Using the Symbolic Interactionism Communication Theory - Essay Example

The Communication Theory Communication Theory The paper seeks to find out how people interact with each other using thesymbolic interactionism communication theory. The theory was developed by Charles Horton and George Herbart Mead. It pays tribute to Mead’s work and his relationship to the communication theory. Herbart Mead had a number of students, who included Peter Burke, Ervin Goffman, Sheldon Stryker and Jonathan Turner. He influenced the students who later on came up with more theories which include identity control theory, dramaturgy, identity theory and the transactional needs theory. The present text looks at the accepted standards of a good theory such as validity, theological scope, franchise and heuristic value to value the symbolic interactionism theory. It also dwells on criticisms leveled against the theory. The theories contemporary application has been discussed in detail. The text also entails Em Griffin’s take on the communication theory and its relevance. He pays tribute to Herbart Mead who was a leading theorist. Key words: communication, Interactionism, theory, symbolic Introduction People act towards things based on the meanings they attach to those things. Different things have different meanings to different people. People derive meanings from social interactions and are modified through various interpretations. Social interaction is the process by which people act and react to other people in their environment. In this perspective, social interaction encompasses the actions of people towards others and the responses they get in return. Symbolic Interactionism theory meets most of the accepted standards of a good theory despite its criticisms. Em Griffin posited that most communication theorists used Mead’s intellectual guidelines to develop their theories (Griffin, 2011). George Herbert Mead was a pioneer in the development of the communication theory. Whereas the Symbolic Interactionism theory face criticisms across time and place, it is critical to evaluate it based on standards and show its applications in the contemporary world. Symbolic Interactionism Theory Discussion of the Theory Symbolic Interactionism studies how people interact with each other owing to their adaptive social behavior. In this perspective, social structures are best understood in relation to basic level of individual interactions. Charles Horton Cooley in collaboration with George Herbert Mead came up with the theory (Turner, 2006). According to this theory, the meaning and worth of objects, occurrences and behaviors come from people’s interpretations, which vary from one group to another. Cooley argues that people adapt the way they think about themselves based on how others judge them Symbolic interactionists emphasize that deviants, such as conformists, live in a socially predetermined or predictable world. Some identities, which are outdated or punished, claim prestige and respect and behaviors that are sanctioned may change over time. Some basic aspects of our social experience and identities such as race and gender can be understood through the lens of symbolic interactionism. A human being must be understood as a social person, or according to his personality. Human behavior social status symbolic Interactionism concentrates on social interaction that depends on daily life activities. Thus, people must be understood as a thinking being (Plummer, 2007). Human action is not only the interaction between people, but also the interaction within an individual with an active process of continuous and constant thought. People do look at their environment directly; however, they define the situation they are in, depending on earlier environmental encounters. People’s past occurs mostly in their actions because they are always thinking about it. People are described as active beings with relation to their environment, and how they react to the received stimuli. The theory consists of three basic principles: meaning, language and thought (Plummer, 2007). These principles lead to conclusions about the origin of the self and socialization of people in the wider community. It holds the principle of the significance of the central aspect of human behavior. Language is a provision of a medium to negotiate meaning to others. Thought modifies each individuals interpretation of symbols. Thought is a spiritual conversation that requires different perspectives. With these three elements, the self-concept can be framed. The theory is used in the effective evaluation of human interaction. Problems arise when the lines of communication are open to assumptions. Symbolic interactionism is often linked and connected to a social structure (Meltzer et al, 2011). This concept proposes that symbolic interactionism is a construction of the social reality of people. This also means that, from a realistic point of view, when the reality of the situation is defined, the situation becomes a significant reality. These include methodological criticism and critical sociological questions. Critics of this theory argue that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro-social interpretation of the "big picture". The prospect also receives critical contempt as it influences forces and institutions to an individual’s social interactions. This perspective is not for systemic social forces such as racism or discrimination based on sex, which form a large influence on what people take race and sex for. A major concern of symbolic interactionism is intersubjectivity; this implies that the theory seeks answers by studying ways to categorize people and make use of symbols exchange of meanings (Andersen, 2007). In symbolic interactionism, the social world takes a very different starting point, the point of view of scientific realism. Data for symbolic interactionism is not "objective facts", but construction of reality that is manifested by mutual interaction. In scientific realism, the world is described by science as the real world because it is independent of what people might take it to be. Symbolic Interactionism lacks objective facts because biases characterize people in their view of the world. Mutual interactions form the primary basis of symbolic