Symbolic Interactionism

4 Pages 956 Words

Throughout Ray & Simons study a clear symbolic interactionst perspective arises as the focus on the individual account of events are examined. These are looked at not only within the microcosmic world, but also the larger macrocosmic order and how it is implicit in the process of self-labeling. Of particular interest was the vocabulary employed by the participants in defining their motives. Interviews were conducted with twenty-four individuals of differing backgrounds all deriving from largely rural communities in mid west United States, and all of whom share a homicide or manslaughter conviction. Six of the participants gave reasons that they felt justified their behavior while the vast majority, 18 out of the 24 gave accounts that they felt partially excused their violent action, such as intoxication and ‘sad stories’. Ray & Simons argue the individuals who cited self defense as a cause for their violent behavior are clearly demonstrating a commitment to conventional behavior rather than the norms of a violent subculture. By employing this language, they have imagined themselves in other social roles, which therefore are dependant on the actor’s capacity for internal conversation. These internal conversations are an important part of the self-labeling process, not only for those individuals who claimed self-defence but also the remaining participants who felt they could not be held fully responsible due to substance abuse or emotional issues. If the actor can imagine that others would excuse or deem they’re behavior less criminal in certain circumstances, then through a process of internal conversation and by taking on the role of others, a rationalization is reached.

This is clearly a symbolic interactionist perspective as the vocabulary adopted for motive is consistent with the social meaning, which derives from a constant process of symbolic communication between actors. Therefore, the actors self per...