Symbolic interactionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Symbolic interactionism is a major
sociological perspective that is influential
in many areas of the discipline. It is
particularly important in microsociology
and social psychology.
Symbolic interactionism is derived from
American pragmatism and particularly
from the work of George Herbert Mead,
who argued that people's selves are social
products, but that these selves are also
purposive and creative. Another pioneer
in the area was Charles Cooley.
Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter
of Mead, coined the term "symbolic
interactionism" and put forward an
influential summary of the perspective:
people act toward things based on the
meaning those things have for them; and
these meanings are derived from social
interaction and modified through
interpretation.
Sociology
Portal · History
General aspects
Public sociology · Social research
Social theory · Sociological theory
Sociological practice
Related fields and subfields
Comparative sociology · Criminology
Demography · Social movements
Social psychology · Medical sociology· Sociolinguistics
Sociology of: culture · deviance
economics · education · gender
knowledge · law · politics · religion
science · stratification · work
Categories and lists
Journals · Publications · Topics
This box: view • talk • edit
Sociologists working in this tradition have researched a wide range of topics using a variety of
research methods. However, the majority of interactionist research uses qualitative research
methods, like participant observation, to study aspects of (1) social interaction and/or (2)
individuals' selves.
Sociological areas that have been particularly influenced by symbolic interactionism include the
sociology of emotion, deviance/criminology, collective behavior/social movements, and the
sociology of sex. Interactionist concepts that have gained widespread usage include definition of
the situation, emotion work, impression management, looking glass self, and total institution.
Erving Goffman, although he claimed not to have been a symbolic interactionist, is recognized as
one of the major contributors to the perspective.
Contents
[hide]





1 Basic premises and approach
2 Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction
3 Critique
4 References
5 See also
[edit] Basic premises and approach
Herbert Blumer (1969), who coined the term "symbolic interactionism," set out three basic
premises of the perspective:
1. "Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
2. "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has
with others and the society."
3. "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the
person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."
Blumer, following Mead, claimed that people interact with each other by interpret[ing] or
'defin[ing]' 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 and
signification, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions (Blumer
1962). Blumer contrasted this process, which he called "symbolic interaction," with behaviorist
explanations of human behavior, which don't allow for interpretation between stimulus and
response.
Symbolic interactionist researchers investigate how people create meaning during social
interaction, how they present and construct the self (or "identity"), and how they define situations
of co-presence with others. One of the perspective's central ideas is that people act as they do
because of how they define situations.
This approach is also applied to the sociology of health and illness.
[edit] Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction
The Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (SSSI) is the scholarly association for
symbolic interactionists. SSSI holds a conference in conjunction with the meeting of the
American Sociological Association in August and sponsors the Couch-Stone Symposium each
spring. It also sponsors the journal Symbolic Interaction.
[edit] Critique
Although symbolic interactionist concepts have gained widespread use among sociologists, the
perspective has been criticized, particularly during the 1970s when quantitative approaches to
sociology were dominant.
In addition to methodological criticisms, critics of the symbolic interactionism have charged that
it is unable to deal with social structure (a fundamental sociological concern) and
macrosociological issues. A number of symbolic interactionists have addressed these topics but
their work has not gained as much recognition or influence as the work of those focusing on the
interactional level.
[edit] References




Blumer, Herbert (1962). "Society as Symbolic Interaction". in Arnold M. Rose. Human Behavior
and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach, Houghton-Mifflin. Reprinted in Blumer (1969).
Blumer, Herbert (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Plummer, Kenneth. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Liamputtong, Pranee & Ezzy, Douglas. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods. New York: Oxford
University Press.
[edit] See also






Labeling theory
Interaction
Edward T. Hall
Extension transference
Sandbox play therapy
Generalized other
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Symbolic interactionism, or interactionism for short, is one of the major theoretical perspectives
in sociology. This perspective has a long intellectual history, beginning with the German
sociologist and economist, Max Weber (1864-1920) and the American philosopher, George H.
Mead (1863-1931), both of whom emphasized the subjective meaning of human behavior, the
social process, and pragmatism. Although there are a number of versions of interactionist
thought, some deriving from phenomenological writings by philosophers, the following
description offers a simplified amalgamation of these ideas, concentrating on points of
convergence. Herbert Blumer, who studied with Mead at the University of Chicago, is
responsible for coining the term, "symbolic interactionism," as well as for formulating the most
prominent version of the theory (Blumer 1969).
Interactionists focus on the subjective aspects of social life, rather than on objective, macrostructural aspects of social systems. One reason for this focus is that interactionists base their
theoretical perspective on their image of humans, rather than on their image of society (as the
functionalists do). For interactionists, humans are pragmatic actors who continually must adjust
their behavior to the actions of other actors. We can adjust to these actions only because we are
able to interpret them, i.e., to denote them symbolically and treat the actions and those who
perform them as symbolic objects. This process of adjustment is aided by our ability to
imaginatively rehearse alternative lines of action before we act. The process is further aided by
our ability to think about and to react to our own actions and even our selves as symbolic objects.
Thus, the interactionist theorist sees humans as active, creative participants who construct their
social world, not as passive, conforming objects of socialization.
For the interactionist, society consists of organized and patterned interactions among individuals.
Thus, research by interactionists focuses on easily observable face-to-face interactions rather
than on macro-level structural relationships involving social institutions. Furthermore, this focus
on interaction and on the meaning of events to the participants in those events (the definition of
the situation) shifts the attention of interactionists away from stable norms and values toward
more changeable, continually readjusting social processes. Whereas for functionalists
socialization creates stability in the social system, for interactionists negotiation among
members of society creates temporary, socially constructed relations which remain in constant
flux, despite relative stability in the basic framework governing those relations.
These emphases on symbols, negotiated reality, and the social construction of society lead to an
interest in the roles people play. Erving Goffman (1958), a prominent social theorist in this
tradition, discusses roles dramaturgically, using an analogy to the theater, with human social
behavior seen as more or less well scripted and with humans as role-taking actors. Role-taking
is a key mechanism of interaction, for it permits us to take the other's perspective, to see what
our actions might mean to the other actors with whom we interact. At other times, interactionists
emphasize the improvisational quality of roles, with human social behavior seen as poorly
scripted and with humans as role-making improvisers. Role-making, too, is a key mechanism of
interaction, for all situations and roles are inherently ambiguous, thus requiring us to create those
situations and roles to some extent before we can act.
Ethnomethodology, an offshoot of symbolic interactionism, raises the question of how people
who are interacting with each other can create the illusion of a shared social order even when
they don't understand each other fully and in fact have different points of view. Harold Garfinkel,
a pioneer in these investigations, demonstrated the problem by sending his students out to
perform "experiments in trust," called breaching experiments, in which they brought ordinary
conversations to an abrupt halt by refusing to take for granted that they knew what the other
person was saying, and so demanded explanations and then explanations of the explanations
(Garfinkel 1967). More recently, ethnomethodologist researchers have performed minutely
detailed analyses of ordinary conversations in order to reveal the methods by which turn-taking
and other conversational maneuvers are managed.
Interactionists tend to study social interaction through participant observation, rather than
surveys and interviews. They argue that close contact and immersion in the everyday lives of the
participants is necessary for understanding the meaning of actions, the definition of the situation
itself, and the process by which actors construct the situation through their interaction. Given this
close contact, interactionists could hardly remain free of value commitments, and, in fact,
interactionists make explicit use of their values in choosing what to study but strive to be
objective in the conduct of their research.
Symbolic interactionists are often criticized by other sociologists for being overly impressionistic
in their research methods and somewhat unsystematic in their theories. These objections,
combined with the fairly narrow focus of interactionist research on small-group interactions and
other social psychological issues, have relegated the interactionist camp to a minority position
among sociologists, although a fairly substantial minority.
References
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Goffman, Erving. 1958. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University
of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre.
Herbert Blumer's Symbolic Interactionism
Human Communication Theory
University of Colorado at Boulder
THE THEORY
Symbolic Interactionism as thought of by Herbert Blumer, is the process of
interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals. Blumer was a
devotee of George H. Mead, and was influenced by John Dewey. Dewey
insisted that human beings are best understood in relation to their
environment (Society for More Creative Speech, 1996). With this as his
inspiration, Herbert Blumer outlined Symbolic Interactionism, a study of
human group life and conduct.
Blumer came up with three core principles to his theory. They are meaning,
language, and thought. These core principles lead to conclusions about the
creation of a person's self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin,
1997)
The first core principle of meaning states that humans act toward people
and things based upon the meanings that they have given to those people or
things. Symbolic Interactionism holds the principal of meaning as central in
human behavior.
The second core principle is language. Language gives humans a means by
which to negotiate meaning through symbols. Mead's influence on Blumer
becomes apparent here because Mead believed that naming assigned
meaning, thus naming was the basis for human society and the extent of
knowledge. It is by engaging in speech acts with others, symbolic
interaction, that humans come to identify meaning, or naming, and develop
discourse.
The third core principle is that of thought. Thought modifies each
individual's interpretation of symbols. Thought, based-on language, is a
mental conversation or dialogue that requires role taking, or imagining
different points of view.
THE CASE
Last week, I received an exciting e-mail from an old flame named Jeremy.
Jeremy and I have been getting to know each other again through the
wonderful world of cyberspace. I like e-mall because it doesn't have the
nervous element that phone calls do. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the
personal touch of phone calls either. The biggest downfall of e-mail is that
non-verbal cues are impossible to detect, because of the simple fact that email is not verbal. It is very easy for misunderstanding to arise. Well,
Jeremy's e-mail to me on Thursday said he was coming to Boulder the next
day, and he was wondering if I wanted "to go out?" I accepted his offer "to
go out." With the help of my friends, I picked out the perfect outfit for my
date with Jeremy. The girls and I all assumed Jeremy and I would do dinner
and a movie because that is pretty much standard date practice. The next
night, Jeremy picked me up "to go out" to the bars with him and three of his
buddies. I got very angry and he couldn't figure out why. After all, I told him
we would "go out."
APPLICATION OF THEORY TO CASE
I can explain the problem between Jeremy and myself using the lens of the
three core principles of Symbolic Interactionism as outlined by Herbert
Blumer.
The first miscommunication that Jeremy and I had falls under the principal of
meaning. Jeremy and I acted differently toward one another because we
had different meanings of one another. Last year, Jeremy and I broke up
under the heading "we're just friends." Therefore, Jeremy assigns "friend" as
the meaning for me. For myself, however, when Jeremy and I started talking
again, I reevaluated my meaning for him as "potential boyfriend." Jeremy
was treating me like a friend, and I was treating him like a boyfriend
because we act toward people based on the meanings we assign to them.
Our second miscommunication falls under the principle of language. The
symbols "do you want to go out" are very ambiguous, especially without the
luxury of non-verbal cues. After engaging in symbolic interaction with my
group of friends, I decided that "going out" means a romantic evening of
dinner and a movie. My girl friends asked where the two of us were going,
what I was going to wear to impress him, would we kiss on the first date even though it really wasn't our FIRST date, if the two of us were going to
start dating again, and other things like that. Through my interaction with
them, the language "going out" took on a specific meaning. Apparently for
Jeremy, the language "going out" took on the specific meaning of hitting the
bars for a night on the town. To put it another way, if the extent of
knowledge is naming, I name a typical date as "going out," while Jeremy
names being at the bars with friends "going out." Because we have two
different situations with the same name, we fell upon a misunderstanding.
Our third miscommunication falls under the principal of thought. In my
internal dialogue, the symbols "do you want to go out" were interpreted
through my thought process based on my naming system. I read his e-mall,
talked to my friends, and assigned meaning to the language through
symbolic interaction. Based on that meaning from language, I had an
internal dialogue, and ended up coming to the conclusion that Jeremy and I
were going to spend some romantic time alone together. Jeremy's thought
process also modified his interpretation of the language. Jeremy assigned
the name of "just a friend" to me. That name was his meaning. He acted
toward me based on that meaning. Through his internal dialogue, he used
the language "going out" to be interpreted as time spent among friends.
While we ended up have a great time together, just the five of us, the focal
point of the problem between Jeremy and myself is that each of us had
different meanings with the same name which can account for our behavior.
CRITIQUE
The theory of Symbolic Interactionism is strong in that it provides a basis to
understand the establishment of meaning. As I understand it, Symbolic
Interactionism falls under the category of a Humanistic theory. It has
creative meaning - interaction gives humans meaning. It has free will every human has meanings which can change at any time. It has
emancipation - individuals are free to find their own meaning. It has rules
for interpretation meaning, language, and thought. And it uses a
ethnography to find meaning.
Symbolic Interactionism also meets the five humanistic standards that make
a good theory. There is a new understanding of the people where we get
meaning. There is a clarification of values. Meaning comes from interaction,
so interaction is important to human society. There is aesthetic appeal - the
theory is in three, easy-to-understand parts. There is a community of
agreement - Blumer's ideas are adopted by people in the academic
community. And there is a reform of society - because meaning comes from
interaction, interaction must not be taken for granted.
Although Symbolic Interactionism is a good theory by the five humanistic
standards, there is a critique of the whole basis for it. While Blumer insists
that the interpretive process and the context in which it is done are a vital
element in the person's use of meaning and formation thereof, others view
the use of meaning as simply the calling upon and application to specific
situations of previously held meanings (Society for More Creative Speech,
1996). That is, a social interactionist believes that meaning arises out of the
interaction between people, while a contradicting point of view a asserts that
meaning is already established in a person's psychological make-up.
CONCLUSION
While it is debatable if Symbolic Interactionism is a good theory, or not, I
find it effective in evaluating human interaction. My conflict with Jeremy is
the perfect example of how different meanings can cause communication
problems. While this is a fairly insignificant example, it is easy to see how
larger problems can arise if the lines of communication are not open, and
assumptions are made.
BIBLIOGROPHY
Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: The
McGraw-Hill Companies.
The Society for More Creative Speech. (1996). Symbolic Interactionism as
Defined by Herbert Blumer. http://www.thepoint.net/-usul/text/blumer.html
Microsociology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain
unclear because it lacks inline citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate.
Microsociology is one of the main branches of sociology (contrast with macrosociology and
mesosociology) which concerns itself with the nature of everyday human social interactions on a
small scale. At the micro level, social statuses and social roles are the most important
components of social structure. It is usually based on observation rather than statistics. It derives
from the philosophy of phenomenology(Shultz) and includes symbolic
interactionism(Mead,Blumer) and ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology in particular has led to
many academic sub-divisions and studies such as micro-linguistical research and other related
aspects of human social behaviour. It was conceived by Harold Garfinkel (and later expanded by
others - see Cicarel et al) to inquire into the methods people use to make sense of their social
world. It also provided an extra dimension between the studies of social psychology and
sociology - focusing more on individual interaction and thinking within groups, rather than just
large social group/societal behaviour. It has now become important in many fields of study,
including modern Psychosocial Studies; Conversational Analysis and Human Computer
Interaction. Micro-Sociology continues to have a profound influence on research in all human
fields, often under other names.
Sociological Theory/Symbolic Interactionism
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
< Sociological Theory
There are no reviewed revisions of this page, so it may not have been checked for quality.
Jump to: navigation, search
This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of psychological theories prevalent at
the time it was first formulated (in the 1920s and 1930s), behaviorism and ethology, and also
contrasts with structural-functionalism. According to Symbolic Interactionism, humans are
distinct from infrahumans (lower animals)simply respond to their environment (i.e., a stimulus
evokes a response or stimulus -> response) whereas humans have the ability to interrupt that
process (i.e., stimulus -> cognition -> response). Additionally, infrahumans are unable to
conceive of alternative responses to gestures. Humans, however, can. This understanding should
not be taken to indicate that humans never behave in a strict stimulus -> response fashion, but
rather that humans have the capability of not responding in that fashion (and do so much of the
time).
This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought (see social constructionism and
phenomonology. According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has no reality for
humans, only subjectively-defined objects have meaning. Meanings are not entities that are
bestowed on humans and learned by habituation. Instead, meanings can be altered through the
creative capabilities of humans, and individuals may influence the many meanings that form
their society (Herman and Reynolds 1994). Human society, therefore, is a social product.
It should also be noted that symbolic interactionists advocate a particular methodology. Because
they see meaning as the fundamental component of human/society interaction, studying
human/society interaction requires getting at that meaning. Thus, symbolic interactionists tend to
employ more qualitative rather than quantitative methods in their research.
Contents
[hide]




1 Additional Concepts
o 1.1 Society
o 1.2 Self
o 1.3 Mind
2 Notes
3 References
4 External links
[edit] Additional Concepts
[edit] Society
In symbolic interactionist thought, there is a difference between infrahuman and human society.
