**3.3 Roles/Social categories**

For many sociologists, the main building-block of social structure is the status-role. The usefulness of this concept is that it links both upwards to more comprehensive social structures (which can be seen as composed of combinations of status-roles), and also downwards to the nitty-gritty of the practise of everyday life (since people often relate their behaviour to the status-role position they hold).

Role analysis is built on the everyday point that we create our own identity and also relate with others in terms of key social characteristics such as our (and their) age and gender, as well as many other more societally-relevant (and also the more fluid situationally-specific) roles.

The concept is borrowed from the theatre, where of course it refers to the characters in the cast which are played by actors. This metaphor is especially stressed by those focusing on the 'playing of roles': i.e. the performance of roles. What is more interesting, I think, is that other aspects of the theatrical metaphor are not stressed. The whole structural context that is indicated by looking beyond the playing of the actor's lines to consider the relevance of the playwright, the plot, and the relationships amongst the characters that the cast conjures up, is not attended to.

There is a central tension within the concept between the 'status-position' aspect of the concept, and the enactment 'role' aspect: between a position in a social structure, and the behaviour and attitudes of a person occupying that social position. Clearly, these are interrelated aspects, and sometimes they are said to be 'two sides of the same coin'. However, the two aspects are differentially seized on by different approaches to the study of social roles: sometimes labelled the structural and the interactional views of roles. (One difficulty with the term 'status' is that its more normal English usage implies a definite hierarchical aspect. In this sociological usage, it does not have this meaning, but this can be confused. Statuses of course can differ in their 'status', since hierarchical ranking is often an attribute of a status.)

A status is a position in a framework of statuses to which are assigned behavioural standards, tasks, and resources. The term has both denotations and connotations: statuses have both relatively up-front 'formal requirements' as well as a tail of less-defined 'informal requirements'. For example, teachers are not only expected to carry out the technical tasks of classroom teaching, but also may have further expectations placed on them of how they should conduct themselves in the community at large.

Analysing Social Structures 21

complements' views and expectations. This social control then locks the incumbents into

Alongside the social control aspect is that of social rewards. Role behaviour is as much shaped by reward-possibilities as it is by negative sanctions. In the industrial relations arena, for example, much attention is given the impact of different types of rewards for worker productivity and also morale. For example, piece-rates can induce high output, but at a social cost. Associated with reward is the way of monitoring and measuring performance to allow the rewards to be assigned. This too, can have a marked influence on what happens. For example, amongst university academic staff, research tends to be rewarded, as research output appears to be more readily measured, whereas teaching performance is difficult to monitor and thus reward: therefore academics are more likely to put effort into their research

The operation of reward and control mechanisms is seen as rather more complicated in the 'reference-group theory' approach (e.g. Merton 1968, see also Crothers, 2011). This approach suggests that people more or less actively search out the reference framework they will relate to in occupying a status. Usually the role-complements, perhaps especially those in appropriate role-segments (e.g. for a teacher, other professional colleagues) are the group to which someone orientates themselves. However, they may (also) fix their sights on quite a different reference-group. For example, upwardly mobile people may be more orientated to the views of the strata they are moving into than the strata from which they are coming. Some reference-groups may be abstract 'social categories' (sometimes technically referred to as 'non-membership groups': a rather indecorous term!), or even specific people who are

An important point about status-positions is that it is through the ways in which they are organised that wider social structures can be held together or fissures created. Nadel (1957) had pointed out that very often different role-structures do not mesh with each other so that wider social formations are not integrated through them. For example, the age-order and gender-differentiation do not necessarily mesh. However, sometimes particular rolestructures have a role in mediating between others (e.g. judiciary, political leadership). One important way in which wider social orders are held together is through the mutual occupancy of statuses in status-sets. For example, it may be by virtue that a decision-maker is both a business-person and a parent and partner that business decision-making may at

One implication of the multiple occupancy of statuses, and also of the multiple rolecomplements focusing on (parts of) particular statuses is that quite a lot of conflict can be induced. In any particular status, and also for the set of statuses, an individual usually has only limited time, and other resources, which must be rationed around all their statuses or the role-segments. In addition, the different values associated with different statuses or rolesegments can create strain. For example, principals, fellow-teachers, pupils and parents can all have rather different expectations of a teacher, and it can be very difficult to balance these into a coherent approach. Similarly, at the status-set level, a classic difficulty arises in

Merton has listed several mechanisms which provide status or role occupants with ways of handling these pressures. Tensions in role-sets may be handled by social mechanisms such

at the expense of teaching or administration in order to obtain promotion.

least be aware of the familial circumstances attending business change.

endeavouring to balance family and work roles.

as (as summarised in Crothers 1987:96):

patterns of reasonably acceptable actions.

chosen as 'role-models'.

