Symbolic Interaction - Weebly



Research Paper 2009Symbolic InteractionStudying television show “Friends”Stacy Trick12/7/2009IntroductionThroughout this paper the correlation of the relationship between forms of prestige affecting interpersonal relationships among groups of people will be studied by analyzing television sitcoms through Symbolic Interaction. According to Griffin Symbolic Interaction is “communication through symbols; people talking to each other.” Herbert Berkeley who coined the term “symbolic interactionism,” stated that the three principles, meaning, language and thought, all “lead to conclusions about the creating of a person’s self and socialization into a larger community,” (Griffin). With these premises and other topics of symbolic interaction it is easy to see that it is involved in everyday living and in television sitcoms. “In a 65-year life, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube,” (TV and Health). In those 9 years of being stuck to a television, it is important to research in what that person is watching. You are who you associate with and if this 9 year relationship with the television is a big part of someone’s life then it is hard to say that it will not influence someone’s views, decisions, and desires. It is also important to study the relationships that we see in television sitcoms because we relate to those sitcoms. So what we perceive to be the common friend, sister, father, or aunt in real life, Hollywood gladly puts those similar relationships on television for us to relate and immerse ourselves into. The study of symbolic interaction within these shows can enlighten us on how we perceive ourselves, the viewers, to be in real life. This knowledge can help us further understand the relationships that we have with those around us. With the perceived notion of our relationships on the tube, we can try to dig deeper into our own personal understanding of why we act the way we do in different situations due to our influential history, friends, family and other daily encounters. Seeing them played out on television, people react and relate to those characters and the way that they deal with the situation. With studying the relationship between our real relationships and those portrayed on television we can try to comprehend the actions people take during real life dramas, love scenes, horrid tragedies, jealous fights etc. By using symbolic interaction we will be able to see why and how people act the way they do due to difference previous experiences within their life. Because each person has different morals, values and beliefs it will cause different thought processes accordingly to each decision to be made. Symbolic interaction tries to explore and explain the reasons behind actions of people. With further outside research some concepts of this theory will be better understood.Literature ReviewBeginning the research started, of course, in the class assigned book “A First Look at Communication Theory” by Em Griffin. Chapter 5 explains the Symbolic Interaction theory. Here is where I branched off of the information in this chapter to gather more research. Many individuals hold different identities. If one evaluates their life, there are many different times that a person changes their identity to fit the role, ie becoming a mother, being a sister, getting a new career, finding friends, being alone, etc. Through these different identities, they “act as resources from which individuals may derive self-meanings and guidelines for behavior to reduce anxiety and destructive behavior” (Cerven). Within these different identities there is a consistent change to satisfy the generalized other. According to Griffin, the generalized other is “the composite mental image a person has of his or herself based on community expectations and responses.” Basically, the way an individual perceives themselves is how others perceive them to be. These outward expectations become learned and internalized which results in them forming into part of the self. The ingrained guidelines that come with each separate identity results in outward proof of character, achievement and accomplishment. Even in death, people will try to associate their perceived identity from the outside world into a preserved material object so that when gone, their reputation still stands firm and without question. “Grave markers and memorials, demonstrate the projection of self – in material form – of others on to the departed” (Karner). Though, during the days of living, individuals strive for different identities for social interaction and personal benefits. There are two different types of identities that one can take up. According to Cerven there are the voluntary and obligatory identities. Voluntary identities are those that are simple and effortless to uproot from. These identities can include friendships, intramural sports, and voluntary work. They come with no strings attached and can be easily separated from. This concept of voluntary identity can be associated with the “I” in symbolic interaction. This is “the spontaneous driving force that fosters all that is novel, unpredictable, and unorganized in the self” (Griffin). The “I” refers to one being alone and how they react to different situations according to their own perceptions of themselves without any outside influence. Though, like previously stated, 9 years of one’s life (age 65), is consumed in front of a television, so who is to say that television does not influence this “I” self? In an article talking about the influence of the show 90210 McKinley states that the show “… might be playing a role in their (choir girls) thinking about their own lives and world… they seemed to be wrestling with the important issues concerning their own identities.” Earlier on in the