A potentially intelligent academic would argue that any theory of human behavior must make sense to the people it is intended to explain, citing the works of Max Weber, Erving Goffman, James C. Scott, Clifford Geertz, and Carlo Ginzburg. Renowned sociological scholar Max Weber highlighted the value of verstehen, or sympathetic understanding, in social research, arguing in favor of a methodology that considers people’s subjective interpretations of their behavior. (Weber, 1978) Symbolic interactionist Erving Goffman stressed the dramaturgical aspect of social life, arguing that individuals act out roles in daily interactions, allowing shared social scripts to explain their behavior. Furthermore, James C. Scott argued for the importance of the hidden narratives of oppressed people based on political anthropology (Scott, 2009). Also, renowned anthropologist Clifford Geertz highlighted the importance of an insider’s perspective, suggesting using thick descriptions to convey the depth of meaning in cultural activities. Lastly, in his microhistory writings, Carlo Ginzburg argued that to identify more general social behavior patterns, it is essential to closely examine individual cases (Ginzburg et al., 1992). While Scott defies quick comprehension by examining hidden features of human behavior, Goffman and Geertz stress accessibility through shared social scripts.
“The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,” a significant work by Erving Goffman, explores the dynamics of human behavior deeply by offering a dramaturgical perspective that closely adheres to the rule that any explanation of human behavior must be understandable to its subjects. The idea that people perform particular roles, much like performers on a stage, is reinforced by Goffman’s conception of social interactions as performances (Goffman, 1959). This lens makes human behavior understandable due to collective social performances and scripts. By Goffman’s emphasis on the theatrical aspects of daily life, individuals are implied to be active players in a social reality that is collectively formed rather than merely passive subjects of analysis. Understanding behavior in its lived context is highly valued in this method, which makes it easier for people who share the same social environment to grasp. Thus, Goffman’s theory supports the basic tenet that explanations of human behavior ought to be grounded in comprehensibility that speaks to the experiences and viewpoints of the people being studied. Therefore, Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective emphasizes that theories of human behavior work best when they match social scripts and performances that affect people’s lives.
Scholars that Deny Principle Has Any Merit
In “Seeing Like a State” and “Weapons of the Weak,” James C. Scott establishes himself as a scholar who questions the notion that theories of human behavior should be easily understood by their subjects. By exploring the unseen transcripts of resistance within marginalized communities, Scott directs the analytical focus toward the less conspicuous aspects of daily resistance against hierarchical systems. In “Seeing Like a State,” he examines state-led initiatives to better human welfare and highlights the unforeseen repercussions and complex opposition tactics used by individuals impacted (Scott, 1998). This intentional emphasis on hidden, recalcitrant behaviors is a break from the idea that theories should be instantly understandable to the research subjects. According to Scott’s research, some facets of human behavior—especially those connected to resistance—may be challenging to understand at first glance and require a more in-depth, sophisticated explanation. Therefore, Scott questions the idea that theories of human behavior should be instantly understandable to their subjects by focusing on hidden recordings.
Additionally, Scott draws attention to the less apparent aspects of regular resistance against hierarchical structures by immersing himself in marginalized groups’ hidden tales of resistance. His investigation of concealed transcripts and subtle resistance tactics points to a divergence from the paradigm that Goffman and Geertz support, which emphasizes theories’ instantaneous accessibility to the subjects of research. According to Scott, there are intricacies in human behavior that are difficult to understand, especially regarding resistance. He challenges the notion that theories should adhere to a quick and straightforward comprehensibility by illuminating the complex intricacies of behavior that may take time to establish (Scott, 1985). This suggests a more nuanced and contextually grounded understanding. In this sense, Scott’s work reveals the complexity and depth of human behavior, suggesting that certain facets may naturally defy simple interpretation and necessitate a deeper understanding of the topic. Hence, Scott challenges the emphasis on quick comprehensibility to show how complex and elusive some aspects of human behavior are, suggesting a more nuanced and contextualized understanding.
Two Groups Distinguishing Factors
Erving Goffman and Clifford Geertz contributed to understanding human behavior, yet their methodological and theoretical approaches differ. According to Goffman, social interactions are stages on which people perform roles predetermined by society, much like actors who wear masks and follow predetermined scripts (Goffman, 1959). His theoretical paradigm focuses on the immediate dynamics of face-to-face interactions by operating at the micro level. Goffman sheds light on the complexities of impression management and self-presentation by going beyond the simple observation of behavior to investigate how people strategically display themselves in the immediate context of their encounters.
Position Reference to This Principle
A theory of human behavior ought to make sense to the people it is intended to describe and is consistent with a comprehensive method of comprehending social phenomena. I recognize the value of sympathetic empathy in social science, partly because of Max Weber. I identify with Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective since it highlights how human behavior is performative and contends that theories should explain behaviors and account for the complexities of social relationships (Goffman, 1959). This is consistent with my view that successful theories are those that people can easily understand and relate to, making the intricacies of human behavior understandable. Geertz’s focus on cultural meanings and symbols only strengthens my preference for theories that consider the unique circumstances and personal experiences of the subjects of the investigation.
References
Geertz, C. (1972). Deep Play. New York Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 3–10). Basic Books.
Ginzburg, C., Tedeschi, J. A., & Tedeschi, A. (1992). The cheese and the worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.
Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how specific schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed. Yale University Press.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. vol. 1: An outline of interpretive sociology. University Of California Press.
write