Symbolic interactionism and family studies

1. 1
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionismisasociological perspectiveonselfand societybasedonthe ideasof GeorgeH.
Mead(1934),CharlesH. Cooley(1902),W. I. Thomas(1931),andotherpragmatistsassociated,primarily,with the
University of Chicagointheearlytwentieth century. Thecentralthemeofsymbolic interactionismisthat humanlifeis
lived in the symbolic domain.Symbolsareculturallyderived socialobjectshavingsharedmeaningsthatarecreated
andmaintainedinsocialinteraction.Throughlanguageandcommunication,symbolsprovidethe meansby which
realityis constructed.Realityis primarilyasocialproduct,andallthat is humanlyconsequential—self,mind,society,
culture—emergesfrom andisdependentonsymbolic interactionsforits existence.Even the physicalenvironmentis
relevant to humanconductmainlyasit is interpretedthroughsymbolic systems.
Importance ofMeanings
Thelabel symbolicinteractionismwascoinedbyHerbert Blumer(1969),oneof Mead'sstudents. Blumer,who did
muchtoshapethis perspective, specifieditsthree basic premises:(1)Humansacttowardthingson the basisof the
meaningsthatthingshave for them; (2) the meaningsofthingsderive from socialinteraction;and(3)these meanings
are dependenton,andmodifiedby, aninterpretive processof the peoplewhointeractwith oneanother. Thefocus
hereis on meaning,whichisdefinedintermsof actionandits consequences(reflectingtheinfluenceofpragmatism).
Themeaningofathingresides inthe actionthat it elicits.Forexample, themeaningof"grass" is food to a cow,
shelterto a fox, andthe like. In the caseof symbols, meaningsalsodependona degreeof consensualresponses
betweentwo or morepeople.Themeaningofthe word husband,for example,dependsonthe consensualresponses
of those who useit. If most of those whouse it agree, the meaningofa symbolis clear;if consensusislow, the
meaningisambiguous,andcommunicationisproblematic.Withina culture,ageneralconsensusprevailsonthe
meaningsassociatedwithvariouswords or symbols. However, inpractice,themeaningsofthings arehighlyvariable
anddependon processesofinterpretationandnegotiationof the interactants.
TheinterpretiveprocessentailswhatBlumerrefers to as role-taking,the cognitiveabilityto take the perspectiveof
another. It is a criticalprocessincommunicationbecauseitenablesactorsto interpretone another'sresponses,
therebybringingaboutgreater consensusonthemeaningsofthe symbols used. Thedeterminationofmeaningsalso
dependsonnegotiation—thatis, on mutualadjustmentsandaccommodationsofthosewho areinteracting.In short,
meaningisemergent,problematic,anddependentonprocessesofrole-takingandnegotiation.Mostconceptsof
symbolic interactionism arerelatedtothe conceptofmeaning.
SituationalDefinitions
TheimportanceofmeaningsisreflectedinThomas's(1931)famousdictum:Ifsituations aredefinedas real, they are
realin their consequences.Thedefinitionofthesituationemphasizesthat peopleactin situationson the basisof

2. 2
howthey aredefined.Definitions,even whenat variancewith "objective"reality, have real consequencesforpeople's
actionsandevents.
Thedefinitionalprocessinvolvesthe determinationofrelevant identities andattributes of interactants.If, for example,
a teacherdefinesa student as a slowlearner(basedon inaccurateinformation),herdiscriminatorybehavior(e.g.,
less attentionand lowerexpectations)mayhave a negative effect on the student's intellectualdevelopment,resulting
in a self-fulfillingprophecy.Thisprocess,incombinationwithinteractionistideasaboutself-conceptformation,isthe
basisof the labelingtheoryof deviance.Labelingtheoryproposesthat a key factorin the developmentof deviants is
the negative labelof identity imposedontheperson(e.g., "criminal,""pervert") who engagesindeviant behavior
(Becker1963).
Defininga situationis not a static process.An initialdefinition,basedon past experiencesorculturalexpectations,
maybe revised in the courseof interaction.Muchofthenegotiationinsocialsituationsentailsanattempt to present
the self in a favorable lightor to defenda valued identity. Erving Goffman's(1959)insightfulanalyses of impression
managementandtheuse of deferenceanddemeanor,aswellas MarvinScott andStanford Lyman's (1968)
examinationofthe useof excuses,justifications,andaccounts,speakto the intricaciesinvolvedinsituational
definitions.Where poweror status disparities exist, the dominantinteractant'sdefinitionofthe situationlikelyprevails.
Self-ConceptFormation
Along with symbols, meaning,andinteraction,the self is a basic conceptinsymbolic interactionism.Theessential
feature of the self is that it is a reflexive phenomenon.Reflexivityenableshumanstoacttowardthemselves as
objects,or to reflecton themselves, arguewith themselves,evaluate themselves, and so forth. Thishumanattribute
(al-thoughdolphinsandthegreat apesshow someevidenceof a self as well),basedon the socialcharacterof
humanlanguageandtheabilityto role-take, enablesindividualstosee themselvesfrom the perspectiveof another
andthereby to form a conceptionofthemselves,a self-concept.
Twotypes of othersare criticalinthedevelopmentof the self. The significantotherrefers to peoplewhoare
importantto an individual,whoseopinionsmatter.The generalizedotherrefersto a conceptionofthe community,
group,or anyorganizedsystem of roles (e.g., a baseballteam)thatare usedas a pointof referencefrom whichto
view the self.
Theimportanceofothersin the formationof self-conceptsiscapturedinCooley's (1902)influentialconcept,the
looking-glassself.Cooleyproposedthat to someextent individualsseethemselves as they thinkothers see them.
Self-conceptionsandself-feelings(e.g.,prideor shame)area consequenceofhowpeopleimagineothersperceive
andevaluate them. Withincontemporarysymbolic interactionism,thisprocessiscalled reflectedappraisalsandis
the mainprocessemphasizedinthe developmentof the self.

3. 3
Theselfis consideredasocialproductinother ways, too. Thecontentofself-conceptsreflectsthecontentand
organizationof society. Thisis evident withregard to the rolesthat are internalizedas role-identities(e.g.,father,
student). Roles, as behavioralexpectationsassociatedwithastatus withina set of relationships, constituteamajor
linkbetweensocialandpersonalorganization.SheldonStryker (1980) proposesthat differentialcommitmentto
various role-identitiesprovidesmuchofthe structureand organizationof self-concepts.Totheextentthat individuals
are committedtoa particularroleidentity, they are motivatedto actaccordingtotheirconceptionofthe identityand
to maintainandprotectit, becausetheirroleperformanceimplicatestheirself-esteem.Muchofsocialization,
particularlyduringchildhood,involveslearningsocialrolesandassociatedvalues,attitudes, andbeliefs. Initiallythis
takes placeinthe family, then in largerarenas(e.g., peergroups, school,worksettings) of the individual'ssocial
world.Theroleidentitiesformedearly in life, suchas genderandfilialidentities,remainsomeofthe most important
throughoutlife. Yet socializationislifelong,and individualsassumevariousroleidentitiesthroughouttheir lifecourse.
Socializationisnot a passive processof learning rolesandconformingtoother'sexpectations.Theselfis highly
active andselective, having a majorinfluenceonits environmentanditself. When peopleplayroles, role-making
often is as evident as is learningroles.In role-making,individualsactivelyconstruct,interpret, anduniquelyexpress
their roles. Whenthey perceivean incongruitybetweenarole imposedonthem andsomevaluedaspectof theirself-
conception,theymaydistancethemselvesfrom a role, whichisthe disassociationofselffrom role.A pervasive
themein this literatureis that the self actively engagesinits own development,aprocessthat maybe unpredictable.
Divisions Within Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism isnota homogeneoustheoreticalperspective.Althoughinteractionistsagreethat humans
rely onshared symbolsto constructtheirrealitiesand onthe methodological requirementofunderstandingbehavior
by "getting inside"the realityof the actor,substantialdivisions remainwithinthisperspective.The maindivisionis
betweenthose whoemphasizeprocessandthosewho emphasizestructureinstudying humanrealities.Theformer,
associatedwithBlumer(1969)andknownas the ChicagoSchool,advocatestheuse of qualitative methodsin
studying the processof reality constructionwithinnaturalsocialsettings.Thelatter,associatedwithManfurdKuhn
(1964)and labeledtheIowa School,advocatestheuse of quantitative methodsin studying the productsof social
interaction,especiallyself-concepts.Thedifferencesbetweenthesetwoschoolsof symbolic interactionismreflectthe
fundamentaldivisioninthe socialsciencesbetweenhumanistic/interpretiveorientations,whichalignwithhistoryand
the humanities,andpositivistic orientations,whichalignwith thephysicalsciences.Bothof these orientationsto
symbolic interactionism areevidentinmarriageandfamilystudies, althoughthe structuralorientationpredominates.
Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies
Symbolic interactionism hasbeenanimportanttheoretical perspectiveinfamilystudies sinceitsearly developmentin
the 1920sand 1930s(LaRossaandReitzes 1993). William ThomasandFlorianZnaniecki's(1918–1920)
monumental study,The PolishPeasant inEurope andAmerica, was anearly applicationofsomeofthe mainthemes
andconceptsofthe perspective. Thisstudyfocusedonthe adjustmentsandtransformationsinpersonalityand family

4. 4
patterns in the Polishpeasantcommunityinthe courseof immigrationtotheUnitedStates duringthe early1900s.
Processesof socialization,adaptation,definitionformation,role-making,andself-conceptdevelopmentweremajor
themesin theiranalysis.
Ernest Burgess, however, was the first to callfor the systematic applicationof"processual"symbolic interactionismto
familystudies. Heproposedthat the familycanbe viewedas "a unity of inter-actingpersonalities"(Burgess1926),a
little universe of communicationinwhichrolesandselvesare shapedandeachpersonalityaffects every other
personality. Unfortunately, few heededBurgess's calltostudy the dynamic interactionsofwholefamilies(foran
exception,seeHess andHandel1959).It is impracticalformostfamilyresearcherstostudy wholefamilydynamics
over time.Burgess's ownempiricalstudiesmostlyusedconventionalsurvey methodsandmeasurementsinstudying
maritaladjustment(BurgessandCottrell1939), andreflecta more structural interactionism(i.e., emphasisonsocial
structurerather than process)characteristicofthe Iowa school.
Another pioneerin the symbolic interactionistapproachtofamilyresearchwasWillard Waller(1937,1938). Waller
usedqualitative methods(e.g., casestudiesand novels) to study familydynamics,particularlyprocessesof
interpersonal conflict,bargaining,andexploitation.Hisprincipleofleast interest suggeststhat the personleast
interestedin or committedtothe maritalor datingrelationshiphasthe mostpowerin that relationshipandfrequently
exploitsthe other. Thethemeof conflictandexploitationwasprominentinhisanalysis of collegedatingpatternsin
the 1930s. ReubenHill,whoshapedmuchofthe contemporaryresearchonthe family, reworkedWaller's treatiseby
shiftingthe focusfrom a conflictandprocessorientationtoa relatively structureddevelopmentalperspective
emphasizingfamilyrolesand a moreharmoniousviewof familylife (Wallerand Hill1951).
Muchcontemporaryfamilyresearchfrom a symbolic interactionistperspectivedealswithsometype of role analysis,
suchas how the roles of husbandandwife are definedduringstagesof familylife; how genderroleconceptions
affect the definitionsof spousalroles;how the arrival of childrenandthetransition to parentalroleschangerole
constellationsandinteractionpatterns;howexternalevents (e.g., parentalemployment,naturaldisasters,migration)
andinternalevents (e.g., births, deaths, divorces)affect roledefinitions,performance,stress,or conflict;andhow
these role-specificvariablesaffectthe attitudes, dispositions,andself-conceptionsoffamilymembers(Hutter1985).
Theconceptofroleis also importantfor mostof the majorsociological perspectives(e.g., structuralfunctionalism,
socialexchangetheory,andeven conflicttheory). Thesymbolic interactionistperspectiveemphasizestheprocesses
of role-making,roledefinition,rolenegotiation,androleidentitywithin the family(Hochschild1989).
A largearea of symbolic interactionistresearchdealswithsocialization—theprocessesthroughwhichpersonalities
andself-conceptsareformed,values andattitudes are transmitted,andthe cultureof one generationispassedto the
next. Thesocializationofchildrenisoneof the few remaining(andthemostcritical)functionsofthe familyinmodern
societies.It hasreceivedconsiderableattentionfrom researchers.Asymbolic interactionistperspectiveonchild
socializationencompassesabroadrangeof processesandoutcomesinvolvedin integratingthenewbornintoits
familyandsociety. Most of the socializationresearchhasfocusedonthedevelopmentof someaspectof the self
(e.g., self-esteem,gender,andfilialidentities). Theresearchindicatesthatpositive reflectedappraisalsfrom parents

5. 5
alongwith parentalsupportandthe use of inductivecontrolhave positive socializationoutcomesforthe children's
self-concept(GecasandSchwalbe1986;PetersonandRollins1987).
Thesocializationprocessishighlyreciprocal;parentsandchildrenaffectoneanothers'self-concepts.Thehighlevels
of reciprocitycharacteristic offamilysocializationprocesses(andahallmarkofsymbolic interactionism)arerarely
reflectedinfamilyresearch,althoughresearchersareincreasinglysensitive to it. A focuson reciprocityis more
evident in researchwhere identitynegotiationisproblematic,asin the caseof lesbianmotherhood(Hequembourg
andFarrell1999)or in the caseof immigrantfamilieswhereparentsandchildrenmustrenegotiatetheirrolesin
unfamiliarcultural contexts(HymanandVu 2000).
In additionto pursuingtraditionalinterestsin familystudies,mostly inthe UnitedStates, symbolic interactionistsare
increasinglypursuingcross-culturalandinternational research.In the areaof self and identity, for example,Steve
Derne(1999)shows howmalefilmgoersinIndiause theirinterpretationsof Western films to both maintainand
enhancetheirsenseof maleprivilege.Thisresearchdemonstrateshow,whenexposedto culturalperspectivesthat
maythreaten theirown self-conceptsorethnic identities,peopleengageininterpretiveprocessesthat serve to
incorporatetheseideasintoexistingself-structures. ResearchinNigeria(Rotini1986)hasshownhowcarownership,
an influentialstatussymbol, shapespersonalinteractionsamongtheowners ofdifferent types of carsandhow the
infiltrationof new technologiesintoculturescanalterrole-relationsinsocialinstitutionssuchasthefamily, law, and
religion.
Cross-culturalresearchalsoexploreshowfamilyrelationsareconductedwithinspecificethnic domains,andhowthe
culturalcontextsinwhichcommunicationoccursshapefamilyinteractionsandidentitynegotiations(Luoand
Wiseman2000).Mzobanzi Mboya(1993), for example,offers a compellingstudyof the ways that the self-concepts
of South African adolescentschoolchildrenarerelatedtotheir perceptionsofparentalbehavior.SimonCheng's
(2000)researchonthe childsocializationmechanismsusedbyChinesefamilieswhohave immigratedtotheUnited
States demonstrateshowethnic identitiesaresociallyconstructed,negotiated,andmaintainedthroughparent-child
interactionsthatoccurinheterogeneouscultural milieus.
Broadlyspeaking,socialmovements,nationaldilemmas,international conflict,andtheflow of international
immigrantsframethesymbolic domainsinwhichfamilieslive.Immigrantfamiliesandchildrenencounteringcultures
andlifestyles that are vastly different from their own struggleto realize newopportunitiesandto maintaintheirown
ethnic identitiesandintegrity(Zhou1997).Globalsocialmovementssuchasthewomen'smovementoffer
opportunitiesfor womentoreconstructtheiridentitiesand,in doingso, to reconstructtheinstitutionof the familyitself
(Ray andKorteweg1999).

6. 6
Conclusion
Many areas of family research reflect symbolic interactionist ideas, often in diffuse and diluted form. For instance, in much
of the research on marital satisfaction, marital quality, patterns of dating and mating, and various family-relevant attitudes
(e.g., premarital sex, abortion), symbolic interactionist ideas are likely to be implicitly rather than explicitly stated and
tested. Although this may hinder the development and refinement of symbolic interactionism, it can also be viewed as an
indication of the success of this theoretical perspective—that many of its concepts and ideas have become a part of the
common wisdom of family studies. The theory's use in family research across cultural domains also points to the broad
applicability of its fundamental premises and constructs.
See also:Family Roles; Family Theory; Gender Identity; Relationship Theories—Self-Other Relationship;
Role Theory; Self-Esteem; Socialization; Transition to Parenthood
Bibliography
becker, h. s. (1963). outsiders: studies in the sociology ofdeviance. new york: free press.
blumer, h. (1969). symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. englewood cliffs, nj: prentice hall.
bohannon, j. r., and blanton, p. w. (1999). "gender role
attitudes of american mothers and daughters over time." journal of social psychology 139:173–179.
burgess, e. w. (1926). "the family as a unity of interacting personalities." family 7:3–9.burgess, e. w., and cottrell, l. s., jr.
(1939). predicting success or failure in marriage. new york: prentice hall.
charon, j. (1989). symbolic interactionism, 3rd edition.englewood cliffs, nj: prentice hall.
cheng, s. h., and w. h. kuo. (2000). "family socialization of ethnic identity among chinese american pre-adolescents."
journal of comparative family studies 31:463–484.
cooley, c. h. (1902). human nature and the social order. new york: scribner.
derne, s. (1999). "handling ambivalence toward 'western'ways: transnational cultural flows and men's identity in india."
studies in symbolic interaction 22:17–45.
gecas, v., and schwalbe, m. l. (1986). "parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem." journal of marriage and the family
48:37–46.
goffman, e. (1959). the presentations of self in everydaylife. new york: doubleday.
gordon, m. (1977). "kinship boundaries and kinshipknowledge in urban ireland." international journal of sociology of the
family. 7:1–14.
hequembourg, a. l., and farrell, m. p. (1999). "lesbianmotherhood: negotiating marginal-mainstream identities." gender &
society 13:540–557.

7. 7
hess, r. d., and handel, g. (1959). family worlds.chicago: university of chicago press.
hochschild, a. r. (1989). the second shift: working parents and the revolution at home. new york: viking.
hutter, m. (1985). "symbolic interaction and the study of the family." in foundations of interpretive sociology: studies in
symbolic interaction, ed. h. a. farberman and r. s. perinbanayagam. greenwich, ct: jai press.
hyman, i.; vu, n.; and beiser, m."post-migration stresses among southeast asian refugee youth in canada: a research
note." journal of comparative family studies 31:281–293.
kuhn, m. h. (1964). "major trends in symbolic interactiontheory in the past twenty-five years." sociological quarterly 5:61–
84.
larossa, r., and reitzes, d. c. (1993). "symbolic interactionism and family studies." in sourcebook of family theories and
methods, ed. p. g. boss; w. j. doherty; r. larossa; w. r. schumm;and s. k. steinmetz. new york: plenum.
luo, s. h., and wiseman, r. l. (2000). "ethnic languagemaintenance among chinese immigrant children in the united states."
international journal of intercultural relations 24:307–324.
mboya, m. m. (1993). "parental behavior and african adolescents' self-concepts." school psychology international 14:317–
326.
mead, g. h. (1934). mind, self, and society. chicago: university of chicago press.
peterson, g. w., and rollins, b. c. (1987). "parent-child socialization." in handbook of marriage and the family, ed. m. b.
sussman and s. k. steinmetz. new york: plenum.
ray, r., and kortweweg, a. c. (1999). "women's movements in the third world: identity, mobilization, and autonomy." annual
review of sociology 25:47–71.
rotini, a. (1986). "retrospective participant observation on driving and car ownership in nigeria." international review of
modern sociology 16:395–406.
scott, m. e., and lyman, s. m. (1968). "accounts." american sociological review 33:46–62.
stryker, s. (1980). symbolic interactionism. menlo park,ca: benjamin/cummings.
thomas, w. i. (1931). the unadjusted girl. boston: little,brown.
thomas, w. i., and znaniecki, f. (1918–1920). the polish peasant in europe and america, 5 vols. boston: badger.
waller, w. (1937). "the rating-dating complex." american sociological review 2:727–734.
waller, w. (1938). the family: a dynamic interpretation.new york: dryden.
waller, w., and hill, r. (1951). the family: a dynamicinterpretation, rev. edition. new york: dryden.
zhou, m. (1997). "growing up american: the challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants." annual
review of sociology 23:63–95.
International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family | 2003 | Copyright