Symbolic Interactions (The International Development Of Self)

Herbert Blummer

Symbolic interactions theory first introduced by Herbert Blumer and George Herbert Mead. Blumer argued about the three main principles of symbolic interactions, which is about signification (meaning), language (language), and the mind (thought). This premise will lead to the concept of 'self' someone and socialization to the 'community' that is larger society. 

Blumer filed a first premise that the human act toward people or Things on the basis Of the meanings they want to assign people or Those Things. That is, people act or behave towards other human beings are basically based on the meaning that they wear to the other party.

In the film Si Doel Anak Sekolahan (Movie From Indonesia), Doel characters have different meanings to whom perished or how looking at these figures. When the Doel go to the big city, then perhaps many people will interpret the village Doel his impression is tawdry and tacky. Like Sarah's parents when it is too mocking Doel. Interaction between the cities with the Doel based thoughts like this. In fact, if in the village where he lives, where society treats Doel in a different way, with more friendly treatment. They are more respected because of the Doel Doel is a graduate architect who worked in the city.

Once people define a situation as real, its very real in its Consequences. Meaning about what is real for us in essence coming from what we believe to be reality itself. Because we believe that it is real, then we believe it as fact. In the same example, when we interpret the Doel as the provincial people, then we consider the fact that Doel was a tacky indeed. Vice verse.

Blumer then filed a second premise, that meaning arises out social interaction of the people That have with Each other. Meanings emerge from social interaction that is exchanged between them. Meaning not show up or attached to something or an object in nature. Meaning can not arise 'naturally'. Meaning comes from the results of the negotiation process through the use of language (language)-in a symbolic interactions perspective.

Here, Blumer insisted on the importance of naming in the process of signification. Meanwhile, Mead also believed that this symbolic naming is the basis for human society (human society). As we mentioned earlier with the language Doel plebeian, the consequence is that we draw meaning from the use of language 'hick' earlier. We obtained the meaning of the process of negotiating the language of the word 'shit'. The meaning of the word 'shit' has no meaning before he had negotiated in the social communities where the language is a symbol of life. Meaning of the word tacky does not appear in itself, does not arise naturally. Meaning of a language is essentially socially constructed.

Blumer's third premise is the individuals interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought processes. Symbolic interactions describes the process of thinking as a conversation with yourself. This thought process itself is reflexive. However, according to Mead was before humans can think, humans require language. We need to be able to communicate symbolically. The way how people think a lot is determined by the language practices. Language is not simply viewed as a 'tool of exchange message', but to see the position of symbolic interactions language more as a set of ideas that are exchanged to the other in the symbolic. So happened in symbolic communication.

Different uses of language ultimately determine the differences in the way of human thinking. A simple example is the mindset of people who speak Indonesian definitely different with the mindset of people who speak Javanese. Similarly, people who speak Sunda or Java have a different way with people who speak American, English, and Arabic. But although the meaning of a language is largely determined by the context or social construction, are often highly individual interpretation of a role in modifying the symbol that we are caught in the process of thinking. Symbolization in the interaction process does not categorically we receive from the social world, because we are basically back to digest the thought process in accordance with the preferences of our own self. 

Although our social and language share the same symbol in the context of the Doel and plebeian said earlier, not necessarily in our thought processes are equally interpret and plebeian Doel said the manner or purpose in common with other people. Everything is more or less influenced by individual interpretation in the interpretation of symbolization itself. Meaning refers to the language. Thinking process refers to the language. Language determines how the process of meaning and thought processes. Thus, all three are closely interrelated. Interaction of all three is that a major study in the perspective of symbolic interactions.

At the level of communication concepts, then simply can be seen that communication is essentially a process of symbolic interaction between communication participants. Exchanged messages (which basically consists of a symbol-specific symbolization) to other parties who are invited to communicate them. This message exchange is not only seen in the context of the transmission of messages, but also views the exchange of ways of thinking, and more than that for the achievement of a process of signification. Communication is the process of symbolic interaction in a particular language with a certain way of thinking to achieve a specific meaning besides, where all socially constructed. Perhaps the greatest contribution of Mead on how we understand the way we think is Mead's conception of 'art plays' (take the role of the other). 

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

In the conception of symbolic interactions to say that we tend to interpret ourselves more to how people view or interpret ourselves. We tend to wait, to see how others would perceive ourselves, how the expectations of people against us. Therefore our concept of ourselves primarily as a form of compliance efforts against expectations or interpretation of such other person to ourselves. We often try to position ourselves to others, and trying to see how that person perspective when looking at ourselves. We sort of borrowed a pair of glasses that other person for and in view of ourselves.

The concept itself is a function of language. Without speech there will be no concept of himself. Well, this self-concept in later formed his own or constructed through the concept of speech itself, through the language (language). An example is how the process of communication and language games that happened in the relationship between two people, especially men and women. When they communicate using a symbol of my language and you, the concept of self is formed "he wanted me in a formal status." Or suppose a symbol of the language used is you're and I formed the self-concept is "he wants to consider me as a friend or friends only." And it certainly would be very different if a symbol that is used is a word me and you, the more self-concept is probably the "she wants me in the status of a more personal, more intimate" or more refers to the self concept that "we're going together or going out" . Suppose. So, in a process of communication, a symbol of the language used would be very influential to how self concept which will be established.

Essentially broader patterns of human communication or interaction patterns are just that way. It means more to the negotiation process and whether it is transactional between two individuals involved in the communication process and, more broadly how the social construction affects the communication process itself. Symbolic interactions theory describing this clearly.