Symbolic Interaction Theories

Importance of Meanings

The label symbolic interactionism was coined by Herbert Blumer, one of Mead's students who did much to shape this perspective by developing one of its main variants, the “Chicago School” of interactionism. Blumer's guiding premise is that humans act toward things and people on the basis of meanings. The focus here is on meaning, which is defined in terms of action and its consequences. The meanings of things and relationships are likely to vary from person to person and over time. However, the meanings we associate with the symbols we use in communication depend on some degree of consensus between two or more persons. The meaning of the word wife, for example, depends on the consensual responses of those who use it. If consensus is high, the meaning of a symbol is clear; if consensus is low, the meaning is ambiguous and communication is problematic. Within a culture, there is general consensus on the meanings associated with various words or symbols. However, in practice, the meanings of things are highly variable (especially for abstract terms such as love, equality, and justice) and depend on processes of interpretation and negotiation.

The interpretive process entails what Mead called role taking, which is the cognitive ability to take the perspective of another. It is a critical process in communication because it enables actors to interpret one another's responses, thereby facilitating greater consensus on the meanings of the symbols used. But the determination of meanings within a specific interaction also depends on negotiation—that is, on mutual adjustments and accommodations of actors. Role taking or perspective taking is the cognitive process that enables persons to take each other's perspectives into account in negotiating meaning. It is important to note that power relations are relevant to this process. In interactions between subordinate and superordinate (say, between a boss and an employee), the subordinate in a relationship tends to be better at role taking the superordinate than the reverse because the subordinate is under greater pressure to adjust and accommodate in this relationship than is the superordinate. However, for meaningful communication to take place, both (all) interactants must engage in role taking to some degree.

...