Herbert Blumer’s perspective on sociology explicitly follows the theory of symbolic interactionism, in which society interprets the actions and attitudes of individuals through symbols and images to which we ascribe a certain kind of importance. The basic nature of society is comprised of individuals interacting with each other socially, in which significance and meaning is determined by the individuals and their interaction. To that end, Blumer’s perspective on Campbell’s five parameters of social theory would be viewed through that singular lens, and would heavily inform the applicability and utility of each parameter through the perspective of symbolic interactionism. When Campbell’s parameters are viewed through Blumer’s symbolic interactionism, his theories fall along many different sides of the spectrum depending on the parameter.
Campbell’s Idealist-Materialist parameter relates closely to Blumer’s ideas of symbolic interactionism. According to Campbell, the Idealist-Materialist exists on a spectrum between creating an ideal society in their mind (idealism) and understanding the pragmatic realities of the world as it exists around them (materialism). Idealists tend to “regard social order as rule-governed and therefore as a mental rather than a physical phenomenon” (Campbell 29). When applied to a symbolic interactionist perspective, Blumer would argue that the Idealist-Materialist parameter heavy colors how people relate to each other based on how they view society as a whole. Someone more idealistic would likely have higher expectations for another person’s behavior and morality when talking to them than a materialist. Symbolic interactionism is inherently idealistic, as it understands the mental and psychological nature of how meanings and symbols are created, particularly within the social order.
Campbell describes the Individualist-Holist parameter as the divide between those who “[deduce] all social organization from the properties of individual human beings who are autonomous” and those who “[see] society as an independent force that gives form and substance to the life of the individual person” (Campbell 36). Judging from Blumer’s views, symbolic interactionism leans more towards individualism, as the individuals autonomously create these meanings based on how they interpret them: “Instead of the individual being surrounded by an environment of pre-existing objects which play upon him and call forth his behavior, the proper picture is that he constructs his objects on the basis of his ongoing activity” (Blumer 37). As the individual is the one doing the constructing, symbolic interactionism must inherently be more individualistic than holistic.
The Conflict-Consensus parameter explores the extent to which society is either a series of competitions and rivalries (conflict) or the desire to achieve universal agreement and form social organizations (consensus). This tension in these perspectives cannot truly be reconciled within Blumer’s views on symbolic interactionism, as there is no emphasis within that theory on social systems that are structured with any regularity. This interactionism relies on both conflict and consensus depending on context, and the individuals creating that particular social milieu; symbolic interactions can occur whether they are being used to create conflict or organize others under mutually-agreed symbols. Both conflict and consensus can be used to create social organization, which is “a framework inside of which acting units develop their actions,” according to Blumer (42).
Campbell’s Positive-Interpretative parameter deals with whether or not social theorists should view society through the cold, objective nature of scientific study (in which X thing leads to Y result), or if social theory should rely more on interpretation rather than dealing with definitive causes of specific effects. Viewing Blumer’s symbolic interactionism through this lens, it is clear that he would prefer the latter view; symbolic interactionism, as a practice, is not an objective discussion of what symbols have what universal meanings. Instead, symbols are determined by the specific contexts of an interaction, and are defined as such. No two meanings are shared, therefore a positivist approach would not be reconciled with Blumer’s views.
According to Campbell, the Descriptive-Normative falls along similar lines as the Idealist-Materialist, but relates more closely to how these perspectives are implemented. Descriptive theorists would illustrate how something factually occurs, while a normative theorist would prescribe social norms onto a society. Blumer would lean heavily toward the Descriptive end of the spectrum, as symbolic interactionism dictates that society is made up of the real interactions and meanings that come from those interactions after the fact, not prescribed to them beforehand (Harvey, 2003).
When viewed through Campbell’s five parameters of social theory, Blumer’s perspective of symbolic interactionism heavily leans toward an idealistic, descriptive, individualistic and interpretative practice which allows for both conflict and consensus. Symbolic interactionism is a practice determined largely by individuals creating meaning through social interactions with one another, and then handling and modifying those meanings through interpretation and description. In doing so, societies are created through the collective efforts of a group of autonomous individuals who consciously or subconsciously agree upon a set of social norms, which itself constitutes the social order. Through the use of Campbell’s parameters, Blumer’s social theories can be given greater shape and be more clearly defined, particularly in opposition to other types of social theories; in this way, these parameters become immensely useful in clarifying the nature of symbolic interactionism.
References
Blumer, Herbert. “Society as Symbolic Interaction.” Pp. 36-43.
Campbell, Tom. Seven Theories of Human Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.
Harvey, Michael. The Nuts & Bolts of College Writing. Hackett Publishing Company, 2003.
