To make social theory useful for practice its concepts must be in a form which is compatible with the ways practitioners relate to people. Symbolic interaction has a unique contribution to make to this endeavor. Its unit of attention is interaction; what goes on between people. Facts and ideas at this level of abstraction can be used in intervention. By contrast theories of society and theories of system are descriptive. They provide useful background information for practice

Chaiklin, Harris

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

The Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareVolume 6Issue 1 January Article 3January 1979Symbolic Interaction and Social PracticeHarris ChaiklinUniversity of MarylandFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jsswPart of the Social Work CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work atScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contactmaira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationChaiklin, Harris (1979) "Symbolic Interaction and Social Practice," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 3.Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol6/iss1/3SYMBOLIC INTERACTION AND SOCIAL PRACTICEHarris ChaiklinUniversity of MarylandABSTRACTTo make social theory useful for practice itsconcepts must be in a form which is compatiblewith the ways practitioners relate to people.Symbolic interaction has a unique contributionto make to this endeavor. Its unit of attentionis interaction; what goes on between people.Facts and ideas at this level of abstractioncan be used in intervention. By contrasttheories of society and theories of system aredescriptive. They provide useful backgroundinformation for practice.Symbolic interaction theory offers the hope that a social perspective can beeffectively integrated into individual and family treatment. It is a hope becauseat this point in time the pschological perspective has many well developed dia-gnostic and treatment paradigms and the social perspective is a loose collectionof practice wisdom.The advantage of symbolic interaction is that in contrast to other socialtheories it does not pose a theory of 1 society but, rather, focuses on individualacts and what goes on between people. This limited world view is why it will beuseful to practitioners. It is best exemplified by Manis and Meltzer's listingof the theory's basic propositions:1. Distinctively human behavior and interaction are carried on throughthe medium of symbols and their meanings.2. The individual beccmes humanized through interaction with otherpersons.3. Human society is most usefully conceived as consisting of peoplein interaction.4. Human beings are active in shaping their behavior.5. Consciousness, or thinking, involves interaction with oneself.6. Human beings construct their behavior in the course of itsexecution.7. An understanding~of human conduct requires study of the actorscovert behavior.These propositions direct the practitioner's attention to behavior which can beseen or elicited in practice. Among the more important concepts in the theoryare those of a social self, roles built out of mutual expectations, attitudes,the importance of language P human development, looking-glass self, generalizedother and reference groups. These concepts are at the same level of abstractionor can be directly connected to concepts used in a psychological practice per-spective. Thus, if adequate diagnostic tools and treatment protocols can be de-veloped fran a symbolic interaction perspective, a practitioner can integratepsychological and social views into practice without the confusion that comesfrom trying to mix theories of difference levels of abstraction.Beyond the theoretical attractiveness of symbolic interaction there is aphilosophical base which makes it comfortable for those trying to help others inthe struggle to control their lives. Symbolic interaction rests on a pragmaticphilosophy. This is best summed up in the dictionary definition which says it is:an American movement in philosophy founded by C.S.Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrinesthat the meaning of conceptions is to be sought intheir practical bearings, that the function ofthought is to guide action, and that truth ispreeminently to be4 tested by the practical conse-quences of belief.Such a stance is almost unique in the realm of social theory. To be acceptableas a fruitful alternative for consideration in explaining the world, a theory hasonly had to be logical; it has not had to be useful in guiding action. This isnot to say that symbolic interaction theory meets the pragmatic test completely.It does meet the test more than any other theory. This is best reflected in W.I.Thomas's famous dictum, "If a man thinks a thing is true it is truce in so far asit governs his action." This is a truism; it also reflects the essence of pragma-tism. To the extent that one controls their actions and acts on their desires thebasis for that action becomes a truth. It is something that works for it providesat least a necessary explanation of that action. If from the point of view of thereceiver the action is initiated through false premises the difference between theactor and the receiver is something to be worked out in interaction.Another aspect of the cultural-value system that surrounds symbolic interactionis that it is derived fram a liberal view of the world. Its roots are in a beliefin progress and a ccmmitment to freedam. It assumes that man is inherently good;this assumption is backed up by a commitment to protect political and civil libertiesFreedom is the watchword of symbolic interaction and individual autonomy is its faithThe esphasis on the individual is the key to why symbolic interaction theory isuseful to the practitioner. Pragmatism and liberalism contain the idea that indivi-dual freedom and autonomy are only possible when the rights of others are respected.This orientation is reflected in a methodology which emphasises techniques thatcan be considered distinctive to the theory since they are so seldom used in othertheorectical approaches. The unit of analysis is the individual; the focus of con-cern is explaining the individual in social terms. This social view of personalitydraws data from an interactive view of role, operating in the context of socialstructure. The research techniques used by symbolic interactionists are exactlythose needed for practice research. Thus, they have pioneered in using personaldocuments, case histories, life histories and autobiographies. They have demon-strated that the comparative method is as necessary to advancing knowledge as arestatistical tests of significance based on probability samples.It seems almost surprising that such a pcerful theory of the social individualhas not resulted in a more useful theory of social practice. One reason may be thatHarry Stack Sullivan, the best known proponent of symbolic interaction in psychiatry,did not propose or develop a distinctive diagnostic and treatment schema based oninteractional concepts. His numerous mind-bending neologism may constitute thegroundwork for such a development but, unfortunately, many of his conceptual con-tributions have not received wide currency.Sullivan worked within a traditional psychoanalytic diagnostic and treatmentstructure. This comnitment led him to abandon an interactional