Método de Holtrop y Mennen

Symbolic interaction is a sociological perspective that views human beings as existing in a world of objects with meaning (Schaefer 2001:19). These objects may include tangible things, actions, relationships as well as symbols.

Following the conception of the symbolic interaction theory by George H Mead, Herbert Blumer (1969:2) discusses three core concepts to explain this theoretical perspective, namely

52

meaning, language and thought. These concepts are basic to a person’s self-conception and socialisation into a larger community.

4.2.1 Meaning and the Construction of Social Reality

Human beings act towards other people and things based on the meanings that they attach to those people or things (Nelson 1998). In terms of symbolic interaction, meaning is paramount in explaining human behaviour. In other words, people act towards other people or things depending on the meaning they attach to those stimuli − Blumer’s (1969) starting premise according to Griffin (2000:54).

In the 1994 epic movie Nell, a story of a young woman who grew up in the Appalachian Mountains in near seclusion exemplifies Blumer’s argument. Raised by her mother, Nell learned a language that sounded gibberish, but this was the result of the paralysis of the left side of her mother’s face following a stroke. The various characters that Nell encounters after her rescue view her differently based on this gibberish. The sheriff thinks she is crazy, his depressed wife thinks she is free-spirited, the chief psychiatrist at the local hospital regards her as an opportunity to make research history, the small-town doctor sees her as a human being who just needs to be understood, and a group of young men at the pool hall look at her as an opportunity for fulfilling their sexual fantasies. Therefore, who the real Nell is depends on the meaning other people assign to Nell and her behaviour. According to Griffin

(2000:54), once you define something as real, it is very real to you. You will not alter the view until you attach a different meaning to that thing.

Another real-life illustration of symbolic interaction is provided by Dodge (1988:49). Dodge states that the mental image most Americans have of Mexicans is that they are lazy people, who take siestas in the afternoon after heavy lunches and spend endless hours soaking their near naked bodies in the sun on the beach with sombreros pulled down over their heads.

Americans came to perceive Mexicans that way because the American mass media constantly reports on Mexico’s poverty, ascribing it to laziness. In contrast, Japan has invested in

Mexican manufacturing plants because the Japanese perceive Mexicans as hard-working individuals who provide affordable labour (Pearce 1987:47). This is the result of Japanese media portrayals of Mexicans as poor people who desire to work, but have no jobs.

53

Creating meaning is thus a society project, a collective hunch (Griffin 2000:55) based on shared symbols that pave the way for effective communication.

4.2.2 Language and the Interpretation of Social Reality

Jandt (2007:154) states that language is a set of symbols that are shared by a community and used to communicate meaning and experience. Unconsciously, when a child learns his or her native language, he or she learns his or her culture also. However, as the child grows and learns one or more other languages, he or she becomes aware of how each language informs the perception and reality description of the speaker. Human language, however, does not only consist of verbal and/or written signs, but also has a “silent” component, namely non-verbal language (see chapter 3 – Argyle, 1988). Thus spoken language, in particular, is supported by non-verbal signals. In order to make sense of human communication, it is consequently necessary to understand the symbolic significance of particular non-verbal signs within a particular community.

4.2.3 Thought and the Interpretation of Social Reality

Differences in cultural orientation lead to differences in the perception of social reality and thought patterns of people. Social reality is interpreted differently because of different thought patterns of different cultural orientations (Scott & Bryson 1997:51).

In a nutshell, the theory of symbolic interaction has a clear and direct link to this study as it explains how meaning is constructed and shared through the communication process (Ferrante 1992:32). It is therefore frequently used in the study of communication ‒ also of non-verbal communication. Wang and Kwan (2010:677‒688) studied for example the communication between autistic children and their parents and focussed, among others, on aspects of non-verbal communication such as eye contact and gesture. They found that the children’s ability to correctly interpret the symbolic meaning of particular non-verbal cues improved significantly during an intensive intervention of two weeks which resulted, in turn, to an improvement in their communication and social interaction overall. Matoesian

(2012:365‒391) studied the iconic interplay of multimodal practice and symbolic forms within a community of police trainees. He demonstrated how forms of non-verbal

communication such as gesture, gaze and postural orientation were infused with symbolic meaning to reflect group identity, social solidarity as well as social opposition. These studies serve to illustrate that non-verbal communication can only be effective or is more effective

54

when the communicators share meaning which is also reflected in the coordinated management of meaning theory discussed in the next section.