Sociological Theory that Stands the Test of Time: And How I Learned to Not Be Bugged with Prejudiced Bigots, and Love the Symbols Instead

You ever find yourself wondering why we humans spend so much time interpreting each other’s actions rather than just, you know, reacting ?

(Image: courtesy of CoPilot Designer)

Herbert Blumer has a lot to say about his fascinating way of interpreting human behavior and society — in his absolutely thrilling read : Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.¹ Blumer takes us on a journey through the nooks and crannies of human group life. It’s like a reality show where everyone is constantly misunderstanding each other, but instead of drama, we get sociology. So, let’s dive into the methodological waters of symbolic interactionism and see what all the fuss is about.

Naturalistic Investigation: Because Why Fake It?

(Image: Courtesy of CoPilot Designer)

Blumer opens with a zinger: Exploration and inspection are the keys to studying the empirical social world. And by “empirical,” he means the real world as it unfolds, not some lab experiment or pre-set model. He calls this approach “naturalistic investigation.” Imagine a scientist with a magnifying glass, peering into the messy lives of humans like a detective in a noir film. That’s the essence of naturalistic study — getting up close and personal with the chaos of human life. It’s like reality TV but with fewer scripted moments and more profound insights.

Symbolic Interactionism: The Social Scientist’s Reality Show?

Symbolic interactionism, Blumer tells us, is all about studying human life as it naturally happens. If you want to understand a cult, go hang out with the cultists (just maybe don’t drink the Kool-Aid). Studying social movements? Follow them around like a die-hard fan at a rock concert. Drug use among teens? Brace yourself and dive into the teenage wasteland. This isn’t armchair sociology; this is getting your hands dirty. Symbolic interactionists are the paparazzi of the social sciences, always in the thick of things, capturing the nitty-gritty of human interactions.

Methodological Orientation: No Fancy Protocols, Please?

Blumer’s stance is refreshingly rebellious: forget trying to fit social studies into the mold of physical sciences. Social life is too dynamic for rigid protocols. It’s like trying to herd cats or get kids to eat vegetables — it just doesn’t work. Instead, Blumer argues, we should respect the nature of the social world by studying it in its raw, unfiltered glory. This involves direct examination, not trying to stuff it into pre-made statistical frameworks or lab conditions. Think of it as the difference between eating a fresh pizza right out of the oven and microwaving a leftover slice. One is authentic; the other, not so much.

People Act on Meaning: A Fancy Way of Saying “We All Have Opinions?”

One of Blumer’s key points is that people act based on the meanings things have for them. In simpler terms, everyone’s got their own perspective, and that’s what drives their actions. It’s like how you might see a half-eaten sandwich in the fridge as a late-night snack, while your roommate sees it as a science experiment gone wrong. To truly understand why people do what they do, you’ve got to get inside their heads and see the world through their eyes. Otherwise, you’re just guessing — and probably guessing wrong. That said, why and how is the Self Complicated?

Here’s where things get deep. Blumer, channeling his inner philosopher, tells us that humans have a self. And this self is crucial because it means we can act toward ourselves just like we act toward others. Ever yelled at yourself for forgetting your keys or given yourself a pep talk before a big presentation? That’s your self in action. According to Blumer, this ability to be both the actor and the audience is what makes human interaction so unique. We’re constantly interpreting our own actions and the actions of others, creating a never-ending loop of self-reflection and social drama.

Influences: Taking the Role of the Other?

Blumer is heavily influenced by George Herbert Mead, who introduced the concept of taking the role of the other. It sounds fancy, but it’s something we do all the time. When you imagine how your boss will react to your latest excuse for being late, you’re taking their role. This mental gymnastics allows us to anticipate and align our actions with others, creating a symphony of social interaction. Or, depending on the situation, a cacophony.

Interpretation Over Reaction: Why We’re Not Robots?

Blumer emphasizes that human interaction is not just about reacting but interpreting. This interpretation is what makes us human — it’s our ability to read between the lines, to see the subtle cues, and to understand the unspoken. It’s why we can navigate complex social situations, from negotiating a raise to figuring out who took the last cookie. We’re constantly decoding the world around us, not just responding to stimuli like lab rats.

Social Organization: More Framework, Less Determinant?

Blumer challenges the conventional sociological view that social structures determine our actions. Instead, he argues that these structures are just frameworks within which we act. Think of it like a game of Monopoly: the rules and the board are the framework, but the way you play the game — whether you’re a ruthless tycoon or a benevolent landlord — is up to you. Social structures influence but don’t dictate our actions. We’re not just cogs in a machine; we’re the players shaping the game.

Social Change: It’s All About Interpretation?

When it comes to social change, Blumer argues that it’s all mediated by interpretation. Change isn’t just something that happens to us; it’s something we actively interpret and respond to. Imagine a new law is passed. How people react to it — whether they embrace it, protest it, or find loopholes — is all about how they interpret its impact on their lives. Social change is a dynamic process of interpretation, not just a mechanical response to external forces.

The Acting Units: Individuals as the Heart of Society?

Blumer’s view places acting individuals at the center of social analysis. Society is made up of these acting units, whether they’re individuals, groups, or organizations. It’s like a giant improv show where everyone’s actions are interlinked, constantly shaping and reshaping the social landscape. This perspective shifts the focus from abstract structures to the concrete actions of real people, making sociology a study of living, breathing human drama.

Methodological Implications: The Need for Role-Taking?

To truly understand social actions, Blumer argues, sociologists must take the role of the acting units they study. This means getting inside the heads of the people they’re observing, seeing the world from their perspective. It’s not enough to stand on the sidelines and make detached observations. True understanding comes from empathy and immersion, from living the experiences of those you study. It’s sociology as method acting.

The Symbolic Interactionist View: Respecting Human Complexity?

In the end, Blumer’s symbolic interactionism calls for a deep respect for the complexity of human life. It’s about recognizing that people are constantly interpreting their world and acting based on those interpretations. It’s a call to see sociology not as a sterile science but as a vibrant, dynamic study of human interaction. It’s a reminder that at the heart of social life are real people with real perspectives, navigating a world of symbols and meanings.

Blumer’s symbolic interactionism is like the ultimate reality show of sociology, where the drama of human life unfolds in all its messy, symbolic glory. It’s a call to dive deep into the world of human interactions, to see the symbols and meanings that drive our actions, and to appreciate the complex dance of interpretation that defines our social existence. And if you’ve made it this far, give yourself a pat on the back — you’ve just navigated the symbolic jungle of Blumer’s thought.

Notes:

Blumer was one of my favorite social science thinkers in college. He’s considered a classic, because a lot of this work has held up to the test of time. Herbert Blumer, “Symbolic Interactionism,” in* Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method*, 1st ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998), 46 — 8, 50 — 2, 78 — 89.