Symbolic Interactionism

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

The symbolic interactionism perspective emerged in America, a country that had broken away from classical European philosophy because of the unique requirements of its developing colonies. Survival in these colonies required a social philosophy capable of harmonizing the humanities with the rugged action-oriented individualism that was necessary for the development of a pristine land. Whereas the Europeans sought philosophical positions that played a consolatory or remedial role following hundreds of years of wars, the Americans required a person-oriented, progressive-minded social philosophy that not only recognized the uniqueness of the American experience but also provided some structured philosophical explanation of the emerging action-oriented American consciousness.

Although Herbert Blumer (1900–1986) is formally credited with coining the term symbolic interactionism, his ideas are indebted to a variety of thinkers who preceded him. In fact, the roots of the symbolic interactionism perspective are found in the early American pragmatism movement, of which Charles Saunders Peirce (1839–1914) is considered the founder. Peirce broke with classical European idealism, as expressed in the works of Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel, by affirming that there was no unwavering “categorical imperative” of “right action” governing human consciousness and action. He believed instead that both truth and meaning were intensely influenced by the outcomes they caused. How a truth or meaning was to be received and what its future role in social organization was to be would depend very much on the usefulness of the practical effects that followed. Practice itself was a part of the knowledge creation process and could not be separated from it.

Although Peirce did not find a large audience for his work, his followers succeeded in influencing the manner in which social science was practiced in America. Following from Peirce, the American psychologist William James (18421910) explained that human consciousness functioned in a “streamlike” manner, parallel to and often intertwined with the sphere of action. Human meanings did not emerge from external ideas that stood apart from actual lived experience; instead, they developed within a constantly evolving social setting in which knowledge was produced according to concrete practical needs.

...