Symbolic Interaction Theory - Essay Example

165427 Out of the many social interaction theories, perhaps the most interesting theories are the symbolic theory and common sense world theory andthis study traces the differences presented by these two important theories. Symbolic theory had been prominent for a long time now, while Common Sense world theory became known comparatively recently. Since then, it has been accepted by a large number of social scientists as one of the main theories of social interaction. SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONAL THEORY The Symbolic Interactional theory argues that the entire structure of society depends on how people interact with one another. It is important how they approach, respond, reflect and connect to each other and influence one another. Other issues are not of importance as they remain based on the interaction of people. This is considered to be a 'bottom up' approach where sociologists of this theory are actually micro sociologists. They hardly have any interest in institutions or structures. They are totally unconnected with the rigid framework or conflicts of society. This is an entirely different theory purely based on human interactions. It is in no way connected with the other theories. They say that change is a dynamic feature of the society and interaction brings change into it. According to this theory, change is constant and it is not the result of a few conflicts. Change is a continuous process. Conflicts might happen once in a way, and the result could be violent or unexpected. Repercussions might go out of hand and might not happen in the way it was presumed. Change cannot depend on spurts of conflict and then go cold again waiting for another such conflict. Future of the human society depends on present and future social interaction while its foundation rests on past interaction. These interactions decide the nature and development of human society. Society is created by people who live and act in it and there is no society without human interaction. The social institutions that are so highly respected by functionalists are merely human creations at every stage of societal evolvement. On the whole this theory is appreciated by most of the sociologists. As this theory is based on human interaction, this is a very useful theory in social research, family research and psychological researches. Human interaction being a very pertinent field of human development, it is necessary to understand a human being from the perspective of his social abilities and interactions with family members, peers, colleagues or with the larger society. This shows the importance of Man, who is supposed to have related to herd mentality in earlier days, as a part of societal relationships and this theory has given many variables dependent and independent both, to psychologists and family sociologists. "From the standpoint of a sociological theory of the family this premise asserts investigations of a familial role expectations as a dependent variable, or studies which relate to familial role expectations as independent variable to the structure of the self as dependent variable as incomplete," Striker (1968, p.558). Without human interaction with one another, according to this theory, there is hardly any growth or change in society. This means, isolated humans will not be able to bring in any change or conflict into society. They simply live their isolated lives in blissful loneliness. At the same time, it is impossible to live in total isolation. Well, we all have heard of Robinson Crusoe, but we also know that he continuously had tried to reach back the civilisation. He did not stay back in the island, defying the civilised world, because he needed societal interaction and the comfort of sharing life with others. Alfred Schultz theory of 'the common sense world' Alfred Schultz belonged to the Austrian school and is widely appreciated for having tried "a highly original and complex synthesis between the interpretive philosophy of Max Weber, the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and elements of the thought of Henri Bergson and William James, and he is indeed one of the most influential sociologists of the twentieth century" Kurrild-Klitgaard (2003). Till recently his theory was relatively unknown, but became important as soon as it became known. A synthesis of Sociology and phenomenology, even though he was not the first thinker to attempt it, Shultz' theory became successful because of his uncanny ability to combine philosophy, sociology and sociological approach which is considered to be a radical departure from earlier rather repetitive philosophical attempts that went nowhere in the maze of social interaction theories. He wanted to lay the foundation of a phenomenological sociology and this approach is very different from any other social or social interaction theories. His theory starts with the world of daily life and a fully awake, functioning man in it. This world is an intersubjective world which existed even before this person is born and people are privileged by the 'knowledge at hand' because the knowledge is already there before the child is born and is readily available for the child. Before Shultz, theorists did not think about society from the nature's point of view. Theory connects the human being to the nature and atmosphere around him and starts with how they respond to one another. If Symbolic theory mainly concentrates on how humans respond to each other, this theory is grounded upon how people respond to nature and vice versa. It also depends on how humans perceive their surroundings, how they take it for granted, how they use it, how they respond to it and to what extent the surrounding world of nature responds to humans in different ways. Man is placed in a natural world and he is also placed in a social world. No doubt, he can change his society or surrounding nature if he chooses to another one. But if the human society and natural world are looked at in their entirety as two separate unbroken entities, he cannot choose either nature or society. Wherever he goes he will still be part of the same society and nature. This is a totally different, almost ecological perspective of society and nature both. It is not only the nature that pre-exists and post-exists humans, but also the society too does the same. From this point of view, society and nature attain almost the similar position. Hence, humans are in a biographically determined position. His theory is grounded on sound nature philosophy unlike the Symbolic theory. Man uses the 'stock of knowledge' that he inherits from nature and society in his day-to-day life as the basis of his common sense that is absolutely essential for his living a socially acceptable life and work towards his success. Without this common knowledge that is bestowed upon him, it would have been difficult for him to face everyday situations. Symbolical interactions talk about the real interaction between people, but do not go into depth about the origins of those interactions and forces that have influenced them in past and are influencing them in present. Shultz' theory seems to be more grounded, more practical and at the same time much more profound than any other theories, mainly because it renders a clear perspective to man's social interactions by establishing their origin from the natural world. He also places man not only in the society, but also in the world of nature. He does not say that society is an absolute necessity for man even though he is living in it, interacting with fellow human beings. Instead, he emphasises the importance of nature in the life of humans. In today's parlance, this could be noted as the ecological living of man. There are many differences between the two theories. Unlike symbolic theory, this theory cannot be used in family research, but can be used in ecological research and researching the mental landscape of man as against the ecological landscape. Symbolic theory is used as a label for a particular approach to study human group life and society as against the human conduct. Here society and human groups are taken as the result of human conduct. Shultz's theory says the opposite when it gives extraordinary importance to the pre-conceived notions that affect the human conduct. Human conduct is already the result of human activities and collective culture amassed by the previous generations and human conduct is not so individualistic, because it is highly influenced by the past, which was actually the present of previous generations. From that view point, Symbolic theory is more individualistic as it takes human behaviour and interactions on face value as being created by the person himself. Shultz takes it as a continuing saga of human experiences in this world, the benefit of which we have taken from the earlier people, and again that experience will be added to our own experience to be passed on to the next generation. There is no continuity in symbolism. It does not talk about the unbroken chain of human existence on earth. It talks about human interactions individually when the person is alive. It has nothing to do with passing on or inheriting those interactions. Symbolic has a more methodical position because it rests on three premises. First, humans act against physical things as they mean to them, or as they use these things. Secondly, meaning of such uses came from interactions with other people. Thirdly, these meanings could be modified or altered according to individual preferences or plans. This is not so in Shultz who says meanings came to us from the previous experiences and man's interaction with the natural world. Symbolic interaction could be connected with ethnographic research, whereas Shultz will not be useful there. Symbolist view depends on the best perspective of human conduct, with central ideas of perspective, attitudes and behaviour and in contrast with other social perspectives; this is the only theory that gives primary importance to human conduct. Social objects have symbols and they are meaningful and significant. Symbols are connected with social reality and human social life of the individual. In this theory self is considered to be a social object with stages of self development. Self is also an ever-changing social object. Self is important in self-perception, self-control, self-Direction etc. "...a perspective is attached to interaction and to various groups with which the individual identifies. Individuals interact with many others, individuals take on many perspectives; therefore, any given object can be defined in a number of ways, not one," Charon (1979, p,23). These are very different from the Schulz theory. Schulz's theory starts as a pure theory of social reality in the face-to-face situation, and instead of self, 'we' exist here. Social relations are directly connected with the outer world. They are also the transition from direct to indirect experience of social reality. 'They' relationship exists here and contemporary is the ideal type. World of predecessors and the historical problems still have a say in present day world and perhaps this theory is not as rational as the symbolic one. Citizen is considered to be a well-informed one equipped with earlier knowledge and the social distribution of it. There might be a slight problem of reality compared to the other theory. Social world and its structurilization are taken for granted here, whereas Symbolism does not care much about structures. To a large extent even the world is taken for granted as a necessity of continuous and ever-available existence. Talking of postulate of logical consistency and postulate of compatibility, he says: "These postulates give the necessary guarantees that social sciences do in fact deal with the real social world, the one and unitary life-world of us all and not with a strange fancy-world independent of and without connection to this everyday life-world. To go further into the details of the typifying method seems to me one of the most important tasks of a theory of action." Shultz (1976, p.19). The differences are many. Still we cannot escape the fact that both are correct from their standpoint. Common sense theory lends more credence to past, while Symbolic theory gives more significance to the present. It shows very small interest in future. For modern times, perhaps this theory is more suitable. But the theory that holds a lot of truth in it is the Common Sense theory. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Brodersen Arvid (1976), Alfred SChutz, Collected Papers, Studies in Social Theory, Martinus Nicjhoff, The Hague. 2. Charon, Joel M. (1985), Symbolic Interactionism, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 3. Kurrild-Klitgaard (2003), THE VIENNESE CONNECTION: ALFRED SCHUTZ AND THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL, THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS VOL. 6, NO. 2 (SUMMER 2003): 35-67, p.35. 4. Striker, Sheldon, Identity Salience and Role Performace, The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction theory for family research, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 30, No. 4. (Nov., 1968), pp. 558-564. 5. Schultz, Alfred (1967), The Phenomenology of the Social World, North Western University Press. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/soc/s00/soc111-01/IntroTheories/Functionalism.html 2. Read More