Social Interaction Approach: Strengths and Weaknesses - Essay Example

Social Interaction Approach: Strengths and Weaknesses Essay Introduction Max Weberwas one of the earliest sociologists to emphasize the value or significance of social interaction in the field of sociology. He believed that the primary objective of sociology is to examine and shed light on what he referred to as ‘social action’, a concept he applied to imply “anything people are conscious of doing because of other people” (Tischler, 2010, p. 103). According to Weber, so as to study and explain social actions, sociologists have to place themselves in the perspectives or situations of the individuals and/or groups they are exploring and try to identify their thinking, motivations, and intentions. Nevertheless, Weber’s application of the concept ‘social action’ explains merely a portion of the entire phenomena for it focuses merely on a single individual considering other individuals before taking actions. A ‘social interaction’ comprises “two or more people taking one another into account” (Tischler, 2010, p. 102). Social interaction is the relationship between these individuals’ actions. As such, social interaction is an important notion in the study of social life. This essay discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the social interaction approach. Overview of the Social Interaction Approach Social life takes place on an intimate, personal level between individuals. The social interactionist approach “focuses on how individuals make sense of, or interpret, the social world in which they participate” (Ballantine & Roberts, 2011, p. 51). Per se, this model is mainly focused on human behaviour on a personal or individual scope. Proponents of the social interaction approach criticize conflict and functional theorists for indirectly arguing that social institutions and social processes in some way have a separate existence or mechanism from their participants (Ballantine & Roberts, 2011). Social interactionists stress that the political system, the family, the educational sector, and, in fact, all social institutions are generally formed, sustained, and changed by individuals interacting with or relating to one another. The social interactionist approach involves several roughly connected approaches or theories. George Herbert Mead developed symbolic interactionism that emphasizes verbal and nonverbal language, shared rules, gestures, and signs. Harold Garfinkel applied ‘ethnomethodology’ to study and explain how individuals form, share, and communicate their understandings or interpretations of social life (Tischler, 2010). Erving Goffman made use of a ‘dramaturgical’ model wherein he views social life as a kind of theatre. Of the three major sociological approaches—functionalism and conflict theory the other two—social interactionism has gained much popularity and provides a well-developed model (Kirby, 2000). Mead created a social interactionist model called symbolic interactionism, which is “concerned with the meanings that people place on their own and one another’s behaviour” (Andersen et al., 2014, p. 19). Individuals are distinctive or one of a kind in that almost all of what they do with other people has significance, value, or meaning outside the actual action. As argued by Mead, individuals do not take action or respond spontaneously or mechanically by thoroughly and cautiously take into consideration and even go over or practice their planned action (Andersen et al., 2014). They consider the other individuals present or involved and the circumstance wherein they are in. The reactions and expectations of other individuals significantly influence the actions of every individual. Furthermore, individuals attribute meanings to things and take action or respond based on such meanings. Because nearly all human activities occur in social situations, in the company of others, an individual should appropriate or match what s/he as a person does with what other individuals in the same situation or setting are doing. Most people live thinking that others share their meanings or understandings of common social situations. Such shared meanings or understandings are the core to human interactions generally, as argued by symbolic interactionists (Ballantine & Roberts, 2011). For instance, a caregiver in a home for the aged opening a door for an elderly patient is not only allowing him/her to go to one side to another. The caregiver also is expressing a status of social authority over the patient and is holding a potent symbol of such authority, which is the key to the door. Hence, these interactions, even though they seem to be plain social actions, are filled with very symbolic social value and meanings. Such symbolic meanings are closely linked to an individual’s interpretation of what is expected or means to be as human beings. This involves an individual’s sense of identity or self—how s/he view or experience other people and their opinions of his/her; the sadness and happiness s/he feels at different social situations, and so on. Yet, social interactionism and its different branches have been criticized for failing to take into account the bigger components of society. Interactionists answer that institutions and societies are made up of individuals who intermingle or interrelate with one another and do not live separately from such central or basic components. They argue that knowledge of the mechanisms of social interaction will result in knowledge of the other elements of society. Social interactionism provides valuable ideas and knowledge of how individuals interact. Strengths of the Social Interaction Approach The social interaction approach has permanent strengths. These strong points can help sociologists differentiate or set apart their work from other disciplines and make it exceptional. To take into consideration the importance of these continuing strengths, it is vital to recognize how social interactionism has guided and invigorated empirical research. It is important to return to the seminal arguments by the pioneering pragmatists and eventually by Anselm Strauss and Herbert Blumer. Both Strauss and Blumer placed emphasis on human agency (Kirby, 2000). Both of them acknowledged that social structures are legitimated or endorsed but inflexible. And both of them studied action (Tischler, 2010). Those concerned with social interactionism usually have not recognized that Blumer’s concept of social interactionism involved both theory and method. His widely known insightful criticism of mid-20th century quantitative methodologies also comprised broad methodological standards for qualitative researchers (Ballantine & Roberts, 2011). Yet, the methodological growth of social interactionism sped up when Strauss, alongside Barney Glaser, developed the grounded theory method. Strauss and Glaser presented clear techniques for examining process and identifying agency. As their methodology became known in other disciplines, the empirical norms of social interactionism progressed with it. Social interactionism also offers intact, unused capabilities for theoretical advancement—and integration—as well as for social justice research (Andersen et al., 2014). Social interactionism has an extensive historical existence and development. It implies a process of ‘naturalistic’ analysis (Tischler, 2010). Social scientists could question the principles entrenched in the concept of naturalistic analysis, yet research activities in the empirical domain is a primary strong point of the social interaction approach. Although social interactionists make their work unique, they also try to contribute further to the understanding of the social world or social life. The pragmatist tradition of social interactionism encourages the treating of ideas as evolving, developing, or emerging through practice (Tischler, 2010). Hence, addressing empirical issues provides the intellectual means required to build or create new knowledge of the world. Even though a great deal is challenged or criticized, numerous social scientists who promote social interactionism emphasize meaning and action; treat social mechanisms as flexible, fairly uncertain and evolving; deal with interpretation and language; and take on human agency. Furthermore, how these elements of everyday life actions interrelate and differ by setting or situation. The strength of social interactionism rests in its capacity to create theories or ideas about how individuals learn to take on or fulfil specific roles and how such roles are employed in the social formation of organizations and groups (Andersen et al., 2014). Yet, if one aims to understand sociologically more complicated situations, like the emergence of bureaucratic organisations or why certain societies go through revolutionary changes, one also has to consider principles formulated by two other approaches—conflict theory and functionalism. Some argue that social interactionism has become obsolete and others argue that social interactionism did not hold a sufficiently strong argument to be binding or usable in studying and explaining human behaviour in society. Sheldon Stryker wrote an essay in the Social Psychology Quarterly about the strength and increasing significance of social interactionism in contemporary societies (Mazzotta & Myers, 2008). Stryker presents the argument that even though it may have been verified that social interactionism weakened in the 1960s and 1970s, that there was no adequately strong evidence confirming its failure, and for most of the time, sociologists and psychologists totally took for granted the works of interactionists like Mead (Mazzotta & Myers, 2008). Several individuals, like Herbert Blumer, have attempted to restore social interactionism into a more practical and usable, also experimentally verifiable model, and scholars have acknowledged the needless requirement for this type of action and the absence of determination in transforming social interactionism into another form (Tischler, 2010). As stated by John Murphy and Luigo Esposito, “the experimental complexities that Blumer believed underlie all human group life are often transformed into standardized ‘generic’ concepts simply for the sake of methodological convenience” (Mazzotta & Myers, 2008, p. 21). Another discipline wherein scholars have used social interactionism comprehensively is in the field of psychology. When one views this model in general, one can use the issue of psychology without difficulty, because of the vital elements of human behaviour and mind. For instance, it was the finding of Mead that the human mind is very complex to be explained simply by instinct (Mazzotta & Myers, 2008). The notion of ‘minding’ is a highly essential aspect of social interactionism that connects to psychology. Mead clearly argues that through language use, human beings become different from other animals. Individuals expect responses or reactions from their own actions and through the ‘minding’ mechanism, can gain power or control over their own behaviours and actions (Andersen et al., 2014). The ‘minding’ process is expressed or demonstrated in the centre of consciousness. The capacity of human beings to make use of their consciousness enables them to better respond towards their acts and make sense of other people: “Mead created an account of human behaviour, mind, and selfhood that became a significant milestone in human self-understanding” (Mazzotta & Myers, 2008, p. 21). Moreover, scholars have used social interactionism to identify and understand psychological insanity. Studies have demonstrated that social interactionism-- doubly so compared to the labelling theory-- provide a greater knowledge of the social feature of insanity. Scholars carried out a research that identified the important aspects of social interactionism that individuals assume in their societal roles (Andersen et al., 2014). At this point, researchers discovered that psychosis does not happen due to an objective attribute, but instead because a person fulfils an aspect in role taking which can fail or succeed. Some scholars argue that social interactionism offers two major inputs to insanity research—it builds up an objective and meaning for treatment and recommends potential choices for therapeutic methods (Ballantine & Roberts, 2011). Although there could be numerous commonalities between social interactionism and social psychology, some may think that there are specific differences between the two fields that have a tendency to form a border that must not be trespassed. For instance, social interactionism is rooted in an idea that human beings obtain from their environment or immediate surroundings. Social psychology instead attempts to get rid of options as to the reasons individuals do what they do (Ballantine & Roberts, 2011). As such, the field of psychology is quite forceful with a large number of outcomes and alternatives of understanding human behaviour, that it does not precisely associate with the general concept of social interactionism. Several scholars and proponents of social interactionism even mention the unawareness of psychologists before for not acknowledging the ideas of social interactionism in their written works and research (Andersen et al., 2014). Stryker argues that several of the “most explicit and perhaps most flattering” works that showed social interactionism stemmed from the “psychological wing of contemporary social psychology, which not fifteen years ago, disdained paying that attention” (Mazzotta & Myers, 2008, p. 21). Weaknesses of the Social Interaction Approach The most enduring criticism of the social interaction model is that, in emphasizing nearly all minor face-to-face or personal interactions, it takes for granted any concept of constraint and structure. In certain accounts of social interactionism, society is merely the outcome of interactions and is thus viewed as a stable instability. This form of perspective weakens any concept of structure, because that would mean several quite permanent components in society (Kirby, 2000). Because it is claimed that structural aspects are vital in determining how individuals interact, this is a major critique. Critics claim that the refusal by certain social interactionists to recognise the presence of a society beyond the direct, immediate interactions of people in fact results in a denial of the principles of social interactionism, for almost all individuals do interact based on the idea that such a thing is present (Kirby, 2000, p. 13): To suppose ‘society’ to be a fiction, to suppose that it is unorganised, and so on, is to ignore the experience of its effects amongst those we study. In other words, it is to do precisely the opposite of what symbolic [social] interactionism sets out to do. Another criticism is that social interactionism does not have the capacity to theorise power, because that is associated with a concept of a social structure. Mouzelis argues about the unsuccessful attempts of a wholly micro-focus even in making sense of every individual interaction: “Where does an interaction fit in between a few individuals (mega actions) who happen to be heads of state and whose decisions may have world-wide repercussions?” (Kirby, 2000, p. 13). Hence, interactions seem to happen in a void and society is fundamentally the outcome of such meaningful interactions. The unstated notion here is that social interactionism has a tendency to suggest that ‘society’ originates from some kind of agreement reached by means of interaction, but also through learning how to interrelate or communicate with other people and the norms for interaction by means of socialisation (Reynolds & Hernan, 1994). The first explanations of ‘race’ relations inspired and shaped by the Chicago School held that assimilation—implying the assimilation of newcomers into the societal norms and values already present—would happen without problems. When this is confirmed false, they simply claimed that the mechanism would take longer than initially predicted, instead of presenting the other explanation that these relations were distinguished by power inequalities and conflicts of interest (Kirby, 2000). Feminists have stressed that the emphasis on interactions may result in masking these inequalities, because women may interact with men in specific ways for they have not as much of power or influence than them. Such concept would be masked by an emphasis on the interaction only (Ballantine & Roberts, 2011). Several critics of social interactionism, like Ritzer and Mullins, have claimed that this theoretical approach is continuously declining—that its extinction is about to happen (Reynolds & Herman, 1994, p. 398): It is clear that the original ideas… have run their course intellectually and socially… An eventual redefinition for the boundaries of sociological social psychology appears to be the most likely outcome of symbolic interactionism’s demise. These critics believe that social interactions struggle with a hopeless illness. But there are those who forcefully oppose this unpromising prediction of the detractors. They argue that social interactionism is experiencing a process of self-renewal, primarily in reaction to its detractors. Such point of view is diversifying in a number of major branches. Conclusions Social interactionism has been a quite challenged, questioned, and criticised and hugely debated approach among theorists, scholars, and researchers since its development. George Herbert Mead’s explanation of symbols and value, importance, and meanings that individuals attribute to them has not merely been assessed on the basis of its precision and soundness or merit, but more significantly, it has been used in numerous fields of study and academic disciplines. In examining social interactionism and its focus on the issues of culture, psychology, and society within people’s daily lives, a person can have a higher knowledge or more accurate understanding of the principles of social interactionism. References Andersen, M, Taylor, H, & Logio, K (2014) Sociology: The Essentials. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Ballantine, J & Roberts, K (2011) Our Social World: Introduction to Sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kirby, M (2000) Sociology in Perspective. New York: Heinemann. Mazzotta, T & Myers, W (2008) “Language and Meaning: Symbolic Interactionism”, USC Upstate Undergraduate Research Journal, 1, 19-22. Reynolds, L & Herman, N (1994) Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: AltaMira Press. Tischler, H (2010) Cengage Advantage Books: Introduction to Sociology. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Read More