The Problem of Symbolic Interaction and of Constructing Self
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.1.1.05Keywords:
symbolic interaction, self, corporality, body, non – verbal communication, emotionsAbstract
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
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.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853099X00086
Belk, Russel W. (1996) “Metaphoric relationships with pets.” Society and Animals 4(2): 121 – 145.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Cooley, Charles H. (1922) Human Nature and the Social Order. Revised edition. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles (1872) The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: John Murray.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10001-000
Dewey, John (2002) Jak myslimy? (How we think). Warszawa: DeAgostini, Altaya.
Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul (1986) Telling lies. Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. New York – London: W.W. Norton.
Google Scholar
Flynn Clifton P. (2000) “Battered Women and Their Animal Companions: Symbolic Interaction Between Human and Nonhuman Animals.” Society & Animals 8(2): 99 – 127.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853000511032
Goffman, Erving (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. New York: Free Press.
Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1969) Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia” University of Pennsylvania Press.
Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1979) Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Google Scholar
Halas, Elzbieta (1987) Social context of meanings in the theory of symbolic interactionism (in Polish). Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Irvin, Leslie (2004) If you tame me. Understanding our connections with animals. Temple University Press.
Google Scholar
Lorenz, Konrad (2002) Man meets dog. London, New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Kennedy, John S. (1992) The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge: The University of Cambridge Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623455
Krzeminski, Ireneusz (1986) Symboliczny interakcjonizm i socjologia, (in Polish, Symbolic Interactionism and sociology). Warszawa: PWN.
Google Scholar
Mead George H. (1932), Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Morgan, Lloyd Convy (1903) Introduction to comparative psychology. 2nd edition. London: Walter Scott.
Google Scholar
Morris, Paul, Margaret Fiedler, Alan Costall (2000) “Beyond Anecdotes; An Empirical Study of ‘Anthropomorphism’.” Society & Animals 8(2): 151 – 165.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853000511050
Mosciskier, Andrzej (1998) Argument about human nature (in Polish). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Sanders, Clinton (1990) “Excusing Tactics: Social Responses to the Public Misbehavior of Companion Animals.” Anthroozos 4(2): 82-90.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089124193022002003
Sanders, Clinton (1999) Understanding Dogs: Living and Working with Canine Companions. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Google Scholar
Sanders, Clinton (2003) “Actions Speak Louder than Words: Close Relationship between Humans and Nonhuman Animals.” Symbolic Interaction 26(3): 405 – 426.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Shapiro, Kenneth J. (1989) “Understanding Dogs through Kinesthetic Empathy, Social Construction, and History.” Antrozoos 3 (3): 184 – 95.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2752/089279390787057540
Singer, Peter (1975) Animal Liberation. New York: The New York Review of Books.
Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm L., editor (1964) “Introduction” in Mead, G. H., On Social Psychology. Selected Papers. Chicago, London: Phoenix Books, The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm L., editor (1993) Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Aldine.
Google Scholar
Szacki, Jerzy (1981) The History of the sociological thought (in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.
Google Scholar
Van Lavick – Goodal Jane (1974) In the Shadow of the Man (in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.
Google Scholar
Wall de, Frans (1996) Good Natured. The origins of the Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Weber, Max (2002) Economy and society. Outline of understanding sociology (in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.
Google Scholar
Ziolkowski, Marek (1981) Meaning, interaction, understanding (in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.
Google Scholar
Ziolkowski, Marek (1998) “Interaction.” Pp. 349 – 353 in Encyclopedia of Sociology (in Polish), edited by W. Kwasniewicz. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.
Google Scholar
Zuradzki, Tomasz (2004) “Dog sapiens.” Gazeta Wyborcza, 18 February, p. 15.
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.