Spencer, J. W. Self-Work in Social Interaction - Negotiating Role-Identities.pdf

7/30/2019 Spencer, J. W. Self-Work in Social Interaction - Negotiating Role-Identities.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spencer-j-w-self-work-in-social-interaction-negotiating-role-identitiespdf 1/13

Self-Work in Social Interaction: Negotiating Role-IdentitiesAuthor(s): J. William SpencerSource: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2, Special Issue: Language and SocialInteraction (Jun., 1987), pp. 131-142Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786747 .

Accessed: 02/01/2011 19:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Social Psychology Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786747?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786747?origin=JSTOR-pdf




Social Psychology Quarterly1987, Vol. 50, No. 2, 131-142

Self-Work in Social Interaction:

Negotiating Role-Identities

J. WILLIAMSPENCERUniversityof New Orleans

Using a dyadic role-play exercise, this study examines the strategies used by interactants o negotiaterole-identities.Subjectswerefound to utilize self-attributes nproducingbasic moves such as claims to,

and repudiationsof, the role-identityof outstandingstudent. Claimsand repudiationswere subject to

various kinds of definitional work by ego in the form of aligning actions. Alter also produced

definitionalworkon previous claims in theform of challenges and counter claims. These indings also

shed light on how interactants olved theproblem of situational relevance in the negotiations by using

strategies in which they locally managed the selection or definition of relevantattributes.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most venerable assumptions ofsymbolic interactionism is that interactants seek

to define the situation in which they find

themselves. Of particular importance in thisregard are the respective role-identities which

each person will assume within the interaction.

Role-identities are not, however, allocated likeso many roles in a play. Typically, each

interactanthas a stake, and more importantly, asay, in the outcome of the allocation process.

When this allocation becomes problematic,role-identities are decided upon through aprocess of negotiation whereby interactantsattempt to agree upon who each will be for thepurposes of the interaction at hand (Weinsteinand Deutschberger, 1963; Blumstein, 1973;1975; Beckhouse et al., 1975).

Theoretically, negotiating role-identities canoccur at two distinct levels. First, ego and altercan disagree over the particular identities eachwill assume for the course of the encounter.While interactants possess a multitude ofidentities, typically only one or two will beconsidered salient for a given encounter(Stryker,1980). For example, Scott and Lyman (1968)

argue that when negotiating accounts, role-identities are simultaneously being negotiated.One strategy in negotiating accounts is termed"identity switching," in which ego "indicates to

This research was partially supported through aGraduateResearch Council grantfrom the Universityof

New Orleans.This support s gratefully acknowledged.Iwould like to thank Douglas Maynard,Kriss Drass and

the journal's anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful

commentsandcriticisms.An earlierversionof this paperwas presented (with Kriss Drass) at the North Central

Sociological Association meetings in Louisville, KY,April, 1985. Requests for reprints may be sent toJ. William Spencer, Departmentof Sociology, Univer-sity of New Orleans, New Orleans,LA 70148.

alter that he is not playing the role alter believeshe is playing" (1968, p. 58). For example:

A working class Mexican husband comeshome from an evening of philandering. Hiswife suspects this and says, "where wereyou?". He responds with: "None of yourbusiness, you're a wife." Here the husband isassuming that it is not the wife's job to pryinto the affairs of her husband. She responds,"What kind of father are you?". What thewoman does here is to suggest that she is not

a wife, but a mother who is looking out forthe welfare of the children. To this thehusband replies: "I'm a man and you're awoman." (Scott and Lyman, 1968, p. 58).

A second level at which role-identities can benegotiated concerns the particular meaning eachrole-identity will have within the encounter.Although identities tend to transcend specificsituations, there is typically a loose fit betweenthe identity and the role performance (Goffman,1961; Turner, 1962; McCall and Simmons,

1966). Part of this looseness of fit means thatalthough ego and alter may agree on the relevantidentities, they may disagree on the particulardefinitions to be attributed to those role-identities during the encounter.

As early as Mead (1934), symbolic interaction-ists have recognized the importance of languagein the creation and maintenance of self. Despite

this-recognition of its importance, interactionistshave been slow to empirically examine languageuse in situ and its relationship to identitynegotiation. I For example, several authors have

delineated typologies of verbal strategies whichare related to identity work in interaction (e.g.,

l Corsaro (1981) has made this point with regardtosociology generally. This relative neglect of sociolinguis-tics by symbolic interactionists s particularlypuzzlinggiven interactionists' focus on social interaction andparticularly, anguage use.

131



132 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

Goffman, 1959; 1967; Scott and Lyman, 1968;Hewitt and Stokes, 1975; Stokes and Hewitt,1976). However, these works typically do not

utilize empirical data to generate these typolo-

gies.

On the other hand, there has been consider-able empirical work which bears on identities

and which utilizes language. This research tendsto come in one of two forms. First, some studiesuse language as a resource to elicit responsesfrom experimental subjects (Weinstein and

Deutschberger, 1963; Brown, 1969; Schneider,1969; Blumstein, 1973; 1975). The focus of thiskind of study seems to be how subjects react toa controlled set of verbal stimuli from aconfederate, rather than on the complex inter-play of verbal strategies in their own right. A

second kind of study, and somewhat closer tomy own, examines various correlates of interac-tive speech with respect to such identities asgender (Zimmerman and West, 1975; Drass,1986), parent-child (Corsaro, 1977), student-professor (Stiles et al., 1979) and social class(Bernstein, 1971). These studies focus more onhow talk represents the social status of occu-pants of an identity, however, than on how theseidentities are presented or negotiated via lan-

guage.While these works represent important steps

toward understanding the relationship betweenface-to-face interaction and identity, there existsan important gap in this understanding. If

language is a crucial sign vehicle for carrying

information about the self, it is important to

investigate it as a topic in its own right. Thismeans focusing on its content and its character-

istics, as well as its interactive nature. The goalof this paper is to help bridge this gap byexamining the interplayof verbal strategies used

by interactantsin negotiating role-identities.