Interactionism (Brinkerhoff et al, 2007). Accepted Standards of a Good Theory A scientific theory, which is acquired by a scientific method through observation and experimentation and repeatedly tested and confirmed, is a well-established aspect of the natural world explanation. The strength of a scientific theory can explain the variety of related phenomena and its elegance and validity. Collected as additional scientific knowledge, a scientific theory can be rejected or modified if it is contrary to prior proved empirical findings. Scientists use the basic theories to acquire new scientific knowledge to achieve set goals (Delamater et al, 2014). Theoretical range and scope of application In most cases, a theory that is only aligned to a unit dimension of reality is less effective compared to a theory with a very wide range of communication interactions. The most appropriate theory is one that explains the flush nature of human communication (Brinkerhoff et al, 2007). Adequacy Theories are usually evaluated based on assumptions such as their epistemology, ontology and axiology as they relate to the topic of concern (Brinkerhoff et al, 2007). A theory is considered as ineffective if it summarizes the assumptions (if it is a tautology). Heuristic Value Some theories provide ways for furthering future research and how it can be carried out. In presenting an explanatory model, the theory generates questions or hypotheses that can be relatively easily put into operation (Brinkerhoff et al, 2007). Validity A theory must be valid to be considered effective in explaining a behavior. The feature of validity is used to denote the extent to which the theory truthfully represents an authentic state of the facts at stake (Brinkerhoff et al, 2007). Franchise A theory is good if paradoxically it does not absolutely exclude other theories from existing. The theory should be compatible with other accepted theory to the highest degree possible. This compatibility prevents one theory from obscuring others or remaining as a standalone (Brinkerhoff et al, 2007). Evaluation of Symbolic Interactionism Theory When placed against good theory objectives, symbolic interactionism does not necessarily meet all the standards. Individual behavior is not predictable from the plane of free will so that they have the same variables and the same conditions; hence the results are not reproducible (responses may be different in each case). Theory also lacks testability and relative simplicity (Plummer, 2007). As one might conclude that this theory falls into the category of interpretive, but as known and interpreted, it is an effective theory in explaining communicative behavior. This is how the theory rates against the discussed standards. Theoretical range and scope of application Symbolic Interactionism is a theory that has evoked the interest of many researchers and professionals. The outlined researched results are a collection of a wide range of communication interactions ((Griffin, 2011)). This rates the theory as a good one. Adequacy Symbolic Interactionism is not without criticism (Plummer, 2007). The presence of such criticism, however, does not make the theory less adequate. There is no justification that the theory is the best of its category, but it is acceptable as good. Heuristic value The fact that not all questions have been answered for Symbolic Interactionism; it is a guarantee for allocation of future research and development of the theory. Their aspect that is still questionable and open to more research makes it a good theory (Meltzer et al, 2011). Validity The theory’s proponents and others have been supported it using tangible evidence. This explains why several theories are indebted to the symbolic interactionism theory. Until new research negates the current evidence, the theory remains valid (Meltzer et al, 2011). Franchise Behaviorism and phenomenology are two theories that are in agreement (at least partially) with symbolic Interactionism (Meltzer et al, 2011). This implies that the theory can be integrated with other theories, and does not obscure other theories from existence. Symbolic Interactionism, therefore, is an effective theory because it has a franchise feature. In summary, symbolic interactionism can be classified as an effective theory because it satisfies a large number of the standards of a good theory. After all, a good theory does not need to meet all the requirements, but it should meet the majority of the required standards (Meltzer et al, 2011) . Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism Theory Regardless of the fact that the symbolic Interaction or symbolic interactionism theory is heuristic and can be applied in different contexts such as interpersonal, organizational, and media, across time and place it has been subjected to widespread criticisms. The first criticism is that the theory is too broad, which renders it not useful. This criticism is centered on the scope’s evaluation criterion. The critics argue that the theory covers immense ground such that it cannot fully elaborate particular communication behaviors and meaning-making processes. The concepts making up this theory are drawn broadly and are rather vague. Moreover, as a result of this vagueness, falsifying the theory becomes difficult. To counter this, the proponents assert that the theory is not one that is unified but is rather a framework for supporting many specific theories. In these specific theories, such as the Role theory, the concepts can be defined more clearly and be falsified (Meltzer et al, 2011). The second criticism regards the emphasis of the actor’s power to create reality. This ignores the fact that people reside in a globe that is independent of their personal making. The theorists conclude that a situation is real in case the actors regard it as real. However, although this notion is true, it ignores physical reality. The theorists argue that they tried treading a central ground between external constraint and freedom of choice. Although they recognize the constraint’s validity, they also assert the significance of shared meanings (Turner, 2006). Finally, there is criticism that the theory ignores some significant concepts including self-esteem and emotions. The theory fails to