Religious Dilemma: Is being doubtful, rational or crime?

..............Abhishek Bhagat
The assassination of rationalists like Kulabargi, Dabholakar and Govind Pansare by the religious extremists and the brutal activities of militant groups like ISIS and Lashkar-e-Taiba illustrate how irrational faiths can create unrest and destabilize the societal harmony. The grave problem is that the root of these irrational faith lies in the holy books or scriptures because extremists most of the times rationalize their actions on the basis of holy books. Rationalist like Dawkins describes it is as “bloody irrational faith, the process of non-thinking” and that makes him to claim religion as “root of all evil”.

In this short essay I argue that being doubtful towards holy books or scriptures is rational and courageous. Because when there are different versions of the holy books deciding which one represents the original words of God, is a huge question? Secondly religion must be tolerant to allow science to interfere in religious matters. Perhaps, through logical method of doubting, it is possible to find the roots of rational and irrational faiths in religion.  

There are certain similarities between science and religion. Absence and misuse of both will result in destruction of civilization. Both have evolved and developed side by side over time. Even the nature and purpose of both changed over a period of time to suit the human interest of that time. In fact, it is impossible to imagine society without science and religion. One of the major differences between science and religion is: science allows to test, investigate and doubt the things, contrary to religion which can’t tolerate that. Because religion is regarded as a word of God, which is flawless, can’t be changed, modified and examined. When we become religious, we can’t doubt the existence of GOD. Perhaps faith in God is not that problematic, but problems arises when we want to know about the original word of God. How can we be so sure about the authenticity of holy books or scriptures? What makes us regard the text as actual words of God?

Generally, we form our religious beliefs by reading holy books or scriptures, from preachings of priests, noble persons, scholars and through parents. How can we be so certain about the knowledge transmitted by these sources? Take the example of any religion; there are several versions of religious scriptures or holy books. The Indian, ancient historian Thapar (2015) suggested that there are different versions of Ramayana which include the Kamba Ramayana in Tamil, the Krittibas in Bengali and the Tulsi Ramayana in Hindi. In addition the original Ramayana written by Valmiki is doubted (Ambedkar 2008, p.243). Similarly, Mahabharata which underwent essential transformations, comprises of three editions, Jaya written by Vyas is in story form, Bharat which was written by Vaishampayana added the sermon in the first form and third editions is Mahabharata which was written by Sauti added sections on politics, geography, archery, etc. (Ambedkar 2008, p.249-252). Other religious scriptures, including that for Islam and Christianity are not exceptions. There are different versions of Koran and Bible (Dawkins, R, 2012). In Buddhism also there are different versions of Dhammapada. As suggested by Bhikku Tannissaro it consisted of…

“pali from Burma, combodia, Laos, Sri lanka and Thailand, two incomplete manuscript of Gandhari Dharmapada found in central Asia; and manuscript in Buddhist hybrid-sankrit Dhammapada found in a library in Tibet called the Patna Dhammapada because photographs of this manuscript are now kept in Patna, in India. There is also Chinese part of Dhammapada created in third century C. E. from Pakrit original.”

Which of them (the version of holy books or scriptures) are authentic and manifests of the original words of God, is a huge question? Beside it has been showed that these versions of same holy books contradict with each other (Dawkins, R. 2012). Lay readers don’t seem interested to read these different versions of same holy books and those who cannot read how can their beliefs be so true, is a question? Therefore there is large possibility that their understanding of religion is biased and false.

Secondly, if it is true; that we understand phenomenon and perceived knowledge through senses then, there is no doubt to say that our senses can be biased, which also means that our beliefs can be biased and false. Bertrand Russell says that "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."

As Suggested by David Hume (2004, p.01)

“When a philosopher comes up with something that looks like a paradox and is contrary to basic beliefs of ordinary folk, ·it often fares better than it deserves, for two reasons. It is greedily embraced by philosophers, who think it shows the superiority of their discipline that could discover opinions so far from common beliefs. When something surprising and dazzling confronts us, it gives our minds a pleasurable sort of satisfaction that we can’t think is absolutely baseless. These dispositions in philosophers and their disciples give rise to a relation of mutual comfort between them: the former furnish many strange and unaccountable opinions, and the latter readily believe them.”

Hence, being doubtful towards Holy Scriptures and preaching seems rational and courageous. And killing of rationalists and lay persons by the extremists in the name of God or religion is a shameful act and threatens the development of secular nation. It is not only violating fundamental rights of expression but also the right of life of a person. It certainly is the dark side of modern age.  

Even existence of God can be doubted if we take for granted the philosophical question raised by Bertrand Russell (2009): “Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?” Similarly the father of modern philosophy Rene Descartes () claimed that he only cannot doubt his own existence because he can think (I think, therefore I am), otherwise everything else can be doubted. He argues that there is no perfect or certain knowledge, but its validity and weight can be judged through the logical method of doubting.

