Sociology 319 – Contemporary
Social Theories
Quotes from Herbert Blumer
1. Symbolic interaction. The term “symbolic interaction” refers, of
course, to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes
place between human beings. The
peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings interpret or “define” each
other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their “response” is not made directly to the
actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to
such actions. Thus, human interaction is
mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the
meaning of one another's actions. This
mediation is equivalent to inserting a process of interpretation between
stimulus and response in the case of human behavior. (Blumer,
p. 180).
2.
Society. Human society is to be seen as consisting of
acting people, and the life of the society is to be seen as consisting of their
actions. The acting units may be
separate individuals, collectivities whose members are acting together on a
common quest, or organizations acting on behalf of a constituency … There is no
empirically observable activity in a human society that does not spring from
some acting unit. This banal statement
needs to be stressed in light of the common practice of sociologists of
reducing human society to social units that do not act – for example, social
classes in modern society. (Blumer, pp. 186-7).
3. Premises. (1) Human beings act toward things on the
basis of the meaning things have for them.
(2) The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the
social interaction one has with one’s fellows.
(3) These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive
process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters. (Blumer,
1969, quoted in Adams and Sydie, p. 166).
Source: Blumer,
Herbert. 1962. “Society as Symbolic Interaction,” in Arnold
Rose, editor, Human Behavior and Social
Processes: An Interactionist
Approach,
Goffman on “interaction order”
Universal human nature is not a very human
thing. By acquiring it, the person
becomes a kind of construct, built up not from inner psychic propensities but
from moral rules that are impressed upon him from without. These rules, when followed, determine the
evaluation he will make of himself and his fellow-participants in the
encounter, the distribution of his feelings, and the kinds of practices he will
employ to maintain a specified and obligatory kind of ritual equilibrium. … Instead of abiding by the rules, there may
be much effort to break them safely. But
if an encounter or undertaking is to be sustained as a viable system of
interaction organized on ritual principles, then these variations must be held
within certain bounds and nicely counterbalanced by corresponding modification
in some of the other rules and understandings.
Similarly, the human nature of a particular set of persons may be
specially designed for the special kind of undertakings in which they
participate, but still each of these persons must have within him something of
the balance of characteristics required of a usable participant in any ritually
organized system of social activity.
Source: Goffman,
Erving.
1967. Interaction Ritual,