SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM THEORY Adapted from Scott Plunketts Course Pack OVERVIEW Symbolic interaction theory describes the

e family as a unit of interacting personalities. This theory focuses attention on the way that people interact through symbols: o words, gestures, rules, and roles. The symbolic interaction perspective is based on how humans develop a complex set of symbols to give meaning to the world (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). Meaning evolves from their interactions in their environment and with people. These interactions are subjectively interpreted through existing symbols. Understanding these symbols is important in understanding human behavior. Interactions with larger societal processes influence the individual, and vice-versa. It is through interaction that humans develop a concept of larger social structures and also of self concept. Society affects behavior through constraints by societal norms and values. Self concept also affects behavior. Symbolic interactionisms unique contributions to family studies are 1. families are social groups and 2. that individuals develop both a concept of self and their identities through social interaction.

Symbolic interactionism is the way we learn to interpret and give meaning to the world though our interactions with others.

MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS (LAROSSA & REITZES, 1993) George Herbert Mead (1934) often cited as the main contributor to symbolic interactionism Never published his theory Blumer, his student published it after his death o Meaning evolves from gestures (an action which produces a response in another) o Language is a set of shared meaning o Taking the role of the generalized other defined as the ability to extend interpersonal meanings to an entire group Herbert Blumer (1969) Meads Student credited with the term symbolic interactionism. He also summarized the basic assumptions of symbolic interaction from Meads earlier work

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SELF AND FAMILY (LAROSSA & REITZES, 1993) Individuals are not born with a sense of self but develop self concepts through social interaction

Self concept is developed through the process of interaction and communication with others Self concept is shaped by the reactions of significant others and by our perceptions of their reactions Self concept, once developed, provides an important motive for behavior. Self fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for our expectations, and/or others expectations of us to evoke expected responses Humans interact and develop roles in the family according to symbols used to describe the family. These roles are based on the symbolic meaning attached to each role. How family members react to a situation is determined by how they interpret the situation. So, it is important to understand the symbols the family uses to understand their interactions and behaviors. In a family, complicated sets of meanings are transmitted through symbols that permit each member to communicate with each other and share experiences (Peterson, 1986).

CORE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL INTERACTION THEORY 1. MEANING Meaning itself is not inherent in objects Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that they have assigned to them Meaning arises in the process of interaction between people. that is, it takes place in the context of relationships whether with family or community Meanings are handled in and modified through an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with things he or she encounters Once people define a situation as real, it's very real in its consequences

2. Language As human beings we have the unique ability to name things As children interact with family, peers, and others, they learn language and, concurrently, they learn the social meanings attached to certain words o That is, language is the source of meaning Meaning arises out of social interactions with one another, and language is the vehicle In Meads view, social life and communication between people are possible only when we understand and can use a common language, (Wood, 1997)

3. Thought or Minding An ability distinctly different from animals in that we have the ability to think about things rather than simply reacting instinctually An inner conversation with oneself A reflective pause through which we modify our interpretation of symbols an ability to take the role of The Other Major Premises of Symbolic Interaction Theory 1. Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meaning they have

These things do not have an inherent or unvarying meaning Rather, their meanings differ depending on how we define and respond to them how we define, or give meaning to the things we encounter will shape our actions toward them Therefore, if we wish to understand human behavior we must know how people define the things objects, events, individuals, groups, structuresthey encounter in their environment

2. The meaning attributed to those things arises out of social interaction with others We are not born knowing the meanings of things We dont learn these meanings simply through individual experiences, but rather through the interactions with others

3. These meanings are modified through an interpretive process the meanings of the things we encounter, though formed by social interaction, are altered through our understandings An individuals interpretation of the meaning will guide and determine action

7 Major Assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism Theory 1. People are unique creatures because of their ability to use symbols. 2. People become distinctively human through their interaction with others. 3. People are conscious and self-reflective beings who actively shape their own behavior. 4. People are purposful creatures who act in and toward situations. 5. Human society consists of people engaging in symbolic interaction. 6. The social act should be the fundamental unit of social psychological analysis. 7. To understand peoples social acts, we need to use methods that enable us to discern the meanings they attribute to these acts.

Major Concepts, Definitions and Terms Identities - the self meanings in a role. Language A system of symbolds shared with other memebers of society, used for the purposes of communication and representation Looking Glass Self - the mental image that results from taking the role of the other. imaging how we look to another person. Meaning the purpose or significance attributed to something. Meaning is determined by how we respond to and make use of it

Mind A process of mental activity consisiting of self, interaction, And reflection, based on socially acquired symbols. Does not refer to an inner psychic world separated from society. Naming or Labeling - Name-calling can be devastating because it forces us to view ourselves. through a warped mirror. Name calling like stupid can lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. If a person sees himself as stupid he is likely to act stupid. Roles refer to collections of expectations that define regularized patterns of behavior within family life (Peterson, 1986, p. 22). Roles within the family may include but not be limited to the following: nurturer, socializer, provider, and decision-maker. Role-taking is the ability to see oneself as an object, in other words, to be able to see how others perceive oneself. Role-taking allows the individual to monitor and coordinate personal behavior in order to facilitate interaction with others and also to anticipate the responses of other individuals. Role conflict refers to the situation in which there are conflicting expectations about a specified role. Role making is the process of improvising, exploring, and judging what is appropriate on the basis of the situation and the response of others at the moment (Peterson, 1986, p. 23). The Self O According to Mead, self does not exist at birth but is developed through interaction with others o emerges from the social interaction of humans in which the individual takes on the role of the "other" and internalizes the attitudes and perceptions of others through those interactions o The interaction of an individuals self-conception ("I") and the generalized, perceived view that others have of the individual ("Me") O The ongoing process of combining the I and the ME. I o An individuals self-conception o The subjective self Me - The Generalized Other o the generalized, perceived view that others have of the individual o The mental image of onseself that is based on expectations and responses from others O The image of the self seen in other people's reactions

Self-concept: the image we have of who and what we are (formed in childhood by how significant others treat/respond to us). The self-concept is not fixed and unchanging if in childhood your teachers tell you youre stupid, but later in life your teachers and friends begin to treat you as if youre very bright, your self-concept is likely to change. Self-fulfilling prophecy- The tendency for our expectations to evoke responses in others that confirm what we originally anticipated. Each one of us affects how others view themselves. Our expectations evoke responses that confirm what we originally anticipated. Phenomenon: The way I choose to see the world creates the world I see.

Significant symbol A word or gesture that has a common meaning to an individual and others. Social Act Behavior that in some way takes into account the other person, group or social organization, and is guided by what they do. It emerges through the process of communication and interaction. Symbol manipulation The means through which we motivate others to action through the use of symbols

Since people are symbolic creatures, they can interpret and talk about their inner experiences, such as their thoughts or desires, thus enhancing communnication and interactions with others

Symbolic Interaction, refers to the patterns of communication, interpretation and adjustment between individuals. Both the verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then delivers are similarly constructed in expectation of how the original speaker will react. The ongoing process is like the game of charades; only its a full-fledged conversation.[1]
HISTORY

Symbolic interactionism originated with two key theorists, George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley. George Herbert Mead was a proponent of this theory and believed that the true test of any theory was that "It was useful in solving complex social problems" (Griffin 59). George Herbert Mead was born on February 27, 1863 in South Hadley, Massachusetts. Out of Mead's sixty-eight years, he spent the last thirty-eight as a faculty member in the University of Chicagos department of philosophy. 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. (Griffin 59). Meads influence on Symbolic Interactionism was said to be so powerful that other sociologists regard him as the one true founder of symbolic interactionism tradition. 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 of systematic 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. (Griffin 59). 'It is a common misconception that John Dewey was the leader of this sociological theory, however according to The Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, Mead was undoubtedly the individual who transformed the inner structure of the theory, moving it to a higher level of theoretical complexity.(Herman-Kinney Reynolds 67).[2] Herbert Blumer was a social