Any single status relates to several different audiences or complementary status-positions: e.g. school-teacher in relation to school-principal, fellow teachers, students, parents etc. Thus, it can be seen that the slice of the status relating to each separate one of these is a 'rolesegment', and the related positions are 'role-complements'. The total set of audiences or rolecomplements can be referred to as the 'role-set'.

Any person will occupy a range of status-positions at any one time, and even more over time. The set of statuses which a person occupies at one time can be referred to as their 'status-set': for example, consisting of someone who is '..a teacher, wife, mother, Catholic, Republican and so on' (Merton 1968:423). Certain combinations of these tend to be more complementary or more expected. Also, status-sets may be anchored in a crucial 'masterstatus' (e.g. ethnicity under many circumstances will be a crucial status, age or gender often can be too).

Finally, over time (to anticipate a point to be made in the last of the substantive sections of this chapter), people move in various ways through this social apparatus. Often there are quite regular sequences of roles or of statuses which people occupy one after another. These established sequences provide an over-time link between each component role or status in the sequence. Obvious examples include (especially for males) the sequence of apprenticeship, through journeyman status, to master artisan.

The first main use of status-role theory is as a framework on which to hang sociographic descriptions. Many studies have been carried out on particular statuses, as they are such convenient peg-boards for this. Such studies depict what tasks those in a status perform, and other social characteristics which are assigned to them. Another usage is to develop a role-inventory, in which the array of statuses in a society is exhaustively listed: and often what the tasks of each are. Another common study is to catalogue which tasks are assigned to which statuses (e.g. men v women) across different societies.

But these are but preliminaries for sociological explanations of people's behaviour in statuses. One line of explanation is cultural. Statuses are to a considerable degree a crystallisation of a bundle of norms or rules that is linked to a particular position. Indeed, one line of interpretation of roles is that each is neatly derived from the overall mastervalues of a particular culture, and as a result of being anchored in this more abstract cultural unity, the division into nicely-complementary roles ensures that society functions smoothly. However, social reality is seldom so neatly organised, to say the least.

Instead, the sociological point is more that those occupying roles are shaped by those occupying the surrounding role-structures. There are at least two main lines of explanation of people's behaviour and attitudes within status-and-role theory. One line of explanation involves people in statuses being 'socialised into' (i.e. learning) their roles, which they then 'internalise' (i.e. when the learning becomes part of their social identity). In this conception, the person learns the 'script' prepared by the social structure for that position, and usually does this so well that, after some fumbling starts, they are able to perform effortlessly on numerous occasions.

An alternative, and complementary, explanation emphasises 'social control' by those in the 'role-set'. The role-complements monitor the behaviour of the incumbent and endeavour to shape the incumbents' behaviour (and maybe their attitudes) to fit or suit the role-

Any single status relates to several different audiences or complementary status-positions: e.g. school-teacher in relation to school-principal, fellow teachers, students, parents etc. Thus, it can be seen that the slice of the status relating to each separate one of these is a 'rolesegment', and the related positions are 'role-complements'. The total set of audiences or role-

Any person will occupy a range of status-positions at any one time, and even more over time. The set of statuses which a person occupies at one time can be referred to as their 'status-set': for example, consisting of someone who is '..a teacher, wife, mother, Catholic, Republican and so on' (Merton 1968:423). Certain combinations of these tend to be more complementary or more expected. Also, status-sets may be anchored in a crucial 'masterstatus' (e.g. ethnicity under many circumstances will be a crucial status, age or gender often