elaborate human interaction’s emotional dimension. Further, the theory discusses how a self-concept is developed but less is discussed on how people can evaluate themselves. Despite these criticisms, the theory is still acknowledged as enduring and heuristic. It has been applied in different contexts successfully, and is being extended and refined (Meltzer et al, 2011). Em Griffin’s View of the Communication Theory According to Em Griffin, most of the communication theorists owe their intellectual debt to George Herbart Mead. Griffin shows how the concept of self is created by people’s interaction with others, and it is also shaped by social influence. Mead seeks to confirm, identify or unmask the ideology behind the message on test. The theory aims to expose its ethical obligations. Griffin insists that humans have free will to make important decisions in communication (Griffin, 2011). The theory is inclusive of imagery, illustrations and metaphors, which makes drawing from other theories. For theorists of communication, this theory is clear. It makes boundaries, avoids vague concepts and undisciplined approach to difficult expressed summary of basic principles. It generates the support of a community of researchers who are competent. Theoretical perspectives of Griffin are not only strong in the field of self-image influenced study, but are also a staple in sociology. Em Griffin encourages students encountering the field for the first time to combat theories without fear (Griffin, 2011). The authors present 32 different theories that are a mix of basic and recent research and with the benefit of many examples and connections to pop culture, helping students to apply to their lives. This program ensures that students begin a solid foundation, with the understanding of the relationship between theories. Reform of society: The theory lacks the power to change or create a new alternative for social action. As Griffin was a sociologist, marginalized groups and displaced persons, it is quite a shock that his theory does not attempt to ask for help on every social change. It does not expose and publicly oppose the ideology that permeates the traditional conceptions of culture. It is, however, based on qualitative research. The theory of symbolic interactionism usually applies on the participant / research ethnographic observation. This type of research method will provide researchers and qualitative data interpretation, which is priceless (Griffin, 2011). Advanced use of examples in his works, help students understand the theories to explain their explanations and predictions in real situations. Ethics is treated in a separate chapter and throughout the text and help students on the ethical implications of communication theories focus. Each chapter, summarizes its strengths and weaknesses and includes critical thinking questions, and give students an appreciation of the ongoing process of communication research (Griffin, 2011). George Herbart Mead and the Communication Theory According to Herbart Mead, the self emerges from communication, which is a social act (Andersen, 2007). Usually, this constitutes the foundation for socialization. This theorist greatly emphasizes on social relationships’ primacy in relation to defining the self. This implies that challenges might occur in the 1st human self. However, sociality development presumably parallels the development of action and language. After a person masters a language, objects and images can be designated through the use of symbols. This implies that alternative action plans are labeled, and the impacts are verbally examined. Usually, consciousness is sub vocal, inner discourse linguistic communication. Although thinking is usually a private experience, it is facilitated by significant symbols. Therefore, it is behavior organized from a general other’s standpoint. Using language changes the effective environment in which people adjust. Through using words, a person may maneuver meanings exterior to the original contexts and even more complicated meanings can result. Through the use of language, more complicated plans can be formulated (Andersen, 2007). Normally, executing a social act denotes a communicative process since transactions of all forms can develop from the participants’ reciprocating adjustments. On the same note, mutual orientation is a built up and it can be maintained through a continuous gestures interchange. Mead greatly stresses about speech that encompassed of vocal gestures. Considering that a speaker has the ability of hearing his own remarks as the audience can, establishing mutual understanding is rendered easier. A gesture whose meaning is relevant to many people is a crucial symbol; language has such conventional sounds (Delamater et al, 2014). Examples of Theories Indebted to George Herbart Mead A number of scholars including some of George Mead students came up with theories after his communication; these theories are greatly indebted to his great teachings. The scholars conducted further research on the field of communication, basing their findings on what was initially established by George Mead. The theories that can be indebted to Mead include identity theory, identity control theory, dramaturgy, and transactional needs theory (Andersen, 2007). Identity theory by Sheldon Stryker is one of the examples of these theories. Identity theory has its basis on symbolic designation of the physical and social features of the environment organizing social behavior in human beings. A concept of this theory is that the position a person occupies in a social setting has some expectations tied to it. These expectations have a projection as to how someone is to carry out roles in relation to other people. Generally the identity theory sums up that a person who gets a positive reinforcement it is usually as a result of motivation by emotions. This theory, thus, sums up that emotions are a key factor in how people conduct themselves in situations and cultural values (Andersen, 2007). Identity Control Theory by Peter Burke is another theory that is attributed to George Mead. The theory is rooted in symbolic interactionist structure. Burke has based his theory on the basis that in every situation, an individual will carry the general