2 Interpersonal Communication (by Amanda Williams)
Introduction
As Chapter 1 noted, communication theory explores how communication functions, including its influencing factors. Interpersonal communication, integral to this field, delves more specifically into interactions and relationships.
More precisely, interpersonal communication is closely linked to audience consumption. This connection is evident when considering how messages from the media impact individuals and shape their interpersonal interactions. The role of media becomes significant in influencing perceptions and attitudes during our exchanges with each other. Better appreciating the complexities of these relationship is key to making us more effective communicators.
While numerous theories provide insights into interpersonal dynamics, one of the most influential is symbolic interactionism. As this chapter will reveal, symbolic interactionism sheds light on the significance of symbols and shared meanings in interpersonal communication, offering a comprehensive framework to appreciate who we are and how we show up for others.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter you will be able to
- Explain why symbolic interactionism is an important part of interpersonal communication and what it adds to Communication Studies.
- Identify the historical context in which symbolic interactionism is embedded.
- Explain the foundational principles of symbolic interactionism.
- Recognize the continued relevance of symbolic interactionism to contemporary examples.
- Describe limitations to this theory.
History of Symbolic Interactionism and Key Thinkers
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that gained prominence in the early 20th century (Openstax, 2021, Chapter 1). Defined simply it is a theory that centers on the interpersonal dynamics within a society, symbolic interactionism argues that communication, involving the exchange of meaning through language and symbols, serves as the key mechanism through which individuals’ thoughts construct understanding and navigate their distinct social environments (Openstax, 2021, Chapter 1).
Four major theorists are often credited with its development (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2023, Chapter 5; Openstax, 2021, Chapter 1).
Charles Horton Cooley, an early theorist, introduced the concept of the “looking-glass self.” Cooley emphasized how individuals shape their self-concept through social interactions and the perceptions of others.
George Herbert Mead is recognized as a key thinker and one of the founders of symbolic interactionism. His influential ideas, exploring the role of symbols, language, and social interaction in the formation of self, were posthumously compiled in works such as “Mind, Self, and Society.”
Herbert Blumer is credited with coining the term “symbolic interactionism” to describe the sociological perspective that builds upon the ideas of George Herbert Mead. Blumer played a key role in formalizing and popularizing Mead’s theories, and he used the term to capture the essence of the theoretical framework. He introduced the term in the early 20th century, and it has since become the widely accepted label for this sociological perspective.
Erving Goffman introduced the concept of “dramaturgy,” viewing social life as a theatrical performance where individuals engage in impression management to present a desired image to others. A fun fact is that Goffman is actually a Canadian!
Foundational Concepts
There are several foundational concepts key to symbolic interaction (Griffin et al., 2023, Chapter 5; Introduction to Sociology 3e, 2023). Each is outlined below.
Symbols
Language, as a system of symbols, plays a pivotal role in Mead’s (1934) framework. He identified certain symbols as “significant symbols,” with agreed-upon meanings within a social group. Language allows for communicating and sharing these symbols, fostering a shared reality and frame of reference among individuals.
More importantly, Mead (1934) reminded us that meaning is not inherent in symbols; rather, it is socially constructed. The same symbol can have different meanings for different individuals or groups. Symbolic interactionism proposes that meaning is negotiated and shaped through social interactions, and individuals continuously interpret and redefine meanings.
An Example in Practice
An example illustrating the role of language as a system of symbols and the negotiation of meanings can be found in the use of emojis in digital communication.
Emojis are visual symbols that convey emotions, expressions, or ideas in a concise and universally recognizable way. While they are not traditional linguistic symbols, they serve as a contemporary form of symbolic communication. Emojis have agreed-upon meanings within online communities and are widely used across various social media platforms and messaging apps.
The meaning of an emoji is not inherent but socially constructed, and it can vary based on the context and the individuals involved in the communication. For instance, a simple smiley face 🙂 can convey happiness or friendliness, but its interpretation might differ based on the relationship between the communicators or the overall tone of the conversation. Moreover, would it ever be appropriate to use a ❤️emoji when communicating with a colleague? Why or why not?
In the realm of symbolic interactionism, the use of emojis exemplifies the negotiation and shaping of meaning through social interactions. People engage in continuous interpretation and redefine the meanings of emojis based on their interactions and the evolving norms within digital communication. Emojis contribute to a shared reality and context amongst individuals, showcasing how contemporary symbols play a pivotal role in the construction of meaning within a social context.
It is worth noting, however, this shared meaning can differ across generations and even countries. For example, Rawlings (2018) notes while the thumbs-up symbol signifies approval in Western culture, it has historically been perceived as vulgar and offensive in Greece and the Middle East. Rawlings (2018) provides other examples of this lack of global universality and points to the importance of embedding these concepts in a specific socio-cultural context.
Self (I, me, generalized other and significant other)
The concept of the self, according to Mead (1934), consists of two components: the I and the me. The I represents the spontaneous, impulsive, unexpected and creative aspect of the self, while the me is the socialized and conforming aspect shaped by societal expectations.
Mead’s (1934) notion of the I, while harder to predict, emerges in various scenarios. When individuals participate in creative pursuits like art, music, or writing, the I comes to the forefront. Similarly, in everyday conversations or interactions, the I is in action when a person responds in a manner not strictly guided by social expectations or roles. Moreover, in moments of self-reflection, individuals access their I to assess personal experiences, emotions, and thoughts independently of societal norms. Lastly, the introduction of new ideas, inventions, or approaches reflects the I by breaking away from established norms and contributing something unique to the social context.
In contrast, Mead’s (1934) me is pervasive across various dimensions of social conduct. Conforming to societal norms, exemplified by observing etiquette, obeying laws, or meeting cultural expectations, represents a distinct display of the me. Moreover, engaging in diverse social roles, whether as a student, parent, or employee, underscores the influence of the me, as individuals adopt behaviours associated with these roles.
Mead (1934) also introduced the concepts of significant other and generalized other to explore the formation of self via precise social interactions. The significant other refers to specific individuals who hold particular importance in an individual’s life, influencing their identity and shaping societal expectations through personal interactions. In contrast, the generalized other represents the internalized sense of the broader social group, it is made up of shared norms and values that guide individual behaviour per societal expectations. Together, these concepts show the dynamic interactions between personal relationships and societal influences in shaping an individual’s notion of self within the symbolic interactionist framework.
Mead (1934) stressed the importance of social interaction in the development of the self.
Family, peers, educational institutions, and media contribute to shaping the generalized other by providing frameworks for recognizing acceptable behaviour, values, and norms.
As individuals mature, their interactions with various social groups and exposure to diverse perspectives contribute to the evolution of the generalized other. It is not a static entity but adapts and changes over time as societal norms shift, cultural values evolve, and individuals engage with different communities.
The generalized other is influenced by cultural changes, social movements, and shifts in societal attitudes. Individuals continuously negotiate and reinterpret the meaning of societal expectations through ongoing interactions and experiences. As society evolves, so does the generalized other, reflecting the dynamic nature of social norms and values.
An Example in Practice
A pop culture example that aligns with Mead’s concepts is found in the character development of Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Throughout the MCU films, Tony Stark’s journey demonstrates the interaction between the I and the me, as well as the influence of significant others and the generalized other.
Initially, Tony Stark is portrayed as a brilliant and self-indulgent inventor. His character transforms when he is taken captive and witnesses the destructive potential of his weapons. This traumatic experience prompts him to develop the Iron Man suit, marking the emergence of the socially responsible and conforming aspect of himself (me) as he aligns his actions with societal expectations for the greater good.
The concept of the significant other is evident in Tony Stark’s relationships with characters like Pepper Potts, James “Rhodey” Rhodes, and mentor figures like Yinsen (all figures in the movie). These individuals play pivotal roles in shaping Tony’s identity and influencing his choices throughout the narrative.
Furthermore, Tony Stark’s evolution aligns with the idea of the generalized other. As he becomes a superhero and a public figure, he internalizes societal expectations and responsibilities associated with heroism. The broader societal norms and values surrounding heroism guide Tony’s behaviour and contribute to the development of his self-concept.
In summary, Tony Stark’s character arc in the MCU serves as a compelling example of Mead’s concepts, illustrating the how personal experiences, relationships, and societal influences all work together in shaping an individual’s sense of self.
Taking the role of others
Additionally, Mead (1934) discussed the stages of play and games in childhood development. In play, children engage in imaginative role-taking, while in games, they learn to consider the perspectives of multiple others, contributing to the development of a more sophisticated self-concept.
Central to Mead’s (1934) theory is the concept of taking the role of the other, where individuals mentally put themselves in the position of others to anticipate their reactions. This process is crucial for the development of self-awareness and social understanding.
Mead’s ideas laid the groundwork for appreciating how the self is not a static entity but a dynamic, socially constructed phenomenon, known as constructivism.
An Example in Practice
A contemporary example of taking the role of the other is evident in diversity and inclusion training programs within workplaces. Organizations recognize the importance of fostering a diverse and inclusive environment. During training sessions, employees are often encouraged to engage in activities that simulate the experiences of individuals from different backgrounds.
For instance, employees might participate in role-playing scenarios where they take on the roles of colleagues with diverse identities and backgrounds. This immersive exercise helps individuals gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and perspectives faced by their coworkers. By temporarily adopting the perspectives of others, employees can develop empathy, awareness, and a greater appreciation for diversity in the workplace. This active engagement in the role of the other contributes to a more inclusive appreciation of work culture.
Looking Glass Self
Another key theorist, Cooley (1902), introduced the concept of the looking-glass self and it further explains the power of taking the role of the other by examining how individuals develop their self-concept through social interactions. The looking-glass self is a process that involves three main parts:
- Imagining how others perceive us: Individuals imagine how they appear to others in social situations. This involves considering the judgments, opinions, and reactions that others might have toward them.
- Imagining how others judge us: Individuals then speculate on the judgments that others make about them based on their perceived appearance. This step involves considering whether others view them positively or negatively, with approval or disapproval.
- The final stage of the looking-glass self involves forming a self-concept based on the imagined perceptions and judgments of others. Individuals incorporate these perceptions into their self-perception, influencing their self-esteem and overall sense of identity.
In essence, the looking-glass self suggests that our self-concept is not formed in isolation but is heavily influenced by our perceptions of how others perceive and judge us. Cooley’s (1902) emphasizes the social nature of the self, highlighting the role of social interactions, feedback, and the opinions of others in shaping an individual’s self-image.
An Example in Practice
According to Nickerson (2023), contemporary researchers have explored the looking-glass self within virtual environments and have highlighted the findings of Martey and Consalvo (2011), who investigated the avatar appearances of 211 individuals in the virtual realm of Second Life (SL). Employing a combination of observational analysis, online interviews, and surveys, Martey and Consalvo (2011) examined how players use avatars to express self-identity within the context of group affiliations. These group identities encompass diverse categories such as gender, race, sexuality, and specific virtual communities like furries or role players. The research delves into how players make choices regarding their avatar’s appearance based on their association or alignment with groups and the accompanying social norms. Despite the extensive freedom offered by Second Life for avatar customization, the study concludes that participants actively strive for socially acceptable appearances, carefully crafted to be interpreted in specific ways within the dynamics of their interactions. Cooley’s looking-glass self and the player’s intersection with the “self as other” help explain the lack of diversity in choice (Martey & Consalvo, 2011, p. 178).
Self-fulfilling Prophecy
Another key idea in symbolic interactionism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Self-fulfilling prophecies are situations in which a belief or expectation influences one’s behaviour in a way that leads the belief to come true. Symbolic interactionism connects to self-fulfilling prophecies through the concept of the looking-glass self. According to Cooley (1902), individuals develop their self-concept by imagining how others perceive them. If an individual internalizes a negative expectation (prophecy) about how others view them, it may influence their behaviour in a way that fulfills that expectation. This was further developed by Merton (1949) who stated: “The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the originally false conception come true. The specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error” (para. 2).
An Example in Practice
While we can think of many negative examples of self-fulfilling prophecies, for example, a negative self-fulfilling prophecy could be a student who believes they are incapable of succeeding in a particular subject. Due to this belief, the student may approach their studies with a defeatist attitude, not putting in sufficient effort or seeking help when needed. As a result of their negative mindset and lack of effort, the student may indeed perform poorly in the subject, fulfilling the initial negative expectation. The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling because the individual’s beliefs and behaviours contribute to the outcome they initially feared.
In contrast, athletes often use positive affirmations and visualization techniques to enhance their performance, creating less of a fearful climate and something more positive. For instance, a basketball player might consistently visualize making successful shots, winning games, and receiving accolades. Through this process, they develop a positive mindset and increase self-confidence. As a result, the athlete may attribute their actual success on the court to the positive mindset and visualization techniques, considering it a manifestation of their self-fulfilling prophecy. As Connors (2016) notes Michael Jordan, arguably one of the greatest basketball players of all time, used visualization to mentally rehearse game situations, envisioning successful outcomes.
Dramaturgy
Finally, dramaturgy, a concept defined by Goffman (2002) helps us appreciate Goffman (2002) likens these interactions to theatrical performances, where individuals adopt the roles of actors on a stage. The central premise of dramaturgy revolves around the idea that people engage in impression management, carefully curating the image they present to others. In this framework, social life is divided into the front stage and backstage (Goffman, 2002). The front stage represents public interactions where individuals conform to societal expectations, while the backstage is a private realm where authenticity may be more prevalent. The concept underscores the role of roles and scripts in social encounters, emphasizing how individuals follow established societal norms. Impression management involves using various cues, such as clothing and body language, to convey a specific image. The audience, composed of those with whom individuals interact, plays a crucial role as their reactions shape the ongoing performance. In essence, dramaturgy offers insights into the dynamic and conscious nature of social interactions, illuminating how individuals actively shape their self-presentation to navigate everyday life.
An Example in Practice
Drawing on Goffman’s (2002) example, let’s explore the expanded roles of a server within the restaurant context. Picture the front stage as the vibrant restaurant floor, where servers meticulously embody their identity as those who “serve” the diners. Here, responsibilities go beyond order-taking, encompassing the creation of a welcoming atmosphere, anticipation of patrons’ needs, and ensuring a seamless dining experience. Engaging with customers, answering inquiries, and maintaining a professional demeanour are integral facets of their front-stage duties.
Now, shift to the backstage, which manifests as the kitchen—an enclave where the server’s identity can temporarily relax between customer interactions. In this realm, responsibilities pivot toward tasks contributing to the restaurant’s behind-the-scenes functionality. Servers coordinate with kitchen staff, organize orders, and prepare for upcoming service demands. Importantly, the backstage serves as a space where servers can briefly unwind, providing a respite before rejoining the front stage.
The backstage becomes a retreat where servers have the chance to relax, regroup, and recharge. This relaxed environment facilitates camaraderie among staff, fostering teamwork and cohesion. The transition through the kitchen doors symbolizes not only a shift in physical space but also a mental shift. Servers, having briefly relaxed backstage, return to the front stage ready to re-engage with patrons, embodying their role with renewed energy and composure. The dynamics between front stage and backstage highlights the server’s ability to balance their responsibilities, maintaining a polished exterior while finding moments of respite and relaxation in the backstage.
Connections to Why We Study Communications
Studying symbolic interactionism within communication theory aligns with the four primary reasons outlined in Chapter 1 for studying communication. Firstly, symbolic interactionism emphasizes how communication shapes individuals’ self-concepts and identities through social interactions, aiding in identity formation and relationship building. Secondly, it underscores the role of communication in shaping collective perceptions and societal norms, contributing to civic engagement and democracy. Thirdly, this perspective highlights the active role of the audience in interpreting and negotiating meaning, providing insights into audience reception and interpretation. Finally, symbolic interactionism provides a lens for examining power relations and discourse within society, aiding in the analysis of power dynamics and fostering more inclusive and equitable communication practices.
Limitations
Symbolic interactionism faces criticism on multiple fronts.
Critics argue that the theory’s micro-level focus on individual interactions tends to overshadow broader structural factors contributing to social dynamics, potentially neglecting systemic issues like societal inequalities and power imbalances (Manis & Meltzer, 1978).
A notable example of this criticism lies in face-to-face interactions between a police officer and a Black person versus those with a white person. The dynamics significantly differ, highlighting the importance of addressing systemic inequalities, particularly pervasive racism within the criminal justice system. Recognizing and tackling these structural issues is crucial for a nuanced interpretation within the interactionist framework (OpenStax, 2021).
Another critique revolves around the perceived ambiguity in the terminology used within symbolic interactionism, leading to challenges in precisely defining and consistently applying its concepts (Griffin et al, 2023). Testing the theory of symbolic interactionism is challenging due to its inherent focus on interpretations, making it subjective. The qualitative nature of the theory limits the ease with which it can be quantified or empirically tested.
Furthermore, as demonstrated in the discussion of emojis, symbols may be interpreted incorrectly or differently among various groups of people. This oversight was not accounted for in the initial theory, emphasizing assumptions of homogeneity in perspectives. A similar issue arises with the concept of the generalized other, which can oversimplify the diversity of perspectives within society, potentially contributing to stereotypes and overlooking individual nuances (Lurato, 2015).
Despite these criticisms, it’s essential to acknowledge that symbolic interactionism has made valuable contributions to examinations of human behaviour. However, its limitations underscore the need for a nuanced consideration of its concepts in different contexts.
Summary
In conclusion, the exploration of symbolic interactionism in this chapter has shed light on the intricate dynamics of interpersonal communication. By tracing its historical roots and foundational concepts, including symbols, language, and the negotiation of meaning, we’ve gained valuable insights into how communication shapes human interaction.
Three key takeaways emerge from this discussion:
- Symbolic interactionism emphasizes the role of symbols and shared meanings in shaping human interaction, underscoring the significance of communication in deciphering complex communication patterns.
- The concepts of the self, including the I, me, significant other, and generalized other, provide a nuanced understanding of how personal relationships and societal influences dynamically mould an individual’s sense of self.
- The exploration of phenomena such as taking the role of others, the looking-glass self, and dramaturgy, highlights the role of perception, impression management, and the theatrical nature of social interactions within the framework of symbolic interactionism.
While symbolic interactionism offers valuable insights into human behaviour, it is important to acknowledge its limitations, including the oversimplification of the generalized other and the potential perpetuation of stereotypes through self-fulfilling prophecies. Nonetheless, this exploration underscores the rich conceptual framework of symbolic interactionism and its contributions to appreciating the dynamic relationship between the self and society.
References
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Looking-glass self. The production of reality: Essays and readings on social interaction. Teaching Sociology, 30, 381–128.
Connors, C. D. (2016, June 16). The formula that leads to wild success: Part 1, Michael Jordan. Medium. https://medium.com/the-mission/the-formula-that-leads-to-wild-success-part-1-michael-jordan-8d3fe552592
Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2023). A first look at communication theory (11 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY,
Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago, Chicag, pp. 144–166, 173–178.
Lurato, G. (2015). Rigidity of the generalized other, narrowness of the otherness and demodernization, in the framework of symbolic interactionism. Hal Science. https://hal.science/hal-01167165/
Martey, R. M., & Consalvo, M. (2011). Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group identity in Second Life. Popular Communication, 9 (3), 165–180.
Merton, R. K. (2011). Self-fulfilling prophecy. Lapham’s Quarterly, 4(4).https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/future/self-fulfilling-prophecy
OpenStax. (2021). Introduction to sociology (Chapter 1, Section 3). https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-3-theoretical-perspectives-in-sociology
Nickeson, C. (2023, Sept 22). Looking-glass self: Theory, definition & examples. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/charles-cooleys-looking-glass-self.html
Rawlings, A. (2018, Dec 11). Why emoji mean different things in different cultures. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181211-why-emoji-mean-different-things-in-different-cultures