nnu. Rev. Sociol. 2006. 32- 25-52 血⊙2065AmRF0306112313 First published online as a Review in Advance on March 23. 2006 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS Jonathan H. Turner and Jan E Stets Department of Sociology, University of Califomia, Riverside, Califomia 92521; email:jonathan. turner@ucredu, jan stets @ucred Key Words affect, emotions, theory Abstract Over the past three decades, five general theoretical approaches to un- derstanding the dynamics of human emotions have emerged in sociology: dramatur gical theories, symbolic interactionist theories, interaction ritual theories, power and status theories, and exchange theories. We review each of these approaches. Despite the progress made by these theories, several issues remain unresolved: the nature of emotions, feeling, and affect; the degree to which emotions are biologically based ially constructed; the gap between social psychological theories on emotions and macrostructural theorizing; and the relatively narrow range of emotions theorized, cou- led with an equally narrow focus on the structural and cultural conditions producing INTRODUCTION Aside from Cooley(1964[1902), the founding sociologists did not provide many theoretical leads for analyzing emotions, and thus it should not be surprising that the sociology of emotions did not emerge until the last decades of the twentieth century. Despite this late start, however, the study of emotions has accelerated over past three decades, as can be seen by consulting earli reviews of sociological research and theorizing on emotions(e. g, Kemper 1990, Smith- Lovin 1995, Stets 2003, Turner Stets 2005). Now, it is possible to isolate a set of explicit approaches to understanding human emotions, including dramaturgical, symbolic interactionist, interaction ritual, power and status, and exchange theories of emotional dynamics. In a very real sense, sociology has made up for the lost decades of the twentieth century when very little theoretical and empirical work on emotions was conducted. Indeed, the analysis of emotions can now be seen as one of the cutting edges of theoretical work in sociology. In this review, we first examine the main lines of sociological theorizing, with an eye to extracting the orking generalizations that guide research within each theoretical perspective. e then outline some of the problems in current theories. We conclude with some thoughts as to how to build cumulative theory in the sociology of emotions 0360-0572/060811-0025s20.00
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123130 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006. 32:25–52 doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123130 Copyright c 2006 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved First published online as a Review in Advance on March 23, 2006 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS Jonathan H. Turner and Jan E. Stets Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, California 92521; email: jonathan.turner@ucr.edu, jan.stets@ucr.edu Key Words affect, emotions, theory ■ Abstract Over the past three decades, five general theoretical approaches to understanding the dynamics of human emotions have emerged in sociology: dramaturgical theories, symbolic interactionist theories, interaction ritual theories, power and status theories, and exchange theories. We review each of these approaches. Despite the progress made by these theories, several issues remain unresolved: the nature of emotions, feeling, and affect; the degree to which emotions are biologically based or socially constructed; the gap between social psychological theories on emotions and macrostructural theorizing; and the relatively narrow range of emotions theorized, coupled with an equally narrow focus on the structural and cultural conditions producing these emotions. INTRODUCTION Aside from Cooley (1964 [1902]), the founding sociologists did not provide many theoretical leads for analyzing emotions, and thus it should not be surprising that the sociology of emotions did not emerge until the last decades of the twentieth century. Despite this late start, however, the study of emotions has accelerated over the past three decades, as can be seen by consulting earlier reviews and compilations of sociological research and theorizing on emotions (e.g., Kemper 1990, SmithLovin 1995, Stets 2003, Turner & Stets 2005). Now, it is possible to isolate a set of explicit approaches to understanding human emotions, including dramaturgical, symbolic interactionist, interaction ritual, power and status, and exchange theories of emotional dynamics. In a very real sense, sociology has made up for the lost decades of the twentieth century when very little theoretical and empirical work on emotions was conducted. Indeed, the analysis of emotions can now be seen as one of the cutting edges of theoretical work in sociology. In this review, we first examine the main lines of sociological theorizing, with an eye to extracting the working generalizations that guide research within each theoretical perspective. We then outline some of the problems in current theories. We conclude with some thoughts as to how to build cumulative theory in the sociology of emotions. 0360-0572/06/0811-0025$20.00 25 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.
TURNER■ STETS FIVE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN EMOTIONS Dramaturgical Theories Dramaturgical theories emphasize that individuals make dramatic presentations ind engage in strategic actions directed by a cultural script. Although the termi- nology varies among different theorists, the cultural script guiding action includes ideologies, norms and rules, logics, vocabularies, and implicit stocks of knowledge about which feelings should be experienced and expressed in episodes of face-to- face interaction. Actors present self in strategic ways, emitting the emotions that are dictated by emotion ideologies and rules. When necessary, actors draw upon the cultural vocabularies and logics that define how emotions should be expressed Individuals are, in essence, dramatic actors on a stage playing parts dictated by culture, and, like all theater, they are given some dramatic license in how they play roles, as long as they do not deviate too far from the emotional script provided by When individuals do break rules of feeling and display, they experience negative emotions, particularly embarrassment and shame( Goffman 1967, Scheff 1988), nd they become highly motivated to repair their breach of cultural prescriptions and proscriptions. To avoid breaches, individuals employ the appropriate emo. tional vocabularies and syntax( Gordon 1989, Rosenberg 1991)to convince both themselves and others that they are indeed abiding by feeling rules and display rules(Hochschild 1979, 1983). Persons also consciously manipulate facial expres- sions, forms of talk, and gestures to sustain an impression that feeling and display rules are being met. They also use physical props such as clothing or objects on the interpersonal stage to communicate to others that they are adhering to emotion ideologies and norms. Individuals are not, however, viewed as tightly programmed by culture. Instead, dramaturgical theories all emphasize that persons engage in a considerable amount use emotional displays to con others in confidence games of varying magnitude Goffman 1961, 1967). Another manipulative strategy is to use emotions to gain other resources in microeconomic exchanges. For example, in Clark's(1997)con eptualization of sympathy, individuals offer sympathy to others in exchange for nother valued emotional resource, such as gratitude. Clark also points out that actors manipulate emotional displays in games of micropolitics to gain power in an interaction. She argues that the offer of sympathy, for instance, is often used to establish superiority over those who receive sympathy. Virtually all emotions can be strategically used in this manner because individuals have the capacity for expressive control of their emotions, using the display of emotions on stage to gain resource advantages over others. As Goffman(1959, 1967)emphasized, however, when individuals cannot sustain expressive control and violate the cultural script, hey lose face and must make ritual apologies that reduce their prestige and power
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 26 TURNER STETS FIVE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN EMOTIONS Dramaturgical Theories Dramaturgical theories emphasize that individuals make dramatic presentations and engage in strategic actions directed by a cultural script. Although the terminology varies among different theorists, the cultural script guiding action includes ideologies, norms and rules, logics, vocabularies, and implicit stocks of knowledge about which feelings should be experienced and expressed in episodes of face-toface interaction. Actors present self in strategic ways, emitting the emotions that are dictated by emotion ideologies and rules. When necessary, actors draw upon the cultural vocabularies and logics that define how emotions should be expressed. Individuals are, in essence, dramatic actors on a stage playing parts dictated by culture, and, like all theater, they are given some dramatic license in how they play roles, as long as they do not deviate too far from the emotional script provided by culture. When individuals do break rules of feeling and display, they experience negative emotions, particularly embarrassment and shame (Goffman 1967, Scheff 1988), and they become highly motivated to repair their breach of cultural prescriptions and proscriptions. To avoid breaches, individuals employ the appropriate emotional vocabularies and syntax (Gordon 1989, Rosenberg 1991) to convince both themselves and others that they are indeed abiding by feeling rules and display rules (Hochschild 1979, 1983). Persons also consciously manipulate facial expressions, forms of talk, and gestures to sustain an impression that feeling and display rules are being met. They also use physical props such as clothing or objects on the interpersonal stage to communicate to others that they are adhering to emotion ideologies and norms. Individuals are not, however, viewed as tightly programmed by culture. Instead, dramaturgical theories all emphasize that persons engage in a considerable amount of expressive manipulation along several fronts. One source of manipulation is to use emotional displays to con others in confidence games of varying magnitude (Goffman 1961, 1967). Another manipulative strategy is to use emotions to gain other resources in microeconomic exchanges. For example, in Clark’s (1997) conceptualization of sympathy, individuals offer sympathy to others in exchange for another valued emotional resource, such as gratitude. Clark also points out that actors manipulate emotional displays in games of micropolitics to gain power in an interaction. She argues that the offer of sympathy, for instance, is often used to establish superiority over those who receive sympathy. Virtually all emotions can be strategically used in this manner because individuals have the capacity for expressive control of their emotions, using the display of emotions on stage to gain resource advantages over others. As Goffman (1959, 1967) emphasized, however, when individuals cannot sustain expressive control and violate the cultural script, they lose face and must make ritual apologies that reduce their prestige and power in an encounter. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 27 Dramaturgical theories also emphasize that individuals must manage emotional displays when social structures and the cultural script associated with these struc- tures generate discontinuity between what people feel and what they must ex- press to others in their audience. For instance, Hochschild's(1983, 1990), Thoits's (1990, 1991), and Rosenbergs(1990, 1991)respective approaches all stress that individuals are often caught in a conflict between the emotion ideologies, feeling rules, and display rules on the one side and their actual emotional experiences on the other. When discrepancies between feelings and feeling rules exist, the dis- crepancy generates a new kind of negative emotional arousal, above and beyond the emotions initially experienced. Thus, a person who feels sad in a situation demanding the expression of happiness may also become angry at having to ap- ar happy, thus ratcheting up the emotional intensity(sadness plus anger) and forcing this person to engage in even more expressive control to meet cultural Societies revealing high levels of structural differentiation, high rates of mobility across positions and roles, and mediation of social relations through markets are the st likely to generate discrepancies between actual feelings and the dictates of the emotion culture( Hochschild 1983). For example, market relations between sellers and buyers demand high levels of emotional management from sellers of goods and services; diverse subcultural affiliations can put individuals in cultural conflicts over how to display emotions; complex status-sets can place persons in emotional conflict; systems of authority arouse negative emotions in subordinates that must be controlled; or rigid rules in the name of efficiency and quality control often have the same effect as systems of authority for those who must obey these rules. These and many other situations systematically generated by differentiation and markets require individuals to engage in what Hochschild (1983)terms emotion work. Several theories list the emotion management strategies available to individuals caught in a situation in which they must engage in emotion work. Some of these are listed in Table In sum, dramaturgical theories emphasize the importance of culture in defining which emotions are to be experienced and expressed in situations. The emotion ulture constrains the actions of individuals on a stage in front of audiences, and yet individuals do have some degree of flexibility to engage in strategic actions. In fact, they often use emotionally laden expressive behavior in efforts to manipulate audiences about their sincerity and concern, to extract valued resources in games of microeconomics, or to gain power over others in games of micropolitics. Yet, lese same actors are often caught in a conflict between feeling ideologies and rules on the one side and their actual feelings on the other. As a result, they must engage in emotion-work strategies to reduce the degree of discrepancy between eelings and feeling rules. The generalizations that guide dramaturgical theorizing and research can thus be summarized as follows. 1. The more powerful that the emotion culture is in a situation, the more indi- viduals must engage in impression management of their emotions througl (a)expressive control of face, voice, and body and (b)use of physical props
