The Problem of Symbolic Interaction and of Constructing Self

Authors

  • Krzysztof T. Konecki Lodz University, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.1.1.05

Keywords:

symbolic interaction, self, corporality, body, non – verbal communication, emotions

Abstract

In the article we make an analysis of a thesis that verbal symbolic interaction is a necessary condition of constructing self. The main concepts used in the paper are: symbolic interaction, self and corporality. The aforementioned thesis and the concept of symbolic interaction originate from G.H Mead, who set the trend of thinking about interaction in human society in sociology and social psychology. This influence is noticeable up to this day. Symbolic interaction as a tool of understanding others actions and informing partners about our intensions is clearly visible in “languagecentred” and anthropocentrically oriented analyses of interactions as well as in the concentration on linguistic conditions of creating a self. Self is understood as an interpreted concept of a person but mainly in a process of social perception of a human by others occurring in interactions based on verbal language. In the article we want to develop a thesis about “nonlinguistic” possibilities of constructing interactions and self. The aforementioned thesis has been many times elaborated so far together with critical analyses of G. H. Mead (Irvin, 2004, Sanders, 1993, 1999, 2003; Myers, 1999, 2003). We want to integrate these elaborations, including our empirical experiences from a research on “The Social World of Pet’s Owners’ (research done in 2001-2005) on theoretical level and concentrate more on corporality and emotions issues and their relations to symbolic interaction and self. G.H. Mead’s views on this topic are analysed with regard to their methodological consistency and adequacy. In the article there is another thesis proposed, that interactions between animals also have meanings and, sometimes, symbolic nature, or sometimes, non symbolic one, and not necessarily related to use of a verbal language. The creation of self is connected with issues of corporality that includes: 1. nonverbal communication, 2. a relation of bodies in physical space, 3. the so called “kinesthetic empathy”, 4. emotions connected with body, mind and self processes. These elements of corporality may be the basis for taking the role of other. Researches and analyses of many sociologists (beginning from Ch. H. Cooley) show that self is often pre-verbal and that exclusion of an individual from her/his surroundings takes place also with the aid of the body and emotions tightly connected with functioning of self. The analysis of interactions between humans and animals provides us with much methodological and theoretical inspiration. Those researches and analyses obviously face a problem of “anthropomorphization of human behaviour”, which is of frequent occurrence both among researchers and ordinary people. New sociological sub-discipline called the sociology of human - non-human animals relationships adds a lot of new threads to the abovementioned deliberations on conditions of constructing self.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Krzysztof T. Konecki, Lodz University, Poland

    Krzysztof T. Konecki (Professor of Sociology), chair of Organizational and Management Sociology Department, Lodz University, Poland. His major research areas are: qualitative sociology, grounded theory, symbolic interactionism, sociology of management and organization, sociology of work, organizational symbolism, Japanese culture and management, human - non-human-animals relationships.

References

Alger, Janet M. and Steven F. Alger (1999) “Cat Culture, Human Culture: An Ethnographic Study of a Cat Shelter.” Society & Animals 7(3): 199 – 218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853099X00086

Belk, Russel W. (1996) “Metaphoric relationships with pets.” Society and Animals 4(2): 121 – 145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853096X00115

Blumer, Herbert (1966) "Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead." American Journal of Sociology 71: 534-544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/224171

Blumer, Herbert (1962/69) “Society as Symbolic Interaction.” Pp. 78-89 in Symbolic Interaction, edited by H. Blumer. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Cooley, Charles H. (1922) Human Nature and the Social Order. Revised edition. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Darwin, Charles (1872) The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: John Murray. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10001-000

Dewey, John (2002) Jak myslimy? (How we think). Warszawa: DeAgostini, Altaya.

Ekman, Paul (1986) Telling lies. Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. New York – London: W.W. Norton.

Flynn Clifton P. (2000) “Battered Women and Their Animal Companions: Symbolic Interaction Between Human and Nonhuman Animals.” Society & Animals 8(2): 99 – 127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853000511032

Goffman, Erving (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. New York: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving (1969) Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia” University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goffman, Erving (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving (1979) Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Halas, Elzbieta (1987) Social context of meanings in the theory of symbolic interactionism (in Polish). Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.

