Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological framework that illustrates the divergent meanings people place on objects, interactions, and people, and the corresponding behaviors that reflect this range of interpretations. It is a culturally rooted, learned phenomenon, which is refined through the process of socialization. George Herbert Mead was an influential figure in the field of symbolic interactionism and composed a threefold series of stages that rely on the utilization of gestures: the play stage, the game stage, and the generalized other stage. This article touches on how language is an essential though limited vehicle in the transmission of symbols, and it defines symbolic interactionist concepts such as defining a situation, role salience, the looking-glass self, and the self-fulfilling prophecy. Finally, research that depicts the complex nature of Symbolic Interactionism is presented, including the symbolic meanings of age, inequity, symbolic violence, and mental illness.

Symbolic Interactionism

Overview

Human beings have the natural desire to make sense of the chaotic and unpredictable world in which they reside by discerning the external cues that permeate their everyday surroundings. Symbolic interactionism  is a framework that attempts to facilitate the innate desire to appropriately interpret events in our lives. There are three overarching premises that constitute symbolic interactionism. The first assumes that meaning is an important element of human existence, a concept that is both subjective and individualistic, and that people consequently act in accordance with the meanings they construe. People often derive diverse interpretations despite receiving identical sensory input surrounding objects, interactions, and people.

Meaning

Imagine the scholar who, upon drawing on the concept of a book (i.e., object), generates stimulating and intellectual constructs. Meanwhile, someone who struggles academically may harbor feelings of fear and resentment toward that object. A dyadic conversation (i.e., interaction) may consist of one person disclosing emotionally laden personal accounts to a person who is furrowing their brow. Interpretations derived from such a non-verbal gesture can be varied, and the speaker might either conclude that they have an attentive audience, or that they are being critiqued. Another example shows how the role of "parent" (i.e., people) might generate the image of a warm, nurturing, and supportive role model to one person, while eliciting visualizations of an autocratic and punitive figure to another.

Socialization

A second premise that constitutes symbolic interactionism asserts that people identify and mold their unique symbolic references through the process of socialization. This postulation suggests that people are not inherently equipped with interpretive devices that help navigate through the complex realms of human behavior. Through the act of establishing an intricate series of relationships they come to certain symbolic determinations, which create a sturdy platform on which subsequent behavior is structured. When a young child engages in pleasant behavior that causes their parent to smile, they equate the concept of "good behavior," with that of "a specific facial expression resulting in an upturned mouth." As the child encounters pleasurable deeds throughout the course of their life, they will be prompted to implement the symbolic demonstration (i.e., a smile) they initially corresponded with such acts.

Cultural Symbolism

Behaviors are adopted through an obscurely subtle learning process, and the third tenet of symbolic interactionism affirms that there is a cultural dimension that intertwines the symbolic "educational" development. For example, in conversation, the amount of physical space in which we distance our bodies has culturally symbolic significance. Likewise, greetings in the form of demonstrative affection, such as hugs and kisses can be warmly regarded by one culture and deemed as the obstruction of personal space and the crossing of inappropriate boundaries by another.

George Herbert Mead

A pioneer of symbolic interactionism was George Herbert Mead, who emphasized the importance of gestures within the framework of communication. When interacting with others, we carry ourselves in a certain manner that conveys significance; our posture, tone of voice, voice inflections, as well as hand and facial movements can either accentuate or contradict that which we are verbally stating. Subsequent scholars, such as Albert Mehrabian, have studied the interaction between verbal and nonverbal language, and found that the spoken word constitutes 7 percent of an overall message, whereas body language represents the remaining 93 percent. For example, the word no is communicated very differently based upon the mannerisms that accompany such a declaration, as it can be stated with hesitancy, teasingly, or with conviction.

Mead's Three Stages of Self-Discovery

Mead additionally proposed that the process of self-discovery was enacted by the usage of gestures threefold through the play stage, the game stage, and through a stage called generalized other. In the play stage, young children identify with key figures in their environments, such as the mother or father, as well as occupational or gender-specific roles to which they have been exposed (e.g., police officer, nurse) and replicate the behavioral norms that correspond with such roles. A young child might sit on the edge of the bathroom counter, attentive to the way in which their father goes about shaving and emulate this action by scraping the edge of a blunt object across their own face.

