Symbolic Interactionism
(borrowed from http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/319j3103.htm)
January 31, 2003
Symbolic
Interactionism
1. Overview
Probably the single most important and enduring sociological
perspective that emerged and continues in North America is symbolic
interactionism. It traces its roots in
the pragmatist philosophers such as Peirce, Dewey, Cooley, and Mead. As Plummer notes, “it seeks to unify
intelligent thought and logical method with practical actions and appeals to
experience” (p. 197). The sociologists
who developed and have continued this perspective include Blumer, Becker,
Goffman, Denzin, and Hochschild. Some
of the characteristics of the symbolic interaction perspective are an emphasis
on interactions among people, use of symbols in communication and interaction,
interpretation as part of action, self as constructed by individuals and others
in flexible, adjustable social processes through communication and
interaction. Writers from this
perspective examine and analyze the interaction order of daily life and
experiences, rather than the structures associated with social systems or large
scale and relatively fixed social forces and laws. While the interaction order may be the basis of systems and
structures, and human action in the interaction order is guided by social rules
in the context of resources and constraints, systems and structures are not a
primary focus of symbolic interactionists.
The symbolic interaction perspective emerged from the
sociological analysis of Mead, and it was Herbert Blumer (1900-1987) who took
Mead’s ideas and developed them into a more systematic sociological
approach. Blumer coined the term
symbolic interactionism in 1937, keeping this sociological perspective alive
through the early 1950s at Chicago, and then in California where he was a professor
at the University of Californa in Berkeley.
While Cohen (p. 87) argues that Blumer selectively interpreted Mead’s
analysis, from Mead he emphasized the importance of social interaction,
significant symbols, meaning, communication, taking on the view of the other,
and the self as process. These became
the basis for later symbolic interaction approaches. Blumer notes:
The term “symbolic interaction” refers,
of course, to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes
place between human beings. The
peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings interpret or “define” each
other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their “response” is not made directly to the
actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to
such actions. Thus, human interaction
is mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the
meaning of one another's actions. This
mediation is equivalent to inserting a process of interpretation between
stimulus and response in the case of human behavior. (Blumer, p. 180).
According to Blumer, the characteristics of this approach are
Blumer proposed an interpretive
model for sociology which “inserts a middle term into the stimulus response
couplet so that it becomes stimulus-interpretation-response” (Wallace and Wolf,
p. 206). Cohen notes that Blumer made
this theory more individualistic, less connected to biological dimensions, and
less concerned with larger social processes than did Mead.
2. Characteristics of approach
Plummer (Ch. 7 of the Blackwell
Companion) notes four characteristics of the symbolic interaction
perspective. Some of these are
illustrated in the reading from Simmel, and the symbolic interaction
perspective derived at least partly from Simmel (p. 199). Plummer notes the following characteristics
(pp. 194-196).
a. Symbols. While the social world is built around and
composed of material and objective features, what distinguishes humans is their
extensive and creative use of communication through symbols. The history, culture, and forms of
communication of humans can be traced through symbols and it is through symbols
that meaning is associated with interpretation, action, and interaction. At one level symbols may seem fixed, but the
symbolic interaction perspective emphasizes the shifting, flexible, and
creative manner in which humans use symbols.
The modification of language, which can occur rapidly and continuously,
demonstrates the flexibility of symbols created by humans, and the connection
of such symbols with the ongoing activities and experiences of humans in
interaction in the social world.
Processes of adjustment and change involve individual interactions and
larger scale features such as norms and order.
Plummer notes how habit, routine, and shared meanings occur, but how
“these are always open to reappraisal and further adjustment” (p. 194). The symbolic interactionist studies and
analyzes the processes involved in all aspects of the use of symbols and
communication.
b. Change,
Adjustment, Becoming. The symbolic
interactions perspective considers people as active agents, but quite different
from the rational, self-centred, autonomous, individual of nineteenth century
liberalism. People are actors or agents
and the social world is an active one – with constant adjustment and
organization as essential features of social interaction. The self is created through such
interactions, but it is not necessarily a fixed and inflexible self, but one
that is constantly adjusting to others, and requires interaction and
communication with others. Recall that,
for Mead, the self is a social process – engaged in interaction, internal
conversation with oneself, and in a continual dialogue with others. Symbolic interactionists analyze how the
self develops, how individual lives develop a biography, how social order is
constantly being created, and how larger social forces emerge from these. For the symbolic interactionist, the social
world is an active one and society is this active social world.
c. Interaction. Plummer notes that this perspective is not
just concerned with the individual or with society, but “with the joint acts
through which lives are organized and societies assembled” (p. 195). Actions are not conscious, individual
actions within a set of constraints, as in rational choice models, nor with
personal meaning in the Weberian sense, nor with the unit act of Parsons. Rather, actions are always joint actions of
two or more social actors, with the mutual response and adjustment of the actor
and others an essential aspect of any social action. The self emerges not merely from an individual, nor is it only an
aspect of a single individual. Rather,
it involves consideration of how others view a person, and how the person
responds to and develops his or her own responses to this. Plummer notes that “we can never be alone
with a ‘self’” (p. 195). In terms of an
overall perspective on the social world, this approach is concerned with
“collective behavior” and the social world as active and interactive.
d. Empirical. Perhaps one of the main reasons that
symbolic interaction has remained an important theoretical influence during
most of the twentieth century is its attention to how individuals interact in
social situations and what occurs as humans interact. This perspective is never distant from social action in everyday
life, and does not produce abstract, universal, theoretical musings. As a result, the symbolic interaction
perspective may seem to lack well developed concepts, logical models, rigour,
or an integrated theoretical perspective, it compensates by studying social
interaction of people in the social world.
Given that it concerns human interaction, which is something that any
student of sociology is part of, the raw materials for study of this
interaction are available to anyone. At
the same time, the study requires careful observation, an ability to pay
attention to detail, and a consideration of the accepted and routine. While it may be difficulty to abstract from
the perspective of each sociologist, empirical study must move beyond the
prejudice and bias of the observer. In
the case of writers such as Mead, Goffman, Hochschild, or Denzin, it is the
careful attention to social detail, circumstances, and processes that makes
their analysis valuable and insightful.
3. Influences
Plummer traces the intellectual history of symbolic
interactionism to three major sources – the pragmatic approach of Dewey,
Cooley, James, and Mead (pp. 197-9); the direct fieldwork empirical study of
urban and modern life by Park, Thomas, Burgess, and Wirth (pp. 200-202); and
study of the forms (as distinguished from content) of social life and
interaction in modern society by Simmel.
It is the latter that is examined first in these notes. Analysis from each of these influences is
concerned with social detail and careful observation, along with description
and analysis. For the most part, the
symbolic interaction perspective does not analyze the social world in a
quantitative manner, but is qualitative and interpretive, and attempts to
provide rich or thick descriptive analysis.
See Also, the link below for a good article about the three sociological perspectives – in particular, Symbolic Interactionism.
http://www.oregonvos.net/~jflory/205/s_inter.htm