Analytical Text – The Importance of Meaning
Symbolic intercationism analyse how the society
imposed subjective meaning to objects, events, human behaviour and language.
This is where the study of symbolic interaction focuses on how symbol can be
interpreted into meanings through human interaction. The interactionists also
study the nature of human actions and interaction as well as the relationship
between individual and society.
According to Herbert Blummer (1962), he claimed that
human interaction formed by the use of symbol and signification. He also see
human as unique because people interact with each other by defining each
other’s action. They do not just simply react to the others’ action instead
they try to obtain meaning attached from the others’ action. Alternatively, behaviour
is considered as the object and the behaviour is denoted symbolically as a way
of interaction which gives meaning.
The interactionists see society as the product of
everyday interaction of individuals. This is because they believe that it is
individual who shaped the society through his/her behaviour, then, once the
society is developed, the behaviour is then organised. For instance, the
society is the one who determines which behaviour is appropriate and acceptable
and how an individual should behave within a society.
As stated by Blummer (1969), he defined 3 basic
principles of this theoretical perspective which are meaning, language and
thought. Meaning is the first basis where he believes that human would react to
anything which has meaning that the meaning is given by human to that particular
thing. For example, an individual categorise human being as friends or enemies.
The second basis would be the language where the meaning is derived from or
arise when there is social interaction. It means that meaning is attached to
human actions which include body gesture and the way people talk. Meanwhile
different meaning would be interpreted to that particular action thus
interpretive process is needed to modify the meaning depending on the
individual’s situation that he/she encounters.
Apart from that, the social construction of society and the importance of symbol causes the interactionist to emphasize that the meaning of "meaning" is the most fundamental.This is because only through human
interaction, meaning can be interpreted. But in order to make others understand
the meaning, individual also need to adjust their behaviour. The process of
adjustment involves the human ability to imaginatively practice other possible
alternative lines of action before they act. It can be further assisted by our
ability to think about and to react to our actions and even ourselves as
symbolic objects.
However, according
to Arthur Brittan (1973), he criticizes symbolic interactionism for being too
obsessive with meaning. He sees that the social world is too easy to be
explained in symbolic analysis. Although the interactionists emphasised that
the meaning of “meaning” is significant, social change and social structure are
being treated lightly and thus it does not provide the true picture of the
society.
Brittan
(1973) also criticized that the interactionism supports the metaphysics of
meaning. He claimed that it is dangerous that an obsession is made out of
everyday life, especially when the perspective comes to give a practical full
explanation of human interaction. Norman K. Denzin (1969) claimed that
interactionism theory fail to indicate a clear and firm true sources of the
definitions of human interaction as well as the meaning in which both are
considered as crucial for understanding the nature of human behavior.
In
conclusion, both symbol and meaning are seen as one of the important factors
that contribute to successful human interaction. Blumer (1962) claimed the three basic premises which
are meaning, language and thought. Interactionists believe that society is
continuously created through individuals’ interaction. They also emphasize the
meaning of “meaning” is fundamental due to social construction of society. However,
Brittan (1973) criticizes that the social world is too
easy to be explained in symbolic analysis. This is where the social change and
social structure are treated lightly and thus it does not provide the true
picture of society.
REFERENCES:
Blumer, H.
(1962). Society as Symbolic Interaction. Rose. A. M. (Ed.) Human Behavior and
Social Process: An interactionist Approach. Pp.319-322. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Blumer, H.
(1969). Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. PP.3-18. Englewood
Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Griffin, E.
(2012). A First Look At Communication Theory. 8th Edition. Pp.
54-58. New York: The McGraw-Hill.
Meltzer, B.
N., Petras J. W. And Reynolds, L. T. (1975). Symbolic Intercationism: Genesis,
Varieties and Criticism. Pp.84-89. USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment