Symbolic Interactionism is a sociological perspective that

focuses on the micro-level interactions between individuals and

how symbols and meanings are created and shared in these
interactions. This theoretical framework emphasizes the
subjective aspects of social life and examines how individuals
interpret and respond to symbols in their daily interactions. Key
concepts and principles associated with Symbolic Interactionism
include:

 Symbols: Symbols are objects, gestures, words, or images

that carry shared meanings within a particular social group.
These symbols form the basis for communication and
interaction.
 Meaning: Symbolic Interactionism emphasizes that human
behavior is influenced by the meanings individuals attribute
to symbols. Meanings are not inherent in objects; they are
socially constructed through interactions.
 Self and Identity: The theory places a significant emphasis
on the concept of self and how individuals develop a sense
of identity through social interactions. The "looking glass
self" suggests that people see themselves through the
perceptions of others.
 Role-Taking: Symbolic Interactionists highlight the
importance of role-taking, where individuals try to
understand and adopt the perspectives of others. This
process is essential for effective communication and social
cooperation.
 Socialization: The theory explores how individuals learn the
meanings of symbols and appropriate behaviors through
socialization processes, particularly within small social
groups such as families, peers, and communities.
 Interaction and Negotiation: Symbolic Interactionism
focuses on the ongoing process of social interaction and
negotiation. Individuals continually adjust their behavior
based on the meanings they ascribe to symbols and the
responses they receive from others.
 Labeling Theory: This is an application of Symbolic
Interactionism that examines how individuals are labeled
and how these labels influence their behavior and societal
 reactions. It emphasizes the consequences of societal
definitions of behavior.
 Critique of Structuralism: Symbolic Interactionism stands in
contrast to structuralist perspectives that focus on broader
social structures and institutions. Instead, it directs
attention to the everyday, face-to-face interactions that
shape social reality.

ANOTHER WEBSITE

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory and perspective based

on micro-level observations. It was developed by Charles Horton
Cooley and George Herbert Mead, and its focus is the interactions
and relationships between individuals of society.

The theory of symbolic interactionism emerged

after functionalism and conflict theory and is different from these, as
it switches the focus from large-scale social events and trends to
personal interpretations and meanings.

Symbolic interactionists believe that people communicate with each

other through language and symbols, and one can make sense of
society through examining this. For symbolic interactionists, people are
actively shaping society rather than being shaped by it (Herman and
Reynolds, 1994).

All interactionists believe in the importance of everyday interactions

and meaningful objects in humans’ lives. These can be material things,
relationships, other people, actions and symbols.

Symbolic Interactionism: Examples of

Symbols
Why are symbols so important? Let's look at some examples of
symbols from the lens of symbolic interactionism.

Symbols are interpreted in the same way by all members of society, as

they have a shared social meaning. In this way, they form the social
values, norms and rules of society. Symbols used by social groups can
also communicate certain beliefs specific to that group to the rest of
society. Symbols, thus, can both create a sense of unity and a sense of
diversity in society.

An example of a widely used symbol is a form of nonverbal

communication, such as a salute. A salute symbolizes respect in the US
and in many other countries. There might be societies in the world,
however, which understand this gesture differently (Masuda et al.
2008).

Fig. 1 - A salute symbolizes respect in the US.

Did you know that the NBA has a regulation on what basketball players can wear
off the court, on official occasions representing their team and the league (Crowe
and Herman 2005)? This is another example of the use of symbols: dress codes.

This is not just present in sports; many American schools regulate how the
students can and cannot dress for class, some even require uniforms. Similarly,
professional settings often regulate how someone may dress.
Sociologists argue that symbols often determine our personal
relationships with others and thus separate us from animals. Family
relationships and norms surrounding them come from symbolism.
Through them, we ‘know’ how we should behave in the presence of a
teacher vs. in the presence of our sibling, and helps us understand what
we are allowed to say to our boss vs. to our uncle.

Let us now look at the work of key symbolic interactionist theorists.

We will briefly look at their most important arguments. If you wish to
know more about their lives and careers, you can find detailed
information in our explanations under 'key theorists'.
George Herbert Mead's Symbolic
Interactionism
George Herbert Mead is often referred to as the father of symbolic
interactionism, even though his student, Herbert Blumer, came up with
the term for the new sociological perspective.

Mead was a professor at the University of Chicago, where he did

research on small-scale events and people's everyday interactions. His
findings became increasingly popular as many sociologists worldwide
turned away from large-scale studies that focused on grand social
trends and patterns.

Mead and the Development of the Self

Mead (1934) directed the focus of his micro-sociology on the
development of the self. He identified three stages of the process: the
preparatory stage, the play stage and the game stage.

 The preparatory stage is the period in children’s lives when they

simply imitate the family members around them. Through
imitation, they learn about the symbols of society, such as gestures
and words of basic human communication. An example of this is
learning that waving means "hello" or "goodbye".
 In the play stage, children already understand the basic symbols of
society, and they start using them and pretending to be other
people. They pretend to be doctors, patients, mothers, fairy tale
characters etc. as they play. Role-playing is crucial in the play
stage, according to Mead.
 At the game stage, children can differentiate between social
situations and relationships. They are aware of their own social
position and the social position of others around them. When they
interact with others, they act according to this knowledge. Mead
 argued that children’s behavior at this stage is affected by their
awareness of what he called ‘the generalized other’.

Symbolic Interactionism: Key

Sociologists
After Mead came many more influential sociologists who developed
(and to a certain extent, even transformed) symbolic interactionism. We
are going to discuss three key symbolic interactionist sociologists:
Herbert Blumer, Charles H. Cooley and Erving Goffman.

Herbert Blumer (1900 - 1987)

Herbert Blumer was Mead’s student, credited with coining the term
‘symbolic interactionism’. He was also the one to clarify what the
theory was built on. He stated that symbolic interactionism is
concerned with how humans interpret the meaning of different objects
and acts they come across in society (1969).

Charles H. Cooley (1864 - 1929)

Charles H. Cooley is also thought to be a founder of symbolic
interactionism. He developed his theory of how people’s sense of self
develops through social interactions, and argued that people develop a
sense of self by interpreting the reactions of others to them. Cooley
named this the ‘looking-glass self’ theory (1902). There are three stages
of the development of the looking-glass self:
1. People imagine how their behavior appears to others. For example,
they can think others perceive them as smart or boring.
2. People observe the reactions of others and make conclusions on
how others evaluate them. For example, they may think others like
them for being smart, or dislike them for being boring.
 3. People develop a self-concept and start to have feelings about
themselves based on how they interpret other’s reactions. For
example, people might develop a positive sense of self if they
realize others like them because they appear as smart.
Through the three stages, people view themselves in the eyes of others.
Cooley pointed out that this process starts in childhood, but goes on for
the rest of people’s lives. They continue to observe how others react to
them in everyday situations and shape their sense of self.

Erving Goffman (1922-1982)

Erving Goffman also focused on symbols and the development and
presentation of the self. He used dramaturgical analysis for his study of
people and their interactions.

Goffman (1958) looked at people as theatrical performers, performing

in their everyday lives as actors on a stage. This analogy helps us not
only understand how people improvise roles in social situations, but
how they present a certain image of themselves that changes according
to how they interact and with whom.

For example, if we are at a party with our friends we might present a

friendly, relaxed image while if we are at the bank trying to get a loan
we're likely to present a serious, responsible side of ourselves.

Fig. 2 - Goffman said people perform in life as actors perform on the

stage.

Symbolic Interactionist Methodology

Symbolic interactionists do micro-sociology. Qualitative research methods are
preferred for this type of research, as it provides more layered and personal
insights into issues. Symbolic interactionists often use participant observation and
in-depth, informal interviews to understand the meaning of actions and symbols in
their research subjects’ lives and relationships.
Constructivism and Symbolic
Interactionism
Constructivism is a theory developed from symbolic interactionism. It
argues that reality is simply what people make it to be through
their interpretation of interactions.

Constructivists believe that people have created social constructs based

on their relationship to others, and the social constructs that have lasted
over time are now the symbols of society known by all members.

For example, deviance is defined in different ways in different

societies. Members of each society all know what they regard as
deviant and what the punishment is for it. However, their definition is a
social construction based on the historical understanding of deviance in
that particular community, and not an absolute definition.

Importance of Symbolic
Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is an extremely important perspective in
sociology. It was the first sociological approach that concerned itself
with the everyday and the mundane of human behavior and interaction
rather than the grand patterns of society.

Symbolic interactionists point out that the narrow focus of their

research makes it more valuable than other types of sociological work.
They also claim that by working so closely on human relationships and
communication, one adopts a subjective point of view and can produce
theories from the perspective of the research subjects.
Interestingly, it is these two aspects of symbolic interactionism that
draws the most criticism. Many criticize it for being too subjective, thus
harming the validity of one's research. Others find issues with the
extremely narrow focus of symbolic interactionist research due to
issues of generalizability. They claim it is impossible to apply such
small-scale studies to the whole of society.
Despite the criticism, symbolic interactionism is one of the three
biggest sociological theories (alongside functionalism and conflict
theory) and its significance in conducting studies and developing
ground-breaking theories cannot be underplayed.

Check out 'Evaluation of Interactionism' for more analysis!

Symbolic Interactionism - Key takeaways

 Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective based on

micro-level observations. Symbols are interpreted in the same way
by all members of society, as they have a shared social meaning.

 George Herbert Mead is often referred to as the father of symbolic

interactionism, even though it was his student, Herbert Blumer,
who came up with the term for the new sociological perspective.

 Symbolic interactionists do micro-sociology. Qualitative research

methods are preferred for this type of research, as it provides more
layered and personal insights into issues.

 Constructivism was developed from symbolic interactionism. It is a

theory that argues that reality is simply what people make it to be
through their interpretation of interactions.

