Social Science Team H Megan DeyeFall Essay

Role Theory and Social Issues

Socialization teaches us how to behave in a socially acceptable manner in different

situations. To do this, we play an array of different roles. Each role requires us to act in a

slightly different way, but the combination of these various roles comes to define who we are as

individuals. For example, I don’t just play the role of a friend in that I know how to comfort a

distressed friend. Rather, the fact that I can comfort that friend means that I am a good friend.

The role becomes a part of me. In the same way that I define my role in society by the

relationships I maintain with others, some people define their role in society based on the social

issues they support or oppose. When people come to identify themselves based on their

viewpoints on these issues, an attack on their perspective can feel like a personal attack. As a

result, they are likely to become defensive and stubborn in their opinion because, to them,

changing their opinion would change their role in society.

A politician is a perfect example of someone whose political views define his or her role

in society. Politicians gain votes, the political equivalent to social acceptance, according to their

opinions on social issues. So, someone who plays the “role” of a politician in support of gay

marriage earned his office partially based on his view of this issue. Therefore, part of his

identity is connected to the fact that he supports gay marriage.

In this way, role theory can help explain the causes for the issues discussed in the article

titled “Justice delays decision, asks full court to rule on gay marriage.” The matter at hand is

whether the Legislature or the public should vote on an issue concerning the definition of

marriage. The legislature continues to postpone its decision, so groups in favor of gay marriage

are pushing for judges to force the legislature to make a decision, while those opposed to gay

marriage want to move the issue to a public vote. By forcing the legislature to vote, those in

favor of gay marriage are trying to urge government officials to take a stand on the issue. This

presents a problem for these officials because, as representatives of the people, their public

image is based on how they vote in situations such as this.

According to the role theory, one creates a personal identity by first defining the situation

in which one lives and then gaining social acceptance. He or she achieves social acceptance by

playing certain roles that result from his or her definition of the situation. In keeping with the

role theory, these politicians play a role based on their political views. While most of these

officials may have already publicized their opinion as part of their campaign platform, they still

don’t want to announce their views any more than they have to. In this particular situation, they

are going to great lengths to not voice their own opinions via a vote. The more they express their

opinions on the issue, the more likely the public is to challenge these opinions, and as I

mentioned earlier, the politicians could interpret this opposition as a personal attack. So, to

avoid conflict, they postpone and try to ignore the vote.

One could argue that no one wants to deal with confrontation. So, one could say that it’s

entirely understandable that the legislature is trying to put off the vote. However, this argument

is both naïve and incomplete because it fails to take into account the extent to which opposition

threatens a political official. The politicians in this situation are not just trying to avoid

confrontation; they are trying to avoid having their role in society called into question as a result

of confrontation. This is because the political issues that a candidate supports or opposes make

up the foundation of his or her political agenda. Therefore, their public image consists almost

entirely of the issues for which they stand. Having such a deep connection to these issues means

that when the public questions these viewpoints, it does not just threaten the officers’ political

positions; it threatens their place in society.

Furthermore, the role theory says that one’s identity is socially bestowed, sustained, and

transformed. This means that if the public causes a politician to question his or her position on a

social issue, then the politician will also begin to question the role he or she plays in society. If a

politician gained a political office based on certain viewpoints, then would the public still accept

that politician if he or she switched positions? Questions such as this can be frightening to a

politician because losing public support can lead to a loss in a public election, and failing to win

a political position creates an inconsistency between the role that candidate wants to play in

society – the role of a politician – and the reality of the situation. To avoid an internal conflict

such as this, politicians tend to stick to their views even if this means ignoring legitimate

arguments so as not to be persuaded to switch positions.

So, in this article, it seems that the members of the legislature are trying to avoid the

harmful consequences that might come from the public’s confrontation or opposition. Because

they feel that they are unable to change their position on certain issues for fear of losing their

office and possibly their role in society, one could infer that these politicians based their

campaigns on their positions on certain issues. As having a fixed position on an issue prevents

politicians from really considering arguments that oppose their own viewpoints, this does not

seem like an effective foundation for a campaign. For that reason, one could conclude that it

might be more practical and efficient to run a campaign based on the ways in which one arrives

at a particular position. In that way, a politician’s public would know that if he or she switched

positions on a certain issue, then he or she did so through much thought and through the

evaluation of several different arguments. This would allow the politician to acknowledge other

arguments without the fear of being persuaded and therefore having to risk his or her role in

society. If the politicians in this article had run their campaigns in this way, they would not have

to put off voting on the issue because they would have heard all the arguments and would,

therefore, be able to support their own position.