article it also states that with the start of that show, there was a boom in merchandise – “magazines, books, bubble gum cards, T-shirts, and cosmetics.” This proves that even television shows have a great deal of influence on character and the “I” in self and what one will do when they are alone. Even in a group of people the influence of television shows are present in what the conversation is about, what clothes are worn, the slang of words, and even the body language that is used. Which brings up the concept of “Me,” which is “the objective self; the image of self seen when one takes the role of the other” (Griffin). This is when we look at how others view us, and according to that view, we will change our actions, words and body movements to better understand how we can change their view on our identity. Again, television shows have a great deal of influence on this. Whatever is present or popular at the time, people will tend to reflect those popular characters personality traits, fashionable clothes, and physical attributes. Like the theory of Media Ecology, “a medium (type of media) shapes us because we partake of it over and over until it becomes an extension of ourselves” (Griffin). What we immerse ourselves in, we will start to reflect the same ideals and concepts.Even if we cannot separate ourselves from what we are immersed in we still play the expected role. This identity that we cannot separate from is the obligatory identity. This is a role that is played that cannot be taken away, like being a father, CEO, spouse, sister, etc. Through symbolic interaction we see that in these roles/identities is how individuals “learn to interpret the world” (Griffin). Within those learned interpretations people also influenced by television. From television they see how obligatory identities are played out and then will reflect those same actions because we believe that those are the accepted views; such as woman playing a more dominate or intelligent role (ie. King of Queens, Family Guy, Simpsons, Married with Children).Like previously stated, material objects are a form of how people related to television shows and become like their favorite characters through means of acting the same, talking the same and then looking the same. Upon looking the same people tend to buy clothes and other accessories that mirror the same image that their idolized icon has. “Our relationships with our possessions shape in direct and tangible ways who we feel ourselves to be” (Brandon). This concept of possessions also appears in “A Review and a Conceptual Framework of Prestige-Seeking Consumer Behavior.” It states that there are two types of self-conscious people. “Publicly self-conscious persons are particularly concerned about how they appear to others and privately self-conscious persons are more focused on their inner thoughts and feelings.” This goes to show that there are people who care what others think about them so they strive to have the nicest and more expensive material objects to show their prestige and there are others who could care less about name brand things. MethodologyThese objects are just another medium in which we communicate to others. One major medium of communication is through television. In searching different sitcoms over the past few years, the sitcom “Friends” stood out for good research. It begun September 22, 1994, had 10 seasons over a span of 10 years and ended on May 6, 2004. This hit show related to many generations over the years it aired. This show portrayed “about six friends in New York as they navigate their way through life and learn to grow up as they approach the third decade of their life” (). This entire show is based off the idea of symbolic interaction. The friends deal with each others attitudes, problems and outside influences. This show friends had over 52.5 million viewers for the last show, according to Hollywood Reporter in an article from . With that many viewers it would be idiotic not to study this show and how it is relatable to every viewer. With the vast characteristics of each character in the cast, I went to different websites to evaluate the individual characteristics each of cast members portrayed. With these vastly different roles and identities, it would be hard not to take a civilian and not be able to compare them to one of the six characters. Narrowing down further, I chose episode five from season two to dig into more with the theory of symbolic interaction. I watched the episode on to further pull apart and analyze the dialect, interaction and social construction of the entire episode. From that viewing I was able to further understand the characteristics of each “friend” and relate their interactions with each other through the lens of symbolic interaction. Analysis/FindingsThe episode being analyzed is entitled “The One with Five Steaks and an Eggplant.” The entire theme of this episode is that the group of friends divided because of having different finical statuses. Throughout the show there was a lack of many concepts of symbolic interaction such as: minding, taking the role of the other, looking-glass self, “me,” and generalized other. Lastly, a brief part will go into explain how us as the viewers also are interactive with this show and the communication that goes on beyond the script through participant observation.When first analyzing this episode you must first understand the characters in the show. Because of the show’s popularity among those viewing it, who tend to relate to the cast, the characteristics of these actors should be looked at more specifically to understand the dynamics of the show. A cast summary from puts the characters into perfect definition:“Monica is the excessively neat and organized "older sister" of the group, who works as a chef while yearning