Introduction
Symbolic interactionism is in essence a sociological approach and more critically one considered highly in social psychology. It focuses on the assemblage, negotiations and variations of connotations via social interactions. Symbolic interaction is defined according to Prus (10) as the studying of means with which individuals attempt to comprehend life situations and by extension, how such individuals opt to perform personal activities in concurrence with other individuals in society. Also referred to as interactionism, symbolic interactionism is a core theoretical perspective studied in sociology and relates to the subjective comprehension of the social process, human behaviour and rationality or pragmatism.
Symbolic interactionism is founded on the precinct that society is formed from patterned and organized interactions among persons. Given that human society is composed of communities, each one of these communal groupings is set apart from others by unique cultural orientations. As studied in class, culture relates to the form of consensus arrived at the communal group level concerning goals, knowledge, rules, understandings, agreements, shared values, and language that bind members together. As such, culture tends to present a constraint borne on each person in a given community. Therefore, for individuals willing to become part of such a group have to come to terms with the fact that a consensus has to be agreed upon with regard to constraints concerning their behaviour (Charon 158). This paper seeks to discuss symbolic interactionism by delving into the documentary film titled Sound and Fury.
Theoretical Framework
Given that communities always have new members joining in, then one has to query, how is a culture communicated to other new members? Prior to delving in to a solution for such a query, it is critical to point out that these new members can be children, adolescents or adults (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 219). As such, the abilities of these different age sets implies different rates of learning a particular culture and by extensions stages through which each age set moves in understanding the culture.
As sociologists, we understand that it is through socialization with another culture that one comes to understand its maxims (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 221). Socialization in this case can be defined as a continuous process that is also interactive. It enables people to acquire and subsequently develop identities as well as learn how to think feel and act in a manner consistent with a given culture (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 221). It is through this socialization process that a person comes to learn on how to become a functioning group member, how things are done, achieve objectives, how to thrive among other things.
Given that symbolic interactionism takes on an interactionist approach, such aspects as dynamic interaction, the reciprocal nature of interactions and the unpredictability of social interaction outcomes in this case may characterize the socialization process (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 222). The interactionist understanding is such that it employs both an active and an interactive perception of targets of socialization relative to the exercising agency. However, these targets of socialization are in a position to resist, influence act back on or even shape social interactions. In the process of socialization, different actors play different roles. For instance, agents of socialization also considered to as the exercising agents shape, form, teach as well as influence others (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 224). Targets of socialization on the other hand, are persons subjected to the socialization efforts, in this case, children and adults new to cultural group.
It is important to point out that there is primary socialization where learning on cultural maxims is conferred to basic social institutions like the family or school (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 223). Then there is secondary socialization, where a target of socialization learns of tasks that are more intricate, roles or involvements such as how to order for meals and drinks at a particular food establishment.
The most critical element in interactionism is the notion of self. The notion of self is of great significance in comprehending the socialization process (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 225). It is both social and personal. Personal in that it allows an individual to be distinguishable from other members of society. Social in that, a person’s sense of self can only become significant and develop further upon social interaction. The social aspect of self is in itself defined by three elements (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 221). How one imagines to appear to others, how one imagines others judge him or her and feelings of self.
As Mead provides there are three phases relative to self-development. These are the preparatory phase, the play phase and the game phase (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 225). Characteristics of the preparatory phase are that in social learning, the target of socialization tends to imitate the characters of those closest to him or her and the development of early language. On the other hand, an individual acquiring a language characterizes the play phase and establishes personal roles played by significant community members or imaginary others (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 223). Such rudimentary roles not only play an important part in laying a basis for higher development of one’s sense of self but such role play is also commonly exhibited in a haphazard manner.
The game phase is associated with adults as in this stage, one is expected to quickly take on the viewpoints of many other community members repeatedly, rapidly and more so, efficiently as a social situation may require (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 226). It is vital to understand that play differs from games since games consist of a formalized set of rules governing how persons orient their personal actions as well as interactions (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 226). Games also subscribe individuals to aptly respond to the self with respect to interrelated role plays assumed expected by other participating individuals. As such, participating in a game expects one to be in a position to understand the viewpoints of other participants (Sandstrom 90). As such, the game phase takes on a variety of viewpoints not relative to individual others but the group or team viewpoint.
Documentary Film Overview
Sound and Fury is an interesting documentary film which sociologists can use to critically understand the intricacies associated with symbolic interactionism (Aronson). In the film, audiences get to appreciate the conflicts existing in the contemporary American society more so, concerning the hearing as well as the deaf cultures. It is actually a social lens into what it entails to be deaf in a society where the dominant culture is that of the hearing community. It involves two families where the fathers are brothers though one together with his wife and daughter is bounded within the hearing culture. The other family appreciates and positively embraces the deaf culture but they are in essence individuals with good hearing abilities.
The second family however, has a deaf son (Aronson). As the film progresses, one comes to understand that the family from the deaf culture do not want to have their deaf daughter move on transition to the hearing community as much as she insists on it. On the other hand, the family with a deaf son who themselves are members of the hearing community wish to have him receive a cochlea transplant to enable him transition to the hearing culture. As such, it highlights contemporary debate on the deaf versus hearing cultures and as such, relates fully to the sociological approach that is symbolic interactionism.
Symbolization
The documentary movie entitled Sound and Fury produced in the year 2000 is a great example of differences rife within a society where subgroups remain confined to specific subcultures (Aronson). As such, this film is in essence a debate concerning two inherently unique cultures. One culture is dependent on the objective approach while the other is exhibits the freedom to engage in the objective as well as subjective approach interactions (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 225). The hearing culture being the dominant culture has the opportunity to enjoy objective as well as subjective approaches. The deaf culture on the other hand is severely limited to the objective approach. This implies that the deaf culture can only communicate and interact with others of the group through sign language and cannot interact with the real world such as through listening to artificial and natural sounds as well as noises (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 221).
As discussed above, the self is also a product of social interactions and as such, the two families distinctively featured in the documentary have a unique form of socialization. Two brothers, Peter and Christopher were raised by deaf parents who themselves are not both deaf (Aronson). As such, the two brothers are deeply immersed in the deaf culture as they have been raised in a deaf family. However, Christopher whose hearing abilities enable him to socially interact with the hearing culture has a deaf son. Peter and his wife Nita being both deaf studied in schools for the deaf and as such were blessed with a deaf daughter Heather (Aronson). Peter and Nita are comfortable with the deaf culture as much as it limits their interactions with the larger subgroup in the society, that is, the hearing culture (Aronson). They seem to have no desire whatsoever to have interactions with the other culture beyond what is absolutely necessary.
As the documentary shows, living in a community where the hearing culture is dominant tends to exert significant stresses as some issues such as having a meal at a restaurant can be challenging. This is concerning the fact that the hearing culture in such a community setting where the deaf are not in significant numbers translates to situations where public places do not consider them much. The documentary also focuses on the family of Peter’s brother Christopher and his wife Mari and their deaf son, Peter. As much as both Christopher and Mari have perfect hearing abilities does not stop them from positively embracing the deaf culture (Aronson). This is in essences as both Mari and Christopher’s parents hail from homes where both sets of parents are deaf. As such, they both grew around the deaf culture and can easily relate with the sub group in the same way they do with the hearing culture. In the documentary, one finds out that this particular family is not keen on seeing their son, Peter remaining bounded within the deaf culture (Aronson). It is there wish that Peter may enjoy the exploits stemming from scientific research to enable him have abilities to fluently relate with the hearing culture.
The symbolization in the documentary is such that for children born into a family in the hearing culture and one bounded within the deaf culture that some degree of conflict appears with regard to cochlea transplants (Aronson). The two cultures, the deaf and the hearing communities are seen to be struggling as to whether to allow their children develop and live in a culture different from their own (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 227). This indeed turns into situations where even the extended family does not deem it fit a child born with attributes for the deaf culture to change cultures. As such, the hearing family is pro change while the deaf family resists change.
Childhood Socialization
However, moving to Maryland, where there is a large deaf culture oriented community, life for Peter and Nita’s family becomes more bearable (Aronson). As such, their daughter’s life is seen to thrive here. She becomes comfortable with her personal as well as social identity as being a member of the deaf community. In Maryland, Heather is able to develop as a normal girl would among her peers who are also deaf as the sign language allows her to communicate and relate with others in the deaf culture oriented community well (Aronson). Attending a school for the deaf, going out to restaurants and finding that requesting to be served is fluid and not exhausting appeals to her. At this point, one can point out that she is at a turning point where she can really accept being a member of the deaf culture.
In the documentary, one sees that in the first place they lived in New York, Heather did not feel comfortable interacting with others as her disability created social barriers (Aronson). As such she was in a stage of life where the family unit was the main agents of socialization and more so, Heather was in the preparatory phase. She was still in the initial stages of child development and could not decipher the differences between her own family setting and the hearing culture (Aronson; Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 225). The result was a situation where she seemed to accept her personal as well as social self though she wished to explore the hearing culture.
After moving from New York to Maryland and more specifically, in a deaf culture community, Heather tasted the best of the culture her family was reclined to (Aronson). Her experiences here compelled her to believe that there was no need to socialize with the hearing culture as she was suited by the numerous social interactions availed by the deaf community in Maryland (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 228).
However, moving to New York again and once again living in a neighbourhood, which was predominantly hearing culture placed her mind into disarray (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 226). She wanted to continue to purposely socialize with other children around the neighbourhood but because of her disability was unable to do so (Aronson). It is at this point where the emotional feelings she projected were compelled by the group affiliations associated with the New York neighbourhood. More so, it meant that she made a turning point in deciding to have a cochlea implant solely to enable her interact with other children of her age in the neighbourhood. It is important to point out that Heather’s quest for such an implant was heavily dependent on her age given that the longer she took without the cochlea transplant, the more difficult she would learn to use speech to interact socially with the people from the hearing culture (Aronson).
The emotional capital from the new neighbourhood led her to insist on the transplant as she had the determination to do whatever necessary to be able to relate with children of her age from the hearing culture communities, more specifically, within her neighbourhood. That is, role existing from the deaf community into role taking in the hearing community (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 221). The documentary film also shows differences in genders concerning social interactionism. Peter, Christopher and Mari’s son was not too keen on being a member of the hearing community despite the fact that both of his parents possessed good hearing (Aronson).
Adult Socialization
Concerning adult socialization, it is easy for grown-ups to comprehend fully that the society they live in is in essence a mosaic of subcultures (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 223). As such, the society cannot be homogeneous at the grass roots and even at other middle levels. On the same note, they understand that the process of socialization is a continuous process. As such, as seen in the documentary, Mari being an agent of change in her own home still receives a reprimanding from her own mother when the decision to ensure Peter, her son receives an implant (Aronson). Similarly, Heather’s father, Peter is not too happy with the decision that her daughter has compelled him to make being the agent of change while she is the target of socialization (Sandstrom, Kent Daniel and Gary 223). As such, in this particular situation the status of the two in the family is flipped. This status passage allows a new socialization aspect to be incorporated into Peter and Nita’s family.
Conclusion
As this paper has highlighted, as much as the hearing community perceives the deaf community as one with individuals living with a disability, the deaf culture is filled with people proud of their physical attributes. The sign language as a form of communication and more so, a language serves them well and thus, enables them to interact positively with the hearing community and enhance their quality of life. Symbolic interactionism relative to the documentary film, Sound and Fury can indeed be described as a considering the deaf community as well structured and organized. They can therefore, be considered as a self-sufficient community. Despite their situation social statuses exist which by extension, offer them a unique perspective on the broader society. Deafness is their unique and special identity feature in the contemporary society and as such, they seek to stay different from the hearing community.
Symbolic interactionism as a social theory works well to describe and more so offer explanations as to how sign language is utilised to result in a coherent deaf community. It is unique in that regardless of such aspects as gender, social class race or even creed, the community remains true to a united cause, one of looking out for the social interests of other community members. More so, their form of knowledge remains alien to the hearing communities thus, ensuring their identity remains untarnished. It is therefore no wonder that the reaction of Heather’s parents was negative to the idea that technology could allow her to move away from their culture but in essence only served to enable her relate with both cultures.
Works Cited
Aronson, Josh. Sound and Fury. You Tube. 2000. Web. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X275E4fvdmk>
Charon, Joel M., and Prentice Hall. "Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration." (2009): 240.
Prus, Robert. "Symbolic interaction and classical Greek scholarship: Conceptual foundations, historical continuities, and transcontextual relevancies." The American Sociologist 35.1 (2004): 5-33.
Sandstrom, Kent L., Daniel D. Martin, and Gary Alan Fine. "Symbolic interactionism at the end of the century." Handbook of social theory (2001): 217-231.
