Symbolic Interactionism & Erving Goffman
Photo source: Google
To make as start I would like to give an overall description about symbolic interactionism—how it was developed and who were key influential figures in the development of this theory, followed by my particular impression on Erving Goffman. Intellectual roots of symbolic interactionism stemmed from two important notions of (1) pragmatism[1] and (2) psychological behaviorism.
Some scholars like David Lewis and Richard Smith argue that Dawey gives greater pragmatic intellectual influence on symbolic interactionism due to this notion of 5 stages of thinking process[2], while Herbert Blumer points out a distinction with his notion of psychological interactionism, claiming that the meanings of symbols are individual and subjective in accordance to how individuals choose to interpret. It is necessary to notice that the group of symbolic interactionists agree upon 7 principles:
Human beings, unlike lower animals, are endowed with the capacity for thought.
The capacity for thought is shaped by social interaction.
In social interaction people learn the meanings and the symbols that allow them to exercise their distinctively human capacity for thought.
Meanings and symbols allow people to carry on distinctively human action and interaction.
People are able to modify or alter the meanings and symbols that they use in action and interaction on the basis of their interpretation of the situation.
People are able to make these modifications and alterations because, in part, of their ability to interact with themselves, which allows them to examine possible course of action, assess their relative advantages and disadvantages, and then choose one.
The intertwined patterns of action and interaction make up groups and societies.
(Ritzer, George & Stepnisky, Jeffrey, 2014)
Next, I touch upon the work of Erving Goffman distributing to symbolic interactionism. A little different from Mead who sees “the self” as a process that precedes mind and self, Goffman sees the self as a production of dramatic interaction between actor and audience. Goffman focuses on how society forces people to present a particular image of themselves because it forces us to switch back and forth between many complicated roles. Society is also making us always somewhat untruthful, inconsistent, and dishonorable”. He sees human interaction as a theatrical analogy where an actor has to perform in the front stage surrounded by social audiences. Within this sense there is a tension between “I” and “Me”[3] among actors in terms of how to interpret themselves with constraints from society—Goffman calls the tension as crucial discrepancy. Symbolic interactionism distributes to other important studies such as the study of emotion which is essential for later macrosociology.
I have objections against Goffman's argument, but I rather try to give implications on his notion of human interaction as theatrical analogy. The first implication is linked to the sense of shame and pride as socially constructed values. If people concern more about shame described by society, it will be parts of social control over their misconduct. Criticism and gossiping may reduce the misconduct in a society. So for this first implication, symbolic interaction is kind of social control machine shaping people to do what society expect them to do. Social audience will become a guiding mirror for dos and don'ts in society.
For the second implication, it would be 100 per cent opposite to the first one because people may interpret human interaction negatively. They would not want to be in the theater anymore and seek their self identity. Thus, people will no longer care of social judgement or gossip or criticism. In other word, their face is getting thicker and thicker. Not caring about social audiences's view can be a reason for social disorder. For example, I do not care about smoking in the public; I have no reason to play in the public theater where people expect me not to smoke.
To end this article, I am not trying to drive you to be extreme for whether or not you should play in the theater. What I am trying to say is that you should make a link between this two poles of thought--the link which helps you come up with a proper conduct in line with self and social audience. It is not a positive sum game to be extreme on either side. Sometimes self can lead you to wrong direction, and sometimes society also leads you to collective misconception. Be careful of showing who you are.
