Tsukasa Kuwabara, The Essence of Symbolic Interactionism: Blumer's Theory Revisited

Translated by  Kenichi Yamaguchi; Tsukasa Kuwabara
2004
　
The Economic Society of Kagoshima University
Korimoto 1-21-30, Kagoshima City, 890-0062 JAPAN.
　
　 　 　 　
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------　
The Essence of Symbolic Interactionism: Blumer's Theory Revisited
　
Translated by Kenichi Yamaguchi(Graduate student of Tohoku University)
Tsukasa Kuwabara(Associate professor of Kagoshima University)
　
“It is too early for a final assessment of Blumer's work. That will have to wait until the twenty-first century, when future historians will be able to see what remains of current sociology. It seems likely that many of his views will prevail.”　
　
Quoted from Shibutani, T., 1988, Herbert Blumer's Contribution to Twentieth-Century Sociology, Symbolic Interaction, 11:23-31. 　
　
　It is well known that the Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism(from now on, we abbreviated it to “SI”) --one trend of the “Chicago Renaissance”-- represented by the works of Herbert Blumer(Blumer, Herbert George, 1900-1987) has criticized both the sociological position of Structural-Functionalism represented by the works of T. Parsons and the Sociological Positivism or Operationalism represented by the works of G.A. Lundberg, and has tried to develop an alternative perspective (conceptual framework) and research method.　Especially, about SI's perspective, its image of society, “Society as the Dynamic”, has been much evaluated in Japanese sociology. “Society as the Dynamic” grasps human society as being constantly constructed and reconstructed by the “active individual”(Mamoru Funatsu), or as　a changeable process. In this article, we are mainly trying to examine this image of society, i.e., “Society as the Dynamic”.
　In this article, we will attempt to examine it from the standpoint of the fundamental problem of sociology, i.e.,“Society and the Individual”. More precisely, we will try to solve three questions using SI theory. The three questions are:
　1) How does SI grasp the “socialization”?
　2) How does SI grasp the “Vergesellschaftung”(Simmel, G.)?　
　3) Why must the society be grasped as “a changeable process” in SI theory?
　In short, the aim of this article is to solve the fundamental sociological problem of how relationships between society and the individual must be grasped from the perspective of SI. The reason why this kind of study must be conducted is that, in our eyes, the studies of SI in sociological circles in Japan have not been sufficient in keeping focus on this problem. In other words, their studies have not held the problem of “society and the individual”　in their mind.
　In addition, when carrying out our aforementioned tasks, there is an important issue, which must not be passed unnoticed. The point is that we have to solve the three questions with keeping focus on the central concept of SI: “self-interaction” or“interaction with oneself”. This article aims to solve the basic problem of sociology from the perspective of SI with central focus on“self-interaction”
　In chapter one, we are trying to solve the first question: “socialization” in SI. Additionally, in association with it, “the relationships between the individual and the world” in SI, and “action” in SI will be clarified. In SI, “self-interaction” is grasped as interaction in which an actor is interacting with oneself, or a form of communication in which the actor is talking to oneself and responding to his/her talking. That is to say, self-interaction is nothing but an internalized social interaction with “others”. In other words, to do self-interaction means doing the social interaction alone, which, generally speaking, may be done with other people. In addition, from the perspective of SI, this concept is synonymous with the “process of interpretation”, which, according to SI, has two distinct steps: “first, the actor indicates to himself the things that have meaning”(the step of “indication”), and second “interpretation becomes a matter of handling meanings. The actor selects, checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms the meanings in the light of the situation in which he/she is placed and of the direction of his/her action”(the step of “interpretation”). It has been said that the theorizing of “self-interaction” by SI is nothing but the “subjective nominalism” that has sustained the conception of autonomous individual who functions in society while never becoming a product of it. This criticism has been made for a long time, by many sociologists. Especially, one made by J.D.Lewis is worth noting. The first chapter of our article also has an aspect of the counterargument that challenges the criticisms by J.D.Lewis.
　From the perspective of SI that considers the concept “self-interaction” as the central concept, “socialization” means the process in which:
　1) An actor takes “schemes of definition” and “generalized roles” out of　“groups of others” to which he/she belongs.
　2) And thereafter, the actor's interpretation/definition in social interaction in which the actor is participating is to be guided by two frameworks, i.e., “schemes of definition” and “generalized roles”, which he/she has taken out of “groups of others”.
