Introduction
Symbolic interactionism is essentially a sociological perspective, which is influential in numerous areas of this discipline. The theory as thought of George Mead and Herbert Blumer is actually the process of interaction or relations in formation of meanings for the individuals. Herbert Blumer, an interpreter and a student of Mead, devised the term “symbolic interactionism” and with influence of John Dewey who argued, that we are understood best in relation to our environment outlined the term as a study of the human group life as well as conduct. For this reason, this essay relates this theory to the topic, “Measuring Peer Pressure, Popularity, and Conformity in Adolescent Boys and Girls: Predicting School Performance, Sexual Attitudes, and Substance Abuse” in the article by Darcy A. Santor, Deanna Messervey, and Vivek Kusumakar by discussing its strengths and weaknesses.
Symbolic interactionism theory is related to the topic in the article since the topic is about interaction of adolescent girls and boys and the meanings that they give to themselves and to a number of symbols or things associated with their age. The three core principles of symbolic interactionism are very much applicable in the topic (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 164). The authors in the article investigate the peer pressure, popularity, and conformity among these adolescents and predict the adolescents’ performance in school, substance abuse behavior, and sexual attitudes. Peer pressure is all about interaction and in this interaction; the agents (adolescents) give meanings to various symbols associated with the group (Santor, Darcy, and Messervey, 163).
The strengths of the theory in relation to the topic are that all its core principles are applicable in one way or another to this topic. The adolescents act towards one another and things or symbols associated with adolescence based on the meanings they give to their fellow adolescents and to these things. In addition, language gives them a means through which to negotiate the meaning through the symbols. Lastly, the principle of thought modifies each adolescent’s interpretation of the symbols. Thought, based on the language is therefore a dialog or a mental conversation, which makes the students imagine in different points of view or take the necessary role.
In the process of interacting with one another, these adolescents act in a certain way towards their fellow adolescents and things like drugs, sex, education among other things based on meanings they attach to these things. In addition, these meanings stem from their interactions and through the language for instance; they may have learned that drug abuse leads to low or high school performance and low or high popularity through their interactions in the school and with their parents. After learning these meanings from their interactions, the adolescent do not internalize these meanings as they may modify them by an interpretive process hence the principle of thought become applicable in this case. Thus, others might interpret drug as a positive symbol, whereas others might interpret it as a negative symbol that leads to poor performance, increase in the sex attitudes among others (Ritzer and Stepnisky 164).
However, in relation to the topic, symbolic interactionism theory weaknesses lie in its neglect to the macro level of the social interpretation. This means that this theory in the topic has missed the larger issues in the entire society that is, the overall adolescents issues through focusing too closely on only the issues of adolescents in grades 11 to 13. Additionally, it has slighted the influence of social institutions and forces on the individual adolescents interactions.
Works cited
Ritzer, George, and Jeffrey Stepnisky. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. New York, N.Y: McGraw-Hill, 2013. Print.
Santor, Darcy A., and Deanna Messervey. "Measuring Peer Pressure, Popularity, and Conformity in Adolescent Boys and Girls: Predicting School Performance, Sexual Attitudes, and Substance Abuse." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29.2 (2000): 163.
