_________________________________________________________________ Show Symbolic interactionism core definition Symbolic interactionism is an approach to sociology that focuses on interpreting the meanings that people develop through their interaction with others. explanatory context Symbolic interactionism assumes that actions and self identity are determined by interaction with other people. Symbolic interactionism attempts to identify people's meanings and how the interactive process impacts on the the meanings people have and the subsequent actions that they take.
There are several varieties of symbolic interactionism with different approaches to empirical research and different epistemological presuppositions. Symbolic interactionism derives from the earlier interactionist approach of the �Chicago School�. This took two forms. The first, inspired by W. I. Thomas, was based on the philosophical tradition of James and Cooley among others. It attempted to relate attitudes to values in a fairly �scientific� manner and was similar to Weber�s approach which linked meanings and causes (see page 141). This approach has been developed in conventional ethnography in the work of people such as Howard Becker. The second approach drew on G. H. Mead�s theories of the self and was supposedly the basis of Herbert Blumer�s development of symbolic interactionism which was more concerned with meanings than with causes. This approach has been further developed in the work of Ervin Goffman and the ethnomethodologists and can be seen in the development of phenomenological ethnography.
Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism Herbert Blumer coined the term symbolic interactionism and his is regarded as the core approach by many commentators. Blumer claims that it draws directly on the pragmatism of George Herbert Mead (although this has been challenged by critics). As Blumer was at the University of Chicago (as was Mead) and because he is seen to have had a considerable impact on the development of a symbolic interactionist approach at the University of Chicago and by graduates of the University elsewhere, Blumerian symbolic interactionism is often referred to as the 'Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism'.
Bogdan and Taylor (1975) presuppose that Blumer's approach, which is rooted in Median interactionism, constitutes the definitive view of symbolic interactionism (and one that Becker, Hughes and Geer supposedly adhered to).
Thus people define situations in different ways depending on their life experiences and perspectives. Through communication a shared persepctive may emerge. For symbolic interactionists interpetation is the key.
The symbolic processes of Blumer are used to focus on meaning. However, in practice, Becker, Geer and Hughes do not simply adopt a meaning-interpretive approach. Indeed, they tend to be more concerned with establishing an 'objective' basis for participant observation than a phenomenological one, advocated by Bogdan and Taylor (1975). In some respects the work of Becker and Geer, for example, are more akin to the earlier Chicago School participant observation studies of William Whyte, whose approach was more allied with structural functionalism than with phenomenology. See Becker and Geer on participant observation. Dramaturgical Approach The dramaturgical approach to symbolic interactionism takes more-or-less literally the idea that 'all the world's a stage' and assumes that people put on an act in face-to-face situations.
Goffman's interests have centred on the structure of face-face interaction. His book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) sets out his veiws on impression management, while in Behaviour in Public Places (1963) and Relations in Public (1971) he analyses the rules of conduct applicable in streets, parks, restaurants, theatres, etc. In effect, Goffman offers a variety of interactionism which sets him between symbolic interactionism (at least of the Blumerian variety) and ethnomethodology. Fisher and Strauss (1979, p. 479) noted that Goffman is not always seen as an interactionist although he is usually thought of in that tradition. However, they argue, it is not just that he writes about selves, or that he was trained at Chicago and influenced by Hughes, or that he 'does such fine-grained analyses of interaction' that makes him a (proto-) interactionist. There are, they argue, certain persistent themes in his work that 'resonate with interactionist concern'. Goffman is vehemently anti-determinist. An early example of his work that illustrates this is 'The Underlife of a Public Institution' (Goffman, 1961a), in which Goffman illustrates that people in institutions avoid being completely controlled and coerced by the institution. This avoidance also includes a rejection of complete internal personal commitment. He argues that social structures provide the 'material for the evolution of particular kinds of selves', however this is a long way from a complete determinism of action and construction of self.
See Iowa School
See Becker and Geer's views on participant observation
There has been considerable debate about the pragmatist roots of symbolic interactionism. Blumer maintains that symbolic interactionism grows out of the work of George Herbert Mead at Chicago. Others claim that mead's influence is a retrospective construction by Blumer and others and that he had far less impact on Chicago interactionism than, for example, Cooley or other pragmatists. Blumer, though, taught Mead's social psychology courses when mead dies and clearly Mead had an impact on how Blumer developed his version of symbolic intreactionism. For more details see Blumer: The Blumer-Bales Debate ROCK MCREX79 analytical review Sociology Guide.Com (2011) states: The term symbolic interactionist used because it is through symbols that meanings, motives and attributes are conveyed. Thus an understanding of symbols can help in understanding the meanings conveyed by actors involved in the interacting situation. For example a cross x may symbolize a barbarian method of execution or a religious movement. V-sign signifies victory where Winston Churchill elevated the gesture to a symbol of national aspiration. The assumptions underlying symbolic interactionism are The individual and society are regarded, as inseparable for the individual can become a human being only in a social context. Human beings are viewed as acting on the basis of meaning that they give to the objects and events rather than simply reacting either to external stimuli such as social forces or internal stimuli such as drives. Meanings arise from the process of interaction rather than being simply present at the outset. To some degree meanings are created, modified, developed and changed within interactive situation rather than being fixed and preformed. Meanings are the result of interpretative procedures employed by actors within interactions context by taking the role of others; actors interpret the meanings and intentions of others. By means of mechanism of self-interaction, individuals modify or change definitions of their situation rehearse alternative course of interactions and consider their possible consequences. These meanings that guide actions arise in the context of interaction via a series of complex interpretative procedures. The methodology of symbolic interactionism as advocated by Herbert Blumer demands that the sociologist must immerse himself in the area of life that he seek to investigate. Rather than attempting to fill data into predefined categories, he must attempt to grasp the actor's view of social reality. Since action is directed by actor meanings the sociologist must catch the process of interpretation through which the actors construct their action. This means, he must take the role of the acting unit whose behavior he studies. Crossman (2018) states: The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a major framework of the sociological theory. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and build upon in the process of social interaction. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American philosopher George Herbert Mead introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s....Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings that people impose on objects, events, and behaviors...... The University of Strathclyde (undated) states: Symbolic interactionism is a social theory based on the work of George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) and his student Herbert Blumer (1900 – 1987). It conceives of the self as a social rather than psychological entity. Human behaviour is understood as social behaviour made up of ‘social acts’. Symbolic interactionism can be described as: 'An approach in sociology which focuses on the interaction of human beings and the roles they have. The model of the person in symbolic interactionism is active and creative rather then passive' (Holloway 1997:150).... Within symbolic interactionism, then, understanding of the social world takes a very different starting point from that of the Scientific/Realist perspective. It is about understanding other people’s meanings, understanding the relationship between people who are ‘meaningful’. The conceptualisation of the individual in symbolic interactionism is that of the ‘meaning maker’, imposing order and meaning onto an essentially meaningless social and physical world. Raynet Sociology Glossary (undated) states: Symbolic interactionism: A theoretical school or orientation in sociological social psychology. An approach that has evolved principally from social behaviorism and the writings of George Herbert Mead and stresses the symbolic nature of human interaction, linguistic and gestural communication (all reality is held to be communicated reality), and particularly the role of language in the formation of mind, self, and society. In sum, social reality and human behavior, for the symbolic interactionist, is conceptualized as symbolic, communicated, and subjective in both form and content. The McGraw-Hill (2004) Sociological Theory site Glossary defines: Dramaturgy: A view of social life as a series of dramatic performances akin to those that take place in the theater. (Goffman). Symbolic interaction: The distinctive human ability to relate to one another, not only through gestures but also through significant symbols. Elwell's Glossary of Sociology (undated) defines symbolic interactionism as: A theoretical approach in sociology which focuses on social reality as constructed through the daily interaction of individuals and places strong emphasis on the role of symbols (gestures, signs, and language) as core elements of this interaction. Richard Schaefer (2017): Dramaturgical approach: A view of social interaction, popularized by Erving Goffman, under which people are examined as if they were theatrical performers. University of Twente (2017) states: Symbolic Interactionism: All Communication Is Symbolic And Based Upon Interaction And Meaning. History and Orientation: Symbolic Interactionism, formulated by Blumer (1969) is the process of interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals. The inspiration for this theory came from Dewey (1981), which believed that human beings are best understood in a practical, interactive relation to their environment. Core Assumptions and Statements: The theory consists of three core principles: meaning, language and thought. These core principles lead to conclusions about the creation of a person's self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin, 1997). associated issues Huber's claims that symbolic interactionism is inherently biased Huber (1973) analyses the pragmatic underpinnings of symbolic interaction. She argues that, despite all the debate on symbolic interaction, no real assessment of the bias that necessarily derives from the perspective has been made.
