Sociology Theory of Symbolic Interactionism - Essay Example

For one, symbolic interactionists highly consider the importance of subjective meaning within any kind of human interaction or intercommunication. Evidently, the principles marked in symbolic interactionism generate implications particularly to the study of sociology. This paper briefly traces the history of the concept of symbolic interactionism. Further, it discusses the definition of symbolic interactionism given by Herbert Blumer. And finally, the paper examines the impacts of symbolic interactionism to three prominent strands or levels, namely, intrapersonal state, interpersonal process, and social institution.

Of history The emergence of the term “symbolic interactionism” basically originates from Herbert Blumer of the University of Chicago; it was in the 1930s when Blumer coined such term and, from there, established the key concepts or principles attributed to present-day symbolic interactionism (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008). It is strange, though, that Blumer (1968) describes his coinage as “somewhat barbaric neologism” (p. 1). Of course, every new word -- neologism is derived from the Greek language which means “new word” -- is strange or foreign especially to people who are not accustomed or familiar to it.

Nevertheless, the barbaric description is far from being scholarly. Perhaps Blumer chooses the signifier “barbaric” in describing his new sociological theory for the reason that such theory or concept emphasizes the subjectivity of persons with regard to certain symbols or meanings. In the process, the “barbaric” aspect of symbolic interactionism is rightly construed by the fact that such theory critically opposes the dominant thoughts (i.e., objectivity) marked in the early 20th century.

On the other hand of the scale, Blumer (1968) highly considers George Herbert Mead to be the central figure who “laid the foundations of the symbolic interactionist approach” (p. 1). Like Blumer, Mead is associated to the University of Chicago. Mead is famous for his idea of symbols or meanings as shared by many people or minds. Especially in the realm of language, he argues that symbols and their meanings are constructed and reconstructed -- in essence, shared -- by interacting persons. Similar to other symbolic interactionists, Mead views the individual human self as a social construction in which it is “crafted through the linguistic exchanges” (as cited in Harter, 1999, p. 677). However, Blumer (1968) still holds that he is the one who developed or expounded the full version of such sociological theory in spite of Mead’s being the “founder” of symbolic interactionism (p. 1). Generally speaking, symbolic interactionism is historically traceable to the “Chicago School” of sociology (Burnier, 2005).

Of theory Blumer (1968) categorically defines the concept of symbolic interactionism as a “distinctive approach to the study of human group life and human conduct” (p. 1). In order to fully appreciate this definition, there are five key elements that need to be emphasized and discussed: (1) approach, (2) human, (3) group, (4) life, and (5) conduct. First, Blumer views the theory of symbolic interactionism as an approach in studying a particular phenomenon salient in human society. As an approach, there are several premises, ideas, or frameworks that constitute such an approach or methodology; and these premises or frameworks are the fundamental principles that make-up