Symbolic Interactionism: what it is, historical development and authors

During the 20th century, this theoretical current transformed most of the social sciences.

Symbolic Interactionism is a sociological theory that has had a great impact on contemporary social psychology, as well as on other social sciences. that has had a great impact on contemporary social psychology, as well as on other areas of study in the social sciences. This theory analyzes interactions, and their meanings, to understand the process through which individuals become competent members of a society.

Since the first half of the 20th century, Symbolic Interactionism has generated many different currents, as well as its own methodologies that have been of great importance in the understanding of social activity and in the construction of the "self".

What is Symbolic Interactionism?

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical current that arises in sociology. (but quickly moved into anthropology and psychology), which studies interaction and symbols as key elements in understanding both individual identity and social organization.

In very broad terms, what Symbolic Interactionism suggests is that we define ourselves according to the meaning that 'symbolic interaction' acquires. according to the meaning that 'the individual' acquires in a specific social context; a question that depends to a great extent on the meaning of the individual.This depends to a large extent on the interactions we engage in.

Its origins include pragmatism, behaviorism and evolutionism, but far from being inscribed in any of them, Symbolic Interactionism moves between them.

Among its antecedents is also the defense of 'situated truths' and partial truths, as opposed to the 'absolute truths', which have been criticized by a large part of contemporary philosophy. for considering that the notion of 'truth' has been quite confused with the notion of 'beliefs' (because, from a pragmatic point of view on human activity, truths have the same function as beliefs).

Stages and main proposals

Symbolic interactionism has gone through many different proposals. In general terms, two major generations can be recognized whose proposals are connected, sharing the bases and antecedents of the theory, but characterized by some different proposals.

1. Beginnings of Symbolic Interactionism: actions always have meaning

One of the main proposals is that identity is constructed mainly through interaction, which is always symbolic, and which is always symbolic.which is always symbolic, that is, it always means something. That is to say, individual identity is always in connection with the meanings that circulate in a social group; it depends on the situation and the places that each individual occupies in that group.

Thus, interaction is an activity that always has a social meaning, in other words, it depends on our capacity to define and give meaning to individual and social phenomena: the 'order of the symbolic'.

In this order, language is no longer the instrument that faithfully represents reality, but is rather a way of manifesting the attitudes, intentions, positions or objectives of the speaker. of the speaker, whereby language is also a social act and a way of constructing that reality.

Thus, our actions are understood beyond a set of habits or automatic or expressive behaviors. Actions always have a meaning that can be interpreted.

It follows that el individuo no es una expresión; es más bien una representación, una versión de sí mismo que se construye y se descubre por medio del lenguaje (lenguaje que no están aislado ni ha sido inventadas por el individuo, sino que pertenece a una lógica y a un contexto social en concreto).

Es decir, el individuo se construye por medio de los significados que circulan mientras interactúa con los demás individuos. Aquí surge uno de los conceptos clave del Interaccionismo Simbólico: el “self”, que ha servido para intentar comprender cómo es que un sujeto construye estas versiones de sí mismos, es decir, su identidad.

En suma, toda persona tiene un carácter social, por lo que las conductas individuales deben ser entendidas en relación con las conductas grupales. Por eso, varios autores de esta generación se enfocan especialmente en comprender y analizar la socialización (el proceso mediante el cual interiorizamos la sociedad).

Methodology in the first generation and main authors

In the first generation of Symbolic Interactionism, qualitative and interpretative methodological proposals emerge, for example, discourse analysis or the analysis of gestures and images, which are understood as elements that not only represent but also construct a social reality.

The most representative author of the beginnings of Symbolic Interactionism is Mead, but Colley, Pierce, Thomas and Park, influenced by the German G. Simmel, have also been important. Also representative are the Iowa school the Iowa school and the Chicago school are representative.and Call, Stryker, Strauss, Rosenberg and Turner, Blumer and Shibutani are recognized as authors of the first generation.

2. Second generation: social life is a theater

In this second stage of Symbolic Interactionism, identity is also understood as the result of the roles that an individual adopts in a social group, thus, it is also a kind of scheme that can be organized in different ways depending on each situation.

The contribution of the dramaturgical perspective the contribution of Erving Goffman's dramaturgical perspective, who suggests that we individuals are basically individuals.who suggests that individuals are basically a set of actors, because we literally constantly act out our social roles and what is expected of us according to those roles.

We act to leave a social image of ourselves, which not only occurs during interaction with others (who are the ones who reflect back to us the social demands that will make us act in a certain way), but occurs even in spaces and moments when those other people are not watching us.

Methodological proposals and main authors

The everyday dimension, the study of meanings and the things we make appearances during interaction are objects of scientific study. At the practical level, empirical methodology is very important.. That is why Symbolic Interactionism is related in an important way to phenomenology and ethnomethodology.

This second generation is also characterized by the development of ethogeny (the study of human interaction - the study of the interaction between humans and animals). (the study of human-social interaction, which mainly analyzes these four elements: human action, its moral dimension, the capacity of agency that people have, and the very concept of a person in relation to his or her public action).

In addition to Erving Goffman, some authors who have influenced much of the Symbolic Interactionism of this time are Garfinkel, Cicourel and the most representative author of ethogeny, Rom Harré.

Relationship with social psychology and some criticisms

Symbolic Interactionism had a major impact on the transformation of classical social psychology into postmodern social psychology. the transformation from classical Social Psychology to Postmodern Social Psychology or New Social Psychology. or New Social Psychology. More specifically, it has had an impact on Discursive Social Psychology and Cultural Psychology, where after the crisis of traditional psychology in the 60's, concepts that had previously been disregarded, such as reflexivity, interaction, language or meaning, took on special relevance.

In addition, Symbolic Interactionism has been useful to explain the process of socialization, which was initially proposed as an object of study of sociology, but was quickly connected with social psychology.

It has also been criticized for being considered that it reduces everything to the order of interaction, that is, it reduces the interpretation of the individual to social structures. It has also been criticized for has been criticized at the practical level for considering that its methodological proposals do not appeal to objectivity or quantitative methods. and quantitative methods.

Finally, there are those who consider that it puts forward a rather optimistic idea of interaction, since it does not necessarily take into consideration the normative dimension of interaction and social organization.

Bibliographical references

• Fernández, C. (2003). Psicologías sociales en el umbral del siglo XXI. Editorial fundamentos: Madrid
• Carabaña, J. and Lamo E. (1978). The social theory of symbolic interactionism. Reis: Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 1: 159-204.