But denying all faiths or beliefs carried out by the masses since centuries in a moment, sounds irrational, disastrous and impractical approach to deal with the notion of God and Divinity. I believe that it is possible to provide some kind of rationale for peoples “faiths” which is part of religion. For example; the acceptance of the existence God and beliefs in God can provide some energy, hope to individuals and if it results in good outcome then there is no problem at all in believing in the notion of God.  Faiths or beliefs may be right or wrong. But when there is no harm for well-being of humans then it is perfectly fine. But in that process religion must be tolerant to allow science to interfere in religious matter, to doubt the existence of God or Divinity. Because it may be possible through the method of doubting we can find the origins or roots of the “FAITH”, we can dig out some hidden truths and false beliefs in religions. Once this rational or the irrationality of faiths and hidden truths or false beliefs revealed, then there is no logic to deny the illuminating truth. For instance; the truth that planet’s revolved around the sun. Just think, what would happen if nobody dared to appeal the prevalent religious notions of that time. Now it is proven and no one can deny that, the truth is Sun is at the centre of the solar system and other planets revolve around it. I think that the study of sciences, philosophy and history of evolution together can come up with a proof one day how the notion of God comes in existence? Perhaps it will be the truth just like how Copernicus & Kepler shook’s the very prevalent religious notion of his time; the earth is the center of solar system rather than sun.

But for present; the practical way (Middle Path) I find to deal with the notion of God or divinity is in Buddhist philosophy. It is very evident that Buddha is silent on the notion of God, divinity or origin of the world; (however he denied the Vedic gods) but so often he did not engage and seems reluctant to involve himself in such a discussion. Because from Buddha’s point of view that is insignificant and irrelevant to involve in such discussions or to answer the questions related to God and divinity for well-being of human society. And on the other side, those are the kind of questions which may don’t have answers at all. For instance; there is no mathematician or individuals who can measure the sand stones on the river bank or stars in the sky. Whereas Buddha focuses on human agency that is rightly expressed in Ambedkar’s words “that each man should be morally trained that he may himself become a sentinel for the kingdom of righteousness.”  As suggested by Omvedt (2003), Buddha simply said; “this is pain, this is the origin of pain, this is the ending of pain and this is the path leading to the ending of pain” (The Four Noble Truths). Not only that but his teaching is practical, according to mental disposition of his listener (14th Dalai Lama, 2010). For example; to lay person, who is believer of God, there is no use to preach the canonical debates. Whereas the practical way is, let his/her faith sustain and preach him/her in a way so that he/she may turn to be a good person.

To sum up: it is always better and seems practical and/or relevant to celebrate ‘religious pluralism’, keep respect towards all faiths, as different kinds of philosophy satisfies the interests of different groups of people (14th Dalai Lama). But at the same time the aspect of criticality in religion should not be undermined because it is certain that the knowledge transmitted by holy books, scriptures and preaching could be flawed, irrelevant and not representing the original words of God (Godliness). Even the rationalist, atheist or non-believers need to be respected, to be allowed to doubt and present their views on delusion of God or divinity. Perhaps This is revealing, perhaps it is true. Religion must be tolerant to allow science to investigate, test and examine the religious aspects or beliefs. Because through the method of doubting it is possible to know about irrational aspects or beliefs in religion which are held by people for centuries.

Certainly I am not negative towards religion, my only concern is; that it is always better to see religion and science as two sides of same coin rather than as separate entities. These two sides are opposite to each other but being together, some sort of relation and attachment is there between both. There is a need to explore & establish a link between science and religion. There is no harm to accept fruitful religious beliefs after testifying.

Mckinnon (2005) describes Opium’ (the metaphor used by Marx to expose religion) as a drug which can be served for the purpose of better health but the misuse and excessive dose of it results in deterioration of the health. Religion may just to be like that……!!!

References

Ambedkar (2003). Bhagawan Buddha and His Dhamma. Buddhist Research Association, Nanded. p. 284-287, 335-336.

Ambedkar (2008). Ch-10 Literature of Brahmanism. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Vol. 3, p. 237-265, Government of Maharashtra.

Russell, B. (2009). The Problems of Philosophy, Watchmaker Publishing.

Dalai Lama (2010). The Four Noble Truths. Harper Collins, New Delhi.

Dawkins, R. (2012). The God Delusion. Documentary.

Descartes, R. (1985). Rules for the Direction of the Mind, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol 1, pp. 7-77. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Hume, D. (2004). Treatise of Human Nature.

Madan, T. N. (2011). Introduction India’s Religions: Plurality and Pluralism. India’s Religion; Perspective from Sociology and History, Ed. T. N. Madan, p.1-34. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Mckinnon (2005). Opium as Dialectics of Religion: Metaphor, Expression and Protest, Critical Sociology, Vol 31, No 1/ 2, pp. 15-38.

Omvedt, G. (2003). Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste. Sage Publication,

Thanissaro (). Dhammapad: A Translation. Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. p.136

Thapar, R. (2015). Linking the Past and the Present. Interview with Romila Thapar by Ranabir Chakravarti, Vol 32, No.18, p. 26. Frontline.

Contemplating on the role of Journalism in Development

We all share a somewhat similar world view although with considerable diversity.  Our world view is limited by factors such as the nature of our family, our friends, culture, access to resources and our own personal efforts. It is easy to find individuals, groups or organisations nurturing stereotypes with regard to particular race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance and social status. These stereotypes make us reluctant to accept or even deliberate on diverse values and viewpoints gradually leading to the disharmony in the society .

Journalists have the duty to seek and report on issues that build and sustain the harmonious society.  They are also responsible for encouraging civic debate on developmental issues like health, education and climate change. While the professional ethics for journalism stresses on the aspects of accuracy, fairness, respect for diversity and accountability in reporting the issues; the idea of fairness itself is deeply influenced by an individual’s world view. Like for instance during the rape incident the reporting is heavily focussed on the lack of efficacy of the agencies enforcing law and order; while completely ignoring the way rape victim is treated by the family, community and the beliefs nurtured within the culture. Even when you consider the same issue, rape in metro cities on individuals of particular class or profession gets way more priority than rape in villages, on dalits. And also the rigour with which astrological predictions are reported cannot be seen when it comes to reporting on science that is guiding the advances in astronomy.

All the above instances make us realise how the well established beliefs within us will affect our perspective and end up being biased towards particular aspects. While reporting an issue journalist is usually expected to approach the concerned stakeholders and report their views as it is but in reality the individuals whom the journalist will choose to approach will again be guided by his/her own beliefs. So it is important that journalists are equipped with the thought processes that enable them to reflect on their own self and explore the society with an open mind.  

Relevance of Journalism in the present context

American press institute describes journalism as an activity of providing citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies and their governments. It also refers to journalism as an indispensable activity for any democratic society.

The role of disintermediation effect of technology on the journalism has gone beyond our imagination. Disintermediation here refers to the reduction in the intermediaries between the source of information and the target audience. Thriving social networking opportunities on digital platform has today enabled the head of the state to directly convey the message to the citizens on real time basis which was earlier done by Journalists. Similarly citizens, communities, institutions, societies and governments are directly connected to each other like never before which raises the question on the very relevance of journalism in the today’s world. While the digital divide is still significant this does not guarantee any solace for aspiring journalists. Both in terms of cost and feasibility it has become easier to bridge digital divide than laying roads or making provisions for the efficient means of transport. So the most important question that aspiring journalists should pose themselves today is…... how do we remain relevant and be valued in the present context?

The answer is to look at journalism as a discipline of verification, analysis and critique of the immense information that is flowing across the individuals at a lightning speed. American press institute refers to the researchers at Carnegie Mellon University according to which in 2012, there were an average of 175 million tweets each day. But almost all – 99% — consisted of “pointless babble”. Besides this the highly interconnected citizens today are susceptible to rumours like never before. The consequence of such rumours vary from increased the market volatility rendering businesses unviable to fuelling the law and order problem in the society or even putting the citizens’ lives permanently in danger by spreading unsubstantiated news about medicines and therapeutic practices. These rumours also contribute towards reinforcing the hatred and stereotypes with regard to particular race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability etc. So today the main responsibility of journalists is not about acting as a middle man delivering the information from source to others but to verify, analyse and critique the information that is flowing among the citizens. Further the onus on journalists is to educate the citizens about the process of gathering the information, analysing it using scientific methods and establishing the authenticity of its source. Overall it can be said that journalism today is about cultivating and nurturing the research aptitude among the masses.

Understanding ‘Development’ in Development Journalism

Development journalism is a kind of journalism that proactively facilitates the development of the society. The reason for emphasis on the development journalism is also because the business model on which the journalism thrives or sustains itself tends to focus on what satisfies the citizens’ immediate concerns but not on the aspects that will transform them to better human beings. The debate on how do we determine a particular country is more developed than the other gives us a better insight into the nature of development journalism.

With regard to development of countries World Bank report says “It is easier to say a particular country is richer than the other. But indicators of wealth, which reflect the quantity of resources available to a society, provide no information about the allocation of those resources—for instance, about more or less equitable distribution of income among social groups, about the shares of resources used to provide free health and education services, and about the effects of production and consumption on people’s environment. Thus it is no wonder that countries with similar average incomes can differ substantially when it comes to people’s quality of life: access to education and health care, employment opportunities, availability of clean air and safe drinking water, the threat of crime, and so on”

Further, the word development means different for different countries and individuals based on how they are placed in the current context. But what brings them all together is the idea of sustainable development.

As per the same report “Sustainable” development could probably be otherwise called “equitable and balanced,” meaning that, in order for development to continue indefinitely, it should balance the interests of different groups of people, within the same generation and among generations, and do so simultaneously in three major interrelated areas–economic, social, and environmental. So sustainable development is about equity, defined as equality of opportunities for well-being.

References

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.

American Press Institute - Journalism Essentials - http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/

BBC - The Ugly Face of Disability Hate Crime - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b063h25f

Symbolic Interactionists' Perspectives in Social Research

Studying social reality is a complex process. There exist various ways of studying about it. Positivists say that the methods that can be used to study natural phenomena the same can be employed in order to know about social reality. While the constructivists believe that separate methods are required to study human beings because they have ability to think and can construct reality. In this, Symbolic interactionism plays a very vital role in its development.       

        Perspectives of symbolic interactionism (SI) were first emerged in psychology but later became part of sociology. There are number of thinkers who have contributed in shaping the approach of “symbolic interactionism”. They are namely, Willium James, George Herbert Mead, Charles Cooley, W. I. Thomas, Herbert Blumer and Earving Goffman. Although it was Mead whose work “Philosophy of Pragmatism” influenced the idea of symbolic interactionism but Blumer, a student of Mead, coined the term “Symbolic interactionism” in 1937.

        The genesis of the ideas of symbolic interactionism goes back to the work of Willium James. He critiqued the ideas of functionalism which proposed that functions that individuals play help them adapt to environment. But James was not merely concern about adjustment with environment rather the issue of how individuals are determined by it; was something that interested him. He viewed that not only does the environment influenced the individuals differently at different times, depending upon their constantly changing consciousness but also the environment is perceived differently by different people (Musolf, 1994). James has developed three typologies of the self. Firstly, “Material Me”- it consist of physical objects that humans view as a part of their living; for instance, one's clothing, family, friends, home and accumulated wealth. All these things play a crucial role in individual's identity formation. Secondly, “Social Me”- it is a desire to receive recognition from the others. Thirdly, “Spiritual Me”- this self is more conscious reflection of an individual. An important element of symbolic interactionism is embedded in this type of self. Out of all the three selves narrated above it is a social self that has contributed a lot to symbolic interactionism.      

        Symbolic interactionism offers a wide range of interesting and important ideas that are useful for the sociological research. The three main ideas that are derived from the philosophy of pragmatism are central to symbolic interactionism. Firstly, focus on the interaction between individuals and the world. Secondly, both the views, of the actors and of the world are dynamic processes and not static structures. Thirdly, the unique ability that is attached to humans to interpret the social world (Ritzer, 2011; 352).

        Symbolic interactionism believes that human beings are gifted with the ability to think and they play a key role in the construction of reality. This approach of SI is much related with the ideas of pragmatism, one of the schools of philosophy, which believe that true reality does not exist “out there” in the real world; it is actively created as the human beings act towards the world. Secondly, pragmatists claim that human beings are pragmatist by nature; they alter the things which no longer work. The idea of “humans' construction of knowledge with active engagement with the world” itself give a birth to studying human related phenomenon with applying qualitative ways of knowing about the social facts that are socially constructed. Both the ways, qualitative and quantitative methods, can be employed in order to study social phenomenon. But both of them have separate characteristics. Qualitative research which is theory building in nature while quantitative methods play an important role in testing theories (Bryman, 2012). When a researcher study social phenomenon with the help of qualitative research methods, his/her own interpretation does matter. In the interaction process he/she also uses symbols and interprets. The process of knowing about the social reality starts from the qualitative research since it build theories, while quantitative method comes later because it  test theories. Therefore, I would say symbolic interactionism has greatly contributed to sociological research.

