Symbolic Interaction Flashcards
What is symbolic interaction
George Herbert Mead.
To Mead, human thought and conduct are essentially social. People behave from what learn. They get the ideas of rules etc form the interaction that they have had in their lives. The most important of these symbols is contained in Language. To Mead, a symbol does not simply represent an object or event, but rather it defines them in a particular way and indicates a response to them. Thus the symbol of chair , not only stands for the object ‘chair’ but to the act of ‘sitting’. He goes on to explain the significance of these interpretations. Whether the chair imagined is wooden, metal etc, this is all irrelevant in relation to the function of ‘sitting’.
Human’s natural and social environment makes sense to all of us because we use common symbols; without these shared symbols there would be little if any communication and we would exist (if at all) in total chaos and anarchy. The mind is a continuous process, it is a physical thing. He differentiated the brain form the mind, citing that animals have brains but no mind. The ability to think is embedded in the mind; this is related to every aspect of S.I. such as socialization, meaning, symbols, self, interaction, and society.
Why is symbolic interaction
Symbolic interaction is necessary because we as humans have no instincts to direct our behavior. We need to categorize our world in order to function, e.g. edible - non-edible, hostile – friendly, hot-cold.
Role taking
Through the process of ‘role-taking’ the individual develops the concept of “SELF”. What Mead postulates is that only when the individual role-plays (thus getting out of himself and pretending to be an other) can he look at himself, an recognize himself as a separate and different entity. Thus the origin of the development of self is the ability to take the role of another.
Two aspects of self
There are two distinct aspects of the self…the ‘me’ and the ‘I’.
The ‘me’ is the definition of yourself in the social role (father, mother, aunt, teacher, student) and the ‘I’ is the interpretation of yourself based on the reaction of others ( related to the self-fulfilling prophesy).
The notion of self is not innate, it is learn tin childhood. There are 2 stage of this development
Play stage … the child plays roles that are not his/her own. In doing so the kid realizes that there is a difference between him/herself and the roll that is being played
Game stage … kids need to put themselves in the perspective of the entire game, thus seem themselves as a part of the whole, as only one part of the team. Mead calls this the seeing of oneself from the perspective of the “Generalized Other”.
To Mead, the process of though is merely ‘inner conversation’, thus without the development of self, this would not be possible. Without the awareness of self, the individual could not direct or respond to action. They can see themselves through the eyes of others, they can plan action and imagine the consequences. It allows them to know what is expected, and to act accordingly, the ‘generalized other’ will let them know what the community expects from them. This social pressure is generated from the ‘generalized other’ and this whole process influences the behavior of individuals. (Doctor not getting drunk in front of patients).
Two types of behaviour
Mead realizes there are two types of behavior…
Covert behavior…where the thinking process is involved.
Overt behavior…actual behavior performed.
Behaviour patterns (choices)
Mead recognizes that people do have choices in their behavior patterns and he accounts for this due to a number of factors:
Many cultural expectations are not specific. It may tell you have to wear clothes, but it does not specify what clothes to wear
People have choices in the roles that they play (the choice of job)
Some roles encourage diversity in culture (fashion designing)
Sub-cultures exist and people can choose which one to join
Many cultural meanings indicate possibilities rather than requirements (chair means that you can sit, not that you have to).
In some circumstances innovative behavior is acceptable (adoption for a poor single mother with terminal illness).
Blumer (symbolic interactions)
Like Blumer (Mead’s student), symbolic interactionists state that society must be seen as an organism that is in an ongoing process of interaction; in contrast to the functionalists who believe that it action is a mechanical response to the constraints of social systems. To the interactionists, society and action are not mechanical and passive, but active.
Blumer sees that institutions and their rules put restraint on behavior, but is quick to recognise that there is still room for innovation. They can restrict the way that people behave in certain circumstances, to a point, because at the end of the day, they may choose to act otherwise.
Blumer differentiates among three types of objects; Physical objects…tree, car; Social objects…mother, father; Abstract objects…an idea, moral principle.
For any objecct there will be a number of interpretations for that object. E.G. A tree will be a number of different objects to different individuals (botanist, lumberjack, poet, gardener).
Cooley (symbolic interactions)
He spoke about the ‘looking glass self”. Basically,…”in imagination we perceive in another’s mind some thought about our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends and so on, and are variously affected by it.”
This can be broken down into three compartments
We imagine how we appear to others
We imagine what they think of us
We develop some self-feeling, such as pride or shame
Critique
1 They tend to ignore historic events, in preference to small scale face-to-face analysis. They tend not to realize that these interactions are influenced by the social and historical realities of the times. One cannot take out ‘shap-shot’ and use them for analysis in a vacuum.
2 Even though they agree that certain norms exist, they do not explain their existence. They do not explain why people act in certain ways when there are a world of possibilities for them to choose.
3 They attach nuff importance to ‘meaning’, yet they provide little indication of the origin of these meanings that individuals are labeled by teachers, police etc. It is argued that these labels are systematically generated by the social structure, and not spontaneously created as the Symbolic Interactionists suggest.
4 It is a branch of American sociology, so you can see where the obsession with liberty, freedoms and individuality come from.
Critiques
Individuals only come into contact with the outside world through their senses. This is the basis of the theory. Because of this reality humans have to put everything that they come int9 contact with into categories. That is the only way that the world and all in it will make sense to us.
Once this is done, they can then turn their attention to the phenomenological understanding of the world.
Schultz
He stated that the process of classifying things was not purely individual. When you think of a nerd or a f slur, these typifications are not unique, but shared with the group. They are passed on to new generations through language. Eventually society builds up a stock of “Commonsense Knowledge” that is shared among all members of the group (society) and this allows humans to live and communicate together.
Though he admits that knowledge is shared he does not think it fixed or static. He recognizes that it modified in the course of human interaction.
He believes that each person has a unique biography, and interprets and experiences the world different than everybody else. But commonsense knowledge allows us to understand some of each other’s actions. Thus we feel that we are living in a well- adjusted world that is ordered, while in fact we are in a confused mad world where individual experiences have no clear shape or form.
Rostow
Stages of Economic Growth: A non-Communist Manifesto” Walter Rostow
he sees society as passing through 5 economic stages
these five stages are derived from an analysis of the British Industrial Revolution
the five stages are
Traditional societies: agrarian society; ascriptive social structure based on kinship networks; poor communication
Pre-conditions for take off- trading patterns improve; emergence of an elite group with enough wealth to invest; rational ideas and science develop
Take off- industries further develop and dominate the economy; political structures develop
Drive to maturity- advances in science and technology; political reform continues; international trading becomes important
The age of high mass consumption- consumer society
Critique of Rostow
The principal terms of the theory- traditional and modern are too vague to be of much use as classifications of distinct societies. They do not give any indication of the great variety of societies that have and do exist. Instead the ‘traditional’ label is offered as a blanket term to cover a range of pre-industrial societies that have exceedingly different socio-economic and political structures such as feudal, tribal and bureaucratic empires.
Although the theory is supposed to be about the way society develops there is little explanation offered fro this process. Apart from reference to the need for forward looking attitudes and healthy economic motivation we have no idea which mechanism it is that brings about the process of social differentiation of which so much is made.
Modernization theory claims that as society develops the ‘traditional world’ gets squeezed out by the force of modern values and attitudes. Yet there is a wealth of evidence to indicate that economic growth and the advent of modernity does not necessarily mean the abandonment of so called ‘traditional values or beliefs’ there is also evidence to show that in ‘modern’ industrial society ‘traditional’ values not only persist but actually play an important role in keeping it going. Frank shows how the norm of ascription plays an important role in allocation reward in Japanese industry. He shows that, although recruitment on Japanese companies is based on achievement criteria- the skills and qualifications applications have- once they are employed their level of pay and promotion prospects depend very much on age, background and family responsibilities.
One should question the proposition that as industrialization and its attendant urbanization develop the wider kinship system is weakened as people became primarily concerned with their own nuclear family.
It entirely ignores the impact of colonialism and imperialism on 3rd world countries.
Conflict Perspective
These theorists assume that there are different groups in society who have different interests. They believe that the social arrangements that exist benefit some groups at the expense of the others. In this way, conflict exists in society. This conflict will necessarily produce instability in the society, thus this analysis is diametrically opposed to that of the structural functionalists.
They state that while there may be moments of apparent cohesion and harmony, or moments of ‘truce’, by nature, these are short-term and contrived, and cannot but necessity last for long periods of time. Even when one group is tricked into believing that they system is favoring them, their trues situation will be revealed. When these events take place, the disadvantaged group will seek to change their position, nad thus the system.
Conflict theory stresses the existence of conflicting and competing groups, while the structural functionalists stress the co-operation and cohesion between social groups.
