“Before the Law”: Symbolic Interactionism and the Failings of the Justice System

In the field of sociology, a number of theories exist to provide an explanation for the nature of social structure and the interaction of individuals within the structure. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the economist Max Weber and the philosopher George H. Mead produced original writings that provide the basis of much sociological work. Most notably, a prominent theory known as symbolic interactionism, or simply interactionism, is rooted in the perspectives put forth by these two men. Although this theory was not named or formalized until the scholar Herbert Blumer did so in the 1960’s, the core of interactionism relates to the idea of subjective human experience in the social sphere that both Weber and Mead explored. This philosophy explains reality as a social sphere that is determined by an individual’s interaction with society, and the social definitions that this forms for the individual.

Symbolic interactionism is a lens through which sociologists can study and make sense of human conduct; Blumer outlines some key premises to help interpret this theory for the examination of human life. Blumer first says that humans “act toward things on the basis of meanings that the things have for them” (2). He goes on to explain that “things” encompasses all physical and ideological things that a person might encounter in his life. His next assertion is that a person derives said meaning from “the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows” (2). That is, in contrast to some other accounts of the origin of meaning, interactionism contends that things do not have a philosophically inherent meaning, but derive meaning from the way that people act in regard to things (4). Finally, to combine these first two premises, Blumer explains that the process by which a person uses meaning is interpretative, not static. When an individual is in contact with someone else, he does not simply react to what is happening in the interaction, but he interprets actions based on his own standard of meaning to actions (5).

A more recent scholar, Professor Joel M. Charon, provides a further explanation of symbolic interactionism. He states that there are five fundamental ideas that define human society. First, he asserts that humans are social beings, and that interaction between humans is the core motivation of society. Second, he defines thinking as interaction within the individual, and argues that it provides the platform for active engagement with society. Third, these first two ideas provide the basis for the way that humans define their environments, and it is the definition that is more important than the actual environment. Fourth, it is not a person’s past that defines a present situation, but a person’s present definition and interaction, although if one is thinking about the past it might be brought into present actions. Finally, humans are not passive reactors to environment, but active players in making choices and interacting with their surroundings (Charon 31).

Taken together, these two explications by Blumer and Charon provide a basic perspective of symbolic interactionism, and how it functions to explain people’s interactions with society. Both individuals and society are being continually defined by each other, and social interaction is the basis of meaning for both of these components. Humans are continuously in conversation with both themselves and others, and engaging in processes of interpretation to determine what things hold meaning in any situation. Once an interpretation of meaning is defined for a situation, and other’s actions analyzed, people will take actions that most closely align with the pursuit of these meanings (Blumer 5).

The principles of symbolic interactionism can be used to analyze the societal workings behind the scenes of Jennifer Gonnerman’s article “Before the Law.” This piece illustrates the story of a young, African-American man named Kalief Browder, and the failings of the justice system that caused him to be held in Rikers detention facility in New York for over three years for a crime for which he had not yet been convicted. Through interactionism, we can examine both his individual experience before and after his incarceration and the perspective of how members of the judicial system failed to protect him.

As symbolic interactionism describes, humans look to social constructs to decide how we will ascribe meaning to another person or situation. In this case, it is clear that the court judged him based on several factors: his race, economic status, and legal history (he is held at a higher bail because he is on probation from a previous minor offense). Through Gonnerman’s portrayal of Browder’s perspective and intelligence, and the obvious shortcomings of the Bronx County Criminal Court, it is easy to see that this judgment is in error. However, interactionism accounts for the way that we form beliefs about others, and unfortunately the people of the judicial system, overworked as they with people awaiting trial, did not have reason to ascribe very much meaning to Browder’s case. Accordingly, the actions of his lawyer and the court displayed their lack of value for his case.

Interactionism also states that perspectives can be modified, which is hopefully something that Gonnerman accomplishes. Perhaps if Browder’s lawyer had met him face-to-face, this social interaction would have encouraged the lawyer to develop a different and more positive interpretation of this young man. The way that Rikers was run does not allow for much social interaction or redemption of inmates, as life in the facility was unsafe and intense. Browder experienced cruelty and physical harm from both prisoners and guards, and these social interactions slowly shifted the meanings he ascribed to them. “When I went in there, that’s when I decided I wanted to get big” (Gonnerman), Rowder recalls. Before entering Rikers, he felt no need to appear threatening or tough, but in this new social system, it was the role most likely to afford him protection.

Charon’s first principle of symbolic interactionism is that humans are social beings, and pursuit of social interaction motivates action. Browder reports spending 700 or 800 days in solitary confinement of the 1,000 or so that he was in Rikers (Gonnerman). Understandably, when he is finally set free without ever standing trial, he struggles in the outside world with readjusting to what he must pursue on the basis of meaning. For years he was denied a key component of how humans determine value, and the effects are stark. As Blumer similarly defined, a person’s sense of meaning is defined by interactions with society and modified through continued experiences. After Browder’s release, “he preferred to spend time by himself, alone in his bedroom… Sometimes he found himself pacing, as he had done in solitary” (Gonnerman). His experiences in Rikers changed the way that he knew how to interact with society and with other people.

He additionally feels that he will be misunderstood in others’ perspectives, as when he leaves Rikers he has no high school diploma, no job, and has spent three years in jail. To other people’s definitions of meaning and societal interactions, he is afraid that these facts will lead to others misinterpreting his motivations and actions. Charon’s fourth principle of interactionism states that societies past interactions with people do not determine present encounters, but in Browder’s case he applies his past in confinement to his present situation of freedom, and this dictates his struggle to relate to his family and peers. During his incarceration his interactions with the social and justice system did not encourage healthy social definitions.

Given that symbolic interactionism has its roots in Max Weber’s theories, his works largely support the perspective that symbolic interactionism lends to Browder’s case. His sociological work focused on individual experience, and how this subjective experience causes the individual to relate to society. Much like interactionism, Weber was interested in how people interpret ideas and ascribe meaning to them, rather than what the ideas themselves mean. When Browder was in jail, he had limited access to ideas, and thus limited ability to assign meaning to anything in his experience.

As an economist, Weber also focused on social status and stratification. He argued that it is not just monetary wealth that determined a person’s status, but the value judgments that others make about an individual. That is, the meaning that people attribute to others based on their interactions with society. This perspective supports the interactionist analysis of Gonnerman’s article, in that Browder’s status, and the importance of his case, was judged on the basis of his race, age, and socioeconomic standing. After his release, he is afraid that his time in Rikers, although he was innocent, will hurt him in other’s value judgments, based on the way that he was judged while in jail.

Additionally, Weber was interested in the effects of the bureaucracy and modern capitalism on society. Although he recognizes the potential efficiency of a democratic system, he also expresses a belief that bureaucratic control will threaten civic liberties and socioeconomic ambition. He refers to this phenomenon as the “iron cage,” (Weber 181) a system in which citizens will become trapped by institutions and bureaucracy. In the case of Browder, he quite literally gets trapped because of the inadequacies of the bureaucratic judicial system. His interactions as an individual within this societal system undoubtedly led to his disillusionment and struggle to define meaning in his life after Rikers.

Works Cited

Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Print.

Charon, Joel M. Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, an Interpretation, an Integration. Boston: Pearson, 2004. Print.

Gonnerman, Jennifer. “Before the Law.” The New Yorker 6 Oct. 2014: n.pag. Web. 2 November 2015.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003. Print.