Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic Interactionism: Theory and Meaning

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory and perspective based on micro-level observations. It was developed by Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead, and its focus is the interactions and relationships between individuals of society.

The theory of symbolic interactionism emerged after functionalism and conflict theory and is different from these, as it switches the focus from large-scale social events and trends to personal interpretations and meanings.

Symbolic interactionists believe that people communicate with each other through language and symbols, and one can make sense of society through examining this. For symbolic interactionists, people are actively shaping society rather than being shaped by it (Herman and Reynolds, 1994).

All interactionists believe in the importance of everyday interactions and meaningful objects in humans’ lives. These can be material things, relationships, other people, actions and symbols.

Symbolic Interactionism: Examples of Symbols

Why are symbols so important? Let's look at some examples of symbols from the lens of symbolic interactionism.

Symbols are interpreted in the same way by all members of society, as they have a shared social meaning. In this way, they form the social values, norms and rules of society. Symbols used by social groups can also communicate certain beliefs specific to that group to the rest of society. Symbols, thus, can both create a sense of unity and a sense of diversity in society.

An example of a widely used symbol is a form of nonverbal communication, such as a salute. A salute symbolizes respect in the US and in many other countries. There might be societies in the world, however, which understand this gesture differently (Masuda et al. 2008).

Fig. 1 - A salute symbolizes respect in the US.

Sociologists argue that symbols often determine our personal relationships with others and thus separate us from animals. Family relationships and norms surrounding them come from symbolism. Through them, we ‘know’ how we should behave in the presence of a teacher vs. in the presence of our sibling, and helps us understand what we are allowed to say to our boss vs. to our uncle.

Let us now look at the work of key symbolic interactionist theorists. We will briefly look at their most important arguments. If you wish to know more about their lives and careers, you can find detailed information in our explanations under 'key theorists'.

George Herbert Mead's Symbolic Interactionism

George Herbert Mead is often referred to as the father of symbolic interactionism, even though his student, Herbert Blumer, came up with the term for the new sociological perspective.

Mead was a professor at the University of Chicago, where he did research on small-scale events and people's everyday interactions. His findings became increasingly popular as many sociologists worldwide turned away from large-scale studies that focused on grand social trends and patterns.

Mead and the Development of the Self

Mead (1934) directed the focus of his micro-sociology on the development of the self. He identified three stages of the process: the preparatory stage, the play stage and the game stage.

• The preparatory stage is the period in children’s lives when they simply imitate the family members around them. Through imitation, they learn about the symbols of society, such as gestures and words of basic human communication. An example of this is learning that waving means "hello" or "goodbye".

• In the play stage, children already understand the basic symbols of society, and they start using them and pretending to be other people. They pretend to be doctors, patients, mothers, fairy tale characters etc. as they play. Role-playing is crucial in the play stage, according to Mead.

• At the game stage, children can differentiate between social situations and relationships. They are aware of their own social position and the social position of others around them. When they interact with others, they act according to this knowledge. Mead argued that children’s behavior at this stage is affected by their awareness of what he called ‘the generalized other’.

Symbolic Interactionism: Key Sociologists

After Mead came many more influential sociologists who developed (and to a certain extent, even transformed) symbolic interactionism. We are going to discuss three key symbolic interactionist sociologists: Herbert Blumer, Charles H. Cooley and Erving Goffman.

Herbert Blumer (1900 - 1987)

Herbert Blumer was Mead’s student, credited with coining the term ‘symbolic interactionism’. He was also the one to clarify what the theory was built on. He stated that symbolic interactionism is concerned with how humans interpret the meaning of different objects and acts they come across in society (1969).

Charles H. Cooley (1864 - 1929)

Charles H. Cooley is also thought to be a founder of symbolic interactionism. He developed his theory of how people’s sense of self develops through social interactions, and argued that people develop a sense of self by interpreting the reactions of others to them. Cooley named this the ‘looking-glass self’ theory (1902). There are three stages of the development of the looking-glass self:

1. People imagine how their behavior appears to others. For example, they can think others perceive them as smart or boring.

2. People observe the reactions of others and make conclusions on how others evaluate them. For example, they may think others like them for being smart, or dislike them for being boring.

3. People develop a self-concept and start to have feelings about themselves based on how they interpret other’s reactions. For example, people might develop a positive sense of self if they realize others like them because they appear as smart.

Through the three stages, people view themselves in the eyes of others. Cooley pointed out that this process starts in childhood, but goes on for the rest of people’s lives. They continue to observe how others react to them in everyday situations and shape their sense of self.

Erving Goffman (1922-1982)

Erving Goffman also focused on symbols and the development and presentation of the self. He used dramaturgical analysis for his study of people and their interactions.

Goffman (1958) looked at people as theatrical performers, performing in their everyday lives as actors on a stage. This analogy helps us not only understand how people improvise roles in social situations, but how they present a certain image of themselves that changes according to how they interact and with whom.

For example, if we are at a party with our friends we might present a friendly, relaxed image while if we are at the bank trying to get a loan we're likely to present a serious, responsible side of ourselves.

Fig. 2 - Goffman said people perform in life as actors perform on the stage.

Constructivism and Symbolic Interactionism

Constructivism is a theory developed from symbolic interactionism. It argues that reality is simply what people make it to be through their interpretation of interactions.

Constructivists believe that people have created social constructs based on their relationship to others, and the social constructs that have lasted over time are now the symbols of society known by all members.

For example, deviance is defined in different ways in different societies. Members of each society all know what they regard as deviant and what the punishment is for it. However, their definition is a social construction based on the historical understanding of deviance in that particular community, and not an absolute definition.

Importance of Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is an extremely important perspective in sociology. It was the first sociological approach that concerned itself with the everyday and the mundane of human behavior and interaction rather than the grand patterns of society.

Symbolic interactionists point out that the narrow focus of their research makes it more valuable than other types of sociological work. They also claim that by working so closely on human relationships and communication, one adopts a subjective point of view and can produce theories from the perspective of the research subjects.

Interestingly, it is these two aspects of symbolic interactionism that draws the most criticism. Many criticize it for being too subjective, thus harming the validity of one's research. Others find issues with the extremely narrow focus of symbolic interactionist research due to issues of generalizability. They claim it is impossible to apply such small-scale studies to the whole of society.

Despite the criticism, symbolic interactionism is one of the three biggest sociological theories (alongside functionalism and conflict theory) and its significance in conducting studies and developing ground-breaking theories cannot be underplayed.