Symbolic Interactionism: Understanding and Interpreting Deviance

Introduction

Symbolic Interactionism, a sociological theory originating from the works of Blumer, provides a profound lens through which to examine the nature and constituents of deviance by delving into human group life and conduct. In contrast to theories centered around societal laws and structures, Symbolic Interactionism focuses on the interactions among individuals within a society. This essay aims to delve into the key principles of Blumer's "Symbolic Interactionism" and explore the definitions of deviance within different cultural contexts.

Blumer's "Symbolic Interactionism"

Blumer's development of Symbolic Interactionism was deeply influenced by John Dewey's assertion that understanding human beings requires consideration of their environment.

Summarizing this perspective, Blumer (1994:1) defined Symbolic Interactionism as a meticulous study of human group life and conduct. The theory unfolds around three core principles: meaning, language, and thought.

The first principle, meaning, posits that individuals act based on the meaning they attribute to people or things. Language, the second principle, serves as the conduit for expressing meaning through symbols, echoing Mead's assertion that naming is fundamental to human society and knowledge.

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Proficient in: Theory

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The third principle involves the interpretation of meanings through thought processes, fostering a role-taking concept where different viewpoints are enacted.

Sociologist Becker expanded upon Blumer's theory, delving into the realm of deviance within the Symbolic Interactionist framework. According to Becker (1963:8), the deviant is one labeled as such by society. Deviant behavior, rather than being inherent, is a consequence of societal labeling and the application of rules and sanctions to an individual. Becker emphasizes that deviance is seen through the eyes of those who label it, shaped by their responses to a particular action (Becker 1963).

To further comprehend Symbolic Interactionism's application to deviance, it is crucial to explore Becker's notion that "The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied, deviant behavior is behavior that people so label" (Becker 1963:8). This assertion fundamentally challenges conventional perspectives that deem deviance as an intrinsic quality of an individual's actions. Instead, it underscores the socially constructed nature of deviance, highlighting the pivotal role of societal labels in defining and shaping deviant behavior.

Moreover, Becker's extension of Blumer's theory illuminates the intricate interplay between societal norms and individual actions. The crux lies in the process of labeling, where deviance is not an inherent trait but a consequence of how society reacts to certain behaviors. This dynamic interaction between individuals and society underscores the malleability of deviance and prompts a reevaluation of prevailing assumptions about the nature of socially deviant acts.

Blumer's framework also prompts reflection on the intricate connections between language, symbols, and the construction of deviant meanings. Language, as a vehicle for expressing and communicating meaning, becomes the linchpin in the process of labeling deviance. Mead's insight that naming assigns meaning gains salience in understanding how deviance is socially constructed. The symbolic meanings attributed to gestures, actions, and behaviors become integral to the societal interpretation of deviance.

Definitions of Deviance

Symbolic Interactionism contends that definitions of deviance are not universally fixed but vary across groups due to distinct structures, moral values, and cultural contexts. The symbolic meanings associated with gestures or symbols differ among cultures, influencing the interpretation of deviant acts. For instance, the thumbs-up gesture, symbolizing approval in English culture, may be perceived as offensive in Brazilian culture.

This cultural relativity in defining deviance aligns seamlessly with Blumer's model, suggesting that the initial misunderstanding of symbols leads to divergent interpretations, resulting in deviant labels. Cooley (1907) introduces the concept of public opinion, a cooperative activity of many minds shaping the social consciousness and influencing ideas about deviance within a community.

It is crucial to recognize that these diverse definitions of deviance are not arbitrary but are deeply rooted in the socio-cultural fabric of each community. Functionalists argue that deviance serves as a necessary function in society by delineating boundaries and reinforcing norms. However, Symbolic Interactionism offers a more nuanced understanding, positing that deviance is not an inherent quality of an act but a product of social interaction and labeling.

Furthermore, deviance is not a monolithic concept but a fluid and evolving one shaped by the ever-changing dynamics of society. As societal values and norms shift, so do the boundaries of deviance. The same behavior that was once considered deviant may no longer carry the same stigma in a different cultural or historical context. This dynamic nature of deviance challenges the rigidity of traditional definitions and emphasizes the need for a more context-sensitive approach.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Symbolic Interactionism provides a unique and insightful perspective on deviance, emphasizing the pivotal role of social interactions, meanings, and interpretations in shaping societal norms. Blumer's foundational principles, coupled with Becker's extension of the theory to the realm of deviance, offer valuable insights into the labeling and understanding of deviance.

Moreover, the cultural context emerges as a crucial factor in defining deviance, as diverse societies ascribe different meanings to symbols and actions. The fluidity of deviance, influenced by societal responses and changing norms, challenges static definitions and underscores the dynamic nature of this complex phenomenon.

By embracing Symbolic Interactionism, scholars and researchers can engage in a more nuanced and comprehensive exploration of deviance, transcending traditional boundaries and delving into the intricate interplay between individuals and society. This approach encourages a deeper understanding of the socially constructed nature of deviance and prompts continual reevaluation of our perceptions and assumptions about what constitutes deviant behavior.