Symbolic interactionism is a sociological micro-level perspective and theoretical framework which addresses the establishment and maintenance of the society through replicated interactions among individuals. The symbolic interactionism perspective was instituted in the mid-twentieth century from an array of influences including influences from American Pragmatist and Scottish Moralist philosophers. The greatest influence was established by George Herbert Mead, an American philosopher (Hughes, 2016). George Herbert Mead is commonly known for his theories regarding the association between oneself and the society. One central symbolic interactionist conceptualization is based on the notion that people utilize language and important symbols during their communication with other individuals. As opposed to concentrating on how typical social organizations impact and define people, symbolic interactionists divert their concentration to the elucidation of subjective frames of reference and how people derive sense from their idiosyncratic stance. The foundational percepts of symbolic interactionism include first, the notion that interaction takes place within a specific cultural and social context in which social objects (individuals), pre-existing situations, and physical objects ought to be categorized or defined with reference to their individual meaning. Secondly, individuals actions are based on the stipulated meaning derived from the objects. Thirdly, meanings are derived from the interactions with other people and with the society as a whole. Lastly, meanings are usually recreated and created continuously through the interpretation of procedures during interactions (Hughes, 2016).
In human resource management, Paul (1996) points out that certain key elements are looked at to determine the effectiveness of an individual, given their current position. For instance, a leader is supposed to have strong motivational qualities that encourage their followers to work hard. The success of the leader is measured on the positive behavior impacted to the followers. In this case, the meaning of success is modified to suit the given scenario. The followers becomes the symbol of success to other followers. On the other hand, Visagie, Linde, & Havenga (2011) notes that the human resource department will perceive the leader as their symbol for success of the followers. Therefore, while choosing a leader, they will look for a candidate with influence. In addition, the behavior of the leader also influences the behavior of the followers. Whatever the leader does becomes acceptable in the office space, both positive and negative.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
George Herbert Mead conceived the idea behind symbolic interaction. He argued that individuals’ selves are social objects which are creative and purposive. In a book published by Mead’s student mind is defined as a person’s capacity to utilize symbols to develop meanings for the world around him. People utilize language to effectively accomplish this specific goal. Self relates to a person’s capacity to reflect on the way she is viewed or perceived by others. According to Mead, society relates to environment where all their interactions take place. Herbert Blumer devised the terminology ‘Symbolic Interactionism’ and he was the foremost researcher to coin Mead’s concepts into the Cohesive Theory based on particular procedural implications for research. The primary symbolic interactionism variant was instituted by Herbert Blumer during the 1950s at the University of Chicago who laid the foundation for a new theoretical model. He emphasized how self develops from an interactive procedure of joint action (Visagie, Linde & Hawengei, 2011). He viewed people as engaged or involved in ‘mind action’ in that humans don’t contemplate on themselves and their associations with others at times but are continuously engaged in mindful activities where they utilize symbols and negotiate meanings to particular situations.
He perceived that human behavior study ought to commence with human relations. Blumer’s symbolic interactionism revolves on the procedures actors employ to continuously recreate and create experiences from one specific interaction to another. He perceived symbolic interactionism as the distinctive and peculiar feature of interaction as it occurs amid humans. He believed that the existence of social organizations is dependent upon the interaction of individuals which is a continuous procedure focused on the emphasis of indeterminateness and agency of action. He conceived social organizations as social habits that take place within a particular situation familiar to those involved in the situation. Blumer perceived meanings as intersubjective aspects which are reinterpreted continuously amid individuals. Blumer’s theoretical perception was that the behavioral patterns of humans ought to be studied in form of action and that the group life of humans ought to be studied in terms of the actions assumed by participants on units (Hughes, 2016). His views towards social phenomena is based on the concept of independent action. He claims that the human society is distinctive due to the capacity of every member to act independently. He asserts that every individual can regulate his contribution as a way of enhancing the group’s capacity to attain their objectives under different situations; this concept stipulates the agent’s responsibility in society as flexible and free. A person conducts oneself on his accord without structural effects. He insisted on the autonomous contribution of every participant.
Manford Kuhn’s work was based on positivism and he attempted to reconcile Mead’s framework with methodical scientific testing of the principles of symbolic interactionism. He emphasized interaction procedures and perceived behavior as a coordinated, constructed, and purposive social act informed by the anteceding events in the context of projected activities that occur. His theoretical underpinning can be summarized into four major themes which include the notion that social interaction could be analyzed by a cybernetic approaches which accentuates self-correction, temporality, and intentionality. The subsequent theme is that scientists ought to base their concentration on small groupings, triads, and dyads since these are the loci for numerous social interactions and behaviors. The third theme is that social behavior could be studied in its natural setting of occurrence and in the laboratory through the incorporation of both environments which allows us to articulate deportments, and recognize abstract laws associated with behavior (Charon, 2017). Lastly, social scientists ought to strive to establish a more rigorous and systematic vocabulary to recognize the ontological sociality nature. Unlike Blumer who perceived social interaction’s quantitative evaluations as abstract empiricism, Khan emphasized the utilization of quantitative procedures as a way of providing systematic testing. Stryker, on the other hand, believed that symbolic interactionist conceptualizations could and ought to be tested using both quantitative and qualitative methods. He perceives Mead’s work as a frame as opposed to a coherent theory characterized with testable prepositions. Stryker extended symbolic interactionism concepts by operationalizing variables presented by Mead as general concepts and assumptions through empirically testing and hypothesizing relationships between Mead’s ideas while including aspects associated with role theory (Charon, 2017).
He additionally expounded George’s ideas associated with role-taking to present the organizational feature of interaction. His studies on roles associate social roles with the emergence of a corresponding impact of patterns or networks of associations in interactions since they are designed by certain social structure entities. He defines the term roles as the expectations attached to particular social positions. He relates roles to the symbolic classifications which serve to cue behavior. According to him, role expectations vary across various situations and within the social or cultural change context. Considering other individuals’ attitudes in a specific situation, a person incorporates symbolic cues adopted from normative expectations, and previous experiences from social position status’ to evaluate the potential lines of action. Through this, positions’ roles could be assessed as determinants of one’s subsequent behavior in different social compositions. Synonymous to symbolic interactionism, the theory perceives socialization as the procedure which enhances the learning of normative expectation for activities through people’s association with the role relationships (Hughes, 2016). In each situation, people recognize themselves and others in the social structure context. People then apply what they consider as others’ identification of then reflexively, through time, it becomes internalized behavior expectation as part of oneself. The subjective anticipations, when acknowledged and implemented by people in different roles transform into identities. There are basically three assumptions derived from symbolic interactionism. They include the assumption that individuals establish meaning through the communication process, the assumption that self-conceptualization is a motivation for particular behavior, and that there exists a unique association between the society and the respective individual ( Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975).
My major relationship with symbolic interactionism is perceived through the ‘new media’. ‘New Media’ is a common term associated with the internet and the existing interplay amid sound, images, and technology. The advancement in online community studies fosters the increased recognition and acceptance of online communities as a social construct. Studies term online community as a significant social construct with reference to its economic, political and cultural aspects (Hughes, 2016). Online community is perceived as a forum that enhances interactions through both face-to-face and online interactions; this, in turn, fosters people’s actions in line with the meanings derived from their social environment, both offline and online interactions. Online communications also enhances the adoption of meanings depending on the existing relationship, circumstance, power, and information that constitute the practices of a particular online community. Individuals embrace community depending on the way it is conceived and the meaning derived from the community advances as individuals institute different ways of its utilization. The present-day potential leaders embrace communication as an effective way of presenting their purpose and vision; this, in turn, enhances the empowerment of his supporters ( Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975).
Communication by potential political leaders usually assumes numerous forms such as social media platforms, political advertisements, newspapers, and face-to-face approaches. When it comes to fields such as the media, focus is on the self. For example, a person reading the news is expected to communicate a warm and vibrant aura even before they speak. A reporter on the ground should somewhat be brave and witty when need arises. Such are the qualities that should be projected by candidates willing to fill such positions. The political field is more rigid and require brave and firm individuals. The behavior of politicians in a social setting make people make judgment as to whether they are comfortable electing them or not. Therefore, the politicians will always strive to look at themselves from the eyes of the public. In doing this, they are redefining the idea of themselves and conforming to what they think the public thinks of them ( Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975).
In the contemporary society, symbolic interactionism is considered an important aspect in fostering a team approach in the workplace. The symbolic interaction theory has proven to aid in managing people in both a social and professional setting. It has been employed by scholars for s few years, showing that it has a strong base. However, there are some aspects to it that could render it outdated. To begin with, the theory focuses on qualitative data rather than quantitative. Quantitative data is easily proven as opposed to qualitative. On the other hand, the theory uses a wide scope of data, making it ambiguous. The theory incorporates the self but is inclined towards preset symbolic meanings, meaning that even the judgment of the self is compromised. When managing people, generalizing can lead to false results. Every person is unique and has their own way of defining symbols, behavior, and speech. In addition, just because the greater part of the population agree to giving a meaning to a certain symbol does not make the meaning entirely correct. Some people acknowledge vices and opposing such a symbol may be termed as morally correct (Paul, 1996).
Symbolic interactionism seeks to address the establishment and maintenance of the society through replicated interactions among individuals. Symbolic interactionism is based on three assumptions which include the assumption that individuals establish meaning through the communication process, the assumption that self-conceptualization is a motivation for particular behavior, and that there exists a unique association between the society and the respective individual. There are various theories that seek to address the concept of symbolic interactionism. Some of the studies include works by Herbert Blumer among other researchers. Regardless of the criticisms against the theory, symbolic interactionism is considered an important aspect in fostering a teamwork approach in the workplace. The theory also plays a major role in managing people in both a social and professional setting.
References
Charon, J, M. (2007). Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An Interpretation (9th Edition). Pearson.
Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 13, 46-78
Paul, J. (1996). A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective on Leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies , 3(2).
Visagie, J. C., Linde, H., & Havenga, W.(2011). A Theoretical Approach to the Experience of Diversity Management: Mead Revisited. Journal of Social Science , 27(2), 111-121. http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-27-0-000-11-Web/JSS-27-2-000-11- Abst-PDF/JSS-27-2-111-11-1098-Visagie-J-C/JSS-27-2-111-11-1098-Visagie-J-C-Tt.pdf
Hughes, P. (2016). Using symbolic interactionism insights as an approach to helping the individual with Asperger's syndrome overcome barriers to social inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 60-74.
