The theory of symbolic interactionism

Herbert Blumer and George Herbert Mead was the first to define the theory of symbolic interactionism.

Blumer expressed on the three main principles of symbolic interactionism, which is about the interpretation (meaning), language (language), and mind (thought). This premise will lead to a concept of 'self' and one's socialization to the 'community' bigger society.

Blumer filed the first premise, that human act toward people or Things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things. That is, people act or behave towards other human beings are essentially based on the meanings that they wear to the other party.

For example, in the movie Kabayan, Kabayan figure would actually have different meanings passed away to whom or how to look at these figures. When Kabayan go to the big cities, the big cities such communities might interpret Kabayan as the village, the impression is tacky, tacky. Well, the interaction between people based Kabayan town with thoughts like this. And if in the village where he lived, there treated Kabayan society in a different way, with more friendly treatment. These interactions are based on the opinion that the figure is not Kabayan villagers were tacky.

Once people define a situation as real, its very real in its Consequences. The meaning of what is real for us is essentially derived from what we believe to be reality itself. Because we are convinced that it is real, then we believe it as fact.

In the same example, when we interpret as the plebeian Kabayan, then we consider the fact that it is the people of Kabayan plebeian. Vice versa.

The second premise is Blumer meaning arises out of the social interaction that people have with each other. Meanings arise from social interactions exchanged between them. Meaning not appear or attached to something or an object in nature. Meaning can not exist 'by nature'. Meaning is derived from the results of the negotiation process through the use of language (language)-the symbolic interactionism perspective.

Here, Blumer emphasized the importance of naming the interpretation process. Meanwhile Mead also believe that this is a symbolic naming basis for human society (human society).

When we refer to Kabayan was the plebeian language, the consequence is that we draw meaning from the use of language 'tacky' earlier. We derive meaning from language negotiation process about the word 'cheesy'. The meaning of the word 'tacky' does not have a meaning before he had negotiated in the social communities where the language is a symbol of life. Meaning of the word itself does not appear tacky, does not come naturally. The meaning of a language is essentially socially constructed.

Blumer's third premise is the individual's interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought process. Symbolic interactionism describing thinking as a conversation with yourself. This thought process itself is reflexive. Well, the problem according to Mead was before humans can think, we need a language. We need to be able to communicate symbolically. Language is basically like software that can move our minds.

Way how people think a lot of practice is determined by the language. Language is not merely seen as a 'means of exchange of messages' per se, but the position of symbolic interactionism see language more as a set of ideas that are exchanged to other parties symbolically. Symbolic communication.

Different uses of language ultimately determine the differences in the way humans think. A simple example is the mindset of people who speak Indonesian is certainly different from the mindset of people who speak Javanese. Similarly, people who speak a different way of thinking will Sunda with people who speak English, German, or Arabic.

However, although the meaning of a language is determined by the context or social construction, often very individual interpretation of a role in the modification of the symbol that we are caught in the process of thinking. Symbolization in the interaction process is not categorically we receive from the social world, because we are basically in the process of digesting it back thinking ourselves according to the preferences of each.

Although socially we share the same symbols and language in the context of Kabayan and plebeian said earlier, not necessarily in our thought processes are equally interpret Kabayan and plebeian words with the same manner or with the intent that the other person. Everything is less influenced by individual interpretations of interpretations symbolization itself.

Purport to refer to the language. The process of thinking refers to the language. Language determines how the processes of meaning and thought processes. Thus, all three are closely interrelated. Interaction is the third major study that became the symbolic interactionism perspective.

At the level of the concept of communication, then it can simply be seen that communication is essentially a process of symbolic interaction between communicators. An exchange of messages (which basically consists of symbolization symbolization-specific) to other parties who want to communicate with them. This message exchange is not only seen in the context of the transmission of messages, but also viewed the exchange of ways of thinking, and more than that in order to achieve a process of signification.

Communication is the process of symbolic interaction in a particular language with a particular way of thinking to achieve a particular meaning as well, where all of terkonstruksikan socially.

Perhaps the greatest contribution to how we understand Mead's our way of thinking is Mead's conception of 'art act' (take the role of the other).

Once we understand the concept of meaning, language and thought are interrelated, then we can understand Mead's concept of 'self' (self). According to Mead's concept of self we actually see ourselves more to how others see us (imagining how we look to another person). The symbolic interactionism see this as a mental picture of the looking-glass self and that it is socially constructed.

In the conception of symbolic interactionism is said that we tend to interpret ourselves more to how people see or interpret ourselves. We tend to wait, to see how other people will interpret ourselves, how the expectations of ourselves. Therefore the concept we form of ourselves primarily as an effort to meet the expectations or the interpretations of others to ourselves.

We often try to position themselves into other people, and try to see how that person perspective when looking at ourselves. We sort of borrowed the glass eyes of others and in looking for us.

The concept of self is a function of language. Without discussion there will be no self-concept. Well, it's own self-concept in later formed or constructed through the concept of conversation itself, through language (language).

An example is how the process of communication and language games that take place in the relationship between two people, especially men and women. When they communicate by using a symbol MY and YOUR language, the concept of self that is formed is "he wants me in a formal status". Atu suppose symbolism is the language of ELO and GUE formed the concept of self is "he wants to consider me as a friend or friends only". And would be very different if a symbol used is the word I and YOU, the self-concept is more likely is "he wants me in the status of a more personal, more intimate" or refer to the concept of self that "we've been going together or going out" . Suppose. So, in a communication process, a symbol language used will be very influential to how konsepdiri that will be formed.

More broadly basically communication patterns or patterns of human interaction is indeed so. That is, more to the process of negotiation and transactional both between the two individuals involved in the communication process and more broadly how the social construction affects the communication process itself. The theory of symbolic interactionism to describe it clearly.

Bibliography:

Griffin, Emory A., A First Look at Communication Theory, 5th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003