EPISTEMOLOGY
3.8 Theoretical perspective for this study – symbolic interactionism
In moving down Figure 3.1 from the top, the second component on the schema of the theoretical framework is the theoretical perspective. The theoretical perspective relates to the underlying philosophical assumption about the researcher’s view of the human world and the social life within that world (Crotty, 1998). Coming from a constructionist epistemology, the purpose of this research and questions posed, the theoretical perspective underlying this study aligns itself to interpretivism under the particular banner of symbolic interactionism.
The interpretativist approach to explaining human social cultural reality has its roots in the sociology of Weber who placed “the study of society in the context of human beings acting and interacting” (Crotty, 1998, p. 68). From this perspective, human beings are viewed as social beings who interact socially with each other, and the outcomes of this interaction develop the fabric of society, the cultural world in which individuals live out their lives and an identification for individuals within that society. In this sense, society is “central to forming what the human being is” (Charon, 2000, p. 200).
In many educational circles educators and learners are seen as merely implementing policy as advocated by educational bureaucrats. However, learners have their own perspectives, feelings, views and experiences, thus are likely to attach different meanings to different curriculum practices, subjects and changes. This does not necessarily mean that different interpretations would be distinct or without common qualities – it means that the interpretations will result from each person’s own processes of sense making (Lubisi, 2000). In light of this view, I have chosen to adopt ‘Symbolic Interactionism’ which is a theory, as the main component of the theoretical framework for this study and recognized the epistemology of constructionism embedded in symbolic interactionism. On the other hand my ontological consideration will help inform my methodologies as to the nature of reality or as to what social research is supposed to study and the main question here should be – what is the nature of reality? This
88
ontological position will allow me to investigate the views of my participants through a creative-arts based research method (collages), presentations, discussions and observations.
Symbolic interactionism also known as the symbolic interaction perspective, is a major framework of sociological theory (Crossman, 2014). It is one of the prominent interpretive theoretical perspectives from which to examine society and individuals’ actions and behaviour within their social cultural world. In fact, symbolic interactionism is considered a part of social psychology, and its prominence grew out of the desire to understand society, particularly the influence culture plays in human behaviour, and the place of the individual in society. The key concepts of symbolic interactionism are mind, self and society. The mind refers to individual’s ability to use symbols to create meanings for the world around them, individuals use language and thought to accomplish this goal and self refers to an individual’s ability to reflect on the way they are perceived by others. Therefore, this perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and rely upon, in the process of social interaction. Considering the purpose of my study which is to understand the views of participants involved in the study, symbolic interactionism was deemed a relevant theory because of its potential and power to explain the symbolic meaning (views) that the participants have of history as a subject, through the process of social interaction.
As noted above, the term ‘symbolic interactionism’ has come into use as a label for a relatively distinctive approach to the study of human life and human conduct. The scholars who have used the approach or contributed to its intellectual foundations are many and include notable figures such as: Mark Baldwin; Charles Horton Cooley; John Dewey; William James; George Herbert Mead; Robert E. Park; Robert Redfield; W.I. Thomas; Louis Wirth; Max Weber and Florian Znanieki (Blumer, 1986). Despite significant differences in the thoughts of these scholars, there is a great similarity in the general way in which they viewed and studied human group life. Hence, the concept of symbolic interactionism is built around this strand of general similarity as a theory. However, according to (Crossman, 2014) the American philosopher, George Herbert Mead, above all others, laid the foundations of the symbolic interactionist perspective in the 1920s. Thereafter, his student Herbert Blumer, was the first one to use the term symbolic interaction, after his death. For this reason, “Blumer is also named as the founder of symbolic interaction” (Aksan, Kisac, Aydin & Demirbuken 2009, p. 902).
89
According to Denzin (1992) Weber’s work was particularly influential among early social scientists who wanted to break away from using the physical science model. Weber argued that it is meaningless to attempt to reduce empirical findings to social laws. According to Weber, laws are only conceptual aids for understanding reality – knowledge of social laws cannot constitute an understanding of reality. Weber went on to argue that knowledge of cultural processes is possible only by understanding the meanings that the specific and shared reality holds for those involved. He used the term ‘verstehen’ (understanding) to characterize the deep level of thought that is necessary in order to interpretatively re-create cultural processes. These two aspects of Weber’s work were particularly influential among the early efforts of social researchers to examine social interaction.
