Week 3: Symbolic Interactionism

How is it that we, as human beings part of society, can feel a connection with a materialistic object? 

We often discuss the level of interaction people have with one another, but the interaction people have with certain material possessions/objects is also of interest.  A human’s tendency to use symbols to communicate is one of the unique principles of Symbolic Interactionism.  People often attach meaning to objects, and these objects become a symbol of communication, used as an expression or extension of ones self. 

I have a pair of earrings that I wear almost everyday. To me it is not about the earrings; it is not about the monetary value, or the brand of this piece of jewelry.  Instead, I have a connection to these earrings because of what they symbolize to me.  The earrings have meaning because I have labeled them as valuable – a reminder of the love my grandparents have for me, and me for them. 

In some cases this connection, or attachment, to a material object(s) may be considered a negative thing – deemed materialistic, which often draws a negative connotation.  The reality is, whether it be materialistic or not, almost all people have some type of special connection with a possession of theirs (object).  This is true because we as individuals, and as a society, have applied meaning to things over time – giving them a value. This also explains why this particular pair of earrings means more to me than another pair that could be very similar.  It has been argued, “From a symbolic interactionist perspective, materialism is neither positive nor negative in society. In fact, from this perspective, defining self through symbolic interaction with objects is a natural and pervasive part of socialization” (Claxton & Murray 1994, p.422).  Objects can also have meaning to individuals despite the sentimental value; perhaps that favourite pair of shoes that make you feel prettier, or the hat you always wear to parties.  Some people identify themselves through their possessions (objects), which give these objects meaning, and “over time, symbolic meaning is transferred from society to objects, then from objects to individuals” (Claxton & Murray 1994, p.422). 

Claxton, R.P., Murray, J.B 1994, ‘Object-Subject Interchangeability: A Symbolic Interactionist Model of Materialism’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 21, viewed 11 September 2012, http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7628