 The biggest criticism towards symbolic interactionism is that it is

very subjective.
Frequently Asked Questions about Symbolic
Interactionism
What is symbolic interactionism?
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective based on micro-level
observations. It was developed by Charles Horton Cooley and George
Herbert Mead, and its focus is the interactions and relationships between
individuals of society.
What is the symbolic interactionism theory?
The theory of symbolic interactionism emerged
after functionalism and conflict theory and is different from these two as
it switches the focus from large-scale social events and trends to personal
interpretations of societal aspects.

Symbolic interactionists believe that people communicate with each other

by the use of language and symbols, and the way one can make sense of
society is through the examination of this communication. For symbolic
interactionists, people are actively shaping society rather than being
shaped by it (Herman and Reynolds, 1994).
What is the focus of symbolic interactions?
Symbolic interactionism focuses on symbols. Symbols are interpreted in
the same way by all members of society, as they have a shared social
meaning. In this way, they form the social values, norms and rules of
society. Symbols used by social groups can also communicate certain
beliefs specific to that group to the rest of society. Symbols, thus, can both
create a sense of unity and a sense of diversity in society.
How does symbolic interactionism explain social
change?
Symbolic interactionists argue that social change happens when social
interactions, values, rules and the power of social groups are being
redefined.
What is a good example of symbolic interactionism?
Symbols are the focus of symbolic interactionism. An example of a widely
used symbol can be a form of nonverbal communication, like a salute. A
salute symbolizes respect in the US and in many other countries as well.
There might be societies in the world, however, which understand this
gesture differently (Masuda et al. 2008).

FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological

perspective on self and society based on the
ideas of George H. Mead (1934), Charles H.
Cooley (1902), W. I. Thomas (1931), and other
pragmatists associated, primarily, with
the University of Chicago in the early
twentieth century. The central theme of
symbolic interactionism is that human life is
lived in the symbolic domain. Symbols are
culturally derived social objects having shared
meanings that are created and maintained in
social interaction. Through language and
communication, symbols provide the means by
which reality is constructed. Reality is
primarily a social product, and all that is
humanly consequential—self, mind, society,
culture—emerges from and is dependent on
symbolic interactions for its existence. Even
the physical environment is relevant to human
conduct mainly as it is interpreted through
symbolic systems.

Importance Of Meanings
The label symbolic interactionism was coined
by Herbert Blumer (1969), one of Mead's
students. Blumer, who did much to shape this
perspective, specified its three basic premises:
(1) Humans act toward things on the basis of
the meanings that things have for them; (2) the
meanings of things derive from social
interaction; and (3) these meanings are
dependent on, and modified by, an interpretive
process of the people who interact with one
another. The focus here is on meaning, which
is defined in terms of action and its
consequences (reflecting the influence of
pragmatism). The meaning of a thing resides in
the action that it elicits. For example, the
meaning of "grass" is food to a cow, shelter to
a fox, and the like. In the case of symbols,
meanings also depend on a degree of
consensual responses between two or more
people. The meaning of the word husband, for
example, depends on the consensual
responses of those who use it. If most of those
who use it agree, the meaning of a symbol is
clear; if consensus is low, the meaning is
ambiguous, and communication is problematic.
Within a culture, a general consensus prevails
on the meanings associated with various words
or symbols. However, in practice, the meanings
of things are highly variable and depend on
processes of interpretation and negotiation of
the interactants.

The interpretive process entails what Blumer

refers to as role-taking, the cognitive ability to
take the perspective of another. It is a critical
process in communication because it enables
actors to interpret one another's responses,
thereby bringing about greater consensus on
the meanings of the symbols used. The
determination of meanings also depends on
negotiation—that is, on mutual adjustments
and accommodations of those who are
interacting. In short, meaning is emergent,
problematic, and dependent on processes of
role-taking and negotiation. Most concepts of
symbolic interactionism are related to the
concept of meaning.
Situational Definitions
The importance of meanings is reflected in
Thomas's (1931) famous dictum: If situations
are defined as real, they are real in their
consequences. The definition of the situation
emphasizes that people act in situations on the
basis of how they are defined. Definitions, even
when at variance with "objective" reality, have
real consequences for people's actions and
events.

Encyclopedia 1080
0 seconds of 1 minute, 4 secondsVolume 0%

The definitional process involves the

determination of relevant identities and
attributes of interactants. If, for example, a
teacher defines a student as a slow learner
(based on inaccurate information), her
discriminatory behavior (e.g., less attention
and lower expectations) may have a negative
effect on the student's intellectual
development, resulting in a self-fulfilling
prophecy. This process, in combination with
interactionist ideas about self-concept
formation, is the basis of the labeling
theory of deviance. Labeling theory proposes
that a key factor in the development of
deviants is the negative label of identity
imposed on the person (e.g., "criminal,"
"pervert") who engages in deviant behavior
(Becker 1963).

