have not yet been subjected to crucial tests. Even the best experimental evidence is crude, showing only gross relationships between loosely defined variables. Where clinical or observational data are used, there is usually no assurance of the representativeness of the sample being examined. There are many areas of human activity about which plausible hypotheses have not been formulated so that even educated guesses are lacking. In spite of extravagant claims from some quarters, there are as yet very few verified generalizations about human behavior.

The fact that the scientific study of human conduct is still in its infancy becomes painfully apparent when any effort is made to apply the generalizations currently entertained by social scientists to concrete problems. Child rearing practices based upon diverse theories of socialization provide an excellent illustration. Parents who believe in learning theory, with its emphasis upon reward and punishment, sometimes discipline their children sternly to prevent the formation of undesirable habits. On the other hand, those who have accepted psychoanalytic theory emphasize the importance of breast feeding, lenient toilet training, and a permissive atmosphere in which frustration is minimized. There are indications, however, that neurotic parents frequently have neurotic children, regardless of what procedures they utilize. Another example is provided by the care of the mentally ill. In spite of the dedicated efforts of countless specialists in developing various techniques of chemical, surgical, and persuasive intervention, there is little evidence that patients actually recover from psychosis through such therapy. Indeed, there are an embarrassing number who apparently recover “spontaneously” without benefit of any systematically administered treatment. Those who must handle behavioral problems—like social workers, parole officers, teachers, administrators, and psychiatrists— find that they must often resort to “rule of thumb” judgments and do the best they can. Of course, they get some help from the books they read. In contrast to the knowledge furnished by physiologists to surgeons, however, much of what social scientists provide them proves to be too remote from the living creatures with whom they deal.

The systematic study of human behavior, at present, is in some respects much like mathematics before Euclid. There was certainly considerable mathematical knowledge at that time, as is revealed in the astonishing feats of Egyptian engineers in building the pyramids. But geometry consisted of a collection of isolated facts, useful empirical rules for surveying and construction. By introducing precision into definitions, relating the terms into propositions, and deducing propositions from one another, Euclid transformed this existing information into a systematic body of knowledge. Similarly, there is today much accumulated knowledge about human behavior, but it has not yet been adequately systematized.

To admit that the social sciences are not yet compara...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Social Science Classics
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Introduction to the Transaction Edition
• Preface
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• 1 The Systematic Study Of Human Behavior
• Part One / Social Control
• Part Two / Motivation
• Part Three / Interpersonal Relations
• Part Four / Socialization
• Conclusion
• List Of Personal Documents
• Subject Index
• Name Index