Symbolic Interactionism – When Reality Emerges Between People

 Symbolic Interactionism – When Reality Emerges Between People

Illustration generated with AI (OpenAI/ChatGPT), 

developed in dialogue with the author.

In social work, we use concepts such as role, self-image, interaction, and relationship on a daily basis. They are almost embedded in our language. At the same time, it is striking how rarely we pause to ask where these concepts actually come from. Symbolic interactionism largely constitutes the theoretical foundation for this way of understanding human beings, yet it often lives a quiet life in practice—more used than explicitly recognized.

For me, this is not merely theory. It is experience.
I worked for 20 years in child welfare services—from social worker to director—before moving into academia. These were years spent close to people’s lives, in situations where decisions could not wait and where the consequences were significant.

Meaning as Something That Emerges in Interaction

One of the most fundamental contributions of symbolic interactionism is the insight that meaning is not fixed or given. It emerges in interaction. A situation, an action, or an expression does not carry a single inherent meaning. Its meaning is formed through interpretation.

Here we find a clear connection to the hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer. We never encounter the world directly; we encounter it through our pre-understandings. For the social worker, this means that we never face a “pure” situation. We are always confronted with an interpreted reality—both our own and that of others.

This is not a weakness of practice. It is its very condition.

The Definition of the Situation – When Time Is Critical

The classic formulation by W. I. Thomas—that if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences—gained particular significance for me in a case I have never fully left behind.

The case involved a newborn child suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The mother had used substances during pregnancy. The situation was serious, and child welfare services had to act quickly. Custody was assumed shortly after birth.

From a systems perspective, this could appear as a necessary and professionally justified intervention. But in the encounter with the mother, reality was different. For her, this was not an “assessment of measures.” It was a loss. A rupture. An existential experience of being deprived of her child.

In that moment, Thomas’s point became clear in practice:
We do not act only within situations—we act within people’s experiences of situations.

And these experiences cannot be reduced to facts alone.

Entering the Perspective of the Other

In the work of George Herbert Mead, we find the idea that we understand others by “taking their role.” In such situations, this becomes not merely a theoretical exercise, but a necessity—and at the same time, a limited possibility.

For how can one fully understand a mother’s experience at the very moment she loses custody of her newborn child?

Here, Martin Heidegger reminds us that we always stand within our own horizon of understanding. We can approach the other, but never fully enter the other’s lifeworld.

This is not a failure of understanding, but a reminder of its limits—and thus of its humility.

The Fragile Dramaturgy of Everyday Life

Erving Goffman describes how we all attempt to maintain certain roles in our interactions with others. In child welfare cases, these roles are often placed under extreme pressure.

The role of mother, caregiver, responsible adult—all may be at stake simultaneously. When such roles begin to collapse, the situation does not only become more difficult; it becomes more vulnerable on a deeply human level.

As a social worker, one stands within this. Not outside it.

The Self as a Mirror

Charles Horton Cooley describes how the self is shaped through the gaze of others. In encounters with welfare systems, this gaze can become particularly significant.

How does a mother come to see herself when confronted with the system’s assessments?
How does she interpret the way others see her?

These are not peripheral questions. They reach directly into a person’s sense of self.

When Labels Take on a Life of Their Own

In the work of Howard Becker, it becomes clear how language can shape identity. Terms such as “substance abuser” or “neglect” are necessary in professional contexts, but they are not neutral.

They can also become identities.

This represents one of the more demanding aspects of social work:
to use professional language without reducing the person.

A Symbolic Universe – and a Practical Responsibility

Symbolic interactionism reminds us that we live not only in a physical world, but in a universe of meanings. Social work therefore always takes place in the tension between the objective and the interpreted.

Within this tension, ethical responsibility emerges.

Freedom and Responsibility

In its understanding of the human being, symbolic interactionism shares affinities with the existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard. Human beings are neither fully determined nor entirely free in any simple sense. We act within constraints, yet we act.

This holds true even in the most difficult life situations.

Concluding Reflection

When I look back on my years in child welfare services, symbolic interactionism does not appear as a theory I “applied,” but as a way of being in practice—often without explicitly articulating it. It was present in the encounters, in the assessments, in the uncertainty, and in the ongoing effort to understand.

There is a common assumption that theory and practice stand in opposition. That some “use their heads” while others “use their hands.” That one is either a practitioner or an academic.

That has never been my experience.

In social work, this distinction cannot be sustained. Every action is grounded in understanding, and every understanding is shaped through action. Theory is not external to practice; it is woven into it—sometimes silently, sometimes unreflected, but always active.

Likewise, practice is never free of theory. It is precisely where theory is tested, challenged, and brought to life.

Perhaps this is why social work cannot be understood as a choice between head and hand, but as a form of work in which both are always present. Understanding and action cannot be separated, because they continuously shape one another.

When I reflect on the case of the newborn child, it is not only the seriousness that remains. I also see something else: close collaboration between child welfare services, healthcare authorities, and other agencies. Different professions working together, learning to understand each other’s languages, and acting toward a shared goal—not separately, but together.

The child’s life was saved. The parents received help for their substance use problems.

It was not one theory that made the difference, nor one profession acting alone. It was the interaction between people, between disciplines, and between forms of understanding.

Perhaps this is what symbolic interactionism, at its best, helps us to see:
that meaning, action, and change do not arise in isolation, but in the relationships between us.

And that it is here, in this in-between space, that social work finds both its challenge and its hope.

References

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Scribner.
Goffman, E. (1959/1971). The presentation of self in everyday life. Penguin.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press.
Rose, A. M. (1962). Human behavior and social processes. Routledge.
Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology. Routledge.
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1958). The Polish peasant in Europe and America. Dover.