[PDF] An Introduction to the Sociological Perspective of Symbolic

direction of his/her action (the step of "interpretation") It has been argued that Si's theory of "self-interaction" does not differ from "subjective nominalism,"

[PDF] The Three Main Sociological Perspectives - Laulima

Sociology includes three major theoretical perspectives: the functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective, and the symbolic interactionist perspective

[PDF] Sociological Perspectives

These three theoretical orientations are: Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Perspective To understand a theoretical orientation in any

[PDF] 1 Introducing Social Psychology and Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism situates the authors within a partic- ular tradition of sociological theory and research The first task in developing a symbolic interactionist

[PDF] “A” Level Sociology A Resource-Based Learning Approach

The Interactionist perspective is a generic (or "family") name that is normally given to a group of sociological perspectives that consists of three variations, namely: •

[PDF] Critiquing and Expanding the Sociology of Inequality: Comparing

INEQUALITY: COMPARING FUNCTIONALIST, CONFLICT, AND INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVES The conventional wisdom in sociology, at least as

[PDF] interactionist perspective sociologists

[PDF] interactionist perspective sociology example

[PDF] interactionist theorists sociology

[PDF] interactionist theory examples

[PDF] interactionist theory of language acquisition

[PDF] interactions 1 méthode de français pdf

[PDF] interactive application security testing open source tools

[PDF] interactive chi square calculator

[PDF] interactive louvre map

[PDF] interactive pdf javascript

[PDF] interactive rail map of germany

[PDF] interactive reader and study guide world history answers

[PDF] interactive teaching techniques

[PDF] interchange 5th edition pdf

[PDF] intercompany inventory transactions solutions

An Introduction to the Sociological

Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism :

Revised Edition

'˜ŽÒKUWABARA Tsukasa, YAMAGUCHI Kenichi journal or publication titleJournal of economics and sociology, Kagoshima

University

volume80 page range115-125

URLhttp://hdl.handle.net/10232/16983

Interactionism:RevisedEdition*1

TsukasaKuwabara*2

KenichiYamaguchi*3

I.Introduction

It is well known that the Chicago SchoolofSymbolicInteractionism(hereafterabbreviatedas "SI"),in which the works ofHerbertGeorge Blumer(1900-87)arerepresented,played an important role in the "ChicagoRenaissance."*4SI wascriticalto bothstructural-fiinctionalism,asestablishedby T.Parsonsand hisfollowers,andsociologicalpositivism,in whichG. A.Lundbergwas acentralfigure.Therefore,efforts ofSI werefocusedondevelopinganalternativesociologicalperspectiveorconceptualframeworkandanew andappropriateresearchmethodology.Si'semphasison theconceptualunderstandingof"Society as DynamicProcesses"hasbeeninfluentialin theJapanesesociologicalcommunity."SocietyasDynamic or as constantly in the processofchange. Thisarticleexaminestheconceptualstatusof"Society asDynamicProcesses"fromthestandpointofthe fundamentalprobleminsociology,namely,thatof therelationshipbetweentheindividualandsociety.More specifically,we haveattemptedtoanswerthefollowingthreequestions:

1) How does SI understandsocialization?

3) Whymusthumansocietybeunderstoodas"inprocessofchange"accordingtoSIanalysis?*7

Thethreequestionsmentionedaboveshouldbeansweredwith thefocuson acentralconceptofSI,

*'Thisarticleis therevisededitionofthe followingpaper:T.KuwabaraandK. Yamaguchi, 2007,AnIntroductionto the

andSociology,KagoshimaUniversity,67: 1-9[http://hdl.handle.net/10232/6924]. *3Full-timeLecturerat FukuyamaCity University.URL:http://gyo.tc/MvJ4 *4C.f. R. E. L.Faris,[1967]1970,ChicagoSociology'.1920-1932,TheUniversityofChicagoPress,vii-xii. *6This term was originallycoined as asociologicalterm by G.Simmel.

*7Oneofthe authorshas consideredthis as thefundamentalproblemof"SI" since 1997. See the followingarticle:T.

Kuwabara,1997,Theconceptionofsociety inHerbertBlumer's SymbolicInteractionismReconsidered,Culture,60 (3-4):55-72 [http://hdl.handle.net/10232/6937].