DATA AND METHODS

The data for this paper come from a largerstudy of the relationship between interactive

behaviorand identities. Subjectswere undergrad-uate students recruited from lower division

introductory sociology classes at two differentuniversities. One university is a private institu-tion whose students are primarily of upper-middle class backgrounds. Most of these

students' expenses are paid by theirparents, and

membership in fraternities and sororities is asalient aspect of campus life. The other

university is a state institution whose studentsare generally of middle or working class

backgrounds. Most of these students supportthemselves while in school through part orfull-time employment. Both universities are inurban settings and few of the students live oncampus.

Each subject was matched with a same-sexpartner from the same university with whomthey were unacquainted. Each dyad was taken toa private room where they first completed aquestionnaire comprised of semantic differential

items designed to measure their student andgender identities. They were then told they weresubjects in a decision-making study and wouldbe engaging in a role-play exercise. They wereasked to imagine that they were finalists for afictional outstanding student award at theiruniversity. Ratherthanthe school administrationdeciding who the awardee should be, they wereto decide between themselves who more de-served the award. Interactants were to arguewhy they deserved the award and, altematively,why the other person did not deserve it. Subjects

were not given any instructions conceming thespecific procedures for making the decision(e.g., the criteria to be considered, the steps inthe decision-making process, or whether or notto remain factual in their descriptions ofthemselves). The subjects were asked to begin,and the experimenter started the tape-recorderand left the room. In all, fifty-eight conversa-tions were collected in this manner for use inthis study.

The analytic procedures were as follows.Using a grounded theory methodology (Glaserand Strauss, 1967), the categories of verbalstrategies were derived from the data and onlylater compared to previous research and theory.Initial categories were generated from a subsetof the data, and these categories were thencompared to subsequent subsets of data until anexhaustive, mutually exclusive set of categorieswas generated.2The data were then examined toidentify pattemed regularities in the occurrenceof these verbal strategies. Since all the datacannot be presented here, data excerpts are used

as examples of the concepts introduced. Theseexcerpts were chosen on the basis of clarity andsuccinctness of presentation, and are representa-tive of the larger body of data; they are notmerely illustrative.

The role-play scenario was used in this study,

2 A decision was made early in this analysis toexamine process and not outcome (i.e., whose claimswere ultimately honored). Conceptually, these are

separatequestionsand a decision to focus on one rather

than the other would seem to be arbitrary nd based onthe researcher's own inclination. In this case, thedecision to focus on processwas also basedon theoreticaland methodological reasons. First, we know so littleaboutthe processof how role-identitiesareaccomplishedin talk. Also, the natureof the datahelped constrain hedecision. In some of the conversations t was unclearwho"won," and in others the subjects decided to share theaward. The question of outcome was relegated tosubsequentanalysis of the data.



SELF-WORK 133

rather than naturally occurring talk, for severalreasons. First, the role-identity was chosen onthe basis of presumed salience for the subjects.Because it was assumed that the subjects wouldbe oriented toward this identity, it was felt that

the subjects would have at ready command anarray of information about self for use in the

conversations. It is worth noting that somerecent research has documented that self-conceptions of college students are orientedtoward grades, careers and achievement (Kesler,1979; Snow and Phillips, 1982). This wouldtend to support the presumption of the salienceof identity as well as the competitive scenario.

Second, the quasi-experimental procedureallowed for a relatively large number ofcomparable conversations. While naturally oc-

curring encounters may be preferable in someways, this kind of data can limit the number of

cases to be collected or result in conversations

from a number of settings which may not be

comparable. Finally, the procedures were cho-

sen to produce explicit negotiations between the

subjects. Since there exists no previous empiri-

cal work on how role-identities are negotiated, it

was decided that a set of procedures which

allowed for readily identifiable strategies was

preferable to data in which the strategies and

processes were somewhat more implicit andharder to identify. It is arguably the case thatnaturally occurring talk is better data in some

ways. Thus, future research might address

issues of self and role using ordinary conversa-

tion.

The contrived nature of these procedures may

affect the generalizability of the findings.

Ultimately, this issue is best settled by attempt-

ing to replicate the findings using data from

other settings. However, there are several

reasons to argue that the findings presented hereare at least partially generalizable. First, as

noted below, many of the strategies discovered

in these data parallel those discussed in previous

work. Second, the setting used in this study

seems quite similar to others in which self-work

is accomplished. There are naturally occurring

settings in which two or more interactants vie

for a single role-identity. Examples would

include small groups in which two members

negotiate who will fill a leadership role, a

dispute between spouses over who will assume

the role of the "guilty party" in a divorce,

children who argue about who is a third party's

best friend, or interactants at an informal

gathering (e.g., a party) who negotiate who is

more liberal, more knowledgeable to offer an

opinion on a topic, etc. In addition, there wouldseem to be a multitude of situations in which the

role-identity of only one interactant is explicitly

at stake.3 These would include a setting inwhich physician and patient negotiate howpassive or active a role the latterwill assume or,in a dispute over a grade, student and teachernegotiate what kind of role (e.g., hardworking,

lazy, etc.) the former can be defined as havingassumed during a semester. The argument hereis that while the setting used in this study issomewhat contrived, and the strategies andprocesses discovered in the data might besomewhat more explicit and exaggerated than innaturally occurring talk, the difference is one ofdegree only and not of kind.

