Symbolic Interactionism
Table of Contents
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is a prominent sociological framework developed primarily by George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley, with Cooley’s “Looking Glass Self” theory being a significant contribution. This theory focuses on how individuals form their identities and understand themselves through social interactions and the perceptions of others.
- Example: According to the “Looking Glass Self,” a person may develop their self-concept based on how they think others perceive them. For instance, if someone is frequently complimented for their intelligence, they may start to see themselves as smart. This self-perception is shaped by the feedback and reflections they receive from others in their social environment.
Symbolic Interactionists says that people act towards things based on the meaning- those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation.
Like Weber, symbolic interactionists are concerned with explaining social actions in terms of the meanings that individuals give to them. However, they tend to focus on small scale interactions situations rather than large scale social change.
Central Ideas to Symbolic Interactionism
Following are the central ideas to symbolic interactionism:
Human beings must be understood as social persons:
Humans are inherently social, and their behavior is influenced by the interactions they have with others.
- For example, a child learns how to behave in social settings by observing and interacting with family, peers, and teachers. These interactions shape the child’s social skills, communication patterns, and emotional responses.
Human beings must be understood as thinking beings:
Humans engage in complex thought processes that influence their actions and decisions.
- For example, before making a purchase, a person might weigh the pros and cons, consider their budget, and reflect on past experiences to make an informed choice. This decision-making process reflects human cognition and reasoning.
Humans do not sense their environment directly; instead, humans define the situation they are in:
People interpret and give meaning to the situations they encounter.
- For example, in a crowded room, one person might define the situation as an opportunity for socializing, while another may see it as overwhelming or uncomfortable. Their different perceptions shape how they behave in the environment, even though the physical setting is the same.
Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment: Humans actively shape and influence their surroundings.
- For instance, a group of activists working to address climate change does not passively accept environmental degradation but takes action, organizing events, advocating for policy change, and changing individual behaviors to protect the planet. This highlights the active role humans play in their environment.
G.H. Mead
G.H. Mead argued that humans interact in terms of symbols, the most important of which are contained in language.
- Symbols enable people to live in this world orderly, as they allow them to remember objects which they encounter.
- Symbols improve people’s ability to perceive the environment.
Example: The word “dog” is a symbol that helps people identify and remember the animal they encounter. This symbol not only helps people recognize a dog but also conveys shared meanings about its characteristics, such as its role as a pet or companion. By understanding and using symbols like “dog,” people can navigate and make sense of the world around them more effectively.
Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation which Mead called Minding.
Minding is the pause or delay in one’s thought process when an individual reflects on their next move or decision. It involves taking a moment to consider different actions or responses before acting.
- Example: Before responding to a difficult question in class, a student may pause and mentally reflect on the best way to answer. This brief moment of hesitation, where the student considers possible responses, is an example of Minding, as they process and evaluate their next step in the conversation.
Mead differentiates between the concept of ‘Me’ and ‘I’. ‘Me’ is your definition of yourself in a specific social role and ‘I’ is a ‘self-concept’ build through interaction with others. This provides the basis for interaction in the society.
Basic Principles of Symbolic Interactionism
The basic principles of symbolic interactionism can be summed up as
Human beings have the capability to think:
- Example: Before deciding whether to accept a job offer, a person might think about factors such as the salary, location, work-life balance, and career growth opportunities. This thoughtful process, where the person weighs the pros and cons of the decision, demonstrates their ability to think critically and make informed choices.
The capacity of thought is shaped by social interaction, Because of the meanings and symbols humans act and interact distinctively.
- Example: A child learns to solve problems and think logically by interacting with parents, teachers, and peers. For instance, when a child is playing a board game with friends, they not only learn the rules of the game but also develop strategies by observing how others approach challenges. Through these social interactions, the child’s thought process is shaped and refined, showing that thinking is influenced by the people they interact with.
Based on interpretation of the situation humans are capable of altering meanings and symbols
- Example: In a workplace, if an employee initially interprets feedback from a supervisor as criticism, they may feel demotivated. However, after discussing it with a colleague or reflecting on it, they might reinterpret the feedback as constructive and useful for growth. This shift in interpretation changes the meaning of the feedback and how the employee responds to it, demonstrating the ability to alter meanings and symbols based on personal perspective and context.
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism
- Interaction in vacuum: Critics of this theory claim that- symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the “big picture”. They give little importance to historical and social setting.
- Constraints on action: In stressing the freedom and flexibility of human action, Interactionists tend to downplay the constraints on action. g.: In North Korea, social behavior is stringently regulated by the state and may stifle interaction in natural manner.
- Source of meanings: Critics argue that inter-actionists fail to explain the source of meanings to which they attach so much importance to. Meanings, according to them, are not spontaneously created but are a product of systematically generated social structure.
- Some theorists have a problem with symbolic interaction theory as it lacks testability.
While symbolic interactionism provides valuable insights into the subjective aspects of social life and individual interactions, it faces significant criticism for its narrow focus, disregard for social structures, and inability to offer concrete, testable propositions.
Important Keywords
Positivism, Non-positivists, Symbolic interactionism, George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, Looking Glass Self, Weber, Social Persons, Quantitative and Qualitative Methods, Thinking Beings, G.H. Mead, Minding, ‘Me’ and ‘I’, Indexicality, Cultural Dopes, Social Interaction, Triviality of focus, Testability.
