Symbols, Selves And Social Reality A Symbolic Interactionist Approach To SSocial Psychology And Soci

Although Blumer devised the term symbolic interaction in 1937,[19] the early development of this theoretical approach to social analysis is largely credited to the work of George Herbert Mead during his time at the University of Chicago.[2][20][21] Blumer played a key role in keeping the tradition of symbolic interactionism alive by incorporating it into his teachings at the university.[22] He presented his articles on symbolic interactionism in a single volume in which he conceptualized symbolic interaction into three main points:

Blumer believed that what creates society itself is people engaging in social interaction. It follows then that social reality only exists in the context of the human experience.[26] His theory of symbolic interaction, some argue, is thus closer to a theoretical framework (based on the significance of meanings[3][23] and the interaction between individuals[23]) than an applicable theory.[25]

This complex interaction between meanings, objects, and behaviors, Blumer reiterated, is a uniquely human process because it requires behavioral responses based on the interpretation of symbols, rather than behavioral responses based on environmental stimuli.[20] As social life is a "fluid and negotiated process," to understand each other, humans must intrinsically engage in symbolic interaction.[21] Blumer criticized the contemporary social science of his day because instead of using symbolic interactionism they made false conclusions about humans by reducing human decisions to social pressures like social positions and roles. Blumer was more invested in psychical interactionism that holds that the meanings of symbols are not universal, but are rather subjective and are "attached" to the symbols and the receiver depending on how they choose to interpret them.[22]

Blumer believed that when positivistic methods were applied to social research, they created results that were ignorant to the empirical realities of the social world. Because people act towards the world based on the subjective meanings they attribute to different objects (symbolic interactionism), individuals construct worlds that are inherently subjective. Therefore, "objective" analysis is intrinsically subjugated to the researcher's own social reality, only documents the researchers own personal assumptions about social interaction, and ultimately yields biased findings.[3][29] For a researcher to truly understand sociological phenomena, Blumer asserted, they must understand their subject's subjective interpretations of reality.[29]

Thus Blumer advocated for sociological research that sympathetically and subjectively incorporates the viewpoints of the subject, therefore pushing for a micro-sociological approach.[4] Concluding that there is little validity in research that attempted to understand the social world objectively, Blumer felt that objective interpretations of society are intrinsically bias to the researchers social location and thus have little empirical value.[29] To truthfully uncover the social realities of individuals different from one's self, an observer must be mindful of their framework and be open to different understandings of social reality.[3][29]

Blumer is well known for his connection with George Herbert Mead. Blumer was a follower of Mead's social-psychological work on the relationship between self and society, and Mead heavily influenced Blumer's development of Symbolic Interactionism. Mead transferred the subject field of social psychology to Blumer's sociology. One important aspect Blumer learned from Mead was that in order for us to understand the meaning of social actions, we must put ourselves in others' shoes to truly understand what social symbols they feel to be important. However, Blumer also deviated from Mead's work. Blumer was a proponent of a more micro-focused approach to sociology and focused on the subjective consciousness and symbolic meanings of individuals.[4][22]

Although Blumer devised the term symbolic interaction in 1931, the early development of this theoretical approach to social analysis is largely credited to the work of George Herbert Mead during his time at the University of Chicago. Blumer played a key role in keeping the tradition of symbolic interactionism alive by incorporating it into his teachings at the University. He presented his articles on symbolic interactionism in a single volume in which he conceptualized symbolic interaction into three main points:

Blumer believed that what creates society itself is people engaging in social interaction. It follows then that social reality only exists in the context of the human experience. His theory of symbolic interaction, some argue, is thus closer to a theoretical framework (based on the significance of meanings and the interaction between individuals) than an applicable theory.

Thus Blumer advocated for sociological research that sympathetically and subjectively incorporates the viewpoints of the subject, therefore pushing for a micro-sociological approach. Concluding that there is little validity in research that attempted to understand the social world objectively, Blumer felt that objective interpretations of society are intrinsically bias to the researchers social location and thus have little empirical value. To truthfully uncover the social realities of individuals different from one's self, an observer must be mindful of their framework and be open to different understanding of social reality.

In a globalized business environment, interaction across linguistic boundaries is becoming a normal part of everyday life. In these encounters language differences may affect the formation of social identities among organization members. While studies based on Social Identity Theory perceive...... the link between identity and language to be linear, this article takes a different approach. By drawing on anthropological theories on ethnic identity it is argued that the relation between language and social identity is negotiated in interaction. In the empirical analysis the article focuses...... on the encounter between expatriates and local employees of a Danish subsidiary in England. The findings show that identity making may be actualized by competition for resources and recognition. This can be done by investing certain objects such as the symbolic application of language with certain identifications...

Some personality psychologists have found a structural symbolic interactionist frame and identity theory relevant to their work. This frame and theory, developed in sociology, are first reviewed. Emphasized in the review are a multiple identity conception of self, identities as internalized expectations derived from roles embedded in organized networks of social interaction, and a view of social structures as facilitators in bringing people into networks or constraints in keeping them out, subsequently, attention turns to a discussion of the mutual relevance of structural symbolic interactionism/identity theory and personality theory, looking to extensions of the current literature on these topics.

The clinical workplace in which doctors learn involves many social groups, including representatives of different professions, clinical specialties and workplace teams. This paper suggests that medical education research does not currently take full account of the effects of group membership, and describes a theoretical approach from social psychology, the social identity approach, which allows those effects to be explored. The social identity approach has a long history in social psychology and provides an integrated account of group processes, from the adoption of group identity through a process of self-categorisation, to the biases and conflicts between groups. This paper outlines key elements of this theoretical approach and illustrates their relevance to medical education. The relevance of the social identity approach is illustrated with reference to a number of areas of medical education. The paper shows how research questions in medical education may be usefully reframed in terms of social identity in ways that allow a deeper exploration of the psychological processes involved. Professional identity and professionalism may be viewed in terms of self-categorisation rather than simply attainment; the salience of different identities may be considered as influences on teamwork and interprofessional learning, and issues in communication and assessment may be considered in terms of intergroup biases. Social identity theory provides a powerful framework with which to consider many areas of medical education. It allows disparate influences on, and consequences of, group membership to be considered as part of an integrated system, and allows assumptions, such as about the nature of professional identity and interprofessional tensions, to be made explicit in the design of research studies. This power to question assumptions and develop deeper and more meaningful research questions may be increasingly relevant as the nature and role of the medical profession change

Social identity research was pioneered as a distinctive theoretical approach to the analysis of intergroup relations but over the last two decades it has increasingly been used to shed light on applied issues. One early application of insights from social identity and self-categorization theories was to the organizational domain (with a particular focus on leadership), but more recently there has been a surge of interest in applications to the realm of health and clinical topics. This article charts the development of this Applied Social Identity Approach, and abstracts five core lessons from the research that has taken this forward. (1) Groups and social identities matter because they have a critical role to play in organizational and health outcomes. (2) Self-categorizations matter because it is people's self-understandings in a given context that shape their psychology and behaviour. (3) The power of groups is unlocked by working with social identities not across or against them. (4) Social identities need to be made to matter in deed not just in word. (5) Psychological intervention is always political because it always involves some form of social identity management. Programmes that seek to incorporate these principles are reviewed and important challenges and opportunities for the future are identified. © 2014 The British Psychological Society. 2b1af7f3a8