Interactionist theories of society, culture and identity

Salisbury (2018) observes that social action theory starts with the premise that
society is not an entity ‘out there’, and ‘if it exists at all it only does so inside
people’s heads’ (p. 32). This alternative way of looking at society is a ‘micro’ or
humanistic approach which is underpinned by a focus on how social reality is
‘interpreted’ by individuals during everyday interaction with others. Social action
theory is a ‘bottom-up’ theory in that it sees individuals as more important than
societies or social systems in contrast with structuralist theories that are ‘top-
down’ in their insistence that society is more important than individuals.

In contrast to structural theories of society, social action theories argue that people’s
behaviour and life-chances are not determined by the structural features of
particular societies or their social background. Rather, social action theory can be
described as a voluntarist approach because it stresses the role of free will and
choice in shaping personal identity, culture and wider society. It sees people as
masters of their own destiny rather than being propelled along by social forces
beyond their control.

Social action theory argues that society is the net sum of people interacting with
each other at home, at work, at college, in the street and so on. Consequently, social
action theory argues that society, culture and identity are social constructions – for
example, society and culture are the product of people voluntarily choosing to
associate with one another and to share in common agreement particular values,
norms, customs and so on.

Identity or self too is gradually socially constructed as we adapt our outlook,

personality and social behaviour in reaction to how others respond to us in
particular social contexts. Social action approaches argue that the concept of society
as a social construct means that societies should not be seen as rigid and
unchangeable. Rather they argue that ‘social constructs’ can gradually change over
time. For example, many societies across the world have changed their internal
structures as values, norms and social meanings with regard to the rights and roles
of women have shifted. There are three variations on social action theory worth
further investigation: symbolic interactionism, labelling theory and the
dramaturgical approach.

(1) Symbolic interactionism

Symbolic interactionism – the full name for interactionism – derives from the
writings of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) and then Herbert Blumer (1900–87) at
the University of Chicago. Mead’s writing (Mead, 1934) provided the foundation for
the perspective, while Blumer (1962) helped apply the ideas to sociological issues.

The theory of symbolic interactionism has three core ideas: the symbol, the self, the
interaction.

 The symbol

The world around us consists of millions of unique objects and people. Life would
be impossible if we treated every separate thing as unique. Instead, we group things
together into categories, which we then classify. Usually, we then give each group
a name (which is a symbol). Examples of symbols include ‘trees’, ‘students’,
‘parents’. You will immediately see that the symbol may evoke some feelings in us;
they are not necessarily neutral terms. So, the world is composed of many symbols,
all of which have some meaning for us and suggest a possible response or possible
course of action. But the course of action that we feel is appropriate may not be
shared by everybody.

 The self

In order for people to respond to and act upon the meanings that symbols have for
them, they have to know their selves, that is, who they are within this world of
symbols and meaning. Crucially, this involves us being able to see ourselves
through the eyes of others. Blumer suggests that we develop this notion of the self
during childhood socialisation and, in particular, in role-playing. When we engage
in a game with others, we learn various social roles and also learn how these
interact with the roles of others. This brings us to the third element of
interactionism, the importance of the interaction itself.

 The interaction

For sociology, the most important element of symbolic interactionism is actually the
point at which the symbol and the self interact. Children learn (again through role-
playing) to take the viewpoint of other people into account whenever they set out on
any course of action. Only by having an idea of what the other person is thinking
about the situation is it possible to interact with them. This is an extremely
complex business – it involves reading the meaning of the situation correctly from
the viewpoint of the other (What sort of person are they? How do they see me?
What do they expect me to do?) and then responding in terms of how you see your
own personality (Who am I? How do I want to behave? How do I want to be
seen?). There is great scope for confusion and misunderstanding, so it is important
that everyone involved in an interaction must read the rules and symbols correctly.

Interaction, therefore, involves people interpreting what is going on around them

and applying symbolic meaning to particular social situations and to the actions
of others. People interpret what is going on around them by looking for shared
signs and symbols. For example, our actions are often dependent on our successful
interpretation of signs and symbols signalled by others via facial expression, body
language, gesture, tone of voice and so on, which indicate approval or disapproval
of our actions. In reaction to others, we may modify our behaviour accordingly.

Symbolic interactionism also argues that individuals and groups are constantly and
actively engaged in re-negotiating social meanings and interpretations. People’s
roles and social identities as parents, children, teachers, students, workers and so on
are often open to individual interpretation and negotiation. For example, society
collectively agrees that the role of a teacher is to teach students the knowledge and
skills to ensure that they successfully pass exams. However, social action theory
acknowledges that each teacher will negotiate this role differently depending on the
quality of their interaction with students. For example, teachers may judge that
young students may only respond positively to a highly disciplined or controlled
approach whereas a more relaxed approach might be used with A Level students.

Labelling theory
This type of social action theory argues that powerful social actors have the power
to change our behaviour by applying symbolic labels which shape our sense of
self so that we may end up identifying with whatever label or stereotypical
symbol is pinned on us. For example, a teacher’s initial judgement of a student as a
potential failure (a label which may be based on a range of both subjective and
objective criteria) may be consciously or unconsciously transmitted to the student
by the teacher’s interaction with the student in the classroom. The student, who
may still be in the early stages of constructing their sense of self at school, may
symbolically identify the teacher’s facial expression, tone of voice and vocal criticism
of their behaviour with the view that the teacher does not think highly of their
ability. They may respond by indulging in behaviour that disrupts lessons and
confirms the teacher’s initial label or prediction and consequently underachieve.
From a labelling theory perspective, the interaction between the powerful teacher
and the less powerful student has constructed or shaped the ‘failure’. This effect is
known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can, of course, work in the opposite direction.
Some students may be positively motivated towards success by both positive labels
and interaction with their teachers.

Activity

Imagine that you are a new student in a school and you are about to be taught by a
teacher who taught your older sibling. When you introduce yourself to the teacher,
they remark that they were not impressed with your older sibling. You receive your
first assignment which you hand in on time after putting a lot of effort into it.
However, when the teacher hands out the grades, they make a remark in front of
your class accusing you of copying the work of others ‘like your brother or sister
used to do’. You protest your innocence but the teacher does not seem convinced.
You submit other pieces of work but the accusations of copying and cheating
continue. What do you think will be the long-term effect of this teacher stereotyping
on your interpretation of the teacher’s lessons and your future work-ethic?

Interactionism suggests that the people who make up a particular society share a
universal stock or library of meanings and that this is the source of social order in
society. For example, we all share similar interpretations of the symbols of authority,
such as wearing a cap/helmet and uniform, and we generally react in the same way
when we are stopped by the police, showing respect and deference.

The dramaturgical approach

Erving Goffman (1990) took a ‘dramaturgical’ approach to social action. He referred
to members of society as ‘social actors’. He claimed that people in a variety of daily
social contexts act out or perform identity. Goffman suggested that every social
situation in which we find ourselves is a scene in the larger drama of social life or
society. To paraphrase Shakespeare, ‘all the social world is a stage’. As actors,
Goffman observed that our role is to manage other people’s impressions of
ourselves. We do this by putting on a ‘front’ or projecting a particular image of
ourselves. For example, teachers might be shy, introverted and fairly quiet
personalities in the company of their peers, friends and family but the ‘front’ that
they project in the classroom in order to control their students may be full of
confidence, authority and even arrogance. Such teachers are, therefore, ‘playing a
role’ in order to satisfy social or cultural expectations about how successful teachers
should behave. This impression management can be quite stressful and exhausting
because people need to be constantly aware when the need arises to ‘act’ and when
they can drop the front and act more like their ‘real’ selves. Goffman, therefore,
argued that our negotiation of social interaction and reality is dependent on our
ability to successfully switch ‘fronts’ depending on what social situation or ‘scene’
we are participating in.

Evaluating social action theories

On the positive side, first, social action theories recognise that people or social
actors are complex beings who exercise a degree of free will and consequently
possess a diverse stock of social meanings and interpretations which they use to
flexibly negotiate their way through their interactions with others and social
reality. Second, social action theories acknowledge that social actors play an active
rather than passive role in the social construction of society. Third, labelling theory
recognises the importance of micro-level interactions in shaping people’s
identities and what goes on within social institutions. They also acknowledge that
‘power’ is a crucial element in the social construction of society.

However, social action theories have been criticised by functionalists, Marxists and
feminists for, first, failing to pay sufficient attention to the influence of structural
social forces such as value consensus, social class inequalities, patriarchy and
institutional racism on individual action.

Second, although social action theory emphasises the role of power in the social
construction of society, it is often vague about the source of the power that allows
some groups to impose their social interpretation of reality on others.

Finally, social action theory is keen to stress how voluntarist human action is and
how over-deterministic structuralist theories are. However, social action theory is
not totally innocent when it comes to determinism. It can be argued that the process
of labelling is deterministic. If, as interactionists tend to argue, it leads to a self-
fulfilling prophecy, this implies that it is very difficult for an individual to escape
the consequences of being labelled by powerful institutions such as
teachers/schools, the police and criminal justice system or the media. For example,
it is almost impossible for a powerless student to voluntarily opt out of an
educational context such as being constrained by a physical detention, which has
come about as a result of a mistaken label or biased stereotype imposed by an
incompetent teacher.