Herbert Blumer (1969) a student of Mead outlined three assumptions behind symbolic interactionism. The first was that people act towards objects on the meaning that they have for them. E.g. red roses represent a romantic gesture. Secondly, meanings are the product of social interaction. Like giving a red rose to your grandma is not a romantic gesture. And those meanings are handled through a reflective process where people try to make sense of situations. E.g. should I really giver her some flowers?
The meanings we give to situations are the result of us, interpreting and analyzing the situation before responding – especially taking the role of the other. Blumer’s view of human behaviour contrasts with functionalism. They see individuals as puppets, passively responding to the systems needs. They see behaviour as fixed and predictable. But Blumer argues, although behaviour is partially predictable because we internalize the expectations of others and behave the way we’re expected, behaviour is not completely fixed. We can have a choice in how we behave and perform our roles e.g. in schools we have the role of a student and are expected to behave in a certain way. We don’t always behave the way we are expected to behave; therefore our behaviour isn’t always predictable.
Symbolic interactionism provides the theoretical basis of labelling theory. During social interaction, a person defines situations as real. For example, if someone is suspected of having an affair, many of their actions are defined in those terms. So, quickly putting the telephone down is seen as suspicious rather than simply a wrong number. Labelling theory assumes that ‘when a situation is defined as real, it is real in its consequence’ (Thomas 1928). The call is seen as real and an argument begins. This idea has been developed and applied by to the sociology of deviance through the work of Becker. He argued that deviant behaviour is behaviour that has been labelled deviant or defined deviant. The reaction of others to a particular action therefore shapes whether an act is deviant or not. Wearing a specific type of clothing or speaking in a particular way may be seen as deviant in one group, but the norm in another. The looking glass self: Charles Cooper (1922) uses labelling to describe how we develop our self- concept. We obtain our self-concept by taking the role of the other. Others act as a looking glass to us, and we see ourselves mirrored in the way they behave/respond to us so a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs. E.g. a student labelled troublesome will be able to see himself in the eyes of the teacher. They will acknowledge that the teacher sees them as troublesome and that is the reason why they are treated harshly.
Labelling theorists such as Becker demonstrate that some labels such as ‘mentally ill’ or ‘underachiever’ profoundly affect how individuals see themselves, how others perceive them and how they behave in the future. However, the labelling theory has been criticized, as it fails to explain where labels actually originate from. It has also been accused of determinism. The way we act and identify is shaped by the way people label us. It states we act according to labels and whatever people say about us becomes true. However this is not always the case. We don’t always have to accept these labels. We can reject them, or pretend to accept the label by acting according to the label that is given to us, and fooling those who gave us that label. Another criticism is that although it can explain the patterns of groups, such as the negative labelling of some groups in education, it does not explain the origins of labels and meanings in a wider setting of inequality. Feminists explore why there is a common meaning of a glass ceiling in the workplace for women.
Goffman’s dramaturgical model is an alternative to interactionist approach. The labelling theory describes how the self is shaped through interaction. But Erving Goffman (1969) an interactionist describes how we actively construct our ‘self’ by manipulating other people’s impressions of us. All the world is conceived as a stage and individuals are seen as actors who present a show of their self by putting their ‘best foot forward’. The goal of the Dramaturgical Model is to explain how individuals understand who they are and present themselves to others in different situations based on cultural and social expectations. The model’s primary function is to describe what is going on within a given setting. Goffman uses the metaphors of the theatre to describe the different aspects of the individual’s “performance” when interacting with others in various social settings. He doesn’t seek to evaluate the underlying motivation for what the individual is doing. An individual will change their persona according to the different social environments that find themselves in. The goal is to control the image that they are presenting to others. When others get a glimpse behind the mask, backstage, this can disrupt the illusion and can often create conflict.
The Dramaturgical Model doesn’t really suggest ways to bring change or reform to the actions of the performers. From the perspective of the Dramaturgical Model, communication takes place as part of an overall strategy involving words, actions, and setting as well as the support and feedback of others. This model is somewhat limited in scope. It provides a framework for understanding how a person seeks to control what they communicate while in the presence of others. It offers explanations for how and why people communicate in public and small group situations. But it doesn’t offer much for understanding communication in more intimate setting. The Dramaturgical Model also fails to explain the underlying processes and motivations that are involved in communicating with others. By drawing metaphors from the theatre Goffman sets up a framework for his theory that is relatively easy to understand. The terms that he uses already have meaning. His basic concept is simple. Most people should be able to relate to the idea of performing or acting. Goffman rejects the functionalist view that roles are tightly ‘scripted’ by society and they see us fully conforming and behaving according to the roles given to us. Through socialisation, they become part of our identity and society determines how exactly we will perform them. Goffman says there is a gap/role distance between the role given to us and our real self. E.g. the person playing Hamlet isn’t actually Hamlet, but just playing out his role. We’re given a role, but have the freedom of how we play them e.g. some teachers are easy going, whereas others decide to be more strict; same role, but different ways of playing them. Goffman’s theory is useful, but it does have its limitations. Everyone has the role of both the actor and the audience. Interactions are unrehearsed and improvised, we don’t plan what we’re going to say, or how we’re going to act, but we just do it.
The interactionist theory is useful as it sees society being made up of individual social actors who are reflective and thinking beings, rather than believing that the individual’s behaviour is determined by structural factors. One could be is that as Interactionism follows interpretivist methodology their empirical findings are high in validity. For e.g. Douglas’ use of informal interviews and personal documents such as suicide notes and diaries gave him a valid insight into the individual meanings of suicide. However, there are many criticisms of this theory, first of all interactionists have been criticised by structural theorists, for failing to recognise or explain the social structures in society. They seem unwilling to discuss the fact that society is a system which is structured by institutions such as education and religion, and which constrain human behaviour. Another criticism is that they do not examine the complexity of social life/society. Even though they examine society through small–scale face to face interactions, they tend to make no reference to the history of these social situations, which has led other theorists to see Interactionism being full of holes. They tend to think all action is meaningful. Traditional action is performed unconsciously or routinely – a habit, and has little meaning for actors. If it doesn’t “mean anything” interactionism lacks the means to explain it; because they state everything has a meaning. The approach concerns itself with common-sense aspects of interaction. Although it can explain the patterns of groups, such as negative labelling of some groups in education, it does not explain the origins of labels and meanings in a wider setting of inequality.
Overall, interactionism largely avoids determinism of structuralist theories such as functionalism. Although it can explain micro interpersonal disruptions, it does not account for macro conflicts such as wider patterns of class, gender, ethnicity, age and regional inequalities. Interactionists provide a useful insight into the workings of society but the theory is ideologically driven. Therefore, the theory is reductionist as it fails to take into account competing theoretical ideas. Postmodernists are critical of the interactionist meta-narrative as they claim to have a ‘totalising’, (all encompassing), theory of society. Postmodernists maintain that rival narratives should be considered for a full account of social life. As a whole interactionism is regarded as a voluntaristic theory that emphasises on the freewill and choice we have in how we act.
by
karriu (student)
