DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE: SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM

Introduction

This chapter proceeds with establishing the rationale for the choice of social interactionism perspective as the analytical tool for this study. It delineates the perspective, which process will involve four aspects. The first, traces its historical development that will lead to the identification of the analytical concepts or notions which, with their heuristic properties shall offer the needed lens to explore Jesus’ interactions in Mark. To this end, social interactional analytical perspective espoused by Erving Goffman which includes ritual making, social ritualization, people processing encounters, characterisation, frame making, and stage making (dramaturgy) will be outlined. In addition, George Herbert Mead’s role-taking (self- interaction) will also be delineated as a credible social interactional analytical tool. The second, involves a further articulation and delineation of the perspective which shall bring into focus the coagulation of Goffman’s social interactional analytical tools and Mead’s role-taking. The third, comprises the coagulation of social interactionism perspective and the Ghanaian traditional notion of leadership will be discussed with a view to establish them as plausible fused analytical tools. The fourth, consists of the summary of the key tenets of the social interactionism perspective, and provides an evaluation of social interactionism as a credible and relevant analytical tool for the study.

Rationale for the use of Social Interactionism Perspective

Social interactionism (symbolic interactionism) is develoved here as a theoretical perspective to re-imagine Jesus’ social interactions in Mark’s Gospel, with a view to glean his modelled leadership principles for good practices in Ghana. Social interactionism is being used with a sense of an African understanding of leadership. There are two challenges to this hypothesis,first, how do we re-look at Jesus when memory only exists to us through the memory of the first century church? Second, which performance of Jesus, given that we have three, if not four varieties of memory performances (the Gospels)? We draw on Oakman’s (2008:125) view to respond to the first challenge. He maintains that “one of the methods employed for getting past socially anachronistic interpretations of the gospel tradition has been the use of the rich body of knowledge, models, and theory that the social sciences have to offer”. The use of such social science oriented informed biblical approaches and perspectives have attracted sharp critique1 though it has much more positive responses. Malina makes an important point that biblical exegesis has always been multidisciplinary, so Social Science informed approaches are not novel venture and are not deviating from common practice. The advent of critical biblical investigation in the eighteenth century came with the need for historical biblical scholars to master a range of disciplines like proficiency in ancient (at least Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin) and modern languages like German, literary theory (ancient, medieval and modern), theology (ancient, medieval and modern) and philosophy (ancient, medieval and modern) as part of their toolkit of their craft. The essence of all these was to ensure that historically oriented biblical interpretation discovers what the ancient biblical document (the Bible) meant to its original audience. This same purpose give impetus for social science informed perspectives of hermeneutics. This endeavour is even more embolden given that it has been established that biblical interpretation, indeed, is a form of cross-cultural study. The interpretation of Social interaction involves large number of behaviours, to the extent that it is usually divided into five categories: exchange, competition, cooperation, conflict, and coercion. Social interaction can be analysed between groups of two (dyads), three (triads) or larger social groups. A place to start is looking at how the early Christian communities performed the Jesus narrative and how such performances were dramatized as paradigm of social interaction. Such analysis involves the bodily movement, gestures, words, actions and other interactional practices; those of the Markan Gospel for that matter Jesus, are situated in that large first century socio-cultural milieu.