　3) “Schemes of definition” is to canalize one's social action in social interaction with other people, and “generalized roles” is to canalize one's action in self-interaction or interaction with oneself.
　In SI, thus, the“interpretation/definition” is grasped as the succession of process, which is composed of a) the acquisition of “generalized roles,” b) the acquisition of “schemes of definition,” c) the scrutiny of “schemes of definition” through one's self-interaction, which is guided by “generalized roles” and d) the perception of one's environment through the newly made “schemes of definition”, which is the product of the scrutiny in step c. This succession of process is nothing but the social phenomena that have been called“conferring of meaning” in SI.
　In SI, the “environment”, mentioned above in d, is called the “world of reality” (=“social and physical sphere”). SI describes the “human being” as surrounded by this kind of sphere composed of a variety of “things”. The human being makes “objects” for himself from the “world of reality” through the act of “conferring of meaning”. Incidentally, in SI, this “conferring of meaning” is grasped as synonymous with the perception through some kind of “perspectives” (=“schemes of definition” and “generalized roles”). So, the “object” can be described as a portion or an aspect of the “world of reality”, which the human being has carved out by means of the “perspective”. SI divides the concept of “object” into three categories: “physical object”, “social object２）” and “abstract object”.
　The “world” that exists for a human being is the area which consists only of the “objects”. Human beings are grasped as living in this kind of “world”. Hence, it can be said that SI grasps “the relationships between the individual and the world” as established by the interpretation/definition (=“conferring of meaning” or “perception”) given to the “world of reality” through the self-interaction of human being.
　However, SI has never considered these “relationships” as “fixed” only by the one-sided interpretation by the actor. SI thinks that the “world of reality” which is to be interpreted by the actor has continuous possibilities to “talk back” to his/her interpretation/definition. And, the actor can know whether his/her interpretation has validity or not, or can judge the validity of his/her definition on this “talking back”. And if the interpretations prove to be invalid, the given interpretations are to be modified. Thus, “the relationships between the individual and the world” in SI must be grasped as having possibilities of being formed and re-formed at every moment through constant interaction/interplay between interpretation/definition by the actor and “talking back” from the “world of reality”. So, the “relationships” in SI must not be considered as “fixed” only by the one-sided interpretation by the actor.
　Keeping the theory of　“the relationships between the individual and the world” in mind, let us try to clarify the concept of “action”--“individual act”-- in SI. In SI, first and foremost, the “action” is grasped as activity of “fitting” or “adjusting” by the actor to the “world of reality”. And this activity can be forced to be formed and re-formed at every moment because of　“talking back” from the “world of reality”. SI conceptualizes this activity as a sequence of units which consists of: 1)“impulse”, 2)“perception”, 3)“manipulation”, 4)“consummation”. But taking the theory of　“the relationships between the individual and the world” into account, this sequence must not be grasped as: 1)“impulse”, 2)“perception”, 3)“manipulation”, 4)“consummation” ,but be grasped as a continual--not continuous-- cycle like: 1)“impulse”, 2)“perception”, 3)“manipulation”, 4)“consummation”, 5)“impulse”, 6)“perception”, 7)“manipulation”, 8)“consummation”, →n)“impulse”, and so on.
　In chapter two, we attempt to solve the second question: how are the actors constructing society? SI grasps the “social interaction” as a mutual presentation or interconversion of “actions” by actors. SI classifies the “social interaction” into “symbolic interaction” and “non-symbolic interaction”. The former is the interaction mediated by self-interaction, and, the latter is the interaction not mediated by self-interaction. SI has thought that symbolic interaction is equivalent to Mead's “use of significant symbols” and that non-symbolic interaction is equivalent to “conversations of gestures” in Mead's terms. However, more precisely, our study of SI proved that in“symbolic interaction”, at least two distinct “symbolic interactions” are included: “symbolic interaction in which a significant symbol still has not yet existed but participants in the interaction are trying to call a significant symbol into being”, and “symbolic interaction mediated by significant symbol called into being by participants in preceding interaction”(=“use of significant symbols”). In SI, “society” or “human society” is grasped as being composed of　“real form of　interactions”, and this type of interaction is called “joint action” or “transaction”. To tell the truth, it is this “real form of　interaction” that is equivalent to “use of significant symbols”. As it were, “human society” is conceptualized as joint actions interlinked both “in timeline and space”(in other words, diachronically and synchronically). SI said, “Joint action not only represents a horizontal linkage, so to speak, of activities of the participants, but also a vertical linkage with previous joint action”. In this sense, for SI, the joint action “was the fundamental unit of society. Its analysis, accordingly, lays bare the generic nature of society”.
