User:Ellie.099/Symbolic interactionism

Article Draft

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that develops from practical considerations and alludes to humans' particular use of shared language to create common symbols and meanings, for use in both intra- and interpersonal communication. This theory was founded by George Herbert Mead. According to Mead, symbolic interactionism is "The ongoing use of language and gestures in anticipation of how the other will react; a conversation". According to Macionis, (?) symbolic interactionism is "a framework for building theory that sees society as the product of everyday interactions of individuals". In other words, it is a frame of reference to better understand how individuals interact with one another to create symbolic worlds, and in return, how these worlds shape individual behaviors. It is a framework that helps understand how society is preserved and created through repeated interactions between individuals. The interpretation process that occurs between interactions helps create and recreate meaning. It is the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals. Individuals act on the premise of a shared understanding of meaning within their social context. Thus, interaction and behavior is framed through the shared meaning that objects and concepts have attached to them. Symbolic Interactionism refers to both verbal and nonverbal communication. From this view, people live in both natural and symbolic environments.

George Herbert Mead

Symbolic interaction was conceived by George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley. Mead, born in south Hadley, Massachusetts in the year 1863. Mead was influenced by many theoritical and philisocial traditions, such as, utilitarianism, evolutionism, pragmatism, behaviorism, and the looking-glass-self. Mead was a social constructionist. Mead argued that people's selves are social products, but that these selves are also purposive and creative, and believed that the true test of any theory was that it was "useful in solving complex social problems". Mead's influence was said to be so powerful that sociologists regard him as the one "true founder" of the symbolic interactionism tradition.

Although Mead taught in a philosophy department, he is best known by sociologists as the teacher who trained a generation of the best minds in their field. Strangely, he never set forth his wide-ranging ideas in a book or systematic treatise. Mead began his teachings at the University of Michigan then moved to the University of Chicago. After his death in 1931, his students pulled together class notes and conversations with their mentor and published Mind, Self and Society in his name. It is a common misconception that John Dewey was the leader of this sociological theory; according to The Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, Mead was undoubtedly the individual who "transformed the inner structure of the theory, moving it to a higher level of theoretical complexity.

Premises

Having defined some of the underlying assumptions of symbolic interactionism, it is necessary to address the premises that each assumption supports. According to Blumer (19f,.69), there are three premises that can be derived from the assumptions above.

1) "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."

The first premise includes everything that a human being may note in their world, including physical objects, actions and concepts. Essentially, individuals behave towards objects and others based on the personal meanings that the individual has already given these items. Meaning is not automatically associated, it is ascribed through interactions. Blumer was trying to put emphasis on the meaning behind individual behaviors, specifically speaking, psychological and sociological explanations for those actions and behaviors.

2) "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."

The second premise explains the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with other humans. Blumer, following Mead, claimed people interact with each other by interpreting or defining 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. Mead believed not in stimulus-response, but in stimulus-interpretation-response. The meaning we assign to our communication is what is important. Meaning is either taken for granted and pushed aside as an unimportant element which need not to be investigated, or it is regarded as a mere neutral link or one of the causal chains between the causes or factors responsible for human behavior and this behavior as the product of such factors.

3) "The Meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she [sic] encounters."

Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation. Mead called this inner dialogue minding, which is the delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about what they will do next. Also known as self talk.These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things that they encounter. We naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out the meaning of a difficult situation. But first, we need language. Before we can think, we must be able to interact symbolically. The emphasis on symbols, negotiated meaning, and social construction of society brought attention to the roles people play. Role-taking is a key mechanism that permits people to see another person's perspective to understand what an action might mean to another person. Role-taking is a part of our lives at an early age, for instance, playing house and pretending to be someone else. Because of the uncertainty of roles in social contexts, the burden of role-making is on the person in the situation. In this sense, we are proactive participants in our environment.

References

Berger, C. R. & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication.

Afifi, W. A. & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14, 167-190.

Husin, S. S., Rahman, A. a. A., & Mukhtar, D. (2021). THE SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM THEORY: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH. International Journal of Modern Trends in Social Sciences, 4(17), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.35631/ijmtss.417010

Azarian, R. (2021). Analytical Sociology and Symbolic interactionism: bridging the intra-disciplinary divide. The American Sociologist, 52(3), 530–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-021-09484-2

Symbolic Interactionism: The Basics [E-book, PDF]. (2019). In Vernon Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.54094/b-5691646dff

Reynolds, L. T., & Herman-Kinney, N. J. (2003). Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Rowman Altamira.

Mead, G. H. (2015). Mind, self, and society: The Definitive Edition. University of Chicago Press.

Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and Method. Univ of California Press.

Hewitt, J. P., & Shulman, D. (2011). Self and society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology. Prentice Hall.

Harter, S. (1999). Symbolic Interactionism Revisited: Potential Liabilities for the Self Constructed in the Crucible of Interpersonal Relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(4), 677–703.

Lundgren, D. C. (2004). Social feedback and self-appraisals: Current status of the Mead-Cooley hypothesis. Symbolic Interaction, 27(2), 267–286.

Holdsworth, C., & Morgan, D. (2007). Revisiting the generalized other: an exploration. Sociology, 41(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507076614

O’Brien, J. (2006). The production of reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction. Pine Forge Press.

Hall, P. M. (1980). Structuring Symbolic Interaction: Communication and Power. Annals of the International Communication Association, 4(1), 49–60.

Stryker, S. (2008). From mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134649