Social Interaction in the Light of Symbolic Interactionism - Essay Example

Social Interaction in the Light of Symbolic Interactionism It has aptly been stated that the discipline of Sociology vehemently concentrates upon studying human behaviour in group life; consequently, social interaction maintains central place in Sociology. Sociologist theorists pay due heed to discovering the patterns of interaction between two or more individuals, which certainly are meaningful for the group members involved into interaction. Researches have been conducted and theories have been articulated in order to examine the variation in human attitude and behaviour while interacting with different people as well as at different situations and occasions. Structural functionalism declares society as an organic whole, where a strong and integrated structure is dependent of adequate functioning of all the social institutions and organizations. Similarly, conflict theory opines struggle between the classes as the pivotal point behind all the developments and transformations taking place in group life. On the contrary, symbolic interactionism views applying of signs, gestures, expressions and body language as most important one during people’s communication with one another. Hence, words, symbols and gestures not only convey the message of one individual to others, but also determine and decide the reaction of others on the foundations of words, expressions and body language delivered during the interaction process. Inspired by renowned psychologist theorist George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer articulated symbolic interaction theory in 1937. Mead had first coined the doctrine of psychological behaviourism. “For Mead, the unit of study is the “act”, which comprises both overt and covert aspects of human action. Within the act, all the separated categories of the traditional, orthodox psychologies find a place. Attention, perception, imagination, reasoning, emotion and so forth, are seen as part of the act.”1 (Meltzer, 1978: quoted in Ritzer, 2007: 298) Symbolic interactionism states that all sets of social norms, cultural values, religious rituals, traditions, customs and conventions etc are actually the determined patterns of behaviour, which guide the humans to act and react according to the situation. “Symbolic interactionists, as their name implies, place enormous emphasis on the capacity of humans to create and use symbols. In contrast to other animals, whose symbolic capacities are limited or non-existent, the very essence of humans and the world that they create flows from their ability to symbolically represent each other, objects, ideas, and virtually any phase of their experience.”2 (Turner, 1978:327) Almost the same theoretical framework has been presented by Harold Garfinkel under the title ethnomethodology, where the approach seeks to “study the methods in and through which members concertedly produce and assemble the features of everyday life in any actual, concrete, and not hypothetical or theoretically depicted setting.3 (Garfinkel 1988:137) Thus, ethnomethodology maintains close affinity with symbolic interactionism, and draws out conclusions by observing the actions and expressions of he individuals engaged in one type of social interaction or the other in an empirical manner. In other words, ethnomethodology investigates the meanings and message of an act or behavior by testing its validity on various occasions in admit its status at universal or regional scale. For instance, smile and frown are universal symbols of interaction as the former is taken as a sign of goodwill, while the other is regarded as the symbol of anger and displeasure all over the world. Somehow, there exist several gestures and symbols that give different meanings to different cultural groups. For instance, males’ act of shaking hand with females is a symbol of mannerism in western societies; on the contrary, it serves as a taboo in the Gulf region. Similarly, the Japanese put off their shoes before entering the rooms, though performing the same could be ridiculous for the British. Somehow, crying, beating, laughing, getting worried and other gestures maintain universality in their nature and scope. The same could be observed by examining different processes of social interaction by visiting a public place. I personally got an opportunity of visiting the sea-beach last Sunday, where I found a young lady waiting for someone quite anxiously. She was walking down at the beach here and there with an envelope in hand. Her restlessness could be associated with the restless waves of the ocean, and depicted her concern about some grave matter. After few minutes, she managed to take rest at a lonely bench, unfolded the envelope and got a two- page paper out of it. As she started going through its context, tears started flowing from her deep eyes. It appeared as if she was absorbed in every word written on it. She kissed the letter and embraced it with unabated feelings of affection and attachment. Hence, the words meant a lot for her, and the observer could also note her intentions and emotions through the expressions she exhibited. It exhibited, in the eyes of an ethnomethodologist, the universal symbol of adoration and admiration on her part. “The symbolic interaction perspective is based on how humans develop a complex set of symbols to give meaning to the world”4 (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). In the meanwhile, a young man appeared at the beach; his eyes were searching someone. Within a while, he was able to find the girl busy in reading the letter. As he went closer to her, he addressed her by her name. As soon as the girl heard his voice, she rose from the bench and embraced her with unflinching passion and fervour. Both the lovers were crying on the meeting, which turned the scene vehemently sentimental and soppy. Both of them sat side by side, and remained dumb silent for the next several minutes. Their eyes were speaking and communication to each other, and giving the message that gestures and symbols were the determined ways of interaction. Consequently, Mead’s behavioural approach turns out to be effective in describing the significance of gestures during interaction. “Mead drew on behaviorist theory to argue that behavior is based on a pattern of stimulus and response, but added that, in the case of human behavior, the mind intervenes between the stimulus and the response to provide for increasingly complex forms of action.”5 (Ritzer, 2007: 52) During the conversation between the two lovers at the beach, the girl delivered some unpleasant words, which also turned the man infuriated. His expressions displayed displeasure and annoyance, and also expressed his anger towards her. It proved the validity of the interactionists’ doctrine that words and symbols regulate human reaction and behaviour. “Human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions. This mediation is equivalent to inserting a process of interpretation between stimulus and response in the case of human behavior”6 (Blumer, 1969: 180) Somehow, after the man’s anger, the girl started calming him down, and the man also reacted in a pleasant manner, which paved the way towards the reconciliation between the two. “Since actors possess extensive symbolic capacities, they are capable of: (a) interjecting new objects into situations, (b) redefining situations, and (c) realigning their joint situations.” (Turner, 1978: 405) The same state of affairs took place in the incident above-mentioned that endorses the doctrine elaborated in the doctrine of ethnomethodology. The same evening, during my stay at the beach, I found a white boy winking his eye on an Asian man. The Asian responded in the same mode by blinking his eye too. On receiving the positive response from the Asian, there could be seen excitement and joy in his eyes. Eventually, the white boy approached the Asian, and started exhibiting womanish coquettes in a feminine style. The Asian was amused by his gestures. Somehow, when the boy enquired about time and place for dating from the man, it aroused the Asian’s resentment, who squeezed him by the collar and started abusing him with great fury. The white boy was shocked at this, as the entire situation was absolutely unexpected and incomprehensible one for him. He also started calling him by names, and hue and cries captured the attention of the passers-by. The people encircled both the quarrelling persons, and separated the two from each other. Both of them were still angry and were busy in rebuking each other in extreme ferocity. The man blamed that the boy was seducing him by inviting him towards homosexuality. Since his faith did not allow him cohabiting with a male, the boy had evil mind and condemnable intentions. On the other hand, the boy pleaded guilty and argued that he was called by the man after giving consent to the invitations and thus, he himself had sexual intentions in mind. Thus, each of them was trying of justify his view point, and was blaming the other. I noticed the entire situation, and subsequently came to the conclusion that the Asian’s lack of information and knowledge about gay culture had been in vogue in the western societies of the USA, Australia and Europe, though the same had been an issue of humiliation and shame in most of the Asian and African states. Consequently, he was unable to comprehend with the motives behind the adventures the boy had planned. Since it was the gesture popular in the local region, but not the universal one in nature, the incident invited quarrel and ended in fiasco at last. To conclude, it becomes evident that symbolic interactionists and ethnomethodologists had presented the analytical approaches of examining individual and collective human behaviours, which provide a complete picture of the motives, emotions, feelings, perception and thoughtfulness regarding the attitude, action and reaction of the individuals at large. The theories not only apply on everyday social interaction of the individuals, but also wide open the horizons of thoughtfulness and wisdom for the researchers and theorists alike. Both the theories, discussed-above, vehemently explore that the human behaviour is entirely dependent of already established code of activities, which everyone understands and acknowledges particularly in case of regional norms, values, mores and taboos. Similarly, universal gestures, symbols and signs are also acknowledged at global level, though regional and local symbols sometimes create problems and difficulties for the foreigners and outsiders. Bibliography 1. Meltzer, Bernard. Mead’s Social Psychology In Jerome Manis and Bernard Meltzer (eds.), Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology 3rd Edition (Boston: Allyn and Bacon: 1978) 15-27 2. Turner, Jonathan H. The Structure of Sociological Theory. (The Dorsey Press Homewood, Illinois. 1978) 130-410 3. Garfinkel, H. Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order, Logic, Reason, Meaning, Method, etc. in and as of the Essential Quiddity of Immortal Ordinary Society (I of IV): (An Announcement of Studies. Sociological Theory 6: 1988) 103–9. 4. LaRossa, R., and Reitzes, D. C. Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies. In Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach, ed. P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. (New York: Plenum. 1993). 5. Ritzer, George. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. 3rd editions. St. Louis: (McGraw-Hill 2007) 290-368 6. Blumer, Herbert Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method University of Michigan, (Prentice Hall 1969/2010) 21-276 Read More