to find her ideal love. Ross, Monica's older brother, is a paleontologist with a lifelong crush on Rachel. He is a laid-back man with low self esteem and a recent divorcee. Rachel is the pretty, bubbly girl who spent most of her life as a spoiled rich princess. Now she must learn to face the real world. Chandler is Ross' college buddy and the guy who will crack jokes at a moment's notice. Phoebe is a lovable eccentric masseuse who easily could have fit in with Haight Ashbury in the 1960s. And Joey, the friend who has an inverse relationship between his good looks and his intelligence. He dreams of becoming an actor.”Now with the background of these characters, I can dive into episode five of season two and how symbolic interaction took place within every second of the 21:53 minute show. The premise of this show is that the six friends become divided, 3 vs 3, because of issues dealing with financial statuses. Each of these characters obviously have different personalities and have grown up in different backgrounds. Like an unscripted group of friends, each person has encountered their share of different experiences that have shaped them into who they are today. Within this show, the biography of each character is related to the stereotypical friends in today’s society. With such broad personalities living together, many quarrels and disagreements are bound to happen. A quick synopsizes of this particular episode is as follows: It’s Ross’ birthday and his surprise gifts, of going to dinner and a concert then having a cake, throw three of the other friends (Phoebe, Rachel, and Joey) for a loop because of the expense going into it. They briefly explain their concerns about their lack of money among themselves. Monica interrupts their conversation, unknowingly, with news of a promotion and suggests a nice evening out to celebrate. Again, the un-wealthy friends sigh in frustration with their empty wallets. The six friends go out to dinner and the three that have money order carelessly whereas those three that do not have money buy the cheapest things on the menu. The issue of the salary difference between the friends is finally brought to light when the check is split evenly between the friends and Phoebe refuses to pay more than the cost of her actual meal. So the three friends (Monica, Ross, and Chandler), are stunned by their friends hidden feelings and tell them to talk about it. This awkward conversation only leads to more of a defining split between the two groups between the six friends. As the rest of the episode carries on, that divide becomes very noticeable. Upon meeting in their regular scene in a coffee shop, the friends begin to argue again over the money issue, but with a simple phone call from Monica’s employer telling her she is fired, the walls are broken down, all differences gone and their friendship is quickly renewed.“Education, income and occupational prestige are not combined to form a single factor but are, instead, separated out to determine each one’s separate relationship with multiple identities…” (Cerven). All these friends have their different identities within the group, and though within each given identity they act differently when placed in each role, all the identities combine to form the person’s character which in effect, is the root and foundation of the group dynamics, discussions and quarrels. In this episode, dealing with money issues, the concepts, of social interaction, that were not portrayed by the characters could explain the friction that happened. First, minding was a concept that was not present by Monica, Ross and Chandler, yet shown by the other three. According to Griffin, minding is “an inner dialogue used to test alternatives, rehearse actions, and anticipate reactions before responding; self-talk.” Basically, it is like that common phrase “think before you speak/act.” During the majority of the episode the friends without money would talk among themselves about their troubles, yet would keep it to themselves. Within the first the first five minutes of the episode Rachel talks to Joey and Phoebe about the issue of having less money than the others. While these three discussing the salary difference between the two different groups, they realize how there is no way that they can bring up the subject to those friends because it would make everything awkward. They were taking into consideration of their relationships with the other three friends and how their actions of talking to them about the money difference would make things tense and uneasy. Even in today’s society, people will sacrifice their own comfort level in order to maintain a relationship with someone else. They do not want to make the situation more awkward or uncomfortable than need be. It was not moments into their conversation when Monica busted through the apartment door with news of a promotion. Upon her excitement she quickly suggested a nice dinner to celebrate. Her quick decision was not thought about in consideration towards her other friends. By choosing an expensive restaurant to eat at because of her promotion, she was indirectly and unintentionally showing off her new higher salary. “Consumers often used the price cue as evidence for judging quality hen choosing between different brands… consumers who perceived price as a proxy for quality, also perceived high prices as positive indicator suggesting a certain degree of prestige” (Vigneron and Johnson). By going to a fancy restaurant it made the occasion more prestigious and put the three poor friends into a sticky situation with dealing with money for Ross’ birthday gift and eating out at an expensive restaurant. Monica could not see the effect that her new identity of prestige had on her other friends and did not take them into consideration when choosing