constructionist, and as such this theory is very phenomenologically based. He believed that the "Most human and humanizing activity that people engage in is talking to each other" (Griffin 60).[3] Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term and put forward an influential summary of the perspective: people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation. Blumer was also influenced by John Dewey, who insisted that human beings are best understood in relation to their environment.[4] Yrj Engestrm and David Middleton explain the usefulness of symbolic interactionism in the communication field in a "variety of work setting including, courts of law, health care, computer software design, scientific laboratory, telephone sales, control, repair, and maintenance of advance manufacturing system.[5]
BASIC PREMISES AND APPROACH

The term "symbolic interactionism" has come into use as a label for a relatively distinctive approach to the study of human life and human conduct. (Blumer, 1969). With Symbolic interactionism, reality is seen as social, developed interaction with others. Most symbolic interactionists believe a physical reality does indeed exist by an individual's social definitions, and that social definitions do develop in part or relation to something real. People thus do not respond to this reality directly, but rather to the social understanding of reality. Humans therefore exist in three realities: a physical objective reality, a social reality, and a unique. A unique is described as a third reality created out of the social reality, a private interpretation of the reality that is shown to the person by others (Charon, 2007).[6] Both individuals and society cannot be separated far from each other for two reasons. One, being that they are both created though social interaction, and two, one cannot be understood in terms without the other. Behavior is not defined by forces from the environment such as drives, or instincts, but rather by a reflective, socially understood meaning of both the internal and external incentives that are currently presented (Meltzer et al., 1975).[7] Herbert Blumer (1969) set out three basic premises of the perspective:

"Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things." "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society." "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

The first premise includes everything that a human being may note in his world, including physical objects, actions and concepts. The second premise is that the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one's companions. The third premise is that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters. Blumer, following Mead, claimed that people interact with each other by interpreting or defining each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their 'response' is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols and signification, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions (Blumer 1962). Meaning is either taken for granted and thus pushed aside as unimportant or it is regarded as a mere neutral link between the factors responsible for human behavior and this behavior as the product of such factors. (Blumer 1969). Language is the source of meaning and is negotiated through the use of it. We have the ability to name things and designate objects or actions to a certain idea or phenomenon. The use of symbols is a popular procedure for interpretation and intelligent expression. Blumer

contrasted this process, which he called "symbolic interaction," with behaviorist explanations of human behavior, which does not allow for interpretation between stimulus and response. Other scholars he credits in this field are, Mead, Dewey, Thomas, Park, James, Horton, Cooley, Znaniecki, Baldwin, Redfield, and Wirth.[8] In Blumer's third premise the idea of minding comes into play. Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation. (Griffin 62). Mead called this inner dialogue minding. Minding is the delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about what they will do next. Mead says we don't need any encouragement to look before we leap. We naturally 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 symbolically. (Griffin 62). The emphases on symbols, negotiated meaning, and social construction of society brought on attention to the roles people play. Role-taking is a key mechanism that permits people to see another person's perspective to understand what an action might mean to another person. Role-taking is a part of our lives at an early age. Playing house and pretending to be someone else are examples of this phenomena. There is an improvisational quality of roles; however, actors often take on a script that they follow. Because of the uncertainty of roles in social contexts, the burden of role-making is on the person in the situation. In this sense, we are proactive participants in our environment.[9]
RESEARCH AND METHODS

