Symbolic Interactionism is a sociological theory that has had a great impact on contemporary social psychology, as well as other areas of study in the social sciences. This theory analyzes interactions, and their meanings, to understand the process through which individuals become competent members of a society.
Since the first half of the 20th century, Symbolic Interactionism has generated many different currents, as well as its own methodologies that have had great importance in the understanding of social activity and in the construction of the “I”.
What is Symbolic Interactionism?
Symbolic Interactionism is a theoretical current that arises in sociology (but quickly moved towards anthropology and psychology), and that studies interaction and symbols as key elements to understand both individual identity and social organization.
In broad terms, what Symbolic Interactionism suggests is that people define ourselves according to the meaning that ‘the individual’ acquires in a specific social context ; an issue that depends largely on the interactions we engage in.
In its origins are pragmatism, behaviorism and evolutionism, but far from being registered in any of them, Symbolic Interactionism transits between one and the other.
Among its antecedents is also the defense of ‘situated truths’ and partial, as opposed to ‘absolute truths’, which have been criticized by a good part of contemporary philosophy for considering that the notion of ‘truth’ has been quite confused with the notion of ‘beliefs’ (because, from a pragmatic point of view about human activity, truths have the same function as beliefs).
Stages and main proposals
Symbolic Interactionism has gone through many different proposals. In general terms, two great generations are recognized whose proposals are connected to each other, sharing the bases and antecedents of the theory, but which are characterized by some different proposals.
1. Beginnings of Symbolic Interactionism: actions always have a meaning
One of the main proposals is that identity is built mainly through interaction , which is always symbolic, that is, it always means something. In other words, individual identity is always in connection with the meanings that circulate in a social group; it depends on the situation and the places that each individual occupies in that group.
Thus, interaction is an activity that always has a social meaning, in other words, it depends on our ability to define and make sense of individual and social phenomena: the ‘order of the symbolic’.
In this order, language is no longer the instrument that faithfully represents reality, but is rather a way of manifesting the attitudes, intentions, positions or objectives of the speaker, with which language is also an act social and a way to build that reality.
Thus, our actions are understood beyond a set of habits or automatic behaviors or expressive behaviors. Actions always have a meaning that can be interpreted.
From this it follows that the individual is not an expression; Rather, it is a representation , a version of oneself that is constructed and discovered through language (language that is neither isolated nor invented by the individual, but rather belongs to a specific logic and social context).
In other words, the individual is constructed through the meanings that circulate while interacting with other individuals. Here arises one of the key concepts of Symbolic Interactionism: the “self”, which has served to try to understand how a subject builds these versions of themselves, that is, their identity.
In sum, every person has a social character, so individual behaviors must be understood in relation to group behaviors. For this reason, several authors of this generation focus especially on understanding and analyzing socialization (the process by which we internalize society).
Methodology in the first generation and main authors
In the first generation of Symbolic Interactionism, qualitative and interpretive methodological proposals arise, for example the analysis of discourse or the analysis of gestures and images; that are understood as elements that not only represent but also construct a social reality.
The most representative author of the early days of Symbolic Interactionism is Mead, but Colley, Pierce, Thomas and Park have also been important, influenced by the German G. Simmel. Likewise, the Iowa school and the Chicago school are representative , and Call, Stryker, Strauss, Rosenberg and Turner, Blumer and Shibutani are recognized as first generation authors.
2. Second generation: social life is a theater
In this second stage of Symbolic Interactionism, identity is also understood as the result of the roles that an individual adopts in a social group, with which it is also a kind of scheme that can be organized in different ways depending on each situation.
The contribution of Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective takes special relevance , who suggests that individuals are basically a set of actors, because we literally constantly act out our social roles and that we are expected according to those roles.
We act to leave a social image of ourselves, which not only occurs during interaction with others (who are the ones who reflect the social demands that will make us act in a certain way), but also occurs in the spaces and moments in which that those other people are not seeing us.
Methodological proposals and main authors
The daily dimension, the study of meanings and the things that we appear during interaction are objects of scientific study. On a practical level, empirical methodology is very important . That is why Symbolic Interactionism is related in an important way with phenomenology and with ethnomethodology.
This second generation is also characterized by the development of etogeny (the study of human-social interaction, which analyzes above all these four elements: human action, its moral dimension, the agency capacity that people have and the concept same person in relation to his public performance).
In addition to Erving Goffman, some authors who have influenced much of the Symbolic Interactionism of this moment are Garfinkel, Cicourel and the most representative author of ethogeny, Rom Harré.
Relationship with social psychology and some criticisms
Symbolic Interactionism had an important impact on the transformation of classical Social Psychology to Postmodern Social Psychology or New Social Psychology. More specifically, it has impacted on Discursive Social Psychology and Cultural Psychology, where from the crisis of traditional psychology of the 60’s, concepts that had previously been dismissed took on special relevance, such as reflexivity, interaction, language or meaning.
In addition, Symbolic Interactionism has been useful to explain the socialization process, which was initially proposed as an object of study in sociology, but which was quickly connected with social psychology.
It has also been criticized for considering that it reduces everything to the order of interaction, that is, it reduces the interpretation of the individual to social structures. Likewise, it has been criticized at a practical level for considering that its methodological proposals do not appeal to objectivity or quantitative methods.
Finally, there are those who consider that it raises a rather optimistic idea of interaction, since it does not necessarily take into account the normative dimension of interaction and social organization.