a restaurant to celebrate at. It was not until the end of the expensive meal that the issue was brought up and that the concepts of “taking the role of other” and “looking-glass self” became present. Rachel, Joey and Phoebe all ordered the least expensive things, where as the other three did not look at prices and ordered freely. This was not a big issue until the check came around. At this point Ross divided up the entire check evenly among the group. Phoebes refusal of paying more than the cost of her meal brought about the issue of money and all the friends quickly experienced “taking the role of other.” This concept, according to Griffin, is the process of mentally imagining that you are someone else who is viewing you. This is also closely related to ‘looking-glass self;’ the mental self-image that results from taking the role of the other; the objective self; me (Griffin).During this point in the dinner all the friends seemed to realize what spot they had put themselves in to be viewed as. One, for those being wealthier, they realized that they had not taken into consideration that they did have more money and that it was not a struggle to pay for things. They put themselves in their friend’s shoes and saw that eating at a fancy restaurant on top of paying for Ross’ birthday was too much of a strain on their wallets. Then those without money put themselves in the situation of their other friends. They saw that with a good salary, it is easy to spend money without worry with a steady and consistent pay. By putting themselves into each other’s places they were able to see the view point of each other. Yet, this did not stop the quarrels that happen between them.The rich group was offended that the issue had not been brought up before, yet the other group was offended that they had not even taken into consideration. The division of the friends drove the wealthier friends to the solution to make the others dinner and treating them to the concert. Rachel, Joey and Phoebe were very appreciative of the act, but felt as though it was a charity case. They felt that it was not the appropriate way to solve the money dilemma by using their money to, basically, buy their friendship back. With this act, a further wedge was created within the group. As discussed earlier in the literature review, the concept of ‘me’ and ‘generalized other’ comes up here. The view of each individual person according to themselves based on the group’s view of them makes the tension worse. Each character sees themselves in a way that they truly are not viewed by their friends, yet when trying to fix it they just feed the fire because they do not fully understand what it feels like to struggle like what their friends are going through. Because of the hostility between the two groups of friends, there is a distorted view of what they think the others view them as being. This friction only gets worse because of their assumed thought of how the others are interpreting their actions. After the “charity case” the division between the friends is obvious and definite. Monica, Ross and Chandler proceed with attending the concert, while in spite of their act of charity, Phoebe, Joey and Rachel stay at home bored. The next day, another heated argument erupts about the money, yet comes to a close when Monica is hit with the fact that she was fired. This phone call to Monica quickly turns the entire group’s mood and is a catalyst for their friendship. From the happy to sad times, this group of friends is very relatable to those viewing it. That is why the show was/is so popular, because of the similarities that many have with the group. From this view of being a researcher and audience member of the show, I become like many others, a participant observer. Griffin defines this as a method of adopting the stance of an ignorant yet interest visitor who carefully notes what people say and do in order to discover how they interpret their world. Being a fly on the wall in a group of real friends, or in this case, a viewer from the couch is the way audience members make their judgments about the characters. From reading the biographies of the characters, to watching every single episode, one can discover quickly the different actions each character may take in a situation. By understanding the background of each person it is easy to assume the next move they will make. For instance, Joey is the dumb flirt of the group. So for instance, at the end of the episode an attractive female voice comes on the answer machine talking about promiscuous acts, and by watching previous shows, it comes to no surprise when Joeys face pops up from the couch, eyes widened, and then jumping to answer the phone. From knowing Joey’s character, it is assumed that his interpretation of the world mainly consists of flirting with women, getting lots of sex, pursuing acting, and eating food. This concept is also used in regular friendships. “Consumers often us television to learn about affluent lifestyles and then try to imitate stereotypes of affluence by consuming similar prestige products… positively related to the level of exposure to television” (Vigneron and Johnson). Television affects our daily living. We are who we associate with and we try to reflect that of what we see on television. And when the show closely relates to our own group of friends and to us more specifically within one character, we pay more attention to their persona and try to imitate that identity. ConclusionThroughout the research of this show, it has been found that television portrays what we as society are in real life. Though at times things might be exaggerated for dramatic effect and more ratings, in the broad sense of things, the show Friends is a great portrayal of what everyone strives to have in their friendships and possibly within themselves. With the variety of personalities in the characters, every viewer can relate their friends and if not more than one, relate to themselves some characteristics to that one of the six ‘friends.’With the popularity of this show for its reality to personal lives, it can add to existing knowledge about how people act and react to situations today. Because Hollywood bases the majority, if not all, their television shows off of what we truly are or what we strive to be, is goes to illustrate then that within these shows is a hint of what our morals, values and beliefs are. By relating to this show, people define themselves by the characters and how they react to certain situations. Being an avid audience member, one might try to mirror the personality traits or actions of a favorite character. So by creating a syllogism we could say that:Major premise: Hollywood creates characters based off societyMinor premise: Audience form personal traits to mirror charactersConclusion: Hollywood creates and forms audience’s personal traitsBy what is shown on television, society tends to reflect that. It brings about the question, does society control Hollywood or does Hollywood control society? This question is what holds limitations to this theory within shows. Trying to prove symbolic interaction with television shows is easy yet hard. It is easy in the fact that you can simply go online and watch the episode time and time again. If there is not enough clarification then simply search for the manuscript and read it. But it is hard to prove because by being able to pull up that manuscript, you now know that it was created by a writer specifically for the purpose of relating to its viewers, making it phony and made-up. So trying to study something that has been purposefully written to reflect communication problems, solutions, and relationships is limiting because shows are based off of real life, yet since it is created it is fake. With it based off of real life, it gives us an insight of what society is like as a whole. If the show reflects what our morals and beliefs are, then whatever is shown can be assumed that that is what our values are. Though, another limitation to this study is that not everyone watches this specific show and that there are other shows out there that exaggerate and fib for better ratings. If every show was analyzed in the same caliber that it reflects our society then it would show more than what we really are. Hollywood also creates shows for our enjoyment and for us to get away from real life. By creating fantasy and Sci-Fi shows, it can be an escape from daily struggles with relationships and careers which shows like ‘Friends’ portray. Furthering the research on the influence of symbolic interaction through television shows can help gain an understanding of how people relate to each other on first meeting one another. The basis of symbolic interaction has much to do with putting oneself in another person’s perspective. By conducting more research possible answers could come about of why people judge quickly and more understanding of how to interact with people could be brought to light to the vast majority of society. This information could be researched further by taking a specific show and analyzing a group of its avid viewers. Research the background of those viewers and try to find correlation between viewer to viewer and viewer to show. By doing this, we could gain more knowledge of how different types of personalities relate to other personalities, situations and dilemmas. Until further research is done, what is known now is that symbolic interaction is a daily part of our lives regardless if we are watching it or living it. Although, television shows do have a strong influence in our persona and character. Society is drawn into Hollywood portrayal of life. By watching and immersing ourselves into these shows, we relate to characters by putting ourselves in their situations and with that, it is a continue influence on our character and personality.Works Cited1. Wise, Michael., Harris, Catherine. and Watts, Velma. "Cultural Capital, Habitus and Sense of Belonging : The Impact of Ascribed and Achieved Status."?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 12, 2005 Online. 2009-10-14 . Vigneron, Franck, and Lester W. Johnson. "A Review and a Conceptual Framework of Prestige-Seeking Consumer Behavior Franck." 2009-10-14 . Cerven, Christine. "Psychological Well-being, Socioeconomic Status, and the Accumulation of Multiple Identities." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 11, 2006 Online. 2009-10-14 . Karner, Tracy. "The Material Projection of Identity: The Construction of the Final Self in Grave Markers"?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA, Aug 16, 2003 Online. 2009-10-14 <. Berry, Brandon. "When Things Go Astray: The Material Foundations of Identity"?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Sheraton Boston and the Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA, Jul 31, 2008 Online. 2009-10-14 . "Friends named Most Watched TV Show of Last Decade - ." India news, World news. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. <;. 7. "Friends on ." - Free Full Episodes & Clips, Show Info and TV Listings Guide. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. <;. 8. McKinley, Graham E. "Beverly Hills, 90210: television ... -." Google Books. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. <;. 9. "The One With Five Steaks And An Eggplant - Friends - TV Shack." TV Shack - tune in. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. <;. (Video Link)10. "Television." California State University, Northridge. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. <;. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download