Vinati Manchanda, UG student at FLAME University, Melody Kshetrimayum, Assistant Professor, FLAME University
Symbolic Interactionism is a sociological perspective which refers to how people create meaning and ascribe different roles and values based on their interactions with people, symbols and languages. It means that “people act according to their interpretation of their world” (Weber, as cited in Crossman, 2024). The concept was devised by George Herbert Mead, a philosopher who believed that social interactions are the key to understanding a society. These interactions are dynamic and based on an individual’s perspective (Ebrahimkutty & Dhantal, 2020). The theory was further explored by Herbert Blumer. A key feature of this theory is that it focuses on the meaning of micro-level interactions in people’s environment and not whether they are right or wrong. It views humans as social animals whose self-concept is a summation of their interactions with various symbols. “A symbol is anything that carries a specific meaning recognised by people who share a culture” (Nickerson, 2025). For example, a thumb-up means ‘yes’ in India but is offensive in Africa and a ring on the left ring finger symbolises marriage. Symbolic interactions shape the concept of self. In the words of Charles Horton Cooley, “I am not what I think I am, and I am not what you think I am. I am what I think you think I am.” For example, a woman thinks that her peers see him as a leader, which makes her more confident. Simply, this means that other people are a mirror for us. We form our identity on the basis of how we appear to others (Nickerson, 2025).
The Symbolic interactionist view on gender suggests that gender is produced and reinforced through daily interactions and the use of symbols. For example, if society views a woman as feminine, she will also perceive herself to be feminine. Gender is not related to biology or the concept of ‘sex’. Sex is related to the genetic and biological attributes in a person. Gender is a fluid concept which is reshaped by communication, symbols, and social experiences, highlighting its dynamic nature in society. It is a social construct that classifies individuals based on their gender identity, such as non-binary or cisgender, and their gender roles, such as men being seen as bread earners and women as caregivers, which are shaped through societal interactions. “These roles and identities are maintained through the meanings that individuals attach to symbols and behaviors
associated with masculinity and femininity” (Sociology, 2024). The process of assigning a gender identity and gender role to a person starts even before the baby is born! Gender identities and roles are continuously created, negotiated, and reinforced through the meanings people attach to symbols, behaviors, and practices associated with masculinity and femininity. For example, the colour pink is commonly associated with girls, while blue is linked to boys, associations that are not biologically determined but culturally learned and maintained through socialisation. In conservative Indian homes, it is destined for a boy to start working and be perceived as a boon for the family. However, a girl is perceived to help out in family chores and eventually be wedded into another family and be considered theirs. Further, through the process of gender socialisation, these ideologies are integrated amongst the younger generation as well. The process of gender socialisation is that through which individuals learn and internalise the gender norms and expectations of their society. It is propagated through primary and secondary modes of socialisation like family, peer groups, neighbourhood and teachers. Family is the initial mode of gender socialisation and peers, media and the environment becomes important at later stages in life The case of the “Wolf Girls,” Amala and Kamala, found in India in the 1920s, highlights the role of social interaction in shaping gender identity. Raised in isolation from human society, they lacked exposure to gender norms typically learned through family, peers, and media. Unlike socially raised children, they did not exhibit feminine behaviours like nurturing or verbal communication, instead displaying animal- like traits such as walking on all fours and preferring raw food. Their case supports the idea that gender roles are learned, not biologically predetermined (Montagu, 1943).
The symbolic interactionism has a similar view on social exclusion that social exclusion is a process reinforced through daily interactions, symbols, stigmas and labels which lead to identity formation and cognitive biases. It includes exclusion based on caste, class, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation etc. The Labelling Theory by Howard Becker suggests that people become what they are labelled as and how societal labels influence an individual’s identity and behaviour. For example, ex-convicts often struggle to integrate back into society because the “criminal” label hinders social acceptance. Another example is the caste system that excludes the lower caste from entering temples, educational institutes and social events. Historically, excluded as ‘untouchables’, they are denied of resources and opportunities and left to engage in manual jobs such as cleaning and scavenging that the higher caste would not do. When people are repeatedly exposed to social exclusion, self – fulfilling prophecy, introduced by Robert Menon, takes place in which a belief a person or group influences their behaviour and causes it to come true. Exclusion occurs daily, such as being ignored in conversations, denied access to networks, or facing discrimination in public spaces. Thus, it is not just related to the law and structure of the country but is actively strengthened through meaning making and interactions in the community, shaping an individual’s social reality.
Symbolic interactionism shows us how society is shaped through everyday interactions and shared meanings. Gender roles and social exclusion are not inherent but constructed through socialization, labels, and symbols. It focuses on the meanings, roles and labels that are micro-level interactions and has been criticized for neglecting broader structural forces, and intersectionality. It is also criticised for not focusing on the power dynamics and change in the society. Despite the criticisms, the significance of symbolic interactionism in understanding the process of meaning creation between individuals and the society cannot be ignored. It underscores the relationship between symbolic and subjective meanings and people.
About the authors:
- Vinati Manchanda is an undergraduate student at FLAME University, currently pursuing a degree in Psychology with a keen interest in social issues. Her research interests include gender studies, mental health and data-driven research.
- Melody Kshetrimayum is Assistant Professor of Humanities and Languages, FLAME University and works in the areas of women, gender, sexual and reproductive health and culture. She has worked with marginalised women from diverse backgrounds. Currently, she is working on menstrual practices and gender in rural India.
References
Crossman, AC. (2024). What Is Symbolic Interactionism? Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/symbolic-interaction-theory-3026633
Ebrahimkutty, S. A. V., & Dhantal, S. (2020). Gender role in marriage: A symbolic interactionist perspective of A Game of Thrones. Journal of Research in Humanities and
Social Science, 8(10), 29–34.
LibreTexts. (n.d.). 4.1.3: Sociological perspectives on gender stratification. Libre Texts.
Retrieved from https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Cosumnes_River_College/SOC_301%3A_Social_ Problems_(Lugo)/04%3A_Gender/4.01%3A_Gender_Stratification_and_Inequality/4.1.0 3%3A_Sociological_Perspectives_on_Gender_Stratification
- F. Ashley Montagu. (1943). [Review of Wolf-Children and Feral Man, by J. A. L. Singh &
- M. Zingg. American Anthropologist, 45(3), 468–472. http://www.jstor.org/stable/663189
Nickerson, CN. (2025). Symbolic Interactionism Theory & Examples. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/symbolic-interaction-theory.html
Sociology, ES. (2024). The Symbolic Interactionist View on Gender. Retrieved from https://easysociology.com/sociological-perspectives/symbolic-interactionism/the-symbolic-interactionist-view-of-gender-an-in-depth-analysis/.