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 27 Dramaturgical theories also emphasize that individuals must manage emotional displays when social structures and the cultural script associated with these structures generate discontinuity between what people feel and what they must express to others in their audience. For instance, Hochschild’s (1983, 1990), Thoits’s (1990, 1991), and Rosenberg’s (1990, 1991) respective approaches all stress that individuals are often caught in a conflict between the emotion ideologies, feeling rules, and display rules on the one side and their actual emotional experiences on the other. When discrepancies between feelings and feeling rules exist, the discrepancy generates a new kind of negative emotional arousal, above and beyond the emotions initially experienced. Thus, a person who feels sad in a situation demanding the expression of happiness may also become angry at having to appear happy, thus ratcheting up the emotional intensity (sadness plus anger) and forcing this person to engage in even more expressive control to meet cultural expectations. Societies revealing high levels of structural differentiation, high rates of mobility across positions and roles, and mediation of social relations through markets are the most likely to generate discrepancies between actual feelings and the dictates of the emotion culture (Hochschild 1983). For example, market relations between sellers and buyers demand high levels of emotional management from sellers of goods and services; diverse subcultural affiliations can put individuals in cultural conflicts over how to display emotions; complex status-sets can place persons in emotional conflict; systems of authority arouse negative emotions in subordinates that must be controlled; or rigid rules in the name of efficiency and quality control often have the same effect as systems of authority for those who must obey these rules. These and many other situations systematically generated by differentiation and markets require individuals to engage in what Hochschild (1983) terms emotion work. Several theories list the emotion management strategies available to individuals caught in a situation in which they must engage in emotion work. Some of these are listed in Table 1. In sum, dramaturgical theories emphasize the importance of culture in defining which emotions are to be experienced and expressed in situations. The emotion culture constrains the actions of individuals on a stage in front of audiences, and yet individuals do have some degree of flexibility to engage in strategic actions. In fact, they often use emotionally laden expressive behavior in efforts to manipulate audiences about their sincerity and concern, to extract valued resources in games of microeconomics, or to gain power over others in games of micropolitics. Yet, these same actors are often caught in a conflict between feeling ideologies and rules on the one side and their actual feelings on the other. As a result, they must engage in emotion-work strategies to reduce the degree of discrepancy between feelings and feeling rules. The generalizations that guide dramaturgical theorizing and research can thus be summarized as follows: 1. The more powerful that the emotion culture is in a situation, the more individuals must engage in impression management of their emotions through (a) expressive control of face, voice, and body and (b) use of physical props. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only
TURNER■ STETS TABLE 1 Emotion-work strategies Behavioral strategic 1. Recite emotion vocabulary and syntax dictated by emotion ideology and norms. 2. Engage in body work such as relaxation(or its opposite)that can arouse the emotions dictated by the emotion ideology and norms ngage in surface acting by emitting expressive gestures th the emotion ideology and norms to arouse culturally appropriate emotions. 4. Use drugs(and other substances )or exercise to generate appropriate feelings or, alternatively, to diminish inappropriate feelings 5. Release true feelings, even if they violate the dictates of emotion culture, in an effort to redefine the situation and recalibrate the emotion culture 6. Seek help and advice from others on how to manage emotions. 7. Leave the situation that generates discrepancies between actual feelings and dictates of emotion ideology and norm 1. Invoke thoughts and ideas associated with the emotions demanded by the emotion ideology and norms. 4. Call up thoughts and emotions that distance self from the conflict between the cultural expectations and actual feeling 5. Repress negative emotions and remove them from conscious reflection. 2- 6. Fantasize about possible alternatives to the conflict between cultural expectations and 7. Psychologically withdraw from the situation to mask the discrepancies between actual feelings and dictates of emotion ideology and norms. Sources: Hochschild (1983). Rosenberg(1991). Thoits(1990) 2. The more that individuals engage in impression management of emotions the greater is(a) the potential for strategic use of emotional displays in games of confidence, microeconomics, and micropolitics and(b) the potential that individuals' true feelings will be at odds with at least some elements of the 3. The more that efforts of impression management violate the ideology and norms of the emotion culture, the more intense is the arousal of negative emotions in both the offender and the audience, and the more the offender must engage in repair rituals with the audience to reaffirm the emotion culture and his or her commitment to the tenets of this cultur 4. The more that a society is structurally differentiated, has high rates of mo- bility across structures, and mediates social relations by market forces, the more likely that the demands of the emotion culture will come into confict with the emotions that individuals actually experience. 5. The more that the dictates of the emotion culture and the structure of a situation conflict with persons'actual feelings, the more likely are individuals to engage in emotion-work strategies enumerated in Table 1
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 28 TURNER STETS TABLE 1 Emotion-work strategies Behavioral strategies 1. Recite emotion vocabulary and syntax dictated by emotion ideology and norms. 2. Engage in body work such as relaxation (or its opposite) that can arouse the emotions dictated by the emotion ideology and norms. 3. Engage in surface acting by emitting expressive gestures consistent with the emotion ideology and norms to arouse culturally appropriate emotions. 4. Use drugs (and other substances) or exercise to generate appropriate feelings or, alternatively, to diminish inappropriate feelings. 5. Release true feelings, even if they violate the dictates of emotion culture, in an effort to redefine the situation and recalibrate the emotion culture. 6. Seek help and advice from others on how to manage emotions. 7. Leave the situation that generates discrepancies between actual feelings and dictates of emotion ideology and norms. Cognitive strategies 1. Invoke thoughts and ideas associated with the emotions demanded by the emotion ideology and norms. 2. Use meditation or hypnosis that can arouse the emotions dictated by the culture. 3. Arouse through deep acting the emotions dictated by the emotion ideology and norms. 4. Call up thoughts and emotions that distance self from the conflict between the cultural expectations and actual feelings. 5. Repress negative emotions and remove them from conscious reflection. 6. Fantasize about possible alternatives to the conflict between cultural expectations and actual feelings, or, alternatively, visualize solutions to the conflict. 7. Psychologically withdraw from the situation to mask the discrepancies between actual feelings and dictates of emotion ideology and norms. Sources: Hochschild (1983), Rosenberg (1991), Thoits (1990). 2. The more that individuals engage in impression management of emotions, the greater is (a) the potential for strategic use of emotional displays in games of confidence, microeconomics, and micropolitics and (b) the potential that individuals’ true feelings will be at odds with at least some elements of the emotion culture. 3. The more that efforts of impression management violate the ideology and norms of the emotion culture, the more intense is the arousal of negative emotions in both the offender and the audience, and the more the offender must engage in repair rituals with the audience to reaffirm the emotion culture and his or her commitment to the tenets of this culture. 