Symbolic interactionism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sociology Social Network Analysis diagram Outline Theory History Positivism Antipositivism Functionalism Conflict theories Middle-range Mathemati cal Critical theory Socialization Structure and agency Research methods Quantitative Qualitative Historical Computational Ethnographic Network-analytic Topics Subfields Change Cities Class Crime Culture Development Deviance Demography Education Econ omy Environment Family Gender Health Industry Internet Knowledge Law Literature Medicine Mobility Movements Networks Organizations Politics Race & ethnicity Rel igion Rural Science Soc. psychology Stratification Technology Browse Portal People Journals Project v t e Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that is influential in man y areas of the discipline. It is particularly important in microsociology and so cial psychology. Symbolic interactionism is derived from American pragmatism and particularly fro m the work of George Herbert Mead, who argued that people's selves are social pr oducts, but that these selves are also purposive and creative. Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term "symbolic int eractionism" and put forward an influential summary of the perspective: people a ct toward things based on the meaning those things have for them; and these mean ings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation. Sociologists working in this tradition have researched a wide range of topics us ing a variety of research methods. However, the majority of interactionist resea rch uses qualitative research methods, like participant observation, to study as pects of (1) social interaction and/or (2) individuals' selves. Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Basic premises and approach 2.1 Mind, Self and Society 2.1.1 The "I" and the "me" 3 Research and methods 4 Five central ideas behind symbolic interactionism 5 Central interactionist themes 6 New media 7 Criticisms 7.1 Framework and theories 7.2 Social structure 8 Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction 9 See also 10 References 11 Sources 12 Further reading 13 External links History[edit] Symbolic interactionism originated with two key theorists, George Herbert Mead a nd Charles Horton Cooley. George Herbert Mead was a proponent of this theory and believed that the true test of any theory was that "It was useful in solving co mplex social problems" (Griffin 59). Mead s influence on symbolic interactionism w

as said to be so powerful that other sociologists regard him as the one true foun der of symbolic interactionism tradition. Although Mead taught in a philosophy de partment, he is best known by sociologists as the teacher who trained a generati on of the best minds in their field. Strangely, he never set forth his wide-rang ing ideas in a book of systematic treatise. After his death in 1931, his student s pulled together class notes and conversations with their mentor and published Mind, Self and Society in his name. (Griffin 59). 'It is a common misconception that John Dewey was the leader of this sociological theory; however, according t o The Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, Mead was undoubtedly the individual w ho transformed the inner structure of the theory, moving it to a higher level of theoretical complexity. (Herman-Kinney Reynolds 67).[1] Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term 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 modifi ed through interpretation. Blumer was a social constructionist,and was influence d by Dewey as such this theory is very phenomenologically based. He believed tha t the "Most human and humanizing activity that people engage in is talking to ea ch other" (Griffin 60).[2] Two other theorists who have influenced Symbolic inte raction theory are Yrj? Engestr?m and David Middleton. Engestr?m and Middleton e xplained the usefulness of symbolic interactionism in the communication field in a "variety of work setting including, courts of law, health care, computer soft ware design, scientific laboratory, telephone sales, control, repair, and mainte nance of advance manufacturing systems.[3] Other scholars credited for their con tribution to the theory are Thomas, Park, James, Horton, Cooley, Znaniecki, Bald win, Redfield, and Wirth.[4] Basic premises and approach[edit] The term "symbolic interactionism" has come into use as a label for a relatively distinctive approach to the study of human life and human conduct (Blumer, 1939 ). With Symbolic interactionism, reality is seen as social, developed interactio n with others. Most symbolic interactionists believe a physical reality does ind eed exist by an individual's social definitions, and that social definitions do develop in part or relation to something real. People thus do not respond to this reality directly, but rather to the social understanding of reality. Humans ther efore exist in three realities: a physical objective reality, a social reality, and a unique reality. Physical reality includes material necessities and natural facts. Social reality reflects a person's socialized (or socially derived) conc eption of the world (gender roles, economic structure, etc.). Finally, the uniqu e reality reflects a person's ability to do something unique, to view the world in a new way or make novel discoveries. Scientists, philosophers, and fiction wr iters are good examples of people who make their unique realities apparent to ot hers. Everyone has a unique reality which may be transformed into a social reali ty. Both individuals and society cannot be separated far from each other for two rea sons. One, being that they are both created through social interaction, and two, one cannot be understood in terms without the other. Behavior is not defined by forces from the environment or inner forces such as drives, or instincts, but r ather by a reflective, socially understood meaning of both the internal and exte rnal incentives that are currently presented (Meltzer et al., 1975).[5] Herbert Blumer (1969) set out three basic premises of the perspective: "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those thi ngs." "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social intera ction that one has with others and the society." "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