Mead belonged to an early tradition of scholars who viewed themselves both as philosophers and scientists. As a philosopher, Mead was a pragmatist, and as a scientist, he was a social behaviourist (Blumer, 2004). Both these fields mark his contributions to symbolic interaction.
Mead argued that in order to effectively understand social interaction, researchers need to examine how ‘lines of interaction’ are linked together in what he called flexible, ongoing and spontaneous ways (Blumer, 2004). He added that interactions are an ever-evolving series of gestures that can spontaneously change directions. In interaction people more often respond to a considered interpretation of gestures which can be referred to as significant gestures or significant symbols. Significant gestures entail the use of symbols for specific meaning and hence become ‘language’. For example, one must interpret whether the person shaking her or his fists is expressing anger or playfulness. Any gesture will become a signified symbol if it is interpreted as indicating forthcoming lines of action (Blumer, 2004). Thus, for the purposes of this study learners’ views of history will be shaped by their interaction with the subject, interaction with significant others (family, school, peers etc.) as well as their experiences of the subject. In other words symbolic interaction theory will help me to analyse my participants’
views of history by addressing the subjective meanings that they impose on history as a subject through their collages, presentations, discussions and observation during the collage-making process.
Therefore, symbolic interactionism as one of many theories in the social sciences suggests that facts are based on and directed by symbols. Thus, the foundations of this theory are meanings.
90
Symbolic interactionism examines the meanings emerging from the interaction of individuals in the social environment (school, home) with other individuals (teachers, family, peers) and focuses on the question of which symbols and meanings emerge from the interaction between people (Aksan et al., 2009). According to this theory people live both in the natural and the symbolic environments. Symbolic interaction is a process that has enlivened the meaning and values through the symbols in the mind. Meanings constitute of interaction between persons.
Objects, like history textbooks, do not have meaning on their own, but derive their meanings from the social actors, such as learners. Consequently, symbolic interaction is a process of
‘interpretation of the action’. (Aksan et al., 2009). For the purposes of this study my participants as social actors will interact with history as a school subject and through this interaction with the subject they will develop their views of history. However, their views of history will also be shaped by their interactions with society as a whole. Participants will encounter this society through various cultural units such as schools within the segmented portion of the world in which they live out their lives. This means that participants’ views of history will largely be influenced by perhaps the family, the school, teachers, friends and their experiences with the subject.
The term ‘symbolic interactionism’ has come into use as a label for a relatively distinctive approach to the study of human life and human conduct (Blumer, 1986). Reality is seen as a social, developed interaction with others, within the framework of symbolic interactionism.
Most symbolic interactionists believe that a physical reality does indeed exist by an individual’s social definitions, and these definitions do develop in relation to something real. Thus, people do not respond to this reality directly, but rather to the social understanding of reality. This means that humans exist not in the physical space composed of realities but in the world composed only of objects. These objects can be divided into three types which are: physical objects, social objects and abstract objects (Blumer, 1986). These objects may include everything that a human being may encounter in his world such as trees or chairs; other human beings such parents and teachers and institutions such as schools. Hence, my participants for this study will act towards the subject history on the basis of the meanings that the subject has for them. This meaning is derived from or arises out of the social interaction that they have with the school, teachers, parents, family, peers and media. Thereafter, these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by my participants in dealing with the experiences they encounter with the subject.
91
Mead’s theorization of self and of lines of action influenced Blumer (1986) who drew from Mead to develop a distinction between a personal ‘I’ (how one sees oneself) and a social ‘me’
(how one imagines that one is seen by others). Blumer (1986) referred to the ongoing process of conversation between the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ as ‘self-indication’ which entails internal conversations. Blumer (1986) adds that the foundation of all social interaction rests in the process of representing ourselves to ourselves – of thinking about ourselves as we think about other objects of consciousness. Individuals fit lines of action together by first imagining how those with whom we are interacting might be perceived and then adjusting behaviour accordingly. Therefore, people communicate symbolically and imaginatively with others, and also with ourselves, as we experiment with potential lines of action in our minds (Blumer, 1986). This is particularly relevant to this study as will be noted in Chapter 4 that participants will be involved in ‘collage-making’ which is one of the methods used for participants to creatively and imaginatively share their views of history through a collage in a symbolic manner.
From these philosophical roots, symbolic interaction worked with the premise that the individual and society are interdependent and inseparable – both are constituted through shared meanings. Symbolic interaction emerged as an effort to understand social life through something other than laboratory research and behaviourist conceptions of stimulus-response.
Consequently, it shifted the goal of social research from an objective study of an empirical reality to a deep understanding of the symbolic practices that make a shared reality possible (Reynolds & Herman-Kinney, 2003). Schenk and Holman (1980) are of the opinion that symbolic interaction is a dynamic theory because objects feature meanings within themselves and individuals formulate their activities in the direction of their evaluation of themselves and also people and objects around them. Thus, it is the social actors that attribute meaning to objects according to this perspective.
Furthermore, Crossman (2014) argues that symbolic interactionism analyses society by addressing the subjective meanings that people impose on objects, events and behaviours.
Subjective meanings are given primacy because it is believed that people behave according to what they believe and not just on what is objectively true. Hence, society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation in the sense that people interpret one
92
another’s behavior and it is these interpretations that form the social bond. According to Crossman (2014) these interpretations are called ‘definition of the situation’. Crossman (2014) gives a good example of this scenario: why do young people smoke cigarettes even when all objective medical evidence points to the dangers of doing so? The answer is in the definition of the situation that people create. Studies find that teenagers are well informed about the risks of tobacco, but they also think that smoking is ‘cool’, that they themselves will be safe from harm and that smoking projects a positive image to their peers. So the symbolic meaning of smoking overrides the actual facts regarding smoking and risk factors (Crossman, 2014).
Hence, some fundamental aspects of our social experience and identities, can be understood through the symbolic interactionist lens.
Charon (2004, p. 31) sums up the theory of symbolic interactionism as being based on five central points which are significant for this study:
The human being (participants of this study) must be understood as a social person.
Social interaction is central to what we do. Therefore, symbolic interactionism focuses on the activities that take place between actors (learners, school teachers, peers, parents and family).
The human being must be understood as a thinking being. Human action is not only interaction among individuals but also interaction within the individual (participants).
Human beings do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in.
The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present situation.
Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment.
Hence, for the symbolic interactionist then, individuals build up an understanding of how the world operates through interactions with others, and particularly significant others (parents, teachers and peers) within the subcultural units such as schools in which they live out their lives within a segmented portion of the whole of society. However, individuals are not immune to the influences of the wider society, for this wider cultural environment is itself influencing the subcultures and those within them, particularly in carrying with it a set of norms, rules and conventions which have been developed over a period of time, and which help define situations
93
and the roles of those in them from the perspective of what is usually, socially and culturally acceptable. In encountering objects, events and situations in this social cultural environment, individuals define the situation within themselves - a definition which is itself influenced by the perspectives they have built up through their own biographical journey to date, and their actions and behaviour are the result of this interactive process. This process is one of continual engagement and development, and through it individuals continue to construct, reconstruct and renew their generalized other of society and their identity of self within that society.
Moreover, Ellis (2004, p. 15) asserts “the main emphasis in symbolic interaction has been on face-to-face social interaction”. It follows that an interactionist, informed study will seek to ascertain meanings by immersion in a setting, often by observation and through discussion.
This is what I will be engaging in for this study where I will spend time with participants in their settings to construct data. It is only by spending time with my participants, walking in their shoes, interacting face to face that I can capture their views and record them.
According to West and Turner (2007) symbolic interaction theory has been a powerful theoretical framework for over sixty years. It provides striking insights about human communication behaviour in a variety of contexts. The theory is logical in its development, beginning with the role of self and progressing to an examination of the self in society.
Although symbolic interaction theory is heuristic (experience-based techniques), identifying its application to a variety of contexts, including media, organizational and interpersonal, it is not without its critics. The major objections raised in regard to symbolic interaction theory tend to focus on: it is too broad, it places too much emphasis on personal behaviour and views, it neglects other important variables and it is not falsifiable (West & Turner, 2007). In line with this thinking some critics of this theory claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation – the ‘big picture’ - meaning that symbolic interactionists may miss the larger issues of society by focusing too closely on minor issues (Crossman, 2014).
This was dealt with in my study since it was small scale and I was able to analyse and interpret most of the views of my participants through the symbolic interaction theory. In fact, this theory assisted me in looking at the big picture of my participants’ world of interaction with history as a subject in the secondary phase of their schooling.
94
However, West and Turner (2007) opined that although symbolic interaction has its critics, it still remains an enduring theory. In fact, it supports research in multiple contexts, and it is constantly being refined and extended. Ultimately, symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the relationship between humans and society and in the case of this study, learners and school history. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting, as opposed to being acted upon.