Symbolic Interactionism

Key Concepts and Terms

Ethnography. Symbolic interactionism is a branch of ethnography. It is sometimes associated with postmodernism and with phenomenology. As such it interprets behavior as a product of community life. All meanings are intersubjective. Methodologically this implies meaning and hence theory must emerge from community experience and not be imposed by the researcher, as is the positivist model associated with the "scientific method" as conventionally taught. Ethnography is treated separately. Prus (1995) presents the intellectual history of symbolic interactionism in sociology and anthropology.
Social symbols reveal much about intersubjective meanings within a community and make a good starting point for the analysis of behavior. Individuals and groups interact based on meanings drawn from prevailing symbols. Symbols are redefined through this human interaction, varying by group and evolving over time.
Negotiated order arises from the give-and-take of human interactions within settings defined by symbols and expressed in expectations, norms, and rules (see Maines, 1982; Thomas, 1984; Maines & Charlton, 1985).
Mesostructure refers to social arrangements which mediate between human interactions and formal social structures. A mesostructural analysis looks at informal, semi-formal, and sometimes even formal arrangements which provide an alternive setting other than the formal social structure for the carrying out of human interactions. Negotiated order is created largely through mesostructure, not formal structure (ex., informal arrangements among prisoners, trustees, and guards in a prison setting, in spite of what processes are specified in the formal rules of the prison).
Loose coupling. Because mesostructure is negotiated and constantly in flux, the coupling linking social structure with human interaction is loose. Symbolic interactionists look at the "slippage" between the formal structure and the mesostructure. This slippage involves shifts in organizational power within organizations such as prisons, reducing formal authority and increasing discretionary power. What are prohibited behaviors from the point of view of formal structure may in fact represent alternative forms of control existing within the mesostructure, serving to make the organization more functional.

Assumptions

Community context. The meaning of behavior cannot be understood in terms of the individual, only in terms of a community of meaning. An implication is the symbolic interactionists often study communities or small groups as opposed to individuals or nation-states, for example. A public sector example is the work of Thomas (1984) on prisons.
Subjectivity. Since all meaning is intersubjective, analysis of any given behavior will vary by group. Symbolic interactionists researching different groups may come to different conclusions about the same behavior because symbols and their meanings vary by group.
Hegelian rather than materialist. Symbolic interactionism is in the Hegelian tradition of emphasizing meaning as a social determinant, as opposed to the Marxist tradition which emphasizes material determinants such as economic interest. Critics of symbolic interactionism contend that it underappreciates the role of such material forces as power and politics.

Illustrative Hypotheses

Hypotheses below are illustrative and not all authors associated with this theory would subscribe to all hypotheses listed.

Symbols associated with an agency or policy vary by group.
Symbols associated with an agency or policy vary over time.
Meaning of symbols emerges from community experience, not official interpretation.
The official meaning of an agency procedure or matter will differ from that perceived by informal and semi-formal groups within the agency.
The more an official, semi-formal, or informal community defines the meaning of symbols for an individual, the greater the control exercised by that community (regardless of the official control structure).
- Individual behavior will correlate more with community definition of meaning than with economic and material motivations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good source for further information about symbolic interactionism?

Bibliography

Maines, David R. (1982.). Negotiated order. Urban Life 11, 267-279.
Maines, David R. & Charlton, J. C. (1985). The negotiated order approach to the analysis of social organization. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Supplement 1, 271-308.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Prus, Robert (1995). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience. NY: SUNY Press.
Thomas, Jim (1984). Some aspects of negotiated order, mesostructure and loose coupling in maximum security prisons. Symbolic Interaction 7(3), 213-231.