The first premise includes everything that a human being may note in their world , including physical objects, actions and concepts. Essentially, individuals beh ave towards objects and others based on the personal meanings that the individua ls has already given these items. The second premise explains the meaning of suc h 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 oth er by interpreting or defining each other's actions instead of merely reacting t o 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 action s. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols and signification, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions (Blum er 1962). Meaning is either taken for granted and pushed aside as unimportant[cl arification needed] or it is regarded as a mere neutral link[clarification neede d] between the factors responsible for human behavior and this behavior as the p roduct of such factors. (Blumer 1969). Language is the source of meaning[dubious discuss][citation needed] and is negotiated through the use of it. We have the ability to name things and designate objects or actions to a certain idea or phe nomenon. The use of symbols is a popular procedure for interpretation and intell igent expression. Blumer contrasted this process with behaviorist explanations o f human behavior, which does not allow for interpretation between. In Blumer's third premise the idea of minding comes into play. Symbolic interact ionists describe thinking as an inner conversation. (Griffin 62). Mead called th is inner dialogue minding. Minding is the delay in one's thought process that ha ppens when one thinks about what they will do next. The third premise is that th ese meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process[6] used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters. We naturally talk t o 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 symbolicall y. (Griffin 62). The emphasis on symbols, negotiated meaning, and social constru ction of society brought on attention to the roles people play. Role-taking is a key mechanism that permits people to see another person's perspective to unders tand what an action might mean to another person. Role-taking is a part of our l ives at an early age. Playing house and pretending to be someone else are exampl es of this phenomena. There is an improvisational quality of roles; however, act ors often take on a script that they follow. 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.[7] Mind, Self and Society[edit] "Mind, Self and Society" is the book published by Mead's students based on his l ectures and teaching. The title of the book serves as the key concepts of symbol ic interaction theory. The mind refers to an individual's ability to use symbols to create meanings for the world around him. Individuals use language and thoug ht to accomplish this goal. Self refers to an individual's ability to reflect on the way that he/she is perceived by others. Finally, society, according to Mead is where all of these interactions are taking place. The "I" and the "me"[edit] While establishing the idea of self, Mead introduces a distinction between the " I" and the "me", respectively, the active and socialized aspects of the person. The "me" is a similar concept to Cooley's looking-glass self. An example of thes e concepts is the pygmalion effect whereby a person (I) behaves to match the sen se of self (me) they derive from others, in a form of self-fulfilling prophecy. Research and methods[edit] Sociologists working in this tradition have researched a wide range of topics us ing a variety of research methods. However, the majority of interactionist resea rch uses qualitative research methods, like participant observation, to study as

pects of 1) social interaction, and/or 2) individuals' selves. Participant obser vation allows researchers to access symbols and meanings, as in Howard S. Becker 's Art Worlds (1982) and Arlie Hochschild's The Managed Heart (1983).[8] They ar gue that close contact and immersion in the everyday activities of the participa nts is necessary for understanding the meaning of actions, defining situations a nd the process that actors construct the situation through their interaction. Be cause of this close contact, interactions cannot remain completely liberated of value commitments. In most cases, they make use of their values in choosing what to study; however, they seek to be objective in how they conduct the research. Therefore, the symbolic-interaction approach is a micro-level orientation focusi ng in close up human interaction in specific situations. Sociological subfields that have been particularly influenced by symbolic intera ctionism include the sociology of emotions, deviance/criminology, collective beh avior/social movements, and the sociology of sex. Interactionist concepts that h ave gained widespread usage include definition of the situation, emotion work, i mpression management, looking glass self, and total institution. Semiology is co nnected to this discipline, but unlike those elements of semiology which are abo ut the structures of language, interactionists typically are more interested in the ways in which meaning is fluid and ambiguous.[8] Ethnomethodology, an offshoot of symbolic interactionism, questions how people's interactions can create the illusion of a shared social order despite not under standing each other fully and having differing perspectives. Harold Garfinkel de monstrated this by having his students perform "experiments in trust," called br eaching experiments, where they would interrupt ordinary conversations because t hey refused to take for granted that they knew what the other person was saying. They would demand explanations and then explanations of the explanations (Garfi nkel 1967) to gain understanding of each other's definitions and perspectives. F urther and more recent ethnomethodologist research has performed detailed analys es of basic conversations to reveal the methods of how turn-taking and alternati ve conversational maneuvers are managed.[7] Five central ideas behind symbolic interactionism[edit] There are five central ideas to symbolic interactionism according to Joel M. Cha ron, author of Symbolic Interactionism An Introduction, An Interpretation, An In tegration: "The human being must be understood as a social person. It is the constant searc h for social interaction that leads us to do what we do. Instead of focusing on the individual and his or her personality, or on how the society or social situa tion causes human behavior, symbolic interactionism focuses on the activities th at take place between actors. Interaction is the basic unit of study. Individual s are created through interaction; society too is created through social interac tion. What we do depends on interaction with others earlier in our lifetimes, an d it depends on our interaction right now. Social interaction is central to what we do. If we want to understand cause, focus on social interaction. The human being must be understood as a thinking being. Human action is not only interaction among individuals but also interaction within the individual. It is not our ideas or attitudes or values that are as important as the constant acti ve ongoing process of thinking. We are not simply conditioned, we are not simply beings who are influenced by those around us, we are not simply products of soc iety. We are, to our very core, thinking animals, always conversing with ourselv es as we interact with others. If we want to understand cause, focus on human th inking. Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situa tion they are in. An environment may actually exist, but it is our definition of it that is important. Definition does not simply randomly happen; instead, it r esults from ongoing social interaction and thinking.

The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present situ ation. Cause unfolds in the present social interaction, present thinking, and pr esent definition. It is not society s encounters with us in our past, that causes action nor is it our own past experience that does. It is, instead, social inter action, thinking, definition of the situation that takes place in the present. O ur past enters into our actions primarily because we think about it and apply it to the definition of the present situation. Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment. Wo rds such as conditioning, responding, controlled, imprisoned, and formed are not used to describe the human being in symbolic interaction. In contrast to other social-scientific perspectives humans are not thought of as being passive in rel ation to their surroundings, but actively involved in what they do."[9] Central interactionist themes[edit] To Herbert Blumer s conceptual perspective, he put them in three core principles: that people act toward things, including each other, on the basis of the meaning s they have for them; that these meanings are derived through social interaction with others; and that these meanings are managed and transformed through an int erpretive process that people use to make sense of and handle the objects that c onstitute their social worlds. Keeping in mind of Blumer s earlier work, David A. Snow, distinguished professor of Sociology at the University of California, sugg ests four broader and even more basic orienting principles: human agency, intera ctive determination, symbolization, and emergence. Snow uses these four principl es as the thematic bases for identifying and discussing contributions to the stu dy of social movements. Human agency Human agency emphasizes the active, willful, goal seeking character of human act ors. The emphasis on agency focuses attention on those actions, events, and mome nts in social life in which agentic action is especially palpable. Interactive determination Interactive determination specifies that understanding of focal objects of analy sis, whether they are self-concepts, identities, roles, practices, or even socia l movements. Basically this means, neither individual, society, self, or others exist only in relation to each other and therefore can be fully understood only in terms of their interaction. Symbolization Symbolization highlights the processes through which events and conditions, arti facts, people, and other environmental features that take on particular meanings , becoming nearly only objects of orientation. Human behavior is partly continge nt on what the object of orientation symbolizes or means. Emergence Emergence focuses on attention on the processual and nonhabituated side of socia l life, focusing not only on organization and texture of social life, but also a ssociated meaning and feelings. The principal of emergence tells us not only to possibility of new forms of social life and system meaning but also to transform ations in existing forms of social organization. (Herman-Kinney Reynolds 812-824 ).[1] New media[edit] New Media is a term used to define all that is related to the internet and the i nterplay between technology, images and sound.[10] As studies of online communit y proliferate, the concept of online community has become a more accepted social construct. Studies encompassed discursive communities;[11][12] identity;[13][14 ] community as social reality;[15] networking;[16] the public sphere;[17] ease a nd anonymity in interactions.[18] These studies show that online community is an