Defining a situation is not a static process. An

initial definition, based on past experiences or
cultural expectations, may be revised in the
course of interaction. Much of the negotiation
in social situations entails an attempt to
present the self in a favorable light or to defend
a valued identity. Erving Goffman's (1959)
insightful analyses of impression management
and the use of deference and demeanor, as
well as Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman's
(1968) examination of the use of excuses,
justifications, and accounts, speak to the
intricacies involved in situational definitions.
Where power or status disparities exist, the
dominant interactant's definition of the
situation likely prevails.

Self-Concept Formation
Along with symbols, meaning, and interaction,
the self is a basic concept in symbolic
interactionism. The essential feature of the self
is that it is a reflexive phenomenon. Reflexivity
enables humans to act toward themselves as
objects, or to reflect on themselves, argue with
themselves, evaluate themselves, and so forth.
This human attribute (al-though dolphins and
the great apes show some evidence of a self as
well), based on the social character of human
language and the ability to role-take, enables
individuals to see themselves from the
perspective of another and thereby to form a
conception of themselves, a self-concept.

Two types of others are critical in the

development of the self. The significant
other refers to people who are important to an
individual, whose opinions matter.
The generalized other refers to a conception
of the community, group, or any organized
system of roles (e.g., a baseball team) that are
used as a point of reference from which to view
the self.

The importance of others in the formation of

self-concepts is captured in Cooley's (1902)
influential concept, the looking-glass
self. Cooley proposed that to some extent
individuals see themselves as they think others
see them. Self-conceptions and self-feelings
(e.g., pride or shame) are a consequence of
how people imagine others perceive and
evaluate them. Within contemporary symbolic
interactionism, this process is called reflected
appraisals and is the main process
emphasized in the development of the self.

The self is considered a social product in other

ways, too. The content of self-concepts
reflects the content and organization of
society. This is evident with regard to the roles
that are internalized as role-identities (e.g.,
father, student). Roles, as behavioral
expectations associated with a status within a
set of relationships, constitute a major link
between social and personal organization.
Sheldon Stryker (1980) proposes that
differential commitment to various role-
identities provides much of the structure and
organization of self-concepts. To the extent
that individuals are committed to a particular
role identity, they are motivated to act
according to their conception of the identity
and to maintain and protect it, because their
role performance implicates their self-esteem.
Much of socialization, particularly during
childhood, involves learning social roles and
associated values, attitudes, and beliefs.
Initially this takes place in the family, then in
larger arenas (e.g., peer groups, school, work
settings) of the individual's social world. The
role identities formed early in life, such as
gender and filial identities, remain some of the
most important throughout life. Yet
socialization is lifelong, and individuals assume
various role identities throughout their life
course.

Socialization is not a passive process of

learning roles and conforming to other's
expectations. The self is highly active and
selective, having a major influence on its
environment and itself. When people play roles,
role-making often is as evident as is learning
roles. In role-making, individuals actively
construct, interpret, and uniquely express their
roles. When they perceive an incongruity
between a role imposed on them and some
valued aspect of their self-conception, they
may distance themselves from a role, which is
the disassociation of self from role. A pervasive
theme in this literature is that the self actively
engages in its own development, a process
that may be unpredictable.

Divisions Within Symbolic

Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is not a homogeneous
theoretical perspective. Although
interactionists agree that humans rely on
shared symbols to construct their realities and
on the methodological requirement of
understanding behavior by "getting inside" the
reality of the actor, substantial divisions
remain within this perspective. The main
division is between those who emphasize
process and those who emphasize structure in
studying human realities. The former,
associated with Blumer (1969) and known as
the Chicago School, advocates the use of
qualitative methods in studying the process of
reality construction within natural social
settings. The latter, associated with Manfurd
Kuhn (1964) and labeled the Iowa School,
advocates the use of quantitative methods in
studying the products of social interaction,
especially self-concepts. The differences
between these two schools of symbolic
interactionism reflect the fundamental division
in the social sciences between
humanistic/interpretive orientations, which
align with history and the humanities, and
positivistic orientations, which align with the
physical sciences. Both of these orientations to
symbolic interactionism are evident in
marriage and family studies, although the
structural orientation predominates.

Symbolic Interactionism And Family

Studies
Symbolic interactionism has been an important
theoretical perspective in family studies since
its early development in the 1920s and 1930s
(LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). William Thomas
and Florian Znaniecki's (1918–1920)
monumental study, The Polish Peasant in
Europe and America, was an early application
of some of the main themes and concepts of
the perspective. This study focused on the
adjustments and transformations in personality
and family patterns in the Polish peasant
community in the course of immigration to
the United States during the early 1900s.
Processes of socialization, adaptation,
definition formation, role-making, and self-
concept development were major themes in
their analysis.

Ernest Burgess, however, was the first to call

for the systematic application of "processual"
symbolic interactionism to family studies. He
proposed that the family can be viewed as "a
unity of inter-acting personalities" (Burgess
1926), a little universe of communication in
which roles and selves are shaped and each
personality affects every other personality.
Unfortunately, few heeded Burgess's call to
study the dynamic interactions of whole
families (for an exception, see Hess and Handel
1959). It is impractical for most family
researchers to study whole family dynamics
over time. Burgess's own empirical studies
mostly used conventional survey methods and
measurements in studying marital adjustment
(Burgess and Cottrell 1939), and reflect a
more structural interactionism (i.e., emphasis
on social structure rather than process)
characteristic of the Iowa school.