Development and History of Social Interactionism

Social Interactionism is a sociological perspective often referred to as symbolic interactionism yet symbolic interactionism is only an aspect of it. The term social interactionism was coined by Herbert Blumer to indicate analysis of social interaction. It is believed to have roots in the American philosophical tradition of pragmatism in the late 19th century, advanced by William James, John Dewey, and Charles S. Peirce. It became a prominent theoretical perspective in American sociology during the 1960s as a contrast to Functionalism Perspective. Intellectually, Social Interactionism has its foundation in the works of George Simmel, Robert Park, William Isaac Thomas, Charles Horton Cooley, John Dewey, and George Herbert Mead, and Max Weber (Wallace & Wolf 2005:199). Others include Robert E. Park, William James, Florian Znaniecki, James Mark Baldwin, Robert Redfield, and Louis Wirth (Blumer 1969:1). However, its greatest advocates have been United States sociologists George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, with Erving Goffman, a Canadian, as its primary practitioner (Wallace & Wolf 2005:198). This perspective examines meaning, action, and interaction at the micro level, and was developed by the works of Mead on “Self”, “Self-interaction”, “the Development of Self”, and “Symbolic Meaning” which set the foundation for this perspective (Wallace & Wolf 2005:204). Symbols contain information or concepts that the individual in interaction intends to convey, or does convey to interactional participants.Blumer (1969) continued with his work on interpretation; dealing with structure, process, and methodology of symbolic interactionism. Goffman’s ‘ritual making’ frame making and “stage making” advance the perspective further. The work of Arlie Russell Hochschild Smith has expanded the horizon of social interactionism; her research on Sociology of emotions introduced a new micro-level perspective. Similarly, Patricia Hill Collins use of self-definition to analyse race, class, and gender as they affect African-American women has brought another dimension. The Social Interactionism Perspective methodologically, has broadened to include contextualised discourse analysis, ethnographic observation, enthnomethodologies, content analysis, textual analysis, performance studies, and autoethnography. Interactionism has also become a more prominent perspective in a diverse array of disciplines.In his work, A Theory of Social Interaction, Turner (1988) took the approach of synthesising all the aspects of the social interactionism. He maintains that Social interaction is the most basic unit of sociological analysis (Turner 1988:14). Social Interaction involves conceptualisation of interaction unit acts as the most basic elements of sociological analysis. Sociological analysis develops abstract laws and models that explain the operative dynamics of human interaction. Turner argues that social interaction is a series of processes, each of which requires separate theoretical principles. However, earlier theories about social interaction have tended to be universal as one scheme is often proposed for all aspects of this process. For example, Parson’s action theory (Parsons, 1951) analysed social interaction as static typologies of interaction, in this sense avoiding the detailed analysis of its constituent parts. Other theories have seen social interaction in terms of process, whether it is exchange (Homans 1961), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967), symbolic interaction (Blumer 1969), stage making (dramaturgy) (Goffman 1959), or interaction rituals (Collins 1986). Turner (1988:15) notes that these approaches do conceptualize a variety of processes, but these processes are rarely viewed as separate topics of theorizing. Consequently, social interaction often denotes as a unitary phenomenon. On the contrary, Turner (1988:15) maintains that social interaction should be viewed as involving three separate but interrelated aspects: motivational, interactional process, and structuring. He opines that if these aspects are collapsed together into one process, our understanding of social interaction is reduced.The motivational aspect implies the varying degrees and in diverse ways, how individuals are energized and mobilized in their interactions with others (Turner 1988:15). The fact is, individuals are either willing, or unwilling, to put in energy in their dealings with each other hence the varying intensity of individual’s interaction with others. What accounts for the difference is the motivation. By interactional processes, Turner (1988:15-16) meant, what people actually do when they influence each other’s behaviour, involving the controlled operation of humans’ behavioural capacities. These capacities involve gesturing a course of behaviour and, at the same time, interpreting both one’s own behavioural signals and those of others. To buttress his view, he argues, for instance, exchange theory in both its behaviourist (Homans 1961) and utilitarian (Coleman 1972) forms is a theory of motivation, telling us why individuals mobilize varying degrees of energy in an interactional situation. Symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1969) is primarily a theory of interactional processes. To the extent that one views social interaction only in exchange-theory or symbolic interaction terms means a theory of motivation or interaction process will be imposed upon other critical processes (Turner 1988:16). The structuring aspect of social interaction refers to the fact that social interactions are often repeated across time as well as organized in physical space. How and why social interactions become structured need to be explored on its own (Turner 1988:16).The interrelationship between motivational, interactional, and structuring processes is obvious. The manner in which people signal and interpret are related to their motivational energies. In turn, motivation is limited by prevailing structural arrangements as well as by the course of signalling and interpreting; and the structure of an interaction is very much determined by the motivational profiles of individuals as these affect their signalling and interpreting activities (Turner 1988:16). Analytical models as they are known, are highly abstract but represents general classes of variables and their causal relations. Accordingly, Turner (1988:17) argues that each of the three constituent processes of social interaction: motivational, interactional, structuring should have its clearly constructed model delineating the relevant classes of variables and their most important causal relations. Such models could provide a picture of processes of how variables influence each other across time and space while giving a view of complex causal processes.Flowing from Turner’s argument this study finds it plausible employing the notions of Goffman’s ritual making, characterisation, frame making and stage making, along with Mead’s role-taking to observe and analyse Jesus’ performances the interactional processes, motivation and interactional structure in the selected passages (Mark 6:30-44; 7:1-23; 7:24-20; 10:35-40;and 15:1-20) in the Gospel of Mark. The delineation of the ideas contained in three aspects of the Social Interactionism Perspective provides a plausible heuristic lens with which to observe Jesus and glean his leadership principles and practices as underpinned his interactional approach.

Notions of Social Interactionism

Social Interactionism like any other perspective consist of different notions with which social phenomenona are analysed. The strand of social interactionism as a perspective for analysing social interaction carefully selected for this study as advanced by Goffman and Mead are delineated below

SUMMARY
DECLARATION
KEY TERMS
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CHAPTER ONE 
INTRODUCTION
1. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
1.3 HYPOTHESIS
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION
1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.5.1 Leadership
1.5.2 Good Leadership
1.5.3 Social Interaction
1.6 SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM PERSPECTIVE
1.6.1 How Social Interactionism will be Applied to the Markan Narratives
1.7 HOW THE PASSAGES WILL BE OBSERVED OR ANALYSED
1.8 JESUS’ LEADERSHIP AS UNDERSTOOD
1.8.1 John C. Hutchison: Servant-Leadership
1.8.2 Randall Collins: Jesus as a Charismatic Leader
1.8.3 Max Weber: Jesus as Charismatic leader
1.8.4 Malina: Jesus as Reputational Leader
1.8.5 Gager: Jesus an Interactionist Charismatic Leader
1.9 AFRICAN LEADERSHIP PARADIGM OR NOTION
1.9.1 Africa’s Leadership Challenges Today
1.10 GHANAIAN TRADITIONAL NOTION OF LEADERSHIP
1.11 SUMMARY
CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE: SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM
2.2 NOTIONS OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM
2.2.1 Erving Goffman’s Social Interactional Analytical Perspective
2.2.1.1 Ritual Making (Social Ritualization)
2.2.1.2 People Processing Encounters
2.2.1.3 Characterisation
2.2.1.4 Frame Making
2.2.1.5 Stage Making (Dramaturgy)
2.2.2 George Herbert Mead’s Role-Taking (Self-Interaction)
2.3 SUMMARY OF THE MAIN TENETS OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM
2.4 COAGULATION OF GOFFMAN’S SOCIAL INTERACTIONAL ANALYTICAL TOOLS AND MEAD’S ROLETAKING/SELF-INTERACTION
2.5 EVALUATION OF THE SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM AS AN ANALYTICAL TOOL
2.6 SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM UNDER CRITICAL REVIEW
2.7 SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM COAGULATION WITH GHANAIAN TRADITIONAL NOTION OF LEADERSHIP
2.8 SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE THE MARKAN SETTINGS
3. INTRODUCTION
3.1 HISTORICAL SETTING OF MARK
3.1.1 Authorship
3.1.1.1 External Evidence: Traditional View of Authorship
3.1.1.2 Internal Evidence
3.1.2 Date of Composition
3.1.3 Place of Composition
3.1.3.1 Galilee
3.1.3.2 Antioch
3.1.3.3 Rural and Small Town in Southern Syria
3.1.4 The Markan Community
3.2 THE LITERARY CONTEXT OF MARK 
3.2.1 Orality of Mark
3.2.2 Source Criticism
3.2.3 Form Criticism
3.2.4 Redaction Criticism
3.2.5 Social Scientific Criticism
3.3 SOCIAL SETTING AND SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT OF MARK
3.3.1 Interactional Persons and Groups in Mark
3.3.1.1 The Urban Elite
3.1.1.2 Retainers
3.3.1.3 Urban Non-elite
3.3.1.4 Degraded, Unclean, and Expendables
3.1.1.5 The Rural Peasants and Other Villagers.
3.3.3 Interactional Models of the Markan Social World.
3.3.3.1 Honour and Shame
3.3.3.2 Patronage and Clientism
3.3.4 Social Values that Governed Social Interactions in the Markan Social Context
3.3.4.1 Family Centeredness
3.3.4.2 Dyadism
3.3.4.3 Communicativenes-
3.3.4.4 Power
3.3.4.5 Service
3.3.4.6 Hospitality
3.3.4.7 Domination
3.3.4.8 Purity
3.3.4.9 Humility
3.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4 JESUS’ SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN MARK
4. INTRODUCTION
4.1 SOCIAL INTERACTIONS OF JESUS WITHIN THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK
4.1.1 Analysis of the Interactional Table
4. 2 LITERARY STRUCTURE OF MARK
4. 3 SOCIAL INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS OF MARK
4.3.1 The Literary Context
4.3.2 Social Interactional Observation and Analysis
4.4 SOCIAL INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS OF MARK 
4.4.1 The Literary Context
4.4.2 Social Interactional Observation and Analysis
4.5 SOCIAL INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS OF MARK
4.5.1 Literary Context
4.5.2 Social Interactional Observation and Analysis
4.6 SOCIAL INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS OF MARK
4.6.1 The Literary Context
4.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FIVE TOWARDS A SOCIAL INTERACTIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL
JESUS – PERFORMED LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES
5. INTRODUCTION
5.1 THE MARKAN JESUS AS THE EXPECTED LEADER
5.1.1 The Son of God
5.1.2 Son of Man
5.2. THE JESUS LEADERSHIP AS PRACTISED IN THE HOUSEHOLD
5.3 THE JESUS-PERFORMED LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES
5.3.1 Principle 1 – The Choice of Setting for Leader-Associate Interaction
5.3.2 Principle 2 – Characterisation of Followers
5.3.3 Principle 3 – Creation of Team Mind-Set
5.3.4 Principle 4 – Being a Part of Associates
5.3.5 Principle 5 – Indicators That Associates and Followers are Following
5.3.6 Principle 6 – The Third Eye of the Leader
5.3.7 Principle 7 – The Leader’s Concern, Care and Attention to Followers
5.3.8 Principle 8 – The Leader’s Provision for Associates
5.3.9 Principle 9 – Relational Bond between the Leader and Associates and Followers
5.3.10 Principle 10 – Compassion: A Key Value to a Leader’s Approach
5.3.11 Principle 11 – The Leader’s Critical Understanding of His Followers and Associates
5.3.12 Principle 12- Resourcefulness of the Leader
5.3.13 Principle 13 – Associates’ Reflection of the Leader’s Leadership Orientation
5.3.14 Principle 14 – Accessibility and Receptiveness are Vital Values of a Leader
5.3.15 Principle 15 – Developing Associates’ Creativity and Capacity with Challenging Task
5.3.16 Principle 16 – Facing Reality with Associates Regarding the Task of the Leadership in Meeting the Needs of Followers
5.3.17 Principle 17 – Modelling Leadership Orientation to Associates
5.3.18 Principle 18 – Defying the Odds to Meet the Needs of Followers and Realise the Mission -290
5.3.19 Principle 19 – Turning the Few into Many
5.3.20 Principle 20 – Hospitality is a Necessary Virtue of the Leader.
5.3.21 Principle 21- Generation of Hope and Excitement among Followers
5.3.22 Principle 22 – Creating a Sense of Equality and Interconnectedness among Followers
5.3.23 Principle 23- Creating System to Carry Vision and Mission
5.3.24 Principles 24 – The God Factor in Leadership
5.3.25 Principle 25 – Team Approach in Getting Things Done
5.3.26 Principle 26 – Every Follower Matter
5.3.27 Principle 27 – Judicious Use of Resources
5.3.28 Principle 28 – Connecting the Present State of Affairs and the Better Future
5.3.29 Principle 29 – Records Critical for Planning
5.3.30 Principle 30 – Reality of Opponents and Opposition to Mission and Vision
5.3.31 Principle 31 – Opponents and Cynics Come with a Strategy
5.3.32 Principle 32 – Culture and Leadership have Reciprocal Relationship
5.3.33 Principle 33 – Answering Critics and Opponents
5.3.34 Principle 34 – Keeping an Eye on the Opponents and Critics
5.3.35 Principle 35 – Challenging Opponents with Facts then a Riposte
5.3.36 Principle 36 – Dealing with Opponents
5.3.37 Principle 37 – Articulating the Laws and Traditions of the Land
5.3.38 Principle 38 – Exposing the Opponents
5.3.39 Principle 39 – Taking Charge of the Opposition and the Criticism
5.3.40 Principle 40 – Protecting Associates
5.3.41 Principle 41 – Preserving the Right Tradition
5.3.42 Principle 42 – Empowering the Inner Caucus
5.3.43 Principle 43 – Continuous Instruction of Associates
5.3.44 Principle 44: Public Image of the Leader
5.3.45 Principle 45 – The Leader as a Reference Point
5.3.46 Principle 46 – The Leader’s Oratory Prowess
5.3.47 Principle 47 – Challenging Associates and Followers
5.3.48 Principle 48 – Confronting Associates and Followers
5.3.49 Principle 49 – Setting High Standard for Associate
5.3.50 Principle 50 – Replication of a Leader’s Orientation
5.3.51 Principle 51 – Air of Importance
5.3.52 Principle 52 – Morality
5.3.53 Principle 53 – Attention on the Heart
5.3.54 Principle 54 – Expanding the Frontiers of Tradition Limits
5.3.55 Principle 55 – Rewriting the Negative Narrative
5.3.56 Principle 56 – Reaching Out to those whom Tradition Ostracises
5.3.57 Principle 57 – Strategic Moves to Unchartered Area
5.3.58 Principle 58 – Friendship Disposition
5.3.59 Principle 59 – Relevance and Resourcefulness of the Leader
5.3.60 Principle 60 – The Leader as a Solution
5.3.61 Principle 61 – Earning and Commanding Respect as a Leader
5.3.62 Principle 62 – Being All Things to All People
5.3.63 Principle 63 – Followers’ Confidence in the Leader
5.3.64 Principle 64 – Challenging Abusive and Discriminatory Stereotypes
5.3.65 Principle 65 – Followers’ Faith in the Leader
5.3.66 Principle 66 – Committing to Responsibility and Keeping an Open Mind on Right
5.3.67 Principle 67 – Following the Leader’s Lead
5.3.68 Principle 68 – Going Beyond Human Barriers to Act for Human Good
5.3.69 Principle 69 – Acknowledging Followers
5.3.70 Principle 70 – The Power of the Leader’s Words
5.3.71 Principle 71 – Connecting Words and Action – Integrity
5.3.72 Principle 72 – Credibility Issues of the Leader
5.3.73 Principle 73 – Personal Interest and Personal Agenda of Followers
5.3.74 Principle 74 – The Real Intention
5.3.75 Principle 75 – The Leader’s Ability
5.3.76 Principle 76 – Keeping an Eye on Followers
5.3.77 Principle 77 – Probing Followers Intentions
5.3.78 Principle 78 – Firmness of the Leader
5.3.79 Principle 79 – Tolerance as a Critical Virtue for Dealing with Followers
5.3.80 Principle 80 – Keeping an Eye an Close Associates and Family
5.3.81 Principle 81 – Use of Discretional Powers
5.3.82 Principle 82 – Associates Lobby
5.3.83 Principle 83 – Institutional Knowledge of the Leader
5.3.84 Principle 84 – Guiding the Thoughts of Associates and Followers
5.3.85 Principle 85 – Helping Associates and Followers to Rethink their Position
5.3.86 Principle 86 – Keeping to Agreed Processes and Procedures
5.3.87 Principle 87 – Disclosing both the Blessing and the Cost
5.3.88 Principle 88 – Truth in Leadership
5.3.89 Principle 89 – Staying Within the Limit of Authority
5.3.90 Principle 90 – Compromising the Rule on Personal Grounds
5.3.91 Principle 91 – Anticipating Future Danger
5.3.92 Principle 92 – Dealing with Potential Sources of Conflict among Associates and Followers
5.3.93 Principle 93 – Regrouping the Team
5.3.94 Principle 94 – The Leader as a Unifier
5.3.95 Principle 95 – Re-Energising the Team of Associates or Followers
5.3.96 Principle 96 – The Core Tenets of Leadership Philosophy
5.3.97 Principle 97 – The Leadership Culture of Establishment
5.3.98 Principle 98 – Jesus’ Leadership Culture
5.3.99 Principle 99 – The Leader’s Commitment
5.3.100 Principle 100 – The Leadership Task and Personal Interest
5.3.101 Principle 101 – The Leadership Task and the People
5.3.102 Principle 102 – Foundations of Jesus’ Leadership Philosophy
5.3.103 Principle 103 – Destiny of the Leader
5.3.104 Principle 104 – The Epitome of Leadership Task
5.4 SOCIAL INTERACTIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL
5. 5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY
6. INTRODUCTION
6.1 THE LEADERSHIP ORDER OF JESUS
6.1.1 Leadership as Interactional and Relational Endeavour
6.1.2 Leadership is Developing and Resourcing Associates
6.1.3 Leadership is Teamwork
6.1.4 Leadership is Caring and Being Compassionate
6.1.5 Leadership is Being Insightful and Knowledgeable
6.1.6 Leadership is Being Accessible and Receptive
6.1.7 Leadership is Meeting Needs and Solving Problems
6.1.8 Leadership is Creativity and Ingenuity
6.1.9 Leadership is Fairness, Equity and Justice
6.1.10 Leadership is Judicious Use of Resources
6.1.11 Leadership is Records Keeping
6.1.12 Leadership is Defeating Opponents and Critics with Wisdom, Knowledge and Intelligent Arguments
6.1.13 Leadership as Being Ethically and Morally Upright
6.1.14 Leadership is Being a Reformer or a Transformer
6.1.15 Leadership is Advancing and Increasing Territorial Influence
6.1.16 Leadership is Humility
6.1.17 Leadership is Producing Great Results
6.1.18 Leadership is Being Credible and Motivational
6.1.19 Leadership is Good People Management
6.1.20 Leadership as Right Use of Power and Authority
6.1.21 Leadership is in Orientation and Culture
6.2 THE IMPLICATIONS OF JESUS’ LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES FOR GOOD LEADERSHIP PRACTICE
6.2.1 The Call for Transparency and Accountability
6.2.2 The Challenge of Poverty and Underdevelopment
6.2.3 The Challenge of Dysfunctional Leadership
6.2.4 Corruption Laden Leadership
6.2.5 Privilege Oriented Leadership
6.3 RAISING LEADERS WITH NEW ORIENTATION
6.4 CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO OF AFRICAN LEADERSHIP
6.5 CONCLUSION
6.6 RECOMMENDATION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT