Читать книгу Sociology - Anthony Giddens - Страница 52

Weber’s social action approach inspired many ‘interactionist’ forms of sociology. One of the most influential has been symbolic interactionism, which also owes much to the American social philosopher George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). Symbolic interactionism springs from a concern with language and meaning. Mead argues that language allows us to become self-conscious beings – aware of our own individuality and able to see ourselves ‘as others see us’. The key element in this process is the symbol. A symbol is something that stands for something else. For example, words that refer to objects are symbols which represent what we mean. The word ‘spoon’ is a symbol we use to describe the utensil that we use to consume soup. Non-verbal gestures and forms of communication are also symbols. Waving at someone or making a rude gesture both have symbolic value.

Symbolic interactionism directs our attention to the details of interpersonal interaction and how that detail is used to make sense of what others say and do. Sociologists influenced by symbolic interactionism often focus on face-to-face interactions in the context of everyday life. They stress the role interactions play in creating society and its institutions. Max Weber was an important indirect influence on this theoretical approach because, although he acknowledged the existence of social structures, he held that these were created through the actions of individuals.

While the symbolic interactionist perspective has yielded many insights into the nature of our actions in the course of day-to-day social life, it has been criticized for ignoring the larger issues of power and social structure and how these serve to constrain individual action. However, one very good example of interactionism that does take into account such issues is Arlie Hochschild’s (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Hochschild observed training sessions and carried out interviews at Delta Airlines’ Stewardess Training Centre in Atlanta, USA. She watched flight attendants being trained to manage their feelings as well as learning other skills. Hochschild (2012 [1983]: 4) recalled the comments of one instructor, a pilot: ‘Now girls, I want you to go out there and really smile’, he instructed. ‘Your smile is your biggest asset. I want you to go out there and use it. Smile. Really smile. Really lay it on.’

Hochschild’s research found that, as Western economies have become increasingly based on the delivery of services, the emotional style of the work we do needs to be understood. Her study of ‘customer service’ training might be familiar to anyone who has worked in fast food restaurants, shops or bars. Hochschild calls this training a form of ‘emotional labour’ – labour that requires the management of feelings in order to create a publicly observable and acceptable facial and bodily display. According to Hochschild, companies providing services increasingly lay claim not only to workers’ physical activity but also to their presentation of emotions.

In many service industries, workers’ skills extend to the continuous management of their public display of emotions, which can be as exhausting as other forms of work.

This research considered an aspect of life that most people took for granted and showed that sociology could deepen our understanding of it. Hochschild found that service workers – like physical labourers – often feel a sense of distance or alienation from the particular aspect of themselves that is given up in work. The physical labourer’s arm, for example, might come to feel like a piece of machinery and only incidentally a part of the person moving it. Likewise, service workers often told Hochschild that their smiles were on them but not of them. In other words, they felt distanced from their own emotions. Hochschild’s book is an influential application of symbolic interactionism, and many other scholars have built on her ideas to expand the interactionist tradition.