Week 3 Seminar – Socialisation, Social Identity & Symbolic Interactionism

Key Focus of Week 3

Week 3 centred on the twin themes of socialisation and social identities through the lens of the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism—a framework that emphasises how shared symbols and daily interactions create, sustain and transform social reality.

Major Ideas, Concepts & Discussions

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism argues that people act toward things—including people, objects and institutions—on the basis of the meanings those things have for them. Meanings arise out of social interaction and are modified through interpretive processes. Seminar dialogue recapped three classic pillars:

• "Mind": humans reflect on meanings and are not driven by instinct alone.
• "Self": the self emerges from the looking-glass process (imagining how others see us).
• "Society": social order is produced and reproduced through negotiated meanings.

Goffman’s Dramaturgy

Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical metaphor framed identity as performance:

– Front stage: the public arena where individuals manage impressions in line with social expectations.
– Back stage: private arenas that allow rehearsal, relaxation or contradiction of the public self.
– Performance management can be unsettling once we realise “it’s all a show”, but it illuminates how norms, stereotypes and macro-structures script behaviour.

Students linked dramaturgy to healthcare encounters, social media profiles and even classroom cameras—highlighting the ongoing negotiation between self-presentation and surveillance.

Labels, Labelling Theory & Construction of Categories

Exercise 1 asked everyone to list as many health-related labels as possible (e.g. obese, morbidly obese, alcoholic, addict, survivor, neuro-spicy, smart, fit, leper, hysterical, lunatic, has capacity / no capacity). Discussion revealed that:

• Labels are not inherently negative or positive, but they organise experience and justify differential treatment.
• Meaning shifts by time and place (e.g. “hysterical” once medical, now outdated).
• Binary categories (healthy/sick, cancer patient/cancer survivor) can exclude those who sit at the interface.
• Deserving vs undeserving labels underpin welfare, public health funding and moral judgements.

Stigma, Shame & Health

Stigma Activity: Obesity Case Study

Pairs retrieved three distinct sources and compared constructions of weight stigma:

1. Systematic review of primary-school children showed overweight pupils endure higher rates of bullying and social exclusion; girls face intensified stigma because of internalised thin-ideal norms. Consequences include anxiety, reduced self-esteem and poorer health behaviours.
2. Narrative review framed obesity as an inflammatory, polygenic–environmental disease. Stigma persists because the public attributes weight solely to individual lifestyle—contradicting decades of biomedical evidence. Stigma obstructs investment in upstream causes.
3. ABC News report used lived-experience narratives. Women reported providers who dismissed unrelated symptoms by fixating on BMI. Article critiqued $\text{BMI}$: effective for population surveillance but reductive at individual level.

Synthesis: stigma emerges at interpersonal, institutional and structural levels and can be more damaging than the disease itself; it deters healthcare seeking, worsens mental health and undermines prevention initiatives.

Shaming as a Public-Health Tool

A Conversation article argued that “naming and shaming” harmful behaviours rarely improves population health. Key take-aways:

• Weight-shaming generates psychological distress and physiological stress responses, thereby reinforcing weight gain.
• Public shaming police “bad” conduct but ignore structural determinants (food systems, urban design, marketing).
• Alternative: focus on evidence-based, upstream strategies—regulating food placement, subsidising healthy options, redesigning cities for movement—and promote body-inclusive messaging.
Students proposed adding anti-discrimination policies, media literacy education and clinician training to dismantle stigma.

Meaning Making & Shared Symbols

Although the RSA Animate clip on ‘Language as a Window into Human Nature’ was assigned for self-study, discussion previewed several cues:

• We derive meaning from shared cues such as body language, tone, emojis and statistical indicators (e.g. $\uparrow\downarrow$ arrows).
• Digital contexts transform symbol repertoires: ‘read receipts’, likes and algorithmic recommendations signal attention, approval or exclusion.
• In health, shared meanings determine if coughs are “just seasonal” or require quarantine; they shape vaccine acceptance and perceptions of disability.

Impression Management in the Social-Media Era

A closing conversation linked dramaturgy to Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn:

– Platforms encourage ‘front-stage’ curation (filters, health bragging, weight-loss journeys).
– Algorithms reward controversy or aesthetic ideals, fuelling spirals of comparison, surveillance and monetisation.
– Privacy and ethical dilemmas: data mining, screenshot permanence and the lifelong digital footprints of children (“sharenting”).
– Health implication: online stigma (e.g. trolling or weaponised suicide-tags) can exacerbate mental distress; conversely, communities may empower marginalised identities (e.g. neurodivergent hashtags).

Administrative & Assessment Reminders

Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs)

Students are assessed on the capacity to:

1. Source and synthesise scholarly literature on social theory and health.
2. Critically analyse how social structures shape health inequalities and propose evidence-based strategies.
3. Collaborate to communicate theory in practice.
   Each ULO maps to Course Learning Outcomes and Deakin Graduate Learning Outcomes.

Assessment Task 2 (AT2) – Group Presentation

• Group self-enrolment opens online once learning-innovation staff finish setup.
• Select a group according to preferred presentation week.
• Timeline:
– Team charter due $\text{Week }6$
– Slides & scripted narration (for all groups) due $\text{Week }8$
– Live presentation delivery in $\text{Week }9$ or $10$
– Peer feedback due $\text{Week }11$
On-campus students must attend seminars to form groups; otherwise switch to online mode.

Referencing Master-Class (APA 7)

A quick-fire task required students to locate three sources from distinct categories (journal article, edited book chapter, credible website) and format both in-text and reference-list entries. Key mechanics:

• In-text = Author + year; add page number for direct quotes.
• Reference list: pay attention to italics, capitalisation and DOI/URL rules.
• Use Deakin Library quick guides, referencing software and specialist librarians.

Searching for Evidence

The library ‘How to Search’ portal offers step-by-step tutorials on boolean logic, subject headings, database selection (e.g. CINAHL, Medline) and grey-literature retrieval.

Generative AI (GenAI) – Responsible Use

Deakin “welcomes engagement” with GenAI but requires ethical, transparent and academically honest practice.

What Students Reported Using

• ChatGPT, Bard, Bing AI for brainstorming, travel itineraries, D&D game art, code debugging.

Pros

Rapid drafting, creativity boosts, comparative perspectives, accessibility aids.

Cons & Ethical Risks

1. Truthfulness – language models “do not understand reality”; they generate convincing but potentially false content (“bullshit”).
2. Bias – data reflect societal prejudices; marginalised groups may be stereotyped.
3. Academic Integrity – unacknowledged use can constitute plagiarism; new assessment rubrics may require disclosure of prompts and outputs.
4. Environmental Cost – high energy and water use; possible need for new power infrastructure.
5. Privacy & IP – prompts can leak sensitive data; creative works may violate copyright.

Policy Snapshot

Assignments specify whether GenAI is (a) prohibited, (b) allowed for limited tasks (e.g. brainstorming) or (c) integrated (must append prompts/output). Students should embed the official GenAI declaration statement.

Connections to Earlier Weeks & Future Content

– Week 1 sociological imagination: labels and stigma reveal how biography and history intersect.
– Week 2 structural functionalism: contrasting view of social order (sick role) vs micro-level interactionism.
– Upcoming gender & health week will revisit stigma in relation to masculinity, femininity and help-seeking.

Practical, Ethical & Philosophical Implications

• Health professionals must challenge harmful labels and design inclusive messaging.
• BMI is a blunt instrument—clinicians should adopt holistic, culturally appropriate indicators.
• Digital communication demands critical media literacy to navigate algorithmic bias and online harassment.
• Environmental sustainability should be weighed when adopting data-intensive technologies.

Key Dates at a Glance

\begin{array}{ll}
\text{Week }6 & \text{AT2 Team Charter due}\
\text{Week }8 & \text{AT2 Slides + Script due}\
\text{Week }9\text{ or }10 & \text{Group Presentations}\
\text{Week }11 & \text{Peer Feedback submission}\end{array}

Study Recommendations

1. Re-read labeling and stigma readings while mapping them to Goffman’s concepts.
2. Begin literature search for AT1—aim for at least $10$ peer-reviewed sources using APA 7 rules.
3. Experiment with GenAI only for brainstorming; document every prompt/output in a log.
4. Watch the RSA Animate clip twice—first for the narrative, second for symbolism—and note applications to vaccination debates or mental-health campaigns.
5. Reflect on your social-media ‘front stage’: write a paragraph analysing how dramaturgy shapes your wellness posts.