Blumer's comment on Huber and Huber's reply Blumer (1973) states that neither he nor Mead ever proposed the absurdity of approaching research with a blank mind, which is how Blumer interprets Huber (1973). Rather, Blumer says that both he and Mead regard research as beginning with a problem. In effect, Blumer says, Huber's position reduces to asserting the primacy of a 'logico-theoretic component'. This, in itself, Blumer notes, does not constitute an 'objective/neutral' approach. Blumer argues that Huber, in line with the ‘dominant methodological position in our discipline today’ proposes the primacy of theory over empirical data. Blumer proposes an interrelationship between the two, and cites Darwin as the exemplary case.
Other critics of Huber's analysis Schmitt (1974), an ex-student of Manford Kuhn at Iowa, criticises Huber for providing a damaging attack on symbolic interactionism without fully appreciating its approach. She fails to distinguish symbolic interactionism from participant observation, Schmitt claims that 'Even the Chicago School adherents are quite willing to use any strategy that will provide a valid image of the actor's perspectives.' (Schmitt, 1974, p. 453). Further, not all symbolic interactionism relies on 'emergent theory', notably the work done by the Iowa school, especially Manford Kuhn. (See Manis and Meltzer, 1972). Nor are the concepts Huber regards as unclear, so unclear to others, indeed they are frequently clearly defined. Finally, not all symbolic interactionists are merely disaffected quantitative researchers. Indeed, Schmitt argues, there are scientifically attractive features about symbolic interactionism.
Hubers's (1974, p. 463) reply is mainly a point-by-point engagement that reaffirms Huber's position. In many places it is 'microscopic' in perspective. It nowhere adequately addresses the 'theory laden nature of observation'. In conclusion, Huber argues (citing Swanson, 1967 [1961]) that as a scientific model emergent theory remains emergent. This is due to Mead's theoretical position. 'Mead provides a way to formulate important aspects of social psychological problems but suggests few actual problems for investigation. Some of his most relevant premises are untestable and many which are testable don't fall in the realm of social psychology. As a sociological perspective, however, Mead's view alerts researchers to important aspects of human behavior. Some of the most durable work in sociology has been done by students of Blumer or Kuhn.... Neverthless, the symbolic interactionist recipe for doing sociology is dangerously close to radical subjectivism.' (Huber, 1974, p. 466). related areas See also Blumer Chicago School Researching the Real World Section 2.3.1.2.4 Sources Bogdan, R. and Taylor, S.J., 1975, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. New York, Wiley. Blumer, H., 1973, �A note on symbolic interactionism�, American Sociological Review, 38(6), pp. 797�98. Crossman, A., 2018, 'What is symbolic interactionism?' available at http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociological-Theory/a/Symbolic-Interaction-Theory.htm, accessed 2 June 2019. Elwell's Glossary of Sociology, undated, available at http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/frank.elwell/prob3/glossary/socgloss.htm, ©Frank Elwell, last updated January 1998, page not available 20 December 2016. Fisher, B. and Strauss, A., 1979, 'Interactionism' in Bottomore, T and Nisbet, R., (Eds.) History of Sociological Analysis, New York, Basic Books. Goffman, E., 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre. Goffman, E., 1961a, 'The Underlife of a Public Institution' in Goffman, E., 1961, Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental patients and Other Inmates Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. First published New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1961 Goffman, E., 1963, Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings, New York, The Free Press. Goffman, E., 1967, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Anchor Books Goffman, E., 1971, Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order, New York, Basic Books. Huber, J., 1973, 'Symbolic interaction as a pragmatic perspective. The bias of emergent theory', American Sociaological Review, 38, pp 274�84. Huber, J., 1973a, �Reply to Blumer: but who will scrutinize the scrutinizers?