4. The more that a society is structurally differentiated, has high rates of mobility across structures, and mediates social relations by market forces, the more likely that the demands of the emotion culture will come into conflict with the emotions that individuals actually experience. 5. The more that the dictates of the emotion culture and the structure of a situation conflict with persons’ actual feelings, the more likely are individuals to engage in emotion-work strategies enumerated in Table 1. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS Symbolic Interactionist Theories Although dramaturgical theories are primarily concerned with impression man- agement and strategic behavior as individuals seek to give off the appearance of conforming to the cultural script, symbolic interactionist theories see self and identity as the central dynamics behind emotional arousal. Self is more than a dramatic presentation; it is a powerful motive pushing individuals to behave in ways that allow them to verify both trans-situational self-conceptions and situ- ational role identities. Because Mead(1934, 1938)had very little to say about emotions, symbolic interactionists have primarily adopted Meads pragmatic view that social actors adjust their behavior to make things work in situations In con- temporary terms, using the language of current symbolic interactionist theorists, social actors behavior is self-directed. Given his analysis of pride and shame as master emotions, Cooley (1964 [1902))has had a more direct influence on current interaction theorizing on emotions. Also relevant to symbolic interactionists is the Gestalt traditions emphasis on cognitive consistency and congruence. The above ideas from Mead, Cooley, and Gestalt researchers are blended into a view of self as a cybernetic control system(Powers 1973)that monitors the extent to which self confirmed by others, with emotions emerging out of this confirmation process ( Burke1991,1996; Heise 1977,1979,1989) The basic generalization of all symbolic interactionist theories is that individuals seek to confirm their more global self-conceptions as well as their more context dependent identities in all episodes of interaction. When self is verified by others responding to self in a manner that is consistent with selfs own view, the person experiences positive emotions, such as pride and satisfaction. When self is not con- firmed, however, the incongruity between self-directed behavior and the responses of others generates negative emotions such as distress, anxiety, anger, shame, and guilt. Individuals are seen as motivated to bring cognitions about self into line with the responses of others and, correspondingly, to turn negative emotions into pos itive emotions. In Shott's(1979)theory, for example, the arousal of guilt, shame, and embarrassment signals to self that deviations from norms have occurred and that corrective behaviors must be forthcoming. Much theorizing within the sym bolic interactionist tradition examines the various strategies that individuals pursue to achieve congruity among self, norms and cultural standards, behavior, and the responses of others. Table 2 outlines some of the potential strategies employed by individuals These strategies are part of a larger control system within which self, others, and the situation are embedded. For example, some theories, such as identity control theory (Burke 1991, 1996), view self as composed of multiple identities. For each identity, there is a standard consisting of stored meanings that are used as a frame of reference to regulate behavior. Others evaluate self on the basis of the meanings at the persons behavior implies. If perceptions of self in the situation(given the responses of others) do not correspond to one's identity standard, a discrepancy exists, and negative emotion is felt. In response, self adjusts behavior, modifies how self is perceived by others in the situation, or changes the meaning of selfs identity
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 29 Symbolic Interactionist Theories Although dramaturgical theories are primarily concerned with impression management and strategic behavior as individuals seek to give off the appearance of conforming to the cultural script, symbolic interactionist theories see self and identity as the central dynamics behind emotional arousal. Self is more than a dramatic presentation; it is a powerful motive pushing individuals to behave in ways that allow them to verify both trans-situational self-conceptions and situational role identities. Because Mead (1934, 1938) had very little to say about emotions, symbolic interactionists have primarily adopted Mead’s pragmatic view that social actors adjust their behavior to make things work in situations. In contemporary terms, using the language of current symbolic interactionist theorists, social actors’ behavior is self-directed. Given his analysis of pride and shame as master emotions, Cooley (1964 [1902]) has had a more direct influence on current interaction theorizing on emotions. Also relevant to symbolic interactionists is the Gestalt tradition’s emphasis on cognitive consistency and congruence. The above ideas from Mead, Cooley, and Gestalt researchers are blended into a view of self as a cybernetic control system (Powers 1973) that monitors the extent to which self is confirmed by others, with emotions emerging out of this confirmation process (Burke 1991, 1996; Heise 1977, 1979, 1989). The basic generalization of all symbolic interactionist theories is that individuals seek to confirm their more global self-conceptions as well as their more contextdependent identities in all episodes of interaction. When self is verified by others responding to self in a manner that is consistent with self’s own view, the person experiences positive emotions, such as pride and satisfaction. When self is not con- firmed, however, the incongruity between self-directed behavior and the responses of others generates negative emotions such as distress, anxiety, anger, shame, and guilt. Individuals are seen as motivated to bring cognitions about self into line with the responses of others and, correspondingly, to turn negative emotions into positive emotions. In Shott’s (1979) theory, for example, the arousal of guilt, shame, and embarrassment signals to self that deviations from norms have occurred and that corrective behaviors must be forthcoming. Much theorizing within the symbolic interactionist tradition examines the various strategies that individuals pursue to achieve congruity among self, norms and cultural standards, behavior, and the responses of others. Table 2 outlines some of the potential strategies employed by individuals. These strategies are part of a larger control system within which self, others, and the situation are embedded. For example, some theories, such as identity control theory (Burke 1991, 1996), view self as composed of multiple identities. For each identity, there is a standard consisting of stored meanings that are used as a frame of reference to regulate behavior. Others evaluate self on the basis of the meanings that the person’s behavior implies. If perceptions of self in the situation (given the responses of others) do not correspond to one’s identity standard, a discrepancy exists, and negative emotion is felt. In response, self adjusts behavior, modifies how self is perceived by others in the situation, or changes the meaning of self’s identity Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only
