1.

3D: The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

Symbolic interactionism looks at individual and group This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of
meaning-making, focusing on human action instead of large- psychological theories prevalent at the time it was first
scale social structures. formulated (the 1920s and 1930s). According to symbolic
interactionism, humans are distinct from infrahumans (lower
animals) because infrahumans simply respond to their
Learning Objectives
environment (i.e., a stimulus evokes a response or stimulus ⇒
Examine the differences between symbolic response), whereas humans have the ability to interrupt that
interactionism and other sociological perspectives process (i.e., stimulus ⇒ cognition ⇒ response). Additionally,
infrahumans are unable to conceive of alternative responses to
Key Points gestures. Humans, however, can. This understanding should
Symbolic interactionism has roots in phenomenology, not be taken to indicate that humans never behave in a strict
which emphasizes the subjective meaning of reality. stimulus ⇒ response fashion, but rather that humans have the
Symbolic interactionism proposes a social theory of the capability of responding in a different way, and do so much of
self, or a looking glass self. the time.
Symbolic interactionists study meaning and This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought.
communication; they tend to use qualitative methods. According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has
Symbolic interactionism has been criticized for failing to no reality for humans; only subjectively defined objects have
take into account large-scale macro social structures and meaning. There is no single objective “reality”; there are only
forces. (possibly multiple, possibly conflicting) interpretations of a
situation. Meanings are not entities that are bestowed on
Key Terms humans and learned by habituation; instead, meanings can be
behaviorism: an approach to psychology focusing on altered through the creative capabilities of humans, and
behavior, denying any independent significance for mind, individuals may influence the many meanings that form their
and assuming that behavior is determined by the society. Human society, therefore, is a social product.
environment
phenomenology: A philosophy based on the intuitive The Looking Glass Self
experience of phenomena, and on the premise that reality Neurological evidence, based on EEGs, supports the idea that
consists of objects and events as consciously perceived by humans have a “social brain,” meaning, there are components
conscious beings. of the human brain that govern social interaction. These parts
role theory: assumes that people are primarily of the brain begin developing in early childhood (the
conformists who try to achieve the norms that accompany preschool years) and aid humans in understanding how other
their roles; group members check each individual’s people think. In symbolic interactionism, this is known as
performance to determine whether it conforms with that “reflected appraisals” or “the looking glass self,” and refers to
individual’s assigned norms, and apply sanctions for our ability to think about how other people will think about
misbehavior in an attempt to ensure role performance. us. In 1902, Charles Horton Cooley developed the social
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach to psychological concept of the looking glass self. The term was
understanding the relationship between humans and society. first used in his work, Human Nature and the Social Order.
The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human There are three main components of the looking glass self:
action and interaction are understandable only through the
exchange of meaningful communication or symbols. In this
approach, humans are portrayed as acting, as opposed to
being acted upon. The main principles of symbolic
interactionism are:
Human beings act toward things on the basis of the
meanings that things have for them
These meanings arise out of social interaction
Social action results from a fitting together of individual
lines of action

4/27/2021 1.3D.1 CC-BY-SA https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/7903

 ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of
this reflection upon another’s mind. ”
It should be noted that symbolic interactionists advocate a
particular methodology. Because they see meaning as the
fundamental component of the interaction of human and
society, studying human and social interaction requires an
understanding of that meaning. Symbolic interactionists tend
to employ more qualitative, rather than quantitative, methods
in their research.
The most significant limitation of the symbolic interactionist
perspective relates to its primary contribution: it overlooks
macro-social structures (e.g., norms, culture) as a result of
focusing on micro-level interactions. Some symbolic
Charles Cooley: Cooley developed the idea of the looking interactionists, however, would counter that the incorporation
glass self.
of role theory into symbolic interactionism addresses this
We imagine how we must appear to others criticism.
We imagine the judgment of that appearance
We develop our self through the judgments of others
Cooley clarified this concept in his writings, stating that
society is an interweaving and interworking of mental selves.
In hypothesizing the framework for the looking glass self,
Cooley said, “the mind is mental” because “the human mind
is social. ” As children, humans begin to define themselves
within the context of their socializations. The child learns that
the symbol of his/her crying will elicit a response from his/her
parents, not only when they are in need of necessities, such as
food, but also as a symbol to receive their attention.
George Herbert Mead described self as “taking the role of the
other,” the premise for which the self is actualized. Through
interaction with others, we begin to develop an identity about
who we are, as well as empathy for others. This is the notion The Looking Glass Self: This drawing depicts the looking-
of, “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. ” glass self. The person at the front of the image is looking into
four mirrors, each of which reflects someone else’s image of
In respect to this, Cooley said, “The thing that moves us to himself.
pride or shame is not the mere mechanical reflection of

4/27/2021 1.3D.2 CC-BY-SA https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/7903