Symbolic Interactionism in Healthcare - Research Paper Example

Section/# Symbolic Interactionism in Healthcare Chapter 9 of the text book presented the with a broad range of health and healthcare issues. One of the most salient ones that were discussed with respect to the current era and the gradual implementation of the Affordable Health Act, also known as Obamacare, was the way in which universal health coverage integrated or could potentially integrate within a society. The social ill that the Affordable Health Care Act sought to speak to was of course the fact that a large percentage of the citizens of the United States were going without adequate healthcare coverage. Although the effective passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act in 2009 sought to speak to such a need, there still exist many disenfranchised members within the system. As such, the social problem that was evidenced most specifically within Chapter 9 is the fact that not all members of society have equal access to healthcare and/or medical care. As a means of analyzing such a situation under the lens of a particular theory, this brief analysis will seek to do so under the lens of symbolic interactionalism. By doing this, it is the hope of this author that the baseline of understanding for why society behaves in the way it does and what drives it to seek such ends will be made more clearly manifest to the reader. Firstly before delving too deeply into the topics of healthcare and the broad societal disparities that exist with relation to its availability, it is necessary to come to an understanding of the theory of symbolic interactionism. As such, the author of this piece will define symbolic interactionism as a social constructionist approach to defining social life. Moreover, it is a theory that attempts to place a level of focus on the means by which reality is constructed. This is ultimately carried out by understanding the construction of reality through the lens of actor’s relationships and interactions with other members of society. In such a way, the reader and/or researcher can understand such a theory to place a very high level of emphasis on the active role that the participant within society plays with the other shareholders that he/or she affects and interacts with. Another fundamental concept of understanding is with relation to the way in which those that ascribe to the symbolic interactionism approach ideas based solely upon how they define the present situation. Due to the fact that reality is based upon interactions with other members of society and approaches to issues are made based upon the present situation, the reader can understand the at its core, the most fundamental aspect of symbolic interactionism is the person to person experience that defines this reality. The old expression of no man (or woman) being an island unto themselves of course comes to mind as each and every decision as well as the means by which an individual understands that reality in which they live are all based upon the day to day interactions and subsequent understandings of these interactions that the user perceives. The reader can further understand symbolic interactionism to be highly relevant in terms of the means by which issues such as healthcare and the universality of health coverage should be applied to the shareholder within society. Calvin Cooley once referred to this particular concept of symbolic interactionism as the “looking glass self” (Carlson 458). This was the result of the fact that the concept that has thus far been presented encourages one to look at themselves and key issues in the way that society sees these issues. As a result of this point of view, society and the individual self actualize in something of a mutual role. With respect to healthcare and its application and understanding, the very same concept of symbolic interactionism is duly manifest. However, before delving too deeply into symbolic interactionism and its determinant forces upon the application and understanding of healthcare within society, it is necessary for the reader to understand the five central ideas behind symbolic interactionism. By understanding these concepts, it is possible for the reader and/or researcher to come to a more broad and inclusive understanding of the means by which symbolic interactionism helps to define the landscape of healthcare understanding and provision. As such, the very first central idea behind symbolic interactionism states that at his/her very core, the human being is a highly social person (Hall et al 18). Though this may seem as something quite obvious, this is the central and core issues that helps to define social interactionism and places a strong influence on the way that actualization and interaction between members of society takes place. Within the field of healthcare and healthcare provision, this construct is of perhaps even more importance than in regards to other social issues. This is due to the fact that within the field of healthcare key elements of empathy and other human emotions are engaged in ways that they would not be realized within other fields of practice. On an even more basic level, one can understand this social construction to be one that is based on something of a quid pro quo status. As human beings, the actions that are taken almost invariably depend on the actions that others have taken at some previous point; or the actions that they are expected to take a later point in time. In this way, a type of cause and effect relationship within healthcare is defined. Likewise, the second determinant defines symbolic interactionism as a system whereby the human must be understood as a salient and thinking entity. Whereas the first determinant which has been discussed placed a high level of focus upon the social nature of the individual and a cause and effect type of relationship that is defined in everyday life, the second determinant of symbolic interactionism defines the human being as a thinking being; capable of complex thought and reaction based upon the different stimuli that they receive. Whereas the first determinant risked overemphasizing the responsive role that the actor plays within society, the second determinant focuses upon the interaction that takes place within the individual in the form of thinking and ongoing conflict and resolution of a litany of different factors. Although symbolic interactionism runs the risk of making the actor within society as something of a helpless figure tossed around by the waves of societal thinking and change, this second determinant helps to engage the reader and/or researcher