1.3 Theoretical perspectives  (Page 6/27)

Symbolic interactionisttheory

Symbolic Interactionism provides a theoretical perspective that helps scholars examine the relationship of individuals within their society. This perspective is centered on the notion that communication—or the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is how people make sense of their social worlds. As pointed out by Herman and Reynolds (1994), this viewpoint sees people as active in shaping their world, rather than as entities who are acted upon by society (Herman and Reynolds 1994). This approach looks at society and people from a micro-level perspective.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered one of the founders of symbolic interactionism, though he never published his work on it (LaRossa&Reitzes 1993). It was up to his student Herbert Blumer (1900–1987) to interpret Mead's work and popularize the theory. Blumer coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and identified its three basic premises:

1. Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things.
2. The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society.
3. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters (Blumer 1969).

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class difference, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message. The focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922-1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis    . Goffman used theater as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” Because it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, he or she has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds (Goffman 1958).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Criticism

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.

Summary

Sociologists develop theories to explain social events, interactions, and patterns. A theory is a proposed explanation of those patterns. Theories have different scales. Macro-level theories, such as structural functionalism and conflict theory, attempt to explain how societies operate as a whole. Micro-level theories, such as symbolic interactionism, focus on interactions between individuals.

Short answer

Further research

People often think of all conflict as violent, but many conflicts can be resolved nonviolently. To learn more about nonviolent methods of conflict resolution check out the Albert Einstein Institution (External Link)

References

Allan, Kenneth. 2006. Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Broce, Gerald. 1973. History of Anthropology . Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company.

Calhoun, Craig J. 2002. Classical Sociological Theory . Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Durkheim, Emile. 1984 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society . New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, Émile. 1964 [1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method , edited by J. Mueller, E. George and E. Caitlin. 8th ed. Translated by S. Solovay. New York: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1958. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre.

Goldschmidt, Walter. 1996. “Functionalism” in Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 2 , edited by D. Levinson and M. Ember. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Herman, Nancy J. and Larry T. Reynolds. 1994. Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology . Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Irving, John Scott. 2007. Fifty Key Sociologists: The Formative Theorists . New York: Routledge.

LaRossa, R. and D.C. Reitzes. 1993. “Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies.” Pp. 135–163 in Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach , edited by P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. New York: Springer.

Maryanski, Alexandra and Jonathan Turner. 1992. The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1998 [1848]. The Communist Manifesto . New York: Penguin.

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays and Addresses . London: Cohen and West.

Parsons, T. 1961. Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory . New York: Free Press.

Spencer, Herbert. 1898. The Principles of Biology . New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Turner, J. 2003. The Structure of Sociological Theory. 7 ^th ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.