Alternative to scientific society

        There was a belief from natural scientists that the methods that can be used to study the natural phenomena, the same methods can be used to know about social reality. This belief was first challenged by Peter Winch's work “The Idea of Social Sciences (1990)”. He says that the attempt to study social phenomenon with natural science method can proved to be misguiding to know about social reality. This is so, because the nature and character of both the reality- social as well as natural is different. Natural science is majorly concerned with patterns and generalities and law like realities while this is not often the case with social life. Most parts of the social life is guided by regularities and rules that have been constructed by humans. So in order to probe the behavior of humans, the methods that have been used in natural science cannot be always turned to be useful. He has given the example of traffic signal to understand the difference between law like behavior and the conduct that governed by rules. He says that when people stop their vehicles looking at the traffic signal, it is not because the wavelengths of red light that causes them to brake, but the fact that colour red acts as a “symbol”, people respond to it and stop. This kind of a behavior is rule governed one and not a law governed. Another important distinction he makes that- scientific laws are universal and rarely have exceptions while rules, on the other hand, have different kinds and subjected to people's interpretation. Who will not interpret correctly it is possible for them to deviate from what the rule requires. Precisely, the point here is, taking into considerations the differences in natural and social phenomena, two difference methods are required. Therefore the symbolic interactionists advocate qualitative methods of research in order to understand social reality.

        John Dewey, a pragmatist philosopher, did not think mind as a thing or a structure rather, according to him, it is a thinking process consisting of series of stages. His work is very influential in the development of the approach of symbolic interactionism. Human beings with the ability of thinking define objects in the social world, outline possible modes of conduct, imagine the consequences of alternative actions and eliminate unlikely possibilities, and finally select the optimal mode of action. These views of Dewey prove the fact that his pragmatism is more clearly social and action oriented (Gallant & Kleinman, 1983). With regard to the mind, he says that it has its existence because of social communication. People interact with each other therefore mind emerges. This view of Dewey is similar with the opinion of Mead who says that mind is fundamentally social and it could not exist without shared symbols (read language). The ideas of these pragmatists can be used in studying social phenomena like cultural heritage transmitted to individuals and the interaction processes of socialized persons. Also, the same ideas can be used in studying the phenomena related with language specifically, communicative aspects of language. The language on which the social life of peoples has critically built, reality embedded in social life can be understood from the shared experiences. It is therefore, the social reality can be effectively explored with the help of ideas of symbolic interactionism.        

        Another significant contribution of ideas of symbolic interactionism are helpful to understand role of symbols as well as signs in language construction, its utility for social interaction, individual thinking and construction of knowledge. Symbolic interactionism believes that people are active members of the environment and they have been gifted with the ability to construct meaning of the objects in the world. Instead, they say that objects are there in universe because of human construction. According to them, symbols make a great contribution in this construction. Firstly, symbols unable people to deal with the material and social world by allowing them to name, categorize, and remember the objects they discover. In this way people order the world otherwise it would have been fully confused and ambiguous. In this process language play a vital role in naming, categorizing and specifically remembering things. Secondly, symbols equip people with the ability to perceive environment in a better way, rather than being flooded by a mass of indistinguishable stimuli. People can be alerted to some parts of the environment than others. Thirdly, symbolic interactionism claims that thinking of individuals is a symbolic interactionism in itself. Also, symbols improve thinking of people. Here, language plays a very significant role in this process. It is because language itself is a combination of numerous symbols that humans make meaning out of it. So, in order to improve thinking, symbols are also as important as language. This idea in itself is very revolutionary one in order to qualitatively understand the human phenomena. It is so, because it is not just external forces, which positivists take into account in researching human reality but peoples' ability to think and construct reality also does matter in studying social life. Therefore, the qualitative approaches such as constructivism and interpretivism are greatly benefited with the ideas that are evolved through symbolic interactionism. Fourthly, symbolic interactionists do not conceive human mind as a thing, a physical structure, but rather a continuing process. It continuously engages in thinking process and has multiple powers such as manipulation of objects and making choices.

Critique to Behaviorism     

        There have been number of behavioristic theories that describe about human behavior. For instance, trial and error theory of Thorndike, operant conditioning of Skinner and Classical conditioning of Ivan Pavlov. They have attempted to explain human behavior with the help of stimulus and response. The sort of stimulus you will provide, animals will respond in the certain way. Behaviorists built their theories experimenting with animals (Thorndike with cat, Skinner with pigeon and Pavlov with dog) and generalize findings to explain behavior of human beings. But symbolic interactionists, specifically Mead, say that lower animals are different from humans being in terms of thinking process. Human beings have been gifted with ability of decision making, imagination, perceptions hence they can attach meaning to the objects in the nature. They can manipulate objects as well. It is therefore generalization of finding of experiments on animals cannot be employed to explain human behavior.  

        The above ideas of symbolic interactionists give birth to many aspects of sociological research such as socialization of people, how the “self” of individuals emerges, how interaction takes place and even the how society has been constituted.

Socialization

        It is a process in which people learn from each other. In this, interaction plays a key role. In order to interact effectively, thinking needs to be developed in individuals. And the human ability to think is developed in two stages; initially, it develops in early childhood socialization and it then gets refined in adult socialization. The conventional sociologists say that socialization is a simple process that people learn the skills that are essential to live in the society; for instance, culture and role expectations. But, on the other hand, symbolic interactionists hold a different view with regard to socialization of people. They see it as a more dynamic process that allows people to develop the ability to think, to develop in distinctively different ways. Moreover, they tend to believe that it is not merely a one way process in which the actor receives information; rather he is an active agent in the process. He/she actively interact with the environment, make meaning of the objects in it and develop thinking ability. The former view of the conventional sociologists considers social actor as a passive agent but the symbolic interactionists accord as an active member in meaning making. The different views of symbolic interactionists turn out our attention towards knowing about how people get socialized. Although this process starts from the schooling days, variations can be seen in its nature. Some people have been investigated with maladjustment problem who have problem in getting socialized. They tend to be shy and introvert by nature. So the cases of maladjustment people prove the fact that the process of socialization is not a simple process but the kind of inputs one receives in environment and how that individuals interpret it determines the nature of socialization. And hence, variations can be seen in the socialization of people.  

        Erving Goffman, One of the significant contributors in symbolic interactionism introduces new perspectives in understanding social relations. He associates roles of the actors playing in drama with the socialization process. He says that the way actors in a drama try to impress the audience the same way people try to create impression in the society. He has associated the self with impression creation. He says that people in order to create impression present “performance” before a given audience and follow a pre-established pattern of action which Goffman calls a “part”. In order to relate to others and function properly in social relationships, one must have learned the appropriate “parts” and the ways to present them. One must also recognize the “parts” of others and know how to derive them from appropriately given cues. According to Goffman non-socialized person is one who does not present the performances that are required to perform in a given situation. Although Goffman has contributed greatly to the symbolic interactionism, but his ideas have some limitations if we have to check the reliability from the point of view of larger society. His perspectives about the “self” and “performance” are not applicable for sociological research of how children get socialized. Similarly, his thoughts are not useful to know about socialization process among disadvantaged population, he only talks about middle class people (Elkin, 1958).                      

Role of the “self”

        Most important contribution of Mead's work to symbolic interactionism is the idea of the “self”. He says that although self is a mental process, nevertheless, it is a social process too. This is so because the self arises when people interact with the environment. From this, two types of the self emerges firstly, the “I” and secondly, the “Me”. The “I” is a personal life of the individual while the “me” which is the identity that one develops with the help of interaction with others in the society. Identity of individuals which is very much related to the self have emerged as a new research areas in most of the social phenomena. Because, how individuals find their place in the society is determined by the self they develop by interacting with others. And individuals' sense of place in the larger society has implications for their self-esteem, motivation, and status in the society. It is therefore, researchers developed identity of individuals as a new research paradigm for the sociological research. It is even more prevalent in the research about professions who provide services to the common masses of society. One of the examples of this is “teachers' professional identity”. It has emerged as a new research area in the last couple of decades (Beijaard, Meijar and Verloop, 2004). Educational researchers started researching this phenomenon because it has implications for the teachers' professional development. The credit of this idea goes to Mead's concept of the self.

Society as an Aggregation of “Selves”

        Symbolic interactionism has brought new line of thinking to the sociological thoughts. Sociologists had been rarely believed that society is a composition of “selves”. Instead, they believed that human beings are merely organism with some kind of organization, responding to forces which play upon them. And these forces are responsible for making of society but not the individuals. The forces can be termed as social system, social structure, culture, status position, social roles, customs, institutions, social situations, social norms and values. Believing that social factors govern behavior of individuals, in doing so, human society has been treated as media through which such factors operate, and the social action of individuals is regarded as an expression  of such factors. But, according to Blumer, this point of view denies, or at least ignores, that human beings have selves- that they act as by making indications to themselves. So the recognition of individual selves in composition of society brought into the picture items such as emotions, motives, purposes, feelings, attitude, internalized social factors, or psychological components (Blumer, 1969; 83). In short, sociological conception of formation of society do not accord social actions in society as being continually constructed through a process of interpretation while the social interactionists do so. This idea in itself changes the view of looking towards the composition of society and consequently do offers a new way to go about sociological research.

Importance to Study Social Change

        Another important thought of line of symbolic interactionism can be drawn from the research of social change. Earlier, conventional sociological researchers used to look at the human society as an organization and do research the part played by people in social change. They used to follow the procedure of- (a) identifying human society in terms of an organized or an established form, (b) identify some factors or conditions of change playing upon the human society or the given part of it and (c) to identify the new form assumed by the society following upon the play of the factor of change. In this procedure, they only used to see the effect of one factor of change playing upon a given organized form that results in a new organized form. For instance, industrialization replaces joint families with nuclear families (Blumer, 1969; 88). Blumer see a problem with methodological position of these kinds of research. He says that the sociologists have ignored the place of interpretative behavior of acting units. Means, it is the people who interact with the environment and create the situation instead one situation creates another. Social change occurs due to the change in human action, which is mediated by interpretation on the part of the people involved in the change. But Blumer see it in the form of new situation in which people have constructed new forms of action. Therefore, for the symbolic interactionists, it is not the social factor that are central to knowing about social reality rather it is the humans who actively engage in symbolic interactionism and create the social change. This perspective of symbolic interactionism lays emphasis over subjective way of knowing social reality over objective one. Since humans have also been gifted with emotions and feelings, they also play an important role understanding social life of people.

