symbolic interactionism


Also found in: Wikipedia.

symbolic interactionism

a theoretical approach in US sociology which seeks to explain action and interaction as the outcome of the meanings which actors attach to things and to social action, including themselves (see also REFLEXIVITY).

For symbolic interactionists, meanings ‘do not reside in the object’ but emerge from social processes. Emphasis is placed on the ‘active’, ‘interpretive’, and ‘constructive’ capacities or competence, possessed by human actors, as against the determining influence of social structures suggested by theoretical approaches such as FUNCTIONALISM.

The term was coined in 1937 by H. BLUMER, who summarizes the main principles of the approach in terms of three propositions (Blumer, 1969):

  1. ‘human beings act towards things on the basis of the meanings that things have for them’;
  2. these meanings ‘arise out of social interaction’;
  3. social action results from a ‘fitting together of individual lines of action’.

Theorists whose work stands predominantly within this tradition include George Herbert MEAD, Charles COOLEY, and Howard S. BECKER. An important sociologist whose work stands close to the symbolic interactionist tradition is Erving GOFFMAN.

Symbolic interactionism is sometimes seen as a sociologically oriented SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY – indeed it has been described as the first properly 'social’ social psychology of any kind. Thus, symbolic interactionism stands opposed to approaches in social psychology such as BEHAVIOURISM or ETHOLOGY. As Cooley put it, 'society is not a chicken yard’. Human action is seen as distinguished from animal behaviour above all by language and by the huge importance of symbolic communication of various kinds.

As well as being the main alternative theoretical approach to functionalism within modern American sociology, symbolic interactionism also provides the main alternative approach in social research to conventional SOCIAL SURVEY using fixed choice QUESTIONNAIRES and standardized VARIABLES. In place of these approaches, its preferred methods include PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION of actors in natural settings and intensive INTERVIEWS.

Although rejecting those approaches in psychology and sociology which seek deterministic universal laws or the discovery of overarching structural-functional regularities, symbolic interactionists do see a place for generalizations within sociology. Thus BECKER (1953) in his famous study of marijuana use for pleasure claims that his ‘final generalization is a statement of those sequences of changes in attitude which occurred in every case … and may be considered as an explanation of all cases’. Rather than a root-and-branch objection to generalization in sociology, symbolic interactionism calls for these to be appropriate to the particular subject matter of sociology (see ANALYTICAL INDUCTION, GROUNDED THEORY, DRUG-TAKING FOR PLEASURE).

A further feature of the approach is that it has often adopted a more socially radical posture than either functionalist or conventional social survey research, e.g. a ‘reversal of the usual hierarchies of credibility’ by exploring the perspective of ‘the underdog’ (BECKER, 1963).

The main criticism of symbolic interactionism is that in focusing exclusively on microsocial processes and subinstitutional phenomena, it understates the importance of macroscopic structures and historical factors, especially economic forces and institutionalized political power. Thus rather than exclusive perspectives, sociological foci on structure and action are seen as complementary perspectives by many theorists, e.g. GIDDENS (see also DUALITY OF STRUCTURE, STRUCTURATION THEORY).

A further critique, that symbolic interactionism fails to explore human creative competence in sufficient depth, is more internal to the interpretive and symbolic interactionist tradition (see SOCIAL PHENOMENOLOGY). A new sociological paradigm, ETHNOMETHODOLOGY, resulted from this critique.

References in periodicals archive ?
Each chapter addresses the social problem from the perspective of the general theoretical approaches of structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism, as well as in-depth analysis of specialized theories.
Based on concepts of symbolic interactionism in face-to-face social interactions, I will talk about current conflicts in political interactions on the internet (the "tretas" (3)) and the transformation of "potential allies" into "enemies" or "adversaries" in the political struggle.
However, its expression in the practice of empirical research stemmed from the so-called Chicago School, where important names like William Thomas and Florian Znaniecki (14), Harold Garfinkel (15) George Hebert Mead (16) and Robert Park (17) and other inaugurated sociologically important approaches, such as symbolic interactionism, ethnography, ethnomethodology and other.
The researchers primarily discuss and explain inherent mechanisms of symbolic consumption using the theory of symbolic interactionism and ritual behavior, among which symbolic interactionism is the mainstream; (4) Antecedents.
Where there is complete subjectivity, this tends to be associated with methodological approaches such as grounded theory, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism (Blumer/Kuhn) and pragmatism.
As Blumer argued in the late 1960s with the lens of symbolic interactionism, we interact with objects (such as biographies) on the basis of their meaning for us.
The aim of this study is to show that postmodernism and symbolic interactionism are fused together to delineate both the scene as well as an actor's identity.
The theoretical frameworks of symbolic interactionism and hegemonic masculinity will be used to elucidate the conception of male rape and the rationales that male rape victims use to justify why they do not report rape and sexual assault to the police and to the wider society.
Symbolic Interactionism has as approach the nature of the interaction and the dynamics of social activities that occupy the space among individuals and consist of cause of the behavior.
Hence, symbolic interactionism is one of the three major analytical perspectives in sociology.
According to Blumer (1986), the movement of symbolic interactionism is built on three premises: the first one states that human beings act on facts based on the meaning they have for the groups to which they belong.

Full browser ?