Presidential Address: Some Problems in Role Analysis

Abstract

The history of Linton's and Parsons' exemplifies a familiar pattern in intellectual development of humanistic sciences (Linton, 1936; Parsons, 1949, 1951; Parsons and Shils, 1951). A line of theory and investigation becomes widely adopted, eventually induces criticism and, in course of polemic, undergoes further development. This paper attempts to trace several strands in this historical pattern of analysis, first from a general viewpoint and then in relation to my recent study of masculine strains. I use phrase role analysis instead of role theory, advisedly. Role theory is likely to develop only with regard to formal, Simmelian aspects of roles. Indeed, we have beginnings of such theory in socialization into roles, conformity, and deviance, and conditions moderating or intensifying strain. As contrasted with these formal aspects, obligations and rights that constitute substantive content of roles would appear to span much of subject matter of sociology. For example, American president and French prime minister, factory manager in United States and in Soviet Union, kinship obligations of an adult male in a patrior matri-lineage any theoretical propositions concerning normative content of these roles would hardly be distinguishable from general fields of political, economic, or family sociology. One other preliminary caveat. To limit scope of this paper to manageable proportions, I shall deal only with institutionalized roles, linked to recognized social statuses. Excluded, then, are many regularities in interpersonal relationships (Newcomb, 1966) or forms of interaction like the family scapegoat, the big wheel, or the rebel, lacking normative content of institutionalized roles (Popitz, 1972). Moreover, emphasis will be primarily on social structural rather than on symbolic interactionism of descendants of Cooley and Mead. The latter have been concerned with such processes as variable capacity for role-taking, acquisition of roles, emergence of informal roles, and like (Rose, 1962). Another example of an interactionist approach to roles is Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Institutionalized roles are implicit in Goffman's analysis. His purpose is to reveal processes in social encounters between partners, seen from vantage point of . . impression management, of which arise in fostering an impression, and of techniques for meeting these contingencies (Goffman, 1959:80). By contrast, for Gross, Mason, and McEachern, for Preiss and Ehrlich, Merton, or Goode, interest lies in institutionalized roles. The theoretical developments in selected for consideration have come from two sources. Some were caused by forces endogenous to field. Others, more dramatic, reflected shifting emphases and polemics in discipline as a whole. We shall consider them in turn.