Role Theory free essay sample

Role theory concerns one of the most important features of social life, characteristicbehavior patternsor roles. It explains roles by presumingthat persons are members of social positions and hold expectationsfor their own behaviorsand those of otherpersons. Its vocabularyand concernsare popular and among social scientistsandpractitioners, role conceptshave generateda lot of research. At least five perspectives may be discriminatedin recent work organizational, within the field: functional, symbolic interactionist,structural, andcognitive role theory. Much of role researchreflectspracticalconcernsand derivedconcepts, and researchon four such concepts is reviewed:consensus, conformity, role conflict, and role taking. Recent developmentssuggest both centrifugal and integrative forces within the role field. The former reflect differingperspectivalcommitmentsof scholars,confusions anddisagreements over use of role concepts, andthe fact thatrole theoryis used to analyzevarious forms of social system. The latterreflect the shared,basic concernsof the field and efforts by role theorists to seek a broad version of the field that will accommodatea wide range of interests. INTRODUCTION Role theoryposes an intriguingdilemma. We will write a custom essay sample on Role Theory or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page On the one hand, the conceptof role is one of the most popular ideas in the social sciences. At least 10% of all articles currently published in sociological journals use the term role in a reviews of social technicalsense, chapterson role theoryappearin authoritative psychology, essay volumes on role theory appearregularly, endless applications of role ideas may be found in basic texts for sociology and social 67 0360-0572/86/08 15-0067$02. 00 68 BIDDLE sychology, and role theoryprovides a perspectivefor discussing or studying persistin many social issues. On the otherhand, confusion and malintegration role theory. Authors continue to differ over definitions for the role concept, over assumptionsthey make about roles, and over explanationsfor role phenomena. And formalderivationsfor role propositionshave been hardto find. This dilemma has promptedsome authorsto write damningreviews of role theory. Nevertheless, substantialreasons exist for the popularityof the role concept. Role theory exhibits an agreed-uponset of core ideas, and empirical researchthatuses these ideas flowers. The philosophicalstanceof role theoryis attractiveand useful in efforts to amelioratehuman problems. Role theory offers opportunities to integrate key interests of researchersin sociology, also suggestthatexplanapsychology, and anthropology. Recentcontributions tion in role theory is now becoming more formal. Consequently,the focus of this essay is moreupon synthesisthancriticismof the field. I review ideas basic of to role theory, examinetreatment these ideas in severalperspectivesof social thought, and review empiricalresearchfor key issues in role theory. The essay ends with a discussion of issues and propositionaltheory for the field. BASIC IDEAS AND ORIENTATION of Role theory concerns one of the most importantcharacteristics social behavior-the fact that human beings behave in ways that are different and predictabledependingon theirrespectivesocial identitiesandthe situation. As the term role suggests, the theory began life as a theatrical metaphor. If and performancesin the theaterwere differentiated predictablebecause actors for were constrainedto performparts which scriptswere written, then it seemed reasonableto believe that social behaviorsin othercontexts were also by associatedwith partsand scriptsunderstood social actors. Thus, role theory and may be said to concernitself with a triadof concepts:patterned characteristic social behaviors, partsor identitiesthatare assumedby social participants, and scriptsor expectationsfor behaviorthatare understood all and adhered by to by performers. Confusion entered role theory because its basic theatricalmetaphorwas applied only loosely and because its earliest proponents (Georg Simmel, George HerbertMead, RalphLinton, and JacobMoreno)differedin the ways they used role terms. Unfortunately,these differencespersistin currentliterature. Thus, whereas some authorsuse the term role to refer to characteristic behaviors(Biddle 1979, Burt 1982), othersuse it to designatesocial partsto be played (Winship Mandel 1983), andstill othersoffer definitionsthatfocus on scripts for social conduct (Bates Harvey 1975, Zurcher 1983). Although these differences appearsubstantial,the problemis more terminologicalthan substantive. Agreementpersistsamongrole theoriststhatthe basic concernsof   the orientationare with characteristic behaviors,partsto be played, and scripts for behavior. For convenience, in this essay I shall designate these basic concepts of role theory by the familiar terms of role, social position, and expectation, respectively. Somewhatmoreseriousaredisagreements role theoristsoverthe modality by of