TURNER■ STETS TABLE 2 Control strategies enumerated by symbolic-interactionist theories Behavioral strategies 2. Seek to convince others to accept behavior and the meaning it implies, and thus confirm self. 3. Withdraw from situations in which self is not confirmed Cognitive strategies 1. Change self and identity standards by which self is judged 2. Move unconfirmed identity down in the hierarchy of prominence or salience 3. Selectively perceive or interpret gestures of others so as to verify an identity 4. Repress negative emotions that arise when self is not verified 5. Make external attributions that blame others. the situation or social structure for failure to verify self. Sources: Burke(1991). McCall Simmons(1978). Scheff(2000), Stryker (2004). Turner(2002) standard. Conversely, if self has been verified, behavior, self-perceptions, and the identity standard continue uninterrupted, and self experiences positive emotion In some variants of symbolic interactionist theories, an identity hierarchy is emphasized. When an identity is verified, it moves up the"salience"(Stryker 1980, 2004)or"prominence"(McCall Simmons 1978)hierarchy, with identities high in the hierarchy more likely to be presented than those lower in the hierarchy When individuals receive disconfirming feedback, however, negative emotional arousal pushes them to pursue one or more of the strategies listed in Table 2. when an identity is consistently disconfirmed, it moves down the salience or prominence hierarchy, particularly if an individual cannot leave the situation. Alternatively, a person may change the identity presented or the identity standard by which perceptions of self in the situation are compared (Burke 1991, 1996) Some symbolic interactionist theories extend the basic argument about control systems beyond a person's cognitions about self to include cognitions about the dentities of others, the role behaviors of others, and the setting in which identi- ties are presented and roles played. For example, in affect control theory(Heise 1977, 1979, 1989; Smith-Lovin 1990; Smith-Lovin Heise 1988), individuals re seen as motivated to keep transient meanings in the situation in line with the more general fundamental meanings about self, other, behavior, and the situation When fundamental and transient meanings reveal a deflection or contradiction the emotion that results depends on the transient meaning and its direction of change from the original, fundamental location. For example, if the transient meaning is more positive than the fundamental meaning, individuals feel more positive(for a positive identity) or less negative( for a negative identity) than they would feel if the identity were confirmed. In this way, emotion signals how events in the situation are maintaining (or not maintaining)meanings. Most symbolic interactionist theories emphasize that these Gestalt dynamics operate to bring identities, cognitions, cultural prescriptions, and social structure
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 30 TURNER STETS TABLE 2 Control strategies enumerated by symbolic-interactionist theories Behavioral strategies 1. Change behavior to obtain confirming responses from others. 2. Seek to convince others to accept behavior and the meaning it implies, and thus confirm self. 3. Withdraw from situations in which self is not confirmed. Cognitive strategies 1. Change self and identity standards by which self is judged. 2. Move unconfirmed identity down in the hierarchy of prominence or salience. 3. Selectively perceive or interpret gestures of others so as to verify an identity. 4. Repress negative emotions that arise when self is not verified. 5. Make external attributions that blame others, the situation, or social structure for failure to verify self. Sources: Burke (1991), McCall & Simmons (1978), Scheff (2000), Stryker (2004), Turner (2002). standard. Conversely, if self has been verified, behavior, self-perceptions, and the identity standard continue uninterrupted, and self experiences positive emotion. In some variants of symbolic interactionist theories, an identity hierarchy is emphasized. When an identity is verified, it moves up the “salience” (Stryker 1980, 2004) or “prominence” (McCall & Simmons 1978) hierarchy, with identities high in the hierarchy more likely to be presented than those lower in the hierarchy. When individuals receive disconfirming feedback, however, negative emotional arousal pushes them to pursue one or more of the strategies listed in Table 2. When an identity is consistently disconfirmed, it moves down the salience or prominence hierarchy, particularly if an individual cannot leave the situation. Alternatively, a person may change the identity presented or the identity standard by which perceptions of self in the situation are compared (Burke 1991, 1996). Some symbolic interactionist theories extend the basic argument about control systems beyond a person’s cognitions about self to include cognitions about the identities of others, the role behaviors of others, and the setting in which identities are presented and roles played. For example, in affect control theory (Heise 1977, 1979, 1989; Smith-Lovin 1990; Smith-Lovin & Heise 1988), individuals are seen as motivated to keep transient meanings in the situation in line with the more general fundamental meanings about self, other, behavior, and the situation. When fundamental and transient meanings reveal a deflection or contradiction, the emotion that results depends on the transient meaning and its direction of change from the original, fundamental location. For example, if the transient meaning is more positive than the fundamental meaning, individuals feel more positive (for a positive identity) or less negative (for a negative identity) than they would feel if the identity were confirmed. In this way, emotion signals how events in the situation are maintaining (or not maintaining) meanings. Most symbolic interactionist theories emphasize that these Gestalt dynamics operate to bring identities, cognitions, cultural prescriptions, and social structure Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 31 into line. When individuals cannot confirm an identity, they leave the situation, or, if they cannot leave, they change their behaviors, change their self-perceptions or change their identity to conform to cultural expectations in a situation. Those identities that cannot be verified move down the prominence or salience hierarchy, whereas those identities that are verified move up in the hierarchy(Mc Call be confirmed and that conform to cultural expectations, then identities, behavioral outputs, and perceptual inputs become increasingly congruent over time More psychoanalytic versions of symbolic interactionist theorizing emphasize that these Gestalt dynamics pushing for congruence among self, behaviors, self- perceptions, social structure, and culture can be interrupted by the activation of fensive behaviors. Individuals can selectively perceive the responses they can selectively interpret these responses; they can make external attributions that blame others for the failure to confirm self or identity; or they can bypass and repress negative emotions, such as shame and guilt, to the point where the individual remains unaware of the negative emotions arising from the failure to verify self or live up to cultural expectations. These more psychoanalytical modes of theorizing( Scheff 1990, 1997; Turner 1999, 2002)emphasize that the arousal of negative emotions, particularly shame and guilt, is highly painful and, hence, ikely to drive individuals to defensive behaviors that interrupt the feedback loop from the responses of others. As aresult, cognitions and behaviors are not corrected when encountering negative feedback, leading individuals to engage in patholog ical behaviors that sustain incongruence among self, behavior, perceptions, social structure, and culture and that can decrease interpersonal attunement among in- dividuals(Scheff 