views of him or her. This theory is different from the other theories as it places no stress on salience rather it pursues to expound on an individual’s internal crescendos. These dynamics are in relation to how they influence the verification of the identity associated with a given role. Burke further explains in his theory that individuals derive their motivation from efforts that corresponds to the identity standards they have set up for themselves. A separate system of control is operational for every identity (Turner, 2006). Dramaturgy by Ervin Goffman is based on a division that is drawn from symbolic interactionism theory. This is influenced by looking-glass self that during an interaction between two people, both of them tend to behave consciously or unconsciously in a manner that maintain the impressions that the other party may get from them. Harlod Garfinkel was responsible for developing the division, which is ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology concerns are with the social world nature, which attempts to examine the assumptions that take place in an ordinary life (Andersen, 2007) . Jonathan Turner postulated a transactional needs theory, which can also be traced to the origins from Mead communication theory. Turner describes transactional needs as a powerful force in how individuals interact. He divides these needs into two parts; these are needs that are stimulated during an interaction period and the victory and disappointments of meeting the needs. This theory summarizes identities into only four categories. One is core identity, which is the feeling people have towards themselves. Social identity is the other category of identity that develops as a result of an individual being a member of a specific social group. The third type of identity is the group identity, which results from a person having a link with a corporate unit such as labor organization. The fourth type of identity described by Turner is role identity. Role identity is associated with the role that a person plays in a community, a corporate unit or a social group. Plummer (2007) recognizes that it is with these types of identities that Turner builds up his transactional needs theory. Contemporary Applications of the Communication Theory Several authors, in discussing the communication theory, have tried to explain how the theory is applicable in day-to- day life. The communication theory has a number of applications. One of the applications of this theory constitutes naming. This kind of naming is basically name-calling, where the naming can be names such as ugly and liar. Naming of this kind brings about desolation to people since they view themselves through the lenses of the name given. The result of depicting these images is that they are destructive and it is very hard to get rid of them. In one way or another human beings are affected by how others view them showing how Self-fulfilling prophecy is among the applications of this communication theory. Plummer (2007) noted that a person may have false expectations regarding themselves and this maybe betrayed by an individual’s true actions. Self-fulfilling prophecy is achievement by and individual expecting. Another application is in conducting meaningful research. In his teachings, Mead put it out that in order to conduct a meaningful research; the research should involve participant observation. He supported this claim by stating that behavioral experimental and survey research are invalid of experience. Symbolic Interactionism theory is also applicable to generalized other. Generalized other is the mental image combination other people’s responses and expectations and responses to one’s self (Griffin, 2011). When a person gets responses that are negative, it becomes disastrous because negative responses may lead to a person seeing themselves as not being of any importance in society. This generalized other is like a collection of looking glasses that we get from others and the self-looking glass is how we look at others (Brinkerhoff et al, 2007). Creating reality is another application for this communication theory. In an attempt to generate a reality application, individuals are usually trying to negotiate with others on the nature of the circumstances and in an attempt to delineate their identity. Reality has the perception of being delicate and this puts individuals on their toes to prevent anyone from shattering it. Conclusion Mead was a great scholar during his time and has famously been described as a scholar that left a big impact in the communication world. The teachings of George Herbart Mead are still the top most in ranking in the field of communication theory. The teachings had a great impact in the communication field to the extent that his students went an extra mile to publish his teachings after his death. Herbert Blumer is one of his notable students who developed the theory and gave it the name Symbolic Interactionism. Praises attributed to this work also led to creation of other theories based on his works. The value and validity of this theory contributes to its immense evaluations in relation to meanings that are applied to it and also in its application in fields of study and research. Worthiness associated with this theory has attracted a lot of criticism and discussion regarding it but this has not been a deterrence of the theories application in various aspects of the day-to- day life. The theory engulfs culture, society and psychology in one circle in an aim to have a deeper understanding of life. References Plummer, K. (2007). Symbolic interactionism. Aldershot, Hants, England: E. Elgar. Meltzer, B. N., Petras, J. W., & Reynolds, L. T. (2011). Symbolic interactionism: genesis, varieties and criticism. London: Routledge & K. Paul. Turner, J. (2006). Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Lea and Blanchard. Delamater, J., Myers, D., &Collett, J.(2014). Social Psychology. London: Routledge Griffin, E. (2011). A First Look at Communication Theory. Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill Brinkerhoff, D., White, L., & Ortega, S. (2007). Essentials of Sociology. New York: Pantheon. Andersen, M. (2007). Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. New York: Pantheon. Read More