| Social Psychology |
The social sciences are dedicated to understanding the human condition, ideally
to the extent that the singular and collective behaviors of human beings can be
understood and even predicted. Though their goals are identical in the abstract,
these "sciences" differ in terms of their way of looking at things, the
questions they ask, the methods they use in addressing these questions, and what
they do with this information once they obtain it.
Amid this multitude of social science disciplines is social psychology which, as
can be inferred from its label, involves the ways in which both social and
mental processes determine action. What, precisely, this means research-wise,
however, remains a matter of historic debate both between and within the
disciplines of psychology and sociology. What weight is to be given to the
social, the psychological, and the interaction between the two? What does the
interaction between psychological and sociological processes even mean?
In approaching the problem of why some people do certain things, psychologists (see
Wesleyan's Social Psychology Network) are inclined to give greater attention to
the bearing of thought processes, personality characteristics, and their changes
across the life-cycle. The closed, stereotypic thinking of authoritarians, for
instance, make them more likely to be prejudiced and to join extreme right-wing
political groups.
Sociologists, on the other hand, being more interested in understanding the
relationships between group structures and processes (typologizing groups much
like psychologists classify selves as the first step toward predicting their
activities), are inclined to give greater attention to the social settings and
individuals' roles therewithin. As opposed to psychology's atomization of the
human condition, focusing on the self and its inner workings, sociologists'
attention is directed toward human connections. Connectedness with others is an
overarching personal drive, and the bonds produced comprise the social fabric of
interrelationships. The strength of this social fabric is determined by the
multiplicity and quality of connections individuals and groups (both large and
small) have with each other. Further, from this sociological perspective of the
human condition, these groups have dynamics of their own (often distinct from
members' intentions and desires) that cannot be reduced down to the psychology
of individuals. Like differing board games, these social orders have their own
rules, roles, styles of play, traditions, cultures, and rates of change over
time. Change the "game" and you change the style of thinking, the language,
motivations, activities, alliances, and identities of the players.
It is for these reasons that sociologically-inclined social psychologists are
more likely to examine how individuals' perceptions, belief systems, moralities,
identities, and behaviors are determined by their positions in social space:
the culture of their primary socializations;
the slice of social history intersecting their biographies, such as coming of
age during a time of depression or war;
their locations within the stratification orders of gender, age, race, and
social class;
their roles within the institutional orders of religion, work, community, and
family;
the geographic context of their childhoods, such as region of the country or the
size of cities wherein they lived;
and their memberships in and relative identifications with various social groups.
For other illustrations, check out Miami University's News from a Social
Psychological Perspective, Alan Reifman's SPIDER (Social Psychology of
Information Diffusion -Educational Resources), Psych-Net UK, Jon Mueller's
Resources for the Teaching of Social Psychology, and the online resources from
the Social Science Information Gateway.
Not surprisingly, evolving in this hybrid discipline is a perspective that more
explicitly focuses on the interactions between the sociological and the
psychological, producing new connections and new questions. Change the social
connections and you change the essence of the self and its cognitive, emotive,
and bonding capacities. Change the way social reality is psychologically parsed
and processed and you ultimately change the nature and course of group dynamics.
For instance, what kind of personality type might come to predominate in a
capitalistic, secular, gerontophobic, death-denying, sex- obsessed culture where
the young are socialized in single-parent families, with sports stars as role
models, and whose lessons of adult life primarily come from commercially-based
electronic messages? This emergent perspective integrates developments in such
related social sciences as anthropology, linguistics, economics, political
science, religion, history, communication studies, and sociobiology. These
interactions are the subject of a text that I co-authored with Chad Gordon,
Social Psychology: Shaping Identity, Thought, and Conduct (Allyn and Bacon,
1993). Though this page was created as a companion piece for this work, its
links should complement most social psychology courses.
http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/socpsy.html