1988). When negative emotions are repressed, they increase in intensity and often become transmuted into new kinds of emotions that further dis- upt normal interaction(Turner 2002). For example, in Scheff's(1988)extension of Lewis's(1971)insights, repressed shame often becomes transmuted into anger when it is not acknowledged. In Turner's(2002)theory, repressed shame, guilt, and anxiety lead to sudden spikes of these emotions that break social bonds and breach social situations. Moreover, when individuals repress negative emotions, they are more likely to make external attributions and blame others, the situation, or more inclusive structures for their negative emotional arousal, thereby breaching social bonds and commitments to social situations From the perspective of these more psychoanalytic theories, individuals can be come locked into cycles of ever-escalating negative emotional arousal, repression, sudden outbursts of intense or transmuted versions of the repressed emotions, shame and guilt for having lost emotional control, more repression of negative S, and so on in a cycle that can lead to severe behavioral pathology(Scheff 1988). Moreover, if the structure and culture of a society cause larger segments of opulation to repress shame(and perhaps other negative emotions), this populati an be mobilized collectively to feel anger and to pursue violence, whether exte nal warfare or internal prosecution of perceived enemies(Scheff 1994, Scheff Retzinger 1991). These kinds of psychoanalytic additions offer a useful corrective
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 31 into line. When individuals cannot confirm an identity, they leave the situation, or, if they cannot leave, they change their behaviors, change their self-perceptions, or change their identity to conform to cultural expectations in a situation. Those identities that cannot be verified move down the prominence or salience hierarchy, whereas those identities that are verified move up in the hierarchy (McCall & Simmons 1978, Stryker 1980). As individuals present only those identities that can be confirmed and that conform to cultural expectations, then identities, behavioral outputs, and perceptual inputs become increasingly congruent over time. More psychoanalytic versions of symbolic interactionist theorizing emphasize that these Gestalt dynamics pushing for congruence among self, behaviors, selfperceptions, social structure, and culture can be interrupted by the activation of defensive behaviors. Individuals can selectively perceive the responses of others; they can selectively interpret these responses; they can make external attributions that blame others for the failure to confirm self or identity; or they can bypass and repress negative emotions, such as shame and guilt, to the point where the individual remains unaware of the negative emotions arising from the failure to verify self or live up to cultural expectations. These more psychoanalytical modes of theorizing (Scheff 1990, 1997; Turner 1999, 2002) emphasize that the arousal of negative emotions, particularly shame and guilt, is highly painful and, hence, is likely to drive individuals to defensive behaviors that interrupt the feedback loop from the responses of others. As a result, cognitions and behaviors are not corrected when encountering negative feedback, leading individuals to engage in pathological behaviors that sustain incongruence among self, behavior, perceptions, social structure, and culture and that can decrease interpersonal attunement among individuals (Scheff 1988). When negative emotions are repressed, they increase in intensity and often become transmuted into new kinds of emotions that further disrupt normal interaction (Turner 2002). For example, in Scheff’s (1988) extension of Lewis’s (1971) insights, repressed shame often becomes transmuted into anger when it is not acknowledged. In Turner’s (2002) theory, repressed shame, guilt, and anxiety lead to sudden spikes of these emotions that break social bonds and breach social situations. Moreover, when individuals repress negative emotions, they are more likely to make external attributions and blame others, the situation, or more inclusive structures for their negative emotional arousal, thereby breaching social bonds and commitments to social situations. From the perspective of these more psychoanalytic theories, individuals can become locked into cycles of ever-escalating negative emotional arousal, repression, sudden outbursts of intense or transmuted versions of the repressed emotions, shame and guilt for having lost emotional control, more repression of negative emotions, and so on in a cycle that can lead to severe behavioral pathology (Scheff 1988). Moreover, if the structure and culture of a society cause larger segments of a population to repress shame (and perhaps other negative emotions), this population can be mobilized collectively to feel anger and to pursue violence, whether external warfare or internal prosecution of perceived enemies (Scheff 1994, Scheff & Retzinger 1991). These kinds of psychoanalytic additions offer a useful corrective Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only
TURNER■ STETS to the highly cognitive conceptualizations of self and identity in most symbol interactionist theories At the most general level, symbolic interactionist theories(with the exe affect control theory) are guided by the following generalizations 1. The more salient an identity is in a situation, the more likely individuals are to emit gestures and behaviors that conform to standards established by this 2. The more an identity is verified by the responses of others, the more likely a person is to experience positive emotions such as pride, happiness, and atisfaction; the more often this identity is verified, the higher it is placed in the prominence or salience hierarchy. 3. The less an identity is verified by the responses of others, the more likely a person is to experience negative emotions such as embarrassment, shame, and guilt; the more intense these negative emotions are, the more this person will attempt to bring into congruence behavior marking an identity, perceptions of others'responses, and cultural standards of evaluat 4. The more an individual experiences negative emotional arousal from the failure to verify an identity, the greater the likelihood that this person will adopt defensive strategies; the more intense the negative emotions a person experiences, the more likely the person is to employ repression and external attributions as defensive strategies 5. The more that individuals have employed repression as a defensive strategy in the past, the more likely that the negative emotions aroused and repressed will (a) increase in intensity, (b) transmute into new kinds of negative emotions like (c)erupt in sudden spikes of negative emotions that disrupt 6. The more that individuals have been able to verify self and identities in situation, the more likely that identities, behavioral outputs, perceptual inputs, normative expectations, and sentiments about self, other, roles, and the situation will converge and reveal congruity Interaction Ritual Theories This group of theories draws from Durkheim's(1965[1912)secondary analysis of early descriptions of Australian aboriginals who periodically gathered in and around Alice Springs. Such gatherings led to animated and effervescent interaction, a common focus of attention, rhythmic movement of bodies, heightened emotions and an emerging sense of an external power or mana guiding thoughts and actions As a result, aborigines developed totems to symbolize this power of the gods; and when rituals were directed at the totems, emotional arousal ensued. Religion was thus the worship of the collective organization among individuals. Goffman (1959, 1967)was the first sociologist to recognize that the elements of Durkheim's
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 32 TURNER STETS to the highly cognitive conceptualizations of self and identity in most symbolic interactionist theories. At the most general level, symbolic interactionist theories (with the exception of affect control theory) are guided by the following generalizations: 1. The more salient an identity is in a situation, the more likely individuals are to emit gestures and behaviors that conform to standards established by this identity. 2. The more an identity is verified by the responses of others, the more likely a person is to experience positive emotions such as pride, happiness, and satisfaction; the more often this identity is verified, the higher it is placed in the prominence or salience hierarchy. 3. The less an identity is verified by the responses of others, the more likely a person is to experience negative emotions such as embarrassment, shame, and guilt; the more intense these negative emotions are, the more this person will attempt to bring into congruence behavior marking an identity, perceptions of others’ responses, and cultural standards of evaluation. 4. The more an individual experiences negative emotional arousal from the failure to verify an identity, the greater the likelihood that this person will adopt defensive strategies; the more intense the negative emotions a person experiences, the more likely the person is to employ repression and external attributions as defensive strategies. 5. The more that individuals have employed repression as a defensive strategy in the past, the more likely that the negative emotions aroused and repressed will (a) increase in intensity, (b) transmute into new kinds of negative emotions like anger, and (c) erupt in sudden spikes of negative emotions that disrupt and breach interactions. 6. The more that individuals have been able to verify self and identities in a situation, the more likely that identities, behavioral outputs, perceptual inputs, normative expectations, and sentiments about self, other, roles, and the situation will converge and reveal congruity. Interaction Ritual Theories This group of theories draws from Durkheim’s (1965 [1912]) secondary analysis of early descriptions of Australian aboriginals who periodically gathered in and around Alice Springs. Such gatherings led to animated and effervescent interaction, a common focus of attention, rhythmic movement of bodies, heightened emotions, and an emerging sense of an external power or mana guiding thoughts and actions. As a result, aborigines developed totems to symbolize this power of the gods; and when rituals were directed at the totems, emotional arousal ensued. Religion was thus the worship of the collective organization among individuals. Goffman (1959, 1967) was the first sociologist to recognize that the elements of Durkheim’s Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS analysis operate every time individuals interact in face-to-face encounters. Collins (19 1, 2004)borrows from both Durkheim and Goffman to forge a more robust theory that seeks to explain the arousal of positive and negative emotional energy Collins(2004)distinguishes between two types of rituals: (a) polite and transient rituals such as greetings that arouse low-intensity positive emotional energy, and (b )more enduring emotions that develop from copresence, mutual awareness and attention, a common focus, a shared emotional mood, rhythmic synchronization of conversation and bodies, a representation of the focus and mood with symbols, and a sense of moral righteousness. In essence, Collins views what Goffman(1961 1967)had termed"the encounter"as a more inclusive interaction ritual revealing the elements enumerated by Durkheim In such interaction rituals, emotional en- rgy is built upon and is sustained across encounters that are strung together in time and space. In fact, Collins(1981)goes so far as to view such emotionally charged rituals as the microfoundations of macrostructures For interaction rituals to increase positive emotional energy, they must acti- vate all the key elements: first, the gathering of individuals in proximate space next, the emission of stereotyped greeting rituals that raise the level of transient emotions that, in turn, increase the shared mood and focus of attention; then the ensuing rhythmic synchronization of talk and bodies that increases collective ef fervescence, followed by rising levels of positive emotional energy. As positive emotional energy escalates, group solidarity increases, leading to symbolization of this solidarity, and with group symbols, particularized cultural capital consisting of the experiences of members in the group increases. Once symbols are built up, conversations or even thoughts reinvoke the symbols and, as a result, charge up the positive emotional energy. Conversely, when this sequence of ritual elements breaks down during the interaction, individuals experience much lower levels positive emotional energy. In fact, the level of emotional energy can turn negative and reduce group solidarity There is the assumption in interaction ritual theory that individuals always seek to maximize their emotional energy in an encounter and that they try to ncrease their stores of cultural capital that can either be particularized or unique to particular groups, or be generalized or acknowledged and understood by all in a ty. However, the capacity to increase positive emotional energy and augment cultural capital is mediated by power and status. Those with power and prestige are able to increase their positive emotional energy and reveal more commitment to group symbols and thus augment their cultural capital, whereas those with less power must give deference and, as a consequence, experience less positive and perhaps even negative emotional energy, leading to much less commitment to group symbol A more recent extension of Collins's theory by Summers-Effler(2002)tries to ccount for the fact that individuals are often trapped in interaction rituals in which they have little power and in which, as a result, they experience negative emotional energy, such as fear, anxiety, shame, and guilt. Under these conditions, individuals
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 33 analysis operate each and every time individuals interact in face-to-face encounters. Collins (1975, 1981, 2004) borrows from both Durkheim and Goffman to forge a more robust theory that seeks to explain the arousal of positive and negative emotional energy. Collins (2004) distinguishes between two types of rituals: (a) polite and transient rituals such as greetings that arouse low-intensity positive emotional energy, and (b) more enduring emotions that develop from copresence, mutual awareness and attention, a common focus, a shared emotional mood, rhythmic synchronization of conversation and bodies, a representation of the focus and mood with symbols, and a sense of moral righteousness. In essence, Collins views what Goffman (1961, 1967) had termed “the encounter” as a more inclusive interaction ritual revealing the elements enumerated by Durkheim. In such interaction rituals, emotional energy is built upon and is sustained across encounters that are strung together in time and space. In fact, Collins (1981) goes so far as to view such emotionally charged rituals as the microfoundations of macrostructures. For interaction rituals to increase positive emotional energy, they must activate all the key elements: first, the gathering of individuals in proximate space; next, the emission of stereotyped greeting rituals that raise the level of transient emotions that, in turn, increase the shared mood and focus of attention; then, the ensuing rhythmic synchronization of talk