Too Close For Comfort: A Social Experiment
Although we like to think that we as individuals are unique in our own ways, we are in fact not that special. A vast majority of society are followers. We conform to certain standards that have subconsciously been instituted. We consider these standards, “the norm.” According to M.I.T University, they define norms as, “Concepts and behaviors that constitute the normal. [...] These often derive from values but also contradict values; sometimes derives from statistical norms but often not.” M.I.T then goes on to suggest that the purpose of norms are to, “serve as both guides and criticisms for individual behavior. Norms establish expectations that shape interaction.” Of course, culture plays …show more content…
According to Mead, “Generalized Other is the term for the collection of roles and attitudes that people use as a reference point for figuring out how to behave in a given situation. “ (Mead, 154-8) Essentially, Mead’s theory proposes the idea that people tend to automatically assume the roles they subconsciously give themselves in social contexts. Sociologist Angus Vail further explains this phenomenon by stating, “People develop these capacities in the process of interacting with one another, sharing meaningful symbols, and developing and using language to create, refine, and assign meanings to social objects (including themselves).” (Vail, n.p) Adding to this theory, Mead suggests that in order for it to work, people have to develop a sense for these norms in order for it to be predictable. Henceforth, there is variation between different cultures and their predicted reactions to social deviations. By applying Mead’s theory, we can argue that the “stage” in this experiment allowed us to predict most of the responses the subjects had. We have developed this norm that if you are in the busy streets of San Francisco during rush hour, a breach in personal space is not necessarily the biggest of deals. We as a society has denoted that “causing a scene” is not a norm. Therefore, when a subject had an issue with the break in privacy, they took the initiative to …show more content…
Inferring Mead’s theory, I was allowed to understand how people tend to “correct” themselves in society when a deviance affects them. More so, this experiment confirmed my notions regarding structure and conformity; that of which society tends to praise conformity and question deviances. Deviances, even tiny ones like walking too closely behind, cause us to feel a little wary. We do not favor the idea of someone “not playing their role.” When we aberrate from what is expected, society is quick to change in order to go back to what was/is the norm. When we conform, we feel a sense of comfort and familiarity. By applying the theory of Generalized Other, we allow ourselves to subconsciously feel
Although we like to think that we as individuals are unique in our own ways, we are in fact not that special. A vast majority of society are followers. We conform to certain standards that have subconsciously been instituted. We consider these standards, “the norm.” According to M.I.T University, they define norms as, “Concepts and behaviors that constitute the normal. [...] These often derive from values but also contradict values; sometimes derives from statistical norms but often not.” M.I.T then goes on to suggest that the purpose of norms are to, “serve as both guides and criticisms for individual behavior. Norms establish expectations that shape interaction.” Of course, culture plays …show more content…
According to Mead, “Generalized Other is the term for the collection of roles and attitudes that people use as a reference point for figuring out how to behave in a given situation. “ (Mead, 154-8) Essentially, Mead’s theory proposes the idea that people tend to automatically assume the roles they subconsciously give themselves in social contexts. Sociologist Angus Vail further explains this phenomenon by stating, “People develop these capacities in the process of interacting with one another, sharing meaningful symbols, and developing and using language to create, refine, and assign meanings to social objects (including themselves).” (Vail, n.p) Adding to this theory, Mead suggests that in order for it to work, people have to develop a sense for these norms in order for it to be predictable. Henceforth, there is variation between different cultures and their predicted reactions to social deviations. By applying Mead’s theory, we can argue that the “stage” in this experiment allowed us to predict most of the responses the subjects had. We have developed this norm that if you are in the busy streets of San Francisco during rush hour, a breach in personal space is not necessarily the biggest of deals. We as a society has denoted that “causing a scene” is not a norm. Therefore, when a subject had an issue with the break in privacy, they took the initiative to …show more content…
Inferring Mead’s theory, I was allowed to understand how people tend to “correct” themselves in society when a deviance affects them. More so, this experiment confirmed my notions regarding structure and conformity; that of which society tends to praise conformity and question deviances. Deviances, even tiny ones like walking too closely behind, cause us to feel a little wary. We do not favor the idea of someone “not playing their role.” When we aberrate from what is expected, society is quick to change in order to go back to what was/is the norm. When we conform, we feel a sense of comfort and familiarity. By applying the theory of Generalized Other, we allow ourselves to subconsciously feel