Anarchic and stagnant society By Prof Dr Sohail Ansari & The symbolic interaction perspective

And whosoever is slowed down by his actions will not be hastened forward by his lineage. Hadith recorded in An-Nawawi Causal analysis provides absolutely no value judgment, and a value judgment is absolutely not a causal explanation. Max Weber
Vibrant society is not uncontrolled

·      Society minus unity in diversity is anarchic and minus diversity is stagnant.

Society is unity in diversity.

George Herbert Mead
The symbolic interaction perspective

The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a major framework of sociological theory. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and rely upon in the process of social interaction.

"Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term "symbolic interactionism" and put forward an influential summary of the perspective: people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation"

The purpose of this article will be to outline a symbolic interactionist approach to the study of politics in the United States. In the course of this presentation, the basic assumptions and concepts of the interactionist perspective will be presented, culminating in a model of society as a negotiated order.

Symbolic Interactionism

This lesson describes a way of looking at the world that focuses on communication, meaning and symbols. You'll review a real-world example of this approach and explore the criticisms from those who prefer other sociological methods.

Definition of Symbolic Interactionism

Paradigms provide a starting place to help understand what is being witnessed in day-to-day life and in experiments. If you imagine that paradigms are like lenses in a pair of eyeglasses, there are several different lens styles worn by sociologists and symbolic interactionism is one of them.

Symbolic interactionism tends to focus on the language and symbols that help us give meaning to the experiences in our life. They notice that as we interact with the world, we change the way we behave based on the meaning we give social interactions. We spend time thinking about what we will do next and adjust our approach depending on how we believe others perceive us.

Social interactionists believe that communications and interactions form reality as we know it. Reality, in this belief, is socially constructed, or created by conversations, thoughts, and ideas. Early thinkers in this approach focused on the face-to-face experiences of individuals, though now we would likely include many more types of interactions, including the experiences we have online or through text messaging on our phones, for instance.

A girl uses her cell phone to interact with others and create her own reality

In this view, individuals are powerful in how they shape the world and not merely victims conforming to larger societal forces. Individuals both create and shape society, and the change occurring is constant and ongoing. Social interactionists are interested in the patterns created by our interactions and how this reality makes up our very existence.

Examples of Symbolic Interactionism

To better understand how those wearing this lens view reality, we can look at a specific example. Imagine you have a sibling with whom you have had a rivalry your whole life. You see your sister as having always received an unfair bias, getting what she wanted more than you have. You perceive her as picking at your flaws when you interact or cutting you down in some way. All of these experiences take place through a series of communications, social situations, and thoughts you have about your sister.

Events will also be symbolic to you, representing more to you than the objective facts might suggest. For instance, she receives a promotion with her company within a year of being hired. Since you don't believe she has the skills for the job, you give the situation a particular meaning, specifically, that it is unfair and that it is an example of how your sister always gets what she wants.

Perhaps then your sister loses her job abruptly with no other job in sight and comes to you for emotional support as she recovers from the loss. You and she grow closer as she expresses appreciation for your help and solicits advice from you on how to move forward. Your role changes from that of a critical onlooker who is jealous to one who is needed for support and compassion. The loss of her job becomes an opportunity to connect with other aspects of who your sister is as a person, rather than seeing her as your sister who has an unfair advantage in the world. You give your sister a new meaning: that of a person in need of your support and perhaps not always as lucky as you had thought.

The symbolic meaning we give to relationships can change over time

Symbolic interactionists would look at this series of events and note how your experiences and interactions with your sister form your understanding of reality. Before she loses her job, you have one version of reality in your mind. Symbolically, you see your sister as having an unfair advantage in the world and hold this idea in your mind. When the dynamic shifts and you play a role of supporting her in a time of need, the meaning you give your sister's life fluctuates, changes, and develops. All of this is based on the social interactions you have, the language used to communicate, and the symbolic meaning you give to these events and thoughts.

Criticisms of the Framework

Many sociologists argue that the theory is too wide-ranging in what it tackles to give clear direction on understanding the nature of how reality is socially constructed. Those who utilize the framework respond that it is a good foundation for theories and that it doesn't claim to be specific enough for use on its own.

Another criticism is that the data for using the approach is qualitative rather than quantitative. Quantitative data can be tested and proven correct or incorrect. Quantitative data would include numbers that can be measured, such as survey data that produces results by counting answer choices by participants, for instance.

 Symbolic interactionism is viewing society as composed of symbols that people use to establish meaning, develop views about the world, and communicate with one another. We are thinking beings who act according to how we interpret situations. 
Example is social constructionism (social construction of reality), where through our interaction with others, we construct reality of the situation. In social constructionism, our behavior depends on how we define reality. Isn't that the same as "action depends on meaning", 

"Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term "symbolic interactionism" and put forward an influential summary of the perspective: people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation"

So, social interactionism is the way I act is based on my interpretation of the world? Also, the way I perceive reality is a social construct and my reality is capable of changing based on new experiences.

At 1:03, the narrator explains G.H. Mead's view of "meaning" by saying that when you sit under a tree, the tree means "shade" to you. I think this is correct, but it misses the important point that the meaning is not defined when you sit under the tree. Doesn't Mead insist that meaning lies only in how our "gestures" communicate to others? In this example, I think meaning only arises when a passer-by notices someone lying under the tree and thinks, "it is cool in the shade."

In this sense, I think (although I don't know Blumer's work) that the explanation of point 2 at1:42 may be off the mark. The person passing the tree simply recalls that he has been bitten by insects. The attribution of the meaning "getting bitten" is then for him completely private, contradicting the idea that meaning arises "out of social interaction". I think the words of the passer-by are continuous with his actions of not sitting down (both are gestures), and what gives them both meaning is that the person sitting in the shade begins to doubt his wisdom when he sees the other person do differently and explain why.

In Social Consiousness, Mead writes, "The difference is found, however, in the fact that we are conscious of interpreting the gestures of others by our own responses or tendencies to respond." He also talks about meaning in terms of interpreting and responding to a combatant's actions, which I think is helpful.

Please let me know if Blumer's work significantly modifies the idea of meaning, or if I am in some other way misunderstanding.

What about the influence of large scale symbolic interactions like academia or the media or the entertainment industry? These things play an increasingly massive role in influencing how we understand things, ie, the significance or meaning we give things, and they certainly don't occur on a one-to-one level... How does that fit with this theory? Does it allow us to extrapolate it to a large scale?

getting bit. So let's sum up the three central ideas of symbolic interactionism. They are that action depends on meaning, that different people assign different meanings of things, and that the meaning of something can change. But there are some criticisms to symbolic interactionism as a theory because it doesn't ask the same questions as the large scale sociology theories do. It is sometimes considered as supplemental, rather than a full theory, because it is restricted to studying small interactions between individuals. While this is true, symbolic interactionism gives a different perspective to sociology that is necessary for fully understanding a society. It is capable of explaining how aspects of society can change as they are created and re-created by social interactions. It examines society on a small scale and gives the individual the same importance as the society as a whole and is a necessary view when studying a society.