Symbolic Interaction Summary

Herbert Blumer coins the term “symbolic interactionism” in Society as a Symbolic Interaction, and offers a comprehensive explanation that, as a sociology student, was surprised to have not been exposed to it sooner. The first time I was exposed to the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism was in grade 12, however, I was lead to believe that it was a school of thought that emerged from Charles Cooley. My understanding of it was that the mind receives stimuli in daily life and attaches meaning to them, which form our value system. This is still very much my understanding of the concept, but reading through Blumer’s definition that symbolic interaction is “the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes place between

It allowed me to open my mind to more of a micro level of analysis. I found that previous to this reading, I was very fixated on macro levels of analysis and functionalism. Even though this piece dates back do 1962 (Blumer, 1962, p. 250). I still feel that symbolic interaction is often a side thought in many criminology classes particularly. For example, Blumer explains, “sociological thought rarely recognizes or treats human societies as composed of individuals who have selves” (Blumer, 1962, p. 253). This seems very relevant to many explanations of crime that can be found in Sociology 2266, Introduction to Criminology. Although I thoroughly enjoyed that course, it seemed like interactionist theories were given very little coverage and credit. After reading through Blumer’s work, I believe that interactionist theories should be given more attention in considering

My mind specifically went to Edwin H. Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory. Essentially the concept that crime and deviance is picked up by an individual depending on if one is exposed to definitions that are more favorable to law violations or definitions that are more in favour of law-abiding behaviour. Sutherland believed that crime followed the same learning process as tasks such as learning to ride a bike. People learn how to engage in crime and this emerges through interaction with others, usually in small groups. Another aspect that’s important with differential association is that it will vary between different criminals and different non-criminals, which can be directly connected to Blumer’s explanation, “variations in interpretation may readily occur as different acting units cut out different objects in the situation, or give different weight to the object which they note, or piece objects together in different patterns” (Blumer, 1962, p. 256). Associating with anti-social and deviant peers is an important element in criminality, and I believe that social processes and learning is one of the strongest correlations to criminality. Blumer’s framework is very much applicable to the social world, specifically in explaining