Symbolic Interactionism

Meaning, Social Interaction and Interpretation

Theoretically, it is often assumed that meaning is unimportant and can be ignored, or alternatively, human [Page 746]behaviour is viewed as the product of various factors. Attention is generally concentrated on behaviour per se and the factors presumed to be creating them (e.g. psychology—stimuli, perception and cognition; sociology—status, social roles and values). Meaning is thus either merged with the initiating factors or is treated as a mere transmission link which can be ignored in favour of the initiating factor. However, in symbolic interactionism, meaning is centralized, and to ignore meaning is to neglect its fundamental role in the formation of behaviour.

This stark difference becomes clear when considering the origin of meaning. Meaning is accounted for in one of two ways. The first, realist view is that meaning is assumed to be intrinsic to the thing itself and is part of its objective nature. For example, a chair is clearly a chair—all that is needed is to recognize the meaning of the thing which is there in the thing. The second account stresses the psychical attributes connected to the thing via the individual's psychological make-up, for example, the individual's history, feelings, ideas, memories and motives. An example would be tracing the meaning of prostitution by examining the attitude of the person who considers ‘prostitution’.

Alternatively, symbolic interactionism holds that the origin of meaning emerges from the interaction between people. Meaning is understood as being constructed, maintained and recycled from social interaction; therefore, the source of meaning is intrinsically social. Thus, symbolic interactionism does not reduce meaning to a mediating event between either psychological (causal factors within the individual, e.g., personality or personal history) or sociological (causal factors in the society, e.g., poverty or social class) factors but instead emerges in the interaction between individuals with regard to the thing, that is, the collective engagement with the thing, which creates the thing per se. Symbolic interactionism views meanings as social products, creations that are formed in and through the defining activities of people as they interact.

However, the use of meaning does not equate to the social production of meaning. That would be to reduce meaning to the application of established meanings, albeit in this instance social as opposed to realist or psychological. Instead, the importance of interpretation is acknowledged. Interpretation has two steps. In the first, the actor has to indicate to himself the thing towards which he is acting; he has to point out to himself the things that have meaning. This is an internalized social process in which the actor is interacting with himself. In the second step, via communicating with himself, interpretation becomes a process of handling meanings. The actor checks, selects, suspends and transforms meanings in the light of the situation in which they are placed. Interpretation is not an automatic application of established meanings but is instead a formative process in which meanings are used and revised as instruments of guidance and the formation of action. In symbolic interactionism, action centrally implicates the selfinteraction and reflection of meanings.

...