Another pioneer in the symbolic interactionist

approach to family research was Willard Waller
(1937, 1938). Waller used qualitative methods
(e.g., case studies and novels) to study family
dynamics, particularly processes of
interpersonal conflict, bargaining, and
exploitation. His principle of least
interest suggests that the person least
interested in or committed to the marital or
dating relationship has the most power in that
relationship and frequently exploits the other.
The theme of conflict and exploitation was
prominent in his analysis of college dating
patterns in the 1930s. Reuben Hill, who shaped
much of the contemporary research on the
family, reworked Waller's treatise by shifting
the focus from a conflict and process
orientation to a relatively structured
developmental perspective emphasizing family
roles and a more harmonious view of family life
(Waller and Hill 1951).
Much contemporary family research from a
symbolic interactionist perspective deals with
some type of role analysis, such as how the
roles of husband and wife are defined during
stages of family life; how gender role
conceptions affect the definitions of spousal
roles; how the arrival of children and the
transition to parental roles change role
constellations and interaction patterns; how
external events (e.g., parental employment,
natural disasters, migration) and internal
events (e.g., births, deaths, divorces) affect
role definitions, performance, stress, or
conflict; and how these role-specific variables
affect the attitudes, dispositions, and self-
conceptions of family members (Hutter 1985).
The concept of role is also important for most
of the major sociological perspectives (e.g.,
structural functionalism, social exchange
theory, and even conflict theory). The symbolic
interactionist perspective emphasizes the
processes of role-making, role definition, role
negotiation, and role identity within the family
(Hochschild 1989).

A large area of symbolic interactionist research

deals with socialization—the processes
through which personalities and self-concepts
are formed, values and attitudes are
transmitted, and the culture of one generation
is passed to the next. The socialization of
children is one of the few remaining (and the
most critical) functions of the family in modern
societies. It has received considerable
attention from researchers. A symbolic
interactionist perspective on child socialization
encompasses a broad range of processes and
outcomes involved in integrating the newborn
into its family and society. Most of the
socialization research has focused on the
development of some aspect of the self (e.g.,
self-esteem, gender, and filial identities). The
research indicates that positive reflected
appraisals from parents along with parental
support and the use of inductive control have
positive socialization outcomes for the
children's self-concept (Gecas and Schwalbe
1986; Peterson and Rollins 1987).

The socialization process is highly reciprocal;

parents and children affect one anothers' self-
concepts. The high levels of reciprocity
characteristic of family socialization processes
(and a hallmark of symbolic interactionism) are
rarely reflected in family research, although
researchers are increasingly sensitive to it. A
focus on reciprocity is more evident in
research where identity negotiation is
problematic, as in the case of lesbian
motherhood (Hequembourg and Farrell 1999) or
in the case of immigrant families where
parents and children must renegotiate their
roles in unfamiliar cultural contexts (Hyman
and Vu 2000).

In addition to pursuing traditional interests in

family studies, mostly in the United States,
symbolic interactionists are increasingly
pursuing cross-cultural and international
research. In the area of self and identity, for
example, Steve Derne (1999) shows how male
filmgoers in India use their interpretations of
Western films to both maintain and enhance
their sense of male privilege. This research
demonstrates how, when exposed to cultural
perspectives that may threaten their own self-
concepts or ethnic identities, people engage in
interpretive processes that serve to
incorporate these ideas into existing self-
structures. Research in Nigeria (Rotini 1986)
has shown how car ownership, an influential
status symbol, shapes personal interactions
among the owners of different types of cars
and how the infiltration of new technologies
into cultures can alter role-relations in social
institutions such as the family, law, and
religion.

Cross-cultural research also explores how

family relations are conducted within specific
ethnic domains, and how the cultural contexts
in which communication occurs shape family
interactions and identity negotiations (Luo and
Wiseman 2000). Mzobanzi Mboya (1993), for
example, offers a compelling study of the ways
that the self-concepts of South African
adolescent schoolchildren are related to their
perceptions of parental behavior. Simon
Cheng's (2000) research on the child
socialization mechanisms used by Chinese
families who have immigrated to the United
States demonstrates how ethnic identities are
socially constructed, negotiated, and
maintained through parent-child interactions
that occur in heterogeneous cultural milieus.

Broadly speaking, social movements, national

dilemmas, international conflict, and the flow
of international immigrants frame the symbolic
domains in which families live. Immigrant
families and children encountering cultures and
lifestyles that are vastly different from their
own struggle to realize new opportunities and
to maintain their own ethnic identities and
integrity (Zhou 1997). Global social movements
such as the women's movement offer
opportunities for women to reconstruct their
identities and, in doing so, to reconstruct the
institution of the family itself (Ray and
Korteweg 1999).
Conclusion
Many areas of family research reflect symbolic
interactionist ideas, often in diffuse and diluted
form. For instance, in much of the research on
marital satisfaction, marital quality, patterns of
dating and mating, and various family-relevant
attitudes (e.g., premarital sex, abortion),
symbolic interactionist ideas are likely to
be implicitly rather than explicitly stated and
tested. Although this may hinder the
development and refinement of symbolic
interactionism, it can also be viewed as an
indication of the success of this theoretical
perspective—that many of its concepts and
ideas have become a part of the common
wisdom of family studies. The theory's use in
family research across cultural domains also
points to the broad applicability of its
fundamental premises and constructs.

See also:Family Roles; Family Theory; Gender

Identity; Relationship Theories—Self-Other
Relationship; Role Theory; Self-
Esteem; Socialization; Transition to
Parenthood

Bibliography
becker, h. s. (1963). outsiders: studies in the
sociology ofdeviance. new york: free press.

blumer, h. (1969). symbolic interactionism:

perspective and method. englewood cliffs, nj:
prentice hall.

bohannon, j. r., and blanton, p. w. (1999).

"gender role

attitudes of american mothers and daughters

over time." journal of social psychology
139:173–179.

burgess, e. w. (1926). "the family as a unity of

interacting personalities." family 7:3–9.burgess,
e. w., and cottrell, l. s., jr. (1939). predicting
success or failure in marriage. new york:
prentice hall.

charon, j. (1989). symbolic interactionism, 3rd

edition.englewood cliffs, nj: prentice hall.

cheng, s. h., and w. h. kuo. (2000). "family

socialization of ethnic identity among chinese
american pre-adolescents." journal of
comparative family studies 31:463–484.

cooley, c. h. (1902). human nature and the

socialorder. new york: scribner.

derne, s. (1999). "handling ambivalence toward

'western'ways: transnational cultural flows and
men's identity in india." studies in symbolic
interaction 22:17–45.

gecas, v., and schwalbe, m. l. (1986). "parental

behavior and adolescent self-esteem." journal
of marriage and the family 48:37–46.

goffman, e. (1959). the presentations of self in

everydaylife. new york: doubleday.

gordon, m. (1977). "kinship boundaries and

kinshipknowledge in urban ireland."
international journal of sociology of the family.
7:1–14.

hequembourg, a. l., and farrell, m. p. (1999).

"lesbianmotherhood: negotiating marginal-
mainstream identities." gender & society
13:540–557.

hess, r. d., and handel, g. (1959). family

worlds.chicago: university of chicago press.

hochschild, a. r. (1989). the second shift:

working parents and the revolution at home.
new york: viking.

hutter, m. (1985). "symbolic interaction and the

study of the family." in foundations of
interpretive sociology: studies in symbolic
interaction, ed. h. a. farberman and r. s.
perinbanayagam. greenwich, ct: jai press.
hyman, i.; vu, n.; and beiser, m. "post-migration
stresses among southeast asian refugee youth
in canada: a research note." journal of
comparative family studies 31:281–293.

kuhn, m. h. (1964). "major trends in symbolic

interactiontheory in the past twenty-five
years." sociological quarterly 5:61–84.

larossa, r., and reitzes, d. c. (1993). "symbolic

interactionism and family studies." in
sourcebook of family theories and methods, ed.
p. g. boss; w. j. doherty; r. larossa; w. r.
schumm; and s. k. steinmetz. new york:
plenum.

luo, s. h., and wiseman, r. l. (2000). "ethnic

languagemaintenance among chinese
immigrant children in the united states."
international journal of intercultural relations
24:307–324.

mboya, m. m. (1993). "parental behavior and

african adolescents' self-concepts." school
psychology international 14:317–326.

mead, g. h. (1934). mind, self, and society.

chicago: university of chicago press.

peterson, g. w., and rollins, b. c. (1987).

"parent-childsocialization." in handbook of
marriage and the family, ed. m. b. sussman and
s. k. steinmetz. new york: plenum.

ray, r., and kortweweg, a. c. (1999). "women's

movements in the third world: identity,
mobilization, and autonomy." annual review of
sociology 25:47–71.

rotini, a. (1986). "retrospective participant

observation on driving and car ownership in
nigeria." international review of modern
sociology 16:395–406.

scott, m. e., and lyman, s. m. (1968).

"accounts." american sociological review
33:46–62.

stryker, s. (1980). symbolic interactionism.

menlo park,ca: benjamin/cummings.

thomas, w. i. (1931). the unadjusted girl.

boston: little,brown.

thomas, w. i., and znaniecki, f. (1918–1920). the

polish peasant in europe and america, 5 vols.
boston: badger.

waller, w. (1937). "the rating-dating complex."

american sociological review 2:727–734.

waller, w. (1938). the family: a dynamic

interpretation.new york: dryden.
waller, w., and hill, r. (1951). the family: a
dynamicinterpretation, rev. edition. new york:
dryden.

zhou, m. (1997). "growing up american: the

challenge confronting immigrant children and
children of immigrants." annual review of
sociology 23:63–95.

VIKTOR GECAS

TERESA TSUSHIMA
International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family GECAS,
VIKTOR; TSUSHIMA, TERESA
Interactionism, Symbolic
Views 1,426,126Updated Jun 27 2018

Interactionism, Symbolic

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Symbolic interactionism is centrally but not

exclusively concerned with the interpretive
study of urban life. The American
sociologist Herbert Blumer coined the
term symbolic interactionism in 1937, initially
using it to refer to the study of the symbols and
meanings that operate within specific social
groups. He also emphasized the importance of
the ideas of Charles Horton Cooley. Thirty-two
years later Blumer published Symbolic
Interaction, a book that clarifies the central
ideas of the perspective, emphasizes that the
origins of the approach are found in George
Herbert Mead’s work (rather than in Cooley’s),
and advocates the use of an eclectic set of
qualitative methods without completely ruling
out quantification. Blumer’s interpretation of
and extension to Mead’s work also connected
symbolic interactionism to the empirical
interests of the Chicago school of sociology,
the first major body of works specializing
in urban sociology that arose during the 1920s
and 1930s.

Symbolic interactionism has also retained its

initial connection to the Progressive politics of
the early-twentieth-century United States that
were favored by many of the sociologists in
Chicago during this time. Blumer’s 1969
formulation of symbolic interactionism stresses
three premises and six root images. The three
premises are: (1) “human beings act toward
things on the basis of the meanings that the
things have for them”; (2) meanings are derived
from social interaction and group life; and
(3) “these meanings are handled in, and
modified through, an interpretive process used
by the person in dealing with the things he [or
she] encounters” (1969, p. 2). The six root
images stress that social life is a group activity
that is structured by layers of meaning. These
meanings are incorporated into any group’s
understanding of physical, social, and abstract
objects. Group members initially learn these
meanings through childhood socialization
processes and, over time, each group member
develops a sense of self through both role
taking and the internalization of the group into
his or her own identity. This activity is not a
mechanical process: People remake their
social worlds collaboratively and Blumer
stressed that symbolic interactionists must be
aware of the fact that although social
interaction is regulated, routinized, and
therefore stable, it is not fixed.

Blumer believed that symbolic interactionism

was an alternative to three rival approaches:
mainstream sociological research with its
emphasis on quantification and variable
analysis; the structural functionalism
of Talcott Parsons; and psychoanalysis.
Contemporary sociologists, notably Gary Alan
Fine in his 1993 work and David Maines in
2001, argue that the symbolic interactionist
perspective has been incorporated into
mainstream sociology. However, according to
Maines, this incorporation is not widely
acknowledged and has therefore produced a
fault line that runs through the discipline. Fine
argued that the contemporary relationship
between symbolic interactionism and
contemporary sociology is unclear because
symbolic interactionism has simultaneously
been “fragmented, expanded, incorporated,
and adopted” by sociologists of very different
persuasions. In Fine’s view, symbolic
interactionists themselves have
become “intellectually promiscuous” (1993, p.
64).

In 1954 Manford Kuhn and his associates

quantified traditional interactionist concerns,
thus paving the way for contemporary
quantitative studies of self and identity,
notably by Peter Burke and Sheldon Stryker,
both in 1980. Symbolic interactionists have
also explored theoretical intersections, not
only to structural functionalism and
psychoanalysis, but also to semiotics,
feminism, poststructuralism, and other
traditions of thought. The journal Symbolic
Interaction is a major resource for those
interested in this perspective.
SEE ALSO Blumer, Herbert; Groups;
Mead, George Herbert; Parsons, Talcott;
Sociology

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blumer, Herbert. 1937. Social Psychology.
In Man and Society. Ed. Emerson
Schmidt. New York: Prentice Hall.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic

Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Burke, Peter. 1980. The Self: Measurement

Implications from a Symbolic Interactionist
Perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly 43:
18–29.

Denzin, Norman. 1992. Symbolic

Interactionism and Cultural Studies. Oxford:
Blackwell.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1993. The Sad Demise,

Mysterious Disappearance and Glorious
Triumph of Symbolic Interactionism. Annual
Review of Sociology 19: 61–87.

Kuhn, Manford, and T. McPartland. 1954. An

Empirical Investigation of Self-
Attitudes. American Sociological Review 19:
68–77.
Maines, David. 2001. The Faultline of
Consciousness: A View of Interactionism in
Sociology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Manning, Philip. 2005. Freud and American
Sociology. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic
Interactionism: A Social Structural
Version. Reading, MA: Cummings.
Turner, Jonathan. 1974. Parsons as a Symbolic
Interactionist: A Comparison of Action and
Interaction Theory. Sociological Inquiry 4:
283–294.

Wiley, Norbert. 1994. The Semiotic

Self. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Philip Manning
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
Symbolic Interactionism
Views 1,542,070Updated May 29 2018

symbolic interactionism A leading American

social psychological theory which focuses
upon the ways in which meanings emerge
through interaction. Its prime concern has been
to analyse the meanings of everyday life, via
close observational work and intimate
familiarity, and from these to develop an
understanding of the underlying forms of
human interaction. Heavily influenced
by pragmatism, the Chicago tradition of
sociology and the philosophical writings of
George Herbert Mead, the term itself was
coined by Herbert Blumer in 1937.

The theory has four key foci. The first

highlights the ways in which human beings are
distinctly symbol-manipulating animals. It is
through symbols that they, alone of all the
animals, are capable of producing culture and
transmitting a complex history. Interactionists
are always concerned to study the ways in
which people give meaning to their bodies,
their feelings, their selves, their biographies,
their situations, and indeed to the wider social
worlds in which their lives exist. Research
strategies such as participant observation are
employed, which enable the researcher to gain
access to these symbols and meanings, as in
Howard S. Becker's Art Worlds (1982) and
Arlie Hochschild's The Managed Heart (1983).
There is a broad affinity here to semiology, but
unlike at least some positions in semiology
which seek the structures of language,
interactionists are more concerned with the
ways in which meaning is always emergent,
fluid, ambiguous, and contextually bound. R. S.
Perinbanayagam has provided an important
account of meaning in interactionism in his
book Signifying Acts (1985).

This leads to a second theme: that of process

and emergence. For the interactionist, the
social world is a dynamic and dialectical web,
situations are always encounters with unstable
outcomes, and lives and their biographies are
always in the process of shifting and becoming,
never fixed and immutable. Attention is fixed,
not upon rigid structures (as in many other
versions of sociology), but upon streams of
activity with their adjustments and outcomes.
Concepts such as career, negotiated order,
becoming, encounters, and impression
management are central to this approach.

A third focus of interactionism highlights the

social world as precisely that—interactive.
From this point of view there is no such thing
as a solitary individual: humans are always
connected to ‘others’. The most basic unit of
interactionist analysis is that of the self, which
stresses the ways in which people can (indeed
must) come to view themselves as objects, and
assume the role of others through a process
of role-taking. This idea is clarified in Charles
Horton Cooley's notion of the looking-glass
self and Mead's more general idea of ‘the self’.

A fourth theme, derived from Georg Simmel, is

that interactionism looks beneath these
symbols, processes, and interactions in order
to determine underlying patterns or forms of
social life. Interactionists seek ‘generic social
processes’. Thus, while they may study the life-
experience of doctors, dance-band musicians,
drug-users, and the dying, they can detect
common processes at work in all such
seemingly disparate groupings. A good
example is Barney Glaser and Anselm
Strauss's Status Passage (1967), which
provides a formal, interactionist theory of
status changes.

Symbolic interactionism developed in

the University of Chicago, in the first few
decades of this century, and first achieved
prominence when the Chicago School came to
dominate early American sociology. However,
it again became very influential during the
1960s, as a challenge to the dominance of
Talcott Parsons and Grand Theory (sometimes
being referred to, during the heyday of
functionalism, as ‘the loyal opposition’). It was
particularly influential in the development of
the labelling theory of deviance, but also in
such fields as occupational research (Everett
Hughes), medical sociology ( Anselm Strauss),
and in the study of classroom interaction.
Strauss has pioneered a number of
developments in interactionist theory. From his
early work on identity (in Mirrors and Masks,
1969) to his formulation of the concept
of negotiated order, his work exemplifies a
major methodological concern with qualitative
research (usually, for him, in medical settings),
the development of appropriate strategies for
doing such research (the so-called grounded
theory approach), and the building of case-
study theory which moves beyond itself into a
more formal sociology. His work on dying
patients (with Barney Glaser) is an exemplary
study of all these concerns (see, for
example, Awareness of Dying, 1967, Time for
Dying, 1968, and Anguish, 1977
).

In the 1970s interactionism attracted

considerable criticism for its neglect of social
structure, power, and history. More recent
interactionist writings have shown this critique
to be misguided; and, in the process, have
revitalized the theory. For example, Sheldon
Stryker has attempted to enunciate a version
of symbolic interactionism which more clearly
relates the conventionally microsociological
concerns of that perspective to the
organizational and societal levels of analysis,
mainly by an imaginative restatement of role
theory. In particular, Stryker has been
concerned with the idea of ‘role-making’, the
active creation of roles (rather than mere
‘taking’ of them), where some social structures
permit more such creativity than do others
(see, for example, Symbolic Interactionism: A
Social Structural Version, 1980
).

In the 1990s interactionism has provided

analyses of a range of new phenomena, and
has become more theoretically sophisticated
(some might say eclectic) in creating links to
post-modernism (in the work of Norman
Denzin), feminism, semiology, and cultural
theory. The best collection of interactionist
writings, and one which gives a good indication
of the tradition's virtues and limitations, is Ken
Plummer's Symbolic Interactionism (2 vols.,
1990). See also FORMALISM; GOFFMAN,
ERVING; KUHN, MANFORD.