George Herbert Mead developed the theory of symbolic interactionism, which holds that human thought, identity, and society are shaped through communication and language. Mead believed that through the ongoing process of interpreting each other's verbal and nonverbal cues in conversation, people develop complex understandings of themselves and their social world. The film Nell illustrates these ideas by showing how a woman raised in isolation develops her identity and place in society as others try to understand her unique language through symbolic interaction.
This document discusses several key concepts in symbolic interactionism, including that people develop meaning through language and communication with others, and that people interpret symbols based on their own thought processes and by imagining how others view them. It provides examples of how female miners constructed their identities in response to the stigmatizing views of masculinity held by male miners when women first entered the mining industry in the 1970s.
Symbolic interactionism is a major social theory perspective that focuses on the symbolic meanings that develop through social interaction. It views humans as understanding themselves and their environment through practical, interactive experiences. The term was coined by Herbert Blumer to describe the approach of understanding human conduct and life through the symbolic meanings created between individuals. Central to this perspective are the ideas that humans act based on the meanings and interpretations they assign people and things through social interaction, language originated as a system of symbols to facilitate this interaction and thinking, and thought is modified through the interpretation of symbols.
This presentation discusses symbolic interactionism and its key concepts. Symbolic interactionism focuses on the symbolic meanings that people develop and rely on in social interaction. It analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings people impose on objects, events, and behaviors. The main postulate is that human beings have the capacity for thought, which is shaped by social interaction and the learned meanings and symbols that allow people to act and interpret situations.
Symbolic interactionism views the self as socially constructed through ongoing social interactions and negotiations of meanings. It is a theory that human communication and interaction are facilitated by symbols and their conventionalized meanings. The school of thought originated in the early 20th century from the work of sociologists like George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, and Herbert Blumer, who saw the capacity for thought as shaped by social interaction, where people learn symbols and their meanings to carry out human actions and modify meanings based on social contexts.
Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing how people interpret and act based on the meanings imposed on objects, events, and behaviors through symbols. It views society as socially constructed through human interpretation and interaction. Key founders like George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley influenced the theory by emphasizing how people develop a sense of self through imagining how they appear to others and interacting through symbols.
Symbolic Interactionism by George Herbert MeadAnne Cortez
Symbolic interactionism is a theory that views society as a complex system of symbolic communications between individuals. It proposes that 1) people act based on the meanings symbols have for them, 2) meanings arise through social interactions where people define and redefine symbols, and 3) people's thoughts and their views of themselves are modified through an internal interpretation of one's own and others' actions. According to this view, the self develops as people learn to see themselves through the eyes of others and their perceptions are internalized.
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level social theory that focuses on how people learn culture and how culture structures everyday experiences through symbolic meanings. It originated in the 1920s at the University of Chicago. George H. Mead was influential in arguing that the human mind develops through social interaction and the use of symbols to create shared meanings. He believed that symbols, developed socially, act as filters that allow people to understand themselves, others, and society. Later theorists like Blumer built upon Mead's work to outline three core premises of symbolic interactionism: that people act based on the meanings of things in their environment, those meanings come from social interactions, and meanings are interpreted and modified during social encounters.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that focuses on the symbolic meanings that people develop and rely on in social interaction. It analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings imposed by people on objects, events, and behaviors. According to this perspective, society is socially constructed through human interpretation of each other's behaviors based on the "definition of the situation." Fundamental aspects of social experience and identity like race and gender are understood as social constructs based on socially constructed meanings rather than biological bases. Symbolic interactionism rests on the premises that people act based on meanings of things in their environment, they learn these meanings through social interaction, and symbols like words and gestures acquire shared meaning in a culture through ongoing interaction. An important concept in symbolic interaction
This document discusses several key concepts in symbolic interactionism, including that people develop meaning through language and communication with others, and that people interpret symbols based on their own thought processes and by imagining how others view them. It provides examples of how female miners constructed their identities in response to the stigmatizing views of masculinity held by male miners when women first entered the mining industry in the 1970s.
Symbolic interactionism is a major social theory perspective that focuses on the symbolic meanings that develop through social interaction. It views humans as understanding themselves and their environment through practical, interactive experiences. The term was coined by Herbert Blumer to describe the approach of understanding human conduct and life through the symbolic meanings created between individuals. Central to this perspective are the ideas that humans act based on the meanings and interpretations they assign people and things through social interaction, language originated as a system of symbols to facilitate this interaction and thinking, and thought is modified through the interpretation of symbols.
This presentation discusses symbolic interactionism and its key concepts. Symbolic interactionism focuses on the symbolic meanings that people develop and rely on in social interaction. It analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings people impose on objects, events, and behaviors. The main postulate is that human beings have the capacity for thought, which is shaped by social interaction and the learned meanings and symbols that allow people to act and interpret situations.
Symbolic interactionism views the self as socially constructed through ongoing social interactions and negotiations of meanings. It is a theory that human communication and interaction are facilitated by symbols and their conventionalized meanings. The school of thought originated in the early 20th century from the work of sociologists like George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, and Herbert Blumer, who saw the capacity for thought as shaped by social interaction, where people learn symbols and their meanings to carry out human actions and modify meanings based on social contexts.
Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing how people interpret and act based on the meanings imposed on objects, events, and behaviors through symbols. It views society as socially constructed through human interpretation and interaction. Key founders like George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley influenced the theory by emphasizing how people develop a sense of self through imagining how they appear to others and interacting through symbols.
Symbolic Interactionism by George Herbert MeadAnne Cortez
Symbolic interactionism is a theory that views society as a complex system of symbolic communications between individuals. It proposes that 1) people act based on the meanings symbols have for them, 2) meanings arise through social interactions where people define and redefine symbols, and 3) people's thoughts and their views of themselves are modified through an internal interpretation of one's own and others' actions. According to this view, the self develops as people learn to see themselves through the eyes of others and their perceptions are internalized.
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level social theory that focuses on how people learn culture and how culture structures everyday experiences through symbolic meanings. It originated in the 1920s at the University of Chicago. George H. Mead was influential in arguing that the human mind develops through social interaction and the use of symbols to create shared meanings. He believed that symbols, developed socially, act as filters that allow people to understand themselves, others, and society. Later theorists like Blumer built upon Mead's work to outline three core premises of symbolic interactionism: that people act based on the meanings of things in their environment, those meanings come from social interactions, and meanings are interpreted and modified during social encounters.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that focuses on the symbolic meanings that people develop and rely on in social interaction. It analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings imposed by people on objects, events, and behaviors. According to this perspective, society is socially constructed through human interpretation of each other's behaviors based on the "definition of the situation." Fundamental aspects of social experience and identity like race and gender are understood as social constructs based on socially constructed meanings rather than biological bases. Symbolic interactionism rests on the premises that people act based on meanings of things in their environment, they learn these meanings through social interaction, and symbols like words and gestures acquire shared meaning in a culture through ongoing interaction. An important concept in symbolic interaction
Symbolic Interaction Theory (SIT) focuses on how humans create meaning through interaction and symbols which then affects behavior. Key concepts include the mind's ability to use shared symbols, the development of self through others, and society as a web of relationships. SIT proposes that people act based on the meanings others have for them, meaning is created socially, and individuals and groups are influenced by cultural and social processes worked out through interaction. Critics argue SIT is too broad, vague on emotions, and concepts are untestable, though it is intended as a framework not a full theory.
Herbert George Blumer was an American sociologist known for developing symbolic interactionism. He was a proponent of George Herbert Mead's social psychology and labeled it as symbolic interactionism. Blumer focused on how people interpret meanings and behaviors in their social interactions and how this helps construct social worlds and identities. He outlined three basic premises of symbolic interactionism: that people act based on meanings of things, meanings come from social interactions, and meanings are interpreted and modified through social processes. Blumer made important contributions to the theories of symbolic interactionism and methods of social research.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that develops from practical considerations and alludes to people's particular utilization of dialect to make images and normal implications, for deduction and correspondence with others.
Chapter 10: Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism-Toby ZhuToby Zhu
This document summarizes key concepts from symbolic interactionism and related theories. It discusses how symbolic interactionism views symbols as representations that give meaning and structure to our experience. Symbols are learned through social interaction and mediate further interaction. People develop stocks of social knowledge and typifications that allow them to quickly interpret and respond to their social environment. Related theories discussed include social constructionism, pragmatism, and phenomenology.
Symbolic interactionism is a theory that views society as the product of interactions between individuals. It proposes that 1) people act based on the meanings assigned to things through social interactions, 2) meaning arises through social interactions and language, and 3) an individual's thoughts are modified by their own interpretation of symbols and perspective taking of others. According to symbolic interactionism, the self and reality are social constructions that emerge through communication and the shared interpretation and understanding created between people through symbolic interactions like language.
George Herbert Mead is one of the founders of sociology in the United States of America. Though he has made numerous journals and books, he did not publish even a single one.
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level sociological theory that focuses on how people interpret and act based on shared meanings and understandings formed through social interaction. It emphasizes face-to-face interactions, lived experience, and the social construction of reality and identities. Key concepts include Charles Cooley's looking glass self, George Herbert Mead's I and me, and Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann's idea that reality is socially constructed through everyday interactions and is modifiable over time. Symbolic interactionism uses qualitative methods to study topics like deviance, labeling theory, and the sociology of emotions.
Symbolic interactionism focuses on human behavior and views it as the result of conscious interpretation of symbols and meanings within social interactions, rather than being determined by social structures. Key concepts include the self developing through socialization and interactions, the looking glass self where individuals see themselves through the reflections of others, and labeling theory where deviance is created through the application of rules and labels to certain groups.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that focuses on the meanings that people impose on objects, events, and behaviors through social interaction. It analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings given by individuals, who behave based on their own interpretations rather than objective reality. The theory was pioneered by George Herbert Mead and developed further by Herbert Blumer, who outlined its three basic premises: that people act based on the meanings they ascribe to things, that meanings arise from social interaction, and are modified through interpretation. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes symbols, social construction of meaning, and the roles people play.
This document provides an overview of symbolic interactionism and its key concepts as developed by George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer. It discusses:
- The basic principles of symbolic interactionism, including that humans think and act based on the meanings and interpretations derived from social interactions.
- The contributions of Mead in developing the theories of the "I" and "Me" and how the self develops. Blumer later coined the term "symbolic interactionism" and emphasized that people act based on meanings.
- Blumer's three core principles - that meaning comes from social interaction, language allows for the negotiation of meaning through symbols, and thought is based on the interpretation of symbols.
- Applications of symbolic interactionism
Symbolic interactionism and family studiesMoranodi Moeti
1. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that views society and the self as emerging from social interaction and the interpretation of shared symbols. Reality and all that is humanly significant, like the self and culture, are seen as social products that arise from symbolic interactions.
2. Key concepts in symbolic interactionism include meaning, which resides in the actions that symbols elicit; situational definitions, in which people act based on how situations are defined regardless of objective reality; and self-concept formation, which emerges through reflected appraisals and the internalization of roles.
3. There are divisions within symbolic interactionism between those who emphasize studying the process of reality construction qualitatively and those who use quantitative methods to study
Symbolic interactionism views society as created and maintained through repeated interactions between individuals. It focuses on the symbols and language used in interactions that help individuals interpret experiences and form meanings. There are three core principles: 1) meaning arises through symbolic representations in interactions, 2) language and symbols allow for negotiation of meaning, and 3) individual thought influences the interpretation of symbols. George Herbert Mead established that the self develops from social interactions and Charles Cooley's "looking glass self" holds that individuals incorporate the perceived judgments of others into their self-concept.
Symbolic interactionism holds that 1) meaning arises from social interaction and language rather than being inherent in objects, 2) thinking occurs through inner conversations stimulated by symbols, and 3) the self is defined through interaction, language, and thought as well as taking the perspective of others.
Symbolic interactionism is a social theory that views society as a complex system of symbolic interactions between individuals. It has three core premises: 1) people act based on meanings, 2) meanings come from social interactions, and 3) meanings are interpreted through an interpretive process. Charles Cooley proposed the looking-glass self theory, which argues that one's self-concept is based on how we believe others see us. George Mead expanded on this with his concepts of the "I" as the spontaneous self and the "Me" as the socialized self that develops through role-taking and interacting with significant and generalized others. Erving Goffman viewed the self as performances and used the metaphor of social life as a theater with front
Symbolic interactionism examines how individuals interpret symbols and meanings through social interaction. Erving Goffman developed this perspective by closely observing how people present themselves and interpret situations in everyday social encounters. He analyzed concepts like "line" (how people portray themselves), "face" (the self-image presented), and how individuals navigate social expectations through "face-work" and maintaining a coherent sense of identity in interaction with others. Goffman showed how micro-level social interactions both shape and are shaped by the individual performances and interpretations of self within different social contexts and relationships.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that focuses on the relationships among individuals within a society. Communication, the exchange of meaning through language and symbols, is believed to be how people make sense of their social worlds. There are two main generations of symbolic interactionism. The first sees actions as always having meaning, while the second sees social life as a performance of roles. Proponents of symbolic interactionism, such as George Herbert Mead, Charles Cooley, and Erving Goffman, studied how meanings and identities emerge through social interaction and the interpretive processes used by individuals.
Chapter 10: Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism-Handout-Toby ZhuToby Zhu
Symbol interactionism views people as giving meaning to symbols that then control their behavior. Behaviorism sees human actions as conditioned responses to external stimuli. Pragmatism emphasizes practical knowledge to adapt to and control reality. Typifications are mental images that allow people to classify objects and actions and structure their own responses. Social constructionism argues individuals have limited power to oppose important institutions. Social construction of reality assumes an ongoing shared sense of meaning and reality.
Symbolic interactionism focuses on how people interpret the meanings of symbols and actions in their environment and society. George Herbert Mead founded this theory, arguing that people construct meaning through shared symbols and by imagining themselves in another's perspective. This allows for self-awareness and the ability to understand and respond to others, which enables social cooperation and the formation of social norms, institutions, and roles.
George Herbert Mead was an American philosopher known for his theory of the social self. He believed that the self develops through social interaction and language. According to Mead, the self has two parts - the "I", which represents impulses and tendencies, and the "Me", which incorporates the attitudes of others through socialization. He saw language and role-taking as central to how individuals construct their identities and engage in social life. Erving Goffman further developed these ideas through his dramaturgical approach, viewing social interaction as performances where people act according to social expectations.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that views society as constructed through daily interactions between individuals. It has three core premises: that meanings arise through social interaction; that people interact based on the meanings and interpretations given to objects, acts, and situations; and that meanings are interpreted through an ongoing process. The goal of symbolic interactionism is to understand human activity and social worlds as constructed through a cooperative process where people craft meanings and define situations in their everyday lives.
Symbolic Interaction Theory (SIT) focuses on how humans create meaning through interaction and symbols which then affects behavior. Key concepts include the mind's ability to use shared symbols, the development of self through others, and society as a web of relationships. SIT proposes that people act based on the meanings others have for them, meaning is created socially, and individuals and groups are influenced by cultural and social processes worked out through interaction. Critics argue SIT is too broad, vague on emotions, and concepts are untestable, though it is intended as a framework not a full theory.
Herbert George Blumer was an American sociologist known for developing symbolic interactionism. He was a proponent of George Herbert Mead's social psychology and labeled it as symbolic interactionism. Blumer focused on how people interpret meanings and behaviors in their social interactions and how this helps construct social worlds and identities. He outlined three basic premises of symbolic interactionism: that people act based on meanings of things, meanings come from social interactions, and meanings are interpreted and modified through social processes. Blumer made important contributions to the theories of symbolic interactionism and methods of social research.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that develops from practical considerations and alludes to people's particular utilization of dialect to make images and normal implications, for deduction and correspondence with others.
Chapter 10: Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism-Toby ZhuToby Zhu
This document summarizes key concepts from symbolic interactionism and related theories. It discusses how symbolic interactionism views symbols as representations that give meaning and structure to our experience. Symbols are learned through social interaction and mediate further interaction. People develop stocks of social knowledge and typifications that allow them to quickly interpret and respond to their social environment. Related theories discussed include social constructionism, pragmatism, and phenomenology.
Symbolic interactionism is a theory that views society as the product of interactions between individuals. It proposes that 1) people act based on the meanings assigned to things through social interactions, 2) meaning arises through social interactions and language, and 3) an individual's thoughts are modified by their own interpretation of symbols and perspective taking of others. According to symbolic interactionism, the self and reality are social constructions that emerge through communication and the shared interpretation and understanding created between people through symbolic interactions like language.
George Herbert Mead is one of the founders of sociology in the United States of America. Though he has made numerous journals and books, he did not publish even a single one.
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level sociological theory that focuses on how people interpret and act based on shared meanings and understandings formed through social interaction. It emphasizes face-to-face interactions, lived experience, and the social construction of reality and identities. Key concepts include Charles Cooley's looking glass self, George Herbert Mead's I and me, and Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann's idea that reality is socially constructed through everyday interactions and is modifiable over time. Symbolic interactionism uses qualitative methods to study topics like deviance, labeling theory, and the sociology of emotions.
Symbolic interactionism focuses on human behavior and views it as the result of conscious interpretation of symbols and meanings within social interactions, rather than being determined by social structures. Key concepts include the self developing through socialization and interactions, the looking glass self where individuals see themselves through the reflections of others, and labeling theory where deviance is created through the application of rules and labels to certain groups.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that focuses on the meanings that people impose on objects, events, and behaviors through social interaction. It analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings given by individuals, who behave based on their own interpretations rather than objective reality. The theory was pioneered by George Herbert Mead and developed further by Herbert Blumer, who outlined its three basic premises: that people act based on the meanings they ascribe to things, that meanings arise from social interaction, and are modified through interpretation. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes symbols, social construction of meaning, and the roles people play.
This document provides an overview of symbolic interactionism and its key concepts as developed by George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer. It discusses:
- The basic principles of symbolic interactionism, including that humans think and act based on the meanings and interpretations derived from social interactions.
- The contributions of Mead in developing the theories of the "I" and "Me" and how the self develops. Blumer later coined the term "symbolic interactionism" and emphasized that people act based on meanings.
- Blumer's three core principles - that meaning comes from social interaction, language allows for the negotiation of meaning through symbols, and thought is based on the interpretation of symbols.
- Applications of symbolic interactionism
Symbolic interactionism and family studiesMoranodi Moeti
1. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that views society and the self as emerging from social interaction and the interpretation of shared symbols. Reality and all that is humanly significant, like the self and culture, are seen as social products that arise from symbolic interactions.
2. Key concepts in symbolic interactionism include meaning, which resides in the actions that symbols elicit; situational definitions, in which people act based on how situations are defined regardless of objective reality; and self-concept formation, which emerges through reflected appraisals and the internalization of roles.
