Symbolic Interactionism by George Herbert Mead Chapter 4

Interpersonal Messages Symbolic Interaction seeks to explain human communication between people who have some form of a relationship. Symbolic Interactionism is a broad theory that links language with perception, thinking, self-concept, and culture. Mead’s focus is language and how humans communicate with words. Mead looks at how we label people & actions, especially our own.

“Father of Sociology” George Herbert Mead taught in the Philosophy department at the University of Chicago in the early 1900s. Contributed founding theory for the emerging new field of “Sociology” Never wrote up his theories, but his most renown student, Herbert Blumer did. Mind, Self, Society is still in use today.

Blumer’s Contributions Three core principles of symbolic interactionism. Meaning Language Thought These principles lead to conclusions about the person’s self and socialization into the larger community.

Meaning: The Construction of Social Reality Starts with premise that humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things. Stimulus- Interpretation Response

Language: The Source of Meaning We need the ability to use language in order to negotiate, interpret, and assign meaning. This leads to the second premise that meaning arises out of the social interaction that people have with each other. Meaning is negotiated through the use of language Humans have the ability to name things (objects), specify action (shout), refer to abstract ideas (concepts).

Thought: The Process of Taking the Role of the Other The third premise is that an individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought processes. SI folks call this process minding. Example, how do you interact with strangers as opposed to say your friends? When do we take the role of the other?

The Self: Reflections in a Looking Glass Meaning, Language, and Thought together lead to an understanding of what Mead calls the self. Seeing the self is not necessarily an introspective process. Instead we “paint our self-portrait with brush strokes that come from taking the role of the other”. This mental image is called the Looking-Glass Self and is socially constructed.

Images in the Looking Glass Self SI-ers believe the self is a function of language without talk there would be no self concept. one needs to be a member of a community before consciousness of self is understood. The self is always in flux, recombining the “I” and the “ME”

Community: The Socializing Effect of Others’ Expectations Belonging to a community leads to the development of a generalized other. Mead sees this as 1) an over-arching looking - glass self that we put together from the reflections we see in everyone we know, or 2) The expectations of society that influences our thinking.

Applications of SI Creating Reality (How do we do it?) Meaning-ful Research ( Real-life observation and participation) Generalized Other (“Cipher in the Snow”) Naming (labeling) Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Expectations) Symbol Manipulation (e.g. texting)

Critique A Theory Too Grand? Is the theory difficult to apply? Is the focus on language use overstated? Conversely, breadth and scope provide a way to connect ideas that span disciplines. SI provides a foundation for theorists working in communication. Is this a good theory? Why? Approach?