Main Sociological Theorists in Symbolic Interactionism

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• George Herbert Mead (1863–1931)
• Herbert Blumer (1900–1987)
• Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929)
• Erving Goffman (1922–1982)
• Anselm Strauss (1916–1996)
• Manford Kuhn (1911–1963)
• Further Developments and Contemporary Extensions
• Key Shared Themes Across These Theorists
• Conclusion

Introduction

Symbolic interactionism is a cornerstone theoretical perspective in sociology, focusing on how humans interpret and negotiate meaning through everyday social interactions. Its foundational premise is that human behavior is shaped by the meanings we assign to objects, events, and roles, and that these meanings arise and evolve from social interplay. Rather than viewing society as a static system, symbolic interactionism envisions a dynamic process where every exchange contributes to the continuous shaping—and reshaping—of social reality.

The centrality of meaning in this perspective offers powerful insights into identity formation, social structure, and the complexities of human communication. Symbolic interactionists argue that language, gestures, and symbols are not mere conduits of information; they are the fabric through which individuals learn, interpret, and re-interpret their relationships and roles. In short, society is understood not as an abstract entity but as an ongoing social construction maintained through billions of daily interactions.

This article explores the major theorists who have significantly contributed to the development and elaboration of symbolic interactionism. While no single scholar alone can claim exclusive credit, each thinker presented here introduced groundbreaking concepts or methodologies that enriched and expanded the scope of this perspective, forming a complex mosaic of ideas that continue to shape sociological inquiry.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931)

George Herbert Mead is widely recognized as the philosophical bedrock of symbolic interactionism. Although he never published a comprehensive volume solely dedicated to the theory, his ideas were systematized posthumously by his students and colleagues, who drew upon his extensive lectures and course notes. Mead’s intellectual lineage is profoundly influenced by the pragmatist tradition, particularly the works of John Dewey, William James, and Charles Peirce, all of whom prioritized practical, experiential learning.

Mead’s Core Contributions

1. Social Origin of the Mind: Mead posited that the mind and the self emerge from social processes. For Mead, consciousness is not simply an internal phenomenon; it arises within the realm of social interaction. Language, gestures, and symbols all play crucial roles in helping individuals form self-awareness.
2. The “I” and the “Me”: Mead delineated the self into two complementary parts. The “I” is the spontaneous, creative part of the self—the source of individual impulses and innovations. The “Me,” by contrast, reflects the internalized norms, values, and expectations gleaned from society. By interacting, these two parts constantly shape personal identity.
3. Role-Taking and Perspective-Taking: Mead believed we develop a sense of self by learning to take on the perspective of others, which he referred to as “role-taking.” This process enables empathy and social understanding, laying the groundwork for civilized social life.
4. Generalized Other: A key extension of role-taking is the notion of the “generalized other”—the collective attitude of the broader community. As individuals mature, they learn to see themselves from the standpoint of this broader collective, thus internalizing social norms.

Lasting Impact

Mead’s philosophy underscores the profound interdependence between society and the individual. By explaining how the self emerges from social interaction, he set a strong foundation for further exploration of micro-level social processes. His ideas continue to influence a wide array of disciplines, including social psychology, anthropology, and even neuroscience, where the social dimensions of cognition and identity remain areas of active research.

Herbert Blumer (1900–1987)

Herbert Blumer was an American sociologist and a direct student of George Herbert Mead. It was Blumer who eventually coined the term “symbolic interactionism,” giving the perspective both a name and a more explicit theoretical framework. Even though Blumer engaged in diverse research areas, his most enduring legacy remains his systematic articulation of the principles behind symbolic interactionism.

Blumer’s Core Contributions

1. Three Basic Premises: Blumer famously reduced the symbolic interactionist approach to three concise premises:
   • Humans act toward objects or situations based on the meanings those objects or situations hold for them.
   • These meanings are derived from the process of social interaction.
   • Meanings are not static; they are modified and handled through an interpretive process people use in dealing with their social world.
2. Critique of Positivism: Much of Blumer’s work questioned the merits of rigid, positivistic methodologies in sociology, which strive for universal laws. Instead, he argued for a flexible, qualitative approach, emphasizing the fluid, ever-changing nature of social life.
3. Methodological Innovations: Blumer advocated participant observation as a preferred method for gathering rich, detailed data about interactions. His insistence on “sensitizing concepts” reflected a stance that the complexity of human experience often eludes strict categorization.

Lasting Impact

By unifying Mead’s foundational ideas under one conceptual umbrella, Blumer breathed life into symbolic interactionism as a distinct sociological school of thought. His emphasis on the interpretive process—how individuals actively shape and reshape meanings—remains central to how contemporary sociologists approach qualitative studies of small-group interaction.

Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929)

Although Charles Horton Cooley is not always placed within symbolic interactionism’s official lineage, his work has deeply influenced the tradition, especially through his seminal concept of the “looking-glass self.” Cooley was interested in how individuals form their sense of self through their perceptions of others’ judgments.

Cooley’s Core Contributions

1. The Looking-Glass Self: This concept explains that individuals develop their self-image based on how they believe others see them, how they interpret those evaluations, and the resulting feelings about themselves. While simple in form, it profoundly underscores the reciprocal relationship between social feedback and self-identity.
2. Primary Groups: Cooley introduced the notion of primary groups—small, close-knit relationships like family and close friends—which he saw as the most significant environments for cultivating one’s self and social identity.
3. Sympathetic Introspection: This was Cooley’s method for understanding human behavior, suggesting that sociologists should empathetically project themselves into the situations they study. This approach resonates with symbolic interactionism’s reliance on understanding individuals’ subjective meanings.

Lasting Impact

Cooley’s perspective that the self is socially constructed and fluid laid early groundwork for symbolic interactionism’s subsequent explorations. While Mead and Blumer focused on how meanings arise within interactions, Cooley highlighted how self-perceptions are largely a reflection of what one believes others perceive—a dynamic that remains central to discussions about self-esteem, identity, and social conformity.

Erving Goffman (1922–1982)