Symbolic Interactionism as Implicated in Rehabilitation

Johanna Jefferies
Psy 350
Deliverable #1, prompt #3
15 October 2014
Symbolic Interactionism as Implicated in Rehabilitation
Symbolic Interactionism, derived from the work of George Herbert Mead, is a sociological perspective that is important to social psychology. The framework of symbolic interactionism has its strengths and weaknesses in terms of its ability to explain behavior. I will attempt to utilize this theory to explain the social problem of recidivism and then explore the ways in which it can be used to alleviate this social problem.
Symbolic interactionism is a distinctive approach to the study of human life and human conduct in which reality is formed as a result of the interactions between individuals. According to this theory, people do not respond directly to reality, they respond to the social understanding of reality.
This means that humans exist not in the physical space composed of realities but in the "world" composed only of "objects." The concept of object is a fundamental piece of Mead’s analysis. Human beings live in a world or environment of objects, and their activities are formed around objects.
According to Mead, objects are human constructs and not self­existing entities with intrinsic nature
(Blumer, 1966). According to the symbolic interactionism theory, both individual and society are created through social interaction and one cannot be understood in terms without the other. Behavior is not defined by forces from the environment or inner forces such as drives, or instincts, but rather by a

1

Symbolic Interactionism as Implicated in Rehabilitation

reflective, socially understood meaning of both the internal and external incentives that are currently presented (Meltzer et al., 1975). This aspect of the theory is reflected in Blumer’s (1966) claim that it is the reflexive process alone that yields and constitutes a self.
Blumer (1969) built on Mead’s perspective and set out three basic premises of symbolic interactionism. First, humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things. Second, the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society. Third, these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters. Blumer, following Mead’s lead, claimed people interact with each other by interpreting or defining each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their response is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions.
Blumer (1969) explained further that humans think about how they should act according to their perceptions about reality and their agreement with others on the meanings behind the reality. In other words, things exist only in the sense that they are perceived.
Symbolic interactionism is capable of explaining deviance as a learned behavior. People learn deviance from the different groups with which they associate. This theory of learned deviance counters arguments that deviant behavior is biological or due to personality. People commit deviant acts because they associate with individuals who act in a deviant manner. The individual learns and adopts the deviant values that differ from those of the dominant culture as well as techniques for committing deviance. The interactions that these individuals have with others and with objects in their environment reinforce these behaviors, beliefs, and values. Symbolic interactionism isn’t particularly capable of explaining the antisocial behavior of the child who acts out simply to receive

2

Symbolic Interactionism as Implicated in Rehabilitation

negative attention. There are many behaviors that symbolic interactionism does not explain well, however this theory is well suited for explaining learned behaviors.
A specific social problem that symbolic interactionism can explain is recidivism. Recidivism occurs when the perception of the objects in one’s world is fixed, thusly fixing the individual in a role that fails to allow them to be functioning members of society. If people learn deviance from others, then the people with whom one associates with are of utmost importance. The closer the relationship, the more likely someone is to be influenced. Therefore, the roles that one played that led to incarceration are likely the roles that will be reinforced while incarcerated. Also, the deviant nature is likely to evolve during incarceration. In other words, one learns new ways to commit crimes.
This leads to the cycle of recidivism, since the individual is highly likely to reoffend upon release due to their limited set of skills, attitudes, and beliefs.
Symbolic interactionism can be used to alleviate this social problem of recidivism through cognitive­behavioral change programs implemented to rehabilitate the offending individuals. Through these programs, the individuals are exposed to alternate meanings, thus expanding their limited worlds. Early in life, individuals learned their roles through observation and interaction with those in close proximity. In order to relate to others and to function properly in social relationships, one must have learned the appropriate roles and how to present them (Elkin, 1958). A problem arises when individuals have limited access to individuals in varying roles, and the roles they do have access to are harmful. These individuals become stuck in roles that cause them and others harm, and they are not exposed to alternative ways to perceive the objects in one’s world, and consequently, the roles that one is expected to or expects to play are gravely limited.
One particular cognitive behavioral change program is Thinking for a Change (T4C) which was developed specifically for the offender population. T4C utilizes Blumer’s (1969) basic premises of