In infrahuman life, cooperation is physiologically determined. In other words, it is not a
cognitive process; it results from instinct and biological programming rather than conscious
thinking. In human society, cooperation is cognitive and conscious. Human cooperation can only
be brought about by:


each acting individual ascertaining the intention of the acts of others
each acting individual deciding on his/her own response on the basis of that intention
Another distinction drawn between infrahumans and humans is in the types of communication
employed. Infrahuman communication is gestural; it takes place immediately, without any
interruption of the act for interpretation or assigning meaning. In contrast to infrahuman
communication, human communication is meaningful in that gestures are symbolic and do not
invoke immediate responses - humans must interpret gestures and assign them meaning. Because
human communication involves interpretation and the assignment of meaning, it is only possible
when there is consensus in meaning. Meanings for symbols must be shared.
Shared meaning necessarily takes place through role-taking; in order to complete an act, the
actor must put himself in the position of the other person. Behavior is viewed as social not
simply when it is a response to others, but rather when it has incorporated in it the behavior of
others. Human beings respond to themselves as other persons respond to them, and in so doing
they imaginatively share the conduct of others.
[edit] Self
The self refers to the conscious, reflective personality of an individual. It is the entity the person
envisions when he/she thinks about who they are. In order to understand the concept of self, it is
important to understand that the development of self is only possible through role-taking. In
order to look upon your self, you have to be able to take the role of another, which, in turn,
allows you to reflect upon your self. Because role-taking is a necessary part of self-development,
it is concurrent with the development of self.
According to Mead (1967), the self develops in a series of three stages:
1. preparatory stage - meaningless imitation by the infant
2. play stage - actual playing of roles occurs; but no unified conception of self develops
3. game stage - this is the completion stage of self-development; the child finds who he or she is;
the child also must respond to simultaneous roles; the individual can act with a certain amount
of consistency in a variety of situations because he/she acts in accordance with a generalized set
of expectations and definitions he/she has internalized
The self consists of two parts, the I and the Me. The I is the impulsive tendency of the individual
(similar to Freud's notion of the Id). The I is the spontaneous, unorganized aspect of human
existence. The Me is the incorporated other (see generalized other) within the individual. The
incorporated or generalized other supplies an organized set of attitudes and definitions,
understandings and expectations (or meanings) that are common to the group to which the
individual belongs (similar to Freud's concept of the superego).
According to Mead's presentation of the I and the Me, action begins in the form of the I and ends
in the form of the Me; the I gives propulsion while the Me gives direction. Additionally, the I,
being creative and spontaneous, provides for change in society. The Me, being regulatory, works
to maintain society. Thus, in the concept of self is a powerful and comprehensive understanding
of how humans function in society and, in turn, how society functions (by both changing and
remaining constant). The concept also depicts the relationship between the individual and society
(Meltzer 1978).
According to Meltzer (1978), there are three implications of selfhood:
1. the possession of self makes of the individual a society in miniature; humans can engage
themselves in interaction; they can view themselves in a new way
2. the ability to act toward oneself makes possible an inner experience which need not reach overt
expression; humans can have a mental life
3. an individual with a self can direct and control his behavior
It is also important to recognize that the self and the mind are twin emergents in the social
process...
[edit] Mind
The Mind or mental component of man emerges out of human communication. The mind is only
present when significant symbols (as opposed to gestures that do not have meaning but simply
evoke responses) are being used in communication. In this sense, mind is a process manifested
whenever the individual is interacting with himself using significant symbols (symbols or
gestures with interpretations or meanings).
The mind is also the component of the individual that interrupts responses to stimuli. It is the
mind that attempts to pre-vision the future by exploring possible outcomes of actions before
proceeding with actions. In minded behavior, the individual carries on an internal conversation.
[edit] Notes
The basic assumptions of symbolic interactionism, according to Herman and Reynolds (1994),
are:
1. humans live in a symbolic world of learned meanings
2. symbols arise in the social process and are shared
3. symbols have motivational significance; meaning and symbols allow individuals to carry out
distinctively human action and interaction
4. the mind is a functional, volitional, teleological entity serving the interests of the individual;
Humans, unlike the lower animals, are endowed with the capacity for thought; the capacity for
thought is shaped by social interaction
5. the self is a social construct; just as individuals are born mindless, so too, are they born selfless;
our selves arise in social interaction with others
6. society is a linguistic or symbolic construct arising out of the social process; it consists of
individuals interacting
7. sympathetic introspection is a mandatory mode of inquiry