A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

Deviance, Crime, and Social Control SOCI 1306 Symbolic Interactionism A theoretical perspective with roots in the sociological tradition, symbolic interactionism provides a sophisticated framework for comprehending how societies and social groupings learn to see particular behaviours as either normal or abnormal. This viewpoint highlights the significance of language and symbols as fundamental components of interpersonal communication and the process of meaning-making. The central tenet of symbolic interactionism is that individuals behave in accordance with the meanings they attribute to objects, meanings that are shaped by social interaction and interpretation. This theoretical framework can be very useful for analysing how behaviours are classified and perceived in a community. The idea that reality is socially produced is central to symbolic interactionism. This implies that human interactions generate what is regarded as real and genuine. When applied to the ideas of conformity and deviance, this shows that these classifications are given by society via social processes and general consensus rather than being innate in any behaviour. For example, a behaviour that is considered abnormal in one culture might be considered normal in another. This variation emphasises how important social environment is in establishing what is considered normal and abnormal. The explanation of deviance by symbolic interactionism revolves around the process of labelling. Symbolic interactionism gave rise to labelling theory, which holds that rules and punishments applied by others cause deviation rather than the conduct itself. When someone is classified as deviant, they frequently receive different treatment from society, which might encourage further deviant behaviour. This is due to the fact that the term "deviant" has the potential to elevate itself above other facets of a person's identity. A youngster who is caught shoplifting, for instance, would be called a "thief," which could affect how their friends, family, and the larger society view and handle them. This designation may cause the person to internalise their deviant identity and go on with their deviant behaviour, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Symbolic interactionism also draws attention to how power shapes deviance. People in positions of authority have the capacity to establish standards and impose their ideas of what constitutes deviation and compliance. This is seen in the formulation and application of legislation. For instance, drug prohibitions have traditionally been employed as a tool of social control over marginalised people in numerous cultures. The goal of criminalising such substances is frequently to regulate the behaviour of particular groups rather than the substances themselves. Others can be forced to adopt the powerful's conceptions of deviance, which is a reflection of larger power dynamics in society. Furthermore, one of the main ideas of symbolic interactionism is the "looking-glass self," which was first proposed by Charles Horton Cooley. It helps to explain how people learn to perceive their own actions as normal or abnormal. This idea holds that people form their perception of themselves mostly on what they think other people think of them. People continually interpret and reinterpret their own behaviours as a result of this reflecting process, depending on the input they get from others. Someone who receives deviant treatment on a regular basis may start to view themselves that way, which may have an impact on their behaviour and sense of self in the future. When examining deviation and compliance, situational context is yet another crucial component of symbolic interactionism. The context in which a behaviour occurs frequently determines how it is viewed. In certain contexts, behaviour that is deemed abnormal may be viewed as admirable or even normal. In a street brawl, for instance, aggressive behaviour is usually classified as abnormal, but in a sporting event, the same behaviour may be hailed as a display of talent and competition. Contextualization demonstrates that deviation is a dynamic term that depends on social and environmental conditions rather than being an absolute. The process of continuously defining and revising what is deemed normal or aberrant depends on social interactions. People negotiate meanings and reach agreements on what behaviours are appropriate via their daily encounters. As new behaviours appear and cultural ideals change throughout time, this process is dynamic. For example, within the past several decades, attitudes towards things like drug usage, gender identity, and same-sex marriage have changed dramatically, reflecting shifting social relations and the renegotiating of norms. Within the context of symbolic interactionism, it is also important to consider the impact of communication and media on how deviance is seen. Media representations have a big impact on how the general population views what is normal or abnormal. The way that particular behaviours are portrayed in news articles, TV series, and motion pictures may either support or contradict prevailing standards. For example, moral panics brought on by media coverage of crime can intensify views of deviance and prompt requests for more stringent societal regulations. On the other hand, stigmatised behaviours can become normalised through media depiction of marginalised groups, which can lead to changes in society standards. All things considered, symbolic interactionism offers a thorough framework for comprehending how communities and social groupings learn to perceive certain behaviours as normal or abnormal. This theoretical approach emphasises how language, symbols, and social interactions play a crucial role in shaping social norms and deviance. It places a strong emphasis on how labels, power relationships, situational context, and the media shape our perception of what behaviours are appropriate and inappropriate. By using this lens, it is evident that deviance is constantly created and recreated by social processes rather than being a feature of any one behaviour. This viewpoint makes it possible to understand the nuances of recognising and dealing with aberrant behaviour in each particular community on a deeper level.