Symbolic Interactionalism Theory - Essay Example

? Symbolic interactionalism Symbolic interactionalism is a sociological theory that is based on the interactions of human beings as creative actors and their roles (Booth et al 2010). It suggests that a person is both active and creative (Blumer 1969). The concept was introduced by George Herbert and Herbert Blumer. This refutes the model that humans are passive in symbolic interactionalism. It occurs in social context that mediate action. Under symbolic interactionalism, there exist shared meanings in the social world. However, the shared meaning is fragile and inconstant demand of reaffirmation. Reality is constantly negotiated through social processes between the individual and the social world. Symbolic interactionalism is a leading sociological perspective. It is known to have a long history which is intellectual (Winston et al 2004). The concept was begun by Max Weber and George Mead who were German and American philosophers respectively (Petley & Richardson 2011). They emphasized that human behavior is subjective. They also asserted that pragramatism and social process are subjective. The concept of symbolic interactionalism focuses on the aspects of social life that are subjective (Fitzgerald et al 2006). This means that focus on the image of individuals rather than on the society (Booth et al 2010). Human beings are perceived to be programmatic and continue to adjust to accommodate other actors. This happens through a process of interpretation. The interpretation offers the symbolic denotation (Yoder 2011). The human actors are also seen to be symbolic objects. The process of adjusting actions is aided by the ability to develop several lines of actions before initiating an action (Hopkins & Gale 2009). It also involves developing imaginative rehearsal that lead to the alternatives. Human beings have the ability to think about their actions (Yablonsky 2000). They also have the ability to react to their own actions (Fitzgerald et al 2006). This justifies the concept that human beings are both creative and active in the process of constructing the social world (Petley & Richardson 2011). Human beings are not object of conformation to socialization (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The society consists of organized patterns of interaction (McWilliams et al 2004). The theory of symbolic interactionalism takes keen note of the physical face-to-face international between individuals (Booth et al 2010). The society also consists of the macro-level relationships which are structural in nature (Hopkins & Gale 2009). These relationships involve institutions in the society (Fitzgerald et al 2006). However, symbolic interactionalism does not focus of the structured interactions in the social institutions. The concept also focuses on the changeable norms that are being adopted through social processes (Fitzgerald et al 2006). The interactionists believe that negotiation is responsible for temporary relations who are socially constructed (Clark et al 2001). These relations are in contact flux although they have relative stability based on the fundamental framework that governs those (Fitzgerald et al 2006). It is imperative to know the role people play when it comes to negotiated reality, symbols and social construction (Flanagan et al 2002). A social theorist-Erving Goffman argues that role taking is the driving force behind symbolic interactionism the concept of taking roles allows individuals to view others perspectives (Hopkins & Gale 2009). It gives a chance to view that individual behavior might mean to others within the society (Booth et al 2010). The sociologist assumes the example of a theatre where human behavior appears to be well scripted (Fitzgerald et al 2006). The theory suggests that roles can be improvised through better scripting and use of experts (Cook et al 2001). The concept of symbolic interactionalism also involves role-making (Clark et al 2001). This is the process of ensuring that action is guided through well spelt roles and duties (Villarruel & Luster 2006). This assists in avoiding ambiguity. People can create and illusion of shared social order through interaction (Cook et al 2001). This can happen even when people do not fully understand each other and have different views (Hopkins & Gale 2009). The theory of symbolic interactionalism studies the interaction through observation and not interviews (Booth et al 2010). In order to understand the meaning of actions, it is necessary to have close contact (Denzin et al 2011). The situation itself must be defined and actors must have the ability to construct situations through interaction (Clark et al 2001). The theory has been criticized for being overly unsystematic, inconsistent and impressionistic (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The theory of symbolic interactionalism suggests that human beings act or respond on things based on the meanings attached to them (Villarruel & Luster 2006). The meaning is a function of social interaction among individuals (Hopkins & Gale 2009). The weight and depth of the meaning depends on the interpretive process (Flanagan et al 2002). A society exists on the basis of action (Lawrence 2007). Therefore, structuring must be seen as a process of bringing actions together (Booth et al 2010). These actions are from different actors within the same environment or society (Denzin et al 2011). The process of interaction involves the use of significant symbols (Korgen et al 2011). The theory asserts that individual world is developed and consists of symbols (Petley & Richardson 2011). These are abstract, physical and social objects (Denzin et al 2011). Human beings are actors who are capable of being objects of their own actions (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). This is because they have a self (Hopkins & Gale 2009). The process of self-object is developed from interaction with others (Hopkins & Gale 2009). This process entails placing oneself on others shoes (McWilliams et al 2004). An organism cans interaction with itself (Fitzgerald et al 2006). This means that it can engage in making social indications while at the same time responding to the same indications (Clark et al 2001). This happens when the actions become interpreted. The theory of symbolic interactionalism suggests that the world must be interpreted before actions can be taken (Booth et al 2010). Human behavior can be defined as repetitive, stable but evolving (Flanagan et al 2002). This process is continuous (Petley & Richardson 2011). This leads to an extended connection of behaviors that constitute the human actions (Hopkins & Gale 2009). The mentality is responsible for joint action or a form of societal organization that is responsible for bringing together diverse participants with different acts (Petley & Richardson 2011). Therefore, social acts are developed through a process of interpreting, assessing situations and confronting the noted situations by the actors (McWilliams et al 2004). Therefore, the interaction is formative in nature and participants and actors are daily interacting each other’s actions (Villarruel & Luster 2006). The conduct of the youth in the United Kingdom can be seen through the process of acting to fit in the perceived social processes (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). Social action is processed through constructs (Hopkins & Gale 2009). In the United Kingdom, the process of development of behavior is intertwined with the arrangements of people (Clark et al 2001). The interlink age of acts is expected to have caused the evolution of certain youthful behaviors (Flanagan et al 2002). The theory offers helpful insights when it comes to youths falling in crime in the United Kingdom (Hopkins & Gale 2009). The levels of crime among the teenagers have been unreasonably high (Clark et al 2001). However, adults are responsible for a larger volume of crime. The government of the United Kingdom asserted that growing out of crime is a fallacy. This was based on research. Research also indicated that the rates of crime seemed to decrease among younger youths (Villarruel & Luster 2006). Therefore, children are less likely to stop crime as they advance in age. The theory of symbolic constructionist suggests that human beings are actively involved in the society and they interacted with intentionally based on their own interpretations (Hopkins & Gale 2009). The theory offers important insight when it comes to dealing with crimes in the United Kingdom (Clark et al 2001). Raising children in an environment of vulnerability causes children to adopt antisocial behavior as a self-survival mechanism (Hopkins & Gale 2009). This means that children are expected to be entirely secure in order to have the expected social conduct (Villarruel & Luster 2006). According to the symbolic internationalism theory, children can learn self adaptation mechanism based on the nature of home environment. This can explain the social construct responsible for different conducts among children and the youths (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). Research shows that 40 percent of the children who suffered abuse are offensive (Booth et al 2010). The use of prison sentences in dealing with children and adolescent crimes is also decreasing (Fuller 2009). The youth justice system is an ever changing sociological process (Hopkins & Gale 2009). This has caused the government of the United Kingdom to introduce policy and legislation that is both transformative and responsive to the changing environment (Hopkins & Gale 2009). The role of individual actors in an environment is never static (Petley & Richardson 2011). It is keeps on changing based of the social influence and the perceived sociological rules (Clark et al 2001). The policy and practice of the government is consistent with the expectations and the influence of the social constructs among the youth (Petley & Richardson 2011). The state believes that putting the youth in friendly atmospheres is a better way of dealing with juvenile delinquency (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The theory explains that the perception of crime among the youth is an interpretive process or practice (Villarruel & Luster 2006). Therefore, the environment and the society play a major role in legitimizing and discouraging criminology. Symbolic interactionalism argues that the social world defines the evolving morals (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The legality and acceptability of human actions is subject to the endorsement and the position of the society (Clark et al 2001). The response of the society to youth conduct can promote and discourage it (Villarruel & Luster 2006). The evolution of the youthful culture that promotes crime and violence has redefined social commitments. The concept of symbolic interactionalism suggests that individual tend to be loyal to their interpretation of events or activities (McWilliams et al 2004). The behavior of individuals is actively being changed in the process of interaction with other social actors in any given society (Hopkins & Gale 2009). The meanings that youths attach to actions have a bearing on the acceptability of criminal traits (McWilliams et al 2004). The meanings developed out of active interaction are expected to impose order in the society. The social interactions are responsible for imposing order on the physical and social world (Booth et al 2010). Individuals are subjective beings (Petley & Richardson 2011). The extreme behaviors among individuals can be attributed to constructions and interpretations of sense in the social world. The inter-subjectivity can be blamed for the unprecedented youthful crime rated in the United Kingdom (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The process of conceptualising the individual behavior must address the meanings attached to every action (Villarruel & Luster 2006). This has a direct impact of the perception of crime among the youths in the United Kingdom (Hopkins & Gale 2009). According to research, the rates of crime have been falling in the United Kingdom. The influence of environment can be vividly seen in the Somali community living in London (Villarruel & Luster 2006). The community has a strong identity in the Islamic religion (Clark et al 2001). There have been sources of conflict in the handling and management of the Somali culture in exile (Pontell 2005). The older generation of Somalis is committed to the traditional culture in Somali (Korgen et al 2011). Understandably, they view Somalia as their home (Booth et al 2010). However, the younger generation is getting absolved in into the English culture, setting the stage for generational conflict (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The young people of Somali origin have been striving to adapt to the English culture (Pontell 2005). This has caused to adults to have an obsessive assimilationism to ensure their traditions and culture is not lost (Shoemaker 2009). The influence of the environment has also set a stage for conflict between the British and Somali cultures and values (Hopkins & Gale 2009). According to the theory of symbolic interactionalism, the individuals tend to interaction actively with their environment. In the process, they tend to drop some behaviors and adopt some. In the case of Somalis, the influence of the English culture among the younger generation is undeniable (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The process of educating a child and ensuring the religious roles are played in an urban set up is characterized by generational conflict (Hopkins & Gale 2009). This has given rise to a conflict between the government of the United Kingdom and the Somali community in some aspects (Clark et al 2001). The process of survival of Somalis in the United Kingdom has given rise to social reconstructions within the community (Fuller 2009). Symbolic interactionalism suggests that in role of individual actors keeps changing depending on the influence of the other characters (Villarruel & Luster 2006). Some of the actors in the United Kingdom has overly influenced by the western culture (Petley & Richardson 2011). The Somalis have been caught in a web of Cultural Revolution that is likely to define the future of social life. Research shows that the media has a profound impact in the youths (Sinno 2009). Children who spend excessive time watching violent TV programs tend to accept violence as a way of life (Hopkins & Gale 2009). Children and young adults tend to be held hostage by religion, family and culture (Booth et al 2010). This has caused the young Somalis in London to be perceived to be defiled by the liberal western culture (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). This is with regard to respect for parents, religious fanaticism, maturity and pro-activity (Furlong 2009). The Somalis in the United Kingdom are increasingly becoming active players in the social context within the UK (Petley & Richardson 2011). Somalis have been exposed to a lifestyle has is out rightly outlawed in their religion (Villarruel & Luster 2006). There has been a push to change the traditional mentality and take up new roles in the western culture (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The theory of social interactions suggests that individuals do not impose meaning upon the world (Clark et al 2001). Action is mediated in a social process that regulates the thinking and the expectation of individuals (Petley & Richardson 2011). Therefore, it might be helpful for Somalis to adapt within the London environment and evolve with the cultural changes rather that impose the Somali culture upon the British. This is likely to give birth to a shared consensus which accommodates a multiplicity of cultures and values (Petley & Richardson 2011). According to symbolic interactionalism, reality is a negotiated value (Sobral 2012). The Muslim community in the United Kingdom is increasingly coming under pressure (Petley & Richardson 2011). This has been attributed to the increase in the terrorism activities and homegrown threats (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). The diminishing cohesive identity in Britain and growing diversity has been attributed to the increased anxiety in UK (Clark et al 2001). The unearthing of terrorism activities and radicalization of Muslims in the United Kingdom has introduced unprecedented occurrences (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). Organizations are said to play a leading role in the process of radicalization (Winston et al 2004). The process of indoctrinization of individuals by movements is understood to be a means of seeking acceptance and legitimizing violence (Clark et al 2001). The radicalized youths get the fundamental beliefs that cause them to imagine they are a solution (Booth et al 2010). In the United Kingdom alone, there are 2 million Muslims. Christians form the largest group (Korgen et al 2011). Most of the Muslims has migrated and settled in the UK (Petley & Richardson 2011). Most of the Muslims are subjected to phobia and are said to be uncomfortable in the UK (Booth et al 2010). The social context in the United Kingdom has been characterized by the religious-cultural negativity which involves involved negativity, arrogance and greediness (Kauffman & Landrum 2009). This has caused the British Muslims to increasingly become inclined to precipitating a conflict between modernity and Islam (Furlong 2009). This has caused them to identify themselves along the religious lines and not British nationals (Booth et al 2010). The symbolic interactionalism theory argues that the social environment has a profound effect in the attitudes and behaviors of the young Muslims in the United Kingdom (Clark et al 2001). There is an ongoing campaign against Muslims and Islam in the United Kingdom (Villarruel & Luster 2006). This is shaping the mindset of the British Muslims (Sobral 2012). This includes turning to radicalism. In conclusion, social orders play a central role in the enhancing deviance. The social construct theory suggests that the orientation and groupthink can lead to extreme behavior especially when it is linked to religious commitment and ideology (Villarruel & Luster 2006). This has caused the government of the United Kingdom to develop counter-terrorism measures which are perceived to be anti-Islam. This involves preventing, pursuing, protecting and preparing for the extreme behavior (Hagan 2010). The focus on interaction by human beings as described by the symbolic interactions tends to suggest that human beings are active in self preservation. Human beings are creative and tend to adapt in the environment depending on their definition of reality. The Muslims has been subjected to inter-subjectivity and coexistence forces given the changing attitudes toward Muslims in the United Kingdom. References Booth, S., Goodman, S., & Kirkup, G. 2010. Gender issues in learning and working with information technology: Social constructs and cultural contexts. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Blumer , H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Humanities & social sciences, 46(7), 563-581. Clark, B., O'Reilly-Fleming, T., & O'Reilly, P. 2001. Youth injustice: Canadian perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. Cook, S., & University of Manchester 2001. Exploring the means by which social order is maintained in a tourist information office, in accordance with the assumptions of symbolic interactionalism. Manchester: University of Manchester, Dept. of Sociology. Denzin,Norman, K., & Athens,Lonnie 2011. Blue Ribbon Papers: Interactionalism: Emerging Landscape. Emerald Group Publishing. Fitzgerald, H. E., Zucker, R. A., & Freeark, K. 2006. The crisis in youth mental health: Critical issues and effective programs. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Flanagan, J. W., Gunn, D. M., & McNutt, P. M. 2002. Imagining biblical worlds: Studies in spatial, social, and historical constructs in honor of James W. Flanagan. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Fuller, J. R. 2009. Juvenile delinquency: Mainstream and crosscurrents. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Furlong, A. 2009. Handbook of youth and young adulthood: New perspectives and agendas. London: Routledge. Hagan, F. E. 2010. Crime types and criminals. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Hopkins, P., & Gale, R. 2009. Muslims in Britain: Race, place and identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. 2009. Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill. Korgen, K. O., White, J. M., & White, S. 2011. Sociologists in action: Sociology, social change, and social justice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press. Lawrence, R. 2007. School crime and juvenile justice. New York: Oxford University Press. McWilliam, E., Danby, S., Knight, J., Tayler, C., & Danby, S. 2004. Leadership in Early Childhood Education and Care: 'It's Not About Being the Boss'. Post Pressed. Petley, J., & Richardson, R. 2011. Pointing the finger: Islam and Muslims in the British media. Oxford: Oneworld. Pontell, H. N. 2005. Social deviance: Readings in theory and research. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson / Prentice Hall. Shoemaker, D. J. 2009. Juvenile delinquency. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Shoemaker, D. J. (2009). Juvenile delinquency. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Sinno, A. H. 2009. Muslims in Western politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Sobral, A. 2012. Opting out: Deviance and generational identities in American post-war cult fiction. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Villarruel, F. A., & Luster, T. 2006. The crisis in youth mental health: Critical issues and effective programs. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Vose, R. J. 2009. Dominicans, Muslims, and Jews in the medieval crown of Aragon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Winston, R. M., Wilson, D. E., & Smithsonian Institution 2004. Human. London: DK Pub. . Yablonsky, L. 2000. Juvenile delinquency: Into the 21-st century. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Yoder, R. S. 2011. Deviance and inequality in Japan: Japanese youth and foreign migrants. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Read More