BASIC MOVES: CLAIMS AND REPUDIATIONS

The most basic unit of self-work is the move(Goffman, 1969), which is defined as an act(Bales et al., 1951; Burke, 1974) that hasimplications for the role-identity of one or moreinteractants.According to Alexander and Knight(1971, p. 65-66);

. . . when a person acts he communicatesinformation about the kind of person hepresumes to be and obliges others to regardhim as being that kind of person. In Mead'sterminology, behaviors are "constituted" into

action because they have implications for thecreation, affirmation or transformation of anactor's situated identity.

In these data, interactants produced twodifferent kinds of moves. First, interactantsmade claims to a role-identity. Claims weremoves in which an interactant attempted toformulate or maintain a given identity (in thesedata, typically through a self-descriptive state-ments). On the other hand, interactants alsomade statements in which they would repudiatea role-identity. A repudiation was a move inwhich an interactanttook a position discrepantwith a given role-identity.

Moves were made more or less directly orbaldly; with or without qualification or justifica-tion.4 For example:

3 Since role-identitiesare often reciprocal,even whenthe role-identityof one interactant s explicitly at stake,those of other interactants re also, at least implicitly, atstake. Thus, if a studentandteacheragree that the former

was hardworking,did quality work, etc., and receives afailing grade, the latter risks assuming the role of anunfairor biased teacher.

4 This location of claims on the dimensionof baldnessor directness is similar to and based on Brown andLevinson's (1978) typology of face-threatening acts.Claims to a role-identityby ego which have implicationsfor alter's roles can be conceptualized as face-threatening,and therefore subject to the same kinds ofconstraintsdiscussed by Brown and Levinson (1978).




(1) GP104

1 M2: Okay. We're both up for this award for outstanding2 undergraduate. First of all I think I'm more qualified3 Ml: Okay. Why do you think you are more qualified?

(2) GP103

1 M2: To tell the truthI know I wouldn't deserve it if I was up2 for it I find it hard to play like I would

In (1), M2 makes a direct, bald claim to

outstanding student, while in (2) M2 makes adirect, bald repudiation of that role-identity.Direct, bald moves were rare, and when theyoccurred, alter typically responded by askingego to justify or substantiate the claim. In (1),this is what MI does in line 3.

Since direct, bald moves were subject tochallenge or question, attributionalclaims/repudi-ations were a more common form of move in thedata. These moves comprised claims by ego tocertain attributes which, in turn, served tosubstantiate a claim to, or repudiation of,outstanding student.

(4) GP3 10

1 MI: There's a lot of different things that I did, uh not only2 athletics but other organizations like the fraternity system.3 So uh, on a team or something I'm more of a leader and people4 seem to look to me for leadership when it comes to5 competitive things like sports or things, things of that6 nature. Um, and I try to use I try to use that leadership in7 a way that uh, in a way so that I can be a little more8 assertive. Um, a little more assertive.

(5) GP415

1 F2: Hm. Well. Hm. Well, I think you should get it for one thing

2 because I'm just a freshman. And I'm just starting and I3 don't even know if I'm going to stay with a business major4 for one thing. And um another thing is that I'm peeling which5 means that I stay out in the sun quite a bit which means I'm

6 not too enthused about studying all the time. And I like my7 social life a little too much.

Since attributional claims amounted to self-descriptive statements, the attributes containedin them can be conceptualized as descriptors.SThese descriptors established the claim to

role-identity via the implication that the attributebeing claimed by ego was one of a number ofcharacteristics or attributesof that role-identity.For example:

(6) GP406

1 F2: I think I should get the award because I'm an all around2 student3 Fl: So am I4 F2: I have a four point oh average5 Fl: So do I6 F2: I've never missed class once7 Fl: Well8 F2: Even when I was sick with the flu and had a broken leg, I9 went to class

Here, F2 made claim to outstanding student via

Attributionalclaims also comprised self-references.

Though not reportedhere, an analysis was conducted onthe forms of these self-references exhibited in the data.

This basic format (reference orm + descriptor) of selfattributional laims is intentionallysimilar to the formatdelineated by Maynard (1982) for person descriptions.The typology of descriptors xplicated below also followsMaynard's (1982) typology of descriptive items con-

tained in person descriptions. The similaritiesbetween

various attributional laims such as a straight"A"

grade point average and not missing classes, evenwhen sick. The implication of these statements isthat outstanding students have these attributes,and if F2 has these attributesthen she has a jus-tifiable claim to that role-identity.

these two sets of findings and the resulting typologiesshow that person descriptions might be fruitfullyconceptualizedas a general rubricunderwhich self- andother-descriptionsmightbe placed.



SELF-WORK 135

One way of conceptualizing a role-identity isas some total set of attributesor dimensions ofmeaning (cf., Burke and Tully, 1977; Burke andReitzes, 1981). The reason an attributionalclaim could count as a valid claim to arole-identity was that the attribute(s)in question

represented a semantic dimension along whichthat role-identity was defined (see, for example,Turner, 1962; McCall and Simmons, 1969;

Alexander and Knight, 1971, on the relation-ship between situated behaviors and underlyingidentities or meaning structures).

