Symbolic interactionism vs. social constructionism

[basophilic]

1. In symbolic interactionism, is the concept of meaning given to things around us pretty much the same as concept of schemas in psychology, which also provide us a framework for interpreting and behaving and are also subject to change? How would they differ?

2. Both symbolic interactionism and social constructionism involve giving value or meaning to things around us, but what's the key difference between the two? I guess one could be that constructionism focuses entirely on thoughts ascribed to things (i.e. brute vs. institutional thoughts) whereas interactionism involves ascribing thoughts AND how we act upon them; is this valid?

3. Also, for medical applications of the two, I understand that social constructionism deals more with stereotypes, illness stigmas, and their impact on diagnosis; but what's the key difference between that and symbolic interactoinism? Why isn't stereotyping or discrimination under symbolic interactionism (which involves giving value/meaning to things and acting upon it)?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mcatjelly]

1. Yes, I think that's a fair comparison. I would say they mainly differ in that schema-forming occurs in the context of the individual whereas symbolic interactionism occurs in the context of relationships. But the differences here are very nuanced and beyond the scope of the MCAT.

2. The key difference between SI and SC is that SI occurs on the level of the individual (micro) and SC occurs on the level of a group (macro). As individuals, we communicate with each other based on the meanings we assign to objects, gestures, etc. For example, if a man and a woman go out on a date and the woman insists on paying for her half of the meal, the man might think that means she's not interested in him. The woman, however, just feels uncomfortable having someone pay for her after growing up poor and not wanting to be reliant on outside help--but she is very much interested in him romantically. So for the man, woman not letting him pay = lack of romantic interest. For the woman, woman not letting him pay = just wanting to be self-reliant.

SC, on the other hand, consists of universally agreed-upon meanings and are more abstract. As mentioned in my response to your other post, gender is a social construct; society assumes that being born with XX chromosomes means you will like pretty dresses and playing dolls, while being born with XY chromosomes means you will like playing with toy cars and wearing pants.

3. Again, the difference here is very nuanced. Think of these terms again as macro vs. micro. SC = societal conceptions of race, class, gender, sexuality, etc. SI = for example, the consequences of labeling. If a patient is told they have social anxiety disorder, they might adopt even more behaviors indicative of someone who is socially anxious.

I hope that somewhat makes sense. Psychology and sociology can get messy. 🙂

 

[basophilic]

1. Ok so I can organize schemas, SI, and SC in a spectrum: schemas (intra-individual level/psychology) --> SI (inter-individual level/microsociology) --> SC (large-scale social patterns/macrosociology)
on a side-note, would George Kelly's personal constructs model lie at the schema level? - i suppose most psychological theories (except social psych) lie at the intra-individual level?

2. That helps; but with strong vs. weak social constructionism, i know latter involves presence of brute facts and former doesn't
are these 2 examples/interpretations of brute facts valid: physical laws (gravity, electrostatics, etc.) and subatomic particles (corresponding institutional facts would be technology/buildings made from those laws); sex (XX vs. XY) is brute fact while gender/orientation would be institutional
Thanks.

 

[mcatjelly]

1. Yup, Kelly's theory is of personality and cognition. Definitely schema level.