During the game stage, children extrapolate from the vantage point of the roles they have simulated by assuming the roles that their counterparts concurrently undertake. While engaging in a team sport, for example, it behooves a child to conceptualize the roles of their teammates and opponents to successfully maneuver through the game within their own position.

As people developmentally evolve, their anticipation of the generalized other helps them construct morally sound and appropriate behavior, such as the employee who arrives promptly to work to avoid scrutiny from their colleagues. Moreover, self-identity continuously fluctuates between the I, which is the impulsive, automatic, "knee-jerk" responses we have to stimuli, and the me, which is the socially refined reactions that were instilled through the process of adopting social standards.

Further Insights

Language

The concept of language interacts with Symbolic Interactionism, and serves as the vehicle to convey the symbols that engulf us. Words are connecting forces that help illustrate our thoughts, beliefs, values, intentions, and objectives. When a patron at a restaurant requests "eggs and toast," it is reassuring and productive that the meaning the patron attaches to both "eggs" and "toast" directly converges with that of the server. Certainly there are conceptual terms that are less tangible and possess an abstract quality that make it difficult to distinguish their true nature such as "honor," "courage," and "love." There have been countless tales that illustrate a person's usage of the word "love" to convey an emotional experience, only to be met with confusion, disagreement, or some form of misunderstanding by the person on the receiving end. To some, "love" might be a term tossed around freely, while others might reserve the term for special encounters. Thus, the word "love" lacks a universal quality, and is limited to the person espousing such a sentiment.

Definition of the Situation

Relational misunderstandings among those in intimate kinships are a common occurrence that has been examined thoroughly by family theorists. The mere essence of a family implies a congregation of various actors, each of whom possess their own unique set of symbols, and the cumbersome integration of such divergent representations. Definition of the situation to the predispositions that impact an ability to impart objectivity into joint classifications. For example, before couples marry, they might agree on certain seemingly simplistic and objective terms such as "upholding a clean household." A symbolic point of disagreement that might extend from this pledge is what a clean-living space actually means to each individual; one partner might assume that "clean" is defined by the ability to "eat off the kitchen floor," while the other might assume it is defined by a lack of cockroaches infiltrating the kitchen.

A second term that couples might agree on is the decision to have children in the near future. Upon further scrutiny, they might find that their symbolic references are incompatible. The couple's concept of time might be mismatched, in that "near future" to one person might represent a five-year timeline, while to the other person it might mean tomorrow.

To uphold a semblance of consistency while defining a situation, it is common for people to control their environments in a way that congruously parallels their established identity. This can be enacted through the process of role salience, which suggests that people select roles and behaviors that match the identities they have created for themselves and the level of importance they assign to those roles. If a college student concurrently holds a full-time job, there may be times when the role of the "student" and the role of the "employee" conflict. In such times, if the student shuns work-related functions to study, it is likely that the student role is deemed more salient.

Additionally, people cast others into roles that reinforce their own identities, which can in turn be either embraced or refuted. When embraced, a symbiotic level of dependency that is also self-serving transpires. Betty considers herself to be an ambitious professional with strong leadership skills that can sometimes venture into domination and is drawn to Bob, a meek and tender-hearted man who is both compliant and dutiful. Betty's attraction to Bob, in part, is based on the fact that he helps uphold her identity as a strong, powerful woman. Likewise, Betty reinforces the identity that Bob has established for himself as altruistic and accommodating. This portion of the theory asserts that people's self-identifiable qualities do not exist in a vacuum; people only know their internal and external traits by comparatively measuring themselves against others. Hence, people do not know that they are tall, intelligent, or generous unless they come in contact with those that are short, ignorant, or frugal. Moreover, if a person wishes to highlight their tall, intelligent, and/or generous nature, they might proactively seek to immerse themselves with those who substantiate these self-labeled characteristics.

Cooley's Looking-Glass Self

The looking-glass self, a concept attributed to sociologist Charles Cooley, is a process that refers to the determinations we internalize about ourselves that are initiated by the perceived appraisals of those in our external environments. We are acutely aware that others are in our midst, and presume to know how they estimate our physical, intellectual, and psychological worthiness, which directly contributes toward our sense of self. If George is at a cocktail party during which he is mingling with others at a consistent pace, he might determine that he is interesting and intellectually stimulating. This postulation, which may or may not be accurate, is the force that heightens their level of esteem and self-perception.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

On the other hand, the self-fulfilling prophecy is a set of beliefs that may be faulty, but that we convert into reality based upon the ways in which we restructure our lives in deference to such beliefs. If Joan believes that her husband, Frank, is unfaithful, she might become excessively suspicious, and plague him with the irrational fears that are flooding her mind. Prophetically, the harassment itself might drive Frank into the arms of another woman. Upon finding that her suspicions were true and Frank had engaged in extramarital affairs, Joan might have an "I-told-you-so" attitude, whereas in reality it was her paranoid behavior that caused the infidelity.

Other Variables

Age

Even variables that seem concrete and objectively unquestionable can be analyzed through the lens of Symbolic Interactionism. On the surface, a person's age appears to be chronologically indisputable, and being fifteen years old seems to collectively transcend the notion of symbolic differentiation, regardless of psychological or sociological ideals. Nevertheless, the roles and expectations accompanying a fifteen-year-old may fluctuate depending on the cultural and family mores in which that person is embedded. Likewise, the relational patterns that constitute our family lives also affect the symbolic variation on the concept of age. Koerner, Kenyon, and Rankin found that adolescent females coming from divorced households in which they currently reside with their mothers may experience age quite differently from their peers, depending on the mother-daughter rapport. Girls that grow up and witness the financial and intrapersonal anguish that their mothers endure identify themselves to be a psychological age that is older than their chronological age. This can affect subsequent peer relations, such as an earlier entrance into the dating world.

Inequity

According to Hollander and Howard, the theoretical tenets of symbolic interactionism can be applied to the concept of inequity. Cultural and individual ideals reveal symbolic perceptions of gender, race, sexual orientation, and social class biases, which consequently harm the recipients of such assumptions. Through a combination of variables, including the self-fulfilling prophecy, people who are exploited tend to take on the negative characteristics that are bestowed upon them by higher-status persons. Moreover, those that reside within the "high-status" groups are also adhering to the expectations placed on them to achieve more productive goals, which serve as a stepping-stone toward success. This hierarchical pecking order produces a boss-subordinate dynamic, whereby those which are exploited constantly defer to those who are deemed to be more worthy.

When people refuse to fall prey toward such oppressive expectations, they may submit to resistance and negotiation. Females, for example, may reject the societal notion that they are vulnerable by the way in which they portray themselves, and by the activities that they pursue. These good intentions, positive demeanors, and self-improvement strides may influence corresponding interpersonal relationships, though they may not enact change on a large-scale level. Hence, the risk of victimization is not completely eradicated from the realm of possibility. In other words, it is difficult to modify deep-seated sociological symbols that trickle into our personal lives through individual behavioral modifications.

Viewpoints

Symbolic Violence

The notion of symbolic interactionism and social inequity is further elaborated by a study conducted by Herr and Anderson that examined the notion of symbolic violence. Symbolic violence is described as violent acts that are undetected based on their ambiguous or inconspicuous form, such as the subtle inequitable divisions of power that correspond with the suppression of gender and ethnicity. Hierarchies that demonstrate symbolic violence are assigned based on arbitrary cultural ideals, such as supremacy based on patriarchal roles and color-of-skin premises.

In Herr and Anderson's study, the concept of symbolic violence is verified qualitatively through a poor, urban middle school educational environment, in which the authors monitored different teaching strategies that were employed from various faculty members toward an unruly group of adolescent boys. One well-intentioned teacher attempted to incorporate middle-class symbols (i.e., values) into the classroom, and in the process unintentionally discounted the students' boisterous behavioral norms as unsuitable. Such judgment was not well received by the students, who retaliated against her deductions with brash opposition. Conversely, a different teacher, who was successful in their instructional strategies, was able to create a sense of mutual respect in the way that they interpreted student behavior contextually and responded with hope, motivation, and persistence.

The symbolic violence established in such a situation reflects society's gross misinterpretations of the mandatory preparation for "at-risk" human service fields. As opposed to having a one-size-fits-all model, Herr and Anderson imply that school authority figures should symbolically assess the different needs of the students they target, and therefore find suitable teachers who can undertake the task of reaching students with diverse needs.

Mental Health Disorders

Those who are diagnosed with various psychological disorders comprise another population that is oftentimes marginalized and treated with unwarranted disregard. Rosenberg questions the ability of mental health specialists to place objective parameters onto behavior that is considered irrational and outside of the scope of reality (i.e., insanity). Psychologists consult with the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to appropriately liken problematic or distressing behaviors with a corresponding diagnosis. To conduct such evaluations, atypical symptoms in the form of behavior, thoughts, and/or affect tend to be objectively classified as bizarre (i.e., psychotic) or painful to the person experiencing them (e.g., depression). However, from a symbolic interactionist's perspective, it is not the "objective symptoms" that serve as the all-powerful criteria, but the clinician's ability or inability to symbolically relate to such dimensions through the act of "role-taking." In other words, the professional who determines that behavior is maladaptive may be unable or unwilling to relate to the symbolic meaning pertaining to the patient's life perspective. Thus, Rosenberg encourages people to conceptualize mental illness under subjective terms rather than socially accepted norms.

Identical behaviors can render different levels of acceptability based on an observer's (i.e., the clinician or layperson) ability to relate; if a man in a public arena falls to the ground in a fit of convulsions, witnesses seek to judge the acceptability of such behavior. If the spectators are reassured by that person's spouse that the man is epileptic, they might compassionately deem such conduct as out of their control, and it is therefore psychologically acceptable. If, however, the spouse offers no source of explanation, the witnesses might speculate on why such a folly is unfolding before them, such as: "Is this man writhing on the ground due to a mental breakdown?" In both cases the behavior is the same, but the ability to understand their collapsed body through the framework of a physical ailment is a concept with which most people are familiar, whereas the ambiguity surrounding the unknown leaves people unnerved. Similarly, the clinically labeled "mentally disturbed" population demonstrates behaviors with which the lay public is unable to intellectually relate and is often judged through lenses of ignorance.

Moreover, timeframes through which a person explains phenomena reflect the subjective state of mental health functioning. In previous centuries, a meteorologist who sought to explain weather conditions through our currently accepted scientific terminology would have been labeled insane or heretical, just like a person in the twenty-first century who reverts to notions such as "the gods of the sky are angry and are therefore releasing extensions of their irritation via hailstorms" would be deemed mentally unstable. In this instance, the generational timeframe is the dependent variable, not the weather-related explanations. Perhaps in a futuristic time zone, the delusions of someone experiencing schizophrenia will resonate with more clarity. Similarly, the existence of severe mood swings that render a diagnosis of "depression" or "anxiety" can be explained through the contextual situations that people are placed. The act of being "emotionally beside oneself" in the throes of grief and bereavement is normative, and thus the presence of emotionality itself does not demonstrate psychological disparity as much as the contextual forces that surround such sensations.

Conclusion

The utilization of symbolic interactionism is quite prolific on both individualistic and large-scale levels. Interpersonally, if people sought to understand their family members, friends, and coworkers from their distinct contextual backdrops, more harmonious relations would surely result. Marital therapists, for example, are thus challenged with the difficult task of merging disparate definitions on concepts like "sex," "finances," and "childrearing discipline techniques." Likewise, multicultural calamities are often rooted in the existence of symbolic misinterpretations. For some cultures, "time" is a loosely-constructed notion (e.g., arriving at 12:00 might mean 12-ish), whereas in other cultures it is a concrete and definitive reality, and these different interpretations can often be the source of extreme contention. Most importantly, disagreements on "objective" societal ideologies have served to initiate tremendous widespread destruction and violence, which are a continual reminder to reexamine the importance of subjective symbols.

Terms & Concepts

Definition of the Situation: Eliminating the predispositions that people possess which impair their ability to impart objectivity in a situation.

Looking-Glass Self: Internalizations that are initiated by the perceived appraisals of outside sources.

Resistance and Negotiation: A process that occurs when people refuse to fall prey to oppressive expectations.

Role Salience: The selection of roles and behaviors which match the identities that people create for themselves.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: A set of beliefs, which may be faulty, that are converted into reality.

Symbolic Violence: Subtle violent acts that are undetected based on their ambiguous or inconspicuous form and which encourage suppression and dominance by one group.

Bibliography

Aldiabat, K. M., & Le Navenec, C. (2011). Philosophical roots of classical grounded theory: Its foundations in symbolic interactionism. Qualitative Report, 16, 1063–1080. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text,

Altheide, D. L. (2000). Identity and the definition of the situation in a mass-mediated context. Symbolic Interaction, 23, 1–27. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Archer, D. (1997). Unspoken diversity: Cultural differences in gestures. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 79–105. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Baldwin, J. D. (1988). Mead's solution to the problem of agency. Sociological Inquiry, 58, 139–162. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.

Cast, A. D. (2003). Power and the ability to define the situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 185–201. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Clarke, R. D. & Sykes, T. A. (2005). Walk your talk. Black Enterprise, 35, 124–124. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Collins, R. (2011). Wiley's contribution to symbolic interactionist theory. American Sociologist, 42(2/3), 156–167. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text,

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Scribner.

Corso, J. J. (2012). In defense of symbolic interactionism: A theoretical response to Bourdieu. Max Weber Studies, 12, 225–239. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text,

Delaney, C. H. (1995). Rites of passage in adolescence. Adolescence, 30, 891–898. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Duncan, (1969). Symbols and social theory. Oxford University Press.

Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. L. (1983). Beyond the looking-glass self: Social structure and efficacy-based self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 77–88. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Graham, J. (2007). A hands-on approach. Psychology Today, 40, 24–24. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Hall, S. S. (2006). Marital meaning. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1437–1458. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2003). Violent youth or violent schools? A critical incident analysis of symbolic violence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6, 415–433. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Hewitt, J. P. (2014). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology (12th ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Hollander, J. A., & Howard, J. A. (2000). Social psychology theories on social inequalities. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 338–351. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Ingoldsby, B. B., Smith, S. R., & Miller, J. E. (2004). Exploring family theories. Roxbury Publishing Company.

Jeon, Y. (2004). The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18, 249–256. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Koerner, S. S., Kenyon, D. B., & Rankin, L. A. (2006). Growing up faster? Post-divorce catalysts in the mother-adolescent relationship. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 45(3-4), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v45n03‗02

Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2021). Choices in relationships: An introduction to marriage and the family (13th ed.). Thomson & Wadsworth.

Lane, H. J. (2001). Self-differentiation in symbolic interactionism and psychoanalysis. Social Work, 29, 270–274. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Lymon, S. M. (1988). Symbolic interactionism and macrosociology. Sociological Forum, 3, 295–301. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Manis, J. G., & Meltzer, B. N. (1978). Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology. Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Mead, G. H. (1934/1956). On social psychology: Selected papers (Anselem Strauss, ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Nickerson, C., and McLeod, S. (2023, Oct. 16). Symbolic interactionism theory & examples. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/symbolic-interaction-theory.html

Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1974). The definition of the situation: An analysis of the ethnomethodological and dramaturgical view. Sociological Quarterly, 15(4), 521–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1974.tb00912.x

Rosenberg, M. (1984). A symbolic interactionist view of psychosis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 289–302. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Rothbaum, F., Morelli, G., Pott, M., & Liu-Constant, Y. (2000). Immigrant-Chinese and Euro- American parents' physical closeness with young children: Themes of family relatedness. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 334–348. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Schwalbe, M. L. (1983). Language and the self: An expanded view from a symbolic interactionist perspective. Symbolic Interaction, 6(2), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1983.6.2.291

Sheeran, P., & Abraham, C. (1994). Unemployment and self-conception: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Symbolic Interaction, 6, 291–306.

Scheff, T. J. (2005). Looking-glass self: Goffman as a symbolic interactionist. Symbolic Interaction, 28(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2005.28.2.147

Sheeran, P. & Abraham, C. (1994). Unemployment and self-conception: A symbolic interactionist analysis. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4, 115–129. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Stryker, S. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 83–94. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Tibbetts, P. (2004). Symbolic interaction theory and the cognitively disabled: A neglected dimension. American Sociologist, 35, 25–36. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Wellner, A. S. (2004). The time trap. Inc., 26, 42–43. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Wiley, N. (2003). The self as self-fulfilling prophecy. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.501

Suggested Reading

Becker, H. S., & McCall, M. M. (1993). Symbolic interaction and cultural studies. University of Chicago Press.

Charon, J. M. (2010). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration (10th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Herman-Kinney, N. J. (2004). Handbook of symbolic interactionism. AltaMira Press.

Interaction and symbolic interactionism. (2011). Symbolic Interaction, 34, 315–318. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text,

Morgan, D., & Collier, P. (2011). Symbolic interactionism and focus groups: A theory meets a method. Conference Papers—American Sociological Association, 177. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text,

Scott, S. (2013). Intimate deception in everyday life. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 39, 251–279. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text,

Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. (2011). Symbolic Interaction, 34, 349–356. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text,