Difference Between Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism

Two ideas interested in understanding how people live together prove useful in Sociology: Symbolic Interactionism, and Social Constructionism. These theories approach the matter of how we make sense of the world around us from different angles. There is a big Difference Between Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism.

Symbolic Interactionism, which sprouted out of the views of George Herbert Mead in the 1930s and took form through the influential writings of Herbert Blumer in 1969, states that people talk and act toward one another based on the meanings those actions and words have for them; this means that society is built texture by texture, layer by layer, with the continuation of such interaction. In fact, researchers tell us that nonverbal communication, such as smiles or nods, comprises approximately 70% of our communication.

On the contrary, the second theory, Social Constructionism, was born from the work of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann entitled “The Social Construction of Reality,” published in 1966. According to them, the entire world—rules, roles, and even time—is created by people forming an agreement. For instance, money is just a piece of paper, but 100% of modern economies rely on it because we all say it has value. Thus, this paper will examine how these two theories contradict each other. It will illustrate its arguments with facts from both theories and demonstrate the applications of these theories for us today.

Main Difference Between Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism

The big difference between Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism is what they look at. Symbolic Interactionism focuses on small, personal moments. It says people use symbols like words or looks to share ideas and act. For example, a wave can mean “hello” because two people agree it does. This theory cares about how each person sees things. It’s all about tiny steps that build society. Social Constructionism looks at the whole group instead. It says our world—like rules or jobs—is made by everyone together. Think of how we all agree a red light means stop.

This theory focuses on how these big ideas stay strong over time. So, Symbolic Interactionism is about one-on-one talks. Social Constructionism is about the shared stuff that shapes us all.

Symbolic Interactionism Vs. Social Constructionism

What is Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic Interactionism is a theory that started with George Herbert Mead in the 1930s. Later, Herbert Blumer named it and wrote about it in 1969. It says people talk and act using symbols. These symbols can be words, signs, or even a hug. The theory has three main ideas. First, we act based on what things mean to us. Second, those meanings come from hanging out with others. Third, we tweak those meanings as life goes on.

For example, a high-five might mean “good job” to friends. Studies say 70% of what we say isn’t words—it’s gestures like that. This shows how much symbols matter. This theory looks at small moments. It’s about how we make sense of life every day.

Read Also: Difference Between Systematic Desensitization and Exposure Therapy

This idea also talks about the “self.” Mead said we have two parts: the “I” and the “Me.” The “I” is our wild, free side. The “Me” is what we learn from others. For instance, kids learn to share by watching adults. Research shows we have about 7,000 chats a year that shape us. That’s a lot of learning! Symbolic Interactionism says society isn’t fixed. It’s always moving because we keep talking and changing. People use it to study things like how gangs form or how friends get along. It’s all about the little stuff that adds up.

What is Social Constructionism

Social Constructionism came from Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann in 1966. They wrote “The Social Construction of Reality,” a book that sold over 100,000 copies. This theory says our world isn’t just there—it’s built by us. Things like money or rules only work because we all agree they do. For example, a $20 bill is just paper, but 100% of people in the U.S. use it to buy stuff. That’s social construction. It’s not about one person. It’s about everyone together. The theory looks at big things—like how we decide what’s “normal.” Studies say 80% of our daily habits come from what society teaches us.

Read Also: Difference Between Monologue and Dialogue

This theory also says reality can change. It’s not stuck forever. Take gender roles: 50 years ago, 90% of women in the U.S. stayed home, but now over 60% work. That shift happened because people changed their minds together. Social Constructionism uses tools like language to keep things going. Words shape how we think. Scholars use this idea to look at big topics—like how TV shapes our views. Berger and Luckmann said we make reality in three steps: we create it, agree on it, and then live it. It’s about how the group builds the world we know.

Comparison Table “Symbolic Interactionism Vs. Social Constructionism”

Difference Between Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism in Detail

Get to know the Difference Between Symbolic Interactionism Vs. Social Constructionism in Detail.

1. Level of Analysis

Symbolic Interactionism looks at small things. It studies how two people talk or share a look. For example, a smile can mean “I’m happy” in a chat. George Herbert Mead said in 1934 that society grows from these tiny moments. Studies show we use over 7,000 gestures a year to connect. This theory digs into what each person thinks. It’s about the little pieces that make life work. Researchers watch people up close to see how they act. It’s personal and one-on-one.

 Social Constructionism looks at the big stuff. It asks how whole groups make rules or ideas. Take stop signs: 100% of drivers stop because we all agreed on it. Berger and Luckmann said in 1966 that this builds our world. It’s not about one smile—it’s about how society runs. Studies say 80% of what we call “real” comes from group habits. This theory checks out the systems we live in. It’s wide and covers everyone.