expectationspresumablyresponsiblefor roles. Whereasmanyrole theorists assumethatexpectationsare norms(i. e. prescriptivein nature),othersassume them to be beliefs (referringto subjective probability), and still others view them as preferences (or attitudes). Each mode of expectationgeneratesroles for somewhat different reasons, so different versions of role theory result, dependingon the mode of expectationassumed. (LaterI will arguethatall three modes should be retained. ) Even more serious is the retention, in role theory, of concepts whose definitions involve improbable,undetectable,or contradictory conditions. To illustratethis latterproblem, one influentialsourcedefines a role as aparticularset of normsthatis organizedabouta function(Bates Harvey1975: 106). Anotherdescribes role as a comprehensive patternfor behaviorand attitude (Turner1979: 124). And still anotherconceives role as behaviorreferringto normativeexpectationsassociatedwith a position in a social system(Allen van de Vliert 1984a: 3). These definitionsoverlap, but each adds one or more conditionsnot given in the others. This leaves the readerin confusionover how to conceptualize or study events that do not meet these conditions. Are patterned behaviorsthen not roles when they arenot associatedwith a function, not tied to attitudes, or not associated with norms or social positions? Role theory would be betteroff if its majorproponentscould be persuadedto agree upon, or better yet, to eschew, such limiting conditions. Although role theorists differ in the assumptions they build into basic and concepts, they arelargely similarin philosophicorientation in the methods used for theirresearch. Most versions of role theorypresumethatexpectations are the majorgeneratorsof roles, thatexpectationsarelearnedthroughexperience, andthatpersonsare awareof the xpectationsthey hold. This meansthat role theorypresumesa thoughtful,socially awarehumanactor. As a result,role theorists tend to be sympathetic to other orientationsthat presume human awareness-for example, cognitive and field theories in social psychology or in exchange theoryandphenomenologicalapproaches sociology. And because of this sympathy, role theorists also tend to adopt the methods of research prevalent in these orientations,particularlymethods for observing roles and those thatrequireresearchsubjectsto report theirown or others expectations. Given its basic focus, one might assume that empirical research by role theorists would focus on the origins, dynamics, and effects of roles, social positions, and expectations. Surprisingly,this has not been the case. Instead, much of role researchhas concernedpracticalquestionsand derivedconcepts 70 BIDDLE such as role conflict, role taking, role playing, or consensus. The practical concernsof role researchhave been both a blessing anda curse. On the positive side, they have broughtattentionto role theory and funds for needed research efforts. On the negative, they have tendedto expand and confuse the application of role ideas. This has led to widespreadadoptionof the role vocabularyas well as the generation of new concepts that might not have appearedhad researchbeen more focused. But formal developmentof the theory has suffered, and role theoristsoften have workedat cross-purposes. In addition,the fact that role concepts have been employed by scholarsrepresentingseveral differenttheoreticalperspectiveshas meantthat, in the views of some authors, roletheoryis merely an expressionof those perspectives. This has led some reviewersto praise or damnrole theorybecause they approveor disapproveof the perspective with which they associate it-failing to recognize that role concepts are employed for various purposesby other social scientists. These problemsareseriousones, androle theorywill prosperin the futureto theextent that it adopts its own distinctive theoreticalorientation,one that stands apart fromthe theoreticalperspectiveswith which it has been historicallyassociated. As suggested above, interestin role theoryhas appearedin some of the central arenas of sociology and social psychology. Five such perspectives are discriminatedhere. Functional Role Theory The functionalapproach role theorybeganwith the workof Linton(1936) but to was not formalized until the publicationsof Parsons (1951; Parsons Shils 1951). In general, functional role theory has focused on the characteristic behaviorsof personswho occupy social positionswithina stablesocial system. Rolesare conceived as the shared,normativeexpectationsthatprescribeand explain these behaviors. Actors in the social system have presumablybeen taughtthese normsandmay be counteduponto conformto normsfor theirown conduct and to sanction others for conformityto normsapplyingto the latter. Thus, functionalrole theorybecame a vocabularyfor describingthe differentiated partsof stable social systems as well as a vehicle for explaining why those systems are stable and how they induce conformity in participants. A recent work thatrepresentsthe thoughtof functionalrole theoryis the text as by Bates.