Finally, over time (to anticipate a point to be made in the last of the substantive sections of this chapter), people move in various ways through this social apparatus. Often there are quite regular sequences of roles or of statuses which people occupy one after another. These established sequences provide an over-time link between each component role or status in the sequence. Obvious examples include (especially for males) the sequence of

The first main use of status-role theory is as a framework on which to hang sociographic descriptions. Many studies have been carried out on particular statuses, as they are such convenient peg-boards for this. Such studies depict what tasks those in a status perform, and other social characteristics which are assigned to them. Another usage is to develop a role-inventory, in which the array of statuses in a society is exhaustively listed: and often what the tasks of each are. Another common study is to catalogue which tasks are assigned

But these are but preliminaries for sociological explanations of people's behaviour in statuses. One line of explanation is cultural. Statuses are to a considerable degree a crystallisation of a bundle of norms or rules that is linked to a particular position. Indeed, one line of interpretation of roles is that each is neatly derived from the overall mastervalues of a particular culture, and as a result of being anchored in this more abstract cultural unity, the division into nicely-complementary roles ensures that society functions smoothly.

Instead, the sociological point is more that those occupying roles are shaped by those occupying the surrounding role-structures. There are at least two main lines of explanation of people's behaviour and attitudes within status-and-role theory. One line of explanation involves people in statuses being 'socialised into' (i.e. learning) their roles, which they then 'internalise' (i.e. when the learning becomes part of their social identity). In this conception, the person learns the 'script' prepared by the social structure for that position, and usually does this so well that, after some fumbling starts, they are able to perform effortlessly on

An alternative, and complementary, explanation emphasises 'social control' by those in the 'role-set'. The role-complements monitor the behaviour of the incumbent and endeavour to shape the incumbents' behaviour (and maybe their attitudes) to fit or suit the role-

complements can be referred to as the 'role-set'.

apprenticeship, through journeyman status, to master artisan.

to which statuses (e.g. men v women) across different societies.

However, social reality is seldom so neatly organised, to say the least.

can be too).

numerous occasions.

complements' views and expectations. This social control then locks the incumbents into patterns of reasonably acceptable actions.

Alongside the social control aspect is that of social rewards. Role behaviour is as much shaped by reward-possibilities as it is by negative sanctions. In the industrial relations arena, for example, much attention is given the impact of different types of rewards for worker productivity and also morale. For example, piece-rates can induce high output, but at a social cost. Associated with reward is the way of monitoring and measuring performance to allow the rewards to be assigned. This too, can have a marked influence on what happens. For example, amongst university academic staff, research tends to be rewarded, as research output appears to be more readily measured, whereas teaching performance is difficult to monitor and thus reward: therefore academics are more likely to put effort into their research at the expense of teaching or administration in order to obtain promotion.

The operation of reward and control mechanisms is seen as rather more complicated in the 'reference-group theory' approach (e.g. Merton 1968, see also Crothers, 2011). This approach suggests that people more or less actively search out the reference framework they will relate to in occupying a status. Usually the role-complements, perhaps especially those in appropriate role-segments (e.g. for a teacher, other professional colleagues) are the group to which someone orientates themselves. However, they may (also) fix their sights on quite a different reference-group. For example, upwardly mobile people may be more orientated to the views of the strata they are moving into than the strata from which they are coming. Some reference-groups may be abstract 'social categories' (sometimes technically referred to as 'non-membership groups': a rather indecorous term!), or even specific people who are chosen as 'role-models'.

An important point about status-positions is that it is through the ways in which they are organised that wider social structures can be held together or fissures created. Nadel (1957) had pointed out that very often different role-structures do not mesh with each other so that wider social formations are not integrated through them. For example, the age-order and gender-differentiation do not necessarily mesh. However, sometimes particular rolestructures have a role in mediating between others (e.g. judiciary, political leadership). One important way in which wider social orders are held together is through the mutual occupancy of statuses in status-sets. For example, it may be by virtue that a decision-maker is both a business-person and a parent and partner that business decision-making may at least be aware of the familial circumstances attending business change.

