Symbolic Interactionism

Origin and Evolution of the Concept

The roots of symbolic interactionism can be traced to the early 20th century, particularly within the Chicago School of Sociology, which emphasized fieldwork and the study of urban life. However, the intellectual foundation was laid by American pragmatist philosophers, especially George Herbert Mead and John Dewey.

Although Mead never formally published a book during his lifetime, his students compiled his lectures into the influential work “Mind, Self and Society” (1934), posthumously published by his student Charles W. Morris. In this book, Mead discusses how the self emerges through social interaction, particularly through taking the role of the “other.”

Major Proponent: Herbert Blumer

Herbert George Blumer (1900–1987) was a prominent American sociologist best known for coining the term “symbolic interactionism” and systematically developing it into a distinct theoretical framework within sociology. He was both a student and interpreter of George Herbert Mead, whose philosophical ideas on the self and social interaction profoundly shaped Blumer’s thinking.

Key Contributions of Herbert Blumer

1. Symbolic Interactionism (Term and Theory)

Blumer coined the term “symbolic interactionism” in a 1937 article titled Social Psychology and later fully articulated it in his major work, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (1969). His version of symbolic interactionism focuses on the importance of meaning, language, and symbols in the process of human social interaction.

He argued that individuals do not respond automatically to stimuli from the external world; rather, they interpret and assign meaning to those stimuli through social interaction. Blumer emphasized that humans are active agents, not passive reactors.

2. The Three Core Premises of Symbolic Interactionism

Blumer outlined three basic premises of symbolic interactionism:

1. Humans act toward things based on the meanings those things have for them.
   For example, a national flag is not just a piece of cloth, but a symbol of identity, patriotism, and power because people have collectively assigned that meaning to it.
2. The meaning of things arises from social interaction.
   Meanings are not inherent in objects or actions; they emerge through interaction. For instance, the concept of “respect” differs across cultures and contexts because it is socially constructed.
3. Meanings are handled and modified through an interpretive process by individuals.
   People constantly interpret and reinterpret the meanings of situations based on their interactions and experiences.

These premises make it clear that for Blumer, society is not a fixed structure; it is a dynamic, ever-evolving reality that people create and recreate through interactions.

Key Contributions

George Herbert Mead

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is widely regarded as the foundational figure of symbolic interactionism, though he never published a book in his lifetime. His students compiled his lectures posthumously in Mind, Self, and Society (1934), which became the cornerstone of interactionist theory. Mead believed that the self is not innate but arises through social interaction, especially through the use of symbols and language. For Mead, communication was not merely a tool for expressing ideas but the medium through which individuals become self-aware and understand others.
Mead’s concept of the self is famously divided into the “I” and the “Me”. The “I” is the spontaneous, unpredictable, and creative aspect of the self that initiates action, while the “Me” represents the internalized attitudes and expectations of the broader society. The balance between these two components enables an individual to function both uniquely and socially.
A central idea in Mead’s work is the “generalized other”—the internalized perspective of the wider community that individuals use to evaluate their own behavior. It is through the understanding of the generalized other that individuals learn societal norms.

Mead also outlined the stages of self-development:

• In the preparatory stage, children imitate others without understanding
• In the play stage, they take on roles of specific others (like parents or teachers).
• In the game stage, they understand multiple roles and how they interact within a group.

Through these stages, individuals develop the capacity for role-taking, which Mead viewed as essential for empathy, cooperation, and moral reasoning. His theory emphasized that the self is a social product, continuously shaped through interaction, thus laying the intellectual foundation for symbolic interactionism and influencing generations of sociologists aer him.

Key Contributors: George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman and Charles Horton Cooley

Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman (1922–1982) was a Canadian-born sociologist who significantly expanded symbolic interactionist thought through his groundbreaking work on everyday social interaction, particularly in his theory of dramaturgy. In his seminal book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Goffman conceptualized social life as a series of theatrical performances, where individuals are actors playing roles before an audience.

In this framework, people engage in impression management—the process of controlling how they are perceived by others. The “front stage” represents the public performance, where individuals conform to expected norms, while the “back stage” is where they can express their true selves without social judgment. For example, a teacher may maintain authority in the classroom (front stage) but relax and complain at home (back stage). This analysis revealed how identity is not fixed, but carefully craed and maintained through social cues and symbolic gestures.

Goffman also introduced concepts like face-work, frames, and stigma, each explaining how individuals navigate social order, deviance, and labeling. His book Stigma (1963) explored how individuals with socially discredited identities manage social interactions and conceal or reveal aspects of themselves.

Unlike Mead or Blumer, Goffman focused less on the development of the self and more on interaction order—the unstated rules and rituals of everyday encounters. His microsociological perspective exposed the complex, performative nature of routine behaviors, revealing how power, hierarchy, and social control operate even in casual settings.

Though not always identified directly as a symbolic interactionist, Goffman’s work fits squarely within its framework and has had a profound influence on fields such as identity studies, deviance, medical sociology, and communication theory.

Charles Horton Cooley

Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) was an early American sociologist and a foundational thinker in symbolic interactionism, best known for introducing the concept of the “looking-glass self”. Cooley argued that the self is not a solitary entity but is deeply social, formed through interactions with others and shaped by our perception of how others see us.

According to Cooley’s concept, the development of self involves three steps:

1. We imagine how we appear to others.
2. We imagine how others judge that appearance.
3. We develop feelings (like pride or shame) based on that imagined judgment

This process creates the “looking-glass self”, in which we see ourselves reflected in the responses and evaluations of others. For example, a child who is consistently praised learns to see themselves as capable and valued, whereas one who is ridiculed may internalize a negative self-image. Thus, self-concept is constructed not in isolation but through social feedback.
Cooley’s work laid the foundation for understanding self and identity as socially constructed rather than biologically predetermined. He emphasized sympathetic introspection—understanding individuals by imagining oneself in their position—as a research method.
His broader perspective on primary groups, such as family and close friends, further highlighted the importance of intimate, face-to-face interactions in shaping human behavior and social cohesion. Unlike later theorists who focused more on strategic interaction or role-playing, Cooley stressed the emotional and moral dimensions of human relationships.
Though he preceded Mead and Blumer, Cooley’s work is integral to symbolic interactionism. His insights continue to influence studies in social psychology, child development, communication, and identity, especially in how people come to understand themselves through others.

References

1. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
4. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.