with the understanding that regardless of the effects that the external forces can have upon the individual within symbolic interactionism, humans at their core are rational and thinking beings. As such, they are prone and likely to engage in rationally influenced thoughts that help to define and categorize the influences within society and within themselves. With regards to the understanding of healthcare within such a frame of reference, the reader can understand that socially constructed understandings of healthcare are not the main motivators. Instead, it is the individual as the core component of society, as a thinking and rational being, that helps to form the broader understandings of how healthcare relates to them and how it should relate to society as a whole. The third determinant of symbolic interactionism is the understanding that humans oftentimes do not sense and/or understand their environment directly; rather, they oftentimes define the situations they integrate with. This draws attention to the fact that even though a verifiable and real environment may exist, what is of far greater importance is how it is perceived by the actor. Moreover, drawing upon the other determinants of symbolic interactionism that have thus far been mentioned, the definition is most appropriately drawn from how the individual perceives the environment or situation based upon influences from society or their own cognition of reality. With relation to healthcare and the means by which it is provided to the individual and society, this particular aspect of symbolic interactionism is of a high value and level of importance. This is of course due to the fact that the overall predictability of the way in which a person will believe or think with regards to healthcare cannot accurately be predicted due to the many different ways in which reality is constructed within the mind of the shareholder. Regardless of whatever predictive model is utilized, definition in and of itself is a result of both interaction and thinking; placing two unknowns into each and every equation. The fourth determinant of human action within symbolic interactionism is the impact that the present time has on society as well as the individual. Although human understanding and experience can be defined as the total of all interactions and knowledge that has been gained, the fact of the matter is that symbolic interactionism places a higher premium upon the most recent and even present interactions that take place. It is believed that within this fourth determinant, the ultimate reality of a situation is determined by what takes place within the present time (Tower 41). Although it is unwise to disregard past inputs and understandings with respect to how they will impact the shareholder, seeking to uphold these past determinants to the same level that current ones are considered would be equally foolish. With respect to the healthcare profession and the application and understanding of healthcare within society, the results of this fourth determinant can well be seen in the way that broad swaths of society came to understand the prescient need to refocus and redefine the current healthcare system that had existed within the United States for many years. In such a way, the most powerful determinants that impacted upon the understanding of the system and what needed to be changed at that time were of course found in the present. The fifth and final determinant that this brief analysis will consider will be that of the fact that humans are considered active beings in relation to the environment within which they interact. In this way, social interactionism avoids utilization of terms such as responding, controlled, conditioning, imprisoned and/or formed. The reason for this is that such understanding of the humans’ relationship to the environment and society are not informed based upon an active role; rather, they represent passive understanding of the role within which humans interact within society. Due to the fact that symbolic interactionism places a high level of focus upon the means by which the individual relates to and impacts upon their environment, such terms are not appropriate mechanisms that adequately describe the components of what has thus far been described (Licqurish & Seibold 12). With regards to the healthcare industry, one can aptly see the means by which such an active participatory role has been realized with regards to how voters integrate with the government on such issues as well as how patients integrate with doctors and nursing staff with regards to the application of their own healthcare. As the fundamental shareholders within such a process, it only stands to reason that the individual and society as a whole will respond in an active way to a subset of issues that so directly impacts upon their quality of life. As a function of the issues that have herein been discussed, the reader can easily note that the means by which the individual understands healthcare and interacts with it are both determined as a result of current societal understands, interactions, and the means by which rational thought defines the current environment. Such an understanding is of course of great importance to seeking to further understand the healthcare system and the means by which healthcare is provided to all of the shareholders within the system due to the fact that it is one of the few issues in life that can impact each and every member of society in very much the same way and by the same means. As a function of this equality of interaction, the model which has been chosen for this research is perhaps the best sociological theory of all the define it and draw inference upon the means by which the individual and society interact. Works Cited Carlson, Elisabeth. "Precepting And Symbolic Interactionism - A Theoretical Look At Preceptorship During Clinical Practice." Journal Of Advanced Nursing 69.2 (2013): 457-464. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. Hall, Helen, Debra Griffiths, and Lisa Mckenna. "From Darwin To Constructivism: The Evolution Of Grounded Theory." Nurse Researcher 20.3 (2013): 17-21. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. Licqurish, Sharon, and Carmel Seibold. "Applying A Contemporary Grounded Theory Methodology." Nurse Researcher 18.4 (2011): 11-16. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. Tower, Marion, Jennifer Rowe, and Marianne Wallis. "Investigating Patients' Experiences: Methodological Usefulness Of Interpretive Interactionism." Nurse Researcher 20.1 (2012): 39-44. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 3 Apr. 2013. Read More