Words: 940
Essay Exam #3 Symbolic interactionism is a sociological viewpoint that has shaped various matters of the practice as we know it today. Social interactionism particular focus is based on how individuals learn to interpret and also gives meaning to the world through interaction with others. The term “symbolic interactionism” is remotely used to distinguish the study of human life and conduct.
It has been argued by sociologist that this has a micro approach and doesn’t stipulate any macro substance or in other words this philosophy concentrates more on the individual than society as a whole hich raised controversy over time. This practice has been heavily influenced by George Herbert Mead George H. Mead, American philosopher and social theorist, was one of the most prolific and profound fgures in classical American pragmatism.
Mead is considered to be the father of symbolic interactionism in sociology even though he never released a monograph until after his death which was published by the assemblage of his students from various notes and unrevealed documents. Mead was widely known for his work on the nature of self and inter-sub]ectivity hich is based on the vital disputation that the self is a social nascent. The concept of social self delicately entails that individuals are the cause of social interaction and not by rational or natal pre-requirements of that interaction.
The self has a character which is different from that of the physiological organism proper. The self is something which has a development; it is not initially there, at birth, but arises in the process of social experience and activity, that is, develops in the given individual as a esult of his relations to that process as a whole and to other individuals within that process. The intelligence of the lower forms of animal life, like a great deal of human intelligence, does not involve self.
In our habitual actions, for example, in our moving about in the world that is simply there and to which we are so adjusted that no thinking is involved, there is a certain amount of sensuous experience such as persons have when they are Just waking up, a bare thereness in the world (Self 347). Mead describes self as being more attentive to reflection of one’s identity but also rings notice that the body is completely separate and independent for example, Mead made note that “we can lose parts of our body without any serious invasion of the self” it is only a mere social experience but self has completely detached from it.
Self develops uniquely through social experience and by the experience exchanges symbols like language to convey meaning that affects the individual self and not the physical body. Mead also believed that social experience alters one seeing them as others do or “taking the role of the other’ but too understanding the role of the other ltimately indicating outcome of self-awareness. He speculated that there is a functioning “l” self and an objective “me” self.
The “l” is operating and instigates action while on the other hand the “me” prolongs, intervenes, or modifies action depending on how others react. In comparison to Mead, his earlier correspondents In tnelr enslavement. I ne traaltlonal Idea 0T tneory Is Dasea on sclentlTlc as carrlea on within the division of labor at a particular stage in the latter’s development. It corresponds to the activity of the scholar which takes place alongside all the other ctivities of a society but in no immediately clear connection with them.
In this view of theory, therefore, the real social function of science is not made manifest; it speaks not of what theory means in human life, but only of what it means in the isolated sphere in which for historical reasons it comes into existence (Critical Theory 428). The traditional theory refers to propositions whose legitimacy lies in its resemblance with an object already instituted prior to the act of; this theory considers the subject to be the passive element of the act of knowing.
In contrast to critical theory, which considers that both science and reality is the product of social effectuation or in other words the subject and object of knowledge find themselves socially executed. In relations to Marx, Weber, and Durkheim all correlate in very different but similar ways. Karl Marx was quite simple due to the Horkheimer based many of his ideologies on Marxism to begin with and by following Marx he was concerned with the conditions that allow for social change and the formation on institutions.
Their rominence on the critical element of theory was derived substantially from their effort to overcome the restrictions of positivism, materialism, and determinism. In comparison Weber is their concept for reality and science; Weber acknowledges the subjective values that influence the disposition of facts within the scientific method and by doing so, the impact the scientific process has beyond the selection of subject matter the process of conceptualization. Emile Durkheim borders on what has come to be known as critical theory.
He implies that intellectual anomie causes pain and suffering to entire social body not Just to the working class but can also lead to suicide. They both believed that the physical science is endowed with so called objectivity, but emptied of human content, but only as ideology, at the expense of truth. In conclusion, Horkheimer concept on traditional and critical theory configures two very important aspects of society, the critique and change verses the understanding and explaining and still to this day is still problematic in sociological society.