Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method

by Herbert Blumer

This is a collection of articles dealing with the point of view of symbolic interactionism and with the topic of methodology in the discipline of sociology. It is written by the leading figure in the school of symbolic interactionism, and presents what might be regarded as the most authoritative statement of its point of view, outlining its fundamental premises and sketching their implications for sociological study. Blumer states that symbolic interactionism rests on three that human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings of things have for them; that the meaning of such things derives from the social interaction one has with one's fellows; and that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process.

Genres: Sociology, Philosophy, Psychology, Nonfiction, Social Science, Theory, Academic

208 pages, Paperback

First published March 12, 1986

About the author

Herbert George Blumer was an American sociologist whose main scholarly interests were symbolic interactionism and methods of social research.Believing that individuals create social reality through collective and individual action, he was an avid interpreter and proponent of George Herbert Mead's social psychology, which he labeled symbolic interactionism. Blumer elaborated and developed this line of thought in a series of articles, many of which were brought together in the book Symbolic Interactionism. An ongoing theme throughout his work, he argued that the creation of social reality is a continuous process. Blumer was also a vociferous critic of positivistic methodological ideas in sociology.

Reviews

[Marc Lamot · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a trip down memory lane for me. In the 1970s I took a sociology course at university and after the structuralist and functionalist approaches it was a relief to get an introduction to symbolic interactionism. Herbert Blumer (1900-1987) was the spiritual father of that approach. In the footsteps of George Herbert Mead, Blumer had an eye for the symbolic interaction of man with the world around him; his focus was mainly on how people perceive things, other people and also themselves, give meaning to them and let their actions be inspired by this perception. In other words, unlike the predominant schools of social sciences (such as behaviourism, functionalism and structuralism), symbolic interactionism has a process-based, non-deterministic approach to human society. "Human coexistence is a moving process in which the participants perceive and gauge each other's actions, shape their own actions in consideration of the other, thereby inhibiting, encouraging and directing themselves while building their actions".

This booklet contains some basic Blumer articles. Especially the first introductory article is very clear. It comprehensively outlines the main perspectives of symbolic interactionism. The other articles focus on the methodological aspects of the approach and were somewhat less interesting to me.

What surprised me most is how many similarities symbolic interactionism has with system theory, a school of thought that I dug into a few years ago. The emphasis on the process-based character of human group action makes this clear. That action is not the result of a fixed internal disposition or of an automatic reaction to external stimuli or meta-structures, but of a continuous interaction of man with himself, his direct and indirect environment, in which there is a continuous process of self-reflection, perception, adjustment, etc. That is really close to the concepts of feedback loops, emergencies, autopoiesis, etc. that are so typical of system theory. In that sense it responds much better to the “messy” character of the complex and chaotic reality in which we live , at least much more than most behaviourist, functionalist and structuralist theories.

Now of course I also see the weaknesses of symbolic interactionism: the emphasis is a little too much on the acting individual, and especially on the consciously acting individual. Much of our behaviour and convictions are situated on the unconscious and subconscious level. Symbolic interactionism may zoom in too much on the phase that precedes action, and that can also be a distortion of reality. But as said, in relation to the previous approaches this is/was really a relief!
(2.5 stars)

[Deborah Beat · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find Blumer and symbolic interactionism entertaining and useful but as always,purely an academic at heart! Part of this is a fairly easy read that helps explain and give distinction to the theory while some of it drones on fascinating only to those who tend to research and focus on micro theory or the Chicago school.

[Ron Sitton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Blumer's text outlines how the sociology student should perceive and document symbolic interactionism. He basically states people interpret each other's actions and assess a situation in a dynamic fashion based on the meanings of objects. For the scholar to understand such interaction, the viewpoint of the participant is required, for objects mean different things to different people.

[Robert Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of essays explicating the fundamental premise that we respond to objects based on the meaning that those objects have for us. Blumer's ideas provided the theoretical framework for my doctoral research.

[Ian Maclay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Symbolic Interactionism is a collection of papers by Herbert Blumer summarizing the social psychological & sociological implications of Meads work. You might think that a lack of progression would get old, or feel choppy, but I found that compiling these papers in this way gave Blumer a chance to present the symbolic interactionist theory in a few different lights which was as refreshing as it was insightful.

Symbolic Interactionism as a theory is deeply intuitive. It appropriately blurs the lines between interiority and exteriority in ways that are both hard to then reinforce scientifically but also hard to disprove. This element keeps bringing Blumer and other symbolic interactionists back to having to reassure students, readers and critics that this isn't meant to be taken in an ontological sense (which I found to be amusing given how well the theory of symbolic interactionism could work with Emmanuel Levinas' work).

Symbolic interactionism as Blumer describes it seems to, as a framework, strike a natural balance between fatalism & radical individualistic agency that is refreshing. Blumer makes it clear and offers illustrations proving the point that motivations and appetites are channeled through how the other perceives me and so I then can see and possess myself in the face of the other. It's in this respect that the creative cooperative capacity that pragmatists seem to encourage seems quite compatible with the personalist conception of action.

Another aspect of symbolic interactionism as Blumer presents it is that it seems to reconcile psychology's obsession with the ego with sociology's obsession with static social structures by placing the emphasis on social action in a fascinating way. There is both a possession of self that is understood and channeled through "the other" in a social process that then defines the self and shapes social & individual action.

The biggest battle for symbolic interactionists is esoterism on the one side and rigid empiricism on the other, which could be uncomfortable or quite a nice fit depending on your epistemology.

All in all, a great book & subject that I'd recommend to anyone studying social science. Will definitely continue to study this subject and keep it in my tool belt as I continue this social science self-study.

[juliana]

this man said the same thing agen and agen and agen ..... we get it! we get ur point!

read this (minus 2 chapters bc zzZZzz) for my presentation in socio 172 and genuinely appreciate laying out the foundational concepts of symbolic interaction, etc., but on its own it fails to address nuances and the aspect of power in our systems (and more specifically how they construct our spaces for interactions & even perpetuate hegemonies that inhibit the extent of our agencies). dont get me wrong i luv symbolic interaction + more concepts have developed post-blumer

i will not expound more bc i have used up too much brain power on this man by attempting to defend him in class. he is living proof that maybe jocks make (some) valid points!

in short: do not underestimate footballers! (to a degree)

sa kakafootball ni sir ayan tuloy puro individual interactions lang yung analysis niya

[Alex Turvy]

Got a little froggy by the end.

[Dakota · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favorite chapters included: "Sociological Analysis and the 'Variable,'" "What is Wrong with Social Theory?," "Science Without Concepts," and "The Problem of the Concept in Social Psychology," all of which suggest a need to refocus on the material and philosophical elements within the discipline and practice of sociology.

[Jonathan]

None

[Michelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

School book

[Maria · Rating 1 out of 5]

No. just no. too much of this was read and cited during my univ classes. I lost the willpower to care about my major after so many bullshit nonimportant theories. give me a break.