Sociologists working in this tradition have researched a wide range of topics using a variety of research methods. However, the majority of interactionist research uses qualitative research methods, like participant observation, to study aspects of 1) social interaction, and/or 2) individuals' selves. Participant observation allows researchers to access symbols and meanings, as in Howard S. Becker's Art Worlds (1982) and Arlie Hochschild's The Managed Heart (1983).[10] They argue that close contact and immersion in the everyday activities of the participants is necessary for understanding the meaning of actions, defining situations and the process that actors construct the situation through their interaction. Because of this close contact, interactions cannot remain completely liberated of value commitments. In most cases, they make use of their values in choosing what to study; however, they seek to be objective in how they conduct the research. Therefore, the symbolic-interaction approach is a micro-level orientation focusing in close up human interaction in specific situations. Sociological subfields that have been particularly influenced by symbolic interactionism include the sociology of emotions, deviance/criminology, collective behavior/social movements, and the sociology of sex. Interactionist concepts that have gained widespread usage include definition of the situation, emotion work, impression management, looking glass self, and total institution. Semiology is connected to this discipline, but unlike those elements of semiology which are about the structures of language, interactionists typically are more interested in the ways in which meaning is fluid and ambiguous.[10] Ethnomethodology, an offshoot of symbolic interactionism, questions how people's interactions can create the illusion of a shared social order despite not understanding each other fully and having differing perspectives. Harold Garfinkel demonstrated this by having his students perform "experiments in trust," called breaching experiments, where they would interrupt ordinary conversations because they refused to take for granted that they knew what the other person was saying. They would demand explanations and then explanations of the explanations (Garfinkel 1967) to gain understanding of each other's definitions and perspectives. Further and more recent

ethnomethodologist research has performed detailed analyses of basic conversations to reveal the methods of how turn-taking and alternative conversational maneuvers are managed.[9]
[EDIT] FIVE CENTRAL IDEAS BEHIND SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

There are five central ideas to symbolic interactionism according to Joel M. Charon, author of Symbolic Interactionism An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. 1. "The human being must be understood as a social person. It is the constant search for social interaction that leads us to do what we do. Instead of focusing on the individual and his or her personality, or on how the society or social situation causes human behavior, symbolic interactionism focuses on the activities that take place between actors. Interaction is the basic unit of study. Individuals are created through interaction; society too is created through social interaction. What we do depends on interaction with others earlier in our lifetimes, and it depends on our interaction right now. Social interaction is central to what we do. If we want to understand cause, focus on social interaction. 2. The human being must be understood as a thinking being. Human action is not only interaction among individuals but also interaction within the individual. It is not our ideas or attitudes or values that are as important as the constant active ongoing process of thinking. We are not simply conditioned, we are not simply beings who are influenced by those around us, we are not simply products of society. We are, to our very core, thinking animals, always conversing with ourselves as we interact with others. If we want to understand cause, focus on human thinking. 3. Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in. An environment may actually exist, but it is our definition of it that is important. Definition does not simply randomly happen; instead, it results from ongoing social interaction and thinking. 4. The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present situation. Cause unfolds in the present social interaction, present thinking, and present definition. It is not societys encounters with us in our past, that causes action nor is it our own past experience that does. It is, instead, social interaction, thinking, definition of the situation that takes place in the present. Our past enters into our actions primarily because we think about it and apply it to the definition of the present situation. 5. Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment. Words such as conditioning, responding, controlled, imprisoned, and formed are not used to describe the human being in symbolic interaction. In contrast to other social-scientific perspectives humans are not thought of as being passive in relation to their surroundings, but actively involved in what they do." [11]
CENTRAL INTERACTIONIST THEMES

To Herbert Blumers conceptual perspective, he put them in three core principles: that people act toward things, including each other, on the basis of the meanings they have for them; that these meanings are derived through social interaction with others; and that these meanings are managed and transformed through and interpretive process that people use to make sense of and handle the objects that constitute their social worlds. Keeping in mind of Blumers earlier work, David A. Snow, distinguished professor of Sociology at the University of California, suggests four broader and even more basic orienting principles: human agency, interactive determination, symbolization, and

