Charon (2001:27-28) identified five core building blocks forming symbolic interactionism:
(1) The role of social interaction: social interaction is central to what interacting human beings do.
(2) The role of thinking: human action, far from being limited only to the interaction between individuals, is also caused by the “interaction within the individual”. This is similar to Archer’s (2003:93) concept of “internal conversation”. In fact, Archer (2003:141) observed that “courses of action are produced through the reflexive deliberations of agents who subjectively determine their practical projects in relation to their objective circumstances”.
(3) The role of definition: human beings “do not sense their environment directly; instead, they define their situation as action unfolds” (Charon, 2001:28).
(4) The role of the present: human beings’ actions stem from that which is taking place at the present moment (Charon, 2001:28).
(5) The role of active human beings: human beings are conceptualized as “active participants” in whatever they do (Charon, 2001:28). Charon, echoing previous positions, placed emphasis on pragmatism, a fundamental philosophical underpinning of symbolic interactionism. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, pragmatism stresses action, that is, “what human beings do, rather than on what they are as individuals or simply as part of larger groups” (Charon, 2001:124).
Warriner (in Charon, 2001:124) equally argued that action should be the “focus of what we ask about human beings”.
The concept of human action viewed as a constant and lifelong process is a cardinal component of symbolic interactionism (Charon, 2001:124) and is actually best described as a stream of action (Warriner as cited in Charon, 2001:124). Warriner (in Charon, 2001:124) maintained that the stream of action “is complex, manifold, multiplex. It is the full reality with many aspects, characteristics, features, dimensions, and interconnection”. Charon (2001), when attempting to establish the relevance of the stream of action to symbolic interactionism, drew an analogy between the concept and a stream of water. Through this comparison, Charon indirectly unveiled the importance of self-agency in determining individuals’ behaviour (Archer, 2003; Knoblich & Sebanz, 2005). Charon (2001:125) pointed out that:
Streams of water constantly change direction; human action also is to be understood as changing direction. We act, and our stream goes one way, then another. Our lives change direction constantly, sometimes in small ways, occasionally in very significant ways. Barriers in the water change the direction of the stream; different environments do; and changes in the weather might. So too do our directions change as we encounter new situations, as new factors enter our lives. Streams of water change because smaller brooks enter and cause a change in the direction. So too do other people ― individuals and groups ― enter our stream of action, and as we interact with them our directions are changed too.
Beyond this analogy between the stream of action and the stream of water, Charon (2001) argued that human beings are engaged in a continuous stream of
covert action. He therefore clearly pointed out that as human beings, “we are
actively and continuously engaged in an ongoing conversation with ourselves about what we are encountering and doing in the situation” (Charon, 2001:125). Besides this inner interaction, Charon (2001) revealed that human beings are also engaged in an overt stream of action which describes plainly their external self- agency, that agency characterized by concrete actions, and perceived by other individuals. Human beings, according to Charon (2001:125-126):
...are active in their stream, not passive as water is. Water responds to its environment. It flows because of the environmental conditions in which it exists. Humans, however, make active decisions along their stream, deciding what to do as they go along, and therefore they have some control over their directions. We evaluate our own action, we change our minds and establish new goals and redefine objects in new ways. When we interact with others we evaluate their acts, we role take, we interpret their actions and their acts of symbolic communication.
Human action is therefore regarded as a combination of the interaction with self and the interaction with others, synergistically leading to decision making, which in turn gives direction to our stream of action (Charon, 2001). This notion of human action was earlier enunciated by Blumer (in Denzin, 1969:923), who pointedly maintained that human beings “possess the ability to self-consciously direct their own activities.” Charon (2001:179) therefore defined society as “any instance of ongoing social interaction that is characterized by cooperation among actors and that creates a shared culture”. He argued that society begins with social interaction; social interaction always involves symbolic communication and role taking; social interaction is used by individuals to cooperate in overcoming problems and achieving common or complementary goals; and over time a culture is negotiated, developed, and shared. And a culture is made up of shared perspectives and a generalized other. The individuals who continue to interact agree to use culture to guide what they believe and do. Culture, in turn, feeds into and contributes to ongoing cooperative interaction (Charon, 2001).58 According to Blumer (1969:6) “fundamentally human groups or society exists only in terms of action”. Charon (2001:133), in a hard-hitting argument, stressed the centrality of individual agency in decision-making processes, by pointing out that:
From a symbolic interactionist perspective, the cause of an act is seen differently. Any given act along the stream of action is caused by the individual’s decisions at that point. A given decision in turn is caused by the individual’s definition of the situation at that point, including goals, plans, social objects, future consequences, relevant memories recalled and applied. The definition of the situation the individual
arrives at in turn is influenced by two things: interaction with self (thinking) and interaction with others.
It is my simple claim that young veterans are to be theorized as individuals who exercise human action. Their actions, reactions and decision-making processes are to be understood as mediated by their interaction with the self and interaction with others.