Emerson starts this article with a general discussion about the nature of social control and how that varies according to context. According to Emerson, most research in this area has centered on "legal, state centered mechanisms of control" (483) rather than the processes of informal control in informal situations. He defines "official control" as "the enforcement or sanctioning of an authoritative agent" who may at times intervene as a third party in situations that were previously private;" picture some small claims court scenario. Informal control is defined as "nongovernmental reactions to infractions of informal norms" (483); here I picture the dirty look you might get that causes you to cease whatever activity you were engaged in, like trying to cut in line at the supermarket. Put formally by Emerson, these informal reactions "arise with one party's efforts to respond to the undesired behavior of another; such efforts can involve actions directed toward the other and the troubling behavior and actions in which informal third parties are turned to for advice and help" (484).
Emerson cites both Goffman and Gibbs stating that informal control is not so much punitive or penal in nature like formal state control, but rather, corrective or remedial in its purpose (484). Citing Black, Emerson says that informal control assumes many different forms, or "styles," including:
1. Punishment; the deviant behavior is subject to a consequence
2. Compensation; a debtor receives damages for the consequence of the deviant behavior
3. Therapy; the deviant behavior is attributed to a victim, the party who committed the deviant behavior, who will receive treatment
4. Conciliation; a resolution is sought in a conflict relationship between the disputing parties.
With these styles Emerson raises two issues:
1. The styles seem to mirror the "state" or "legal" styles of formal control. As such, Emerson wonders if these styles can adequately capture "the dynamics" of informal situations which are "non-authoritarian in character" (484).
2. The control styles "designate particular outcomes at a single point in time" (484) when all of these styles (except punishment) are a direct product of interaction, negotiation, and cooperation over time between the troubled/troubling parties.
This article is grounded in the theory of "dispute transformation" (Felstiner et al.) which provides "the natural history model."
* the emphasis is on the informal collective process that can expand to incorporate the development of informal control
* dispute transformation holds that disputes begin with an "unperceived injury" and can go through up to four stages:
1. Perceiving/naming the injury; the point where a person says to themselves "hey, wait a minute!"
2. Blaming; the person finds fault for the injury in another party
3. Claiming (Naming); the injured party voices their concern or grievance to the party they believe to be responsible and asks for a remedy or compensation
4. Rejection of the claim; gives rise to full blown disputes that may be handled either formally or informally for resolution
Conley/O'Barr: More elaborate "natural history of disputing model." Differs because it further breaks down the "naming stage" into "articulating" and " labeling" components (484).
Limitations of this theory (485):
Presupposes an injury that must be named by a victim and then fault attributed to another party. Assuming that an injury begins with a "relatively unproblematic event" (485) that simply has to be perceived as an injury; Emerson argues that this model fails to account for how the occurrence comes to be perceived as an injury in the first place, that it fixes a particular starting point without taking into account problems "that are initially ambiguous and uncertain" (485) to the later upset or discontented party. In other words, it doesn't account for the build up that often leads to disputes.
The theory emphasizes time but focuses on a single response, claiming- where the injured party seeks compensation, but ignores reactions where an individual tried to autonomously deal with the problem without making an appeal to the troubling party. Also does not account for situations where the injured party does not make a direct claim to the troubling party, but rather to a third party. Also, the dynamics of dyadic claims (two party claims) look different depending on weather the claim is made directly to the troubling party or if the claim is made to an outside third party.
Solutions to the limitations of the model(485-486):
A more open ended and inclusive starting point has to be implemented. To achieve this, incidents that were originally amorphous or indistinct, but come to be interpreted later as an injury have to be taken into consideration. For instance, if your roommate uses your laundry detergent once without asking or replacing, you might let it go. The second and third time begin to irritate you but you may say nothing. By the time it reaches a certain tipping point, say for arguments sake, seven times, you may become angry and look back at the first time as the beginning of a pattern and attribute fault were no fault was originally attributed.
The array of informal reactions have to be examined in turn for clarification and distinction. Emerson gives the example where people may live with or around the trouble but react by trying to accommodate themselves to the trouble rather than making a direct appeal to the troubling party. They try to "deal" with the situation themselves, perhaps thinking that maybe they shouldn't get so upset, finding fault in their own feelings or reactions rather than the actions of the troubling party.
The focus of this paper is to take into account this theory/model and apply it to a case study of the troubles of a "one of a kind relationship, that involving college roommates." Emerson distinguishes roommate situations as worthy of sociological study because they are not novel one time events and they are difficult to deal with "by walking away." Also, unlike longer term more intimate relationships, like working or family relationships for example, these relationships have a more shallow history and "relatively superficial implications for identity." In other words, in a college roommate situation, you don't know the person, you have no history with the person, and it doesn't really matter what happens because you don't have to tie your identity to the person in any way, like you might in a professional relationship where you worry about the later implications of your interactions. Finally, roommate troubles arise in non-hierarchical relationships of relative equality, its not like deferring to your boss or worrying about what your mom thinks.
Emerson's research questions:
What are the different informal reactions to roommate troubles? Emerson identifies three styles of managing conflict: managerial, complaint making, and distancing and punitive reactions.
How do roommates interpret each others actions and what are their interaction processes when dealing with disputes? Here he will draw on the dispute transformation theory.
Emerson will then analyze roommate troubles and reactions and examine the nature and circumstance under which roommates in disputes use the different styles and informal interaction responses.
Methods and Findings (487):
*Examine 184 first person accounts of problems with roommates that were collected by sociology classes between 1993-1996
*154 of these accounts relate to problems of living together in dorms or apartments
*Subjects were friends and acquaintances of the students talking about recent or current roommate troubles
*Specific interview questions including as much detail as possible when delineating the problems, how they reacted physically and emotionally, when they sought outside help, where the current situation stood, and when the problems were first noted.
*Roommates here were mostly college students, primarily undergrads in their late teens and early 20s
*He incorporates other data into this section such as what people were most contentious about, what people fought over varied with the particular dynamics of the roommate situation (was it female/female, mixed gender or male/male), and what styles of response were most popular
*Limitations: The sample was not representative of systematically selected and the "length and quality of the data varied considerably" (488)
*Advantages: First person data offered distinct advantages. Subject interviewed by their peers; less distance or intimidation present, first hand accounts providing more insight that observation. This data set dealt with cases that were handled informally, where most previous studies of informal control and disputing have had samples where legal/official control has been the outcome.
Troubles Section:
Here Emerson starts talking about how to clarify and distinguish different types of discontents and how people respond (489). Emerson points out that initially, discontents may be "articulated" as the injured party begins to "reflect on and interpret(s) the sources, nature, and implications of the upsetting behavior or situation(s)" (489). Emerson talks about the different ways that people express discontent which range from facial expressions to other actions like brief retorts or "carefully prepared, elaborate problem formulations" (489). Still, not all discontents are expressed on the first occasion or incident. The definition of the core process for handling troubles is defined as a person deciding on responsive actions to "do something about the problem"(489). He moves on to the informal third party consultation that people might engage when they are in the middle of disputes and shows that the third party, weather friends or family, serve as "sounding boards for advice and support" (489). Official third parties were viewed by troubled roommates as an inappropriate means for dealing with disputes.
Many roommates feel an obligation to get along so they often try to handle their issues in a way that sustains an atmosphere of compatibility. They try to be polite and sensitive and try to take care not to be to harsh or antagonistic with one another.
Managerial responses: The troubled party initiates and tries to carry out a response to the disturbing behavior that may seek to change the troubling conditions or develop a way to live with or around the somewhat accepted troubling behavior. (see 492-502; long discussion with empirical examples of managerial responses from his study) This response is low-visibility, minor, situationally sensitive responses. This response may also include the troubled party trying to make changes in themselves, their attitudes and sensitivities as a way of "dilute(ing) or deal(ing)" with the situation (506).
Dyadic complaints: Two way responses where the troubled party asks the other party to take an action to correct or remedy the disturbing behavior (489). Change here is uncertain because it depends on the response of the troubling party to the exchange or negotiation that takes place between both parties (492-502). Here, the dispute transformation model comes into play because it focuses of claiming, where somebody "complains" without trying to get the other person to change. This model makes the distinction that claiming precedes conciliatory or therapeutic outcomes (507).
Abandoning concern: Here, the troubled party may resort to extreme responses designed to distance themselves from the troubling party or to punish the troubling party. This is usually after there has been failed attempts at other responses. The actions here tend to alienate or express hostility towards the troubling party which usually generates a similar response from the other (see 502-505). These kinds of measures usually evolve over time as roommates become frustrated roommates begin to consider exit strategies or try to make the other person move out because the troubles they are experiencing are irreconcilable (503). Here, roommates often have to "make do" with the sour situation until they can actually move out. Roommates often resort to avoidance and exclusion of the other person because the relationship has come to feel hopeless. This differs from managerial responses because the avoidance is usually isolated to the one or two problems, but a certain level of politeness leaves the overall relationship in tact. This response becomes a systematic avoidance of the other person that pervades the entire relationship rendering the housemate situation unlivable because of constant tension. Punitive responses are also employed here to make the other person suffer or to get back at them by deliberately inconveniencing them.
No comments:
Post a Comment