One implication of the multiple occupancy of statuses, and also of the multiple rolecomplements focusing on (parts of) particular statuses is that quite a lot of conflict can be induced. In any particular status, and also for the set of statuses, an individual usually has only limited time, and other resources, which must be rationed around all their statuses or the role-segments. In addition, the different values associated with different statuses or rolesegments can create strain. For example, principals, fellow-teachers, pupils and parents can all have rather different expectations of a teacher, and it can be very difficult to balance these into a coherent approach. Similarly, at the status-set level, a classic difficulty arises in endeavouring to balance family and work roles.

Merton has listed several mechanisms which provide status or role occupants with ways of handling these pressures. Tensions in role-sets may be handled by social mechanisms such as (as summarised in Crothers 1987:96):

Analysing Social Structures 23

tugging at those same strands that we make our individual impact on society - influencing

Another, more aggregated, way of conceptualising network linkages is in terms of Bourdieu's concept of 'social capital' (which has also been picked up network analysts such as Coleman 1990: see also Bourdieu, & Wacquant, 1992, Lin, 2001). Social capital is seen by Bourdieu as, in effect, the 'linkage reach' of people, and especially the extent to which they

One strength of network approaches is that they detect patterns of social life operating beneath and around more formal structures. For example, working class residential communities may not be studded with links through formal organisations, and, therefore, may appear to the casual observer to be devoid of social structure. Whereas, in fact, they may be quite tightly interlaced by informal social links. Another strength is that network analysis can probe behind surface patterns of links to show indirect paths of contact, mediated through other people or collective units. Yet another emphasis in network analysis is on actual, concrete links between actual units, rather than rather more vague pictures of

Network analysts vary in the vigour and exclusiveness of their stance: the most radical denigrate any attention to people's opinions and views, seeing these as emanations of their

A very important distinction is that between 'network cohesion' and 'structural equivalence'. The two ideas posit quite different ways of examining nodes and their linkages. The network cohesion concept links those who interact with each other: for example, in a medical centre each set of patients, receptionists, practise nurses and doctor form a network based around each particular doctor. However, each of these four types of position are the basis for network links based on the 'structural equivalence' of the people concerned. That is, each plays an equivalent role in 'their' network, and analysis can be built around this similarity. Often these positions are, in fact, also socially prescribed status-roles, but they need not be. Nodes can occupy 'structurally equivalent' positions without this

One key idea is the importance of 'weak ties'. As opposed to the 'strong ties' which bind groups together, the much more extended range of 'friends of friends' may be particularly important on some matters. (Network analysis incorporates nodes connected by strong ties, too, but is particularly effective in picking up the looser and lighter web of more extended linkages.) In several studies of how people obtain services (e.g. an abortionist, a job) it has been found that weak ties have been more effective than strong ties. This is because only a limited stock of information circulates within a closed group, whereas the surveillance range of a whole slew of weak ties is far wider. Thus, more widely-flung contacts are likely to hold a much greater stock of information, even if this web of weak ties is not very systematic or

Another key idea is that of indirect 'connectivity'. Formally separated social units may in fact be coordinated or controlled behind the scenes by a web of interconnections. Indeed, analysts of the economic power elite which is considered to run the business world have developed a variety of models of how interconnectedness is achieved behind the backs of

other people's opinions, obtaining favours from 'insiders', forming action groups'.

expectations and possibilities, which is where role analysis often leaves matters.

network position. The **form** of relationships is often stressed over their **content.**

can convert other forms of capital into effective use.

being formally recognised by the culture.

efficient in passing that information on.


Similarly, Merton has suggested cognate mechanisms they may handle stress in status-sets (Crothers 1987:94):


A major sociological theme has been that stress arises from awkward combinations of statuses that a person holds. Lenski introduced the notion of 'status inconsistency' which hypothesised that those people occupying 'incongruent' status-sets might suffer increased social stress - or that there might be other consequences that flow from their 'cross-pressure' situation. There are a variety of effects which might follow from 'minority' or 'unusual' situations.

Rose Coser (1991) has moved beyond this stress or conflict view to emphasise the positive opportunities opened up by more complex status-sets. She argues that it is within the very interstices opened-up by complex status-sets that wider degrees of individual freedom can come to be realised. One aspect of this is that people learn more sophisticated social skills including linguistic flexibility - as they learn to handle role complexity. It may also be that more energy is generated as a result of the interplay between statuses. There are also possibilities for integration and for innovation.