�, American Sociological Review, 38(6), pp. 798�800. Huber 1974, 'The emergency of emergent theory', American Sociological Review, 39(3), pp. 463–67. Manis, J.G. and Meltzer, B.N., 1972, Symbolic Interaction: A reader in social psychology, Second edition, Allyn and Bacon. McGraw-Hill, 2004, Sociological Theory: Glossary , available at http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072817186/student_view0/glossary.html, accessed 14 May 2013, page not available 20 December 2016. Meltzer B.N., Petras J.W. and Reynolds L.T., 1975, Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis, varieties, and criticism. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Raynet Sociology Glossary, undated, available at http://www.raynet.mcmail.com/sociology_gloss.htm, no longer available 20 December 2016. Schaefer, R. T., 2017, 'Glossary' in Sociology: A brief introduction, Fourth Edition, originally c. 2000, McGraw-Hill. Available at http://novellaqalive.mhhe.com/sites/0072435569/student_view0/glossary.html, site dated 2017, accessed 11 June 2017, page 'not found' 1 June 2019. Schmitt, R.L., 1974, �SI and Emergent Theory: A Reexamination�, American Sociological Review, 39(3), pp. 453�56. Sociology Guide.Com, 2011, 'Sociology as interpretative discipline' available at http://www.sociologyguide.com/introduction-to-sociology/sociology-interpretative-discipline.php, accessed 24 January 2013, page not available 20 December 2016. Stone, G.P., Maines, D.R., Farberman, H.A., Stone, G.I and Denzin, N.K., 1974, �On methodology and craftsmanship in the criticism of sociological perspectives�, American Sociological Review, 39(3), pp. 456�63. University of Strathclyde, undated, 'Symbolic interactionism' available at http://www.strath.ac.uk/aer/materials/1educationalresearchandenquiry/unit3/symbolicinteractionism/, accessed 29 May 2013, page not found 2 June 2019. University of Twente, 2017, Comminication Study Theories. Available at: https://www.utwente.nl/.uc/f32b97e4401021a2d8f00d5e2e5030c0add13d6eed6e400/Communication%20Theories%20University%20of%20Twente%20-%20UTwente%20-%20The%20Netherlands.pdf, accessed 2 June 2019 (pdf with hyperlink contents).
Top A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Home Who is the founder of symbolic interactionism?George Herbert Mead Symbolic interactionism
Sociologists believed George Herbert Mead, an American philosophy professor, was the true founder of symbolic interaction theory. His students gathered his teachings and lectures and published a book titled Mind, Self, and Society in his name.
Which theory focused on individuals who act based on meaning which is based on the individual's experience?Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on meanings attached to human interaction, both verbal and non-verbal, and to symbols. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds.
What is symbolic interactionism according to Blumer?Blumer states that symbolic interactionism rests on three premises: that human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings of things have for them; that the meaning of such things derives from the social interaction one has with one's fellows; and that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an ...
Who is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism though he never published work on it?George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism though he never published his work on it (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993).
|