Symbolic interactionism (racial and ethnic issues)
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological framework that emphasizes the role of symbols and meanings in human interactions and behavior. Originating from the work of George Herbert Mead and further developed by his student Herbert Blumer, this perspective posits that individuals act based on the meanings they ascribe to their experiences, which are shaped through social interactions. In the context of racial and ethnic issues, symbolic interactionism explores how separate social groups develop distinct cultures and sets of rules that can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts.
Sociologist Joel M. Charon argues that when groups fail to interact, they create barriers that foster prejudice and discrimination. This lack of communication can result in one society defining another as inferior, justifying inequality and destructive actions against them. The perspective highlights the importance of cooperation and shared understanding in bridging divides between racial and ethnic communities. By focusing on interactions, symbolic interactionism offers insights into how social problems like racism can perpetuate, emphasizing the need for ongoing dialogue and empathy to foster cultural understanding and reduce conflict.
Symbolic interactionism (racial and ethnic issues)
SIGNIFICANCE: Symbolic interactionism is the perspective that mind and self are not innate parts of the human body but are created in the social process of interaction among people in intimate, personal communication with one another.
The symbolic interactionist perspective in social psychology is usually traced to the works of social philosopher George Herbert Mead, whose students at the University of Chicago organized and published his lectures and notes under the title Mind, Self, and Society (1934) after his death in 1931. One of these students, Herbert Blumer, is responsible for originating the term “symbolic interactionism.”
Seven Basic Propositions
In their book Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology (1967), social psychologists Jerome Manis and Bernard Meltzer describe seven basic propositions that summarize the main features of modern symbolic interactionism. The first proposition, and the central idea in symbolic interactionism, is that distinctively human behavior and interaction are carried on through the medium of symbols and their meanings. Human beings do not typically respond directly to stimuli; instead, they assign meanings to the stimuli and act on the basis of these meanings. The meanings of the stimuli are socially derived through interaction with others rather than being inherent in the stimuli themselves or idiosyncratically assigned by the individual.
The second aspect of symbolic interactionism is that human beings become capable of distinctively human conduct only through association with other human beings. By “distinctively human conduct,” Mead and his colleagues meant the ability to imagine how other people feel in given situations, the ability to use symbols, and the ability to behave toward oneself as toward others, which is essential in creating the concept of “self.” This proposition expands the previously existing view of socialization from the individual’s social learning of culture, statuses, and roles to the symbolic interactionist conception of socialization as comprising humanization, enculturation, and personality formation.
Third, human society consists of people in interaction; therefore, the features of society are maintained and changed by the actions of individuals. Symbolic interactionists recognize that the organization of any society is a framework within which social action takes place.
This idea sets the stage for the fourth proposition, which is that human beings are active in shaping their own behavior. Symbolic interactionists believe that humans have the ability to select and interpret stimuli and the ability to interact with themselves by thinking; therefore, humans are capable of forming new meanings and new lines of action. Symbolic interactionists believe that humans can modify these influences and, in so doing, create and change their own behavior.
The fifth proposition is that consciousness, or thinking, involves interaction with oneself. Symbolic interactionists believe that when one thinks, one necessarily carries on an internal conversation. This conversation involves two components of the self: the “I,” that part of the individual that is impulsive, spontaneous, and unsocialized by society, and the “Me,” which is the social self. The "Me" is that object that arises in interaction and the one that the individual communicates toward, directs, judges, identifies, and analyzes in interaction with others. This proposition is crucial to understanding symbolic interactionism, for it is only through the use of socially derived symbols in intrapersonal activity that the individual can perform such uniquely human functions as abstract and reflective thinking.
The sixth proposition states that human beings construct their behavior in the course of its execution. Symbolic interactionists believe that the individual is not necessarily a product of past events and experiences, although they are influenced by them.
The seventh proposition is the chief methodological implication of symbolic interactionism. This proposition states that an understanding of human conduct requires study of the individual’s covert behavior as well as overt behavior. Symbolic interactionists believe that human beings act on the basis of their interpretations or meanings; therefore, it becomes essential to understand the individual’s meanings in order to understand and explain their conduct. Consequently, the use of procedures allowing sympathetic introspection is part of the methodology of most symbolic interactionists.
Racism and Symbolic Interaction
Sociologist Joel M. Charon presents a symbolic interactionist explanation of racial conflict in his book Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, an Interpretation, an Integration (1979). According to Charon, people who interact with one another form society. They take one another into account; they communicate, role-take, and cooperate. They share an understanding of reality, and they develop a set of rules to live by. The development of society through cooperative symbolic interaction will, by its very nature, cut off interaction with those outside that interaction. This is the basis for racial problems in society. When interaction creates separate societies, as it has in the United States, each will develop its own culture, and individuals will be governed by different sets of rules and will share different perspectives. Without continuous interaction between the societies, members of each will fail to communicate and to understand the other, and role-taking between them will be minimized. If one of the separate societies has more political power than the other, its members will be able to define the other as having a culture that is unacceptable and even threatening to the dominant society. Through interaction, people in the dominant society develop a perspective that is useful for their understanding of reality. Included in this perspective is their definition of those in the other society and the reasons for their differences, as well as a justification for the inequality that exists between the dominant society and the other society. Through this definition of those who are different, one society develops a justification for taking land from, enslaving, discriminating against, or segregating the other society.
Where interaction is segregated, and all people are, therefore, unable to develop a shared culture, the others will continue to be seen as different, and these differences will be exaggerated and condemned. To the extent that people see their own culture as right and true, others who are different will be perceived and defined as threats. This perception of the other makes destructive actions against them appear justifiable. Destructive action against others also seems justifiable if they can be made into objects instead of people. When people do not regularly interact, communicate, and cooperate with others, it is easy to see others as objects instead of people. This viewpoint not only encourages destructive action but also works against efforts to help the other. Finally, without interaction, no shared culture is likely to develop, and the conflict is likely to continue. In the symbolic interactionist view, social problems such as racism and racial conflict can be understood through focusing on interaction, cooperation, communication, culture, and definition.
Bibliography
Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Prentice, 1969.
Charon, Joel M. Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, an Interpretation, an Integration. 10th ed., Prentice, 2010.
Cole, Nicki L. "Studying Race and Gender with Symbolic Interaction Theory." ThoughtCo., 29 Nov. 2019, www.thoughtco.com/symbolic-interaction-theory-application-to-race-and-gender-3026636. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Denzin, Norman K., editor. 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interactionism. Emerald, 2013.
Denzin, Norman K. Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies: The Politics of Interpretation. Blackwell, 1992.
Huebner, Daniel R. Reintroducing George Herbert Mead. Routledge, 2022.
Manis, Jerome G., and Bernard N. Meltzer, editors. Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology. 3rd ed., Allyn, 1978.
Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society. Edited by Charles W. Morris et al., Definitive ed., U of Chicago P, 2015.
Rohall, David E. Symbolic Interaction in Society. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., 2020.
Spencer, Stephen. Race and Ethnicity: Culture, Identity and Representation. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2014.