Sociological Theory of Symbolic Interactionism - Essay Example

Of Symbolic Interactionism: Its Theory, Meaning, and Impacts First and of Of Symbolic Interactionism: Its Theory, Meaning,and Impacts Introduction The theoretical concept of symbolic interactionism is a well-established sociological theory especially within the field of sociology. Perhaps like other new disciplines or approaches, symbolic interactionism is fundamentally a departure from deeply held principles of the time. Indeed, the principles salient in this sociological theory are very far from the traditional type of sociology known in the early period of the 20th century. 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 the theory of symbolic interactionism. Hewitt restates these premises in three major ways: people act on, or respond to, things, ideas, or experiences based largely from the meanings that they possess or create on such things, ideas, or experiences; the source of the meanings that people have widely comes from the interpersonal process or social interaction with others; and the meanings of things, idea, or experiences are “handled in and modified through” an interpretative process (as cited in Armstrong, 2007). By and large, the concept of symbolic interactionism as an approach rests heavily on these premises or principles. Second, Blumer stresses the sociological aspect of the theory of symbolic interactionism through his emphasis on the human side of said theory. Within the frame of symbolic interactionism, meanings or symbols are made, owned, and even modified exclusively by human beings. Thence, the centrality of this sociological theory is the person or persons themselves in creating and recreating meanings around them. Third, Blumer sees such sociological theory within the study of a specific social group of people. From the word interactionism itself, the idea of symbolic interactionism deals with the interaction that occurs between particular groups of people. Here, meanings or symbols are made and remade through the interaction or intercommunication between or among people. Fourth and fifth, Blumer regards the theory of symbolic interactionism as a study of life and conduct characterized in the human society and individual. In general, symbolic interactionism is a sociological approach in which it studies, based from its underlying principles, the creation and recreation of meanings or symbols notable in the social interaction within and of the human society or organization. Of impacts It is arguable that the theory of symbolic interactionism has impact, particularly, to the individual person and, generally, to the human society. Within the strand of intrapersonal state, the usage of symbolic-interactionism approach redefines the identity of the individual in question. By virtue of the theory’s subjectivity, the individual person is given the capacity or power, consciously or not, to alter or modify the meanings or interpretations attributed to a specific event, thing, or object. That is to say, the objective world and/or self is deconstructed and reconstructed within the mental and behavioral frameworks of said individual. Nonetheless, the intrapersonal state of a particular person is greatly dependent from the social and active interaction with others. Within the level of interpersonal process, the utilization of such sociological approach engages and, in the process, alters the interacting persons or participants in a profound manner. Symbolic interactionism as an approach pictures the social interaction between or among persons in terms of their subjective meanings or experiences (Orbuch, 1997). That is, the interpersonal process is fluid in which the participants or subjects change or modify their behavior, expression, and other physical gestures based from the meanings that are made from such interaction. On the other hand, the usage of symbolic-interactionism approach has implication to the understanding pertaining to the social structure in general. Coser cites the dilemma inherent in the paradigm of symbolic interactionism; he remarks that the theory and praxis marked in symbolic interactionism significantly blur the “understanding of social structures and their constraining characteristics or of patterns of human organization such as class hierarchies or power constellations" (as cited in Dennis & Martin, 2007, p. 287). By and large, the concept of symbolic interactionism as an approach greatly impacts the study of sociology. Since such concept is embedded in certain principles or premises, then the study of sociology using the theoretical approach of symbolic interactionism is shaped or affected by such premises. These premises, to a larger extent, create or establish the rules that govern within a certain social interaction or process. Thus, sociology is confined within the fixed system or idea outlined in the theory of symbolic interactionism. Conclusion The history of the theory of symbolic interactionism is relatively new which is traceable in the Chicago School of sociology. Nevertheless, the impact of this distinctive sociological theory is profound and wide-ranging. The emphasis of subjectivity on the meanings or symbols characterized in the human society and individual generally makes the symbolic-interactionism approach a very fascinating theory and praxis. As it appears, the objective world is discredited via the three premises prominent in said sociological theory. What is essential in symbolic interactionism is the creation and recreation of meanings to certain things, objects, or experiences. Further, the making and remaking of meanings are performed within the level of interpersonal process. Perhaps with respect to the social institution, symbolic interactionism as a theory and praxis has considerable weakness. Still, symbolic interactionism provides a valuable insight to the interaction between or among groups of people. Moreover, it empowers the individual to define or redefine his or her identity based from the meanings or symbols he or she has in relation to interpersonal process. References Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2008). Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Armstrong, K. L. (2007). Self, situation, and sport consumption: An exploratory study of symbolic interactionism. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30 (2), 111+. Blumer, H. (1968). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. London: University of California Press. Burnier, D. (2005). Making it meaning full: Postmodern public administration and symbolic interactionism. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27 (3), 498+. Dennis, A., & Martin, P. J. (2007). Symbolic interactionism and the concept of social structure. Sociological Focus, 40 (3), 287+. Harter, S. (1999). Symbolic interactionalism revisited: Potential liabilities for the self constructed in the crucible of interpersonal relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45 (4), 677. Orbuch, T. L. (1997). People’s accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 455+. Read More