Marxism
Marx’s analysis takes on a historical perspective. He sees people as both the producers and the products of their society. To Marx, history is the process of human self-creation as they make society and themselves by their own actions. Yet he realized that people are also products of their environments. This is shaped by the relationship and systems of beliefs/thoughts which they create.
To all schools of thought, society is one unit and must be analyzed as such. All parts of society influence each other, religious, economic, educational, political etc. Yet, for Marx, the economic system has the primary influence on the system and all the subsequent parts. Social change, to Marx, is characterized by chaos and confusion and tension…it has never been and will never be a period of smooth transition. It occurs due to inherent contradictions in the society/system. It is the source of open conflict and radical change.
Functionalism
Functionalism views society as a system, well-integrated made up of a number of parts that fit well into each other, to make a whole. The basis unity of analysis is the society. Every social system is analyzed in relation to how it contributes to this society. Functionalism assumes a neat, orderly, well-functional organism. This organism has basic needs and all the parts contribute to the up-keep of the whole. It is compared to the functions of the liver and heart to the overall health of the body. The concept of ”function” refers to the contribution that the part makes to the whole entity.
There are basic needs for any society to exist. It has been argued that this is social stratification (Davis and Moore) and the family (George P. Murdock) are present in every known society. It is assumed that these two meet needs that are common in all societies.
It can be assumed that in all societies there needs to be stratification to ensure that positions are filled by the most motivated. In addition, the family is the mechanism by which reproduction and socialization take place. (Note that the same institution in every society does not mean that they are all fulfilling the same functions).
Functionalism is concerned primarily in how the systems that exist are maintained. This approach has tended to lead to the positive interpretation of reality. It is in deep contrast to the conflict theorists, who begin their assumptions and postulations at the opposite end of the scale. Indeed to these theorists (functionalists) the institutions of society are not only seen as desirable and healthy, but go as far as to say that they are indispensable.
Emile Durkheim (Functionalist)
He postulates that society has a reality of its own, over and above that of the members. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Individuals are constrained by social facts by that control them. This is based on moral beliefs and codes that shape behavior. These codes are then passed on from one generation to the next to ensure that there is predictability, order, consensus…all for the purpose of preserving society.
Collective conscience and social stability.
He believes that the consensus that exists is based on a ‘collective conscience’ consisting of common beliefs and sentiments. Social solidarity would be impossible unless there were a set of rules and beliefs that we all shared. This is the glue that holds any society together. “Without social obligation backed by moral force, the cooperation and reciprocity which social life requires would be absent. If narrow self-interest rather than mutual obligation were the guiding force, conflict and disorder would result”.
This is seen in religion (earlier in these notes) where the church reinforces the value of society in the aim of social order and consensus. It promises happiness and wealth in the afterlife for those who follow the rules now. It awakens the dependence on the supernatural. It shows that man is inferior to society and God. It shows man’s dependence on and reverence towards God and society. It is full of highly charged ceremonies that serve to strengthen the bonds in society and renew the faith and beliefs of the people. They are to strengthen the commitment of the people to their God and society.
Talcott Parsons (Functionalist)
He speaks to social order, as does Durkheim. He observes that social life is characterized by ‘mutual advantage and peaceful cooperation rather than mutual hostility and destruction”. In his view fear of consequences is not enough to motivate people to follow rules, it must come from a system of shared values. Order is based on people accepting rules that they feel are just and right, these rules are generally accepted by all.
Value consensus is a fundamental part of the integrating of people into social groups. I people are committed to shared values, it is assumed that they will share a common identity, which provides a basis for unity and cooperation. Values provide a general conception of what is desirable and worthwhile. Goals provide direction in specific situations. Norms can be seen as specific expressions of values. Thus a social system that is defined by its norms and values, provides itself the basis of social order. This is the basis for social order.
The processes of socialization and social control are fundamental to the equilibrium of the social system and order in society. This can be seen in the educational system specifically, assisted by the institution of the family.
He argues that society has 4 main functional pre-requisites to survive.
Adaptation refers to the relationship between the system and the environment (food and shelter, etc.)
Goal attainment refers to the need to set goals towards which social activities directed (laws and government)
Integration refers to the adjustment of conflict (legal system)
Pattern maintenance refers to the maintenance of the patterns of norms (church)
He also spoke on social differentiation where there are the typical simple societies (based on ascription) and the modern industrial societies (based on Achievement).He contrasted the modern family to that of the caste system.