　Joint action is formed through symbolic interaction. That is, interactants construct the “real form of interaction”through symbolic interaction. In SI, “symbolic interaction” is formulated as a presentation of “gestures” and a response to the “meaning” of those gestures. Moreover, the meaning of the gesture flows out along three lines: it signifies what the person to whom it is directed is to do; it signifies what the person who is making the gesture plans to do; and it signifies the form of joint action that is to arise by the articulation of the acts of both. In SI, the state of “mutual understanding” means the state in which “a gesture that is presented by one person is seen by him/her as it is being seen by those to whom the gesture is addressed”. In SI, this state is equivalent to the state in which “significant symbol” or “common definition” exists among interactants. More properly, “significant symbol” is the gesture on which each interactant is “conferring” the “same” meanings through self-interaction by oneself. Joint action can take place only when the “significant symbol” or “common definition” exists. In turn, this “common definition” can be only when each interactant does “taking into account of taking into account”--a form of self-interaction--, and as the result of this, they are able to grasp properly (=interpret properly) both the “standpoint of the other” and “one's own standpoint in the eyes of the other”. Moreover, In SI, for interactants, a proper grasp of those two “standpoints” is considered to be possible only through directing their interpretations/definitions by the interpretive instruments, i.e.,　the “perspective”(=“schemes of definition” and “generalized roles”). The interactants have already got them from the “groups of others”. And, from the perspective of SI, only with this “common definition”, “the regularity, stability, and repetitiveness of joint action” can be maintained.　
　In chapter three, we attempt to solve the third question: the necessities for the society to have the nature of continuous possibilities of the unpredictable transformation of its form. SI has emphasized that the society or the “joint action must be seen as having a career or a history”, “this career is generally orderly, fixed and repetitious by virtue of a common identification or definition of the joint action that is made by its participants”; “however, the career of joint actions also must be seen as open to many possibilities of uncertainty”. Why must we grasp the “joint action”/“society” as having such character “as open to many possibilities of uncertainty”? We tried to solve this question in this chapter. To clarify the reason why we must grasp the joint action as “open to many possibilities of uncertainty”, keeping focus on the concept of “self-interaction” means proving the actual and logical impossibility of occurrence of the continuous “regularity, stability, and repetitiveness of joint actions” which compose the society, keeping focus on the concept of “self-interaction”. In other words, we have to prove that practically speaking, the “common definition” cannot keep the same form continuously.
　In SI, the state in which a certain common definition is maintained means the situation in which a certain significant symbol is maintained among interactants. This situation can be described as the state in which “a gesture that is presented by one person is seen by him/her as it is being seen by those to whom the gesture is addressed”. In order to maintain this state, the interactant who presents a gesture must interpret and define properly, through self-interaction, the “two standpoints” of other person/the “alter ego” to whom the gesture is addressed. At the same time, the validity of his/her interpretation/definition must be kept continuously. But, this is impossible because of the nature of the “alter ego” or “other”.
　As we have seen in chapter one, in SI, the “worlds” that exist for human beings are the areas which consist only of the “objects” . So, the “others” that exist for one individual must be　included in the category/concept of the “object”(“social object”). The “object” is, as we have said, able to be described as a part of “world of reality” which has been carved out by the individual by use of his/her “perspective”. Therefore, it can be said that the “object” is, on the one hand, the percept made by the individual, but on the other hand, at the same time, it continues to exist undeniably as a portion of the “world of reality”. Likewise, it can be said that the “other” is, on the one hand, the percept made by the individual, but on the other hand, at the same time, it continues to exist undeniably as a portion of the “world of reality”. Then, how was the nature of the “world of reality” grasped? As we have clarified in chapter one, SI thinks that the “world of reality” to be interpreted by the actor has continuous possibilities to “talk back” to his/her interpretation/definition. And, the actor can know whether his/her interpretation has validity or not, i.e., the actor can judge the validity of his/her definition on this “talking back”. And if the interpretations would prove to be invalid, the given interpretations were to be modified. Thus, the interpretation/definition by the individual in SI must be grasped as having possibilities of being formed and re-formed at every moment because of continual “talking back” from the “world of reality”. So, it can be said that the individual cannot continue to use the same interpretation/definition. Therefore, because the “other” is also categorized as a part of the “world of reality”, it can be said that the “other” which is to be interpreted by the actor has continuous possibilities to “talk back” to his/her interpretation/definition. So, it can be also said that the individual cannot continue to use the same interpretation/definition in relation to the “other”with whom the individual has “interaction/joint action”. The “other” or “alter ego” for the individual exists as the “black box” (Luhmann, N.) forever.
　To reflect on the discussions mentioned above, it can be concluded as follows: in SI, as a matter of fact, it must be considered to be impossible for the “common definition” to sustain in a particular form forever. Because, the nature of the “other”(=“black boxness”) never allows the actor to continue to use the same interpretation/definition, or to confer a particular meanings through self-interaction forever. The “other” has continuous possibilities of “talking back”, and the possibilities that the actor have to change or modify a given interpretation/definition (=meaning) exist continuously. So, any kind of the “common definition” is to be inevitably re-formed in the end. Hence, any kind of “joint action” is to be inevitably re-formed in the end.
　In the final chapter, we discussed the problems concerning the research method of　the approach from “the standpoint of the actor” which is the means of testing empirically the image of society, “Society as the Dynamic” examined in previous chapters.
　In chapters one, two, and three, we have clarified the image of society in SI. To put it strongly, in SI, the “society” is principally conceptualized as the interlinked social interactions by interactants. In addition, its real form was “transaction” or “joint action”. Thus, in SI, social interaction is nothing but the fundamental unit of society, and to lay bare the generic nature of　the “human society”, all we have to do is to study this interaction(=transaction/joint action). That is the hypothesis that SI set up for the study of society. To summarize the image of social interaction clarified in previous chapters, it can be described as follows: that is, in SI, the social interaction is the interaction in which the interactants who exist as having the nature of “black boxness” for the others are doing “taking into account of taking into account” as a form of self-interaction, in order to grasp/define properly both the “standpoint of the other” and “one's own standpoint in the eyes of the other”. In other words, it is the social process in which each interactant must continue to guess two things (“from what standpoint are they perceiving the world?”, and “how are my perspectives being grasped by them?”) by “taking into account of taking into account”. Additionally, because of the nature of “black boxness” which all interactants have with respect to one another, the interactants necessarily are forced to redefine the situations, and as a result of this re-definition, the interactions or the joint actions are forced to change into another form. These possibilities of “change” exist continuously. This is the image of social interaction that has been obtained through the discussions in three chapters of this article. This image of social interaction is located in the category of “sensitizing concept” in SI's methodology. So, as a matter of course, this image of social interaction must not be grasped as the self-evident truth or the absolute assumption from which the grand theory is to be built up through some kind of deductive approach, but must be grasped as a hypothesis or tentative whose validity must be tested empirically. The way in which the test should be done has been stated by SI as follows:“one moves out from the concept to the concrete distinctiveness of the instance instead of embracing the instance in the abstract framework of the concept”.
　SI has put forward the “naturalistic inquiry” as the ideal research method of social sciences, which means the “continuing interaction between guiding ideas and empirical observation”.In other words, the “naturalistic inquiry” is the method of continual testing and revising of the given concept of the subject of research that the investigator has, through the empirical observations. Then, how can the investigator do this testing and revising ?--In other words, what does SI think about the problem of “how can the investigator know whether his/her given concept of the subject of research is valid or not” ?--. In SI, that is grasped as possible by way of “resisting” or “talking back” from the “empirical world” under study, to the concepts of the investigator (the occurrence of the “negative case”).
　Then, what kind of methodological position the investigator is to stand on, provided that he carries out the naturalistic inquiry with the image of social interaction (“root images” of SI) as clarified in chapters one, two and three? The “position”, which SI asserts, is nothing but the approach from the “standpoint of the actor” stated above! According to SI, the investigator has to do this type of approach provided that he carries out the naturalistic inquiry with the image of social interaction (“root images” of SI) as clarified in chapters one, two and three. The final chapter of this article illustrates the problems or the points to be kept in mind, which are involved in actually doing this type of approach.
　The first problem is whether “group” can be located in the category of or the concept of “acting unit” or not. To sum up, the approach from the “standpoint of the actor” is the method that calls on the investigator to study the society from the “position of the actor”. In other words, it is the method that calls on the investigator to take the role of the actor under study “and see his world from his standpoint”. In SI, the concept of “actor” includes not only an individual, but also the “group”. In order to clearly express that point, SI often uses the term “acting unit” to refer to “actor”. The activities of the “acting units” must be grasped equally as the product of the interpretive processes by themselves both in case of “acting unit” including “an individual” and a “group”. So, according to SI, even in cases where the “group” may be included in the category of “acting unit”, we must execute the approach from the “standpoint of the actor” which forces us to “take the role of the acting unit”. That is the assertion of SI. However, it has been clarified as the result of our discussions that SI could not explain persuasively and systematically how it was possible for the investigator to take the role of the entirety of the group. As the result of our discussions, it can be said that only “an individual” should be included in the category of “acting unit” if we are to take into account the practice of the approach from the “standpoint of the actor”. The next problem is that “can we take the role of the acting unit in the raw?”. Finally, we have discussed this point.
　Supposing that the social interactions were held by two interactants, based on the findings which we have obtained, the two interactants are grasped to be doing “taking into account of taking into account” as a form of self-interaction in order to grasp the “standpoint of the other” and “one's own standpoint in the eyes of the other” each other. From the perspective of SI, two interactants are grasped as existing for the other as “black box”. So, when the investigator tries to study social interaction from the “standpoint of the actor”, he/she must consider the assumption of “black box”--both of the interactants cannot know the real identity of the other-- in the social theory also as the assumption in the methodology, and use the research method built on, or compatible with that assumption. That is, “delimiting an awareness context requires always that sociologists ascertain independently the awareness of each interactant. The safest method is to obtain data, through observation or interview, from each interactant on his own state of awareness. To accept the word of only one informant is risky, even perhaps for the open awareness context”.
　However, it should be noted that the “investigator” who studies the social interaction is also nothing but one of the “actor” or “acting unit” like the two interactants. So, the act of study or the “research act” by the investigator must also be grasped as nothing but “one of the interpretive processes” and the interaction between the investigator and the investigated also must be located equally in the category of “symbolic interaction”. Hence, two interactants whose roles are under study must be grasped as existing also for the investigator as the “black box”. In this sense, the research act of taking the “standpoint of the actor” never means taking directly the “standpoint” in the raw. The “standpoint of the actor” taken by the investigator can only be the “reconstruction of constructions”(Naohito Tokugawa). Then, how can the investigator relativize this “reconstruction of constructions” and test the validity of it? The answer by SI that the investigator can do this in the light of the “talking back” from the “empirical world” is, needless to say, not enough. The answer is too incomplete to be put to practical use in the sociological research. Our first and principal issues in the future are to set up the testing standards and verify empirically the image of social interaction or the image of society, “Society as the Dynamic”.
　
Acknowledgements
　Many people have contributed to the writing of this article. Special thanks go to M. Nakano(Professor of Kyoto Institute of Technology), M. Hougetsu(Professor of Kyoto University), K. Ihara(Associate professor of Kagoshima University), and S. Coda(Lecturer of Kagoshima University) who gave us many suggestive advices.
　
Notes
1) This article is an English translation(an abridged translation) of Kuwabara(2001)“=TouhokudaigakuSinsagakuironbun(Hakase)NoYousi－SinborikkuSougosayouronJyosetsu(3)－”(Kuwabara(2003a)). See Kuwabara(2003b) about a brief explanation of Kuwabara(2001). Finally, see Kuwabara(2003c) about a historically analyzed version of Kuwabara(2001).
2) Logically speaking, “gestures” in G.H. Mead's term must be included in the category of this concept(“social object”). So, in the perspective of SI, the “meanings” of “gestures” are also grasped as social products. This image of “meanings” is equivalent to the image of “meanings” in Mead's theory on social interactions.

References
Kuwabara, T., 2001, Introduction to a sociological perspective of Symbolic Interactionism(3)(The summary of a doctoral dissertation, Tohoku University), Keizaigaku-Ronshu~ of Kagoshima University (ISSN:0389-0104), 54:69-86.
----, 2003a, The editor's note, The Newsletter of Kagoshima University Information Processing Center(ISSN:1343-8638), 16:138.
----, 2003b, On the posting “Symbolic Interactionism Notes” on the Internet, The Newsletter of Kagoshima University Information Processing Center(ISSN:1343-8638),16:10-16.
----, 2003c, H.G. Blumer's “Symbolic Interactionism,”in Nakano, M., and M. Hougetsu (ed.), The Chicago School of Sociology(ISBN: 4-7907-1029-7), Sekaishiso Seminar, pp.281-290.