*8See thefollowingarticlefor anexceptionalinstance:K.Uchida,1996,TheMicro-MacroProblem:AnInteractionist

Approach,WasedaStudies inHumanSciences,9 (1): 101-13. - 115 -

"self-interaction"or"interactionwithoneself."Thus, it can be said that efforts to solve the basicsociological

problem should focus on the conceptof"self-interaction."

II.ActionthroughSelf-interaction

In this section, we have attempted to answer the first question regarding the meaningof"socialization"

accordingto SI. In addition,it has clarifiedhow SIunderstandsthe "relationshipbetween the individualand

theworld"and"action."

In SI, "self-interaction" is defined as the process whereby an actor interacts withhimselfTherself,or as a

formofcommunication whereby the actor talks and responds tohimselfTherself.That is to say, self-

interaction is the internalized equivalent of social interaction with "others." Self-interaction is a form of

social interaction, which usually involves other people; in this case, however, it is carried out alone.

Fromthe perspectiveof SI,self-interactionissynonymouswiththe "process of interpretation,"whichhas two distinctsteps.First, the actor indicatesto himselfTherselfa set of "things" that carry personal meanings (the step of"indication");second,he/sheinterpretsthesemeaningsbyselecting,checking,suspending, regrouping,andtransformingthem in the light of both the situation in which he/she is placed and the directionofhis/heraction (the stepof"interpretation"). It has been argued thatSi'stheory of "self-interaction"does not differfrom"subjective nominalism," Manysociologists,suchas J. D.Lewis,*10havemadethiscriticismforsometime.TheargumentbyLewis isparticularlynoteworthy.The secondsectionof this articleincludesacounterargumenttohiscriticism. Given"self-interaction"as the central concept, "socialization" (according to SI) is the process whereby:*"

1) Anactorderives"schemesofdefinition"and"generalizedroles"from"groupsofothers"*12towhich

*91970'sand80'shave brought manycriticismstoward the SIperspective.Therefore,SI needed to reconsider and

re-developitsperspectiveandmethodinresponseto thecriticisms.Amongthosecriticisms,twoof themhavebecome

commonandpopularas thelabelscharacterizingSItheory.That is, on the onehand,SI has been seen as one of

self-interactionon social structures;iii) theorizingthe socialstructureitself;and iv) considerationof the approachfrom

the "standpointof theactor"inrelationshipto themacro-sociologicalversionofSi'sperspective.

*10J. D. Lewis, 1976, The Classic American Pragmatists as Forerunners to Symbolic Interactionism,TheSociological

Quarterly,17: 347-59.

*nH. G. Blumer,[1977]1992,CommentonLewis'"TheClassicAmericanPragmatistsasForerunnersto SymbolicInt eractionism,"P. Hamilton (ed.),George Herbert Mead Critical Assessments, vol. 2,Routledge, p. 154.

*12Inouropinion,"groups of others" can beconsideredto besynonymouswith "referencegroups as perspectives"in

Shibutani's famous article: T. Shibutani, 1955, Reference Groups as Perspectives,TheAmericanJournalofSociology,

60 (6):562-9 - Japanesetranslation(provisionalversion)by Kuwabaraetal.:http://hdl.handle.net/10232/12977--.

116-
AnIntroduction to the Sociological PerspectiveofSymbolicInteractionism:RevisedEdition he/she belongs.

2) The actor's interpretation or definition during social interactions in which he/she is participating is

guidedbythe two frameworksidentifiedin (1).

3)"Schemes

ofdefinition"serve to canalize the actor's social actions during social interactionswith

others, and "generalized roles" provide outlets for directing the actor's actionsinself-interactions.

Thus, "interpretation/definition" is understoodasthe following process:(a) the acquisitionof"generalized

roles," (b) acquisitionof"schemesofdefinition," (c) scrutinyof"schemesofdefinition" through self- interaction, which is guidedby"generalized roles," and (d) perceptionofan environment using the new "schemes ofdefinition" resulting from the scrutiny in "step (c)." This social phenomenon isknownas "conferringofmeaning"accordingto SI. Theenvironment,asin (d), is calledthe "worldofreality,"orthe "worldthatisoutthere."*13 SI conceivesof"human beings" as existencessurroundedby an environment, which is composedofa varietyof"things."The "world"iscreatedbyhumanbeingsthroughmaking"objects"forthemselvesfrom the worldofrealityby meansof"conferringofmeaning."In SI, this actis synonymouswithperceptionas organizedby meansof"perspectives"(i.e.,"schemesofdefinition"and"generalizedroles").Therefore,an objectisconceivedasaportionoranaspectof theworldofreality,whichahumanbeinghascreatedvia his/herperspectives.SI dividesobjectsintothreecategories:"physicalobjects,""socialobjects,"and "abstractobjects."*14 asentitiesliving within theirrespectiveworlds of this kind.

Hence,SIproposesthat the"relationship

between the individual and the world" isestablishedby theinterpretationor definition (= "conferringof

meaning"or"perception")ofthe worldofrealityby humanbeings(individuals)viasuccessiveprocessesof self-interaction. However, SI has never considered"therelationship"referredabove to be "fixed" only by the one-sided interpretationof anindividual.Accordingto SI,theworldofrealityinterpretedby theindividualiscapable of"resisting"or"talkingback"tohis/herinterpretationordefinition;even theindividualcannotbe sureif

his/herinterpretationshave validity, he/she canjudge the validityofdefinitionsfrom this"resistance"or

"talkingback."*15If theinterpretationsprove to beinvalid,they are then modified. Thus, in SI, the "relationshipbetween theindividualand the world" must beunderstoodas therelationshipthat can be *13Blumer,[1977]1992,op.cit,pp. 154-5. *14H. G. Blumer, 1969,SymbolicInteractionism:PerspectiveandMethod,PrenticeHall,pp. 10-1.

*wAccordingto Blumer,"[there]is aworldofreality'out there'thatstandsoveragainsthumanbeings andthatis capable

ofresistingactionstowardit"and"[the]resistanceofthe worldtoperceptionsofit is the testofthe validityofthe

perceptions"(H. G. Blumer, [1980]1992,Mead andBlumer:TheConvergentMethodologicalPerspectivesofSocial Behaviorism and Symbolic Interactionism, Hamilton (ed.), op.cit,p. 165). - 117 - &m¥m&%80^ definitionby theindividualand talking back from the world ofreality.*16Hence, SImaintainsthat this relationshipmust not beconsideredto be fixedonlyby theone-sidedinterpretationof theindividual. Keeping the pointofthe "relationship between the individual and the world" inmind,we have tried to clarifySi'sconceptof"action"-an"individual act." Accordingto SI,firstandforemost,anactionisunderstoodasanactor's activityof"fitting"or "adjusting"

to the worldofreality. As a result, the relationship between the individual (the actor) and the world is

continually formed and re-formed in the wakeoftalking back from the worldofreality. SI conceptualizes

this process as a sequenceofunits consisting of: 1)"impulse,"2)"perception,"3)"manipulation,"4)

"consummation."*17This processis not, of course,terminatedafterjust one cycle;rather, it must be thought

of as a perpetual cycling of the four units, as in,1)"impulse(1),"-*2)"perception(I),"-+3) "manipulation(2),"-+8)"consummation(2),"»n)"impulse(n),"and so on.

III.Societyas aSeriesofJointActions

In thissection,^we haveattemptedtoanswerthesecondquestionregardinghow actorsareconstructing societies.

SI explains social interaction as a mutual presentationor an interconversionof actions by actors; such

interactionshave been classified into two categories:"symbolic interaction" and "non-symbolic interaction."

The former is mediatedbyself-interaction,but the latter is not. Accordingto Mead's terminology,symbolic

interactionis the equivalentof the"useof significantsymbols."Non-symbolicinteractionis the equivalent

of Mead's "conversation of gestures." However, greater precision inouranalysisofSI demonstrated the existence ofat least two typesofsymbolicinteraction,that are distinctly different from each other: symbolic

interactionin which significantsymbolsdo not yet exist but participantsin the interactionare trying to call

them into being, and symbolicinteractionmediatedby significantsymbolscalled into being by participants

during a preceding interaction (i.e.,"useof significant symbols"). The latter is called "a real formof

interaction."

In SI, "society" or "human society" is understoodas consistingof"a real formofinteractions." This type

of interactionis called "joint action" or "transaction," and it is equivalentto the "use ofsignificant symbols." Therefore, "human society" is conceptualized as a series ofjoint actions that are tightly or loosely

interlinked with each other "in a timeline and in space." As Blumer said, "Joint action not only represents a

*16See the following literaturefor the differenceofmeanings between the wordsof"continual" and"continuous*':A. L.

