Traditional symbolic interactionism provides micro-level theory that asserts that
individuals behave based on their definition of the situation. Meanings are central to situational symbolic interactionism, as envisioned by Blumer(1969), in that people interpret each other’s actions and base their actions on the meanings that they attach to each aspect (i.e., objects, themselves, and others) of a given situation. Situations, or interactions involving an exchange of symbols (e.g., language, body language), are the source of meanings. That is, meanings are developed through interaction. Meanings result from an interpretive process in which perceptions that define the interaction determine how the interaction is managed by the individual.
Boomer professionals in today’s workplace face many new situations, or interactions, that they must interpret and manage. Work arrangements, such as contingent labor, in the
restructured workplace consist of a collective set of interactions, forming a situation that must be navigated by today’s worker based on interpreted meanings. Meanings that they associate with the restructured workplace, their identity within the workplace, and how they behave in their particular work situation are keys to understanding how older workers are responding to economic and workplace restructuring. Examining restructuring within the symbolic interactionist paradigm provides this focus on meanings, providing a useful perspective for investigating my research questions.
In addition to a focus on meanings, the situational approach of symbolic-interactionism, provides an emphasis on individual agency and connecting social organization with individual behavior (Reitzes and Mutran 2002; Stets 2006). However, situational symbolic interactionism is limited in its conception of structure, an important aspect of my research. As Stets (2006: 88)
notes, “From [the situational] perspective, individuals are free to define the situation in any way they wish with the consequence that society is always thought to be in a state of flux with no real organization or structure.” Because restructuring generates structure at multiple levels, the effects of higher order types of structure must be included. The macro-level forces associated with economic restructuring, in particular, transcend social interactions and need to be
understood as the product of the broader global and U.S. economy as well as economic, political, and business institutions and organizations. The macro-level forces affecting individual workers, that I want to account for, seem to originate beyond the scope of situational symbolic
interactions.
Structural Symbolic Interactionism
Stryker (1980: 53-55) addressed these limitations of situational symbolic interactionism when he combined aspects of role theory and symbolic interactionism to theorize a structural version of symbolic interactionism. The key points of his framework are as follows:
1. Through symbolic interactions, we learn how to classify the physical and social world and how we are expected to act toward the things to which we attach meaning.
2. One of the things we learn to classify is socially legitimated positions that a person can hold (e.g., worker, spouse, thief, nurse, old man). The shared behavioral expectations associated with positions constitute roles.
3. We categorize or name people who act according to these legitimated positions based on the roles they occupy. In the process of naming people as role occupants we invoke social structural expectations for their behavior.
4. We also reflexively identify our own role positions and, by doing so, internalize expectations for our own behavior.
5. When entering social interactions, we attach meaning to the situation, the people in the situation and the characteristics of the situation and organize our behavior based on our expectations.
6. The act of defining situations causes us to invoke a role-taking process, internalizing social expectations for our behavior in the situation. Role-taking involves adopting the expectations for the role positions that are relevant to the situation.
7. Role-taking depends on the larger social structures in which the interaction is embedded. It is through roles and role-taking that social structure effects the boundaries imposed on the situation.
8. As role-taking enables structural boundaries on the situation, it is part of a reciprocal relationship in which unconstrained behavior in the situation can affect social structure. This part of the process, role-making, accounts for individual agency in cases where we personalize roles that we have internalized.
Identity Formation
In Figure 3.1, I present my interpretation of identity formation and evolution as conceived by Stryker (1980). Beginning on the left-hand side, structure is depicted as a multi- level phenomenon. Roles are shown as a product of social structure that interact with situations. Identity is formed through a combination of role and situational processes. These processes are fluid with structure in a constant state of flux, influencing changing roles and new situations to create a dynamic set of identities.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the primary process, but note that identities are generally associated with specific roles and that self is the culmination of all of an individual’s role identities. Further, the process is not completely uni-directional; it also operates in reverse to some extent. Identity
affects roles and situations and structure is modified by changing role/situations. Nonetheless, this depiction is useful for conceptualizing how an identity as a worker is formed within the constraints of structure associated with restructuring. Work roles and workplace situations must both be explored to understand identity meanings as a mediator of behavioral meanings and to relate restructuring to behavior in workplace arrangements.
For example, to understand how workers see themselves in a traditional work
arrangement requires an understanding of how they perceive their role as workers as well as how they interpret specific work situations. A man might place a high importance on his role as a breadwinner, which would be understood in terms of his worker role. In a specific situation, he might not accept an opportunity to earn extra income because he perceives the situation as ethically risky. His behavior does not conform to his work role in every situation; an important distinction in analyzing worker behavior.