Emotions and feelings           

        Shott (1979) argues that in order to understand the social life of people, sociological investigations of emotions and feelings are necessary. Study of emotions is so important for sociological research that we could not even imagine society without emotions and feelings. Therefore, for a complete understanding of social behavior, sociologists must study the role of emotions and feelings in the formation society. In her attempt to show the significance of symbolic interactionism in individuals' construction of emotions and feelings for social control, she says that one's interpretation of emotions and feelings is guided by his/her own culture. Different societies are characterized by various emotional and feeling motives. This is very similar with symbolic interactionism which says that individuals develop the “self” interacting with the environment and development of self is a social process. Hence, it is essential to understand the actor's definitions and interpretations of objects and events. Since humans are reflective beings, independent variables do not automatically influence dependent variables. Instead the impact is mediated by interpretation and definition. Hence definitions and interpretations are essential in social behavior and must be included in sociological research. So the ideas of symbolic interactionism have much to do with sociological research.

Studies of Perceptions  

        “Blumer says that human beings not only react to other's action but “interpret” and define their action. Their response is not made directly to the action of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attached to such action. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation or by ascertaining the meaning of one another’s action (Blumer, 1969; 79).

        This act of humans to define actions of others can be termed as having perceptions about them. And importantly, perceptions of people guide their actions and attitudes. In recent times, there have been number of studies that probe people's perceptions. This kind of studies are more prevalent in education domain. There are studies (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Thelen, 1976) that engaged in exploring teachers' perceptions of students. And it has been found that teachers' perceptions of students do affect their academic achievement. So the ideas of social interactionists can be used and influenced perceptions based studies in sociological research.

        Another significant thought of symbolic interactionism is that the human beings' actions are not mere automatic responses rather they construct and built up purposefully. Whatever humans do, before doing they have to take into consideration the demands of the action, expectations the prohibitions and the threats as they may arise in the situation in which he/she is acting. Matsueda (1992) has explained how the perspectives of symbolic interactionism can be useful to study delinquent behavior of youths. He says that when a youth is engaged in delinquent behavior, he must have got interacted with some other youth of a similar kind. Also, when a youth caught with delinquent behavior, the society views him/her as a criminal. Mead (1935) calls it as a social “me” which is an attitude of the society towards the “I”, another part of the self. Both the faces are related to each other. So when the attitude of the society as a criminal which is “me” gets formed it affects the “I” which is a personal life a person. But because of the social stigma attached to the delinquent person, it may become hurdle in changing his attitude. Similarly, symbolic interactionism can be relevant in family research too (Stryker, 1968). This is even more important site of research for symbolic interactionism because the process of socialization, role taking, early development of the self start from the family of a person.

Significant symbols (Gestures)

        One of the major contributions of Mead to symbolic interactionism is “significant symbol”. It is kind of a gesture that only humans can make. And they become significant symbols when the individual who is making them, the same kind of response, which need not be identical, will be elicited from those who have been addressed. Then only communication can be made with the help of gestures. And, gestures in the vocal form most likely to become “language”. In the conversation of gestures, only the gestures themselves are communicated, however, with language the gestures and their meaning are also being communicated. This is particularly significant for qualitative researchers when they study social phenomena. While interviewing or interacting with respondents they have to pay attention towards their gestures. Also, the same thing is applicable during observation. In short, while collection of qualitative data gestures of the respondents play a very important role in understanding the responses because sometimes participants of the study are likely to manipulate their views and opinions.

Symbolic interactionism: The basic principles           

        If we talk from the point of view of symbolic interactionists they will say that emergence of the society has happened because of symbolic interactionism, and it is responsible in making society. One of the basic principles of them which says that, in social interaction peoples learn the meaning and the symbols that allow them to exercise their distinctively human capacity of thinking. If we evaluate this principle from the constructivist perspective, it can be said that the entire world has been created with this principle only. It is so because constructivists argue that the reality is constructed in human mind. Each human being constructs representation of the world in his/her mind differently. They also say that there are objects in the environment because of their existence in human mind. And this representation is constructed with the help of signs and symbols. In order to occur this representation, individuals have to interact with the environment and other people in the surroundings which is the basic principle of symbolic interactionism.