approach for trans-actional ideas which are more compatible with the system orientation of psychoanalysisPerhaps this is because his focus was on treating severely disturbed people; here thenormal rules of interaction do not pertain and much time must be spent decipheringthe unconscious. Regardless of the reason much of Sullivan's writing goes beyondthe interactional and is concerned with transactions where the emphasis is on themutual changes which occur in the participants in a treatment encounter.Systems theories are good for seeing things whole and describing the world.They are vital for any complete system of treatment but are more useful in betweenpractice sessions than in the moment of practice. They provide a structure; a wayto organize and integrate information.In syst9s theory all the elements are seen as being in constant motion; thereare no facts. The equilibrium model which is the core of systems theory has beencriticized for its inherent conservation because change is not handled in a positiveway. It is noteworthy that many systems oriented therapists tend not to want 6 todeal with the issues that people want help with; but only with their precess. Per-haps it is easier to talk about systems then to deal with real people. It is para-doxical that so many systems theorists see their approach to therapy as radical.They talk in glowing terms of "growth" without seeming to realize that with peoplethis takes a long time; the possibilities for altering or speeding up growth arelimited.Many people who seek help for problems require a transactional relationship.This is because their world perceptions are so distorted, and have been for a longtime, that help can only be given at this level of intensity. The majority ofpeople who seek help for counseling have an essentially intact ego. While mentalillness may not be a myth it is possible that one of the reasons there has been acontroversy about its nature is that a psychological framework has been the onlyorientation available to those who help people suffering situational stress. Thesame holds for difficulty in handling life problems where neither the major causeor source of alleviation lies in the psyche of the individual.In almost every area of our society where there is difficulty making a decisionbecause there is question about the meaning of a person's behavior the tendency isto turn to those with a psychological orientation. Thus, the courts will turn topsychiatrists and psychologists. Physicians will do the same. In their training,psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other counselors are not exposedto a systematic and organized practice model based on the assumption of a normalego and the need for an interactional as opposed to a transactional approach. Inan interactional approach the key is to be able to understand the world as the otherdoes. The task of the counselor is to use his knowledge of where the other is towork with him to handle the issue in his life. The counselor is not concernedabout mutual changes in himself and his client, with a detailed history of theproblemn, with interpreting the current problem in the light of that history, orwith the associations, fantasies, or even the import of the client's feelings.What he does look at is what the client does about the problem alone or withothers. This approach holds whether the client needs only to change a problendefinition, his own behavior, other people's behavior, or material supportsor alterations in the environment are necessary.Interaction is a concept that does not require a high level of emotionalinvolvement or change to use successfully. All that is required is that one beable to take account of the other. Interaction is complete when each participantis aware of the others expectations and can, if they choose, take the other intoaccount. This formulation does not guarantee that the interaction will be happyor that one participant will not take advantage of another. One is not requiredto grow and it is not expected that their character structure will change as aresult of one encounter or a series of encounters. One can engage in interactionand still be an individual. In short, interaction implies that social businesscan be accomplished without either participant being deeply affected. That iswhy another name for symbolic interaction is social behaviorism.This formulation of an interactional approach depends more on a definitionof the situation than anything inherent in the person or his behavior in anysituation. It is a diagnostic question as to whether behavior is situational oran example of a personality problem whose manifestation is relatively uninfluencedby the situation. Based on this diagnosis the counselo5 can determine whether tointervene on an interactional or a transactional basis.In sum, symbolic interaction offers a pragmatic and humanitarian basis fordeveloping ways to integrate the "social" into treatment. 8 Such a system willfacilitate the use of multiple perspectives in treatnent. This can only benefitthe client. No one theory, psychological or social, explains all of behavior.While it is true that in order to guide treatment a practitioner must master onetheory; it is also true that he must draw techniques fram all theories to reallyhelp his client. It is time to balance the predcminate psychological approachesto treatment with those that are socially based. Out of such an endeavor cancome a unified theory of human behavior. Only then will those who try to helppeople be able to deliver, with predictable regularity, positive results from whatis often a confusing, painful, demanding, and expensive effort.Footnotes'Neil J. Smelser, "Sociology and the Other Social Sciences," in The Uses ofSociology, ed. by Paul F. Lazarsfeld, William H. Sewell, and Harold L. Wilensky(New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1967), p. 72Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer, "Intellectual Antecedents and BasicPropositions of Symbolic Interactionism," in Symbolic Interaction, ed. by Jerome G.Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer (3rd ed.; Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978), pp. 643The source of most of the oncepts identified in this section is DonMartindale, The Nature of Sociological Theory (Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany, 1960), pp. 339-375.4webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1971, p. 667.5Charles Ackerman and Talcott Parsons, "The Concept of 'Social Systems' asa Theoretical Device," Concepts, Theory and Explanation in the Behavior Sciences,Ed. by Gordon J. Direnzo (New York: Random House, 1966), pp. 25-28.6Shirley Gehrke Luthman with Martin Kirschenbaum, The Dynamic Family Palo Alto,California: Science and Behavior Books, 1974)7 Harris Chaiklin, "Social System, Personality System, and Practice Theory,"in Social Work Practice, 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969),pp. 1-14.8Harris Chaiklin, "Multiple Perspectives in Interpreting Behavior, "AmericanDance Theory Association, Proceedings of Ninth Annual Conference (Columbia, Maryland:American Dance Therapy Association, 1975), pp. 48-59.

Symbolic Interaction and Social Practice

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1329&amp;context=jssw

Symbolic Interaction and Social Practice

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU