Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic Interactionism is a theory of human behavior that focuses on the observable face-to-face interactions between individuals. These theories reject social behaviorism and emphasize the self as a construct arising from the interactive process of joining action. Symbolic interactionism aims to understand the social world more fully and explain the psychological mechanisms underlying political beliefs. Listed below are the main characteristics of Symbolic Interactionism.
Symbolic Interactionists view the self as a variable intervening between the antecedent events of the social world and the subsequent actions of the individual
Symbolic Interactionists believe that the self is a complex social product that develops in relation to physical reality. In other words, people don’t respond directly to physical reality; they respond to it through social definitions of the world, which have various perspectives and meanings. This view also stresses the role of the self in creating meaning in social interaction.
Using the symbolic interactionist framework, a consumer’s self concept is operationalized. For example, a consumer’s choice of a brand depends on their situational self. They attribute meaning to a brand or product, which they then communicate to others in the consumption situation. This creates a situational self that consumers would like to project onto others. In this case, the product or brand becomes a prop to the consumer’s self-image, which is a positive attribute.
Symbolic Interactionists describe the self as a “variable” that intervenes between antecedent events in the social world and the individual’s subsequent actions. As a result, the self, like any other variable, is a complex system of antecedent events, and it must be understood as such.
Symbolic Interactionists attribute the self to the social world and argue that this is how individuals interact with other people and make sense of their social world. Symbolic Interactionists claim that people are social agents and are actively shaping their own social world through communication and interactions. And because this is true, the self is a key to understanding the social world and how people make sense of it.
For Durkheim, the social facts are only real as far as an individual incorporates them. In addition, he makes clear on several occasions that individuals appropriate elements of society, including representations. Durkheim argued that collectives’ representations reflect the collective’s thought through the individual. Moreover, each individual expresses society through a different means.
They view political beliefs as a manifestation of personality
Symbolic interactionists do not focus on large structures of power and politics, but rather on the face-to-face aspects of life. The political process is primarily backroom meetings and lobbyist efforts. While the public typically sees politics through the front porch, media often sanitizes the details. However, Brooks and his co-authors claim that political beliefs reflect our underlying personalities.
Symbolic interactionists view political beliefs in part as a result of social and familial factors. Although symbolic interactionists often focus on family-related factors, they are increasingly applying this perspective across cultures. Steve Derne, for example, has studied male moviegoers in India. Moreover, their research also reveals that people have a shared sense of identity and self.
Symbolic interactionists also view political beliefs as a manifestation of personality. They view political beliefs as a result of social interaction and argue that they emerge from the way we interact with one another. Symbols, according to these thinkers, give us meaning and purpose. Using them, we can make meaning out of different situations and build a self-concept. Thus, political beliefs are a manifestation of personality, and can be explained by different cultural norms.
Symbolic interactionists also emphasize the role of perception in social problems. They are closely aligned with social constructionists and focus on the subjective nature of social problems. This means that people’s beliefs about political issues are dependent on their perceptions rather than on objective reality. They influence how we categorize social problems and how we propose solutions. Symbolic interactionists also focus on the social aspects of armed robbery and criminal tendencies, which have implications on the way we think about these problems.
They focus on observable face-to-face interactions
The symbolic interaction perspective highlights four features of human-to-human interaction. First, symbolic interactions are focused on observable face-to-face interactions. Second, symbolic interactions are grounded in the observational record of a particular event or circumstance. For example, a family might have a special reading time, or celebrate a new library card by reading a book together. And last but not least, a story told at bedtime might be considered a comforting interaction.
The second aspect of symbolic interactions is that they focus on observable face-to-human interactions. According to symbolic interactionists, social definitions of reality are constructed in relation to physical reality, and people do not respond directly to physical reality, but rather to the social understanding of it through various perspectives. In a symbolic interaction, humans do not live in a “world of objects,” but instead construct meaning through the communication process. This process leads to a self-concept, which is the motivation behind behavior.
The third feature of symbolic interactions focuses on observable face-to-face interaction. These face-to-face encounters take place within a social context. In addition to observable face-to-face interactions, symbolic interactionists emphasize how social reality is constructed through symbols and the procedures associated with the social construct. Goffman’s approach sounds more like an ethnomethodologist than a symbolic interactionist.
Social dimensions of emotional life impact individual status and identity. Face-to-face interaction is a complex social operation, replete with unacknowledged rituals, covert symbolic exchanges, and calculated strategic maneuvers. In fact, socially significant interactions take place every day. The importance of these social factors is beyond the scope of this article. The importance of symbols in face-to-face interaction cannot be overstated.
They reject social behaviorism
Symbolic Interactionism is a school of social psychology that rejects social behaviorism and advocates a model of human interaction based on symbols. The theory traces its roots to the work of American philosophers such as William James and Jacques Derrida, and it is a form of behaviorism derived from evolutionary and dialectic principles. The idea of symbolic interaction is based on the belief that people can interact with other humans through symbols and signs.
Symbolic interactionists reject social behaviorism as a scientific theory and embrace the role of individual autonomy in creating and shaping society. While social behaviorism emphasizes the determinacy of behavior, symbolic interactionists argue that the role of the self is complex and often ambiguous. Instead, the self serves as a conduit for the structures and social organizations that shape our behavior. The result is that we have little control over what others think or how we react to them.
Symbolic interactionists argue that societal structures are fundamental to human agency, but they fail to recognize how these structures constrain human behavior. Their approach to understanding social behavior is often presented in undergraduate textbooks, where some authors cite Goffman’s concept of total institutions as a justification for their’micro-level’ approach. While this is a strong point, it is a weak point in the theory.
Symbolic Interactionism is a critical reaction to the prevailing orthodoxy in social psychology. Its opponents say that social behaviorism undermines human freedom. They say that individuals create their roles and negotiate them while they interact. Furthermore, they believe that humans rely heavily on symbols to convey their intentions and emotions. Therefore, the idea of role plays a central role in this school of thought.
They extend constructivism
Symbolic interaction, also known as symbolic interactionism, is a micro-level theory focusing on the meanings that humans assign to things and experiences. According to this theory, people use symbols to communicate and create meanings that make sense of their social worlds. Symbolic interactionism traces its roots to the work of George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer in the 1920s. It is an extension of constructivism and can be applied to a wide range of human activities, from everyday interactions to the development of a complex social world.
While social world memberships provide conditional contexts for linking and coding categories, they cannot be used to simplify the process of symbolic interaction. Social worlds influence perspectives and actions, and they are valuable in understanding the process of interpretive practice. But this extension of constructivism is only a subset of the theory. In its most basic form, symbolic interaction involves the interpretation of actions and experiences. The process of symbolic interaction takes place in the present, and when these actions are interpreted by other people, they represent a social world.
Although the emergence of social media has changed how researchers analyze social media and other data, symbolic interactionism still provides a useful starting point for grounded theory methods. In this way, it is easier to apply grounded theory methods to research and evaluate new information. Nevertheless, it is important to consider the implications of using this theory. You should make sure that your research is grounded in the theory of symbolic interactionism and that it does not overreach the scope of the study.
As we know, symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that uses the concepts of social construction and cultural interactions to understand human behavior and society. As a result, it tends to be more qualitative in nature and focuses on the understanding of individual members of a social group. It is important to note that both theories are complementary to one another. The key difference between them lies in the degree of abstraction and rigor that each holds.