Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency: Specifying a Symbolic lnteractionist Theory

Critical Analysis

In this text, the author examines the relationship between symbolic interactionism and labeling theory, and argues that deviant behavior is in part determined by the way one sees the results of their actions reflected back to them: the reflected appraisal acts as evidence of how successful they were at performing a particular role.

Self-worth is presented as interconnected mechanisms: seeing others see oneself, comparing oneself to others, and judging one’s own behavior; the author describes that “through the process of reflected appraisals, individuals form self-conceptions on the basis of their perceptions of others’ attitudes towards them. Through the process of social comparisons, people make judgements about themselves, in part by comparing themselves with others” (1578). Social interactionism is offered as a framework for understanding these mechanisms, where self-worth is a social process of role-taking and forming a sense of self, and is just one of other social processes occurring.

From this perspective, students in studio are continually playing roles, and are “projecting oneself into the role of other persons and appraising, from their standpoint, the situation, oneself in the situation, and possible lines of action” (1580). Critique is a formalized and forced moment of this comparison, and the public nature of studio encourages this constant trying-on of roles and internal evaluations of success. Being a risk-taker is one of these roles, where risks are loosely defined: a student may try on being a risk-taker with materials as they see someone else take a new approach, and seeing how the role fits. Similarly, stylistic choices and authorship are “copied” in a context where ideas are explicitly deemed free, and the way a student pulls off this style is assessed by the group. The assessment is consensus, again driven by communal activities of dialogue; it is also formalized by a professor.

Increasing awareness of the Big D discourse of studio means broadening beyond any single role, and learning to “take the role of the entire or group or ‘generalized other,’ which includes the norms, rules, and expectations governing various positions and roles” of the cohort (1581). A social interactionist perspective views this as part of social organization, and the author argues that, as it appears in institutionalized contexts, it “constitutes the most effective form of social control, since the organized institution and norms enter individual behavior” (1581). Repetition impacts this normalization as behavior becomes habitualized, and the rituals of studio over an extended period of time offer a backdrop for an ongoing role-taking and self-appraisal.

A reference group acts as a source of values and a resource for role selection, and the “persons we care about, from whom we gain personal status, and who have helped form our self-image in the past, are most likely to be selected, since we want to maintain a favorable self-image in their eyes” (1584). This is a professor, but it is also other students, and given the disproportionate amount of time a student spends in studio without an instructor present, students likely become more dominant a reference group. The author, referencing Kinch, presents a causal chain where initial behavior of trying on a role establishes the way a cohort sees a student; a student engages in a reflective appraisal of self to understand how successful they were in trying on the role; this determines a self-appraisal; and then this leads to behavior. The chain relies on labeling theory in supportive of the chain beginning, as causal behavior provokes a response from the community, and the response influences self-image. The author recognizes that “labels are not restricted to deviance. One can be labeled a conformist or a success at conventional activity, which should increase the likelihood of conventional behavior, while decreasing the likelihood of deviance” (1588). Similarly, one can be labeled a designer with all of the qualities that “unpack” from the label, resulting in the same sort of cycle continuing, and the label, and identity, solidifying.

The author concludes that an interactionist view of self, one based on reflected appraisals and labeling, supports a cause and effect view of behavior. Within the causal chain, a student—who has behaved in a sort of role-taking way—observes a reaction, appraises the reaction, appraises themselves, and then behaves in response. If their action was deemed one of a “real designer,” they have evidence that they are pulling off the role of a designer effectively, and so their behavior continues.