Following the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines
Throughout the history of psychological discovery, psychologists have proposed many ideas. One such theory, named by Herbert Blumer, is referred to as Social Interactionist Theory. Through the work of Blumer, as well as the efforts of George Herbert Mead, Blumer’s teacher, and Mead’s cohort, Charles Horton Cooley, the trio was able to devise an idea that explained our social selves and the world we inhabit. Unlike psychologists before them, Mead and Cooley attempted to explain human development and interaction as it occurred in small groups, rather than attaching people as one single unit. The theory also attempted to show that the social constructed world gave each individual something to interpret, and these interpretations were what drove actions. Mead believed in the assigning of meaning to objects, symbols, and interactions as a way to learn reactions while rejecting the idea that humans were biologically programmed to behave in a certain way. Blumer, following Mead’s example, also believed this, but expanded on some of Mead’s theories. Cooley, who had ideas about these theories long before Mead became vocal, also decided that assigned meaning and interaction were a way for the individual to find and express their own identity. The theory today, while complex in nature, shed new light on how we interpret the world around us, why we act the way we do, and how we construct our social world.
According to George Herbert Mead’s “Essays in Social Psychology” he explains that the theory of social interactionism built a following and gained support thanks to himself, and his own follower, Charles Horton Cooley. It is noted by several sources, including Herbert Blumer himself, that Mead dedicated so much time to the theory he is thought to have been the true discoverer of social interactionism, as written in Blumer’s article entitled, “Social Interactionism,” published in Applied Behavioral Psychology . Blumer goes on in the article to state that though Mead was a gifted psychologist, his social interactionist theory crossed the borders of psychology and sociology. Later, Mead became known for teaching some of the most gifted pupils from both subjects .
Mead was primarily applauded for his rejection of the idea that humans were biologically predetermined to behave in a certain way, according to, “An Interactionist's Approach: Deviancy in the Modern Age,” written by Arnold M. Rose . He did not believe that good people were predisposed to be good, nor that bad people were genetically predetermined to be bad. Fundamentally, he took on more of a John Locke “Tabula Rasa” ideal when it came to human interaction. What dictated human behavior for Mead, was the world, the constructs of the individual’s own reality, and their interpersonal interaction. Mead argued that growth and personality were derived from symobols and meanings that individuals assigned objects and interactions based on their socialization . He believed that the meanings assigned to social situations were the foundation to interactionist theory.
Through his numerous teachings, he was able to project many of his other brilliant ideas concerning human psychology and sociology, but never published anything until his students did so in his honor, posthumously . While Mead was the orchestrator behind the theory, he lacked the propriety to put anything in writing. Herbert Blumer, Mead’s student and transcriber, is the individual who not only named the theory, but also began pairing writings with the theory, as stated in, “Beyond Blumer and Symbolic Interactionism: The Qualitative-Quantitative Issue in Social Theory and Methodology,” by Igor Hanzel. Mead provided social constructs and basic ideas for the theory . Blumer, as seen through his own writing, became influenced by his social constructionist background, and began to focus less on how individuals acted with one another, and more on how they spoke to one another. Working together, the two were able to create a basic framework that others, like Charles Horton Cooley, soon expanded upon during the growing movement.
Symbolic Interactionism is defined as the study of human life and human conduct, As Herbert Blumer wrote it in, “The Nature of Symbolic Interactionism.” Symbolic interactionism, according to the theory, dictates that individuals see reality as social interactions between one another that have beend developed. Typically, individuals who believe in social interactionist theory also believe that reality exists within an individual’s own social constructs. For example, an individual will only see the reality of something that they have formed an attachment to out of the need for it to be real, as explained in, “Interactionist Perspectives in Social Psychology,” written by, George J. McCall . Another example might be that the individual will only form a reality based on an interaction in which they have been trained to see as reality i.e. ghosts are not real, therefore the shadowy figure I just saw out of the corner of my I was not real. This could very easily be different in a culture that accepts ghosts and the afterlife as a reality. Shadowy figures may become part of the individual’s reality because, as part of their interaction with the environment, they accept it as such . In short, social interactionists accept that reality exists completely within each individual’s own social constructs, which are based on their own beliefs, cultures, and many other variables. As a result, individuals never respond directly to reality, but rather they respond to the interactions that their perceived reality presents to them, as Mead theorized in, “The Self, The I, and Me .” Mead decided that individuals reside in three separate realities: A social reality that consists only of interactions, a physically objective reality that is open to interpretation, and an exclusive reality, that we are all a part of. There was a time when it was Mead and Blumer’s wish to separate society and the individual in order to study these three realities. However, it was quickly understood that this was impossible because one cannot exist without the other, as exemplified in, “The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective and Identity Theory,” by Richard T. Serpe and Sheldon Styker. Serpe and Styker, like Mead and Blumer, agreed that if the individual devised their own reality based on interactions and social constructs, it is impossibe to remove them from it, and therefore impossible to study the three different aspects of reality as separate entities.
Blumer also created three basic principles that the theory would continue to stand on. They were that humans act toward their environment based on the meaning they have already assigned to it, that meaning comes from social interactions individuals experience with others and society as a whole, and that the meanings are interpretted based on how the individual feels is the best way to cope with the situation or object. The first of Blumer’s principles encompasses everything that an individual comes across in their reality. This includes social interactions, abstract concepts, and physical objects. The individual may have already assigned a meaning to a particular interaction or object, requiring that they behave a certain way in order to interpret and process it.
The second principle clarifies that the meanings an individual assigns to concepts, objects, or interactions arise from interactions with other people. Previous experience dictates these feelings. Like Mead, Blumer believed people did not simply react to the actions of others, but instead reacted to their own interpretation of the actions of others. This, Blumer admitted, could cause conflict because reactions were not based on iteraction, but instead the meaning previously assigned to the interaction by the receiving individual . For instance, if one individual had already assigned a negative feeling to all yelling, they may receive the happiest of celebrations with cries or fear. Interactions, as well as reactions, must be stimulated and directed after one’s motives are ascertained because nobody, if the theory is correct, simply reacts to the actions of another, according to Norbert Wiley’s, “Interviewing Herbert Blumer . Sometimes meaning is not even important to the interaction; language, tone, and body language are all the individual will rely on when reacting.
Finally, the last of Blumer’s principles refers to minding. Mead described his inner dialogue as “minding .” Technically, it referred to the brief delay in Mead’s thinking when he processed what his next action would be. Blumer’s third principle proposed that minding was the process by which individuals processed objects or information they received. It also encompassed how individuals thought: people think in words, but prior to that in symbols. Symbolic thought was interesting to Mead because it gave him cause to believe that we were inherently predisposed to fill roles. Therefore, because of unavoidable minding, and role-filling, not only did our perceptions matter when interacting, but when simply living our lives. If a perception of an individual was that they were a deviant, even if they were not, they may decide to fill that role. This social construct dictated that all perceptions mattered more than objective reality: “You are inherently not a deviant, but we see you as one, so a deviant you shall be .”
Though the theory was strong and the movement among psychologists and sociologists was vast, a controversy struck up between Mead and his associate, Charles Horton Cooley, in 1902. Cooley published a book entitled “Human Nature and the Social Order.” After his work with transportation and the layout of the country’s cities, he had become interested in people and social constructs. In his book, he outlined many of the concepts Mead would later elaborate on concerning symbolism, role taking, and the way individuals are conditioned to react in certain ways based on social interactions. Later, in 1909, Cooley released “Social Organization” where he further elaborated on society and its impact on the individual, as well as how the individual interpreted information and reacted to interactions. According to, “Revisiting the Mead-Blumer Controversy,” by Gary A. Cook, many speculate on whether or not Mead robbed Cooley of his work, later expanding on it, or if he stole an entire body of work for his own . Cooley, at the time, was best known for his work with sociology in terms of transportation and civilation; his efforts with society went relatively unnoticed until the parallels were seen, but now many speculate on whether he was the real father of symbolic interactionism. Similar to the “Me, Self, and I” theory proposed by Mead, Cooley had previously documented an idea he called, “The Looking-Glass Self.”
The idea was based around Cooley’s idea that an indvidual cultivates themselves from their perception of others, as well as interpersonal interactions. The term expands beyond what Mead proposed, according to, “Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance,” written by Ronald L. Akers, stating we also assign meaning to things based on what others think of us. The theory suggests that people would not only interpret the behavior of others based on meanings that had already been assigned to those interactions, but that they would assign their own actions meanings based on the assigned meanings of others. Essentially, if individuals proclaimed a person to be bad, they would accept that role and continue to behave badly because that was what was expected of them. The looking-glass self suggested that individuals would shape their image to fit the image of those perceiving them. This construct, Cooley admitted, made it difficult, if not entirely impossible to change or act differenlt than society’s perception; human’s are not creatures that want to break social construct easily, according to, “Tiny Publics: A Theory of Group Action and Culture,” by Gary Alan Fine. As a unit, one does not wish to upset the whole .
Like Mead and Blumer’s philosophies, Cooley’s idea also came with principle beliefs. As stated in, “Identity, Formation, Agency, and Culture: A Social Psychological Synthesis,” by James E. Cote and Charles G. Levine, Cooley believed that society as a whole has an impact on an individual’s identity . The looking-glass self included three cornerstones. Within the Cooley’s theory, one’s looking-glass self can observe herself or himself through the perceptions of others in society. The individual imagines what their appearance must be to others and reacts to the imagined judgment. It is through this imagined judgment that we begin to develop as individuals. The result is that the looking-glass self is able to gain identity. This identity is what happens when the individual obtains a concept of who they are to somebody else, as they learn to see themselves as others see them. According to Cooley, the looking-glass self begins early in life and never stops. It can be very gratifying or completely crippling to the individual’s growth, depending on the circumstances. The process never stops unless all social interactions stop entirely, and while some believe that the experience is more intense for some than others, or that it decreases in intensity over time, like Mead’s theory, it is impossible to test definitively .
Though these three psychologists had varying degrees of opinion, today the theory is more cohesive. It is decided that social interactionism related primarily to social structure, as well as language. The framework for the theory is based around the constructed reality of the individual. Interpretation is a part of the theory, but it does not impact is as once thought. Once the situation’s reality is outlined or defined, it can become a true reality to the individual; there is no longer room for objectivity. Language and social interactions are linked, and language may still be one of the most important elements of social construct, but it is no longer agreed, according to, “Symbolic Interaction – Serving the Whole Interactionist Family,” written by Robert Dingwall, Thomas DeGlomas, and Thomas NewMahr, that it is the most important element. It is only a joining link because communication begins all communication between individuals and this communication is what is needed for construct and interpretation to occur . An emerging theory in social interactionism is that, while language and the interactin itself is important, the environment in which it occurs is of equal importance. Environments have been found to influence an individual’s interactions. This can lead to certain meanings being assigned, which consequently leads to new perspectives. The end result can be a new definition to the situation. Not Mead, nor Blumer or Cooley appeared to consider that an interaction’s environment can change the entire outcome of the exchange and, therefore, the definitive feeling that follows. Case in point, if a man tells a woman he loves her as they sit in a romantic restaurant with soft music and mood lighting, she will be inclined not only to believe him, but also to assign feeling to that particular conversation, language, and location. However, if a man tells a woman he loves her in a dirty alley as he tries to beat her with a brick, the resulting feelings will be much different. While the theory has maintained much of what it began as, it has made a few changes that appear to be for the better.
In sum, Mead, Blumer, and Cooley all made great contributions to the field of psychology, as well as the field of sociology when they began plotting their ideas about the theory of social interactionism. While all three may have had minor disagreements, most of which falling between Mead and Cooley, they all had the same primary idea. None of them linked humans together as a whole; they attempted to focus on smaller interactions and how they shaped an individual’s sense of self, as well as their behavior. Mead refused to believe that humans were biologically predetermined to behave a certain way. Blumer decided reality existed within an individual’s own constructs and it was within these confines that they must define themselves. Cooley, similarly, thought individual’s must use the socially constructed reality to discover their identity. While the theory changed over time, and presented conflict among the communtt, there emerged many ways to look at interactions and identity while examining humans in small groups, and as a unit. It is clear that all three psychologists were instrumental in humankind being more introspective, as well as understanding that we do no have to live within the societally constructed realities that seem to be created for us; we are free to create our own if we wish.
References
Akers, R. L. (2012). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Livingston: Transaction Publishers.
Blumer, H. (2010). Symbolic Interactionism. Applied Behavioral Psychology, 82-93.
Blumer, H. (2011). The Nature of Symbolic Interactionism. Social Interaction and Psychology, 74-89.
Cook, G. A. (2011). Revisting the Mead-Blumer Controversy. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 17-38.
Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2014). Identity, Formation, Agency, and Culture: A Social Psychological Synthesis. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Dingwall, R., DeGloma, T., & NewMahr, T. (2012). Symbolic Interaction – Serving the Whole Interactionist Family. Symbolic Interaction, 1-5.
Fine, G. A. (2012). Tiny Publics: A Theory of Group Action and Culture. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Hanzel, I. (2011). Beyond Blumer and Symbolic Interactionism: The Qualitative-Quantitative Issue in Social Theory and Methodology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 303-326.
McCall, G. J. (2013). Interactionist Perspectives in Social Psychology. Handbook of Social Psychology, 3-29.
Mead, G. H. (2008). The Self, The I, and Me. Behavioral and Applied Psychology, 38-50.
Mead, G. H. (2010). Social Interactionism. Essays in Social Psychology, 25-38.
Rose, A. M. (2009). An Interactionist's Approach: Deviancy in the Modern Age. Social Psychology, 29-41.
Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2011). The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective and Identity Theory. Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, 225-248.
Wiley, N. (2011). A Mead–Cooley Merger. The American Sociologist , 168-186.
Wiley, N. (2012). Interviewing Herbert Blumer. Symbolic Interaction, 300-308.
