Symbolic Interactionism

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological framework that focuses on the different
meanings individuals attach to objects, peoples, and interactions as well as the
corresponding behaviors that reflect those meanings and/ or interpretations. It is a
framework that actualizes the nature of humans to make sense of their actions and
interactions through external cues from their everyday life and environment (Vejar
2015).
George Herbert Mead was an influential figure in the field of symbolic interactionism.
Gestures, according to him, are important in communication. When we interact with
others, our posture, tone of voice, voice inflections, as well as hand and facial
movements convey significance. They can either accentuate or contradict that which we
are verbally stating (Vejar 2015).
Mead's central concept is the self, "the part of an individual's personality composed of
self-awareness and self-image" (Macionis 2007, 124). The process of self-discovery or
self-development is enacted by the usage of gestures threefold through the play stage,
the game stage, and through a stage called generalized other. The term "generalized
other” refers to "widespread cultural norms and values we use as a reference in
evaluating ourselves" (Macionis 2007, 126). Verja (2015, 3-4) describes each stage.
In the play stage, young children identify with key figures in their environments, such as
the mother or father, as well as occupational or gender-specific roles to which they have
been exposed (e.g., police officer, nurse) and replicate the behavioral norms that
correspond with such roles. A young boy might sit on the edge of the bathroom counter,
attentive to the way in which his father goes about shaving, and emulate this action by
scraping the edge of a blunt object across his own face.
During the game stage, children extrapolate from the vantage point of the roles they
have simulated by assuming the roles that their counterparts concurrently undertake.
While engaging in a team sport, for example, it behooves a child to conceptualize the
roles of his teammates and opponents in order to successfully maneuver throughout the
game within his own particular position.
As people developmentally evolve, their anticipation of the generalized other helps them
construct morally sound and appropriate behavior, such as the employee who arrives
promptly to work in order to avoid scrutiny from his colleagues. Moreover, self identity
continuously fluctuates between the I, which is the impulsive, automatic, "knee-jerk"
responses we have to stimuli (Lane, 1984), and the me, which is the socially refined
reactions that were instilled through the process of adopting social standards (Baldwin,
1988).
There are three overarching premises that constitute symbolic interactionism. These
three premises are outlined below with examples as concrete illustrations.
The first assumes that meaning is an important element of human existence, a concept
that is both subjective and individualistic, and that people consequently act in
accordance with the meanings they construe. Imagine the scholar who, upon drawing
on the concept of a book (i.e., object), generates stimulating and intellectual constructs
Meanwhile, someone who struggles academically may harbor feelings of fear and
resentment toward that object. A dyadic conversation (.e., interaction) may consist of
one person disclosing emotionally-laden personal accounts to a person who is furrowing
his brow. Interpretations derived from such a nonverbal gesture can be varied, and the
speaker might either conclude that he has an attentive audience, or that he is being
critiqued. Another example shows how the role of "parent" (i.e., people) might generate
the image of a warm, nurturing, and supportive role model to one person, while eliciting
visualizations of an autocratic and punitive figure to another.
A second premise asserts that people identify and mold their unique symbolic
references through the process of socialization. This postulation suggests that people
are not inherently equipped with interpretive devices that help navigate through the
complex realms of human behavior. Through the act of establishing an intricate series
of relationships they come to certain symbolic determinations, which create a sturdy
platform on which subsequent behavior is structured. When a young child engages in
pleasant behavior that causes his parent to smile, he equates the concept of "good
behavior," with that of a specific facial expression resulting in an upturned mouth." As
the child encounters pleasurable deeds throughout the course of his life, he will be
prompted to implement the symbolic demonstration (1.e., a smile) he initially
corresponded with such acts.
Behaviors are adopted through an obscurely subtle learning process, and the third tenet
of symbolic interactionism affirms that there is a cultural dimension that intertwines the
symbolic "educational" development. For example, in conversation, the amount of
physical space in which we distance our bodies has culturally symbolic significance
(Rothbaum, Morelli, Pott, & Liu-Constant, 2000). Likewise, greetings in the form of
demonstrative affection, such as hugs and kisses can be warmly regarded by one
culture, and deemed as the obstruction of personal space and the crossing of
inappropriate boundaries by another (Graham 2007, Vejar 2015, 1-2)
As a theoretical perspective, symbolic interactionism is not known for homogeneity,
parsimony or consensus among its practitioners. Four of the most prominent
contemporary varieties of symbolic interactionism include the Chicago School, the lowa
School, the dramaturgical approach, and ethnomethodology. All these four schools of
thought or orientations share the view that human beings construct their realities in a
process of social interaction, and agree on the methodological implication of such, that
is, the necessity of “getting inside" the reality of the actor in order to understand what is
going on (Gecas 1980, 1458).
Nonetheless, the four varieties of symbolic interactionisrn differ significantly in terms of
purpose and methodology. The most glaring difference exists between the Chicago
School with a positivist orientation and the lowa School with a humanistic orientation.
Such difference reflects a basic divergence in purpose and methodology in the
discipline of Sociology (Gecas 1980).
Following a positivist orientation and with Thomas Kuhn as its chief progenitor the
Chicago School aims at prediction and unity of method for all the sciences. Adopting a
humanistic orientation, the lowa school under the influence of Herbert Blumer strives for
understanding and a distinctive method for sociology, one that is based on "sympathetic
introspection." The two other contemporary varieties of symbolic interactionism, namely,
Goffman's dramaturgical approach and Garfinkel's ethnomethodology, are both more
aligned with the positivist Chicago School (Gecas 1980, 1458).