important social construct in terms of its cultural, structural, political and economic character. It has been demonstrated that people's ideas about community are formed, in part , through interactions both in online forums as well as those in face to face in teractions. As a result, people act in their communities according to the meanin gs they derive about their environment, whether online or offline, from those in teractions. This perspective reveals that online communication may very well tak e on different meanings for different people depending on information, circumsta nce, relationships, power, and other systems that make up communities of practic e. People enact community the way it is conceived and the meaning of community e volves as they come up with new ways to utilize it. Given this reality, scholars are continually challenged to research and understand how online communities ar e comprised, how they function, and how they are connected to offline social lif e.[19] Symbolic interaction theory was discussed in The Cyberself: The Self-ing Project goes online, Symbolic Interaction in the Digital Age. Robinson discusses how symb olic interaction theory explains the way individuals create a sense of self thro ugh their interactions with others. However, she believes advances in technology have changed this. The article investigates the manner in which individuals for m their online identity. She uses symbolic interaction theory to examine the for mation of the cyber I and a digital generalized other. In the article, Robinson sugg ests individuals form new identities on the internet. She argues these cyber ide ntities are not necessarily the way the individual would be perceived offline.[2 0] Criticisms[edit] Symbolic interactionists are often criticized for being overly impressionistic i n their research methods and somewhat unsystematic in their theories. It is argu ed that the theory is not one theory; however, the framework for many different theories. Additionally, due to the theory's lack of testability, some theorist h ave a problem with symbolic interaction theory. These objections, combined with the fairly narrow focus of interactionist research on small-group interactions a nd other social psychological issues, have relegated the interactionist camp to a minority position among sociologists, although a fairly substantial minority. Much of the criticism arose during the 1970s in the U.S. when quantitative appro aches to sociology were dominant. Perhaps the best known of these is by Alvin Go uldner.[21] Framework and theories[edit] Some critiques of symbolic interactionism are based on the assumption that it is a theory, and the critiques apply the criteria for a "good" theory to something that does not claim to be a theory. Some critics find the symbolic interactioni st framework too broad and general when they are seeking specific theories. Symb olic interactionism is a theoretical framework rather than a theory (see Stryker and Vryan, 2003, for a clear distinction between the two as it pertains to symb olic interactionism).[22] Thus, specific theories, hypotheses, and conceptualiza tions must be (and have successfully been) derived from the general framework th at symbolic interactionism provides before interactionist theories can be assess ed on the basis of the criteria a good theory (e.g., containing falsifiable hypo theses), or interactionist-inspired conceptualizations can be assessed on the ba sis of effective conceptualizations. The theoretical framework, as with any theo retical framework, is vague when it comes to analyzing empirical data or predict ing outcomes in social life. As a framework rather than a theory, many scholars find it difficult to use. Interactionism being a framework rather than a theory makes it impossible to test interactionism in the manner that a specific theoret ical claim about the relationship between specific variables in a given context allows. Unlike the symbolic interactionist framework, the many theories derived

from symbolic interactionism, such as role theory and the versions of Identity T heory developed by Stryker,[23][24] and Burke and colleagues,[25][26] clearly de fine concepts and the relationships between them in a given context, thus allowi ng for the opportunity to develop and test hypotheses. Further, especially among Blumerian processual interactionists, a great number of very useful conceptuali zations have been developed and applied in a very wide range of social contexts, types of populations, types of behaviors, and cultures and subcultures. Social structure[edit] Symbolic interactionism is often related and connected with social structure. Th is concept suggests that symbolic interactionism is a construction of people s soc ial reality.[23] It also implies that from a realistic point of view, the interp retations that are being made will not make much difference. When the reality of a situation is defined, the situation becomes a meaningful reality. There are m any aspects and factors that go into this theory. This includes methodological c riticisms, and critical sociological issues. A number of symbolic interactionist s have addressed these topics, the best known being Sheldon Stryker's structural symbolic interactionism[23][27] and the formulations of interactionism heavily influenced by this approach (sometimes referred to as the "Indiana School" of sy mbolic interactionism), including the works of key scholars in sociology and psy chology using different methods and theories applying a structural version of in teractionism that are represented in a 2003 collection edited by Burke et al.[28 ] Another well-known structural variation of symbolic interactionism that applie s quantitative methods is Manford H. Kuhn's (Kuhn and McPartland, 1954) formulat ion which is often referred to in sociological literature as the "Iowa School." Negotiated Order Theory" also applies a structural approach.[29] According to this theory, language is the source of all meaning.[7] Social const ructionist Herbert Blumer illuminates several key features about Social Interact ionism. Most people interpret things based on assignment and purpose. The intera ction occurs once the meaning of something has become identified. This concept o f meaning is what starts to construct the framework of social reality. By aligni ng social reality, Blumer suggests that language is the meaning of interaction. Communication, especially in the form of symbolic interactionism is connected wi th language. Language initiates all forms of communication, verbal and non-verba l. Blumer defines this source of meaning as a connection that arises out of the social interaction that people have with each other. There are many ways that Social Interactionism is connected with critical perspe ctive. This relates to the overall social structure because they both have simil ar points of convergence and synergism. According to social theorist Patricia Bu rbank, these concepts of synergistic and diverging properties are what shape the viewpoints of humans as social beings. These two concepts are different in a se nse because of their views of human freedom and their level of focus. According to Burbank, actions are based on the effects of situations that occur during the process of Social Interaction. Another important factor in meaningful situations is the environment in which the social interaction occurs. The envir onment influences interaction, which leads to a reference group, which connects with perspective, and then concludes to a definition of the situation. This illu strates the proper steps to define a situation. An approval of the action occurs once the situation is defined. An interpretation is then made upon that action, which may ultimately influence the perspective, action, and definition. Sheldon Stryker, a social constructionist has had an incredible amount of influe nce on the field of Social Interactionism. Stryker emphasizes that the sociology world at large is the most viable and vibrant intellectual framework because of the concept of the wider community people live in is made possible because of c ommunication, which fuels symbolic interactionism.[23] Symbolic interactionism r evitalizes society by illuminating our thoughts, actions and gestures as well. B

y being made up of our thoughts self-belief, the Social Interactionism Theory is the purpose of all human interaction, and is what causes society to exist. This fuels criticisms of the symbolic interactionist framework for failing to accoun t for social structure, as well as criticisms that interactionist theories canno t be assessed via quantitative methods, and cannot be falsifiable or tested empi rically. Framework is important for the symbolic interaction theory because for in order for the social structure to form, there are certain bonds of communicat ion that need to be established to create the interaction The published literatu re indicates that structural and processual variations of interactionism are bot h alive and well in sociology, as is the Blumerian tradition of interactionism, and interactionism has been used more explicitly and more frequently in psycholo gy and anthropology as well. Much of the symbolic interactionist framework's bas ic tenets can be found in a very wide range of sociological and psychological wo rk, without being explicitly cited as interactionist, making the influence of sy mbolic interactionism difficult to recognize given this general acceptance of it s assumptions as "common knowledge." Many scholars do not know they are applying interactionist ideas in their own theoretical assumptions and formulations.[22] Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction[edit] The Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (SSSI) is an international pro fessional organization for scholars, who are interested in the study of Symbolic Interaction. SSSI holds a conference in conjunction with the meeting of the Ame rican Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems. This conference typically occurs in August and sponsors the Society for the Stu dy of Symbolic Interaction holds the Couch-Stone Symposium each spring. The soci ety provides travel scholarships for student members interested in attending the annual conference.[30] At the annual conference, the Society for the Study of S ymbolic Interaction sponsors yearly awards in different categories of symbolic i nteraction. Additionally, some of the awards are open to student members of the society. The society also sponsors a quarterly journal, Symbolic Interaction.[3] The organization also releases a newsletter, "SSSI Notes."[31] See also[edit] Portal icon Sociology portal Social interaction Social action Labeling theory Edward T. Hall Extension transference Sandbox play therapy Generalized other Coordinated Management of Meaning Constructivism (learning theory)