Symbolic Interactionism

• What is Symbolic Interactionism
• Meaning of Symbolic Interactionism 
• Assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism
• Premises of Symbolic Interactionism

Introduction

The symbolic interaction perspective, known as symbolic interactionism, stands as a cornerstone in sociological theory. It revolves around the symbolic meanings individuals create and negotiate through social interactions. While its roots can be traced back to Max Weber’s concept that people act based on their interpretations of the world’s meaning, George Herbert Mead popularized this perspective in American sociology during the 1920s, earning him the title of the father of symbolic interactionism.

Sociology emerged as a discipline in Europe in the early 19th century but took nearly a century to become established in the United States. The proliferation of sociology in the U.S. gained momentum around the mid-20th century due to the significant expansion of higher education following World War II. This expansion, coupled with increased government initiatives focusing on social programs and policies in the 1950s and 1960s, necessitated a deeper understanding of social sciences. Consequently, college enrolments soared, and funding for social sciences reached unprecedented levels.

American sociological theory underwent a diverse array of influences and ideas, leading to the reformulation of classical sociological theories in innovative ways. Notable theorists such as Talcott Parsons synthesized the works of Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Vilfredo Pareto into comprehensive theories of social action. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann drew inspiration from phenomenology, Durkheim, and Marx to develop a “social constructionist” perspective. Herbert Blumer and Erving Goffman incorporated elements of classic American pragmatist thought and the social psychology of G.H. Mead to construct a sociology focused on the nuanced meanings and self-presentations encountered in everyday interactions.

Meaning of Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interaction theory delves into the examination of society through the lens of subjective meanings attributed to objects, events, and behaviours. It emphasizes the significance of these subjective meanings as driving forces behind human actions, asserting that individuals operate based on their interpretations rather than solely on objective realities. Consequently, society is viewed as a product of human interpretation and interaction, with people continually constructing its fabric through their understandings.

Central to this theory is the concept of the “definition of the situation,” wherein individuals interpret each other’s behaviour, thereby forming social bonds. Take, for instance, the perplexing phenomenon of why youths persist in smoking despite overwhelming evidence of its health risks. The answer lies in the constructed meaning of smoking within their social context. Studies reveal that while teenagers are aware of the dangers of tobacco, they also perceive smoking as a symbol of status, safety, and acceptance among peers. In this way, the symbolic significance attached to smoking overrides factual knowledge regarding its hazards.

Symbolic interactionism operates at the micro-level, focusing on the dynamics of interpersonal relationships within society. Communication, particularly through language and symbols, is regarded as the primary mechanism through which individuals navigate and interpret their social environments. Notably, proponents like Herman and Reynolds (1994) emphasize the active role of individuals in shaping the social world, rejecting the notion of passive reception and highlighting the agency inherent in human interaction.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is often credited as a foundational figure in the development of symbolic interactionism, despite the fact that he did not formally publish his ideas on the subject. Instead, it was his student, Herbert Blumer, who coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and delineated its fundamental principles:

1. Human interactions with objects are based on the meanings attributed to those objects.
2. These meanings are derived from our interactions with others and society at large.
3. The interpretation of these meanings occurs on an individual level within specific contexts.

For instance, if one holds a deep appreciation for books, a symbolic interactionist might argue that this sentiment was cultivated through various social interactions, such as familial reading rituals, the significance placed on obtaining a library card, or the emotional warmth associated with bedtime stories.

Social scientists who subscribe to symbolic interactionist theory focus on observing and analysing patterns of interaction between individuals. While a conflict theorist might examine a political protest through the lens of class disparity, a symbolic interactionist would be more concerned with understanding how participants interact within the protest group and the symbolic gestures they employ to convey their message.

The emphasis on the role of symbols in shaping social reality prompted sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922–1982) to develop dramaturgical analysis. Goffman likened social interactions to a theatrical performance, noting that individuals adhere to cultural “scripts” that dictate their behaviour. Given the fluid nature of social situations, individuals often find themselves improvising their roles as circumstances evolve.

Research informed by the symbolic interactionist perspective often employs qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews or participant observation. These methodologies allow researchers to delve deeply into the subjective experiences and interpretations that underpin social interactions.

Assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism

Many symbolic interactionists argue that while there is an acknowledgment of a tangible reality, it is primarily shaped by individuals’ social interpretations, with these interpretations being influenced by or grounded in something that is perceived as “real.” Consequently, human responses are not direct reactions to this reality itself, but rather to the socially constructed understanding of it. This understanding acts as a filter through which individuals perceive and interact with the world, reflecting their diverse perspectives. Thus, rather than existing within a physical realm defined by objective realities, humans navigate a “world” comprised of socially constructed “objects.” Symbolic interactionism operates on several key assumptions:

1. Meaning is constructed through communication processes.
2. Self-concept serves as a motivator for behavior.
3. There exists a distinctive relationship between the individual and society.

Premises of Symbolic Interactionism

After outlining the foundational assumptions of symbolic interactionism, it becomes imperative to delve into the premises that underpin each assumption. Blumer delineates three premises stemming from the aforementioned assumptions, which can be elaborated as follows:

1. Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things: The initial premise encompasses the entirety of human perception within their environment, spanning physical entities, activities, and abstract notions. In essence, individuals interact with objects and others through lenses of personal significance assigned to these entities. Blumer underscored the importance of interpreting individual behaviours, focusing particularly on the psychological and sociological underpinnings driving such actions and conduct.

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 posits that the significance of things is shaped by, or emerges from, the social exchanges individuals engage in with others. Building upon Mead’s ideas, Blumer suggests that people don’t simply react to each other’s actions but rather interpret or define them. Their reactions are not direct responses to actions but are influenced by the meanings they attribute to these actions. Consequently, human interaction relies on the use of symbols, interpretation, and understanding the significance of each other’s actions. Meaning can either be overlooked and treated as inconsequential, or seen as a crucial link or factor in understanding human behaviour and its causes.

3. The Meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters: Symbolic interactionists characterize cognition as an internal dialogue, a notion articulated by Mead as “minding.” This process entails a pause in one’s thinking as they contemplate their next course of action. The meanings we attribute to situations are continuously shaped and revised through our interpretive engagement with the world around us. It’s natural for us to engage in self-talk to navigate complex scenarios, but this ability hinges on our proficiency in symbolic interaction. Language is a prerequisite for thought; we must possess the capacity for symbolic interaction before we can engage in meaningful cognitive processes. The emphasis on symbols, negotiated meanings, and the socially constructed nature of society underscores the significance of the roles individuals assume. Role-taking, a fundamental mechanism, enables us to adopt the perspective of others and grasp the significance of actions from their standpoint. This propensity for role-taking emerges early in life, evident in childhood games like playing house. Roles possess an improvisational quality, akin to actors following a script, yet they also entail a degree of uncertainty within social contexts, placing the onus of role-making on individuals within the situation. Consequently, we emerge as proactive agents in shaping our environment through our interactions and interpretations.

References and Readings:

Sociological Theory, by  Ritzer G, https://amzn.to/3Da3pcm

Sociology by C.N. Shankar Rao, https://amzn.to/41A3Wh4