THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SELF THROUGH SYMBOLIC INTERACTION WITH THE OTHER IN EVERYDAY LIFE
Abstract
In this paper, the authors try to test, with the help of other authors who have discussed this topic, first in terms of interpretive sociology and later within the framework of symbolic interactionism, how the self is formed. With regard to this, the self is viewed as the most important instrument of free communication and interaction in everyday relationship with the other, in which people adjust to each other and by which the subjective meanings of people's behaviour are emphasised. In the first part of the paper, entitled ‘Understanding the meaning of human action within the framework of interpretive sociology’, the meaning of human action plays a central role, and the basic goal of sociological analysis is to understand, that is interpret the meaning. This part gives, in brief, the analysis of the meaning of human action through three perspectives within interpretive sociology: phenomenological sociology, ethnomethodology, and symbolic interactionism. In the second part of the paper, entitled ‘Symbolic interactionism: the symbolic meaning of the interaction of the self and the other in everyday life’, the ability of a human being to define and interpret mutual actions is analysed. Symbolic interactionism has its origins in the philosophical pragmatism and social behaviorism of George Herbert Mead. Interaction (face to face) takes its central place and the self is the key term. In Mead's social construction of the self (‘I’ and ‘me’), interaction and communication are crucial (learning about the self through interaction with the other). According to Herbert Blumer, who formulated the phrase of symbolic interactionism, human society is the product of a specific human interaction mediated by the use of symbols. The third part of the paper, entitled ‘Erving Goffman’s ’dramaturgical model’ of studying social life and constituting the self’, analyses the so-called dramaturgical model of the study of social life - the face-to-face interaction between people in everyday encounters and the role of the self in it (the construction of the self), where an individual as an active and creative actor performs their (social) role in a particular social situation in front of others, coined by Erving Goffman using a metaphor of a theatre performance for everyday life.
The fourth part of this paper, entitled ‘Ralph Turner's role theory: an interactionist framework for understanding the interaction of the self and the other’, analyses this author’s theoretical approach which emphasises the role as an orientation mechanism in interaction and as a cultural resource, whose networks represent a framework for the activities in society.
References
Afrić, V. (1988). Simbolički interakcionizam. Revija za sociologiju. Zagreb, Vol. XIX, No 1–2: 1–13.
Bezić, Ž. (2001). Jastvo i sebstvo. Crkva u svijetu, 36. br. 2. str. 174–203.
Biddle, B. (1986). Recent Developments in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1), 67–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.12.1.67
Bodlović, P. (2011). Elementarne odrednice svijesti kod fenomenologa i simboličkih interakcionista. Amalgam, No 5: 53–66.
Blumer, H. (1962). Society as Symbolic Interaction. U M.A. Rose (Ur.), Human behavior and social processes; an interactionist approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. https://ia800304.us.archive.org/32/items/humanbehaviorsoc00rose/humanbehaviorsoc00rose.pdf.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carter, M.J., & Fuller, C. (2015). Symbolic interactionism. Sociopedia, doi:10.1177/205684601561
Filipović, S. (2012). Gofmanov glumac kao avatar: mogućnost primene dramaturškog modela u virtuelnom komuniciranju. Communication Management Quarterly. Časopis za upravljanje komuniciranjem, No. 23: 73–94.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnometodology. New Jersey, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gofman, E. (2000). Kako se predstavljamo u svakodnevnom životu. Beograd: Geopoetika.
Husserl, E. (2007). Ideje za čistu fenomenologiju i fenomenologijsku filozofiju. Zagreb: Naklada Breza.
Kalero, P. L. (2014). Sociologija sopstva. Dijalog, ANUBIH, br. 3–4: 126–142.
Kišjuhas, A. (2007). Dramaturgija socijalnih odnosa. 20. oktobar 2007. Danas, Pristupljeno 19. 07. 2018. https://www.danas.rs/nedelja/dramaturgija-socijalnih-odnosa/.
Milardović, A. (2013). Stranac i društvo: Fenomenologija stranca i ksenofobija. Zagreb: PAN LIBER.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G. H. (2003). Um, osoba i društvo. Zagreb: Naklada Jasenski i Turk.
Moreno, J. L. (1946). Psychodrama. New York: Beacon House. Volume 1.
Nikolić, L. (1994). Simbolički interakcionizam oblikovanje i tumačenje društvenog sveta. Sociološki pregled, 28(1); 79–97.
Prodanović, S. M. (2015). Status zdravog razuma u savremenoj sociološkoj teoriji: Ka pragmatičkoj rekonceptualizaciji odnosa teorije i prakse. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet. Doktorska disertacija.
Ritzer, G. (1997). Suvremena sociologijska teorija. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus.
Spasić, I. (1996). Značenje susreta: Goffmanova sociologija interakcije. Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju Filip Višnjić.
Spasić, I. (1998). Interpretativna sociologija. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Sociološki rečnik. (2007). Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike.
Sternheimer, K. (2011). Symbolic Interactionism on the Road. , December 08, Pristupljeno 07. 07. 2018. http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/12/symbolic-interactionism-on-the-road.html, preuzeto sa: CDHI, Simbolički interakcionizam na cesti, March 06, 2012, http://www.cdhi.hr/2012/03/simbolicki-interakcionizam-na-cesti/.
Schutz, A. (1972). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Sztompka, P. (2008). The Focus on Everyday Life: a New Turn in Sociology. European Review, 16(01), doi:10.1017/s1062798708000045
Turner, R.H. (1962). Role-Taking: Process Versus Conformity. U M.A. Rose (Ur.), Human behavior and social processes; an interactionist approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. https: //ia800304. archive. org/32/items/humanbehaviorsoc00rose/humanbehaviorsoc00rose. pdf.
Turner, R.H. (2001). Chapter 12 – Role Theory. U Handbook of Sociological Theory. Springer. Pristupljeno 16. 04. 2018; http://www.bookmetrix.com/detail/chapter/9eb443df-6180-4efe-8e76-633eaae4e818#downloads.
Veber, M. (1976). Privreda i društvo. Beograd: Prosveta.
Žurić, J. I., & Jakovina, T. (2017). Role Theory and Role Analysis in Psychodrama: A Contribution to Sociology. Socijalna Ekologija, 26(3), 151–169. doi:10.17234/socekol.26.3.5
Autori koji objavljuju u ovom časopisu pristaju na sljedeće uslove:
- Autori zadržavaju autorska prava i pružaju časopisu pravo prvog objavljivanja rada i licenciraju ga "Creative Commons Attribution licencom" koja omogućava drugima da dijele rad, uz uslov navođenja autorstva i izvornog objavljivanja u ovom časopisu.
- Autori mogu izraditi zasebne, ugovorne aranžmane za neekskluzivnu distribuciju članka objavljenog u časopisu (npr. postavljanje u institucionalni repozitorijum ili objavljivanje u knjizi), uz navođenje da je članak izvorno objavljen u ovom časopisu.
- Autorima je dozvoljeno i podstiču se da postave objavljeni članak onlajn (npr. u institucionalni repozitorijum ili na svoju internet stranicu) prije ili tokom postupka prijave rukopisa, s obzirom da takav postupak može voditi produktivnoj razmjeni ideja i ranijoj i većoj citiranosti objavljenog članka (Vidi Efekti otvorenog pristupa).