The structural emphasis of IT was developed by Sheldon Stryker (1968, 1980). His model of IT focuses on the external social structure and its impact on identity construction; this is why it is called the
structural approach IT. His primary goal was to build the social structure into symbolic-interactionist
explanations of the self-structure since he believed “selves reflect society, and society is complexly differentiated and yet organised, selves must be completely differentiated and organised too” (Thoits & Virshup, 1997:112). His conceptualisation of IT also deals most directly with identity as an agent of action (Burke & Stets, 2009:61; Stryker, 2008:19). For Stryker, society is composed of enduring patterns of interactions and relationships that are different yet organised; thus individuals live their lives in small networks of social relationships by playing out roles that support their membership in these networks. The interactions and relationships that exist within groups, organisations, communities and institutions are influenced by the larger social structure within which the networks are embedded (Burke & Stets, 2009:45).
As such, Stryker believed that Mead’s (1934) work on taking the role of the other is a ‘frame’ rather than a coherent theory with testable propositions (Stryker, 2008:17) because it lacks demonstration of the structural aspects of interaction (Carter & Fuller, 2015:5). Therefore, Stryker attempted to bridge this gap in his formulation of a role theory of symbolic interactionism (Dolch, 2003:404). What sets Stryker apart is his emphasis on ‘reflexive thinking’ in relation to roles of an individual, where he viewed an individual’s roles as involving both the position that he or she holds (status) and the expectations for behaviour associated with those statuses (Dolch, 2003:403). Stryker (1980) argued that reflexive thinking was an important aspect of role taking for it enabled people to put themselves in another’s place or to view the world as others do through the utilization of symbols.
In this way, role taking is an anticipatory act between people; that is, when taking the role of the other, one organises a definition of other’s attitudes, orientations and future responses which are then (re)shaped and validated during interaction (Stryker, 1980:62). Stryker also believes socialisation is critical in identity formation as it helps people to learn normative behaviour as it relates to role relationships (Carter & Fuller, 2015:5). Stets (2006:89) concurs and states that “to see the overall self, we must envision it as encompassing many different parts or identities, each of which is tied to aspects of the social structure”. Therefore, for Stryker (2000:24) individuals have role identities that are situationally specific; hence they have many different selves which correspond to the different positions they hold in groups (Stets, 2007:89). As such, role identities generally have a large set of meanings which individuals may use to describe what a particular role means to them. This element of Stryker’s structural approach to IT is expected to provide answers to the third subsidiary question: How do internalised meanings of involvement and symbolic identification with NUL influence academic
identity trajectories? The argument here is that irrespective of the content of the chosen role identity, its meanings relate to the meanings implied by one’s behaviour (Burke & Stets, 2009:115). Thus, Stryker (2008:20) views social behaviour is nothing more than taking “role choice” or deciding to meet expectations of one role rather than another. He emphasises the social structural sources of identity and the relations among identities (Stryker & Burke, 2000:10). Consequently his approach argues that identities are not situation specific; instead, they can be carried by people into the many situations that they experience, thereby affecting their conduct in those situations (Stryker, 2008:20).
Besides having multiple identities, Stryker’s IT states that individuals’ identities are ordered in a salience hierarchy or the likelihood that an identity will be invoked in a variety of situations (Stryker, 2008:20). This sentiment is reflected in his concept of identity salience which he developed to incorporate the social structure theoretically (Thoits & Virshup, 1997:112). Stryker (1980) argued that identity salience is a condition of the self, developed from its multifacetedness; thus role choice is the result of identity salience or commitment to an identity which is most important for an individual (Burke & Stets, 2000:12). Stryker defines commitment in terms of the number of social ties or the affective importance of the social ties upon which each identity is predicated” (Thoits & Virshup, 1997:112). For example, an individual’s commitment to the position of an ‘academic’ depends on the importance of that position to him or her and the individuals that require him or her to remain in that position and play that role.
Therefore, identity salience implies that individuals are more likely to define situations that they enter in ways which will make their most significant identity relevant, thus enabling them to enact that identity (Burke & Stets, 2000:12). For Stryker (1980) this aspect of commitment reflects density of ties or the social structure in which an identity is embedded (Burke & Stets, 2000:12). Additionally, since the extent of one’s relationships with others also depends on being a particular kind of person and playing out particular roles, then one is committed to being that kind of person (Stryker, 2008:20) such as a divorcee, rebel or a shy person (Thoits & Virshup, 1997:112). Thus, for Stryker (1980) identities may or may not be confirmed in situationally-based interaction (Burke & Stets, 2000:12).
In this way, Stryker’s view of identities derives from the view that one’s social position allows the ‘types of person possible’ in a given society. His broader conception of identity then encompass not only social roles but socio-demographic characteristics, social types of person and personality traits (although his focus remains on roles) (Thoits & Virshup, 1997:112). This view speaks to Gidden’s (1984) Structuration Theory which seeks to explain the ‘duality of structure’ or the relationship between human agents and the wider social systems and structures which they live in. Here Giddens (1984) argues that structure enters into the constitution of the agent and into the practices that this agent produces. Thus the structure is not only a significant medium of the practices of agents but is equally the outcome of those practices (Stones, 2005:4-5).
To conclude, IT showed that ’identity’ refers to parts of the self which are composed of meanings that people attach to the multiple roles that they typically play in highly differentiated contemporary societies (Stryker & Burke, 2000:284). It also offers three different, yet strongly related, directions to theorising identities (1) interactional perspective, (2) the cognitive perspective and (3) the structural perspective. Firstly, McCall and Simmons’ (1978) interactional emphasis focuses on the cultural expectations tied to social positions in the social structure which actors try to fulfil. Thus they view the construction of an identity as the preferred ‘characters’ that individuals create for themselves as occupants of specific social positions.
Secondly, the perceptual emphasis of IT as developed by Burke (1980) highlights the internal social structure dynamics of IT, based on the identity standard, inputs, comparator and outputs. Thus Burke’s (1980) approach to IT views identities as not only reflexive and symbolic in nature but also as realised through interaction between actors and others. Lastly, Stryker’s (1980) structural emphasis focuses on the external social structure and its impact on identity construction and argues that identities are not situation specific; instead, they can be carried by people into the many situations that they experience, thereby affecting their conduct in those situations (Stryker, 2008:20).