Symbolic & Non-symbolic

Interactionism
 Symbolic Interactionism
Interactionist theory has its origin in the social
psychology of early twentieth century sociologist
George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton
Cooley. Mead and Cooley examine the ways in
which the individual is related to society through
ongoing social interactions. This school of
thought, known as symbolic interactionism.
Views the self as socially constructed in relation to social
forces and structures and the product of ongoing
negotiations and meanings. Thus, the social self is an active
product of human agency rather than a deterministic product
of social structure.

The basic idea is a result of interaction between individuals

mediated by symbols in particular, language. The distinctive
attributes of human behavior grow from people’s
participation in varying types social structure which depend
in turn, on the existence of language behavior.
Symbolic interactions are, of course, interested not simply in
socialization but also in interaction in general, which is of
“vital importance in its own right.” interaction is the process
in which the ability to think is both developed and
expressed.

All types of interaction, not just interaction during

socialization, refine our ability to think. Beyond that, thinking
shapes the interaction process. In most interaction, actors
must take others into consideration and decide if how to fit
their activities to others. However not all interaction involve
thinking.
 Principles of symbolic interaction
1. Human beings unlike lower animals, are endowed with capacity for
thought.

2. The capacity for thought is shaped by social interaction.

3. In social interaction, people learn the meanings an the symbols

that allow them to exercise their distinctively human capacity for
thought.
4. Meanings and symbols allow people to carry on distinctively human action and
interaction.

5. People are able to modify or alter meanings and symbols that they use in action
and interaction on the basis of their interpretation of the situation

6. People are able to make this modification and alterations because, in part, of
their ability to interact with themselves, which allows them to examine possible
course of action, assess their relative advantages and disadvantages, and then
choose one.

7. The intertwined patterns of action and interaction make up groups and

societies
 Mead’s approach to symbolic
interaction rested on three
basic premises.
1. The first is that people act toward the things they encounter
on the basis of what those things mean to them. (Things, in
this context, refer not just to objects, but also to people,
activities and situations).

2. Second, we learn what things are by observing how other

people response to them, that is through social interaction.
3.Third, as result of ongoing interaction, the sounds (or words)
gestures, facial expressions and body postures we use in dealing
with others acquire symbolic meanings that are shared by people
who belong to the same culture.

The meaning of a symbolic gestures extends beyond the act itself.

A handshake, for instance is a symbolic gestures of greetings
among Filipinos. As such, it conveys more than just a mutual
grasping of fingers and palms. It express both parties’ shared
understanding that a social interaction is beginning. In other
cultures, such as Japan, to interact is expressed or symbolized in
bow (Calhoun et al., 1994).
Non-Symbolic Interaction
The importance of thinking to symbolic interactionists is reflected in
their views on objects. Blumer differentiates among three types of
objects: Physical objects, such as chair or a tree; social objects,
such as a student or a mother; and abstract objects, such as an
idea or a moral principle.

Objects are seen simply as things “out there” in the real world: what
is of greatest significance is the way that they are defined by actors.
The latter leads to the relativistic view that different objects have
different meanings for different individuals: A tree will be a different
object to a botanist, a lumberman, a poet, and a home gardener
(Blumer as cited by Ritzer, 2000).
Another important concept that has long been used by symbolic
interactionist is the Looking-glass self. This concept was developed by
the early symbolic interactionist theorist Charles Horton Cooley. The basic
notion of the looking glass self can be summed up as “We see ourselves
as others see us” in other words, we come to develop a self-image on the
basis of the messages we get from others, as we understand them.

If your teachers and fellow students give you the message that you are
“smart”, you will come to think of your self as an intelligent person. If
others tell you that you are attractive, you will likely think of yourself as
attractive. Conversely, if people repeatedly laugh at you and tease you
about being clumsy, you will probably come to decide that you are clumsy.
In Cooley’s terms, you use other people as a mirror into which you look to
see what you are like (Farley, 1990).
The four Pillars of
Education
“Learning the Treasure Within”, the report of the
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-
first century, chaired by Jacques Delors, and published
by UNESCO in 1996 provides new insights into
education for the 21st century. It stresses that each
individual must be equipped to seize learning
opportunities throughout life, both to broaden his/her
knowledge, skills and attitudes, and adapt to a
changing, complex and interdependent world.
What are the four
Pillars of
Education?
 Learning to know
Learning to know implies learning how to learn by developing one’s
concentration, memory skills and ability to think. From infancy, young
people must learn how to concentrate- on objects and other people.
This process of improving concentration skills can take different
forms and can be aided by the many different learning opportunities
that arise in the course of people’s lives (games, work experience
programs, travel, practical science activities, etc.).
This type of learning is concerned less with the acquisition of
structured knowledge but more with the mastery of learning tools.
 Learning to do
Learning to do is another pillar of education. In addition to learning to do a job
or work, this second pillar should, more generally entail with acquisition of a
competence that enables people to deal with a variety of situations, often
unforeseeable, and to work in teams, a feature to which educational methods
do not at present pay enough attention.
Demonstrate that in order to learn to live and work together productively and
harmoniously, we must first find peace within ourselves, expand our acceptance
and understanding of others, and continually strive towards living the values
which enable us to contribute more fully to the development of a peaceful and
just society.
It anchored within the context of lifelong learning and technical and vocational
education and training, in preparation for life and the world of work.
Learning to do pillar not only as putting knowledge and learning into
practice innovatively through skill development and practical know-how,
but also as the development of competence, life skills, personal qualities,
aptitudes and attitudes

Learning to do can no longer have the simple meaning.. “of preparing

someone for a clearly defined task and can no longer be regarded as the
simple transmission of a more or less routine practice… etc.

Learning to do represents the skillful, creative and discerning application

of knowledge because one must learn first how to learn effectively, how
to think creatively, critically and holistically, and how to deeply
understand the information that is presented, and its systematic
application for individuals and for society, in both short and longer term.
Learning to live together in
peace and harmony
Of the four pillars of education, learning to live together is
the one most vital to building a genuine and lasting
culture of peace in both the Asia-pacific region
throughout the world. The three other pillars of
education- “learning to know”, “learning to do” and
“learning to be” are the bases for learning to live
together.
 Learning to live together
Is one of the major issues in education today, since the
contemporary world is too often a world of violence. Although there
has been conflict throughout the history, new factor are accentuating
the risk, particularly the extraordinary capacity for self-destruction
humanity has created in the course of the 20th century.
Therefore, we believe it is necessary to device a form of education
which will make it possible to avoid conflicts or resolve them
peacefully by promoting learning to live together with others, by
developing the spirit of respect for the values of pluralism and the
need for mutual understanding and peace.
The third pillar of education implies that the
teacher should help the students to develop an
understanding of other people and appreciation of
interdependence since we live in a closely
connected world.
The teacher should help students to realize the
value of being able to live together in their
gradually enlarging world: home, school,
community, town, city, province, country and the
world as a global village.
 Learning to be
The learning to be pillar, first used as the title of the
1972 report to UNESCO of the International
Commission on the Development of Education, refers
to the role of education in developing all the dimension
of the complete person: the physical, intellectual,
emotional and ethical integration of the individual into a
complete man, which is a broad definition of the
fundamental aims of education ( Delors, 1996, p. 156).
 The international Commission on Education for the 21st century
picks up on this theme and clearly sets a fundamental principle that
“education” must contribute to the all-round development of each
individual- mind and body, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic sense,
personal responsibility, and spiritual values.
It describes learning to be as, “ the complete fulfillment of man, in
all the richness of his personality, the complexity of his forms of
expression and his various commitments- as individual, member of
a family and of a community, citizen and producer, inventor of
techniques and creative dreamer” (Delors, 1996, p. 95).
Learning to be believes in a holistic and integrated approach to
educating the human person, as an individual and as an member of
society and focuses on the full development of the dimensions and
capacities of the human person: Physical, intellectual, aesthetic,
ethical, economic, socio-cultural, political, and spiritual as he/she
relates with others in the family, community, nation, region in the
world.

Learning to be operates on fundamental principle that education

must contribute to the total development of the whole person- body
and soul, mind and spirit, intelligence and emotion, creativity and
sensitivity, personal autonomy and responsibility, social conscience
and commitment, human, ethical, cultural and spiritual values.
A definition and explanation of these
fundamental and dominant values serve
as basic guidelines for a holistic
approach to learning, utilizing a valuing
process, which takes into consideration
the cognitive, affective, and behavioral
powers of the learners.