Hierarchical Structure
Styrker’s (1980) framework explains the influence of social structure on interactions while also allowing for individual agency to enter the equation. The left hand side of Figure 3.1 shows the levels at which social structure emerges, depicted on four levels, from the macro- to the micro-level, as conceived in Stryker’s framework. First, at the most abstract, macro-level, are structural elements of society such as class, race and ethnicity, and age. These aspects of society constrain the types of social interactions that we are likely to engage in. For example, an older worker with a bachelor’s degree from a state university is likely to interact with different people than a recent graduate with a Harvard MBA. Second, on a slightly smaller scale, structure emerges from our institutions, such as government, the economy, and religion. Third,
church are formed within the structural constraints of the broader institutions. The organizations that are likely settings for our interactions are products of structure that constrain the meanings that we attach to situations. Fourth, at the micro-level are smaller groups and individuals with whom we engage in symbolic interactions.
To a large extent, the micro-level is embedded in broader forms of structure. However, we also generate structure in our symbolic interactions. As we develop shared meanings as the result of social interaction, those shared meanings refine our expectations for individuals,
objects, ourselves, and future situations. Individuals generate the very structure in which they are situated and constrained by. Stets (2006: 88) summarizes that “At the same time that individuals are creating social structure; they also are receiving feedback from the structures they and others build to change themselves and the way they operate. Thus persons are always embedded in the very social structure that is, simultaneously, being created by those persons.”
The effect of structure on the individual occurs in the way that we define the situations that we enter as well as by constraining the types and qualities of the interactions that we take part in. Our interactions may vary in their situational context from one situation to another. However, our definition of the situation also reflects more generalized expectations that are the product of higher order structure. Stryker conceptualizes these higher level expectations as roles, the expectations that society forms based on a person’s social position. For example, a medical doctor behaves in symbolic interactions according to both his role as a doctor and his definition of the particular situation that he enters. Others’ expectations of the doctor are both situational and positional based on his role. Stryker (1980: 53) works to provide a theoretical framework that “bridge[s] social structure and person, [being] able to move from the level of the person to that of large scale social structure and back again.”
The left-hand side of Figure 3.1 illustrates the levels at which structure emerges in relation to the individual worker. Constraints that are directly applicable to my research develop at the highest level in that economic conditions affect the workplace and consequently the
worker. This corresponds to the process of economic and workplace restructuring, where abstract economic changes have a cascading effect on industry responses to the change, pan-industrial strategies emerge causing organizational tactics to be adopted that result in general patterns of workplace change. Social structure develops along those same lines. Economic structure
constrains organizations. Organizational responses add additional structural constraints, which in turn affect and initiate new department and work group structure. For example, an increase in oil prices by OPEC raises operating expenses in various industries, placing constraints on quarterly financial performance. Strategies emerge to reduce other expenses to “soften the blow,” placing pressure on individual companies to cut expenses. Tactics emerge such as limiting travel and holding more conference calls. The individual worker now must work within the constraints of an economy with higher oil prices, an increased sensitivity to all types of operating expenses, pressure to cut specific travel expenses, and an altered labor process that involves less face-to- face contact with clients and more conference calls. Structural constraints emerge at various levels and tend to accumulate more limitations as constraints cascade from the macro- to the micro-level.
Further, the structural constraints that emerge at the higher levels, the societal/cultural levels, which include economies, industries, companies, and work organizations, impose limits primarily on individuals’ behavior within their position as a worker. At the situational level, the structure inherent in a person’s role as a worker is present and influential, but other
also have an effect. Continuing the example of an oil price increase, one worker who is also a mother might choose to conduct conference calls from home if she perceives others in her work group will find that to be acceptable behavior. Another mother might forego this convenience because she thinks that her supervisor will not approve. Situational structure, then, differs from higher-order structure. Stryker (1980) applied the concept of roles to conceptualize the effect of higher-order structure constraining one’s position, or role, in society, thus differentiating
structural symbolic interactionism from traditional situational symbol interactionism. Figure 3.1 captures this difference by showing the effect of higher-order structure on roles and that of micro-level interactions on situations.
LaRossa and Reitzes (1993: 147) define roles as “shared norms applied to the occupants of social positions.”In the broadest sense, roles are socially defined as the shared meanings associated with a given position in society (Stryker 1980: 54; Stryker and Burke 2000; Turner 1962). For example, the role of worker has expectations of arriving at work according to a prescribed schedule. This expectation reflects the structure necessary for a modern industrial economy to operate (i.e., a shared system of standardized time). It also reflects the structure imposed by the worker’s company, that is the requirement to have workers on the job at scheduled times, and groups of workers at the same times, based on the work to be
accomplished. These are generalized positional expectations of someone in the role of worker that reflect structure that emerges at multiple levels. LaRossa and Reitzes (1993: 147) label roles of this type, those that “refer to social organizations, groups, or institutions” as formal roles.
In addition, there are situational expectations, and associated situational structure, that have developed through interactions in which shared meanings emerged for being on time for work. An interaction with a coworker might have alluded to a dependence on one another to
work on a project at the start of work tomorrow or a discussion with the boss may have conveyed the importance of timeliness. This is an example of an informal role in LaRossa’s and Reitzes (1993: 147) classification, referring to “an interactional or interpersonal position.” Both the worker role and the situational role, the formal and informal roles, must be considered to understand the relevant expectations that constrain a worker’s behavior.
Role-Taking and Role-Making
Roles originate as a product of social structure as advanced by Stryker’s (1980) structural symbolic interactionism. He builds on Turner’s (1962) notion of role acquisition, specifically Turner’s idea of “role-taking” to conceptualize how individuals internalize social structure. Roles are acquired by role-taking, where individuals learn and apply the expectations of the positions that they assume. LaRossa and Reitzes (1993: 148) assert that “Role taking enables a person to identify the regularities that unite occupants of a role and to align role behaviors with the role meanings held by others.” Role-taking is largely an external process of internalizing roles and role expectations.
Turner (1962) also suggests that there is a second part of the role acquisition process, role-making. Similarly, Burke and Reitzes (1981: 315) point out that learning roles involves an additional process beyond the “identification of” roles, individuals also engage in a process of “identification with” roles. In addition to being external and objective, roles are internal and subjective in that they are invested with individual meanings, values, and motives. In role- making individuals actively negotiate the roles that they occupy (Reitzes and Mutran 2002) by adapting the role to their individual situations. They personalize the roles that they take, “actively shap[ing] and infus[ing] roles with intrinsic, subjective, and self meanings” (Reitzes and Mutran 1994: 315; Turner 1956). Role-making, although constrained, provides a way of explaining
human agency as a secondary force in defining roles. While largely structural, roles may also involve a degree of agency. Aging and restructuring can be conceived as largely defining the structural roles that individuals internalize, yet, to a varying degree, individuals modify their roles to bring their situations in line with their goals and internal values (Burke 2004; Tsushima and Burke 1999). Figure 3.1 depicts roles as consisting of both role-taking and role-making. Role-taking is shown schematically at a higher level to connote the broader influence of society while role-making is lower-order in the sense that more individuality is involved.
If an individual enters the workforce, she takes on the role of worker, based primarily on expectations of the position, through a process of role-taking. She may personalize her work role via role-making, but still is likely to rely on social expectations as guidelines for acceptable forms of individualization. She behaves in her role according to the processes of role-taking and role-making. These processes are primarily structural in the sense that behavior is patterned and highly constrained. However, role-making can also include individual agency. For example, someone once chose to wear jeans to work instead of a suit, before it was acceptable behavior, exhibiting agency. This practice caught on, casual Friday’s became commonplace, and
contemporary work culture was altered. Today, personalizing a work role with casual attire is more often a process of role-taking than role-making. Nonetheless, agency is possible and it emerges, conceptually, from the micro-level notion of identity (Mead 1934; Reitzes and Mutran 2002; Stryker 1980; Turner 1962; Tsushima and Burke 1999).
Role Identities (Self)
Through identity processes, individual workers have some say in how restructuring shapes the work role and some say in how aging affects their behavior. For example, a consequence of extensive downsizing is that the remaining employees, those not downsized,
need to work longer hours in order for the business to continue to function. Individual
motivations for working more include a desire for their company to be sufficiently successful to continue to keep them employed. Fear of further downsizing also plays a part. Employers and employees devise ways to make the longer hours more palatable, such as by offering flexible work hours or allowing work to be done from home. Today’s restructured workplace involves longer hours, flex-time, and telecommuting that have been negotiated, albeit primarily through structural forces, but also influenced by individual agency. Similarly with aging, chronological age and age identity are quite different (Logan et al. 1992). Some 50 year old people think and behave like much younger persons while others feel much older. Structural forces constrain age appropriate behavior, but individual agency allows people to deviate from social expectations and ultimately to alter those expectations. A classic sociological interplay of structure and agency may be taking place in today’s workplace, altering age identity and the labor process as workers struggle to adapt structurally defined work and age roles to their individual standards (Tsushima and Burke 1999).
Roles are fluid and dynamic, evolving over time and throughout the life course (Reitzes and Mutran 2002). They are constrained by structure, but are “porous and flexible boundaries,” changing with formal and informal structure and individual agency as well as being influenced by other roles (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993: 147; Rosenberg 1979). Roles provide a construct to envision how structure, at various levels of abstraction, determines the way that individuals perceive the expectations of social positions that they assume. Such a construct is key to
understanding the relationship between society and individual behavior. Roles, however, do not directly determine or constrain individual behavior. Behavior, from a sociological social
roles. Situations are contextualized with roles (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). Societies influence on individual behavior, operating through roles and situational interactions, however, is mediated by the individual’s sense of self, their identity. Stryker (1980: 289) clarifies this distinction between role and identity, asserting that the term role identity “implies a duality. Role is
external; it is linked to social positions within the social structure. Identity is internal, consisting of internalized meanings and expectations associated with a role.” Identity forms, and evolves, in