Simmel vs. Mead: Symbolic Interactionism Compared

Introduction to Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a primary sociological perspective that George Herbert Mead advanced by bringing "rigorous substance to this emergent micro-level analysis" (Bloch, 2013). From the view of symbolic interactionism, "society is the sum total of the countless daily interactions that people engage in" (Bloch, 2013). Symbols are differentiated from signs "in that a sign is something that stands for itself" (Bloch, 2013).

Mead's Approach to Symbolic Interactionism

Mead's approach to symbolic interactionism was developed through the "synthesis of other schools of thought," including pragmatism, which views the social world as a growing and developing creation that must be observed both systematically and scientifically in order to be understood. From this view, "truth and reality are not frozen abstractions but actively created in the social world" (Bloch, 2013).

Another primary influence on Mead was behaviorism — the study of observable behavior that examines the manner in which "people and animals respond to stimuli" (Bloch, 2013). Mead is reported to have "embraced a contrasting approach: philosophical realism, in which the larger social order very much shapes and controls one's perceptions and actions" (Bloch, 2013). Mead provides a theory about the process of the individual becoming a social being, or socialization, defined as "the way in which socially formed norms, beliefs and values come to exist within the individual to the degree that these things appear natural" (Allan, 2004). Mead is credited with providing the "foundation for the sociological understanding of the self" (Allan, 2004).

Mead vs. Simmel: Contrasting Perspectives

Mead is focused on the social basis of "meaning, self and action" and the question of "where is meaning and how is it created" (Allan, 2004). The keys to knowledge according to Mead include "pragmatism, action, meaning, social objects, interaction, mind, self, generalized other, and institutions" (Allan, 2004).

Simmel held that the key to everything is "interaction," reported to arise "on the basis of certain drives or for the sake of certain purposes" (Allan, 2004). According to Simmel, any social phenomenon is composed of two elements that are, in reality, inseparable:

(1) Content: the interest, purpose, or motive of the phenomenon or interaction; and
(2) Form: the mode of interaction among individuals through which the specific content achieves social reality (Allan, 2004).

Furthermore, the existence of society requires reciprocal interaction among its individual elements; mere spatial or temporal aggregation of parts is not sufficient (Allan, 2004).

Simmel held that sociology's task is "to analytically separate these forms of interaction or socialization from their contents and to bring these together under a consistent scientific viewpoint. Form/content analysis rests upon two principles: (1) the same form of socialization is observed in dissimilar contents and in relation to differing purposes; and (2) content is expressed through a variety of different forms of socialization as its medium" (Allan, 2004).

References

Allan, K. (2004). The Individual in Modern Society. Retrieved from: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/13635_Chapter4.pdf

Bloch, J. P. (2013). Mead and Symbolic Interactionism. Retrieved from:

Farganis, J. (2000). Readings in Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ritzer, G. (2013). Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. Retrieved from:

Simmel, G. (n.d.). The Preliminary Summaries from George Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms (D. Levine, Ed.). Retrieved from: