Provide a brief overview of Chicago School SI and the Iowa/Indiana School SI. What are the main ideas of each orientation? What are the main differences regarding the self-society relationship? In your view, what orientation best describes the self-society relationship and why? If you feel that neither orientation properly describes the self-society relationship you may use one of the microsociology approaches instead (Dramaturgical or Ethnomethodology). However, you must still provide an over view of both Chicago and Iowa/Indiana SI. Hint: The self-society relationship is explained on page 80-81 in this weeks reading.
Blog Assignment 5: The Self-Society Relationship.
by
Tags:
Comments
54 responses to “Blog Assignment 5: The Self-Society Relationship.”
-
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism is the least structural in focus. It is associated with several individuals at UChicago, including Mead and Blumer. One of the ideas that came from Mead were situational definitions which emphasized the importance of people’s definitions of situations in shaping their responses to the broader social environment. Situational definitions are perceptions, and they vary across individuals, and these analyses of situational definitions are qualitative in orientation. Chicago Symbolic Interactionists often study how people negotiate power and status within the context of their face-to-face interactions, it is considered the dominant theoretical perspective within the realm of microsociology.
Iowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism places a greater emphasis on social structure than the Chicago school. They are concerned primarily with the effects of society on the self, the focus more structurally. They are highly concerned with Mead’s concept of self, they mainly study the content of people’s self-concepts as part of the socially derived “me” referring to the characteristics, thoughts and feelings that people contribute to themselves. There is that emphasis on the link between the roles people play and the context of their self-concepts. The measure of self-concepts is quantitative in orientation, and they use surveys to collect their data. They focus and gather how self-concepts shape behaviors which bring us to Identity theory, emphasizing the relationship between the statuses people occupy the content of self-concepts and how they chose to act in various social situations.
I did have mixed feelings about choosing one over the other however after looking over each one carefully, the orientation that best describes the self- society relationship would have to be Iowa School of Symbolic interactionism, just because they focus on the relationship between society and self a bit deeper, and focuses more on ground interactions in a “larger societal and cultural context”
LikeLike
-
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism is the least structural in focus. It is associated with several individuals at UChicago, including Mead and Blumer. One of the ideas that came from Mead were situational definitions which emphasized the importance of people’s definitions of situations in shaping their responses to the broader social environment. Situational definitions are perceptions, and they vary across individuals, and these analyses of situational definitions are qualitative in orientation. Chicago Symbolic Interactionists often study how people negotiate power and status within the context of their face-to-face interactions, it is considered the dominant theoretical perspective within the realm of microsociology.
Iowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism places a greater emphasis on social structure than the Chicago school. They are concerned primarily with the effects of society on the self, the focus more structurally. They are highly concerned with Mead’s concept of self, they mainly study the content of people’s self-concepts as part of the socially derived “me” referring to the characteristics, thoughts and feelings that people contribute to themselves. There is that emphasis on the link between the roles people play and the context of their self-concepts. The measure of self-concepts is quantitative in orientation, and they use surveys to collect their data. They focus and gather how self-concepts shape behaviors which bring us to Identity theory, emphasizing the relationship between the statuses people occupy the content of self-concepts and how they chose to act in various social situations.
I did have mixed feelings about choosing one over the other however after looking over each one carefully, the orientation that best describes the self- society relationship would have to be Iowa School of Symbolic interactionism, just because they focus on the relationship between society and self a bit deeper, and focuses more on ground interactions in a “larger societal and cultural context”
LikeLike
-
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism is the least structural in focus. It is associated with several individuals at UChicago, including Mead and Blumer. One of the ideas that came from Mead were situational definitions which emphasized the importance of people’s definitions of situations in shaping their responses to the broader social environment. Situational definitions are perceptions, and they vary across individuals, and these analyses of situational definitions are qualitative in orientation. Chicago Symbolic Interactionists often study how people negotiate power and status within the context of their face-to-face interactions, it is considered the dominant theoretical perspective within the realm of microsociology.
Iowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism places a greater emphasis on social structure than the Chicago school. They are concerned primarily with the effects of society on the self, the focus more structurally. They are highly concerned with Mead’s concept of self, they mainly study the content of people’s self-concepts as part of the socially derived “me” referring to the characteristics, thoughts and feelings that people contribute to themselves. There is that emphasis on the link between the roles people play and the context of their self-concepts. The measure of self-concepts is quantitative in orientation, and they use surveys to collect their data. They focus and gather how self-concepts shape behaviors which bring us to Identity theory, emphasizing the relationship between the statuses people occupy the content of self-concepts and how they chose to act in various social situations.
I did have mixed feelings about choosing one over the other however after looking over each one carefully, the orientation that best describes the self- society relationship would have to be Iowa School of Symbolic interactionism, just because they focus on the relationship between society and self a bit deeper, and focuses more on ground interactions in a “larger societal and cultural context”
LikeLike
-
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism is the least structural in focus. It is associated with several individuals at UChicago, including Mead and Blumer. One of the ideas that came from Mead were situational definitions which emphasized the importance of people’s definitions of situations in shaping their responses to the broader social environment. Situational definitions are perceptions, and they vary across individuals, and these analyses of situational definitions are qualitative in orientation. Chicago Symbolic Interactionists often study how people negotiate power and status within the context of their face-to-face interactions, it is considered the dominant theoretical perspective within the realm of microsociology.
Iowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism places a greater emphasis on social structure than the Chicago school. They are concerned primarily with the effects of society on the self, the focus more structurally. They are highly concerned with Mead’s concept of self, they mainly study the content of people’s self-concepts as part of the socially derived “me” referring to the characteristics, thoughts and feelings that people contribute to themselves. There is that emphasis on the link between the roles people play and the context of their self-concepts. The measure of self-concepts is quantitative in orientation, and they use surveys to collect their data. They focus and gather how self-concepts shape behaviors which bring us to Identity theory, emphasizing the relationship between the statuses people occupy the content of self-concepts and how they chose to act in various social situations.
I did have mixed feelings about choosing one over the other however after looking over each one carefully, the orientation that best describes the self- society relationship would have to be Iowa School of Symbolic interactionism, just because they focus on the relationship between society and self a bit deeper, and focuses more on ground interactions in a “larger societal and cultural context”
LikeLike
-
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism is the least structural in focus. It is associated with several individuals at UChicago, including Mead and Blumer. One of the ideas that came from Mead were situational definitions which emphasized the importance of people’s definitions of situations in shaping their responses to the broader social environment. Situational definitions are perceptions, and they vary across individuals, and these analyses of situational definitions are qualitative in orientation. Chicago Symbolic Interactionists often study how people negotiate power and status within the context of their face-to-face interactions, it is considered the dominant theoretical perspective within the realm of microsociology.
Iowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism places a greater emphasis on social structure than the Chicago school. They are concerned primarily with the effects of society on the self, the focus more structurally. They are highly concerned with Mead’s concept of self, they mainly study the content of people’s self-concepts as part of the socially derived “me” referring to the characteristics, thoughts and feelings that people contribute to themselves. There is that emphasis on the link between the roles people play and the context of their self-concepts. The measure of self-concepts is quantitative in orientation, and they use surveys to collect their data. They focus and gather how self-concepts shape behaviors which bring us to Identity theory, emphasizing the relationship between the statuses people occupy the content of self-concepts and how they chose to act in various social situations.
I did have mixed feelings about choosing one over the other however after looking over each one carefully, the orientation that best describes the self- society relationship would have to be Iowa School of Symbolic interactionism, just because they focus on the relationship between society and self a bit deeper, and focuses more on ground interactions in a “larger societal and cultural context”
LikeLike
-
Hi, I completely agree with you over how the Iowa/Indiana describes self-society better. I believe that it’s so much better than doing the society vs. me (self) rather than going for a self (I and me) vs society. I think that having a better understanding of how 1 person vs society works is better than having society vs me.
LikeLike
-
Well done!
LikeLike
-
Hello,
I also agree that the Iowa/Indiana school of SI does a better job of depicting the self societal relationship. Like we’ve both stated, the Chicago school is much less structural and implies that people’s definitions of situations shapes their responses to society which is very much society vs. me. I think it’s much better to look at yourself in society based on your own status, characteristics, race etc. in order to gain a better understanding of your self-concept.LikeLike
-
Hello Jmc, I really liked the way that you explained both of these concepts. I think that you made the descriptions very clear and easy to understand. Explaining that the Chicago school of SI studied how people negotiate power and status. The Iowa/Indiana school of SI focused on the effects of society on the self.
LikeLike
-
-
When looking at both the Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism, the idea of it contributes to how Chicago is not structured on focuses that are necessary, if anything they are mostly focused on how power and their face-to-face interactions are the biggest factors on everyday settings. It has the idea of how you can manipulate their interactions from their “I” and “me” with society based on who they are and what they are. As for Iowa/Indiana, they both follow a certain structure of which can be defined as “self-concepts derived from social experience”. For Chicago Schools, their idea of research is based on quantitative in orientation while Iowa/Indiana is more of a macro-orientation. The main differences associated between Chicago and Iowa/Indiana with the self-concept idea would be that since these deals with thoughts, feelings and how people see themselves is that Chicago is more of more than 1 idea of concept. They result with how many of this is feeling this way and is more so of a “I and me” idea which unlike Iowa/Indiana is more so of 1 African American women vs 1 African American man, which in simple terms is society vs. self (me). This is where the idea of self-concept initiates because of how we think if each other based on the same race but being different genders is what affects it, as an example. As for the Chicago SI, it’s more complicated because it’s more self-concepts of self and is gathered in a group. Personally, after looking over both ideas and concepts, I believe that the orientation that describes the self-society relationship would be Iowa/Indiana. The reason for this is because it’s more structured and gets a deeper understanding of what society should be rather than just making it a quantitive society full of numbers and statistics.
LikeLike
-
Hi, I really enjoyed reading your post you did really well at explaining the differences between Chicago school of symbolic interactionism and Iowa/ Indiana School of SI. We both agreed that we understood the Iowa/Indiana school better, and I agree that it is more structured and better to understand and goes deeper and focuses more on those connections.
LikeLike
-
I agree with you. In my view, SSI best describes the self-society relationship because our social structure is deeply influential not only on our self-concept, but also limits or expands the types of situations available to us. They way I deploy my self is dependent on the availability of situations I have to choose from. My social class, status, race, so on and so forth all contribute to my stratification into a social position, and my social position must be a considered element when questioning the formulation of self or self-concept. While these, factors are not completely ignored by the Chicago school, they are also not taken as seriously as they should be
LikeLike
-
Your analysis of how Chicago focuses more on power and face-to-face interactions, while Iowa/Indiana is more structured and derived from social experience, was insightful. I appreciate your explanation of how self-concept is viewed differently by both orientations, with Chicago having more than one idea of the concept and Iowa/Indiana being more focused on society versus self. Your example of how the self-concept of an African American woman versus an African American man can be affected by society’s perceptions of gender was a good illustration of this. I agree with your conclusion that Iowa/Indiana best describes the self-society relationship. I believe that this orientation provides a more holistic view of the self, society, and their relationship, as it considers the social context and experiences that shape individuals’ self-concept. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of the complexities of social interaction and human behavior, which can be valuable in addressing social issues and promoting positive change.
LikeLike
-
-
The main ideas for symbolic interactionism according to the Chicago school is that human behavior is shaped by social structures and physical environment rather than genetic and personal characteristics. When an individual plays the same part to the same audience on different occasions, a social relationship will likely rise which means that a social role will involve one or more parts. In addition, when an individual appears, before the others he will have motives to try and control the impression they receive of the situation. Lastly, it highlights the idea that the initial interaction with someone is just an extended series of interactions including the same people and wanting to start off on the right foot.
The main idea for symbolic interactionism according to the Iowa/Indiana school is that it assumes that individuals negotiate social reality through interaction and emphasizes meaning and subjective experience. In addition, human experience could be understood empirically and theoretically even though it is subjective, and was characterized as having a solid core of meanings that ground interaction in a larger societal and cultural context. This method doesn’t focus on the novel and creative aspects of interaction like the school of Chicago did. In my view, I think the school of Iowa/Indiana has the best description of self-society because not only does it focus on society on a larger scale but also focuses on the cultural aspect which is very important to an individual’s self. It best exemplifies the relationship between an individual and society.LikeLike
-
Hi alj,
We have similar views when it comes to which school best describes the self-society relationship and I enjoyed how you mentioned the fact that the Iowa School focuses on society on a larger scale but also on a cultural one because sometimes we often forget how big a role culture plays within society. Not to mention, Iowa has more concrete and in-depth research and analysis in comparison to Chicago and the way it’s described in a more broader term than Iowa which is a little more specific and focused. I also feel like I can relate a little more to the Iowa School SI and what was concluded from its research in terms of society and the self more than I did when I was reading about Chicago’s SI.
LikeLike
-
-
The two schools of SI (Chicago and Iowa/Indiana) are illustrated according to the degree to which they emphasize the concept of agency. While the Chicago school emphasizes the spontaneous, creative elements that give rise to the self, the Iowa/Indiana school focus on powerful forms of social constraint/social structure that influence the self and what researchers refer to as self-concept. These key differences form different self-society relationships. For example, Chicago SI focuses on the path from selves (individuals) to society, while Iowa/Indiana SI is primarily focused on the path from society to self. Thus, Chicago school SI is an orientation of symbolic interactionism that is the least structural in focus. This orientation is commonly associated with Mead, Blumer, and Thomas. One unique variable emphasized by Chicago school SI is the power of the situation, whereby peoples definitions of the situation shape their interactional responses and therefore their presented self. Chicago style SI researchers argue that individuals have the agency to control the definition of the situation. Therefore, gaining access to these subjective realities where individuals are constantly constructing meaning/self is critically important and typically involves qualitative analysis. In contrast, the Iowa/Indiana school of SI are focused on social structure and the orientation is referred to as structural symbolic interactionism (SSI). This orientation is deeply connected to the self-concept – the characteristics, thoughts, and feelings that people attribute to themselves. A central relationship in Iowa/Indiana SSI is the link between the roles people play and the content of their self-concepts. SSI researchers argue that society and the statuses people occupy (self-concept) are stable and can therefore measurable quantitatively. Lastly, Iowa/Indiana SSI researchers examine how self-concept shapes behavior using Identity theory. Identity theory highlights the relationship between the statuses people occupy (the contents of their self-concept) and how they choose to act across a variety of situations. Iowa/Indiana SSI focuses on the link between the structure of society and the contents of people self-concepts. Both frameworks incorporate the dramaturgical and ethnomethodology theoretical frameworks. In my view, SSI best describes the self-society relationship because our social structure is deeply influential not only on our self-concept, but also limits or expands the types of situations available to us. They way I deploy my self is dependent on the availability of situations I have to choose from. My social class, status, race, so on and so forth all contribute to my stratification into a social position, and my social position must be a considered element when questioning the formulation of self or self-concept. While these, factors are not completely ignored by the Chicago school, they are also not taken as seriously as they should be.
LikeLike
-
The Chicago of School Symbolic Interactionism is the variant of SI that is essentially less structural in focus. W.I. Thomas was one of Mead’s peers who was associated with the Chicago School SI and he stressed the significance of how people’s perceptions of situations affect how they react to the larger social environment in particular. According to Thomas perceptions are often situational definitions. Situation definitions are often qualitative in approach and different across ranges of all individuals. Chicago School SI basically focuses on emphasizing human behavior as shaped by social institutions and physical environmental elements, rather than genetic and personal qualities. Through face-to-face interaction, they can study the arrangements being made between people within their interactions thus leading to specific elements of microsociology. On the other hand, The Iowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism is quite the opposite of Chicago and focuses more on social structure. In contrast to Chicago school symbolic interactionists, who are primarily interested in the relationship between the self and society, Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionists are more concerned with the impact of society on the self. Therefore making Iowa and Indiana more structural in focus and primarily interested in how society affects the individual. They took a liking to Mead’s idea of the self and focused their research on the substance of people’s self-concepts as a component of the socially derived “me,” which refers to the sentiments that we often give to ourselves. The relationship between people’s roles and the setting/atmosphere of their self-concepts is another big key factor. In order to study this more they often use surveys as a way to collect data for their quantitative analysis, then they gather information about how self-concepts influence/affect our behavior, highlighting the link between social statuses and how they react to a range of different situations, ultimately guiding us into identity theory. It was a little difficult to pick between either option because I feel like they both incorporate some elements that can describe the self-society relationship, but after carefully reviewing I decided that I think the best orientation to describe the self-society relationship would be Iowa School of SI because our social structures have a significant impact on both our self-concept and the range of scenarios that are open to us, which is why I think that SSI is the ideal way to define the link between the self and society and I feel as though the Chicago school doesn’t seriously consider that or expand on it as Iowa does.
LikeLike
-
Great overview for this week! You provided a detailed analysis for both the Chicago School and Iowa/Indiana School of SI. I appreciate your reflection that both schools offer some aspects that can help explain the self-society relationship. I would agree that the Iowa/Indiana school best explains the self-society relationship as it is more macro in theory compared to the Chicago school, and focuses more on societal structures and its effects on the self.
LikeLike
-
-
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism (SI) emerged in the early 1900s and emphasized the importance of studying the interactions and meanings that individuals attach to their social environment. George Herbert Mead, one of the main figures of the Chicago School, believed that the self is not inherent, but rather develops through social interaction with others. According to the Chicago School, individuals construct their own social realities through their interactions with others and the meanings they assign to those interactions. The self and society are seen as interdependent and mutually shaping.
The Iowa/Indiana School of SI emerged in the 1950s and 1960s as a response to the limitations of the Chicago School. The Iowa/Indiana School focused on the process of socialization and how individuals internalize societal norms and values. The Iowa/Indiana School also emphasized the importance of studying social structures and institutions, such as families and schools, and how they impact individual behavior. In contrast to the Chicago School, the Iowa/Indiana School sees the self and society as more separate entities that interact, rather than mutually shaping each other.
In my view, both orientations offer valuable insights into the self-society relationship. However, I lean more towards the Chicago School’s emphasis on the mutual shaping of the self and society. I believe that individuals actively construct their social realities through their interactions with others and that these social realities in turn shape individual behavior. I also think that the Iowa/Indiana School’s focus on socialization and social structures is important, but I see these as part of the larger process of social interaction and meaning-making.
LikeLike
-
The two schools of SI (Chicago and Iowa/Indiana) are illustrated according to the degree to which they emphasize the concept of agency. While the Chicago school emphasizes the spontaneous, creative elements that give rise to the self, the Iowa/Indiana school focus on powerful forms of social constraint/social structure that influence the self and what researchers refer to as self-concept. These key differences form different self-society relationships. For example, Chicago SI focuses on the path from selves (individuals) to society, while Iowa/Indiana SI is primarily focused on the path from society to self.
LikeLike
-
Hi selflove23,
I like the way you wrote about the history of when the Chicago school of symbolic interactionism and the Iowa/Indiana school of symbolic interactionism first emerged. Although you made good points about which best describes the society of self, I believe that it’s because Iowa/Indiana school of symbolic interactionism focuses on socialization and social structures that makes it a better candidate for better describing the society of self.LikeLike
-
-
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism emphasizes situational definitions, which explains that an individual’s definition of the situation shapes their responses and their presented self. The concept of situational definitions argues that perceptions must be taken into account when studying human behavior, and it varies across individuals. For example, professors and students have different situational definitions of how they view the classroom environment. The Chicago School of SI focuses on social interactions in everyday settings, and is dominant within the realm of microsociology.
The Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism puts a greater emphasis on social structure than the Chicago school. They focus on the content of an individual’s self-concepts, and how it shapes behaviors. Self-concepts are the thoughts, feelings, and characteristics that people attribute to themselves. The Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism argues that self-concepts should be stable and thus measurable.
While the Chicago School of SI is more concerned with the path from individuals to society, the Iowa/Indiana School of SI are more concerned with the effects of society on the self. Thus, the unit of analysis from the Chicago School is the individual, and the unit of analysis for the Iowa school is the group. I would argue that the Iowa/Indiana School best describes the self-society relationship because it searches to specify the link between the structure of society and an individual’s self-concept. I believe that societal structures have a significant effect on human behavior on the self. Characteristics such as race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, etc. play a significant role in how individuals are perceived and how they perceive themselves in society.
LikeLike
-
This was really well done! I also believe that societal structures and institutions have significant influence on human behavior. Great job!
LikeLike
-
Hello! This was a comprehensible comparison between the two orientations. Your description for the Chicago School SI and their approach to focus on social interactions in everyday settings and how this then becomes superior within microsociology was a great point made! It is very true that characteristics such as race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, etc. play a significant role in how individuals are perceived and how they perceive themselves in society. These aspects shape us as humans and create a sense of identity to each unique individual.
LikeLike
-
Hi!
I completely agree with you that societal structures have a great amount of influence on the self. What I love about the Iowa/ Indiana School SI is the idea of self-concept. In my time studying sociology I have learned so much about self-image and how this affects behavior. This is a major reason why I think this is a better school of thought when it comes to self and society than Chicago School SI. It is not that I see no value in Chicago SI, but more that Iowa/ Indiana is more effective in studying the interactions between society and selfLikeLike
-
-
The two schools of symbolic interactionism stem from the social theoretical frameworks which are associated with George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer, and Manford Kuhn. These structures assist in formulating a perspective in regard to how society is seen as the subject in which is the result of shared symbols, gestures, and communications. When observing the social world, we can understand the meanings that individuals have attached to situations, places, and interactions. This form of communication is transmitted through a new sense of language. The focal point of Symbolic interactionism is the self, which then depicts the impact of our actions. The aspect which differentiates the two schools from one another is the degree to which the concept of agency is emphasized.
The first school is Chicago School Symbolic Interactionism. This approach portrays the significance of situational definitions in respect to the actions and responses of people to the overall social scene. In comparison to the other approaches, to Symbolic Interactionism, this school of SI is the least structural in focus, yet highlights the value in gaining access to the varying situational definition. Blumer made a point in that the self can emerge through the interactive process of connecting to actions. Therefore, the quantitative research was based on studying human behavior by understanding how people associate and interact in relation to one another. However, it is important to shed a light on the concept that many of these constructed interactions are portrayed based on each individual’s understanding of the meanings in which they attach to objects, behaviors, and other people. Behavior is ever changing, leaving the actions of humans to consistently be unpredictable and emphasize that everyone views the world through a differing outlook.
The Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism on the other hand, allows the focal point of this approach to be placed on social structures. Iowa/Indiana SI highlight the concept of self in ways such as utilizing Mead’s interaction of the “I” and “Me” concept. This allows the focus to be on the self-concepts of individuals rather than the meanings articulated through the social context. The self-concept in this case explains the “Characteristics, thoughts, and feelings that people attribute to themselves” (Crawford and Novak 2014). This school portrays the connection between the roles that people take on and the content of their self-concept. Iowa/Indiana school SI is based on the macro-orientation and has identified that the internalized roles that individuals have attached to their positions in society can be determinators of future behavior. This then becomes one’s identity.
Overall, Chicago School SI gravitated to the path from self to society, while Iowa/Indiana School SI are primarily focused on the effects of society on the self. The Chicago School SI unit of analysis is the individual, while the Iowa/Indiana School SI is the group, making this orientation more macro. Due to all these reasons, I feel that the approach that best describes the self-society approach the Iowa/Indiana School SI as it looks at the individual in relation to their environment and how that then alters their behavior based on those roles. This approach also comes with more stability as this orientation strives to actually understand society and its connections, allowing a better comprehension of the self.
LikeLike
-
This was very well done! It could even be a skeleton draft for your final paper! Great job!
LikeLike
-
Hello Dominican Star, I like seeing your perspective on what is the best orientation that describes the self-society because I put the opposite for my point of view but its very helpful seeing your side. I said that the Chicago school SI was the best orientation but you helped me see why both are good.
LikeLike
-
-
The Chicago school of symbolic interactionism focuses on human behavior as shaped by physical environmental factors and situational perceptions and is considered to have a less structural focus compared to Iowa and Indiana. The most popular symbolic interactionists involved in this development were Mead and Blumer. It is believed that people’s own definition of certain situations determine their response to it. It should also be understood that people’s perception of situations can be vastly different from one another. Therefore, the Chicago school of SI looks at symbolic interactionism on a micro-societal level because we are observing people and their daily societal interactions and can be determined as qualitative research.
Unlike the Chicago school of SI, the Iowa/Indiana school of symbolic interactionism takes more of a macro-societal look at things by observing the overall societal structure. They are heavily focused on the effects of society on the self and how society shapes people’s self-concept to make up their “me”. The self-concept consists of someone’s thoughts, feelings, and other characteristics. Researchers have also explored how the self-concept can shape our behavior which leads into the identity theory. The identity theory examines the partnership between people’s social status and the way they act in particular social situations. They are able to measure the self-concepts quantitatively by the use of survey data collection.
When looking at both the Chicago school of SI and the Iowa/Indiana school of SI I can determine that the Iowa/Indiana school of SI describes the self- society relationship the best because it is more structured and they look at the self, society, and the self-concept in an interconnected way. This way there is a better understanding of human behavior and social interaction, which can be beneficial in understanding social issues.
LikeLike
-
This was well done. Great writing! I get the sense that you fully understand these approaches! How is the final paper going?
LikeLike
-
HI! I really liked how you summarized the main ideas for the Chicago SI. Specifically, when you included how it focuses on how human behavior is influenced by our social environments. You also described the Iowa/IIndiana SI very well too, I like how you included how the self concept makes up part of our “me”. I also agree when you say that the Iowa/Indiana SI creates a better understanding of the self to society relationship. Since it is more structural, we do have a better understanding. Our environments play a huge role in our self concept, both individual and as society as a whole. Our social interactions are also huge components and both of these schools are very essential to be knowledgeable about so we can further comprehend the complexity of the relationship to the self and society.
LikeLike
-
-
The Chicago School SI orientation is associated with scholars from UChicago, Mead and Blumer also had contributions. The Chicago School SI is the least structural in focus, one of their main ideas is the emphasis on knowing the situational definitions of the individuals they are studying based on their broader social environment and interactions. They argued that these situational definitions had to be taken into account when studying human behavior because they may or may not coincide with objective facts. One of the many important studies they conducted focused on social interactions in everyday settings, face to face. In Schippers study, they discovered that African American girls “constructed a social hierarchy through face-to-face interactions that differed from that within the larger society”, they also found that they preferred African American mentors over white mentors. A study like this challenged, rather than reduced social inequalities. Chicago School SI used qualitative research and is the most dominant theoretical perspective within the realm of microsociology.
The Iowa/Indiana School SI was influenced by sociologist Manford Kuhn and Sheldon Stryker and others from the sociology department at Indiana University. They have a greater emphasis and understanding on social structure. The main idea of this SI is to specify the link between the structure of society and people’s self-concept, and the direct relationship between how society affects the self. They are referred to as Structural Symbolic Interactionism. The main differences between these two SI is that Chicago SI uses qualitative research while Iowa/Indiana uses quantitative. Chicago also focuses on path from selves to society, while the other focuses on the effects of society on the self.LikeLike
-
Great job on this week’s blog! You gave good insights on both Chicago SI and Iowa/Indiana SI, I was glad to hear what you had to say about the two schools, you provided a good reflection on the difference between the two. Chicago uses qualitative methods and Iowa/Indiana uses quantitative methods. However, which school is more connected with the self-society?
LikeLike
-
Hi Sky0605,
Thank you for stating how the Iowa/Indiana school used quantitative measures of data while Chicago uses qualitative measurements of data, that really helped me understand the concept more. I agree with you and also believe that the Chicago school SI was the least structural in focus because they lacked to emphasize the importance of social structure on symbolic interactionism. Additionally, I personally believe that quantitative data was definitely more effective which was what also made the Iowa/Indiana school’s argument the strongest. What do you think?LikeLike
-
-
Chicago school symbolic interactionism is the type of symbolic interactionism where the least amount of structure is in the focus area. What distinguished Chicago school symbolic interactionism from others is its emphasis on the social construction of meaning as well as the use of qualitative methods to accomplish the social construction of meaning. Chicago school symbolic interactionists study how people decided for themselves and their status in the context of one on one interactions. The Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionism places more emphasis on the social structure than the Chicago school does. The Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionists are very involved with Mead and his concept of self. This “self-concept” defines characteristics, thoughts, and feelings that people attribute to themselves. Also, there is a strict emphasis on the correlation between how people act and the concert of their self-concepts. After learning about the Chicago school SI and the Iowa/Indiana school SI, I believe that the Iowa/Indiana school’s symbolic interactionists the orientation that best describes the self-society relationship because the interactionists not only study one on one interactions but also people’s concepts of themselves.
LikeLike
-
The Chicago School’s symbolic interactionism is the most minor structural in focus. This orientation is connected with two people connected to the book, Mead and Blumer. Mead focused on situational definitions because he was interested in social construction. Situational definitions are essential in this context because it helps individuals figure out who and what they should do based on their response. In the Chicago Schools’ symbolic interactionism, they use qualitative methods such as observation and face-to-face interaction (interviews). Iowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism are said to place a greater emphasis on the social structure than the Chicago School. Iowa focuses on the effects of society on the self and is mostly called structural symbolic interactionism. Iowa, unlike Mead’s concept, focuses on how people see themselves. People are the objects (me). By “me” I mean the concept of people and their inner selves. For example, a person’s characteristics, thoughts, and emotions. Chicago used qualitative methods, they collected their data by doing observations. Iowa did a different approach, they used quantitative methods. They collected their data by using a written questionnaire, the questionnaire consisted of a listing of statuses such as student, athlete, Catholic, and friend. All are statuses are so a person can pick which one they agree with suits them.
I believe both Chicago and Iowa gave good insights on the data they collected and which they believed was the better fit for measuring the self. Although Chicago focuses on the behavior of self, I would have to say Iowa best decibels the relationship between self and society. Iowa and Indiana SI puts their attention on how the self leads its way to society.
LikeLike
-
Hello Honeybun, I like the response and description that you provided for both schools. I also like how you mentioned both the school research methods and how they compare. I feel like this can become useful for those kist learning about this topic as it allows them to understand the data much better. I would also agree that both schools provide great data but in the end, I also believe that the Iowa/Indiana School of symbolic interactionism provides better examples and evidence for the topic. I felt as if it was a little easier to read and understand what the Iowa/Indiana school talked about compared to Chicago. Overall I believe you provided a great reflection on both schools.
LikeLike
-
-
The Chicago and Iowa/ Indiana school SI are separated by “the degree to which they embrace agency” (11-12). The Chicago school SI emphasizes spontaneous and creative elements of human behavior while the Iowa/ Indiana school SI focuses more on constraint as a product of society. Chicago is the less structured school of symbolic interactionism. One aspect of importance from Chicago school SI is situational definition. Situational definitions are based on how someone would explain a social situation, regardless of the objective truth. It is argued that this is extremely important to understanding human social behavior because this provides insight on perception.
As previously mentioned, the Iowa/ Indiana School SI places more emphasis on constraint and social structure. This perspective is more focused on society’s effect on the self. Instead of focusing on interaction between the “I” and the “Me”, Iowa/ Indiana focuses on a component of the “Me”, self-concept. This is the group of characteristics that someone would identify with or describe themselves as. Self-concept is affected by social climates, such as family life and interactions with friends. The influence of these social spaces contributes to self-concept’s effect on behaviors. This is called “Identity theory”. The way that people would describe themselves directly affects how they behave in social settings. Consider someone who would identify themselves as poor in a social setting with people of higher status. This person would be more likely to behave conservatively, like avoiding eye-contact or refraining from engaging in conversation.
I think that the Iowa/ Indiana School SI more effectively embraces the concept of self and society. We are a product of our environment in my view. Our intersections of social identities such as race, class, gender, socioeconomic status, and ability greatly affect the way that we see the world and the way the world sees us. I feel as though the Iowa/ Indiana School SI embraces these concepts in a more effective way.
LikeLike
-
The first topic I will be talking about is the Chicago School Symbolic Interactionism. In the article is that this variant of symbolic interactionism is the least structural in focus. This orientation consists of students and other individuals such as Mead and Blumer from the University of Chicago. We also learn about Thomas, a contemporary of Mead. Thomas works with people’s definitions of situations to hopefully shape their responses into a broader social environment. With the work that Thomas has done, he believes that situational definitions should be taken into consideration when it comes to the study of human social behavior. Later on in the article, we are shown two different perspectives of a classroom from Karp and Yoels. Students believe a college classroom is a place where information is given rather than it being created. On the other hand, professors believe a classroom is an arena for the discussion of ideas.
The second topic I will be talking about is The Iowa and Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism. The work talked about in this part of the article comes from the sociologist Manford Kuhn, a professor from the University of Iowa. The symbolic interactionism he talks about has a greater emphasis on social structure compared to the Chicago School Symbolic Interactionism. In the article, it talks about self-concept and how it refers to the characteristics, thoughts, and feelings, people attribute to themselves. Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionism focuses more on the link between the roles played in society and their self-concept. We are later told how the data has been collected. The Iowa/Indiana schools of symbolic interactionism use quantitative data in orientation and also surveys to gather data that was used in the article and other findings.
At first, I believed that both of these schools provided the same kind of work and evidence. Once I got to reading about the Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism, I felt like it provided more precise evidence. The reason I believe it is a better choice is because it focuses more on the connection between self and society.
LikeLike
-
Hi! I agree with you that Iowa/Indiana school is better because they seem to go more in depth and provide stronger evidence. Though I think both are important, I do believe that social structures have a bigger toll on shaping the self. I also thought your analyzes was very clear and informative. You did a great job at mentioning all of the people in the article.
LikeLike
-
-
Chicago schools focus more on how the self guides itself towards society and has little to no structure in focus. This orientation involves Mead and Blumer and they focus on analyzing how individuals interact in face to face situations. Situational definitions come into play as every individual has their own meaning to how they perceive a situation. Depending on how they interpret a specific situation will determine how they react and how they present themselves to society. This measure is qualitative as it has been shown that individuals have this agency to control the meaning of a situation and it can be expressed. This orientation is also more of a “natural” way to the self because it is not structured. The Iowa/Indiana school focuses on social structure and how that leads to the self, so pretty much the opposite of Chicago. Indiana/Iowa centers around SSI which considers the social roles individuals have and connect those roles to what the self is. Based on those roles and relationships is how the individual will choose to act according to the situation. This orientation is typically quantitative as researchers collect data based on social status, race, gender, etc and focus on how these constraints push us to behave a certain way. I think that SSI best describes the self society relationship because our social roles have a huge impact on who we are and how we do life. We learn most if not everything from society and our interactions. The social groups that we are placed in based on social class, race, etc creates the path on how society sees us and how we see ourselves.
LikeLike
-
When comparing and contrasting the Chicago School’s and Iowa/Indiana school’s understanding of symbolic interactionism, there are many key differences.
The Iowa/Indiana school emphasizes the importance of understanding what to concept of the self is before going on to analyzing anything else. The self-concept is highly important as everything else such as behaviors, thoughts and feelings are caused by the concept of the self within each individual. Because of its focus on the self- concept, a stronger report is created by the Iowa/Indiana school. There are many factors that go into the self-concept such as social structure and what that makes individuals identify themselves as. The Iowa/Indiana school also emphasizes how the identity theory is what explains people’s behaviors. They argue that every individual’s attitudes towards themselves directs and organizes human behavior. The self-concept is highly interconnected with identity theory, which explains how the meaning of the self is reflected through other aspects within the individual such as behavior, thoughts and feelings during certain situations. For example, an individual’s from an oppressed community can make them act differently from someone who has privilege due to their social class or race.
According to the Chicago school, the key point to understanding symbolic interactionism is that the self is a result from socialization with other individuals. The self is responsible for attaching meanings to things after interacting with other individuals. What their argument means is that interpretations are subjective, meaning everyone can have different interpretations and definitions of situations. The Chicago school does not take many important characteristics of social structure highly into consideration, such as race, class, gender and much more. If the Chicago school would have considered social factors within their work, their argument would be stronger and deeper because social factors play a large role within our identities and self-concepts. Because of the lack of very important factors, the Iowa/Indiana schools of social interactionism is the strongest.LikeLike
-
I agree with you that the Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism perspective was stronger. As you said, there are important characteristics such as one’s demographics and social factors that aren’t taken into account in the Chicago SI. Because of this, the argument isn’t as strong because social aspects play a major role in the self and how one’s identity is shaped and developed over time.
LikeLike
-
-
According to the reading the Chicago school SI is the least structural in focus. This orientation from the article was connected back to Mead and a contemporary of Meads, W.I Thomas. They go over the Situational definitions which go over the importance of people’s definition of the situation which then shapes their response to the broader social environment. This would mean that a person takes in their environments and determines how they will act. This is argued to provide insight on perception and a person’s thoughts. Now, when discussing the Iowa and Indiana schools of Symbolic interactionism we have to discuss that this work is linked to sociologist Manford Kuhn. The second strain of symbolic interactionism, Iowa/Indiana SI. This focuses more on the social structure compared to the Chicago one. This is a difference because the Chicago one focuses more on the individual aspect of society, the Iowa/Indiana focuses more on the effects of society on the individual. The Iowa/Indiana approach is often referred to as structural symbolic interactionism. Instead of focusing on the “I” and the “Me”, the Iowa/Indiana is focused on the “Me”. In my opinion I think that the Chicago orientation best describes the self – society relationship because in order to understand the response it is important to look at the reason as to why it has started. People’s response to their environment gives a perception of their thoughts. Not to say that the Iowa/ Indiana wasn’t good but in my opinion I think looking at it from an individual perspective works best.
LikeLike
-
Hi, I really enjoyed reading your overview of each school and how they describe and look at the relationship between self and society through the sociological perspective. I agree with you when you think the Chicago SI best describes the self-society relationship. I think the self is a product of all of our interactions with other people. I do think both sides views make sense but the Chicago SI better describes the self-society relationship.
LikeLike
-
-
There are two types of symbolic interactionism which are distinguished by the degree to which they embrace the concept of agency. They both differ in the range to which they stress the spontaneous, creative elements of human social behavior versus social constraint resulting from social structure. They are both named after the institutions where they developed. The Chicago school symbolic interactionism is the least structural in focus out of the two. This orientation stresses the importance of people definitions of the situation in shaping their responses to the broader social environment. W.I Thomas proclaimed that situational definitions (perceptions), which may or may not coincide with objective facts, must be taken into consideration when studying human social behaviors. Chicago school symbolic interactionism is known for its importance of gaining access to subjective realities (the situational definitions) of the individuals studied like fans seeking contact with the stars they admire. As well as the importance of social construction of meaning. They use qualitative methods such as participant observation and in-depth interviews to accomplish the task as well as the development of theories rooted in data. Chicago school SI considered the dominant theoretical perspective within microsociology and is the frame work for which the first face of sociological social psychology is named.
Iowa and Indiana school of symbolic interactionism places a greater emphasis on social structure which is associated with the work of Manford Kuhn.
The Iowa /Indiana school SI focuses the concerns primarily with the effects of society on self while Chicago School SI focuses on the path from selves to society which is why Iowa/Indiana school SI is referred to as a structural symbolic interactionism. Another main difference regarding self-relationships is the focus of Chicago school symbolic interactionists focus on the meaning that emerge from a given social contest as the result of interplay between the “I” and the “me”. While the Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionists are from a distinct group that are highly concerned with Meade’s concept of self which studies the content of people’s self-concept, which is a part of the socially derived “me” as an object.
I think the orientation that best describes the self-society is Iowa/Indiana school SI because it’s more structured and focuses on the link between the structure of society and an individual’s self-concept.LikeLike
-
The Chicago school of Symbolic Interactionism that looks at how individuals construct meaning through looking at things from a sociological expression. The Chicago school of SI became big in the early twentieth century with Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead as the main two to get it going. The main point the Chicago school of SI is making is that the self is a product of how we interact with other individuals through different social environments. This way understands the importance of symbols and language, and seeing how that shapes our society and individual behavior. The Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism came around in the mid twentieth century. The two main men that started the Iowa/Indiana school of SI were Manford Kuhn and Herbert Blumer. Compared to the Chicago SI the Iowa/Indiana SI looks more at the role culture plays and how shared meaning shapes humans’ behavior while it doesn’t look at social interaction as much. Iowa/Indiana SI says shared cultural symbols and meanings is what guides social interactions. The biggest difference between the two different schools is the way they look at the self and society’s relationship with each other. The Chicago SI views the self as a result of social interaction and the Iowa/Indiana SI base the self from shared meaning and culture. The Iowa/Indiana school focuses on how the role of culture shapes our behavior and the Chicago school focuses on individual agency in creating meaning. In my opinion the Chicago SI better describes the relationship between self and society. I feel that everything the self is, is because of the way we react with others.
LikeLike
-
Hi Yeti,
I enjoyed reading your response! I agree that the Chicago school of SI focuses on how our self is related to our interactions with people and through different social environments. To add on, the Iowa school talks about symbols and what they mean to the individual. I also agree that the Chicago school describes the relationship between self and society better.LikeLike
-
Great analysis and explanation of the Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism and Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism. I see your point as to why you believe the Chicago SI described the relationship between the self and society better. In my response, I had the opposing view, but it is interesting to understand your reasoning. To expand on your thoughts, I feel that it is important to also mention that the self reacts based on the environment one is in and from there determines how one will choose to act. Overall, nicely done!
LikeLike
-
Hi yeti! I agree that the Chicago School of SI places a strong emphasis on how our sense of self is connected to our relationships with others and with different social settings. I also agree that the Chicago school provides a better explanation of the interaction between the self and society.
LikeLike
-
-
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism, a concept influenced by George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, emphasized that people develop their identities through social interaction. It is known for focusing its importance on gaining access to subjective realities, also known as situational definitions, of the individuals studied, the social construction of meaning, and the qualitative measures to accomplish this task and develop the theory. According to the text, situational definitions are one’s perceptions and must be taken into consideration when studying human social behavior (Crawford & Novak, pg. 76). In other words, a person takes into account their environment and from there determines how they will choose to act. On the other hand, the Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism had a greater emphasis on social construction. It was also referred to as structural symbolic interactionism because it focused on the study of people’s self-concepts, a part of the socially derived “me” or the self as an object. Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionism is noted for its emphasis on the link between the roles people play and the content of their self-concepts. Overall, the Chicago school symbolic interactionists focused on the path from individuals to society, while the Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionists focused on the effects of society on the self.
Personally, I believe that the Iowa School of Symbolic Interactionism best describes the self-society relationship. This is because I feel there was a strong foundation as to why individuals are both influenced by and influencing the larger social structures and cultural values around them.
LikeLike
-
Hi! I really enjoyed your analysis of these two ideas, I also agree that the Iowa and Indiana school’s symbolic interactions view makes more sense. I think it is also just super important to recognize how powerful our social structures and institutions are and how much they affect us because of our power. I definitely think it can go both ways, but thinking about society currently, I think the Iowa and Indiana view is the best way to describe this relationship.
LikeLike
-
-
Chicago school symbolic interactionism is known to be less structural in comparison to the Iowa/Indiana school symbolic interactionism. The Chicago orientation includes the thoughts of many people from the University of Chicago like George Herbert Mead and Blumer, and it argues that situational definitions must be taken into account when analyzing behavior, as well as the use of qualitative data. Professors and students have different ways that they view their school environment or how they teach, which is an example of a situational definition. The reading states that they rely on qualitative data such as participant observation and in-depth interviews to get their pieces of information, which differs from the Iowa/Indiana school. The Iowa/Indiana school focuses on quantitative data in the form of surveys to collect data. Iowa and Indiana school place more emphasis on social structure compared to Chicago school, and the way that the two views the relationship between the self and society are very different. Chicago school symbolic interactionism seems to focus on how the self affects society, while Iowa/Indiana school focuses on society’s impact on the self. Chicago school talks about elements that affect the self, but those elements are not in any organization or pattern, while Iowa and Indiana school talks about how powerful social structures can affect the self. Because of that last point, I think that I would say the Iowa and Indiana school best describes the self and society relationship because I think there is more evidence to argue that society affects the self rather than the other way around. I think that various social norms and structures greatly impact how, specifically marginalized communities, view themselves and are treated in society.
LikeLike
-
The Idea of the Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism was greatly influenced by Herbert Blumer and George Mead. They really wanted people to create their own identities through social interaction. They wanted to focus on gaining access to the subjective realities, of the participants that they studied. They had to watch their situational definitions because their own perceptions had to be taken into consideration when they were studying other humans’ social behavior. Iowa/Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism focused even more on its social construction. Iowa/Indiana focused on people’s own self-concepts. This focused on the people’s objective thinking. Iowa/Indian School Symbolic interactionism put a big strain on the correlation between the social roles that each individual had and their satisfaction with their self-concepts. The difference between the schools is the way that they looked at the relationship between self and society. Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism finds the self as a result of continuous social interaction, while Iowa/Indiana focuses on the individual agency. I personally favor the Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism because I feel like social interaction is a much better way to discover the self.
LikeLike
Sociology Of Health and Illness 
Leave a reply to AC Cancel reply