and bodies that increases collective effervescence, followed by rising levels of positive emotional energy. As positive emotional energy escalates, group solidarity increases, leading to symbolization of this solidarity, and with group symbols, particularized cultural capital consisting of the experiences of members in the group increases. Once symbols are built up, conversations or even thoughts reinvoke the symbols and, as a result, charge up the positive emotional energy. Conversely, when this sequence of ritual elements breaks down during the interaction, individuals experience much lower levels of positive emotional energy. In fact, the level of emotional energy can turn negative and reduce group solidarity. There is the assumption in interaction ritual theory that individuals always seek to maximize their emotional energy in an encounter and that they try to increase their stores of cultural capital that can either be particularized or unique to particular groups, or be generalized or acknowledged and understood by all in a society. However, the capacity to increase positive emotional energy and augment cultural capital is mediated by power and status. Those with power and prestige are able to increase their positive emotional energy and reveal more commitment to group symbols and thus augment their cultural capital, whereas those with less power must give deference and, as a consequence, experience less positive and perhaps even negative emotional energy, leading to much less commitment to group symbols. A more recent extension of Collins’s theory by Summers-Effler (2002) tries to account for the fact that individuals are often trapped in interaction rituals in which they have little power and in which, as a result, they experience negative emotional energy, such as fear, anxiety, shame, and guilt. Under these conditions, individuals Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only
TURNER■ STETS dopt strategies revolving around minimizing the loss of emotional energy rather than maximizing positive emotional energy. Another extension by Summers-Effler (2004a, b)attempts to introduce elements of symbolic interactionism by arguing for he relevance of self as a critical element in rituals. When individuals experience positive emotional energy, their sense of self is enhanced, making them more likely to commit to group symbols When they experience negative emotional energy, self-esteem is lowered, which results in diminished commitment to group symbols nd in lowered levels of solidarity In sum, the Durkheim-Goffman lineage has inspired not only dramaturgical eorizing on emotions, but also a distinctive form of interaction ritual theory. The guiding generalizations from this latter approach include the following 1. The more that individuals are copresent and exchange greeting rituals, the more likely they will experience mild transient emotions, shared mood, and mutual focus of attention 2. The more that the conditions in item 1, above, persist, the more likely that talk and bodily gestures will fall into rhythmic synchronization, leading to a sense of collective effervescence that increases each participant's level o positive emotional energy. 3. The higher the level of emotional effervescence and the longer its duration, the greater will be the sense of group solidarity among participants and the more likely they will symbolize the emerging sense of solidarity 4. The more an interaction ritual leads to the symbolization of solidarity and the more this ritual is iterated over time, the more likely that symbols marking group solidarity will circulate among group members and increase the level of particularized cultural capital in the group 5. The more the conditions above are realized, the more likely that individuals in the group will have conversations among themselves that invoke group 6. The more that status and power differences prevail among participants in an interaction ritual, the greater high-status and high-power individuals emotional energy will be compared to that of low-status and low-power in- dividuals and the more likely high-status and high-power individuals wi develop commitments to group symbols and, thereby, augment their level of particularized cultural capital compared to low-status and low-power partic 7. The more that power and status are used in abusive and exploitive ways, the more those subject to such abuse will adopt strategies of minimizing the loss of positive emotional energy or, alternatively, minimizing the arousal of negative emotional energ 8. The more salient that self and identity dynamics are during an interaction ritual. the more intense all elements of the interaction ritual will become with confirmation of self and identity during the course of the ritual raising
31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 34 TURNER STETS adopt strategies revolving around minimizing the loss of emotional energy rather than maximizing positive emotional energy. Another extension by Summers-Effler (2004a,b) attempts to introduce elements of symbolic interactionism by arguing for the relevance of self as a critical element in rituals. When individuals experience positive emotional energy, their sense of self is enhanced, making them more likely to commit to group symbols. When they experience negative emotional energy, self-esteem is lowered, which results in diminished commitment to group symbols and in lowered levels of solidarity. In sum, the Durkheim-Goffman lineage has inspired not only dramaturgical theorizing on emotions, but also a distinctive form of interaction ritual theory. The guiding generalizations from this latter approach include the following: 1. The more that individuals are copresent and exchange greeting rituals, the more likely they will experience mild transient emotions, shared mood, and mutual focus of attention. 2. The more that the conditions in item 1, above, persist, the more likely that talk and bodily gestures will fall into rhythmic synchronization, leading to a sense of collective effervescence that increases each participant’s level of positive emotional energy. 3. The higher the level of emotional effervescence and the longer its duration, the greater will be the sense of group solidarity among participants and the more likely they will symbolize the emerging sense of solidarity. 4. The more an interaction ritual leads to the symbolization of solidarity and the more this ritual is iterated over time, the more likely that symbols marking group solidarity will circulate among group members and increase the level of particularized cultural capital in the group. 5. The more the conditions above are realized, the more likely that individuals in the group will have conversations among themselves that invoke group symbols and, thereby, arouse positive emotional energy. 6. The more that status and power differences prevail among participants in an interaction ritual, the greater high-status and high-power individuals’ emotional energy will be compared to that of low-status and low-power individuals and the more likely high-status and high-power individuals will develop commitments to group symbols and, thereby, augment their level of particularized cultural capital compared to low-status and low-power participants. 7. The more that power and status are used in abusive and exploitive ways, the more those subject to such abuse will adopt strategies of minimizing the loss of positive emotional energy or, alternatively, minimizing the arousal of negative emotional energy. 8. The more salient that self and identity dynamics are during an interaction ritual, the more intense all elements of the interaction ritual will become, with confirmation of self and identity during the course of the ritual raising Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.
