Role Theory

brain Intimate quisling Violence through Role possibility A Concept radical Introducing Role surmisal Role speculation is a sociological sh atomic number 18 model that has been used to explain sets of comparative patterns between bulk across vari equal contexts. It seeks to explain wholeness of the most important characteristics of human hitionate way the fact that how people act, be boast and speak be not separate, unique, unconnected but rather, are reflective of certain patterns and arrangements that depend on the complaisant context and the actors in these contexts (Mangus, 1957 Biddle, 1986).To illustrate, inside the context of an hint relationship such(prenominal) as marriage, rage between assistants provoke be tied to the busy patterns and arrangements of acting, behaving and speaking between furnishs such as earning money, rearing children, winning allot of the home and initiating sexual relations.Although several versions of the guess have been explicated by scholars, in that respect appears to be agreement that stake system is mainly about triple inter associate impressions (1) patterned and characteristic friendly behaviors, (2) parts or identities as carryd by cordial participants, and (3) scripts or expectations for behavior that are understood and followed by actors in a bad-tempered kindly context (Biddle, 1986).For instance, adopting a position opening persuasion to judgment snug partner force-out necessitates opinioning at the patterned and characteristic affable behaviors of internal partners in a relationship, the parts or identities that each partner plays in the relationship, and the scripts or expectations that are interpreted and adhered to by the partners in a particular relational context, specifically in situations of red encounters.Furthermore, the possibility excessively allows for an sense of the relationships among the person, corporal and morphological levels of society (Tur ner, 2001), as it deals with the organization and connection of hearty behavior between the micro, macro and intermediate levels of society. Thus, within voice speculation, an analysis of intimate partner wildness entails looking into the idiosyncratic behaviors of partners in a violent relationship and tracing the linkages of these behaviors to the accessible structures that exist in a particular society. Defining RolesCentral to power theory is the concept of procedure. Several definitions have been ascribed to the concept of character reference in the literature. On a general level, the concept of procedure includes a description of behaviors, characteristics, norms and re reputes held by a soulfulness (Thomas & Biddle, 1966). An other(a) definition identifies affair as a cluster of behaviors and attitudes that are understood as belonging together, such that a psyche is considered as acting consistently when enacting the various components of a single purpose and variably when he or she fails to do so (Turner, 2001).For instance, the customs dutyalistic male role can be characterized as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, independent and persistent whereas the traditional maidenlike role can be illustrated as agreeable, courteous, sympathetic, trusting, taking into custody and warm (Ellington & Marshall, 1997). As such, a partner who plays the masculine role must enact behaviors and attitudes that are typical of this role, such as being aggressive, dominant, independent and agentic. For this partner count in the masculine role, to be passive, dependent and agreeable implies incompatibility with the traditional masculine role.Specifically, a role whitethorn refer to behavior that is anticipate of people who occupy particular kindly categories such as statuses (or positions) in both formal and folksy systems (Montgomery, 1998 as cited in Lynch, 2007 Biddle & Thomas, 1979 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Roles whitethorn in like manner be refle ctive of the cultural values and norms in a particular society (Zurcher, 1983 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Roles may besides be conceptualized as a resource that brotherly actors try to lend oneself to achieve certain comfortably-disposed goals (Callero, 1994).This assumption suggests two things (1) that human self-assurance is facilitated and expressed through the use of roles as resources, and (2) that roles are employed as tools in the establishment of accessible structures (Baker & Faulkner, 1991 as cited in Callero, 1994). Most tender roles exist in pairs or sets. Thus, roles can be conceptualized as tie in through distinctive role relationships (Mangus, 1957). As such, on that point could be no husband role without a wife role and no bring up role without a child role. In the context of intimate hysteria, there exists the perpetrator-dupe role set.As organized patterns of genial behavior, roles are of several types (Mangus, 1957). Roles may be ascribed to the individu al, imposed upon an individual or achieved by the individual (Mangus, 1957). hinge upon and gender roles are ascribed to or imposed upon an individual (Mangus, 1957). For instance, one has to assume the masculine role if one is male or the feminine role if one is born female. On the other hand, ones roles in multitudes and occupational systems, such as leader, mediator or peacemaker, are achieved roles. Roles may also be understood as generic or specific. few roles may be pervasive, persistent, generalized and highly important to a persons carriage while other roles may be limited, subordinate, temporary, apart(p) and unimportant to a persons life (Mangus, 1957). To illustrate, in a violent intimate relationship, the roles of perpetrator and victim may be the frequent configuration in the relationship. On the other hand, these roles may also be seen as isolated to particular relational contexts and thus understood as subordinate to other roles such as father, mother, breadwinne r and caretaker.Roles may also be highly abstract or they may be concrete (Mangus, 1957). solicit roles bulge out from fond systems of statuses and are expressed as generalized chaste standards (Mangus, 1957). Examples of abstract roles are evident in universal expectations of honesty and justice. stance roles include rights and duties that emanate from a given position or office (Mangus, 1957). Illustrations of status roles can be seen in the entitlements and obligations that are given to persons of authority, such as managers, leaders or decision-makers.Turner (2001) also identified quartet broad types of roles (1) basic roles, (2) position or status roles, (3) functional group roles, and (4) value roles. base roles refer to roles that are associated with gender, age and social illuminate (Banton, 1965 as cited in Turner, 2001). These are considered basic roles because they apply to a all-encompassing range of situations and because they tend to alter the meaning and taki ng up of other types of roles. The second type of roles, position or status roles, correspond to positions in organizations or formally organized groups (Turner, 2001).Occupational and family roles may be regarded as examples of position or status roles. Functional group roles are the informal behavior patterns that arise spontaneously as persons take on situational identities during social fundamental interactions (Benne & Sheats, 1948 as cited in Turner, 2001). Examples of functional group roles are mediator, coordinator, critic, counselor, leader and follower. Finally, value roles are similar to functional group roles in that both types of roles emerge spontaneously from the social interaction.However, value roles tend to be attached to in truth positively or negatively valued identities (Turner, 2001). In intimate relationships, examples of value roles can be the roles of hero, villain, saint, sinner, perpetrator or victim. After providing an over sop up of role theory and the c oncept of roles, we now turn to explain the two major go ones to understanding role theory. Two Main Approaches to Understanding Roles A review of the tie in literature identified two main startes to understanding roles (1) the traditional structural-functional admission and (2) the interactionist improvement.In this section, we highlight the characteristics of each border on as well as pop the question an explanation of the major assumptions within each perspective. We also provide illustrations as to how each access code can help enlighten our understanding of intimate partner relationships. Finally, we discuss the limitations of each approach. Traditional Structural-Functional Approach The structural-functionalist tradition of role theory focuses on how roles, as determined components of complex social structures, cultures or social systems, knead the behavior of people (Lynch, 2007).Two colligate strands of role theory are embedded within this approach structural role theory and functional role theory. Structural role theory concentrates on social structures, which are understood as stable organizations of sets of persons (called social positions or statuses) who share the same patterned and characteristics behaviors (roles) that are in relation to others sets of persons in the structure (Biddle, 1986). This particular strand of traditional role theory refers to parts of organized groups as status and to the fixed behaviors expected of persons occupying a status as roles Stryker, 2001). Thus, roles may be conceptualized as the dynamic face of statuses or social positions, with roles corresponding to rights and duties attached to statuses or social positions (Stryker, 2001). indoors this strand, roles are understood as existing prior to the social interaction of people who occupy the statuses or social positions, as roles originate from the lay in experiences of past individuals who have previously occupied a status or social position (Stryker , 2001).The second strand of traditional role theory functionalist role theory highlights the characteristic behaviors of persons who occupy social positions within a stable social system (Biddle, 1986). Within this strand, roles are conceptualized as the shared out and normative expectations that prescribe and explain these characteristic behaviors (Biddle, 1986). Functional role theorists view the statute of roles as something that is acquireed through an understanding of social norms in a society as well as something that accomplishes certain functions in social systems (Biddle, 1986).Both structural and functional strands of the traditional approach to role theory emphasize social structures as antedating roles, such that roles are seen as imposed on the individual (Turner, 2001). Thus, within this approach, the roles of perpetrator and victim can be understood as emanating from social structures such as gender. For instance, the masculine role has often been identified wit h being the dominant partner, the primary breadwinner, the decision-maker and the hatchet man of rules in the household.On the other hand, the feminine role has often been coupled with being the subordinate partner, the caretaker of the home and the supporter of the husband and children. Such role configurations may put partner occupying the masculine role at an emolument while setting the partner playing the feminine role at a disad new wavetage, thus making them vulnerable to becoming perpetrators and victims of intimate violence (Mihalic & Elliot, 1997). Furthermore, this approach also points to socialization as the process by which persons learn to take on and perform particular roles in society (Stryker, 2002).Thus, when persons in social relationships conform to the expectations that are attached to statuses and supported by social norms, they tend to gain approval from other people who occupy cerebrate statuses and adhere to similar norms such approval then reinforces the learning and word picture of roles (Stryker, 2002). Research has shown that typical school practices tend to create childrens identities as boy and girls (Martin, 1998 as cited in Fox & Murry, 2000).In particular, findings showed that teachers tend to process boys voices as different from girls voices, such that the former were allowed to be louder and more as compared to the latter. Presumably, such gender role socialization contributes to the accrual of privileges to the masculine role and the corresponding accrual of disadvantages to the feminine role. In addition, both strands of the traditional structural-functional approach to role theory agree on the assumption that society, social systems and social structures shape individual behaviors (Brookes, Davidson, Daly & Halcomb, 2007).Analysis within this approach also starts from an trial run of the social structure (Biddle, 1986). As such, within this approach, an examination of intimate partner violence provide proceed from an investigation of the social systems and social structures that see violent behaviors between partners in an intimate relationship. Furthermore, such an analysis will look into the cultural norms and values that sustain the social systems and social structures affect in the phenomenon of intimate partner violence.However, several limitations of this approach have been brocaded in the related literature. According to Lynch (2007), this approach paints roles as comparatively inflexible structures that are difficult to combine. Furthermore, by focusing on social structures, the traditional approach to role theory fails to take into account the mental, experiential dimension of role enactment (Lynch, 2007), thus regarding persons as automatons who take on roles mechanically.As such, this approach tends to be limited in its view of intimate partner violence as mechanically carried out by individual persons according to their status or position in the social structure, without taking into account the variability and diversity of experiences related to this phenomenon. Also, as it has difficulty account statement for individual level negotiations where actors may switch or combine roles, this approach also treats the variability and flexibility of roles as problematic (Lynch, 2007). Thus, traditional role theory is unable to address issues elated with non-conformity, social change and social systems that are not well-formed (Biddle, 1986). For instance, given instances of intimate partner violence where both partners inflict violence upon one another, traditional role theory proves to be limited in its explanation of intimate violence as emanating from the social structure. Within this approach, role changes such as when the perpetrator becomes the victim and the victim becomes the perpetrator become problematic and difficult to explain.The traditional structural-functional approach to role theory has also been criticized as advancing a slanting view of societ y, with its emphasis on consensus, cooperation and continuity in social life along with its seeming blindness to disagreement, conflict and change (Stryker, 2001). Finally, scholars have also criticized the traditional approach to role theory as rationalizing and reinforcing the existing social order (Stryker, 2001). Interactionist ApproachThe interactionist approach to role theory arose from the symbolical interactionism perspective in sociology and as such gives importance to the roles of individual actors, the development of roles through social interaction, and the processes through which social actors understand and interpret their own and other peoples behavior (Biddle, 1986). Thus, this approach focuses on how roles emerge in social interactions and how individuals are able to influence behavioral expectations through social negotiation (Lynch, 2007).Within this approach, a role is conceptualized as neither fixed nor prescribed, but rather, something that is continuously dis cussd by persons in social interaction (Mead, 1934 as cited in Lynch, 2007 Blumer, 1969 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Using this approach to understand intimate partner violence therefore necessitates looking at how partners in a violent relationship interact with one another as well as how they, negotiate, take on, impose or reject specific roles.In contrast to the traditional approach to role theory which highlights social systems and social structures, the interactionist approach emphasizes social processes such as communication, interpretation and negotiation (Lynch, 2007). Theorizing within this approach assumes that the relationship between personal, behavioral and social variables is interactional (Plummer, 1991 as cited in Lynch, 2007). As such, the interactionist role theory approach to xamining intimate partner violence will tend to focus on how partners communicate, interpret and negotiate particular issues in their relationship. As opposed to the traditional approach to rol e theory that posits the unidirectional influence of social structure on individual action, the interactionist approach opens up the possibility that personal and behavioral variables may influence social structural variables. For interactionist theorists, social actors interpret and enact their own roles by imagining the roles of others actors in the social interaction (Turner, 2001).Thus, far from being automatons who take on roles mechanically, people are viewed as interpreting, negotiating and shaping their own roles to be able to interact effectively with other people who take on related roles (Turner, 2001). In this approach, analysis starts from an examination of the patterns of social interactions among individuals and groups of individuals (Turner, 2001). As such, research on intimate partner violence using this approach will look at the interpretative, negotiated and dynamic nature of violent interactions between partners. Some challenges to the interactionist approach to role theory have also been raised.One of these challenges criticized the interactionist approach for flunk to take into account the influence of social institutions and structural forces on the role enactment process (Lynch, 2007). Thus, little caution is given to the structural constraints that trespass on roles (Biddle, 1986). To illustrate, although intimate partner violence can be study by studying the social interactions where violence occurs, it is also important to breath the occurrence of intimate violence to social structures that impose and influence the roles that people enact.In addition, as the interactionist approach tends to focus on specific instances of social interactions, interactionist theorists sometimes fail to discuss the contextual limits of their assumptions (Biddle, 1986). Also, while the approach acknowledges the reciprocal relationship between personal, behavioral and social variables, it still fails to explain how these relationships feedback and af fect succeeding role enactments (Lynch, 2007). Summary of Limitations of Two Main Approaches to Role TheoryIn his work on proposing an integration between role theory and status theory, Henriksen (2008) cited important limitations of the two main approaches to role theory. These limitations represent a summary of the difficulties that are encountered when using the traditional structural-functional approach and the interactionist approach to understanding social phenomena such as intimate partner violence. On the one hand, the traditional structural-functional approach seems to ignore individual action and its influence on social structure (Henriksen, 2008).Furthermore, a structural-functional approach to role theory also appears to be limited in examining the finer grains of social interaction (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999 as cited in Henriksen, 2008 Harre & Moghaddam, 2003 as cited in Henriksen, 2008). On the other hand, the interactionist approach appears to focus on social inte ractions, without taking into account the influence of social structures on the patterning and stability of such interactions. The interactionist approach has also been criticized for its limited attention to the social span of social interaction (Henriksen, 2008).It is based on these limitations of role theory that we propose an integration of role theory with positioning theory, in view of providing a better understanding of intimate partner violence at the structural, interactional and discursive levels. References Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. yearbook Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92. Brookes, K. , Davidson, P. M. , Daly, J. , & Halcomb, E. J. (2007). Role theory A framework to investigate the federation nurse role in contemporary health care systems. present-day(a) Nurse A daybook for the Australian Nursing Profession, 25 (1-2), 146-155.Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using Understanding role as resource. Social Psychology Quarter ly, 57 (3), 228-243. Ellington, J. E. & Marshall, L. L. (1997). Gender role perceptions of women in abusive relationships. Sex Roles, 36 (5/6), 349-369. Fox, G. L. & Murry, V. M. (2000). Gender and families Feminist perspectives and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1160-1172. Henriksen, T. D. (2008). Liquidating roles and crystallizing positioning Investigating the road between positioning theory and role theory.In F. Moghaddam, R. Harre, and N. Lee (Eds. ), Global conflict resultant through positioning analysis (pp. 41-64). rising York Springer. Lynch, K. D. (2007). Modeling role enactment Linking role theory and social cognition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37 (4), 379-399. Mangus, A. R. (1957). Role theory and marriage counseling. Social Forces, 35 (3), 200-209. Mihalic, S. W. & Elliot, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12 (1), 21-47. Stryker, S. (2001).Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory and structural symbolic interactionism The Road to Identity Theory. In J. H. Turner (ed. ), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 211-230). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Thomas, E. J. & Biddle, B. J. (1966). Basic concepts for the variables of role phenomena. In B. J. Biddle & E. J. Thomas (Eds. ), Role theory concepts and research (pp. 51-65). New York John Wiley & Sons. Turner, R. H. (2001). Role theory. In J. H. Turner (ed. ), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 233-254). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.