Strauss,1959[1997],Mirrors and Masks,Transaction Publishers, p. 27.

*17H. G. Blumer, 1993, L. H. Athens (ed.), Blumer's Advanced Course on Social Psychology,Studies in Symbolic

Interaction,14, pp. 188-91.

- 118 - An Introductionto the SociologicalPerspectiveofSymbolicInteractionism:Revised Edition horizontallinkage,so to speak,oftheactivitiesoftheparticipants,but alsoa verticallinkagewithprevious genericnatureofsociety."*19

Joint action is formed through symbolic interaction.That is,participantsor interactantsconstruct the real

formofinteraction through symbolic interaction. In SI, symbolic interaction is formulated as a presentation

of"gestures" and a response to the meaningsofthe gestures. The meaningsofthe gestures have three

components: they signify what an interactant to whom the gestures are directed is to do, what another

interactantwho is presentingthe gesturesplansto do, andthe formofjoint action that is to emerge from the

articulationofthe actsoftheinteractants.For example, "a robber's command tohis[/her]victimto put up his[/her]hands[=a kindofgestures]is (a) anindicationofwhatthe victim is todo;(b) anindicationof whattherobberplansto do,thatis, relievethe victim ofhis[/her]money;and(c) anindicationof thejoint havethe samemeaningsforbothinteractants~theonewhohaspresentedthegesturesandtheotherto whom theyhavebeenaddressed.Inthissituation,"significantsymbols"or"commondefinitions"aresharedby the interactants,indicatingthateachinteractantisapplyingthesamemeaningsto the"gestures,"through individual processesofself-interaction. Jointactioncantakeplaceonlywhensignificantsymbolsorcommondefinitionsexist amonginteractants. account"*2,~aformofself-interaction.This processwill enabletheinteractantsto graspor assume properly the"standpointof theother"andview "one's ownstandpointin theeyesof theother."SIproposesthata propergraspofthesetwo"standpoints"ispossibleonly ifinterpretationsordefinitionsaredirectedby interactantshavealreadyobtainedsuchperspectivesfrom"groupsofothers."Additionally,from the SI jointaction"*22bemaintained. •"Blumer, 1969, op.cit,p. 20. *19Blumer, 1969, op.cit,p. 70. *MBlumer, 1969, op.cit,p. 9. formulatedby Blumerhimselfin1953.Luhmanncoinedthisterminreferenceto Blumer'sfollowingstatement:"[In

socialinteractions][one]hasto catchthe otherasasubject,orin termsof his beingtheinitiatoranddirectorofhis

acts;thus oneis led to identifywhatthe personmeans,whatarehisintentionsandhow he may act.Eachpartyto the

interactiondoes this andthusnot only takes the other intoaccount,buttakeshiminto accountas one who, inturn,is

takinghimintoaccount*(Blumer,1969,op. cit., p. 109).Emphasisbyquoters. *nBlumer, 1969, op.cit,p. 71. - 119- *ft*£80*

IV.SocietyasDynamicProcesses

In this fourth section, we address the third problem: the natureofhuman society is oneofunpredictable

continualtransformation.

SI hasemphasizedthat human society as a seriesofjointactions must have a career or a history; itscareer

is generallyorderly,fixed,and repetitious,by virtue of its participants' common identification injointaction.

The overallcareermust,however,be viewedas "open to manypossibilitiesofuncertainty."*23

Why mustjoint action or societybe understoodas havingthe character of being open to many possibilities

ofuncertainty?Answering this question with the focus on the concept of "self-interaction," which, we (humansociety)arepracticallyandlogically,impossible.In otherwords,anykindof"commondefinition" cannot keep its given form continuously. In SI,a conditionin whicha certaincommondefinitionismaintainedimpliesa situationinwhicha certain significantsymbolismaintainedamonginteractants.Thissituationcanbedescribedas a statein whichan interactantsees a gesture that he/shepresentsidenticallyas it isbeingseen by those to whom it is

addressed.*24To maintain this state, the interactant who presents the gesture must interpret and define

properly,throughaprocessofself-interaction,the"twostandpoints"of the otherinteractantor "alterego" towhomthegestureisaddressed.Moreover,thevalidityofhis/herinterpretationordefinitionmust be continuouslymaintained.Butthis isimpossible,becauseof the natureof the "alter ego" or "other." As we haveseenin sectionII, SIinterpretsthe"worlds"that existfor humanbeingsas areas that consist ceptof"socialobject."Objectsare,as wehavesaid,a part of theworldofrealitythat is seenby the

individualfrom his/herperspectives.Therefore,it can be said that the object is, on one hand, apercept

createdby theindividual,and,on the otherhand,somethingthatcontinuesto existundeniablywithinthe world ofreality.How, then, is thenatureof the worldof realitygrasped?Asclarifiedin sectionII, SI validityor not. If theindividual'sinterpretationisfoundto beinvalid,thegiveninterpretationwill be modified.This means that SIunderstandsthatinterpretationalwayshas the possibilityof being formed and modifiedfrommomenttomoment.

From this framework, it follows that theindividual/actorcannot use the same interpretationor definition

of a given objectcontinuously.Therefore,becausethe "other" iscategorizedas an object and part of the +23Blumer, 1969,op.cit,p. 71.
**Blumer, 1993,op.cit,p. 179. - 120 - AnIntroductionto the Sociological PerspectiveofSymbolicInteractionism:RevisedEdition

worldofreality, it follows that the"other"interpreted by the actor hascontinuouspossibilitiesoftalking

back to theactor'sinterpretation or definition. Furthermore, it also follows that theactor/individualcannot

give the same interpretation or definition to the "other" with whom he/she is engaged in interactions/joint

actions.The"other" or "alterego" for theindividualexistsforeveras a "blackbox."*25That is, the individ

ual can never see the otherin theraw,i.e., inhis/hertruecolors.*26 In summary, in SI, it is impossible to sustain a particular form of any common definition forever.

Forever,for "the natureoftheother"(i.e., its blackboxness)does not allow an actor to continue to use the

sameinterpretation/definition,or to attribute a particular meaning through a process ofself-interaction,

permanently.The "other" hascontinuouspossibilitiesof talkingback to the actor, and the resultantneed of

the actor to change or modify any given interpretationor definition(i.e., meaning) persists endlessly. Hence,

any commondefinitionmust be re-formedeventually,and anyjoint action must be re-formed as well.

V.ResearchActas aKindofSymbolicInteraction

This section concerns the problemoffinding a suitable research methodology for examining the "standpointof the actor,"as the meansfortestingempiricallythe SI modelof society"SocietyasDynamic

Processes,"laid out in theprevioussections.

In sectionn,III, and IV, we described the SI modelofhuman society. First,"humansociety" has been conceptualizedas a systemofinterlinkedsocialinteractionsbyinteractants;in reality,humansocietyexists

only as "a real form ofinteractions"(i.e.,"transactions"or "jointactions").In SI, socialinteractionis the

fundamentalunitofsociety,anditexposessociety'sgeneric*27nature.Tounderstandsociety,we needonly to studythis "real form ofinteraction"(the initialhypothesisof SI for the studyofsociety).

The model of social interaction described in the previous sections can be summarized as interaction in

which interactants with the natureofblack boxnessfor other interactants perform"takinginto accountof takingintoaccount"as a formofself-interactioninorderto graspordefineproperlyboththe"standpointof theother"and"one's ownstandpointin the eyesof theother."Thussocialinteractionis a socialprocessin

+25This term wasoriginallycoinedas asociologicaltermbyLuhmann.Oneof the authorshas thoughtof his theoryas

adevelopedversionof SI since2008,in the wakeof cit.,p. 10;T.KuwabaraandS.Okuda,2008,ReferencesonSymbolicInteractionism:Vol.I,JournalofEconomicsand Sociology,KagoshimaUniversity,69[http://hdl.handle.net/10232/8117],p. 62.

**As J. M. Charon says, "[objects]may exist in physicalform,but for the human being they are seen not 'in theraw,'

but only through a perspectiveof somekind"(J. M. Charon, 1989,SymbolicInteractionism:anintroduction,an

interpretation,anintegration,3rdedition,Prentice Hall, p. 37). In SI, every object for all kinds of people which

includesothersmust be seen as a kindofhypotheses carved out psychologically or/and socially.quotesdbs_dbs17.pdfusesText_23

[PDF] [PDF] An Introduction to the Sociological Perspective of Symbolic - CORE