Interactionists use the term reference groups in place of institutions. Reference groups are social organizations and the same way institutions make up the society, reference groups created by interactions amongst people lead to the construction of the society. Some reference groups have conflicts and are ‘dysfunctional’ and some are stable and have uniformity of consensus. However, the central feature of all the groups is that they are in a continual process of change and transformation gyrating from micro social interactions. Hence as people communicate with one another they bring about social change and this change affects the reference group which in turn plays a role in defining society.
HISTORY
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 American philosopher, George H. Mead (1863-1931), and the German sociologist and economist, Max Weber (1864-1920), both of whom emphasized the subjective meaning of human behavior, the social process, and pragmatism. Herbert , 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 (1969). Blumer was also 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, as a study of human group life and conduct. It is the process of interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals.
PROMINENT VIEWS OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
HERBERT BLUMER
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
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.
GEORGE HERBERT MEAD (1863-1931)
Mead divided the self into two parts, the “I” and the “me.” The “I” represents the spontaneous, unique and natural traits of each person, such as unrestrained impulses and drives found in every normal individual. The “me” represents specifically, the social part of the self which is the internalized demands of society and the person’s awareness of these demands. The “I” develops first. The “me” takes much longer, because the individual must first learn society’s expectations and rules. Mead suggested that the development of self involves a continuing “conversation” between the “me” and the “I.” The “me” usually acts as a kind of censor of the “I.” It is based at first on the demands of primary socializing agents like the family and schools, and later on the demands and expectations of the larger society.
According to Mead, the ‘me’ forms in successive stages of the socialization process: the “imitative”, “play” and the “game” stages. In the early months of life, during the imitative stage, children engage in “conversation of gestures” with their mother, mimicking her movements. Soon, however, they discover that there is a gap between their own mind and intentions and those of their mother. Typically, this understanding dawns when the mother refuses to meet their needs and they feel frustrated. In response, children begin to take the role of the other-that is, to learn the expectations of others by putting oneself in their place. At this stage, children begin to take the role particularly of significant others.
CHARLES HORTON COOLEY (1864-1929)
An early sociological theorist was Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929). He received his PhD in 1894 at the University Michigan, where he remained the rest of his life.
According to Cooley (1964), the ideas people have of themselves and of one another are the sole means of knowing who they are. In his words, “one’s consciousness of himself is a reflection of his ideas about himse3lf that he attributes to other minds”. Because the self is “reflected,” Cooley called it the looking-glass self. He suggested that this self has three main components, namely:
- Our perception of how our behavior appears to others.
- Our perception of their judgments of this behavior.
- Our feelings about those judgments.
We evaluate our own behavior through the responses of others. If we think that others approve of something we do, for example: we will also approve of it. The self is formed, as a social product, through many encounters with the judgments of others.
According to Cooley, the self develops most fully in primary groups, especially the family. A sense of self is formed through a child’s involvement in a “sympathetic” relationship with the parents. Through attention to the gestures and words of the primary group members, the child comes to know, the parents’ expectations for the child, the parents’ judgment about the child’s actions, and the parents’ feelings about the child. With this knowledge the child tries to become the person or self that the parents expect him or her to become.
ERVING GOFFMAN (1922-1982)
One of the sociologists who used the symbolic interaction approach to examine human interaction in social settings was Evring Goffman. Goffman developed an analysis of the interaction order, that is, the social situations or “environments in which two or more individuals are physically in one another’s presence”. These are situations where we spend much or most of our life – face-to-face activities involving others, whether these are everyday social situations, situations with organized structures that is, jobs, school, or unusual social situations including accidents, weddings funerals, etc. Goffman excels at observation, insight, and description, analyzing how people interpret and act in ordinary situations, and he provides guidelines concerning how to examine social situations.
Goffman describes ‘face’ as being the image of the self that is presented. Goffman here connects it to approved social attributes, although later he notes how it may not always be the approved or expected attributes that are portrayed. Emotions and feelings become attached to the particular image presented. By focusing on emotions and feelings, the implication is that some of this is fairly spontaneous or produce without strong conscious considerations; rather it is the act itself which creates the image and feelings. Goffman notes that institutional encounters are generally within certain legitimized institutional contexts, so that there may be a limited range of possible forms of action. Goffman notes that he has been using the self in two senses- (i) as image, deriving from the perceptions and responses of others that create the face of the person, and (ii) the actor as a player in a game set of rituals. This may be similar to the I and the me of Mead, but with Goffman’s theoretical discussion of the player less clear than the self as the image. At the same time, Goffman does consider various aspects of the player, by focusing on the emotions of the individual- embarrassment, shame, pride, etc. so that he developed a somewhat better explanation of the inner aspect of the self than have some other writers.
MAX WEBER (1864-1920)
According to the standard interpretation, Max Weber conceived of sociology as a comprehensive science of social action. His initial theoretical focus is on the subjective meaning that humans attach to their actions and interactions within specific social contexts. Weber distinguishes between four major types of social action:
- zweckrational (technocratic thinking)
- wertrational (value-oriented rationalization)
- affective action
- traditional action
Zweckrational can be defined as action in which the means to attain a particular goal are rationally chosen. It can be roughly translated as "technocratic thinking." It is often exemplified in the blueprint by an engineer who builds a bridge as the most efficient way to cross a river. Perhaps a more relevant example would be the modern goal of material success sought after by many young people today. Many recognize that the most efficient way to attain that success is through higher education, and so they flock to the universities in order to get a good job.
Wertrational, or value-oriented rationality, is characterized by striving for a goal which in itself may not be rational, but which is pursued through rational means. The values come from within an ethical, religious, philosophical or even holistic context--they are not rationally "chosen." The traditional example is of an individual seeking salvation through following the teachings of a prophet. A more secular example is of a person who attends the university because they value the life of the mind--a value that was instilled in them by parents, previous teachers, or chance encounter.
Affective action is based on the emotional state of the person rather than in the rational weighing of means and ends. Sentiments are powerful forces in motivating human behavior. Attending university for the community life of the fraternity, or following one's boyfriend to school would be examples.
The final type Weber labels "traditional action." This is action guided by custom or habit. People engage in this type of action often unthinkingly, because it is simply "always done." Many students attend university because it is traditional for their social class and family to attend--the expectation was always there, it was never questioned.
APPLICABILITY IN TODAY’S SOCIETY
DEVIANCE
As we interact with other people, we assign meaning not only to what they say but to what they do and who they are. Communication that is carried on in terms of symbol other than language is called nonverbal communication. Physical appearance, dress, personal possessions are examples of nonverbal communication. This nonverbal communication will cause others to create a perception of an individual. For example in western society like Jamaica nudity is a criminal offence when carried out for the viewing of john public. Since this action is not socially accepted, a person walking on the road nude would be considered a deviant and, more specifically, mad. However, if the same individual is seen at Hedonism Negril at a nude party, that same individual would be considered normal, law abiding and probably the life of the party. Obviously there is nothing intrinsically normal or deviant about the act of nudity. It only becomes deviant when others label it as such. Whether or not the label is applied will depend on how the act is interpreted by the audience.
A brawl involving young people in a low income neighbourhood or garrison community may be defined by the police as evidence of delinquency but in a wealthy neighbourhood, as evidence of youthful high spirits. The acts are the same but the meanings differ because of the audience involved. In the same way, those who commit the act will view it in one way; those who observed it may define it in another way. The brawl in the low income area may involve a gang fighting over territory. In Howard Becker’s words, they are only doing what they consider necessary and right, but teachers, social workers and police see it differently.
If the agents of social control define the youngsters as delinquents and they are convicted for breaking the law, those youngsters then become deviant. They have been labelled as such by those who have the power to make the labels stick. In the same way persons of Middle East descent are perceived as potential terrorists as this is the label that have been assigned to them by the U.S.A. after the ‘911’ attack.
According to Becker “Deviance is not a quality that lies in behaviour itself, but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it.” From this point of view, deviance is produced by a process of interaction between the potential deviant and the agents of social control.
CRITICISMS OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Symbolic Interactionism has been criticized on a number of grounds. These are
- It fails to look at wider structural factors that create the context in which the interaction takes place. For example why does one person have power over another person?
- It fails to explain the origins of the meaning that people place upon actions.
- The mainstream of symbolic interactionism has abandoned the practice of empirically based research techniques. The concepts of symbolic interactionism have not been developed into a formal, systematic theory. The scientific method which codes, classifies, and counts social phenomena has been neglected. Many social theorists have argued that, due to its subjective nature, the research product of symbolic interactionism has been allowed to remain untested.
-
This theory research is often criticized for use of research methods. Many of the concepts that symbolic interactionism holds central, such as " and ," are too vague and abstract and often times contradictions can be found within Meadian Theory. Because of this, it is impossible to codify and operationalize these concepts and, again, they remain unable to be examined scientifically.
- Symbolic Interactionism has been accused of downplaying or ignoring major social structural issues, overestimating the power of individuals to create personal realities. Many sociologists argue that it is necessary to look at social structure in order to understand the complexity of relations "through which the episodes of interaction are interconnected.” Without such a focus, symbolic interactionism suffers from a lack of coherence.
-
Opposing the third criticism, another suggests that symbolic interactionsim does not focus enough on the more micro-level psychological details such as needs, motives, emotions, and the unconscious. Symbolic interactionism ignores the motives that lead the actor to engage in actions and the use of and, therefore, it does not adequately account for unconscious processes. While the third criticism suggests that symbol interactionism is not sociological enough, this criticism suggests that it is not psychological enough.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sociology: Themes and Perspectives
Haralambos and Holborn
A-Level Sociology
Stephen Moore (Letts)
Sociology (fourth edition)
David Popenoe
sobek.colorado.edu
oak.cats.ohiou.edu
afirstlook.com
APPENDIX
KEY NAMES AND TERMS
George Herbert Mead
The University of Chicago philosophy professor whose teachings were synthesized into the theory called symbolic interactionism.
Symbolic Interactionism
Coined by Herbert Blumer, this term is meant to express the essence of Mead's theory: The self is defined through the interconnection of meaning, language, and thought.
Herbert Blumer
Mead's chief disciple, this University of California, Berkeley, professor coined the term symbolic interactionism.
Taking the Role of the Other
The process of placing yourself in another's position and viewing the world as you believe he or she would.
Looking-Glass Self
The mental image that results from taking the role of the other.
I
The spontaneous driving force that fosters all that is novel, unpredictable, and
unorganized in the self.
Me
The image of the self seen in the looking glass of other people's reactions, the self's generalized other.
Self
The ongoing process of combining the “I” and the “me.”
Erving Goffman
University of California, Berkeley, sociologist who developed the metaphor of social interaction as a dramaturgical performance.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The tendency for our expectations to evoke responses that confirm what we originally expected.
John Dewey, a major figure in American intellectual history. His areas of work included philosophy, psychology, education, politics, and social thought.
