Symbolic Interactionism: Studies of Social Construction
Symbolic Interactionism: Studies of Social Construction
Hundreds of years before written word, theories have been made about words, the symbolism behind them, and root meanings assigned by social construction. William Shakespeare can be shown as example of this with posed questions by characters in his writings. In Romeo and Juliet, the character Juliet poses questions that reflect the symbolism of the name of her and her star-crossed lover Romeo.
“O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo. Deny thy father and refuse thy name; or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, and I 'll no longer be a Capulet… 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;--Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What 's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What 's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called, retain that dear perfection which he owes. Without that title:--Romeo, doff thy name; and for that name, which is no part of thee, take all myself.”
The intentions of Shakespeare were not to provide understanding of symbolic interactionism and to theorize, that was not of importance. However, it is viewed important by many in the realm of social psychology, thus, this paper to summarize and describe the concept and history of symbolic interactionism, give my analysis and evaluation to the current state of symbolic interactionism, and provide future directions for symbolic interactionism.
Understanding Symbolic Interactionism Social psychologist Herbert Blumer (1937) first coined the phrase “symbolic interactionism”. He claimed it to be a “somewhat barbaric” new term that in an offhand way had caught on in social science communities. Blumer’s first explanation behind the concept actually took place thirty-two years later in his book Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Method.
Blumer’s concept of symbolic interactionism was
Hundreds of years before written word, theories have been made about words, the symbolism behind them, and root meanings assigned by social construction. William Shakespeare can be shown as example of this with posed questions by characters in his writings. In Romeo and Juliet, the character Juliet poses questions that reflect the symbolism of the name of her and her star-crossed lover Romeo.
“O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo. Deny thy father and refuse thy name; or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, and I 'll no longer be a Capulet… 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;--Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What 's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What 's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called, retain that dear perfection which he owes. Without that title:--Romeo, doff thy name; and for that name, which is no part of thee, take all myself.”
The intentions of Shakespeare were not to provide understanding of symbolic interactionism and to theorize, that was not of importance. However, it is viewed important by many in the realm of social psychology, thus, this paper to summarize and describe the concept and history of symbolic interactionism, give my analysis and evaluation to the current state of symbolic interactionism, and provide future directions for symbolic interactionism.
Understanding Symbolic Interactionism Social psychologist Herbert Blumer (1937) first coined the phrase “symbolic interactionism”. He claimed it to be a “somewhat barbaric” new term that in an offhand way had caught on in social science communities. Blumer’s first explanation behind the concept actually took place thirty-two years later in his book Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Method.
Blumer’s concept of symbolic interactionism was
References: Anderson, L and Snow, D. (2001). Symbolic Interaction. Inequality and the Self: Exploring Connections from an Interactionist Perspective, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 395-406 Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Hall. Blumer, H. (2004). George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press Griffin, E. (2006). A First Look at Communication Theory.(6th Ed.) New York: McGraw Hill. DeGloma, T. (2007). Symbolic Interaction. The Social Logic of “False Memories”: Symbolic Awakenings and Smbolic Worlds in Survivor Retractor Narratives, Vol. 30, Issue 4, 543-565 Shakespeare, W. (1999). Romeo and Juliet. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.theplays.org/romeo/ Turner, J. (2007). Symbolic Interaction. Self, Emotions, and Extreme Violence: Extending Symbolic Interactionist Theorizing, Vol. 30, Issue 4, 501-530 Ulmer, J. and Wilson, M. (2003). Symbolic Interaction. The Potential Contributions of Quantitative Research to Symbolic Interactionism, Vol. 26, Issue 4, 531-552 Williams, C. (2006). Symbolic Interaction. Shopping as Symbolic Interaction: Race, Class, and Gender in the Toy Store, Vol. 28, Issue 4, 459-472