To What Extent Is Social Life Dependent on Symbolism - Essay Example

Symbol and society Student Name Institutional Affiliation Symbol and society To what extent is social life dependent on symbolism? Illustrate your answer with examples drawn from your own cultural experience and inform your discussion of these examples with insights gained from your research into the symbolic anthropology Introduction The exploration of social life and symbolism is rooted in the assumption that there is a reciprocal relationship between symbolism and the society. Symbolism influences social life and through shared meanings, language and culture, social life also reciprocally influence symbolism. The latter process of reflexivity is what constitutes the core of symbolism or it is through developing and sharing meanings, processes and social interaction that symbolism emerges. Max Weber (1978) argues that the knowledge of cultural processes is only plausible through understanding the meanings that a specific context has of the shared reality for those involved. The knowledge of social laws does not constitute comprehending reality, but rather a conceptual aid for understanding it. Social life is therefore highly dependent on symbolism as it defines the boundaries and meanings of social life. Reality does not already exist waiting to be discovered, but the acquisition of knowledge that shapes reality is an active process involving coping with demands in life. Hence, the creation of reality from knowledge is an active and ongoing process (Baert, 2005). As such, the culture of social life is a system of meaning which can be deciphered by interpreting rituals and rituals. This paper will show the high dependency that social life has on symbolism by looking at the relevance of symbolic anthropology on social life, the influence of symbolism on the formation of culture and its influence on social interaction. Social life is not only affected by symbolism, but also created by it. Body Symbols will affect social life if they are believed to be true; and the production of truth is an active process. Pragmatists such as William James and John Dewey argued that symbols in a culture, therefore, do not belong to a thing or an idea (Reynolds & Herman-Kinney, 2003). Instead, symbols undergo a process through which they are made true in the culture. Beliefs and ideas that accompany symbols will be accepted for as long as they are not challenged or overthrown. Social life is governed by laws and rules that are both conscious and unconscious. The rules will only be applicable if they are accepted as true (Blumer, 2004). For instance, symbols of interaction, such as smiley faces used in text messages are used because there is shared meaning amongst those who use the. These symbols remain relevant in social life, therefore influencing the manifestation of social life. Active participation in social life is what creates and changes symbols. Self is a product of social elements and this indicates that the self is an effect of caring and understanding the opinions of distinct groups in the society. The process through which people develop awareness and express care for other’s opinions constitutes social life (Kiecolt, 2000). William James suggested that the self was similar to one’s brain such that bodily states emerge from perception (Blumer, 2004). For instance, it is common for people to be cautious of black individuals and think of them as muggers. They are not cautious because they are frightened; rather they are frightened because they have encountered a black individual. This symbolism will influence social life in particular cultures to the extent of individuals avoiding people of colour. Repeated behaviour patterns in social life should be understood as a reflection of socially learned habits and not as instincts especially given the capacity of human memory. Symbols created are born out of the culture and the extent to which people care about these opinions affects the manifestations of their social life. People tend to care about the opinions of more than one group, meaning that they adapt different symbols in their social life (Thoits, 2001). Consequently, they develop multiple selves that serve different purposes in their social lives. This is essential for the conflation of roles in the modern society where one can be a mother, a manager, a friend and a student all at the same time. Human nature can only be actualized through interaction with others (Reynolds & Herman-Kinney, 2003). Interaction involves symbols and this in turn affects the nature of social life and the development of the self. The self is what presents itself as one’s character in social life. The sense of self emerges as the manifestation of an imaginative fact, since people imaging how others view them and they act according to this view this developing a sense of self attached to this view (Basso & Selby, 1976). For instance, women in eh society have been viewed under different umbrellas with the symbols for what is beautiful in a woman changing. Females will shape their social lives, depending on what they have been told is admirable in a woman, whether it’s being slim, having and job, being outspoken or being submissive. The qualities of social life, such as creativity and human behaviour is nurtured in social settings. Society does not restrict these qualities of development, but rather nurtures them. Through social experience, individuals learn the conditions under which they are to develop their personalities (Helle, 2005). Institutional order in the society is only real to society members in so far as they are made reality in performed roles. A parent will only be a parent if they behave in a certain way toward their children and others around them. These roles are then rendered as defined by the institutions the individual has subscribed to. In social life, lines of interaction are sustained in spontaneous, ongoing and flexible ways. Interactions between individuals are always evolving and in their use of symbols. These include ever changing gestures. Individuals in particular African cultures belief in elongating the neck to be attractive. However, this same action will be scolded in the American context which may views the same action as not only unattractive but also unhealthy. The notion of truth in a society is represented by the meaning developing from purposeful actions and it is not a correspondence of reality. Symbolism is what makes culture which in turn contributes to social life. The symbol is just a thing that rests in the world somewhere. This thing is then experienced by a human being through the senses and others. It can be used by individuals to assign and convey meaning in a number of contexts; meanings not just about the symbol but also about cultural relationships and processes (Blumer, 2004). These symbols are involved in a web of significances that have become known as culture. The symbol, therefore resonates with meanings. Individuals can grasp the essence of the symbols inductively by observing instances involving the social use of the given symbol. Culture itself is not formed exclusively by symbols, but is partly formed by the meanings of the symbols that unite them (Bandura, 1982). The meanings of the symbols exist in people’s minds and are acted out as people manipulate them which in turn objectifies meaning. Shared meanings are what constitutes a common culture. For instance, bowing to someone is a symbol representing respect in the Japanese culture. A Japanese individual doing this in a different culture may not communicate this meaning to the individuals there because they do not understand what the bowing means. Cultural symbols impact social life when they unite because the symbols share sections of their meanings with other symbols. Symbols have a socially participate meaning and each of them will share a part of their meaning with different symbols (Stryker, 2000). The resulting semantic resonance is the framework for the preservation and institutionalization of networks of symbols that are constituted in social elements and that are manipulated conventionally. When symbols combine as units, they form an elaborate classification system that constitute a culture (Helle, 2005). The symbolic meanings are realized and transmitted in the process of social interaction. Social interaction is the essence of social life. An instance where this network of connections can be witnessed is in makeup. When people wear makeup, they use it as a symbol of beauty. However, this is just part of the meaning. If the makeup was to be combined with other symbols such as dark colored clothing and a choker, then the overall meaning would be that the individual subscribes to gothic ideas of dressing and makeup. Symbolic meanings influence social life by constraining change, thus stabilizing cultures. The system of culture is developed and held together by the capacity of human beings to operate in an analogue manner. Meanings in cultures form a network which needs to be constrained to sustain a culture (Cast, 2001). The analogic operation of humans is what constrains changes of symbolic meanings. Owing to the fact that the ability and drive to create new analogies is present in human being, change is inevitable (Douglas, 1970). People’s social live change as the nature of their analogies. Change. For instance, the meanings that one holds important as a child will not be similar to those they hold as adults. The change occurs as a consequence of human creativity to readjust symbols. Analogic structures are thus reorganized. Cultural structures need this Analogic element to be sustained for a particular period for it to be institutionalized. Because symbols are part of a web of meanings within a particular context, there is no symbol that has a meaning outside of a context and relationships. This indicates that the impact of symbols on social life is only there because of the context around this meaning. Without a context, the symbols that influence social life will be non existent. The symbol is nothing without its meanings (Burke, 2001). The meaning needs to be institutionalized if it is to have an influence on social life. As such, the symbols that influence social life have been institutionalized of societal elements that are part of social life (Dolgin et al 1977). For instance, most cultures allow people to date and there are certain rule that subconsciously accompany dating. When a man does the things expected such as holding a woman’s had, taking her out, telling her he loves her; he is then considered as her boyfriend. The essence of being a boyfriend has been institutionalized and it is part of social life. On the other hand, particular cultures do not allow people to have boyfriends. Once two people have expressed an interest in each other, then they get engaged and married. Hence, the institutionalized form of the symbol is either a fiancé or a husband and this becomes part of their social lives. Researchers to have had to modify their conduct in order to understand what the symbols mean within a culture. They gain insight into the symbolic constructs in culture and hence understand the culture. This exemplifies the fact that there is no understanding culture without understanding symbolic components of the particular cultures. The process of studying symbol is an interpretive process and not a scientific one. It is about understanding how cultures came to be and their influences of different elements of life such as social life. Conclusion Social life is highly dependent on symbolism as it defines the boundaries and meanings of social life. Symbolism and society exist in a reciprocal relationship that is enriched by experiences. The experiences allow for the development and sustenance of meanings which result in the institutionalization of symbols. This constitutes the fundamental elements of a culture. Understanding the reciprocal relationship between society and symbolism is therefore essential in comprehending the manifestation of cultural particulars, both as a community and as individual developing a sense of self. Further research is needed to understand the factors that determine the popularity of particular symbolic meanings more than others. The global world has exposed individuals to numerous different symbols with some being more popular than others. References Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism inhuman agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Burke, P. J. (2001). Relationships among Multiple Identities. Bloomington, IN: The Future of Identity Theory and Research: A Guide for a New Century Conference Blumer, H. (2004). George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Basso, K.H., & Selby, H.A. (eds) (1976). Meaning in Anthropology, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico PressbUniversity Press. Cast, A. D. (2001). Identities and Behavior. Bloomington, IN: The Future of Identity Theory and Research. A Guide for a New Century Conference Douglas, M. (1970). Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Pantheon. Dolgin, J. L., Kemnitzer, D. S., & Schneider,D. M. (eds) (1977). Symbolic Anthropology: A Reader in the Study of Symbols and Meanings. New York: Columbia. Helle, H. J. (2005). Symbolic Interaction And Verstehen (Vol.4). New York: Peter Lang. Kiecolt, K. J. (2000). Self change in social movements. In S. Stryker, T. Owens, & R. White (Eds.), Identity, Self, and Social Movements (pp. 110-131). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Reynolds, L. T., & Herman-Kinney, N. J. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Stryker, S. (2000). Identity competition: Key to differential social movement involvement. In S. Stryker, T. Owens, & R. White (Eds.), Identity, Self, and Social Movements (pp. 21-40). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Thoits, P. A. (2001). Personal Agency in the Accumulation of Role-Identities. Bloomington, IN: The Future of Identity Theory and Research: A Guide for a New Century Conference. Read More