Sociological Research

        Sociological research can be categorized into three categories; positivistic, critical and interpretive. In positivistic research, sociologists employ scientific methods in order to study social phenomena. While critical approach study the phenomenon empirically and critically analyze it. On the other hand, interpretive approach is shaped by various perspectives such as socio-linguists, phenomenology, ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism. In all, symbolic interactionism is more influential in interpretative approach. Going through the ideas of other approaches of interpretative paradigm, it appears the perspectives of symbolic interactionism.

Ethnomethodology

        The same principle of how people make the meaning of their everyday world is being used to understand social life. This perspective is called “ethnomethodology” which is one of the important ways in sociological research in probing daily livings of people. There are few thinkers who say that there is no difference in ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism, for instance, Zimmerman &wieder, 1970; Gilsinan, 1973 and Perinbanayagam, 1974 & 1975. At the same, others (Denzin, 1970; Rock 1979; Petras& Meltzer 1973) believe that both are not the same (as cited in Gallant &Kleinman, 1983). The proponents of the similarity says that core of both the approaches lies in understanding the situation as an interactional matter, emphasizing the way definitions, shared meanings are worked out between people interacting with each others in a certain setting. While the ethnomethodology is concerns about the interactional matter but it treat its programme as a methodical. The term “ethnomethodology” itself suggests the meaning as 'the study of the methods of sense making and fact finding in use among the members of the society (Cuff et al., 1979; 160). The opponents of the similarity examine concepts of both the perspectives and state that their use differs from one perspective to another. So only because of the usage the opponent thinkers deny the similarity between both the paradigms. If we set aside the methodical part, it seems that both work on parallel lines. If not so, then, I would say that ethnomethodology uses the principles of symbolic interactionism in order to know social reality because ultimately they also seek to know about interaction between social actors and environment. This is one of the important contributions of symbolic interactionism to sociological research. Also, phenomenology which believes that human experiences have role in human knowledge construction over empirically collected information. This is so because, experiences are something that humans live. And experiences are something that humans gain interacting with each other and with the environment.                                            

Conclusion

        Symbolic interactionism has brought many significant perspectives to the sociological research. Conventional sociologists believed that one factors in society gives rise to another, humans has nothing to do with social change. But symbolic interactionists brought to the picture that social change occurs because of the people continuously interacting with each other and with environment. Moreover, the belief that natural science methods can be used to study social reality has been challenged by symbolic interactionists' perspectives. With the help of symbolic interactionism new ways of understanding social reality have been established. They believe that people construct social reality therefore the interaction between humans and environment should be at the heart of sociological research. Therefore, thoughts of symbolic interactionists greatly contribute to the qualitative methods of knowing about social facts.

        Issues of language and communication can be better understood by employing ideas of symbolic interactionism. They believe that language is made up of symbols and humans have been gifted with the ability to recognize and give meaning to them. They also say that if humans would not have born with this ability the world would have been confused and inextricable. People name the things in the world and are able to categorize them, hence this world becomes simple. Language plays a great role in this.

        By employing natural science methods to understand social reality, humans were considered as passive actors. But, on the other hand, symbolic interactionists claim that humans are active agents and they construct social reality. Therefore they should be at the central of the social research. Few theorists have attempted to describe human behavior with the help of experiments on lower animals. But symbolic interactionists critique this saying that humans are rationale beings and capable of thinking therefore theories of behavior may not be applicable in all situations. Also, they have placed a greater significance to emotions, feelings and attitudes of humans. There is no denial that symbolic interactionism has brought new line of thinking in sociological research.    

          

References

Gallant, M. &Kleinman, S. (1983). Symbolic Interactionism Vs. Ethnomethodology, Symbolic Interaction, 6 (1), 1-18.

Elkin, F.  (1956). Socialization and the Presentation of Self. Marriage and Family Living, 20 (4), 320-325.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Methods. London: LD, University of California Press.

Mead, G. H. (1934).Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stryker, S. (1968). Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 30 (4), 558-564.

Matsueda, R.L. (1992). Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency: Specifying a Symbolic Interactionist Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97 (6), 1577-1611.  

Musolf, G. R. (1994). Willium James and Symbolic Interactionism.Sociological Focus, 27 (4), 303-314.

Ritzer, G. (2011).Sociological Theory. New York: NY, McGraw-Hill.

Shott, S. (1979). Emotion and Social Life: A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 84 (6), 1317-1334.

Beijaard, Meijaar&Verloop (2004). Reconsidering Research on Teachers' Professional Identity.Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107-128.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson F. (1968).Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged, Scientific American.218 (4).86-98.

Cuff et al. (1979).Perspectives in Sociology. New York: NK, Routledge.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. New York: NY, Oxford University Press.