Three types of descriptors were identified inthe data. First, interactantsused activity descrip-tors. These were attributeswhich involved some

activity in which ego had engaged (or wasplanning to engage in) or something ego hadaccomplished. Thus:

(7) GP302

1 M2: So. Ah. The grade point average, I'm making a B. Definitely2 high enough to qualify me as an outstanding student

(8) GP1051 MI: Oh oh wait, plus I also pay myself through school you know. I

2 do all of that I pay my own rent, pay my own you know car

3 note and stuff like that

The second type of descriptor was categorical.With this type of descriptor, interactants madeclaim to the role-identity of outstanding student

via a claim to membership in some social groupor occupant of some social status. For ex-ample:

(9) GP306

1 M2: I'm a marketing major

2 MI: I'd say, well I got a high GPA. I'm in Student Senate, I'm

3 vice president of a fraternity

The structuralplacement of this type of descrip-

tor reflected the two kinds of interactional"work"that it accomplished. When categorical descrip-

tors occurred at the beginning of the conversa-tions, they appearedto be used by interactantsto"get acquainted" with each other (MaynardandZimmerman, 1984); their use did not appear toinvolve a substantive claim to outstanding stu-dent. When used elsewhere in the conversation,their use seemed to establish a claim to outstand-ing student. In this capacity, categorical descrip-tors were used to make claims to outstandingstudentvia a claim to some other role-identity;the

implication being that outstanding student ex-isted in a role-set with some other roles and thata claim to the associated role substantiated the

claim to outstanding student. Using Ml's claimfrom example (9) above:

student senate member-outstandingstudent-fratemity vice-president

Finally, interactants also used assessment or

evaluative descriptors. Rather than merelystating some activity or category, interactantswould provide an evaluation of their activity orcategory. For example:

(10) GP311

1 M2: Well, I think, I think I should get because of my just all2 around, uh, student involvement this year. Um, in other3 words, president of my fratemity um, got a three point one,4 got into uh, University of Tennessee medical school, uh,5 played an important role with the interfratemity council,6 got the respect of most of my peers and many of the faculty.(11) GP1I11 MI: Well, ahh, I think I deserve this award because I've been2 working a lot this semester I usually work at night so the3 time I do have I have to divide between, during the day4 coming to class and studying by ahhoh six o'clock you know5 five o'clock in the afternoon so I really don't have time to

6 study so I think that's a big accomplishment

As both these examples show, assessment de-

scriptors typically did not stand alone. Rather,

since they were somewhat more subjective in

nature, interactantswould often use them in con-

junction with activity and/or categorical descrip-tors, which served to substantiate or provide ob-

jective evidence of the assessments.

The frequentuse of attributionalclaims was an

outstanding eature of these negotiations over out-

standing student. By negotiation I mean that theinteractantswere attempting to reach an agree-ment over whose claims to outstanding studentwere to be ultimately honored. However, the ne-gotiations did not simply proceed via exchanges




of claims and repudiations by ego and alter.Rather, when ego made a move, alter seemedobliged or accorded the right to reply to thatmove; to comment on it, to challenge or questionit, or to accept it. There evolved a complex in-terplay of strategies which produced sequences

of talk that proceeded piecemeal from one set ofattributes to another. I now consider these se-quences.

NEGOTIATION SEQUENCES

Since ego's first moves were strategies in anegotiation over a role-identity, they can be

conceptualized as proposals (Maynard, 1982).Next moves by alter could accept or reject ego'sfirst move. Often, moves were not explicitlyaccepted. Rather, there seemed to operate in thedata a principle much akin to Goffman's (1959)working consensus that if a claim or repudiationwas not explicitly rejected, ego could assumethat it had been accepted by alter for presentpurposes. Since moves were done in piecemealfashion, acceptances were also piecemeal. Thatis, alter could accept the specific attributionalclaim while not necessarily repudiatinghis ownclaim to outstanding student:

(12) GP303

1 MI: I got a uh both a computer science and journalism. And what's2 your communications major?

3 M2: Well, I'm a television and production4 M1: Well, that's a good area. It's fascinating.

Claim-Counter Claim Sequences

Another way for alter to reply to a claim byego was to offer a counter claim. Counterclaims were comprised of (1) a "tag" or tyingitem which referenced or acknowledged aprevious move; and (2) a claim which served to

downplay the significance or outstanding nature

of the attribute contained in that claim.

Matching sequences contained a claim by ego

and a counter claim by alter which would simply

"match" or be as "notable" as the attribute

contained in ego's claim. Thus:

(13) GP305

1 M2: I think I'm a junior, but I still could be a sophomore still2 Ml: Well I'm a junior, too.

A rather different type of sequence comprised

a claim by ego and a counter claim in whichalter would go "one-up" on ego. For ex-ample:

(14) GP103

1 MI: I think I deserve this award. I'm hard working, I go to2 school during the day work 'til two at night. I get home from3 class ((inaudible)) work 'til two at night. I deserve this4 award5 M2: Well, I work till two thirty every night and ahh after I get

6 back I stay on campus I run for three miles I'm lucky if I7 get to sleep before four. . .

Many counter claims utilized this "go-you-one-better" strategy in which alter's reply to ego'sclaim would contain an attribute which wasmore notable or deserving. The use of thesekinds of counter claims often resulted in stringsof sequences in which each interactant would

attempt to better the attribute contained in aprevious move.

Alter would not necessarily wait to respond toa move by ego. In some of the sequences, alterwould use one or more interrogatives to "setup" a counter claim. For example:

(15) GP211

1 Fl: Let's just start with I ask you some questions. How long have

2 you been at the University?3 F2: Okay. One year4 Fl: A year5 F2: A year6 Fl: And you have transferred7 F2: Mmhmm8 Fl: Transfer student9 F2: Mmhmm

10 Fl: Are you a freshman, sophomore, or



SELF-WORK 137

11 F2: sophomore12 F1: Okay. I've been here over two years I'm a junior. I'm not a13 transfer student

In lines 1-10, Fl elicited and received

attributionalclaims from F2 having to do with

class standing. It is worth noting that thissequence occurred at the very beginning of the

conversation. As mentioned above, information

offered at the beginning of a conversation often

took the form of "getting acquainted." In this

case, however, Fl uses a Socratic questioning

strategy (Labov and Fanshel, 1977). This

strategy was used not to elicit the information

per se, but rather to establish the grounds for a

counter claim in which F1 was able to counter

each one of F2's attributes with a better or moreoutstanding one of her own.