3. There are divisions within symbolic interactionism between those who emphasize studying the process of reality construction qualitatively and those who use quantitative methods to study
Symbolic interactionism views society as created and maintained through repeated interactions between individuals. It focuses on the symbols and language used in interactions that help individuals interpret experiences and form meanings. There are three core principles: 1) meaning arises through symbolic representations in interactions, 2) language and symbols allow for negotiation of meaning, and 3) individual thought influences the interpretation of symbols. George Herbert Mead established that the self develops from social interactions and Charles Cooley's "looking glass self" holds that individuals incorporate the perceived judgments of others into their self-concept.
Symbolic interactionism holds that 1) meaning arises from social interaction and language rather than being inherent in objects, 2) thinking occurs through inner conversations stimulated by symbols, and 3) the self is defined through interaction, language, and thought as well as taking the perspective of others.
Symbolic interactionism is a social theory that views society as a complex system of symbolic interactions between individuals. It has three core premises: 1) people act based on meanings, 2) meanings come from social interactions, and 3) meanings are interpreted through an interpretive process. Charles Cooley proposed the looking-glass self theory, which argues that one's self-concept is based on how we believe others see us. George Mead expanded on this with his concepts of the "I" as the spontaneous self and the "Me" as the socialized self that develops through role-taking and interacting with significant and generalized others. Erving Goffman viewed the self as performances and used the metaphor of social life as a theater with front
Symbolic interactionism examines how individuals interpret symbols and meanings through social interaction. Erving Goffman developed this perspective by closely observing how people present themselves and interpret situations in everyday social encounters. He analyzed concepts like "line" (how people portray themselves), "face" (the self-image presented), and how individuals navigate social expectations through "face-work" and maintaining a coherent sense of identity in interaction with others. Goffman showed how micro-level social interactions both shape and are shaped by the individual performances and interpretations of self within different social contexts and relationships.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that focuses on the relationships among individuals within a society. Communication, the exchange of meaning through language and symbols, is believed to be how people make sense of their social worlds. There are two main generations of symbolic interactionism. The first sees actions as always having meaning, while the second sees social life as a performance of roles. Proponents of symbolic interactionism, such as George Herbert Mead, Charles Cooley, and Erving Goffman, studied how meanings and identities emerge through social interaction and the interpretive processes used by individuals.
Chapter 10: Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism-Handout-Toby ZhuToby Zhu
Symbol interactionism views people as giving meaning to symbols that then control their behavior. Behaviorism sees human actions as conditioned responses to external stimuli. Pragmatism emphasizes practical knowledge to adapt to and control reality. Typifications are mental images that allow people to classify objects and actions and structure their own responses. Social constructionism argues individuals have limited power to oppose important institutions. Social construction of reality assumes an ongoing shared sense of meaning and reality.
Symbolic interactionism focuses on how people interpret the meanings of symbols and actions in their environment and society. George Herbert Mead founded this theory, arguing that people construct meaning through shared symbols and by imagining themselves in another's perspective. This allows for self-awareness and the ability to understand and respond to others, which enables social cooperation and the formation of social norms, institutions, and roles.
George Herbert Mead was an American philosopher known for his theory of the social self. He believed that the self develops through social interaction and language. According to Mead, the self has two parts - the "I", which represents impulses and tendencies, and the "Me", which incorporates the attitudes of others through socialization. He saw language and role-taking as central to how individuals construct their identities and engage in social life. Erving Goffman further developed these ideas through his dramaturgical approach, viewing social interaction as performances where people act according to social expectations.
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that views society as constructed through daily interactions between individuals. It has three core premises: that meanings arise through social interaction; that people interact based on the meanings and interpretations given to objects, acts, and situations; and that meanings are interpreted through an ongoing process. The goal of symbolic interactionism is to understand human activity and social worlds as constructed through a cooperative process where people craft meanings and define situations in their everyday lives.
This document summarizes three sociological theories about youth crime: conflict theory, functionalist theory, and symbolic interactionism. According to conflict theory, society is composed of groups in conflict over power and resources, and youth crime is a form of resistance by powerless groups against imposed mainstream values. Functionalist theory views society as a system where institutions promote social stability, and youth crime results from individuals failing to internalize shared social values due to dysfunctional environments like poverty and inadequate schools. Both theories agree that shared social values are important for social cohesion but differ on whether those values are imposed or learned.
Social Penetration Theory proposes that closeness in relationships develops gradually through reciprocal self-disclosure from more superficial to intimate levels of sharing. It views personality as layered like an onion, with more public aspects on the outside and private parts at the core. People aim to maximize the benefits of intimacy while minimizing vulnerability by carefully regulating how much they disclose based on expected rewards, costs, and available alternative relationships. However, the theory has been criticized for oversimplifying disclosure dynamics and overlooking gender and cultural factors.
According to conflict theory, society is made up of groups that compete for limited resources. The document discusses key aspects of conflict theory including Marx's view of the worker-owner relationship under capitalism and the idea of class consciousness and struggle. It also summarizes Marx's view of historical stages involving modes of production and class structures from primitive communism to full communism.
Conflict theory views society as characterized by inequality and power struggles among groups that compete for scarce resources. It was developed as an alternative to functionalism by Marx, Weber, Simmel and later theorists. Marx saw society as divided into two main classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, who struggle over economic resources. Weber and Simmel expanded on this to argue that power can also be gained through social prestige and political influence. Modern conflict theorists like Coser, Dahrendorf, and Mills applied these ideas to analyze power structures and social change in the post-World War II era.
Functionalism views society as a system of interconnected institutions like the family, education, and police that work together for society to function. Durkheim argued the division of labor regulates modern societies by creating shared values and order. Parsons identified four areas - adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance - that social institutions like the economy and government facilitate for society to survive. Merton modified functionalism by arguing established institutions don't have solely positive functions and alternatives like communes could effectively socialize children.
1) Alfred Adler developed individual psychology, which differed from Freud's psychoanalysis by emphasizing social and community factors rather than internal drives.
2) Adler believed humans have a drive for superiority to overcome feelings of inferiority, and develop unique styles of life and fictional goals to achieve superiority.
3) Individual psychology examines how birth order, family dynamics, and creative self influence a person's personality and striving for superiority.
Interpersonal Communication in Relationship - analysis paper example .... Effective Interpersonal Relationships Essay Example | Topics and Well .... Interpersonal Relationships Essay – Telegraph. (DOC) INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP | Johnson S - Academia.edu. Interpersonal relationships essay. Weak Interpersonal Relationships .... Essay on Relationships | English (Standard) - Year 11 HSC | Thinkswap. Social Media Affects Interpersonal Relationships - Essay Example. Importance of Healthy Interpersonal Relationships Essay Example .... Analysis Of Interpersonal Relationship Essay Example | Topics and Well .... Interpersonal Relations in Management Essay Example | Topics and Well .... Interpersonal needs (300 Words) - PHDessay.com. Elements of interpersonal relationships - 683 Words | Essay Example. ⇉Interpersonal skills essay Essay Example | GraduateWay. (PDF) The teacher‐student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Interpersonal relationsh
LIT 229 Module Four 1 Introduction Myth and… .docxMARRY7
LIT 229 Module Four 1
Introduction: Myth and…
Given its nature as the wellspring of our knowledge about ourselves and the world, myth
should be found in all our ways of knowing, and it is. The phrase “ways of knowing” is
shorthand for those collections of beliefs, assumptions, discourse, values, and practices that
offer their own approaches for understanding the world and our place in it. This description
of ways of knowing sounds much like myth because myth itself is a way of knowing. The
point here is not to overlay myth onto all ways of knowing but to illuminate the relationship of
myth to them. For this module, we will analyze the role of myth in three prominent ways of
knowing: psychology, religion, and science. These three operate on a deeper layer than
particular genres for myth like art, literature, and film (will explore the latter two later) and
thus promise to illuminate myth by their own lights.
Myth and Psychology
At the heart of psychological ways of knowing sits a story. It is—like our most profound and
provocative stories—erotic, strange, traumatic, and Greek. Oedipus is the son of Laius and
Jocasta, the king and queen of Thebes. A prophecy declares that the young Oedipus will
grow up to commit the most horrible crimes imaginable—the murder of his father and incest
with his mother. Desperate to forestall these events, King Laius binds the boy’s feet
(Oedipus means “swollen foot”) and leaves him to die on a mountainside. As fate literally
would have it, shepherds find the boy, rescue him, and take him to the king and queen of
Corinth, who raise him as their own. Oedipus eventually hears the prophecy himself from the
Oracle at Delphi and leaves his known family at Corinth and heads, fatefully, to Thebes. On
the way there, he quarrels with a man who refuses to give way on the road, eventually killing
the man. Unknown to Oedipus, this man is Laius, his father. Upon arriving at Thebes, he
answers the riddle of the Sphinx, who is terrorizing the city, and is rewarded with the throne
of the dead king and his wife Jocasta, who is Oedipus’s mother. Upon hearing that the
prophecy had indeed been fulfilled, Jocasta commits suicide, and Oedipus blinds himself
and goes into exile.
2 LIT 229 Module Four
Freud Gives Birth to a Way of Knowing
In this myth, Sigmund Freud saw the central drama of the human psyche and by extension a
primal feature of the new discipline of psychology. He writes in his Interpretation of Dreams
that Oedipus’s:
destiny moves us only because it might have been ours—because the Oracle laid the
same curse upon us before our birth as upon him. It is the fate of all of us, perhaps, to
direct our first sexual impulse towards our mother and our first hatred and our first
murderous wish against our father. Our dreams convince us that this is so. (295)
Without delving too deeply into Freud’s Oedipus complex, we can see that the myth provides
a story—Fr ...
Freud's 1915 paper on repression introduced the technical psychoanalytic meaning of the term, which differs from common usages. Repression refers to the mechanism in neuroses where threatening ideas are defensively excluded from consciousness. It occurs in early childhood when the ego is too weak to confront disturbing Oedipal fantasies, usually of a sexual nature, and instead resorts to wholesale repression. This primal repression and the constant effort to maintain it affect object choices and relationship fulfillment in adulthood when the repressed ideas return. Literature like Lawrence's novels dramatize characters struggling with the effects of their own primal repressions.
Personal Identity Essays. Ways of Shaping Identity Essay Example Topics and ...Jessica Siewert
Personal Identity Essay Essay on Personal Identity for Students and .... Personal Identity and the Self Essay Example Topics and Well Written .... My personal identity essay. My Identity And Personal Identity. 2022-10-25. Social identity essay. Identity Journal: Personal and Social Identity .... Sample essay on cultural identity. Ways of Shaping Identity Essay Example Topics and Well Written Essays .... Exploring My Personality Traits: A Glimpse into Rimsha Saeeds World .... SOLUTION: Identity Essay..... - Studypool. How to Write an Identity Essay? OneEssay Writer Tips. The Enigma of Personal Identity: A Comprehensive Philosophical .... Personal identity essay. essay examples: identity essay. Personal identity essay conclusion - Essay on identity card. Identity essay - reportthenews631.web.fc2.com. Personal Identity Essay Free Essay Example. Identity essay English Advanced - Year 11 HSC Thinkswap. Identity Essay English Advanced - Year 11 HSC Thinkswap. Cultural identity conclusion. My Cultural Identity Essay examples. 2019 .... Describe your identity essay - homeworkdojo.x.fc2.com. Personal Identity Essay Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com. Identity Essay - GCSE Sociology - Marked by Teachers.com. An Aspect of my Identity Essay Example GraduateWay. Cultural Identity Essay Writing Guide with Examples HandMadeWriting. Thesis Statement On Personal Identity - Cultural Identity Essay .... Personal identity essay. Personal Identity free essay sample. 2019-02-01. Personal identity essay conclusion - cardiacthesis.x.fc2.com. Site Essay Personal Identity : Self-Identity Essay. My personal identity essay. My Personal Perspective On Identity. 2019 .... Reflective Essay: What is identity essay. Personal Identity: the Nature of Our Minds Essay Example Topics and .... Issues of identity and belonging essays about life. Type my essay Self identity essay paper Personal Identity Essays Personal Identity Essays. Ways of Shaping Identity Essay Example Topics and Well Written Essays ...
Short Essay on Education and Its Advantages Literacy Quality Of Life. The Importance of Education Essay Example Topics and Well Written .... Write a narrative essay about your first day in school Abilene - how to .... Impressive Essay On Education Thatsnotus. The importance of education essay - The importance of education- Essay .... Admission Essay: Short essay on education. Small essay on education. Small Essay On The Education. 2022-10-21. How To Improve Student Learning Education Essay - PHDessay.com. Sample Essay on Education English - Level 1 NCEA Thinkswap. COMPLETE GUIDE ON HOW TO WRITE AN EDUCATION ESSAY. The Importance Of Education Essay Topics - Essay About Importance Of .... Essay writing tips and examples. College Essay: Short essay on importance of education. Importance of Education Essay Example Topics and Well Written Essays .... Essay for education - College Homework Help and Online Tutoring.. How do you start an education essay? : r/FreeSamles. College Essay Examples - 13 in PDF Examples. Essay on Education for all - ExamPlanning. Importance of education essay in english Essay on education - YouTube. An Essay on Education - Analysis of Education System in India. What we .... Essay On Education Ilustrasi. Essays on education - College Homework Help and Online Tutoring.. Essay on good education is the only path to success / cheap assignment .... Essay on importance of education in english Importance of education essay. Easy essay on Education Importance of education. Elementary education Essay Example Topics and Well Written Essays .... essay examples: importance of education essay. College Essay Format: Simple Steps to Be Followed. the text on this page is written in red and blue. High School Essay - 10 Examples, Format, Pdf Examples. 33 Argumentative Essay Topics for Middle School JournalBuddies.com .... 002 Essay Example My School Thatsnotus Easy Essay On Education Easy Essay On Education
Kurtney Friar analyzes her daily habits and finds she uses excessive profanity. Profanity, also known as swear words, can be socially constructed as insulting, rude, or disrespectful. Profanity use is often learned in childhood through punishment by parents, and some people increase their use of profanity as adults to cope with social challenges. Pinker's book discusses how profanity is used for emotional expression and bonding with others, but it can also damage relationships and first impressions. Friar realizes she should reduce her profanity to avoid these negative impacts.
Propp's character theory identifies 7 broad character types that commonly appear in folk tales and other narratives: the Hero, Villain, Donor, Dispatcher, False Hero, Helper, and Princess. Though originally developed to analyze folk tales, the theory is still useful because it focuses on the narrative functions of characters rather than their individual traits or genders. Critics argue the theory may dismiss non-male narratives, but proponents counter that the gender of a character does not impact their narrative function.
Causal Essay Outline. . How to Write an Essay Outline: Complete Guide and Sam...Jennifer Castro
How To Write A Cause And Effect Essay | Writing Guides | Ultius. Descriptive essay: Cause and effect essay outline. Narrative essay: Causal argument outline. How to Write an Essay Outline [21 Examples | FREE Templates]. 019 Outline And Essay Cause Effect Sample ~ Thatsnotus. 003 Causal Analysis Essay Examples New Template Example Selo L ~ Thatsnotus. School essay: Causal analysis essay sample. MarthaldSanford. SAMPLE OUTLINE FOR ENGLISH 112 CAUSAL ANALYSIS. How To Write A Cause & Effect Essay - A Complete Guide. causal analysis essay. Cause and effect essay. 015 Sample Cause And Effect Essay Outline Topics L ~ Thatsnotus. How to Write a Causal Analysis Essay: Outline, Topics, Tips .... Causal Analysis Essay Outline. 004 Sample Argumentative Essay Outline Example ~ Thatsnotus. 001 Essay Example Causal Argument Topics Topic For Argumentative P Or .... How to Write an Essay Outline: Complete Guide and Samples. ENG 112 Causal Analysis essay assignment - ENG-112-I02-SU18 1 Causal .... Definition essay: Causal essay. Definition Essay: Causal analysis outline. Narrative essay: Causal analysis outline. 37+ Best Outline Examples in MS Word | Google Docs | Apple Pages | PDF. Sample Causal Analysis Essay - The following is a Causal Analysis .... Cause & Effect Essay - Excelsior College OWL - How to Write a Cause and .... FREE 9+ Argumentative Essay Samples in PDF. Causal Analysis Essay Writing Guide: Definition, Outline, Topics. Causal Essays - EssayMin. causal argument- outline - English 2/18/09 Outline Introduction Possibly. Causal Analysis Essay Outline : concluding paragraph essay example how .... CAUSAL ESSAY SAMPLES Sample prompt: To what extent did the Causal Essay Outline Causal Essay Outline. . How to Write an Essay Outline: Complete Guide and Samples
Similar to First look at_communication_theory_symbolic_interaccionism_fernando_ilharco (2) (9)
O documento descreve a evolução histórica da televisão através de 4 fases: a televisão dos engenheiros, dos realizadores, dos jornalistas e do marketing. A fase do marketing priorizou a audiência e o lucro, abandonando a vocação educativa. Isso levou à fragmentação da televisão com diversificação de canais, programas e maior interatividade do espectador.
O documento discute a linguagem audiovisual e o sucesso da televisão. Explica que a televisão cria uma nova imagem através da convergência de imagem e som no cérebro. Também discute a passividade do espectador de TV e a falsa ideia de acesso democrático à informação. Explica ainda a evolução da TV dos engenheiros para a TV do marketing, focada na audiência como consumidores.
O documento discute três tipos de movimentos de câmera: panorâmica, que envolve movimento da câmera em torno do seu próprio eixo; travelling, que envolve movimento da câmera através do espaço; e travelling em redor de 360 graus.
O documento define vários conceitos importantes relacionados à audimetria televisiva, incluindo: universo, zapping, alvo, amostra, audiência média, audímetro, audimetria, dia e dona de casa. Também discute técnicas de programação como estratégias conservadoras vs dinâmicas e fatores que influenciam os programadores, como concorrência entre canais.
El documento habla sobre los desafíos que enfrentan las pequeñas empresas en la actualidad debido a la pandemia de COVID-19 y las medidas de confinamiento. Muchos negocios se han visto obligados a cerrar temporalmente o han experimentado una caída drástica en las ventas, lo que pone en riesgo miles de puestos de trabajo. Se necesitan medidas de estímulo económico por parte de los gobiernos para ayudar a las pequeñas empresas a sobrevivir a la crisis y seguir contribuyendo a la economía.
Este documento descreve o processo geral de realização televisiva em 10 etapas, incluindo a documentação, desenvolvimento do tema, elaboração do guião, estudos, localizações, definição da encenação, cenografia, planificação, escolha de personagens, gravação/emissão e pós-produção.
O documento discute a Teoria da Informação de Shannon e Weaver. Apresenta o modelo de comunicação deles que descreve a transmissão de mensagens através de um canal, incluindo ruído, e como maximizar a capacidade do canal. Também discute o conceito de feedback de Wiener e como ele melhora a comunicação permitindo ajustes constantes.
[1] A teoria da redução da incerteza de Charles Berger propõe que a comunicação serve para reduzir a incerteza nas relações interpessoais através de 8 variáveis como a comunicação verbal, envolvimento não verbal e procura de informação.
[2] Berger define axiomas e teoremas que relacionam estas variáveis com os níveis de incerteza. Os teoremas permitem explicar o desenvolvimento das relações.
[3] A teoria descreve estratégias comunicacionais para lidar com a incerteza, como
O documento discute a teoria do interacionismo simbólico através da análise do filme "Nell". Aborda como os significados, linguagem, pensamento e autoimagem de Nell são moldados pela sua interação com os outros e como ela própria influencia os outros.
O documento discute teorias da comunicação ao longo do século XX. Apresenta a Teoria Hipodérmica dos anos 1920-1940, que defendia uma relação direta entre exposição a mensagens e comportamento. Também apresenta a Teoria dos Efeitos Limitados de 1940, que argumenta que a influência dos meios depende de fatores sociais e ocorre de forma indireta, através de líderes de opinião.
O documento discute teorias da comunicação ao longo do século XX. Apresenta a Teoria Hipodérmica dos anos 1920-1940, que defendia uma relação direta entre exposição a mensagens e comportamento. Também apresenta a Teoria dos Efeitos Limitados de 1940, que argumenta que a influência dos meios depende de fatores sociais e ocorre de forma indireta, através de líderes de opinião.
Este documento discute a perspectiva do interacionismo simbólico de George H. Mead. De acordo com esta perspectiva, (1) a realidade social é criada e mantida através da comunicação e da linguagem, (2) o significado emerge da interação social e é negociado através da linguagem, e (3) o self é formado ao tomar o papel do outro e é influenciado pelas expectativas da comunidade.
This document is an archived chapter from a previous edition of A First Look at Communication Theory, the leading college text on communication theory. The chapter is no longer included in full in the current edition. The document is posted on the textbook's online resource website and contains copyrighted material that could not be fully reproduced for online use, such as a cartoon from the original print version.
1) Walter Fisher proposes the narrative paradigm, which views humans as inherently storytelling beings that experience life as an ongoing series of stories.
2) Traditional models view humans as purely rational beings, but Fisher argues we are also emotional and value narrative forms of communication.
3) Fisher's narrative paradigm shifts the view of human communication from rational arguments to viewing all communication as a type of story, which can be evaluated based on its narrative rationality or coherence and fidelity.
This document provides a list of feature films mapped to communication theories that they illustrate. The films are grouped into categories including interpersonal messages, relationship development, influence, group communication, organizational communication, public rhetoric, media effects, intercultural communication, media and culture, and gender and communication. Over 150 films in total are listed with brief descriptions or keywords related to the communication concepts they depict.
The document discusses Ernest Bormann's symbolic convergence theory (SCT). SCT posits that sharing group fantasies creates symbolic convergence and group cohesion. Fantasies are dramatizing messages containing imaginative language that describe past, future, or outside events. When a fantasy message excites a group and others add to it, it can spark a fantasy chain reaction. Fantasy themes emerge from chained fantasies and reveal a group's shared meanings, emotions, motives and actions. Symbolic cues can trigger reengaging with fantasy themes. SCT analyzes fantasy themes to understand a group's culture and consciousness.
The document summarizes Marshall Scott Poole's adaptive structuration theory, which examines how group members both shape and are shaped by the structures within their group through their interactions. It discusses how Poole's research challenged the prevailing view that groups progress through predictable phases when making decisions. Instead, adaptive structuration theory posits that group dynamics are complex and that members can intentionally adapt rules and resources to influence outcomes. The document uses a hypothetical example of a communication theory class to illustrate key concepts of Poole's theory, such as how members' interactions can impact and be impacted by the group's structures.
First look at_communication_theory_symbolic_interaccionism_fernando_ilharco (...afonso rosario ason
George Herbert Mead believed that human thought, self-concept, and society are shaped through symbolic interaction and communication. Without language and interaction, humanity would not exist as we know it. Mead's theory, outlined in his book Mind, Self, and Society, describes how symbolic interaction allows people to think by taking the role of the other through inner dialogue. The movie Nell illustrates these concepts well by showing how language gives the isolated character Nell human thought and socialization.
First look at_communication_theory_cultivation_theory_fernando_ilharco (1) - ...afonso rosario ason
George Gerbner developed cultivation theory to explain how heavy television viewing can influence viewers' perceptions of social reality. According to the theory, television presents a common set of messages about the world through its storytelling. Viewers who spend more time with television come to see the real world in ways that reflect the images and values portrayed on television. Gerbner used content analysis to document high levels of violence on television and found that this violence was disproportionately shown being inflicted on marginalized groups. Heavy television viewers were found to have greater fears about crime in the real world. Cultivation theory posits that television functions similarly to a magnetic field, cultivating particular worldviews in viewers through the information it presents and makes most accessible.
Este documento resume a teoria dialéctica relacional de Baxter e Montgomery sobre a comunicação e as relações humanas. A teoria descreve como as relações são dinâmicas e estruturadas por tensões dialéticas entre forças opostas como ligação vs separação e certeza vs incerteza. A melhor forma de lidar com essas tensões é por meio do diálogo honesto, que é central para a manutenção das relações segundo a perspectiva dos autores. A teoria reconhece a complexidade inerente às relações humanas.
First look at_communication_theory_symbolic_interaccionism_fernando_ilharco (2)
1. 5
Objective Interpretive
CHAPTER ●
Socio-cultural tradition
Symbolic Interactionism
of George Herbert Mead
George Herbert Mead was an early social constructionist. Mead believed that our
thoughts, self-concept, and the wider community we live in are created through
communication—symbolic interaction. The book that lays out his theory, Mind,
Self, and Society, describes how language is essential for these three critical human
characteristics to develop.1 Without symbolic interaction, humanity as we know
it wouldn’t exist.
Symbolic interaction isn’t just talk. The term refers to the language and ges-
tures a person uses in anticipation of the way others will respond. The verbal
and nonverbal responses that a listener then provides are likewise crafted in
expectation of how the original speaker will react. The continuing process is like
the game of charades described in the introduction to this section; it’s a full-
fledged conversation.
Symbolic interaction
Mead was a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago for the first
The ongoing use of lan-
guage and gestures in
three decades of the twentieth century. As a close personal friend of renowned
anticipation of how the pragmatist John Dewey, he shared Dewey’s applied approach to knowledge. Mead
other will react; a con- thought that the true test of any theory is whether it is useful in solving complex
versation. social problems. If it doesn’t work in practice, forget it! He was a social activist
who marched for women’s suffrage, championed labor unions in an era of robber-
baron capitalism, and helped launch the urban settlement house movement with
pioneer social worker Jane Addams.
Although Mead taught in a philosophy department, he is best known by
sociologists as the teacher who trained a generation of the best minds in their
field. Strangely, he never set forth his wide-ranging ideas in a book or system-
atic treatise. After he died in 1931, his students pulled together class notes and
conversations with their mentor and published Mind, Self, and Society in his
name. It was only then that his chief disciple, Herbert Blumer at the University
of California, Berkeley, coined the term symbolic interactionism. This phrase cap-
tures what Mead claimed is the most human and humanizing activity that
people can engage in—talking to each other. This claim provides the backdrop
for the movie Nell.
Jodie Foster received a best actress Oscar nomination for her 1994 por-
trayal of a backwoods, Appalachian young woman raised in almost total iso-
lation. The film, Nell, covers a three-month period of the woman’s life immediately
54
2. CHAPTER 5: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 55
following the death of her mother.2 Nell is discovered by Jerry Lovell, a small-
town doctor who is quickly joined by Paula Olsen, a psychologist from a
big-city university medical center. Both are appalled and fascinated by this
grown-up “wild child” who cowers in terror and makes incomprehensible
sounds.
Nell is based on the play Idioglossia, a Greek term meaning a personal or
private language. As Jerry and Paula come to realize, Nell’s speech is not gib-
berish. Her language is based on the King James Version of the Bible, which her
mother read to her out loud for more than 20 years. Yet because the mother had
suffered a stroke that left one side of her face paralyzed, the words Nell learned
were unintelligible to anyone else.
Early in the film Paula labels Nell “autistic” and tries to have her committed
to a psych ward for observation. Jerry, on the other hand, treats Nell as a frightened
human being and tries to get to know her by learning her language. Although
fiction, the movie is an intriguing story about the civilizing influence of language.
As such, it could easily have been scripted by a symbolic interactionist. I’ll describe
scenes from the film to illustrate the key ideas of George Herbert Mead, his student
Herbert Blumer, and others who adopt an interactionist approach. The film illus-
trates Mead’s theory so well that you might find it fascinating to watch the whole
movie. You can rent Nell through Netflix, your local video store, or purchase it
at www.moviesunlimited.com for less than the cost of a ticket at a multiscreen
theater.
Blumer stated three core principles of symbolic interactionism that deal with
meaning, language, and thinking.3 These premises lead to conclusions about the
creation of a person’s self and socialization into the larger society. The rest of this
chapter discusses these five related topics one by one. As you will see, all of
these themes are prominent in the story of Nell.
MEANING: THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL REALITY
Blumer starts with the premise that humans act toward people or things on the basis
of the meanings they assign to those people or things. It’s our interpretation that
counts. The viewer of Nell can see this principle played out in the radically dif-
ferent responses that Jodie Foster’s character elicits from the people she meets.
The county sheriff regards Nell as crazy and suggests she be put in a padded
cell. His chronically depressed wife sees Nell as a free spirit and joins her in a
lighthearted game of patty-cake. The chief psychiatrist at the medical center
views this child-of-the-wild case as a chance to make research history and insists
the patient be brought to the center for study. And because a group of sleazy
guys in a pool hall are convinced that Nell will mindlessly mimic any action she
sees, they approach her as easy sexual prey. As for the doctor who found her,
Jerry assumes Nell is fully human and seeks to become her friend. She in turn
calls Jerry her guardian angel.
Which of these interpretations is correct? Who is the real Nell? From Mead’s
pragmatic standpoint, the answer doesn’t make much difference. Once people
define a situation as real, it’s very real in its consequences.4 And with the pos-
sible exception of Jerry, all of the people in the story initially regard Nell as
totally other than themselves—an oddity to be explored or exploited.
In Jane Wagner’s one-woman play The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the
Universe, Trudy the bag lady views society from her perspective on the street.
3. 56 INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Her words underscore the interactionist position that meaning-making is a com-
munity project:
It’s my belief we all, at one time or another,
secretly ask ourselves the question,
“Am I crazy?”
In my case, the answer came back: A resounding
YES!
You’re thinkin’: How does a person know if they’re crazy or not? Well, sometimes
you don’t know. Sometimes you can go through life suspecting you are but never
really knowing for sure. Sometimes you know for sure ‘cause you got so many
people tellin’ you you’re crazy that it’s your word against everyone else’s. . . .
After all, what is reality anyway? Nothin’ but a collective hunch.5
What causes people to react this way toward Trudy or Nell? For followers
of Mead that’s a loaded question, one that reflects the stimulus–response think-
ing of behavioral scientists. Interactionists are united in their disdain for deter-
ministic thinking. The closest they come to the idea of causality is to argue that
humans act on their definition of the situation.6 An interactionist revision of the
way scientists diagram stimulus–response causality might look like this:
Stimulus → Interpretation → Response
The middle term in the chain shows that it’s the meaning that matters. As Trudy
notes, however, when those interpretations are shared throughout society, they
become hard to resist.
LANGUAGE: THE SOURCE OF MEANING
Blumer’s second premise is that meaning arises out of the social interaction that
people have with each other. In other words, meaning is not inherent in objects; it’s
not pre-existent in a state of nature. Meaning is negotiated through the use of
language—hence the term symbolic interactionism.
As human beings, we have the ability to name things. We can designate a
specific object (person), identify an action (scream), or refer to an abstract idea
(crazy). Occasionally a word sounds like the thing it describes (smack, thud, crash),
but usually the names we use have no logical connection with the object at hand.
Symbols are arbitrary signs. There’s nothing inherently small, soft, or lovable in
the word kitten.7 It’s only by talking with others—symbolic interaction—that we
come to ascribe that meaning and develop a universe of discourse.
Mead believed that symbolic naming is the basis for human society. The book
of Genesis in the Bible states that Adam’s first task was to name the animals—the
dawn of civilization.
Interactionists claim that the extent of knowing is dependent on the extent
of naming. Although language can be a prison that confines us, we have the
potential to push back the walls and bars as we master more words. From
your experience taking the SAT or ACT college entrance exams, you probably
recall a major focus on linguistic aptitude. The construction of the test obvi-
ously reflects agreement with the interactionist claim that human intelligence
is the ability to symbolically identify much of what we encounter. When Paula
4. CHAPTER 5: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 57
realizes the extent of Nell’s personal vocabulary, she can no longer treat Nell as
incompetent or ignorant.
But symbolic interaction is not just a means for intelligent expression; it’s
also the way we learn to interpret the world. A symbol is “a stimulus that has
a learned meaning and value for people.”8 Consider the puzzle posed by the
following story:
A father and his son were driving to a ball game when their car stalled on the
railroad tracks. In the distance a train whistle blew a warning. Frantically, the
father tried to start the engine, but in his panic, he couldn’t turn the key, and the
car was hit by the onrushing train. An ambulance sped to the scene and picked
them up. On the way to the hospital, the father died. The son was still alive but
his condition was very serious, and he needed immediate surgery. The moment
they arrived at the hospital, he was wheeled into an emergency operating room,
and the surgeon came in, expecting a routine case. However, on seeing the boy the
surgeon blanched and muttered, “I can’t operate on this boy—he’s my son.”9
How can this be? How do you explain the surgeon’s dilemma? If the answer
isn’t immediately obvious, I encourage you to close the book and think it through.
This puzzle is the opening paragraph of an article that appears in a fascinat-
ing book of readings that is my Second Look resource for applications of sym-
bolic interactionism. Douglas Hofstadter, the man who poses the problem, is
adamant that readers think it through until they figure out the answer. There’s
no doubt, he assures us, that we’ll know it when we get it.
I first heard this puzzle in a slightly different form about a decade ago. I’m
ashamed to admit that it took me a few minutes to figure out the answer. My
chagrin is heightened by the fact that my doctor is the wife of a departmental
colleague and my daughter-in-law is a physician as well. How could I have been
taken in?
Hofstadter’s answer to my question is that the words we use have default
assumptions. Since the story contains no reference to the doctor’s gender, and the
majority of physicians in America are men, we’ll likely assume that the surgeon
in the story is male. While such an assumption may have some basis in fact, the
subtle tyranny of symbols is that we usually don’t consciously think about the
mental jump we’re making. Unless we’re brought up short by some obvious
glitch in our taken-for-granted logic, we’ll probably conjure up a male figure
every time we read or hear the word surgeon. What’s more, we’ll probably assume
that the way we think things are is the way they ought to be. That’s how most of
the “normal” people in Nell operated. They labeled Nell strange, weird, or deviant—
assuming that those who are different are also demented.
Significant symbols can of course be nonverbal as well as linguistic. When I
asked my students to apply a feature of symbolic interaction to their own expe-
rience, Glynka wrote the following:
A ring. A class ring. A guy’s class ring. In high school it was the ultimate symbol
of status, whether dangling from a chain or wrapped with a quarter inch of yarn.
Without ever speaking a word, a girl could tell everybody that she was loved (and
trusted with expensive jewelry), that she had a protector (and how big that protec-
tor was, based, of course, on ring size—the bigger the better), the guy’s status
(preferably senior), and his varsity sport (preferably football). Yes, if you had the
(right) class ring, you were really somebody.
5. 58 INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
She then noted it was only through hundreds of conversations among students
at her school that the privileges and responsibilities that went with wearing the
ring became something “everyone knows.” Without symbolic interaction, there’s
no shared meaning.
THINKING: THE PROCESS OF TAKING THE ROLE OF THE OTHER
Blumer’s third premise is that an individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified
by his or her own thought processes. Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as
an inner conversation. Mead called this inner dialogue minding.
Minding is the pause that’s reflective. It’s the two-second delay while we
mentally rehearse our next move, test alternatives, anticipate others’ reactions.
Mead says we don’t need any encouragement to look before we leap. We natu-
rally talk to ourselves in order to sort out the meaning of a difficult situation.
But first, we need language. Before we can think, we must be able to interact
Minding
symbolically.
An inner dialogue used
to test alternatives, re-
The Lion King, Finding Nemo, and Dr. Dolittle movies aside, Mead believed
hearse actions, and an- that animals act “instinctively” and “without deliberation.”10 They are unable
ticipate reactions before to think reflectively because, with few exceptions, they are unable to communi-
responding; self-talk. cate symbolically. The human animal comes equipped with a brain that is wired
for thought. But that alone is not sufficient for thinking. Interactionists maintain
that “humans require social stimulation and exposure to abstract symbol sys-
tems to embark upon conceptual thought processes that characterize our spe-
cies.”11 Language is the software that activates the mind, but it doesn’t come
pre-installed.
Throughout the first half of Nell, Jerry and Paula are hard-pressed to explain
Nell’s ability to reflect rather than merely react. They understand that Nell inter-
acted with her mother but are puzzled as to how communication with a single
reclusive and taciturn adult would offer the social stimulation that learning a
language requires.12 According to interactionist principles, there’s no way that a
person who has had almost zero human contact would be able to develop a lan-
guage or think through her responses. Yet through cinematic flashbacks, viewers
learn that Nell had a twin sister, who was her constant companion during her
early childhood development. Until her sister died, Nell’s life was rich in social
stimulation, twin-speak, and shared meaning. As her past comes to light, Jerry
and Paula gain an understanding of Nell’s capacity to think. Symbolic interaction
has activated cognitive processes that, once switched on, won’t shut down.
Mead’s greatest contribution to our understanding of the way we think is
his notion that human beings have the unique capacity to take the role of the other.
Early in life, kids role-play the activities of their parents, talk with imaginary
friends, and take constant delight in pretending to be someone else. As adults,
we continue to put ourselves in the place of others and act as they would act,
although the process may be less conscious. Mead was convinced that thinking
is the mental conversation we hold with others, always with an eye toward how
Taking the role of the
they might see us and react to what we might do.
other
The process of mentally In Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout stands on Boo Radley’s
imagining that you are porch and recalls her father’s words, “You never really know a man until you
someone else who is stand in his shoes and walk around in them.”13 That’s a clear statement of what
viewing you. symbolic interactionism means by role-taking. The young, impulsive girl takes
the perspective of a painfully shy, emotionally fragile man. Note that she doesn’t
7. 60 INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Stated more formally, the Mead–Cooley hypothesis claims that “individuals’ self-
conceptions result from assimilating the judgments of significant others.”15
Symbolic interactionists are convinced that the self is a function of language.
Without talk there would be no self-concept. ”We are not born with senses of
self. Rather, selves arise in interaction with others. I can only experience myself
in relation to others; absent interaction with others, I cannot be a self—I cannot
emerge as someone.”16 To the extent that we interact with new acquaintances or
have novel conversations with significant others, the self is always in flux. This
means that there is no etched-in-stone Em inside my body waiting to be discov-
ered or set free. We can only imagine the wrenching change in self-concept that
a real-life Nell would experience when thrust into interviews with psychologists,
reporters, and lawyers.
According to Mead, the self is an ongoing process combining the “I” and the
“me.” The “I” is the spontaneous, driving force that fosters all that is novel,
unpredictable, and unorganized in the self. For those of you intrigued with brain
hemisphere research, the “I” is akin to right-brain creativity. Nell’s dancelike
I
movements that simulated trees blowing in the wind sprang from the “I” part
The subjective self; the
spontaneous driving force
of self. So did Jerry’s spur-of-the-moment musical accompaniment. (Surely if
that fosters all that is he’d thought about it ahead of time, he’d have selected a song other than Willie
novel, unpredictable, and Nelson’s “Crazy.”) When Paula goes ballistic over his lack of professionalism, he
unorganized in the self. can only respond that sometimes people do things on impulse. Like Jerry, we
know little about the “I” because it’s forever elusive. Trying to examine the “I”
part of the self is like viewing a snowflake through a lighted microscope. The
very act causes it to vanish. Put another way, you can never know your “I,”
because once it is known it becomes your “me.”17
The “me” is viewed as an object—the image of self seen in the looking glass
of other people’s reactions. Do you remember in grammar school how you
learned to identify the personal pronoun me in a sentence as the object of a verb?
Because of the role-taking capacity of the human race, we can stand outside our
Me
The objective self; the
bodies and view ourselves as objects. This reflexive experience is like having the
image of self seen when Goodyear blimp hover overhead, sending back video images of ourselves while
one takes the role of the we act. Mead described the process this way: “If the ‘I’ speaks, the ‘me’ hears.”18
other. And “the ‘I’ of this moment is present in the ‘me’ of the next moment.”19
An early turning point in the film comes when Jerry enters Nell’s cabin. She
runs to a wardrobe mirror and reaches out to her reflected image and says, “May,”
a word Jerry understands to mean “me.” She then pulls back and hugs herself while
saying, “Tay,” a word he interprets as “I.” In the next scene, therapists viewing
Paula’s videotape of the sequence are impressed by this perfect case of Nell seeing
her objective self as distinct from her subjective self. As a result of her actions, they
have little doubt about Nell’s humanity and sanity. She has an intact self.20
SOCIETY: THE SOCIALIZING EFFECT OF OTHERS’ EXPECTATIONS
If Nell’s only human contact were with her mother, her twin sister, and Jerry,
her “me” would be formed by the reflected views of just those three significant
others. But once she leaves her remote mountain cabin, Nell plunges into a com-
munity of other people. In order to survive and thrive within that society, Nell
needs to figure out what they are doing, what their actions mean, and what they
8. CHAPTER 5: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 61
expect of her. Mead and other symbolic interactionists refer to the composite
mental image she puts together as her generalized other.
The generalized other is an organized set of information that the individual carries
in her or his head about what the general expectation and attitudes of the social
Generalized other group are. We refer to this generalized other whenever we try to figure out how to
The composite mental behave or how to evaluate our behavior in a social situation. We take the position
image a person has of of the generalized other and assign meaning to ourselves and our actions.21
his or her self based on
societal expectations and Unlike most sociologists, Mead saw society as consisting of individual
responses. actors who make their own choices—society-in-the-making rather than society-
by-previous-design.22 Yet these individuals align their actions with what others
are doing to form health care systems, legal systems, economic systems, and all
the other societal institutions that Nell soon encounters. It is unclear from Mind,
Self, and Society whether Mead regarded the generalized other as (1) an overarch-
ing looking-glass self that we put together from the reflections we see in every-
one we know or (2) the institutional expectations, rules of the game, or accepted
practices within society that influence every conversation that takes place in
people’s minds. Either way, the generalized other shapes how we think and
interact within the community.
To summarize, there is no “me” at birth. The “me” is formed only through
continual symbolic interaction—first with family, next with playmates, then in
institutions such as schools. As the generalized other develops, this imaginary
composite person becomes the conversational partner in an ongoing mental dia-
logue. In this way, kids participate in their own socialization. The child gradually
acquires the roles of those in the surrounding community. Mead would have us
think of the “me” as the organized society within the individual.
Although Nell consistently portrays Mead’s interactionist concepts, there’s
one discordant note at the end of the film. The final scene shows Nell five years
later with the people she first met. Nell has obviously changed their lives. For
example, Jerry and Paula are now married and have a daughter, who reminds
the viewer of Nell as a child. The sheriff’s wife is no longer depressed, and she
attributes her transformation to Nell. Despite the fact that Nell has been thrust
into a wider world of lawyers, reporters, and salesclerks who label her behavior
as deviant and insist that she conform to societal roles, she seems strangely unaf-
fected by their judgment or expectations. The character that Jodie Foster plays
radiates an inner peace and contentment. The community in the form of her
generalized other has not held sway. Of course, symbolic interactionists would
remind us that the story of Nell is fiction.
A SAMPLER OF APPLIED SYMBOLIC INTERACTION
Since Mead believed that a theory is valuable to the extent that it is useful, I’ve
pulled together six separate applications of symbolic interactionism. Not only will
this provide a taste of the practical insights the theory has generated, it will give
you a chance to review some of the theoretical ideas covered in the chapter.
Creating Reality. Shakespeare wrote, “All the world’s a stage, and all the
men and women merely players.”23 In his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life, University of California, Berkeley, sociologist Erving Goffman develops the
metaphor of social interaction as a dramaturgical performance.24 Goffman claims
9. 62 INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
that we are all involved in a constant negotiation with others to publicly define
our identity and the nature of the situation. He warns that “the impression of
reality fostered by a performance is a delicate, fragile thing that can be shattered
by minor mishaps.”25 His colleague Joan Emerson outlines the cooperative effort
required to sustain the definition of a gynecological exam as a routine medical
procedure.26 The doctor and nurse enact their roles in a medical setting to assure
patients that “everything is normal, no one is embarrassed, no one is thinking in
sexual terms.” The audience of one is reassured only when the actors give a
consistent performance.
Meaning-ful Research. Mead advocated research through participant
observation, a form of ethnography. Like Jerry in the movie Nell, researchers
Participant observation systematically set out to share in the lives of the people they study. The par-
A method of adopting ticipant observer adopts the stance of an interested—yet ignorant—visitor who
the stance of an ignorant listens carefully to what people say in order to discover how they interpret their
yet interested visitor who
world. Mead had little sympathy for tightly controlled behavioral experiments
carefully notes what peo-
ple say and do in order
or checklist surveys. The results might be quantifiable, but the lifeless numbers
to discover how they in- are void of the meaning the experience had for the person. Mead would have
terpret their world. liked the wrangler who said that the only way to understand horses is to smell
like a horse, eat from a trough, and sleep in a stall. That’s participant observa-
tion. Undoubtedly, Seabiscuit’s trainer and The Horse Whisperer were symbolic
interactionists.
Generalized Other. The sobering short story “Cipher in the Snow” tells the
true account of a boy who is treated as a nonentity by his parents, his teachers,
and other children. Their negative responses gradually reduce him to what they
perceive him to be—nothing. He eventually collapses and dies in a snowbank
for no apparent reason. The interactionist would describe his death as symbolic
manslaughter.27
Naming. Here’s a partial list of epithets heard in public places over a one-
year period; they were all spoken in a demeaning voice: dummy, ugly, slob, fag,
nigger, retard, fundamentalist, liberal, Neanderthal, slut, liar. Sticks and stones can
break my bones, but names can really hurt me. Name-calling can be devastating
because the labels force us to view ourselves in a warped mirror. The grotesque
images aren’t easily dismissed.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. One implication of the looking-glass-self hypoth-
esis is that each of us has a significant impact on how others view themselves.
Self-fulfilling prophecy That kind of interpersonal power is often referred to as self-fulfilling prophecy, the
The tendency for our ex- tendency for our expectations to evoke responses in others that confirm what we
pectations to evoke re- originally anticipated. The process is nicely summed up by Eliza Doolittle, a
sponses that confirm woman from the gutter in George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion: “The differ-
what we originally an-
ticipated.
ence between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s
treated.”28
Symbol Manipulation. Saul Alinsky was a product of the “Chicago School”
of sociology at a time when Mead was having his greatest influence. Similar to
Barack Obama, Alinsky became a community organizer in Chicago when he fin-
ished grad school, and applied what he learned to empower the urban poor. For
example, in the early 1960s he helped found The Woodlawn Organization (TWO)
to oppose his alma mater’s complicity in substandard neighborhood housing.
10. CHAPTER 5: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 63
He searched for a symbol that would galvanize Woodlawn residents into united
action and stir the sympathies of other Chicago residents. He had previously
described his technique for selecting a symbolic issue:
You start with the people, their traditions, their prejudices, their habits, their atti-
tudes and all of those other circumstances that make up their lives. It should
always be remembered that a real organization of the people . . . must be rooted in
the experiences of the people themselves.29
Alinsky found his symbol in the rats that infested the squalid apartments. TWO’s
rallying cry became “Rats as big as cats.” Not only did the city start to crack
down on slum landlords, but for the first time Woodlawn residents gained a
sense of identity, pride, and political clout.
ETHICAL REFLECTION: LEVINAS’ RESPONSIVE “I”
European Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas agrees with Mead that the self
is socially constructed. He states that “without the Other, there is no ‘I.’ ”30 (Note
Responsive “I” that Levinas uses the term “I” to refer to what Mead calls the self—the “I” and
The self created by the the “me.”) But there’s a striking difference between how the two theorists think
way we respond to this construction project takes place. Mead contends that the looking-glass self
others.
develops through the way others respond to us; Levinas insists that the identity
of our “I” is formed by the way we respond to others.
Ethical echo Levinas uses the term ethical echo to designate the responsibility he believes
The reminder that we are we all have to take care of each other. That ethical echo has existed since the
responsible to take care beginning of human history and is summed up in the words, “I am my brother’s
of each other; I am my
keeper.” The way each of us meets that obligation shapes our “I.” Levinas says
brother’s keeper.
that every time we gaze at the face of the Other, we are reminded of our caretak-
ing responsibility. Thus, each person’s face is a signpost pointing to the panhu-
man ethical requirement to actively care for all people. Levinas suggests that “the
Face of the “Other”
best way of encountering the Other is not even to notice the color of his eyes.”31
A human signpost that
points to our ethical obli-
If we notice the color of his eyes—or by extension the shape of her body—we
gation to care for the aren’t really in a social relationship with the Other. And since the “I” finds its
other before we care for identity in responding to and caring for the Other, not allowing the humanity of
self. that face to register puts our identity at risk.
Levinas is clear about the burden that comes with looking at the face of the
Other:
My world is ruptured, my contentment interrupted. I am already obligated. Here is
an appeal from which there is no escape, a responsibility, a state of being hostage.
It is looking into the face of the Other that reveals the call to a responsibility that
is before any beginning, decision or initiative on my part. . . . I am responsible for
the Other without waiting for reciprocity, [even if I were] to die for it. Reciprocity
is his affair.32
Duquesne University communication ethicist Ron Arnett regards Levinas as
the premier ethical voice of the twentieth century. Arnett acknowledges that urg-
ing others to adopt a responsive “I” ethical standard is not an easy “sell” in this
postmodern age, with its quest for comfort and self-actualization.33 Yet he notes
that even in his dark hours as a prisoner in a World War II German concentration
camp, Levinas found joy in embracing the human responsibility of being for the
11. 64 INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Other before oneself. To the extent that we follow Levinas’ lead, Arnett suggests
that our interpersonal communication will be characterized more by listening
than telling.34
CRITIQUE: SETTING THE GOLD STANDARD FOR THREE INTERPRETIVE CRITERIA
“Viewing theory as testable explanations of directly or indirectly observable
social regularities, Mead’s ideas are seriously flawed.”35 That’s the judgment of
Indiana University sociologist Sheldon Stryker, and I agree. If we treat symbolic
interactionism as an objective theory that must meet scientific standards of pre-
diction and testability, it’s a poor theory. But Mead’s work was highly interpre-
tive and deserves to be evaluated on the six criteria for good interpretive theories
offered in Chapter 3, “Weighing the Words.”
Let’s start with clarification of values, which Mead does exceedingly well.
Drawing upon William James, John Dewey, and other pragmatists, Mead pro-
claimed that humans are free to make meaningful choices on how to act when
facing problems. In his critique, Stryker reveals, “What fascinated me as an
undergraduate and graduate student was in part the dignity accorded humans
by seeing them as important determiners of their lives rather than the pure
product of conditioning.”36 Of course, this freedom and dignity are dependent
upon our ability to communicate.
Certainly Mead offers a marvelous new understanding of people by showing
how humans socially construct their concept of self as well as the way society
influences—yet doesn’t dictate—that construction project. We also can gain a
new appreciation of human diversity from the extensive ethnographic research his
theory inspired that describes individuals in similar situations responding in
strikingly different ways.
Both the theory and the theorist have more than satisfied a fourth interpre-
tive requirement for a good theory—emergence of a community of agreement. The
once-radical Mead–Cooley looking-glass-self hypothesis has now become a tru-
ism in the field of sociology.37 Mead, a philosopher who saw communication as
the most human thing people do, has been called “America’s greatest sociologi-
cal thinker.”38 Even if the text you use in your interpersonal course doesn’t men-
tion the theorist or the theory by name, you can spot Mead’s pervasive influence
by the way the book treats the topic of self-concept.
Symbolic interactionism doesn’t meet the other two criteria for an interpre-
tive theory nearly as well as the four discussed above. Given Mead’s personal
efforts to help the displaced and distressed amidst urban industrialization, it’s
puzzling that Mead’s theory doesn’t call for reform of society. His theory says
little about power or emotion—realities that a community organizer deals with
every day.
In contrast to aesthetic appeal, most readers of Mind, Self, and Society get
bogged down in the baffling array of ideas Mead tried to cover. The theory’s
fluid boundaries, vague concepts, and undisciplined approach don’t lend them-
selves to an elegant summary. There are no CliffsNotes for this one. Perhaps Mead
was precise when he presented his ideas in class, but their exact meaning was
blurred in the years before his students compiled the manuscript. Whatever the
explanation is, the theory suffers from a lack of clarity.
A final note: Symbolic interactionism may also suffer from overstatement.
Mead repeatedly declared that our capacity for language—the ability to use and
12. CHAPTER 5: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 65
interpret abstract symbols—is what distinguishes humans from other animals.
My former graduate assistant is the mother of a son who has a permanent
peripheral nerve disorder. His eyes, ears, and other sense receptors work fine,
but the messages they send get scrambled on the way to his brain. Doctors say
that he is, and always will be, unable to talk or interact with others on a symbolic
level. After reading an early draft of this chapter, my assistant asked, “So this
means that Caleb is less than human?” Her haunting question serves as a caution
to any theorist who claims to have captured the essence of humanity.
QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS
1. Blumer’s three core premises of symbolic interactionism deal with meaning, lan-
guage, and thinking. According to Blumer, which comes first? Can you make a
case for an alternative sequence?
2. What do interactionists believe are the crucial differences between human
beings and animals? What would you add to or subtract from the list?
3. As Mead used the terms, is a looking-glass self the same thing as a person’s
me? Why or why not?
4. Think of a time in your life when your self-concept changed in a significant
way. Do you think the shift occurred because others viewed you differently or
because you treated others differently? Could Mead and Levinas both be right?
SELF-QUIZ For chapter self-quizzes, go to the book’s Online Learning Center at
www.mhhe.com/griffin8.
A SECOND LOOK Recommended resource: Larry T. Reynolds and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney (eds.), Hand-
book of Symbolic Interactionism, AltaMira, Walnut Creek, CA, 2003:
Gil Musolf, “The Chicago School,” pp. 91–117.
Bernard Meltzer, “Mind,” pp. 253–266.
Andrew Weigert and Viktor Gecas, “Self,” pp. 267–288.
Michael Katovich and David Maines, “Society,” pp. 289–306.
Primary source: George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, and Society, University of Chicago,
Chicago, IL, 1934.
Development of Mead’s ideas: Herbert Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1969, pp. 1–89.
Summary statement: Herbert Blumer, “Symbolic Interaction: An Approach to Human
Communication,” in Approaches to Human Communication, Richard W. Budd and Brent
Ruben (eds.), Spartan Books, New York, 1972, pp. 401–419.
Basic concepts of symbolic interactionism: John Hewitt, Self and Society: A Symbolic Inter-
actionist Social Psychology, 10th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, 2006, pp. 36–81.
The self as a social construction: Susan Harter, “Symbolic Interactionism Revisited:
Potential Liabilities for the Self Constructed in the Crucible of Interpersonal Relation-
ships,” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 45, 1999, pp. 677–703.
Looking-glass self—a research review: David Lundgren, “Social Feedback and Self-
Appraisals: Current Status of the Mead–Cooley Hypothesis,” Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 27,
2004, pp. 267–286.
13. 66 INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Generalized other: Clare Holdsworth and David Morgan, “Revisiting the Generalized
Other: An Exploration,” Sociology, Vol. 41, 2007, pp. 401–417.
Theory application: Jodi O’Brien (ed.), The Production of Reality, 4th ed., Pine Forge,
Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005.
Levinas’ responsive “I”: Ronald C. Arnett, “The Responsive ‘I’: Levinas’ Derivative
Argument,” Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 40, 2003, pp. 39–50.
Critique: Peter Hull, “Structuring Symbolic Interaction: Communication and Power,”
Communication Yearbook 4, Dan Nimmo (ed.), Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ, 1980,
pp. 49–60.
Critique: Sheldon Stryker, “From Mead to a Structural Symbolic Interactionism and
Beyond,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 34, 2008, p. 18.