The topic of same-sex marriage in the US has stirred political and social controversy over the past few years. Related information from the General Social Survey database shows people’s attitudes toward same-sex marriage. A question asked from the survey: “Do cohabiting males have the right to marry?” The answers about the type of answers are: I strongly agree, I agree, I neither agree nor disagree, I disagree, I strongly disagree (GSS). Out of 2,493 respondents, 144 strongly agreed and 1,021 strongly disagreed (GSS). One question that this survey did not answer is why the respondents answered the way they did. The theory of symbolic interactionism can be used when looking at a subject like marriage. Symbolic interactionism can be defined as: “Relationships are constructed through the use of mutually understood symbols, objects, and languages” (Goffman 1959: 215). This theory includes how people define and shape social interaction. In this research, the symbolic interactionism proposition will be used to support my research question. My research question for this project is: What is the meaning of marriage with homosexuals compared to heterosexuals?
Nevertheless, the laws law-marriage”>law govern marriage, and states can set certain limitations on the ability to marry” ( Harvard Law Review: 2) a journal article from the Harvard Law Review discusses how the state of Hawaii defines marriage, and who can actually marry is a function: it defines a relationship in terms of what promotes family and social stability” (Harvard Law Review: pg 8). It mentions here article how society can collectively create the meaning of marriage. But this article does not refer to how the meaning of marriage (s) may or may not differ according to sexual orientation. This proposal aims to see and compare the personal meanings associated with marriage if a person is homosexual or heterosexual
Sociologist Herbert Blumer’s perspective on symbolic interactionism can help explain how people make meaning when looking at the subject of marriage. “Blumer has three premises when looking at symbolic interactionism and they are: 1) people act towards things based on the meanings that things have for them, 2) the meaning of those things is derived from the social interactions that one has. partners, 3) these meanings in the process interpretative that man uses” (Blumer 1969, 84). Through my research we can use Blumer’s perspective on symbolic interactionism to analyze how people interpret. “Symbolic interactionism sees meanings as social products, as creations that are formed and defined by people actions interact” (Blumer 1969:87). The meaning and values of an individual’s experience with a spouse and others shape how they interpret it.
Another perspective of symbolic interactionism that can be used to analyze the meaning of marriage is that of Erving Goffman. Goffman’s perspective focuses on impression management with people. “When we admit that the individual’s definition of the situation appears with others, it must also be seen that the others, although they seem to be their part, themselves effectively present the definition of the situation of their response to the individual and the force of any action he initiates” (Goffman 1959:222). In relation to my research question, we can use Goffman’s perspective to analyze the meanings of marriage. For example, a man marries a heterosexual and while doing so, he forms beliefs about the situation. On the same side, a homosexual person can be in a wedding looking at a heterosexual person. By doing this, he also forms his opinions about the situation there. Goffman’s perspective can therefore play an important role in researching my question.
Looking at the General Social Survey data highlights some perspectives on same-sex marriage. However, this data cannot be reconciled with Goffman’s or Blumer’s perspectives on symbolic interactionism, because it lacks accurate data on why they agree or disagree with same-sex marriage. What are the values of marriage and how to interpret them. There are many questions that can be asked that relate to Blumer’s and Goffman’s perspectives. These questions will be related to my methods for this research proposal.
Report:
- Blumer, Herbert. The Symbolic Nature of Interactionism.”; pp. 84-89 Intersections: Lessons in Sociology, edited by R . Trammell. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Pp 215-226 in Intersections, from R.Trammell. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. “In Sickness and Health, in Hawaii and Where Else?: Conflict of Laws and the Review of Same-Sex Marriage.” Harvard Law Review 109 (1996): 2038-2055 .UC Irvine, 13 May 2006 ” >http:/ /www.jstor. org/view/0017811x/ap040877/04a00080/0?currentResult=0017811x%2bap040;. /http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/” rel=”nofollow”>”>webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/>;.