Claim-Challenge Sequences

In addition to accepting and counteringclaims, alter would also reject them. In thesedata, rejections of moves were conceptualizedas challenges and were used to produce otherkinds of sequences in the negotiations.

In one type of challenge sequence, alterwould refute the veridicality of ego's claim. Forexample:

(16) GP3091 MI: See I believe this award is supposed to reflect students who

2 have been good from the ground up. In other words from when

3 they were little kids all up to when they were older. Now its

4 just that you have been partierand all that. And that should5 axe you out as a candidate I believe. I've flown straight the6 whole way through. I've not partied, I've not done anything7 M2: I see you at the Ice House every night. So you're out of here

These kinds of sequences were relatively rare

since alter was, in effect, calling ego a liar orat least questioning the truthfulness of the

claim.

In another second type of challenge sequence,alter would offer a challenge to the uniquenessor "notableness" of an attribute contained in

ego's claim. For example:

(17) GP305

1 M2: Well my GPA is only about a three point two and I'm not2 involved with Student Union or anything else like that uh,3 but I paid so much money to go to school here and I think I

4 deserve this award5 MI: Well, what have you done though? I mean we've all paid

In (17), M2 began his turn by using attributeswhich appear tantamount to a repudiation. Onlines 3-4, however, he made a claim to

outstanding studentby noting how much moneyhe had paid to attend school. In line 5, M1challenged that claim by, in effect, stating that

since all the students at that school had to pay aswell, a valid claim to outstanding student could

not be based on that attribute.Many challenges to notableness were based

on the proposition that for a claim to be valid,the attribute contained in it should be unique or

outstanding; attributes which were defined as

being held in common were generally subject to

challenge. This would seem to be the result ofthe nature of the negotiations; only one of the

interactants was going to assume the role-

identity of outstanding student.

Finally, the meaning of an attributemight be

ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations.

A third type of challenge sequence involved a

redefinition of the meaning of an attribute

contained in a first move. For example:

(18) GP207

1 Fl: Well, my day starts at, uhm, six in the morning and it2 doesn't end till about, uhm, one in the morning. I'm married

3 and it's even harderthat way4 F2: I have a boyfriend who's away at school so that gives me

5 problems

6 Fl: So he's away, so he's away. So he's not there to, you know,

7 put any demands on your time or whatever so that you have all8 your time to yourself




In this sequence, Fl began with a claim,using an activity descriptor (the length of herworking day) and a categorical descriptor(married) coupled with an assessment descriptor

("it's even harder that way"). F2 countered thatfirst move by using a matching claim containing

a categorical descriptor of her own (the claim tothe category "girlfriend" is implicitly madethroughthe statement "I have a boyfriend who's

away at school") in conjunction with anassessment descriptor ("so that gives meproblems"). Fl then challenged F2's claim by

redefining the attribute of "boyfriend who'saway at school" as an advantage rather than adrawback; redefining the (counter)claim as arepudiation.

As can be seen from the preceding example,sequences were often linked together (in the

previous example: claim-counter claim; counterclaim-challenge). Perhaps an extended dataexcerpt is in order to more clearly illustratesome of the ways in which interactants usedthese claims and replies to produce a series ofsequences.

(19) GP209

1 F2: Well, I think I deserve the award because I've been at UNO2 for three years and uhm I'm involved in school athletics. I'm3 on the UNO tennis team and uhm I am a good student and

4 participate in some other school activities and I think I5 deserve the award.6 Fl: What do you participate in?7 F2: Well, I participate in intramurals before I go to the8 baseball games and I go to basketball games and I think that9 I deserve this award, especially since I've been here for six

10 semesters11 Fl: Well I think that you've been here six semesters that you're12 probably tired of school and you probably don't deserve this13 award because you're probably just going through the motions14 and since I've only been here two semesters I think I deserve15 it

16 F2: But why? Just because you've been here two semesters?17 Fl: Cause, uhm, I'm fresher and because since I just startedI'm18 not tired of school yet and I have a fresh outlook and I'm19 studying really hard and you're probably burntout

20 F2: Well so do I. But this, you know, this annual award for21 undergraduates, it's, it's like a reward for my work. I've22 been here, you know this is my seventh semester I've been

23 here already for six semesters and I think I should be24 rewarded for all the work I have done for all the semesters I

25 have been out here. I'm on the tennis team and I, you know,26 promote the school.

F2 began this stretch of talk by making aclaim which comprised various attributes:activ-

ity descriptors such as "been at UNO for three

years" (lines 1-2) and "involved in school

athletics . . ." (lines 2-3) and a categorical

descriptor, "good student" (line 3). In line 6, Fl

produced what, superficially, can be seen as a

request for more specific information about the

nature of the "school activities" to which F2

made claim. Since this excerpt occurs at the

beginning of the conversation, this seems a

reasonable interpretation. Fl could also have

been attempting to "set up" a challenge orcounter claim, which she ultimately did in lines

11-13, though this redefinitional challenge is

directed at the number of semesters F2 had beenat the school, rather than her school activities.