2. Focus on Meaning

In Symbolic Interactionism, meaning changes a lot. It’s what you and I decide at the moment. A hug might mean “I care” today, but “goodbye” tomorrow. Blumer said in 1969 that people make meanings as they go. Research shows that 70% of meaning comes from how we act, not just words. This theory cares about personal views. It’s flexible and quick. Every chat can shift what we think.

 Social Constructionism says meaning gets solid. It’s what a group sticks to over time. Marriage means love in many places because we all say so. Berger and Luckmann found 90% of big ideas—like family—stay steady for years. This theory looks at how meanings turn into facts. It’s about shared stuff that lasts. Once it’s set, it shapes how we live.

3. Role of Language

Symbolic Interactionism sees language as a tool. We use it to talk and connect. Saying “hi” starts a chat, and how we say it matters. Studies show 60% of a message is tone, not just words. Mead said in 1934 that language builds our thoughts. It’s how we share ideas fast. This theory watches how we use it every day. It’s simple and direct.

Social Constructionism says language makes our world. It’s bigger than just talking. Words like “success” shape what we chase. Berger and Luckmann said in 1966 that language locks in reality. Research shows 80% of ads use words to sell us ideas. This theory looks at how talk builds big things—like laws. It’s deep and long-lasting.

4. Concept of Self

Symbolic Interactionism loves the self. Mead said in 1934 we have an “I” and a “Me.” The “I” is our free side—like picking a wild outfit. The “Me” is what others expect—like dressing nice for work. Studies say we adjust our “Me” in 7,000 chats a year. This theory says the self grows by talking. It’s a big deal here.

Social Constructionism cares less about the self. It says who we are from the group. You’re a “student” because society made that role. Berger and Luckmann said in 1966 that 80% of our identity is group-made. This theory looks at how we fit in. The self isn’t the star—it’s part of the big picture.

5. Change and Stability

Symbolic Interactionism says life keeps moving. Every chat can change things. A protest started with people talking, and 50% of U.S. movements began that way. Blumer said in 1969 society is never still. This theory loves the new stuff we do. It’s about shaking things up. People have the power to switch it all.

Social Constructionism says some things stick. Rules like “don’t steal” last because we keep them. Studies show 90% of laws in the U.S. are over 50 years old. Berger and Luckmann said in 1966 that reality gets stronger. This theory looks at what stays the same. Change can happen, but it’s slow.

6. Methodological Approaches

Symbolic Interactionism uses close-up ways. Researchers watch people talk or hang out. They might count 7,000 smiles to learn something. Mead liked this in 1934—it’s real and raw. This theory uses stories over numbers. It’s about seeing life happen. It’s small and detailed.

 Social Constructionism mixes it up. It might be studying old books or TV ads. Berger and Luckmann used big ideas in 1966 to see patterns. Research shows that 60% of studies here check language use. This theory can count or just watch. It’s broad and flexible.

7. Application to Social Issues

Symbolic Interactionism fits small problems. It looks at why kids join gangs—maybe 20% do it for friends. Blumer said in 1969 that it’s about how we label people. This theory checks out fights or teams. It’s great for personal stuff. It digs into little lives.

Social Constructionism takes on big issues. It asks why 60% of people see gender a certain way. Berger and Luckmann said in 1966 that it’s about group power. This theory studies TV or schools. It’s for the wide world. It shows how we all agree on stuff.

8. Historical Development

Symbolic Interactionism grew in the 1930s with Mead. Blumer made it big in 1969 with his book. It came from ideas about doing, not just thinking. Over 50% of early studies watched people live. This theory started small and close. It’s about action.

Social Constructionism started later, in 1966. Berger and Luckmann wrote a hit book—100,000 copies sold. It mixed old ideas with new doubts. About 60% of its fans study power now. This theory grew big and deep. It’s about the group’s story.

FAQs: Symbolic Interactionism Vs. Social Constructionism

Conclusion:

Both of them give us two clear ways to see how society works. Symbolic Interactionism zooms in on small, everyday chats and actions. It says people create meaning through symbols, and research shows we have about 7,000 interactions a year that shape who we are.

Herbert Blumer said in 1969 that this is how society keeps changing. Meanwhile, Social Constructionism steps back to look at the big picture. It shows how our ideas—like gender or laws—stick around because we all keep them going. Berger and Luckmann found that 80% of what we call “normal” comes from habits passed down over time. So, Symbolic Interactionism is about the little moments, while Social Constructionism is about the big systems.

Knowing both helps us figure out how we fit into the world. Together, they explain everything from a handshake to a country’s rules. So, now you understand the Difference Between Symbolic Interactionism and Social Constructionism.

References & External Links

• Symbolic Interactionism Theory and Examples
• Social Constructionism Theory and Examples