Symbolic interactionism

The symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory of micro-sociology that deals with the interaction employs between people. This theory of action is based on the basic idea that the meaning of social objects, situations and relationships is produced in the symbolically mediated process of interaction / communication ( see also: Action and social action , symbolic communication ).

Basics

The school of symbolic interactionism was founded by Herbert Blumer (1900–1987). Blumer was a student of the social philosopher and early social psychologist George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). When Blumer worked out symbolic interactionism, he was mainly guided by Mead's considerations on the phylogenetic formation of consciousness and personal ( ontogenetic ) development of identity using a common language: "Logical universe of significant symbols" (see also John Cunningham Lilly ) . The American sociologist Charles Cooley (1864–1929) also contributed to the emergence of the theory of symbolic interactionism with his considerations; his thesis (following on from the socio-psychological preparatory work by William James , John Dewey and James Mark Baldwin ) was that the individual was already spiritual be (mentally) a social being; the abstract, conceptual juxtaposition of the individual / society is misguided metaphysics . He also understood society mentally, insofar as it consists of the mental images that grow out of social interactions and communications.

George H. Mead's considerations as a basis for symbolic interactionism

The human being as a social being

People only develop self-confidence / identity and the ability to think within and with the help of social relationships. Accordingly, the individual and society are interwoven and mutually dependent.

Mead postulates that communication is the factor that determines human development as a social being, because typical human communication and interaction takes place via “significant symbols”. These symbols are general terms; That is, that the symbol triggers the same thing in oneself as it does in others. The sense or meaning of a symbol is interpreted in the same way by all members of society.

An example of this would be a situation where someone yells "Fire!" Since it is a general term, people interpret the word the same way and react and therefore act in the same way in the situation. Social interaction is made possible through symbolic interactionism. It assumes that one can take and internalize the foreign perspective and look at oneself from the foreign perspective.

Socialization at Mead

Mead understands socialization as a process of personality development and integration into society. Only in the organized community or social group does the individual develop a uniform identity. A "generalized other" plays a role in socialization. It has a formative influence on the individual. Characteristics of a “generalized other” are emotional occupation, permanent interaction and power imbalances . Examples are parents and teachers.

The child becomes a member of society by taking on the roles and attitudes of the “concrete others” and thus the morals and norms of society to a certain - individually different - degree (see self-concept ).

Socialization as a process of identity formation

By adopting the attitudes of others, people develop their identities and consistent self-confidence. A person's identity consists of elementary identities that correspond to the various aspects of the social process. The structure of complete identity is thus a reflection of the complete social process. Identity is only possible if a person lives in a community or in a social group.

Mead distinguishes three levels of development of role assumption, which differ according to complexity:

Imitative role play
The point of reference for the assumption of perspective is an individual other and the basis of orientation for action is anticipated actions. According to Mead, play is a playful interaction between the child and an imaginary friend. This is the simplest form of role assumption . A child reaches this level of identity formation when they can assume variable roles, e.g. B. when it plays an Indian or a salesman. As a result, children have two elementary identities: their own identity and the identity they play. However, they do not yet have a fully developed identity because the stimuli are not yet organized at this stage. The roles take place one after the other, not at the same time.
Regular cooperation (game)

Organized play (competition) represents the transition in the child's life from the playful assumption of the role of others to the organized assumption of roles by several others, which is crucial for the awareness of identity.

In the game , the person has to perceive different roles in a systematic order and learn to relate to them. This means that a child has to assume the attitude of everyone involved in the game and relate these roles to one another.

At this stage, the point of reference for perspective taking is the limited community in which the child is located. The child acts in accordance with the community-specific norms (rules of the game).

Example baseball:

Before a child makes a certain throw, in order to play a successful game, they must know how the other participants will react to their action. This only becomes possible when the person employs the various roles (e.g. the catcher and the thrower). The reactions of the other must be organized in such a way that the attitude of one player triggers the attitude of the other.
Universal cooperation and understanding
The point of reference for the assumption of perspective is the universal human society (universal other), a world society, so to speak. The action should proceed according to a universalization principle. To this end, common norms and symbols must be created so that a connection between different societies can be established.

Personality theory

Identity always develops in interaction with society. On the level of personality, Mead distinguishes between two central entities which, in interaction, simultaneously coordinate action and constitute identity. Mead calls these instances of the self “me” and “I” (German often translated as “ICH” and “I”).

The "I" (personal self) denotes spontaneity, creativity and the uniquely subjective. This instance represents an opinion-taking reaction to the attitudes of others towards oneself. This aspect is often compared with the instinctual equipment of the human being.

The "me" (social self) describes the idea of the image that others have of me, the internalization of their expectations of me. It is the evaluation body for the structuring of the spontaneous impulses. So it's the social aspect of identity. For the expectations of everyone else, an expression of the “me” develops accordingly, ie a social representation of the image of oneself. In the course of ontogenesis, these different perspectives are synthesized in constant dialogue with the “I” to an abstract overall image.

The two parts are in constant internal dialogue. The inner dialogue decides about further actions and about the development of a person. The outcome of the internal dialogue is initially open because the weighting between “me” and “I” depends on several factors. According to Mead, one's own identity changes and reorganizes itself over and over again in the course of life and is therefore an active process (socialization).

Phases of the self in inner dialogue

Phase I: Action draft of the individual ("I")

Phase II: Statement from the perspective of the generalized other ("me")

Phase III: Statement and decision by the individual ("Self")

Symbolic interactionism according to Herbert Blumer

Basic assumptions

In 1969, Blumer made the following basic assumptions about symbolic interactionism:

People act toward things on the basis of the meanings those things have to them.
The meaning of things arises through social interaction.
The meanings are changed through an interpretive process that the person uses in dealing with the things they encounter.

Further basic assumptions:

People create the world of experience in which they live.
The meanings of these worlds are the result of interactions and are shaped by the self-reflective moments brought in by the people.
The interaction of people with themselves is intertwined with and influences social interaction in turn.
Formation and dissolution, conflicts and amalgamation of common actions constitute the social life of human society.
A complex process of interpretation creates and shapes the meaning of things for people.

Social and individual action

Interactionists explore everyday life, "doing everyday life". In everyday life, people act on the basis of what they perceive, how they assess and interpret what they perceive. The perception of the meaning of an object is an attribution of meaning. This means that in a process of social negotiation this perception was accepted as sufficient. This interpretation of human action can also be applied to joint, collective action in which a large number of actors or individuals are involved. Social action (in the literal sense, i.e. action in a society or in a social environment) can therefore always be called social action , according to Blumer . Since social action always proceeds from individuals, symbolic interactionism makes it possible to view this action both in its common, collective character and in its individual, i.e. H. components constituted by the symbolic interactions of individual individuals.

Human coexistence

For symbolic interactionism, collective action always represents the result or the course of a process of mutually interpretive interactions. Human coexistence therefore consists in the mutual coordination of actions by those involved, whereby the character of the joint actions results from the relationship between the parties involved.
The joint action, which Blumer also calls the “connected action of the whole”, is thus always the totality of the chains / coordination of individual actions of the individuals and thus the result of a continually running, never completed development.

Interpretations

If one considers those cases in which joint action is recurring and stable (i.e. socially established, repetitive patterns of joint action), the people involved in the respective situation have an advance understanding of how they and others want to act and probably become. This understanding arises from the common, already existing interpretation patterns or interpretations of what is to be expected from the action of a participant in a situation. Based on this understanding, each participant is able to control his own behavior on the basis of these interpretations.

The emergence of social norms and rules

There is a danger here of interchanging cause and effect in such a way that one could come to the conclusion that it is the norms , rules, values and sanctions that determine or determine the actions of people. Namely by dictating how people should act in a wide variety of situations.

However, according to Blumer, the interactions of the participants in a situation are not predetermined by values and norms; but the values and norms are only through the continuous negotiation of meanings in the interactions of the participants constituted .
This also applies if the actions remain consistent. Because even if it is a permanently existing and recurring form of joint action, every single repetition of such a joint action must be developed again. If the action is repeated, the participants do so using the same meanings over and over again.

If one accepts the constant formation of new actions and interpretations, also recurring ones, this means, as it were, a shift in perspective. Consequently, it is not the common act that subordinates itself to a rule or norm that is always present ("floating above everything"). Blumer assumes that the rules and norms arise when meanings are negotiated and the common action is constructed.

literature

Herbert Blumer : Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method , Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1969

Herbert Blumer: The methodological location of symbolic interactionism . In: Bielefeld Sociologists' Working Group (Ed.): Everyday Knowledge, Interaction and Social Reality , Vol. 1, Rowohlt, Reinbek 1973 (1981 ISBN 3-531-22054-3 )

Stuart Hall : Interaction, Identity, Representation. Collected writings Vol. 4 , Argument Verlag, Hamburg ²2008 ( ISBN 3-886-19326-8 )

Hans Joas : Practical Intersubjectivity. The development of the work of GH Mead , Frankfurt am Main 1989, pp. 91–119.

Dirk Kaesler , Ludgera Vogt (ed.): Major works of sociology (= Kröner's pocket edition . Volume 396). Kröner, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-520-39601-7 , pp. 298-299.
George Herbert Mead : Spirit, Identity and Society , Frankfurt am Main 1978, pp. 187–221.
Michael Dellwing, Robert Prus: Introduction to Interactionist Ethnography. Sociology in the field. Wiesbaden 2012, p. 23f.

Web links

Interaction and deviant behavior. University of Augsburg

Individual evidence

↑ Jakob Krüger: Symbolic interactionism after Herbert Blumer - principles and methods. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute for Sociology, WS 2010/11
^ Robert Cooley Angell: Introduction. In: The Two Major Works of Charles H. Cooley. Social organization. Human Nature and the Social Order. With an Introduction of Robert Cooley Angell. The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill. 1956. pp. Xvi.
↑ Dellwing, Michael; Prus, Robert: Introduction to Interactionist Ethnography . 1st edition. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2012, ISBN 978-3-531-18268-1 , p. 23 f .

[1] Jakob Krüger: Symbolic interactionism after Herbert Blumer - principles and methods. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute for Sociology, WS 2010/11

[2] Robert Cooley Angell: Introduction. In: The Two Major Works of Charles H. Cooley. Social organization. Human Nature and the Social Order. With an Introduction of Robert Cooley Angell. The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill. 1956. pp. Xvi.

[3] Dellwing, Michael; Prus, Robert: Introduction to Interactionist Ethnography . 1st edition. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2012, ISBN 978-3-531-18268-1 , p. 23 f .