Symbolic interaction has both "insider" "and outsider" critics. Insiders' criticism focus on
the method and the central concepts of symbolic interactionism, particularly the
ambiguity of major concepts used particularly the concept of the "self." These criticisms
attack the utility of symbolic interactionism in the production of cumulative and
generalizable knowledge. Outsiders' critique, on the other hand, highlights the
astructural bias in symbolic interactionism. This bias refers to the claim that symbolic
interactionism's perspective is ahistorical, noneconomic, and a limited view of social
power and social organization (Gecas 1980, 1459).
The disagreement between the Chicago School and the lowa School reflects not only
the positivist-humanistic debate in symbolic interactionism, but by extension, the
objectivist-subjectivist dichotomy and debate not only in Sociology but also in the Social
Sciences.
The debate between subjectivist (humanist) and objectivist (positivist or neopositivist)
orientations toward human behavior and social processes is long-standing. The debate
has been between those who focus on the (humanistic) subject matter of the social
sciences and those who call for the same (scientific) method for all the sciences, both
natural and social. The debate has not only divided each of the social sciences, it has
also divided many of the subfields within these sciences, subfields such as social
psychology (Warshay & Warshay 1987).

Symbolic Interactionism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Symbolic Interactionism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Symbolic Interactionism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological framework that focuses on the different

meanings individuals attach to objects, peoples, and interactions as well as the

corresponding behaviors that reflect those meanings and/ or interpretations. It is a

Gestures, according to him, are important in communication. When we interact with

are verbally stating (Vejar 2015).

self-awareness and self-image" (Macionis 2007, 124). The process of self-discovery or

other” refers to "widespread cultural norms and values we use as a reference in

scraping the edge of a blunt object across his own face.

game within his own particular position.

continuously fluctuates between the I, which is the impulsive, automatic, "knee-jerk"

three premises are outlined below with examples as concrete illustrations.

visualizations of an autocratic and punitive figure to another.

of relationships they come to certain symbolic determinations, which create a sturdy

platform on which subsequent behavior is structured. When a young child engages in

behavior," with that of a specific facial expression resulting in an upturned mouth." As

prompted to implement the symbolic demonstration (1.e., a smile) he initially

corresponded with such acts.

symbolic "educational" development. For example, in conversation, the amount of

inappropriate boundaries by another (Graham 2007, Vejar 2015, 1-2)

As a theoretical perspective, symbolic interactionism is not known for homogeneity,

parsimony or consensus among its practitioners. Four of the most prominent

going on (Gecas 1980, 1458).

Nonetheless, the four varieties of symbolic interactionisrn differ significantly in terms of

Such difference reflects a basic divergence in purpose and methodology in the

discipline of Sociology (Gecas 1980).

introspection." The two other contemporary varieties of symbolic interactionism, namely,

Goffman's dramaturgical approach and Garfinkel's ethnomethodology, are both more

aligned with the positivist Chicago School (Gecas 1980, 1458).

attack the utility of symbolic interactionism in the production of cumulative and

generalizable knowledge. Outsiders' critique, on the other hand, highlights the

interactionism's perspective is ahistorical, noneconomic, and a limited view of social

power and social organization (Gecas 1980, 1459).

the positivist-humanistic debate in symbolic interactionism, but by extension, the

The debate between subjectivist (humanist) and objectivist (positivist or neopositivist)

psychology (Warshay & Warshay 1987).

You might also like