Chapter 4

The Political Self

Identity Resources for Radical Democracy

PETER L. CALLERO

THE POLITICAL SELF: IDENTITY

RESOURCES FOR RADICAL DEMOCRACY

The theoretical tradition of symbolic interactionism is often criticized by more macro-ori-

ented sociologists for its failure to consider and develop issues of power that go beyond
the dynamics of interpersonal relations. During the decades of the 1960's and 70's critics
such as Gouldner (1970) and Huber (1973) chastised symbolic interactionists and micro-
oriented sociologists such as Goffman, as irrelevant, and naive when it came to the larger
and more central concerns of sociology. The publication of Stryker's (1980) Symbolic
Interactionism: A Social Structural Version, can be read at least in part as a response to
these criticisms. By merging key elements of role theory with a symbolic interactionist
theory of self, Stryker was able to construct a conceptual framework more open to main-
stream (i.e. macro) sociological concerns. While his theory does not explicitly focus on
social forces of domination and control, Stryker (1980: 151) does stress that "there is noth-
ing inherent in symbolic interactionism that necessitates either naivete with reference to,
or denial of the facts of differentially distributed power."
Stryker was correct in his assertion that the tradition of symbol ic interactionism does
not preclude an analysis of the political, nevertheless, it is still very much the case that insti-
tutionally sustained power is a secondary concern for most symbolic interactionists. This
deficiency is clearly evident in contemporary conceptualizations of the self-the central
concept in most symbolic interactionist frameworks. Influential theorists such as Stryker,
Burke, Rosenberg and Blumer, have generally followed the paradigm established by Mead,
which is to focus on the cognitive and intersubjective processes of the self independent of
the actual, historically specific events, social forces and institutions that provide for partic-
ular selves in specific economies of power and politics. Although it is not fair to say that
Mead's social psychology is completely apolitical (as some critics charge), it is true that his
naturalism and behaviorist orientation directs attention away from social structural process-
es and particular political forces. For Mead and many contemporary theorists of the self,

57

P. J. Burke et al. (eds.), Advances in Identity Theory and Research

© Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers 2003
58 Peter L. Callero

politics is an exogenous force that varies in intensity. The political in this manner is no dif-
ferent from any other variable that mayor may not influence the actor's identity, social net-
work or social action.
To be sure , there are some exceptions to this delimited approach to the political. I
Some studies working from a symbolic interactionist framework do hint at a more funda-
mental importance of historically specific events tied to a political economy that come to
define the structure of self development. Turner's (1976) study of the self as institution and
impulse suggests that the very structure of the self can be tied to shifts in cultural process -
es. Hochschild (1983) shows how similar cultural shifts and basic emotional responses can
be linked to alternations in markets from industrial production to service orientation. And
Elder's (1974) longitudinal study of a cohort of depression era youth reveals the funda-
mental impact that this particular political economy had on "personality." But all of these
examples are missing a sophisticated conceptual understanding of the self in which the
political is built into the very framework of the theory and where relations of power are
presumed to be constitutive.
In this chapter I propose a conceptualization of the self in which the political is seen as
constitutive. More specifically, I call for a return to the central political themes found in the
tradition of American pragmatism and the Enlightenment values of classical sociology. I also
push for the adoption of an emancipatory agenda and a praxis orientation toward theory.
In building this framework I am guided by the following principles:

The conceptualization of the self must be historically grounded

It must have a normative standpoint from which a foundation of social and polit-
ical critique can be built
It should address the social and political conditions that facilitate positive self
development
It should speak to the identity resources required of an emancipatory political sys-
tem

My intent is to develop a conceptualization of the political self that privileges a radical,

deliberative democracy for the development of critical identities that can serve both as
resources for insurgent movements and anchors for a normative standpoint.

THE POLITICAL AS ESSENTIAL

The sphere of politics and the political, broadly conceived, includes all social processes,
social forces and social relations associated with the institutional deployment of power.
This would obviously include social processes connected to formal structures of govern-
ment, but would also extend to social relations tied to the political economy (e.g., market,
workplace), religious institutions, education, the culture industry (e.g., entertainment,
news, art, music), even the family. Any time power is deployed, either legitimately or ille-
gitimately, in a patterned, organized or regular manner, politics is involved. Conceptual-
ized in this manner, it is not difficult to recognize the fundamental place of politics in
modem society. Indeed, the greater challenge becomes finding a social experience that is

IThis is particularly true for appro aches to the self that are influenced by post-structural ism, post-modernism and
cultural studies. See Callero (2003) for a critical review of this literature.