Conclusions

Networks of social roles constitute frameworks into which activities in society, organizations, and groups are organized and acquire meaning and by which individuals organize and understand the meaning of their own behavior and the actions of others. According to interactional role theory, roles are cultural resources but are typically vague, though people act as if they were real and relatively precise. Roles are continuously constructed and reconstructed as individuals engage in role-making in the course of interaction with incumbents of alter roles, or as legitimate role definers specify and respecify the organization of activity. When role definitions become ossified through formal organizational definition or strongly normative cultural tradition, or are too vague or internally or externally conflicting to supply a basis for action, the continuous process of role redefinition leads to the development of informal or working roles that deviate in significant ways from the formally recognized role definitions.

The dynamic reconstruction and role-making and the resolution of role conflicts are governed by three principles of functionality, representationality, and tenability. Roles are constantly modified for greater apparent effectiveness (functionality), limited by the understandings and misunderstandings of incumbents and legitimate role definers. Roles become vehicles for conveying certain images (representationality) and are framed and reframed in relation to what they are seen to represent. Roles are subject to continuous tension to supply a tenable balance of benefits to costs for role incumbents, limited by the power and resources of those incumbents.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, V. L., & van de Vliert, E. (Eds.). (1982). Role transitions: Explorations and explanations. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose, S. E. (1997). Citizen soldiers: The U.S. Army from the Normandy beaches to the Bulge to the surrender of Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons & R. E Bales (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action (pp. 111–116). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bales, R. E, & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. In T. Parsons & R. E Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization, and interaction process (pp. 259–306). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Banton, M. (1965). Roles: An introduction to the study of social relations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Barker, T. (1977). Peer group support for police occupational deviance. Criminology, 15, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burke, P J. (1968). Role differentiation and the legitimation of task activity. Sociometry, 31, 404–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coser, R. L. (1991). In defense of modernity: Role complexity and individual autonomy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dahrendorf, R. (1973). Homo sociologicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, E (1961). Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interaction by the visibly handicapped. Social Problems, 9, 120–32.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, K. (1949). Human society. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebaugh, H. R. F. (1988). Becoming an ex: The process of role exit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  16. Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordon, G. (1966). Role theory and illness: A sociological perspective. New Haven, CT: College and University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gross, E. (1953). Some functional consequences of primary controls in formal work organizations. American Sociological Review, 18, 368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gross, N., Mason, W. S., & MacEachern, A. W. (1958). Explorations in role analysis: Studies of the school superintendency role. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Hage, J., & Powers, C. H. (1992). Post-industrial lives: Roles and relationships in the 21st century. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Hogan, R. R. (1984). The stress role. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes, E. C. (1937). Institutional office and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 43, 404–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kronus, C. L. (1987). The evolution of occupational power: An historical study of task boundaries between physicians and pharmacists. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 3, 3–37.Google Scholar
  24. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Linton, R. (1936). The study of man: An introduction. New York: D. Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
  26. MacAndrew, C., & Edgerton, R. B. (1969). Drunken comportment: A social explanation. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Merton, R. M. (1957). The role set. British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106–120.Google Scholar
  29. Newcomb, T. M. (1950). Social psychology. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  30. Park, R. E. (1928) Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Peter, L. J., & Hull, R.(1969). The Peter principle. New York: W. Morrow.Google Scholar
  33. Scott, R. A. (1969). The making of blind men. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  34. Perry, S. E., Silber, E., & Block, D. (1956). The child and his family in disaster. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences-National Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  35. Roethlisberger, E J., & Dickson, W. J. (1947). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sieber, S. (1974) Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thornton, R., & Nardi, P. M. (1975). The dynamics of role acquisition. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 870–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner, R H. (1947). The Navy disbursing officer as a bureaucrat. American Sociological Review, 12, 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner, R. H. (1962). Role taking: Process versus conformity. In A. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 20–40). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  41. Turner, R. H. (1972). Deviance avowal as neutralization of commitment. Social Problems, 19, 308–321.Google Scholar
  42. Turner, R. H. (1978). The role and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner, R. H. (1990). Role change. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner, R. H., & Colomy, C. (1988). Role differentiation: Orienting principles. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: A research annual, Vol. 5 (pp. 1–27). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  45. Turner, R. H., & Shosid, N. (1976). Ambiguity and interchangeability in role attribution. American Sociological Review, 41, 993–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Gennep, A. (1909). Les rites de passage. Paris: Ferme.Google Scholar
  47. Waller, W. (1930). The old love and the new: Divorce and readjustment. New York: Horace Liveright.Google Scholar
  48. Weinstein, E., & Deutschberger, P. (1963). Some dimensions of altercasting. Sociometry, 26, 454–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whyte, W. F. (1955). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum, enlarged ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph H. Turner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations