CHAPTER 5
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Outline
I. Introduction.
A. Social constructionists believe that our thoughts, self-concept, and the wider
community we live in are created through communication—symbolic interaction.
B. Symbolic interaction refers to language and gestures a person used in anticipation of
the way others will respond.
C. George Herbert Mead, an early social constructionist, was an influential philosophy
professor at the University of Chicago, but he never published his ideas.
D. After his death, his students published his teachings in Mind, Self, and Society.
E. Mead’s chief disciple, Herbert Blumer, further developed his theory.
2. The three core principles of symbolic interactionism are concerned with meaning
language and thinking.
3. These principles lead to conclusions about the formation of self and
socialization into a larger society.
II. Meaning: The construction of social reality.
A. First principle: Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings
they assign to those people or things.
B. Once people define a situation as real, it’s very real in its consequences.
C. Where a behavioral scientist would see causality as stimulus → response, for an
interactionist it would look like stimulus→ interpretation → response.
III. Language: The source of meaning.
A. Second principle: Meaning arises out of the social interaction people have with each
other.
B. Meaning is not inherent in objects.
C. Meaning is negotiated through the use of language, hence the term symbolic
interactionism.
D. As human beings, we have the ability to name things.
2. By talking with others, we ascribe meaning to words and develop a universe of
discourse.
E. Symbolic naming is the basis for society—the extent of knowing is dependent on the
extent of naming.
F. Symbolic interactionism is the way we learn to interpret the world.
1. A symbol is a stimulus that has a learned meaning and a value for people.
3. Significant symbols can be nonverbal as well as linguistic.
IV. Thinking: The process of taking the role of the other.
A. Third principle: An individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own
thought process.
B. Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation, or minding.
1. Minding is a reflective pause.
2. We naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out meaning.
C. Whereas animals act instinctively and without deliberation, humans are hardwired
for thought.
2. Language is the software that activates the mind.
D. Humans have the unique capacity to take the role of the other.
V. The self: Reflections in a looking glass.
A. Self cannot be found through introspection, but instead through taking the role of the
other and imaging how we look from the other’s perspective. This mental image is
called the looking-glass self and is socially constructed, or as the Mead-Cooley
hypothesis claims, “individuals’ self-conceptions result from assimilating the
judgments of significant others.”
B. Self is a function of language.
1. One has to be a member of a community before consciousness of self sets in.
2. The self is always in flux.
C. Self is an ongoing process combining the “I” and the “me.”
1. The “I”—the subjective self—sponsors what is novel, unpredictable, and
unorganized about the self.
3. Once your “I” is known, it becomes your “me.”
VI. Society: The socializing effect of others’ expectations.
A. The composite mental image of others in a community, their expectations, and
possible responses is referred to as the generalized other.
VII. A sampler of applied symbolic interaction.
A. Creating reality.
1. Erving Goffman develops the metaphor of social interaction as a dramaturgical
performance.
2. The impression of reality fostered by performance is fragile.
B. Meaning-ful research.
1. Mead advocated study through participant observation, a form of ethnography.
2. Experimental and survey research are void of the meaning of the experience.
C. Generalized other—the tragic potential of symbolic interaction: Negative responses
can consequently reduce a person to nothing.
D. Naming.
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
1. Name-calling can be devastating because it forces us to view ourselves through
a warped mirror.
2. These grotesque images are not easily dispelled.
E. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
2. Our expectations evoke responses that confirm what we originally anticipated,
resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
F. Symbol manipulation—symbols can galvanize people into united action.
VIII. Ethical reflection: Levinas’ responsive “I”
A. Levinas insists that the identity of our “I” is formed by the way we respond to others,
not how others respond to me as Mead contends.
IX. Critique: Setting the gold standard for four interpretive criteria.
A. Mead meets clarification of values, offers a new understanding of people, uses
ethnographic research, and has generated a community of agreement.
Key Names and Terms
George Herbert Mead
The University of Chicago philosophy professor whose teachings were synthesized into
the theory called symbolic interactionism.
Symbolic Interaction
Taking the role of the other
The process of mentally imagining that you are someone else who is viewing you.
Looking-Glass Self
The mental image that results from taking the role of the other; the objective self; me.
I
The spontaneous driving force that fosters all that is novel, unpredictable, and
unorganized in the self.
Me
The objective self; the image of self seen when one takes the role of the other.
Generalized other
The composite mental image a person has of his or her self based on community
expectations and responses.
Participant observation
Self-fulfilling prophecy
The tendency for our expectations to evoke responses that confirm what we originally
anticipated.
Herbert Blumer
Erving Goffman
University of California, Berkeley, sociologist who developed the metaphor of social
interaction as a dramaturgical performance.
Responsive “I”
The self created by the way we respond to others.
Ethical echo
The reminder that we are responsible to take care of each other; I am my brother’s
keeper.
Face of the “Other”
Principal Changes
This chapter has been slightly edited for clarity and precision.
Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters
• Does everyone have an “I” and a “me”? Which is more powerful?
Suggestions for Discussion
The impact of symbolic interactionism
At the outset, it’s important to note that one cannot overemphasize the influence of this
easier and more revealing to provide a list of the few theorists he hasn’t influenced. A good
indication of the enduring importance of this theory is the existence of the Society for the Study
of Symbolic Interaction. Both communication scholars and sociologists are active in this
organization.
One way to illustrate the tremendous influence of symbolic interactionism is to analyze
several of the communication textbooks used in your department with your students. How
many of those texts contain a framing dialogue about the self? For example, Beebe, Beebe,
and Redmond credit Mead and the symbolic interactionists as they build their notion of self-
concept in Interpersonal Communication: Relating to Others (Boston: Pearson, 2011).
Examples from your office
A good starting place in a discussion of this theory is the concept of meaning as
situated in people, not things. Asking students how they might explain this concept to a young
child often initiates a productive dialogue about what it means to say that meaning is not
inherent but socially constructed. Explaining this notion, although it may appear rather
simplistic, is quite challenging. It is also useful to discuss how an arbitrary symbol can take on
sentimental, it is (in reality) just a towel. The meaning is in me, not the towel. This conversation
can often be resumed when discussing Semiotics and helps to illustrate the links between the
theories.
Examples from society
Andrew takes a similar approach when he teaches this theory. He begins the class by
showing a series of icons, images, and pictures, and asks students what these mean to them.
Such images might include the American flag, McDonalds’ “Golden Arches,” and the logo of a
rival college’s sports team. He ends with the image of a Minnie Mouse doll owned by his
like a child. These examples drive home the point that we, as human beings, ascribe meaning
to objects and symbols in our environment.
The self
Despite its status as a reigning deity of the academy, symbolic interactionism may
provide quite a challenge to some of your students. Many college-age men and women
embrace a Romantic or essentialist conception of self that clashes with Mead’s fluid,
malleable, “deconstructed” approach to personhood. These students, who have—unknowingly,
most likely—adopted what David Darnell and Wayne Brockriede in Persons Communicating
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976) called a “noble self” (176), may be troubled by what
they may construe as the absence of a unique, individual, immutable human core. To them,
symbolic interactionism seems to turn everyone into “rhetorical reflectors” (178). Some
The self-fulfilling prophecy
Griffin’s treatment of self-fulfilling prophecy warrants further elaboration. Since he
specifically references George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, we like to introduce students to the
social scientists’ version, the Pygmalion Effect (see sources, below). You might ask students to
Default assumptions
In this day of increased gender equality, we’re curious to see how students react to
Griffin’s example of the default assumption—the puzzle about the female surgeon. Other
examples to consider might come from song lyrics. For example, the 1980s Police song,
“Every Breath You Take,” while often interpreted as a love song (and frequently used by
newlyweds as their wedding song) has been described by its writer (Sting) as being about
unhealthy obsession and stalking. Likewise, the hit “You’re Beautiful” (by James Blunt) is less
Sample Application Logs
Susan
The theatre is a world where you really do step into someone else’s shoes. You examine how
the character views herself and how she is viewed by others. My theatre professor suggests
some questions for studying a character—What do other people say about my character? How
do other people react to my character? These questions help examine how the character is
Exercises and Activities
“I am”: An exercise in the looking- glass self
You may wish to try the following exercise, which explores the connection between
personal identity and the judgments of others. The class period before you discuss this
chapter, ask students to write and turn in a short description of their personalities/characters.
The next class, after you’ve discussed the material, ask your students to complete the following
For a slightly different version of this exercise, have students number a page 1 to 10.
Complete this sentence 10 different ways: “I am…”. Students supply 10 terms to describe
themselves: student, self-confident, young, shy, boisterous, and so forth. After completing
their lists, ask them to think about the elements as a whole. Nouns tend to indicate
The significant other
Students are often interested in a discussion of the term “significant other,” which has
become a popular substitute for boy/girlfriend, same-sex companion, or any non-marital,
romantic partner. Mead, borrowing the term from Charles Horton Cooley, used it to describe
people whose opinions of us alter our own self-perceptions and distinguish them from those
Literature and feature films
Since it is short and powerful, we recommend reading aloud and then discussing the
text of “Cipher in the Snow.” (Jean Mizer, “Cipher in the Snow,” Today’s Education, Vol. 53,
November 1964, pp. 8–10). It’s also interesting to discuss how—to a certain extent, at least—our
treatment of that story exemplifies Mead’s approach. Because we read the piece in the
context of symbolic interaction, we are influenced by concepts such as self-fulfilling prophecy
and the looking-glass self, and thus we attribute the boy’s death to the negative image that is
social context, the death might be attributed to very different causes. “Generalized other”,
There are a number of feature-length films that illustrate the power of communication
to shape self-concept including To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, Billy Elliott,
Precious, The Full Monty, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Wreck-it Ralph, and Brave. The last few
An intriguing application of symbolic interactionism is offered by noted communication
theorist William Shakespeare in Much Ado About Nothing, which is readily available on video.
Sworn enemies Beatrice and Benedick fall deeply in love simply because of brief, contrived
Ralph Ellison provides one of the most powerful literary examples of the substantial
effects described by symbolic interactionism in his masterful novel of dysfunctional race
relations, Invisible Man (New York: Random House, 1952). The first-person narrator, an
African-American male whose name is never given, uses the term “invisibility” to describe the
way whites perceive him. In the following quote, notice how he renders the mirror imagery so
central to symbolic interactionism:
The narrator suggests that others either do not see him as a human being, or view him as a
means toward political, social, and personal goals. Thus, his individuality or unique character
is “invisible.” The narrator pushes the point even further by suggesting that many African
Americans, particularly those who are complicit with the racist power structure that dominates
the country at the time, also render him invisible for their own purposes. Of course, his
invisibility has a profound effect on his self-perception and his response to those who
Andrew shows his students the short commercial “Onslaught,” produced by Dove and available
on YouTube. The video highlights how the beauty and entertainment industries send messages
to girls and women about what constitutes an ideal physical appearance—the generalized
Further Resources
▪ Good general texts are Joel M. Charon, Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An
Interpretation, An Integration, 7th ed, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2000; and John
P. Hewitt, Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology, Boston, Allyn and
Bacon, 1991.
▪ Because Mead is a root, rather than a branch, of communication theory, symbolic
interactionism’s influence is pervasive in our field. Recent studies that owe a heavy
intellectual debt to Mead and Blumer include:
Applied Symbolic Interactionism
▪ If you or your students have an interest in the dramaturgical issues raised by Goffman, we
recommend recent work in performance theory. The journal Text and Performance
Quarterly is a good place to begin.
▪ For students interested in sports
o Shannon M. Baird and Kerry R. McGannon, “Mean(ing) to Me: A Symbolic
Interactionist Approach to Aggression in Sport Psychology,” Quest, Vol. 61, 2009,
pp. 377–396.
The Pygmalion Effect
▪ For discussion of the Pygmalion Effect and self-fulfilling prophecy, see:
o Larry W. Howard, Thomas Li-Ping Tang, and M. Jill Austin, “Teaching Critical Thinking
Skills: Ability, Motivation, Intervention, and the Pygmalion Effect,” Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 128, 2015, pp. 133-147.