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.
