The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a major framework of the sociological theory. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and build upon in the process of social interaction. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American philosopher George Herbert Mead introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.
Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings that people impose on objects, events, and behaviors. Subjective meanings are given primacy because it is believed that people behave based on what they believe and not just on what is objectively true. Thus, society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation. People interpret one another’s behavior, and it is these interpretations that form the social bond. These interpretations are called the “definition of the situation.”
For example, why would young people smoke cigarettes even when all objective medical evidence points to the dangers of doing so? The answer is in the definition of the situation that people create. Studies find that teenagers are well informed about the risks of tobacco, but they also think that smoking is cool, that they will be safe from harm, and that smoking projects a positive image to their peers. So, the symbolic meaning of smoking overrides the facts regarding smoking and risk.
Some fundamental aspects of our social experience and identities, like race and gender, can be understood through the symbolic interactionist lens. Having no biological bases at all, both race and gender are social constructs that function based on what we believe to be true about people, given what they look like. We use socially constructed meanings of race and gender to help us decide who to interact with, how to do so, and to help us determine, sometimes inaccurately, the meaning of a person's words or actions.
One shocking example of how this theoretical concept plays out within the social construct of race is manifested in the fact that many people, regardless of race, believe that lighter skinned Blacks and Latinos are smarter than their darker skinned counterparts. This phenomenon, called colorism, occurs because of the racist stereotype that has been encoded in skin color over centuries. Concerning gender, we see the problematic way in which meaning is attached to the symbols "man" and "woman" in the sexist trend of college students routinely rating male professors more highly than female ones. Or, in pay inequality based on gender.
Critics of this theory claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation. In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the more significant issues of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” rather than the “forest.” The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions. In the case of smoking, a symbolic interactionist perspective might miss the powerful role that the institution of mass media plays in shaping perceptions of smoking through advertising, and by portraying smoking in film and television. In the cases of race and gender, this perspective would not account for social forces like systemic racism or gender discrimination, which strongly influence what we believe race and gender mean.
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on meanings attached to human interaction, both verbal and non-verbal, and to symbols. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds. Charles Horton Cooley introduced the looking-glass self (1902) to describe how a person’s sense of self grows out of interactions with others, and he proposed a threefold process for this development: 1) we see how others react to us, 2) we interpret that reaction (typically as positive or negative) and 3) we develop a sense of self based on those interpretations. “Looking-glass” is an archaic term for a mirror, so Cooley theorized that we “see” ourselves when we interact with others. Figure 1. In symbolic interactionism, people actively shape their social world. This image shows janitorial workers on strike in Santa Monica, California. A symbolic interactionist would be interested in the interactions between these protestors and the messages they communicate.Learning Outcomes
Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class difference, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message and to negotiate and thus develop shared meanings.
The focus on the importance of interaction in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922–1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis. Goffman used theater as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” Since it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, as we all occupy multiple roles in a given day (i.e., student, friend, son/ daughter, employee, etc.), one has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds (Goffman 1958).
Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.
Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have meanings which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the society.
The main tenets of symbolic interactionism are explained in the following video.
Criticism
Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths and generally use research methods that will allow extended observation and/or substantive interviews to provide depth rather than breadth. Interactionists are also criticized for not paying enough attention to social institutions and structural constraints. For example, the interactions between a police officer and a Black man are different than the interactions between a police officer and a white man. Addressing systemic inequalities within the criminal justice system, including pervasive racism, is essential for an interactionist understanding of face-to-face interactions.
constructivism: an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be dramaturgical analysis: a technique sociologists use in which they view society through the metaphor of theatrical performance, including role improvisation looking-glass self: concept that the development of self occurs through interactions with others, based on our understanding of how others perceive us symbolic interactionism: a theoretical perspective through which scholars examine the relationship of individuals within their society by studying their communication (language and symbols)
Did you have an idea for improving this content? We’d love your input.
Improve this pageLearn More