3

Symbolic Interactionism as Implicated in Rehabilitation

symbolic interactionism. A core feature of T4C is paying attention to one’s thinking. This calls on
Blumer’s (1969) third premise, the interpretive process. Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation, and T4C is significantly focused on bringing awareness to this inner dialogue.
Mead called this inner dialogue minding. Minding is the delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about what they will do next. We naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out the meaning of a difficult situation, but individuals who are stuck in a reactionary mode are unaware of this inner dialogue because it happens so fast and is so deeply ingrained.
The basic premise of T4C is that thinking controls behavior. This concept is closely related to
Blumer’s (1969) first premise which states that humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things. In other words, our thoughts about things inform our actions towards those things. In short, thinking controls behavior. Change happens when individuals become aware of their thinking and come to an understanding of the beliefs and attitudes that underlie their thinking, and in turn are allowed the space to develop new and adaptive beliefs. This part of the process is directly tied to Blumer’s (1969) second premise, which is that the meaning of objects/symbols is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society. This growing awareness of belief systems and the processes that formed them allows the individuals the opportunity to reflect on whether or not these beliefs serve them. Hence, they are allowed the space to change their thinking. This moment of becoming aware of one’s thinking provides one with the space to act rather than react. One learns how to use the space between stimulus and response to break free from habitual beliefs and thoughts that don’t serve them, thusly allowing them to step out of patterned behavior that would lead to recidivism.
Another way that T4C is indicative of symbolic interactionism is the role­playing aspect of the group dynamic. Role­taking is a part of our lives at an early age, and offending individuals often

4

Symbolic Interactionism as Implicated in Rehabilitation

become stuck in maladaptive roles. T4C focusses on role­playing as a way for these individuals to step out of normative roles and practice using these new skills that are presented, namely, basic social skills that many of these individuals didn’t have the chance to learn through familial socialization, cognitive restructuring, and finally, problem solving skills which are a combination of the basic social skills and the cognitive restructuring. The effect of practicing these new skills in a controlled environment is illuminating, and the participants are required to take the practice into their larger worlds and report back to the group, in turn, receiving feedback and guidance. In this way, symbolic interaction is largely at play within the group dynamic.
Symbolic interactionism is related to the concepts of mind, self, and society. In the sense that one becomes aware of one’s mind, one then has the freedom of choice when interacting as an individual within society. There are many symbolic interactionist concepts that are utilized in this cognitive behavioral change program, T4C.
Definition of the situation is a theme that is central to the cognitive restructuring component of the program. Individuals are taught to utilize a tool that is called a thinking report in which a situation is named, thoughts pertaining to the situation are listed exhaustively, emotions are listed, and then an underlying belief is uncovered, one that connects the emotions and thoughts back to the original situation. This definition of the situation is integral to the beginning of the change process, in that one learns how to view a situation from an alternate perspective. This reframing is an important tool for the process of rehabilitation.
Emotion work is another concept of symbolic interactionism that is utilized in the thinking report. By becoming aware of which situations trigger certain emotions, gaining awareness of the physical sensation of certain emotions, and even becoming aware of the beliefs that are attached to these emotions, one learns the tool of self­regulation and this is another huge step on the road to rehabilitation and reduced recidivism. Another phenomenon, looking glass self a social the , is

5

Symbolic Interactionism as Implicated in Rehabilitation

psychological concept based in symbolic interactionism that refers to individuals shaping their self­concepts based on their understanding of how others perceive them (McIntyre, 2006). Because individuals conform to how they think others see them, it's nearly impossible to act differently from how a person thinks he or she is perpetually perceived. By taking part in the T4C program and using the opportunity to step out of this conformity and practice new behaviors, one is able to practice acting differently through these novel interactions.
A final symbolic interactionist concept that I will cover in this paper which is implicated in T4C is institution total institution is a place of work and residence where a great number of total . A similarly situated people, cut off from the wider community for a considerable time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered way of life (Frank, 2002). Individuals who are frequently incarcerated become institutionalized and the roles that they play within the prison system become fixed and they don’t necessarily translate to the roles they might play as productive members of society. In turn, this lack of adaptive roles leads to a likely recidivism. Through the implementation of the T4C program and other cognitive behavioral change programs that utilize the concepts of symbolic interactionism, individuals are able to reframe situations, observe their thoughts and emotions, discover alternate meanings, uncover core beliefs, change their way of thinking, and ultimately make lasting changes in behavior. 6

Symbolic Interactionism as Implicated in Rehabilitation

References
Blumer, H. (1966). Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead.
American journal of Sociology,
71/5, 535­544.
Meltzer B.N., Petras J.W. & Reynolds L.T. (1975).
Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis, Varieties, and
Criticism.
Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice­Hall.
McIntyre, Lisa (2006).
The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology.
3rd ed. New York: McGraw
Hill,
2006. ISBN 0­07­288524­6.
Elkin, F. (1958). Socialization and the Presentation of Self. arriage and Family Living,
M
20/4, 320­325.
Frank, J. (2002). The paradox of aging in place in assisted living.
Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 44.
ISBN 0­89789­678­5.

7