Fl then used this redefinition as a basis of herown claim, which in this case is contained in a

counter claim on line 14. In line 16, F2

produced a challenge which seems to call for a

substantiation of Fl's counter claim; in effect achallenge to notableness. This would seem to be

the case since class standing was often used in

claims on the basis of the proposition that the

higher the class standing, the more one had

accomplished and, therefore, the more deserv-

ing the claimant. In lines 17-19, Fl offered this

substantiationin the form of various assessment

descriptors. In line 19, she then reiterated her

original challenge. The beginning of F2's turn

on line 20 seems to have done two things: it

both countered Fl's claim based on "working

hard" and challenged Fl's challenge in line 19

and the original challenge in lines 11-13; in

effect redefining the redefinition. F2 then went

on to do some additional definitional work

vis-a-vis the award itself (lines 20-21) to set up

a final claim based on some activity descriptors

(lines 22-25).



SELF-WORK 139

Aligning Actions

Since interactantsknew that their claims weresubject to challenges and counter claims, theyoften elaborated upon the basic structure ofclaims and repudiations. These elaboration

strategies often served as aligning actions(Stokes and Hewitt, 1973) and accomplished

various kinds of definitional work which wouldserve to maintain an interactant' claims tooutstanding student even when they becameproblematic.

First, interactants prefaced claims with an

announcement of what they were about to say.For example:

(20) GP105

1 MI: Okay, I guess I'm going to starttelling you some good points2 about myself. Well, I don't go to school full time to begin3 with and another thing I don't agree with undergraduate4 awards stuff like that. But my good points are I go to school5 I work two full time jobs and I'm in school they're not two6 full time jobs but they're almost full time. My dad had7 triple bypass surgery and I took over his company for him and

8 ever since then I have been going to his company going to9 school. I also work on weekends, Fridays, Saturdays and10 Sundays at the Kenner Lions Club

The preface (lines 1-4) to Ml's claim in thisexample is multifaceted. In the first part of thatpreface (lines 1-2), he not only announced whatwas going to be said but also seemed to definein advance the nature of the claim: that it wasgoing to be a partial, or biased description. In

this way, it is similar to Hewitt and Stokes'(1975) sin license-it predefined a claim as

somewhat biased and implicitly called forsuspension of judgment by alter. In the second

part of the preface (lines 3-4) MI also statedthat he didn't "agree with undergraduateawards." In the latter announcementMI hedgedhis claim by signaling in advance his "minimalcommitment to the impending line of conduct"and indicating "the tentative nature of forthcom-ing action" (Hewitt and Stokes, 1975, p. 4).

Interactants also used aligning strategies

which would redefine a repudiation.For example:

(21) GP402

1 F2: Its taken me alot cause I've come a long way too since I've2 been at SMU too. I can, I'm a sophomore and uh, last year I3 did a lot of partying like you so my grades were down and I4 pulled them up considerably

In lines 2-3, F2 produced what amounted to arepudiation by stating that she "did a lot of par-tying" and her "grades were down." She pro-

ceeded (line 1) and followed (line 4) that state-ment by stating that she had "come a long way"and "pulled (the grades) up considerably." Indoing so she ended up making a claim in terms of"doing better" or "showing improvement." Bycombining a claim with a repudiation n this way,interactantscould turnthe attribute contained ina repudiationinto an attributewhich was partofa claim; creating another, positive attribute. AsF2 did in the example above, interactants would

often attempt to provide an explanation for bad

grades. While such explanations did not excuse

or justify such an attribute, they did render them

understandable. The use of such "quasi-the-ories" (Hewitt and Hall, 1973) were acceptable

because they were based on "what everyone

knows" about why college students sometimes

fail to get good grades, especially their freshman

year. Such aligning strategies were not always

successful, as alter could use the opportunityfor

a counter claim:

(22) GP309

1 MI: Um, I think I deserve this award, cause I made a turn around2 in getting good grades and, and I am becoming a better3 student at SMU4 M2: The key statement there is turn around. I startedfrom the5 beginning as a good student. I think I deserve better the6 award.

Finally, interactantsalso used aligning strate-gies which provided accounts (Scott and Ly-

man, 1968) for an attribute contained in arepudiation:




(23) GP104

1 M1: . I've maintained a two point oh ((grade point average))2 except for this last semester and that was only because I3 took too much upon myself. I was involved in ROTC. I was in4 LSU's band.

By providing an account for bad grades in thisway (lines 3-4), Ml was able to not only excusehis bad grades, but also to provide a claim via

two category descriptors.

ATTRIBUTIONAL RELEVANCE

Though role-identities can be conceptualizedas existing in an N-dimensional space (Burkeand Tully, 1977; Burke and Reitzes, 1981), thisspace is probably not unbounded. According to

Goffman (1961) and others (Atkinson and Drew,1979; Maynard, 1982), the question of the situ-

ational relevance of attributesof an individual ora given role-identity is problematic, and interact-ants maintain local control over information ortopics which are presented or defined as relevant

(Goffman, 1967; Maynard and Zimmerman,1984). In these data, the problem of the situa-tional relevance of attributesmeant that interact-ants faced a selectional problem: which at-

tributes, from among a number of potentiallyrelevant attributes, were to be chosen for use in

the negotiations over outstanding student?As noted above, there were differences be-

tween the two universities from which subjectswere drawn. Despite these differences between

the two types of students, there were attributes

which both sets of interactants routinely used in

the data. These included grade point average,extracurricular ctivities, class standingand work-

ing hard; when ego used these attributes, alterwould rarely if ever challenge their relevance as

criteria for outstanding student.On the other hand, there were also between-

school differences in interactants' choice of at-

tributes, or in the meaning they assigned to at-

tributes. For example, a common categoricalattribute for interactantsfrom the private schoolwas fraternityor sorority membership. Alterna-

tively, sorority or fraternity membership was

never used by interactants from the state school;

instead they consistently used the activity de-scriptor of jobs at which they worked. Indeed, anattributewhich seemed to be accorded much rel-evance in their negotiations was the fact that astudent supportedoneself by working, rather handepending on financial support from parents.

From these two patterns (i.e., the between-school similarities and differences), it could bereasoned that the attributes or criteria used inthese negotiations were drawn from commonlyheld cultural conceptions or definitions of out-

standing student. On the other hand, ratherthanconceptualizingculture as something thatinteract-ants held in common, it can also be conceptual-ized as something that interactantsaccomplishedin their talk; as constituted in interaction ratherthan serving as a backdrop to that interaction.Thus, the problem of situational relevance wasnot settled a priori, but rather as an integral partof their negotiations over the particular role-identity at issue. In their talk, interactantsexhib-ited an orientation to the problem of what therole-identity of outstanding was going to mean,

and attemptedto negotiate practical solutions toit.

A kind of cooperative principle seemed to op-erate in the data which provided interactantswithone solution to the relevance problem. The prin-ciple constrained interactantsto stick to a mutu-ally defined set of attributesat any given point inthe conversation. Thus, if ego began by talkingabout grade point average, class standing andextracurricularactivities, alter would use at leastsome, if not all, of these in immediately subse-quent moves. What resulted was a sequence oftalk in which one or a small set of attributeswould be discussed, followed by another se-quence concerning another attribute or set of at-tributes. The power of this principle was evi-denced when alter used the same attributesthatego did in previous moves, even though it meantproducing a repudiation. For example:

(24) GP305

1 MI: I think I'm qualified for that uh, I got a three point six2 GPA and I'm involved in the Student Senate. I do a lot of work

3 M2: Well my GPA is only about a three point two and I'm not4 involved in Student Union or anything else like that uh. .

This principle appearedto provide interactants

with a mutuallydefined set of attributeson which

to comparethemselves. Without agreeingon some

set of common attributes, interactantsmight be

faced with an "apples and oranges" problem;having to decide on the comparability of differ-

ent attributes.Indeed, in some conversations, this

problemwas explicitly referenced. It would seem

that this principle gave greaterpower to the first

speaker n a sequence, since that interactantwould

be defining the relevant attributes in his or hermove. The second speaker, however, also hadthe power to ratify or challenge the relevance ofthese attributes. By using the same attributes as



SELF-WORK 141

ego, alter would in effect ratify these attributesas valid or relevant for present purposes.

While the cooperative principle resulted in a

relatively implicit negotiation over situationalrelevance, this was also accomplished moreexplicitly. Thus:

(25) GP203

1 Fl: What makes a person deserving? What makes a person deserving?2 F2: Hard working3 Fl: Hard working4 F2: Umm, competitive5 Fl: competitive6 F2: Umm, wait. What three things would you think would be most7 important?8 Fl: Uhh, being the person that I am, I'd have to look at the9 individual. You know, I mean like their individual

10 characteristics like are they a good person. You know, that11 sort of thing12 F2: Okay, so personality

In this and other examples, interactantswould

explicitly negotiate the attributes which would

be used as defining criteria for outstandingstudent. The sequences took the form of criteria

candidates on the part of ego and challenges or

ratifications on the part of alter. What makes

these kinds of sequences interesting is that the

topic was not which interactanthad claim to therole-identity of outstanding student, but ratherwhat that role-identity meant.

Through the skillful use of criteria candidatesit was possible for interactants to establishconditions for a subsequent claim:

(26) GP404

1 F2: What is outstanding student first of all? Well, uhm. I think

2 that an outstanding student is somebody who can do things

3 outside of school and still get a good grade point.4 ((F2 and Fl agree on these defining criteria))5 F2: OK. I'll go by my first semester. OK, first semester I got a6 three point seven GPA and I did all kinds of stuff outside of7 school8 Fl: What did you do?9 F2: Oh, I had a boyfriend

Here F2 began in lines 1-3 by defining an at-

tributeof outstandingstudent(someone who doesmore than just get good grades). She then madean attributionalclaim to that same characteristic.

Though somewhat superficial in this example,interactants could "set up" their attributionalclaims by predefining the role-identity along thesame semantic dimensions. This would seem tobe a strategicand quite effective way to establishclaims. Having already accepted the criteria asrelevant, alter was left with one fewer option inreplying to ego's move.

CONCLUSION

What social actors say and do in an encounter

has implications for who each will be for thepurposes of that encounter. In these data, claimsand repudiationsrepresented first, basic, movesin a complex interplay of conversational strate-gies in which interactants negotiated the role-identity of outstanding student. Attributes con-tained in claims and repudiations werecontinually subject to definitional work by ego(in the form of aligning actions) and alter (in the

form of challenges and counter claims). Inaddition to negotiating what individual attributesmeant, interactants also negotiated what therole-identity was going to mean for the purpose

of the encounter at hand. In these data, then,negotiating a role-identity proceeded piecemealon two different levels. The analysis presentedhere is intended as a first attempt to provide anunderstanding of some of the ways in whichinteractants accomplish these negotiations.

The findings presented here can be used toextend previous work on the relationshipbetween identities and role behavior. Conversa-tional strategies are linked to and based uponbackground information possessed by interac-tants (Cicourel, 1981; Goffman, 1983). Of

particular importance regarding self-work areinteractants' identity structures and the meaningthey assign to each of their own identities.Subsequent research might fruitfully begin byexamining the linkages between interactants'

identities (as traditionally measured, for exam-ple, by semantic differential items) and theconversational strategies they use in presentingand negotiating identities.




One question worth addressing: Are the at-tributes that interactantschoose to use in claimsrelated to their self-definitions; that is, does at-

tribute selection have more to do with the at-

tributes that other interactants use or is it a de-

finable combination of these two factors? Anotherquestion:If we can define challenges and counterclaims as assertive moves in role-identity nego-

tiations, does the occurrence of these moves beara relationship to interactants' definition of selfalong semantic dimensions such as powerful-weak, active-passive, etc.? Or is the use of thesemoves more of a function of their use by otherinteractants?Researchwhich addresses these, andrelated, questions would not only advance our

understanding of the relationship between talkand the self, but would also help in sorting out

the differential contribution that self and the set-ting make to interactive behavior.

REFERENCES

Alexander, C.N. and G.W. Knight. 1971. "Situated

Identitiesand Social Psychological Experimentation."

Sociometry34:65-82.Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in

Court. London:MacMillanBales, Robert, Fred Strodtbeck, Theodore Mills and

MaryRosenborough.1951. "Channelsof Communica-

tion in Small Groups."American Sociological Review16:461-68.

Beckhouse, Lawrence, John WAiler, Judith Tanur and

Eugene Weinstein. 1975. ". . . And Some Men Have

LeadershipThrustUpon Theni." Journal of Personal-

it) and Social Psychology 31:557-66.

Bernstein, Basil. 1971. Class, Codes and Control.

London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Blumstein, Phillip W. 1973. "Audience, Machiavelian-

ism, and Tactics of Identity Bargaining."Sociometry

36:346-65._ 1975. "Identity Bargaining and Self-

Conception."Social Forces 53:476-85.

Brown, B. 1969. "The Effects of Need to Save Face onInterpersonalBargaining." Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology4:107-22.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1978. "Univer-

sals in LanguageUsage: Politeness Phenomena." Pp.

56-289 in Questions and Politeness: Strategies in

Social Interaction, edited by E. Goody. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Burke, Peter J. 1974. "Participationand Leadership n

Small Groups." American Sociological Review

39:832-43.Burke, PeterJ. andDonald C. Reitzes. 1981. "The Link

Between Identity and Role Performance." Social

Psychology Quarterly44:83-92.Burke, Peter J. and Judy C. Tully. 1977. "The

Measurement of Role Identity." Social Forces

55:881-97.Cicourel, Aaron. 1981. "The Role of Cognitive-

LinguisticConceptsin UnderstandingEverydaySocial

Interactions."Annual Reviewof Sociology 7:87-106.

Corsaro,William A. 1977. "The ClarificationRequestas

a Feature of Adult Interactive Styles with YoungChildren."Language in Society 6:183-207.

. 1981. "Communicative Processes in Studies of

Social Organization:Sociological Approaches to Dis-course Analysis." Text 1:5-63.

Drass, KrissA. 1986. "The Effect of GenderIdentity on

Conversation." Social Psychology Quarterly 49:294-301.

Goffman,Erving. 1959. Presentationof Self in EverydayLife. New York:Doubleday.

. 1961. Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

1967. "On Face-Work." Pp. 5-45 in Interac-

tion Ritual, edited by Erving Goffman. New York:Doubleday.

. 1969. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: Uni-

versity of PennsylvaniaPress._ 1983. "Felicity's Condition." American Journal

of Sociology 89:1-53.Hewitt, John P. and Peter M. Hall. 1973. "Social

Problems, Problematic Situations, and Quasi-Theories." AmericanSociological Review 38:367-74.

Hewitt, John P. and Randall Stokes. 1975. "Disclaim-ers." AmericanSociological Review40:1-11.

Kesler, Charles. 1979. "The Movement of StudentOpinion."National Review 31:1483-91.

Labov, William and David Fanshel. 1977. TherapeuticDiscourse. New York: Academic Press.

Maynard, Douglas W. 1982. "Person Descriptions inPlea Bargaining."Semiotica42:195-213.

Maynard,Douglas W. and Don H. Zimmerman.1984."Topical Talk, Ritual and the Social OrganizationofRelationships." Social Psychology Quarterly

47:301-17.McCall, George and John L. Simmons. 1966. Identities

and Interactions.New York: The Free Press.Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society.

Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Schneider, David J. 1969. "Tactical Self-PresentationAfterSuccess andFailure." Journalof PersonalityandSocial Psychology 13: 262-68.

Scott, Marvinand StanfordLyman. 1968. "Accounts."AmericanSociological Review33:46-62.

Snow, David andCynthiaPhillips. 1982. "TheChangingSelf-Orientations f College Students:FromInstitutionto Impulse." Social Science Quarterly63:462-76.

Stiles, William B., Cynthia S. Waszak and Laine R.Barton. 1979. "Professorial Presumptuousness inVerbal Interactionswith UniversityStudents."Journal

of ExperimentalSocial Psychology 15:158-69.

Stokes, Randall and John Hewitt. 1976. "AligningActions." AmericanSociological Review41:838-49.

Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A

Social StructuralVersion.Menlo Park:The Benjamin/CummingsPublishingCo.

Turner,Ralph. 1962. "Role-Taking: rocess vs. Conform-ity." Pp. 20-40 in Human Behavior and Social

Processes, edited by A. Rose. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Weinstein, Eugene and Paul Deutschberger. 1963."Some Dimensions of Altercasting." Sociometry26:454-65.

Zimmerman,Don H. and Candace West. 1975. "SexRoles, Interruptions,and Silences in Conversation."Pp. 105-29 in Language and Sex: Difference andDominance, edited by Barrie Thome and NancyHenley. Ronley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Spencer, J. W. Self-Work in Social Interaction - Negotiating Role-Identities.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Spencer, J. W. Self-Work in Social Interaction - Negotiating Role-Identities.pdf