Halas, Elzbieta (1998) “Symbolic interactionism. Creators of a theory and its conceptual roots.” Pp. 353 - 357 in Encyclopedia of Sociology (in Polish), edited by W. Kwasniewicz. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.

Irvin, Leslie (2004) If you tame me. Understanding our connections with animals. Temple University Press.

Lorenz, Konrad (2002) Man meets dog. London, New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203166086

Kacperczyk, Anna (forthcoming) Wsparcie spoleczne w instytucjach opieki paliatywnej i hospicyjnej (Social support in paliative care institutions). Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego.

Kennedy, John S. (1992) The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge: The University of Cambridge Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623455

Krzeminski, Ireneusz (1986) Symboliczny interakcjonizm i socjologia, (in Polish, Symbolic Interactionism and sociology). Warszawa: PWN.

Mead George H. (1932), Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Mead George H. (1964) On Social Psychology. Selected Papers. Edited and with an Introduction by Anselm Strauss. Chicago and London: Phoenix Books, The University of Chicago Press.

Morgan, Lloyd Convy (1903) Introduction to comparative psychology. 2nd edition. London: Walter Scott.

Morris, Paul, Margaret Fiedler, Alan Costall (2000) “Beyond Anecdotes; An Empirical Study of ‘Anthropomorphism’.” Society & Animals 8(2): 151 – 165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853000511050

Mosciskier, Andrzej (1998) Argument about human nature (in Polish). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Myers, Olin (1999) “Human Development as Transcendence of the Animal Body and the Child – Animal Association in Psychological Thought.” Society & Animals 7(2): 121 – 140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853099X00031

Myers, Olin (2003) “No longer the lonely species. A Post Mead Perspective on Animals and Sociology.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(3): 46 – 68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790255

Sable, Pat (1995) “Pets, Attachment, and Well – Being across the Life Cycle.” Social Work 40(3): 334 – 341.

Sanders, Clinton (1990) “Excusing Tactics: Social Responses to the Public Misbehavior of Companion Animals.” Anthroozos 4(2): 82-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2752/089279391787057288

Sanders, Clinton (1993) “Understanding dogs: Caretakers’ attributes of mindedness in canine – human relationship.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22: 205 – 226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089124193022002003

Sanders, Clinton (1999) Understanding Dogs: Living and Working with Canine Companions. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Sanders, Clinton (2003) “Actions Speak Louder than Words: Close Relationship between Humans and Nonhuman Animals.” Symbolic Interaction 26(3): 405 – 426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.3.405

Scheff, Thomas (1990) Microsociology. Discourse, Emotion and Social Structure. Chicago, London: Chicago University Press.

Shapiro, Kenneth J. (1989) “Understanding Dogs through Kinesthetic Empathy, Social Construction, and History.” Antrozoos 3 (3): 184 – 95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2752/089279390787057540

Singer, Peter (1975) Animal Liberation. New York: The New York Review of Books.

Strauss, Anselm L., editor (1964) “Introduction” in Mead, G. H., On Social Psychology. Selected Papers. Chicago, London: Phoenix Books, The University of Chicago Press.

Strauss, Anselm L., editor (1993) Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Aldine.

Szacki, Jerzy (1981) The History of the sociological thought (in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.

Van Lavick – Goodal Jane (1974) In the Shadow of the Man (in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.

Wall de, Frans (1996) Good Natured. The origins of the Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.

Weber, Max (2002) Economy and society. Outline of understanding sociology (in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.

Ziolkowski, Marek (1981) Meaning, interaction, understanding (in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.

Ziolkowski, Marek (1998) “Interaction.” Pp. 349 – 353 in Encyclopedia of Sociology (in Polish), edited by W. Kwasniewicz. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.

Zuradzki, Tomasz (2004) “Dog sapiens.” Gazeta Wyborcza, 18 February, p. 15.

Downloads

Published

2005-08-15

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Konecki, Krzysztof T. 2005. “The Problem of Symbolic Interaction and of Constructing Self”. Qualitative Sociology Review 1 (1): 68-89. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.1.1.05.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>