Symbolic interactionists are often criticized by other sociologists for being overly impressionistic in their research methods and somewhat unsystematic in their theories. These objections, combined with the fairly narrow focus of interactionist research on small-group interactions and other social psychological issues, have relegated the interactionist camp to a minority position among sociologists, although a fairly substantial minority.
Symbolic Interactionism as thought of by Herbert Blumer is the process of interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals. Blumer was a devotee of George H. Mead, and was influenced by John Dewey. Dewey insisted that human beings are best understood in relation to their environment (Society for More Creative Speech, 1996). With this as his inspiration, Herbert Blumer outlined Symbolic Interactionism, a study of human group life and conduct.
Blumer states that symbolic interactionism rests on three simple premises. Firstly that human beings act towards things on the basis of the meanings the things have for them. Meanings and objects become of central relevance when viewed from Blumer’s perspective rather than taken for granted or pushed aside as is the case with conventional sociology and psychology.
Secondly meanings of such things occur through social interaction that is we only recognize a chair for example as a place to sit because we are taught this through interaction with others.
Thirdly meanings are handled and modified through an interpretative process by the person who is interacting with any given object. This means that social life is an ongoing process of activity whereby the social actor interprets the situation which confronts him and acts accordingly. Parochial schemes advocated by conventional sociology such as social conflict, consensus, norms, values etc fail to recognize the importance of social actors and the interaction which occurs between people as Blumer states they leap over the acting units which....
Click here to buy this essay.