emergence. Snow uses these four principles as the thematic bases for identifying and discussing contributions to the study of social movements. Human Agency Human agency emphasizes the active, willful, goal seeking character of human actors. The emphasis on agency focuses attention on those actions, events, and moments in social life in which agentic action is especially palpable. Interactive Determination Interactive determination specifies that understanding of focal objects of analysis, whether they are self-concepts, identities, roles, practices, or even social movements. Basically this means, neither individual, society, self, or others exist only in relation to each other and therefore can be fully understood only in terms of their interaction. Symbolization Symbolization highlights the processes through which events and conditions, artifacts, people, and other environmental features that take on particular meanings, becoming nearly only objects of orientation. Human behavior is partly contingent on what the object of orientation symbolizes or means. Emergence Emergence focuses on attention on the processual and nonhabituated side of social life, focusing not only on organization and texture of social life, but also associated meaning and feelings. The principal of emergence tells us not only to possibility of new forms of social life and system meaning but also to transformations in existing forms of social organization.(Herman-Kinney Reynolds 812-824).[12]
NEW MEDIA

As studies of online community proliferate, the concept of online community has become a more accepted social construct. Studies encompassed discursive communities;[13][14] identity;[15][16] community as social reality;[17] networking;[18] the public sphere;[19] ease and anonymity in interactions.[20] These studies show that online community is an important social construct in terms of its cultural, structural, political and economic character. It has been demonstrated that people's ideas about community are formed, in part, through interactions both in online forums as well as those in face to face interactions. As a result, people act in their communities according to the meanings they derive about their environment, whether online or offline, from those interactions. This perspective reveals that online communication may very well take on different meanings for different people depending on information, circumstance, relationships, power, and other systems that make up communities of practice. People enact community the way it is conceived and the meaning of community evolves as they come up with new ways to utilize it. Given this reality, scholars are continually challenged to research and understand how online communities are comprised, how they function, and how they are connected to offline social life.

CRITICISMS

Symbolic interactionists are often criticized for being overly impressionistic in their research methods and somewhat unsystematic in their theories. These objections, combined with the fairly narrow focus of interactionist research on small-group interactions and other social psychological issues, have relegated the interactionist camp to a minority position among sociologists, although a fairly substantial minority. Many of these debates these days get bypassed in favor of more recent fabs. Much of the criticism arose during the 1970s in the U.S. when quantitative approaches to sociology were dominant. Perhaps the best known of these is by Alvin Gouldner.[22]
[edit] Framework and theories

Some critiques of symbolic interactionism are based on the assumption that it is a theory, and the critiques apply the criteria for a "good" theory to something that does not claim to be a theory. Some critics find the symbolic interactionist framework too broad and general when they are seeking specific theories. Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical framework rather than a theory (see Stryker and Vryan, 2003, for a clear distinction between the two as it pertains to symbolic interactionism).[23] Thus, specific theories, hypotheses, and conceptualizations must be (and have successfully been) derived from the general framework that symbolic interactionism provides before interactionist theories can be assessed on the basis of the criteria a good theory (e.g., containing falsifiable hypotheses), or interactionist-inspired conceptualizations can be assessed on the basis of effective conceptualizations. The theoretical framework, as with any theoretical framework, is vague when it comes to analyzing empirical data or predicting outcomes in social life. As a framework rather than a theory, many scholars find it difficult to use. Interactionism being a framework rather than a theory makes it impossible to test interactionism in the manner that a specific theoretical claim about the relationship between specific variables in a given context allows. Unlike the symbolic interactionist framework, the many theories derived from symbolic interactionism, such as role theory and the versions of Identity Theory developed by Stryker,[24][25] and Burke and colleagues,[26][27] clearly define concepts and the relationships between them in a given context, thus allowing for the opportunity to develop and test hypotheses. Further, especially among Blumerian processual interactionists, a great number of very useful conceptualizations have been developed and applied in a very wide range of social contexts, types of populations, types of behaviors, and cultures and subcultures. Social structure In addition to methodological criticisms, critics of symbolic interactionism have charged that it is unable to deal with social structure (a fundamental sociological concern) and macro sociological issues. A number of symbolic interactionists have addressed these topics, the best known being Sheldon Stryker's structural symbolic interactionism[24][28] and the formulations of interactionism heavily influenced by this approach (sometimes referred to as the "Indiana School" of symbolic interactionism), including the works of key scholars in sociology and psychology using different methods and theories applying a structural version of interactionism that are represented in a 2003 collection edited by Burke et al. Another well-known structural variation of symbolic interactionism that applies quantitative methods is Manford H. Kuhn's (Kuhn and McPartland, 1954) formulation which is often referred to in sociological literature as the "Iowa School." Negotiated Order Theory" also applies a structural approach.

The work of structural interactionists such as Stryker and Kuhn has had a significant influence on subsequent symbolic interactionists, some of whom use survey research and experimental methods (whereas "Chicago School" interactionism following Herbert Blumer's version relies on ethnography and qualitative in-depth interviewing). But Chicago School or "processual" versions of interactionism currently maintain greater recognition and influence within sociological teaching and research, presented in some texts and coursework as if they were the only variations of symbolic interactionism that exist. This fuels criticisms of the symbolic interactionist framework for failing to account for social structure, as well as criticisms that interactionist theories cannot be assessed via quantitative methods, and cannot be falsifiable or tested empirically. The published literature indicates that structural and processual variations of interactionism are both alive and well in sociology, as is the Blumerian tradition of interactionism, and interactionism has been used more explicitly and more frequently in psychology and anthropology as well. Much of the symbolic interactionist framework's basic tenets can be found in a very wide range of sociological and psychological work, without being explicitly cited as interactionist, making the influence of symbolic interactionism difficult to recognize given this general acceptance of its assumptions as "common knowledge." Many scholars do not know they are applying interactionist ideas in their own theoretical assumptions and formulations.

Herbert Blumer's Symbolic Interactionism

Lindsey D. Nelson Comm 3210: Human Communication Theory University of Colorado at Boulder Spring 1998 THE THEORY Symbolic Interactionism as thought of by Herbert Blumer, is the process of interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals. Blumer was a devotee of George H. Mead, and was influenced by John Dewey. Dewey insisted that human beings are best understood in relation to their environment (Society for More Creative Speech, 1996). With this as his inspiration, Herbert Blumer outlined Symbolic Interactionism, a study of human group life and conduct. Blumer came up with three core principles to his theory. They are meaning, language, and thought. These core principles lead to conclusions about the creation of a person's self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin, 1997)

The first core principle of meaning states that humans act toward people and things based upon the meanings that they have given to those people or things. Symbolic Interactionism holds the principal of meaning as central in human behavior. The second core principle is language. Language gives humans a means by which to negotiate meaning through symbols. Mead's influence on Blumer becomes apparent here because Mead believed that naming assigned meaning, thus naming was the basis for human society and the extent of knowledge. It is by engaging in speech acts with others, symbolic interaction, that humans come to identify meaning, or naming, and develop discourse. The third core principle is that of thought. Thought modifies each individual's interpretation of symbols. Thought, based-on language, is a mental conversation or dialogue that requires role taking, or imagining different points of view. THE CASE Last week, I received an exciting e-mail from an old flame named Jeremy. Jeremy and I have been getting to know each other again through the wonderful world of cyberspace. I like e-mall because it doesn't have the nervous element that phone calls do. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the personal touch of phone calls either. The biggest downfall of e-mail is that non-verbal cues are impossible to detect, because of the simple fact that e-mail is not verbal. It is very easy for misunderstanding to arise. Well, Jeremy's e-mail to me on Thursday said he was coming to Boulder the next day, and he was wondering if I wanted "to go out?" I accepted his offer "to go out." With the help of my friends, I picked out the perfect outfit for my date with Jeremy. The girls and I all assumed Jeremy and I would do dinner and a movie because that is pretty much standard date practice. The next night, Jeremy picked me up "to go out" to the bars with him and three of his buddies. I got very angry and he couldn't figure out why. After all, I told him we would "go out." APPLICATION OF THEORY TO CASE I can explain the problem between Jeremy and myself using the lens of the three core principles of Symbolic Interactionism as outlined by Herbert Blumer. The first miscommunication that Jeremy and I had falls under the principal of meaning. Jeremy and I acted differently toward one another because we had different meanings of one another. Last year, Jeremy and I broke up under the heading "we're just friends." Therefore, Jeremy assigns "friend" as the meaning for me. For myself, however, when Jeremy and I started talking again, I reevaluated my meaning for him as "potential boyfriend." Jeremy was treating me like a friend, and I was treating him like a boyfriend because we act toward people based on the meanings we assign to them.

Our second miscommunication falls under the principle of language. The symbols "do you want to go out" are very ambiguous, especially without the luxury of non-verbal cues. After engaging in symbolic interaction with my group of friends, I decided that "going out" means a romantic evening of dinner and a movie. My girl friends asked where the two of us were going, what I was going to wear to impress him, would we kiss on the first date - even though it really wasn't our FIRST date, if the two of us were going to start dating again, and other things like that. Through my interaction with them, the language "going out" took on a specific meaning. Apparently for Jeremy, the language "going out" took on the specific meaning of hitting the bars for a night on the town. To put it another way, if the extent of knowledge is naming, I name a typical date as "going out," while Jeremy names being at the bars with friends "going out." Because we have two different situations with the same name, we fell upon a misunderstanding. Our third miscommunication falls under the principal of thought. In my internal dialogue, the symbols "do you want to go out" were interpreted through my thought process based on my naming system. I read his e-mall, talked to my friends, and assigned meaning to the language through symbolic interaction. Based on that meaning from language, I had an internal dialogue, and ended up coming to the conclusion that Jeremy and I were going to spend some romantic time alone together. Jeremy's thought process also modified his interpretation of the language. Jeremy assigned the name of "just a friend" to me. That name was his meaning. He acted toward me based on that meaning. Through his internal dialogue, he used the language "going out" to be interpreted as time spent among friends. While we ended up have a great time together, just the five of us, the focal point of the problem between Jeremy and myself is that each of us had different meanings with the same name which can account for our behavior. CRITIQUE The theory of Symbolic Interactionism is strong in that it provides a basis to understand the establishment of meaning. As I understand it, Symbolic Interactionism falls under the category of a Humanistic theory. It has creative meaning - interaction gives humans meaning. It has free will - every human has meanings which can change at any time. It has emancipation - individuals are free to find their own meaning. It has rules for interpretation meaning, language, and thought. And it uses a ethnography to find meaning. Symbolic Interactionism also meets the five humanistic standards that make a good theory. There is a new understanding of the people where we get meaning. There is a clarification of values. Meaning comes from interaction, so interaction is important to human society. There is aesthetic appeal - the theory is in three, easy-to-understand parts. There is a community of agreement - Blumer's ideas

are adopted by people in the academic community. And there is a reform of society - because meaning comes from interaction, interaction must not be taken for granted. Although Symbolic Interactionism is a good theory by the five humanistic standards, there is a critique of the whole basis for it. While Blumer insists that the interpretive process and the context in which it is done are a vital element in the person's use of meaning and formation thereof, others view the use of meaning as simply the calling upon and application to specific situations of previously held meanings (Society for More Creative Speech, 1996). That is, a social interactionist believes that meaning arises out of the interaction between people, while a contradicting point of view a asserts that meaning is already established in a person's psychological make-up. CONCLUSION While it is debatable if Symbolic Interactionism is a good theory, or not, I find it effective in evaluating human interaction. My conflict with Jeremy is the perfect example of how different meanings can cause communication problems. While this is a fairly insignificant example, it is easy to see how larger problems can arise if the lines of communication are not open, and assumptions are made.