I grew up as the middle child of 3. My siblings and I are very different, my older sister is quiet and artistic, my younger brother is loud and athletic, and I am somewhere in between both. However, when we set all differences aside there is one thing we share a passion for, a good riddle. Riddles are fascinating, the way they make us question reality. My mind often comes back to one riddle in particular, that still leaves me perplexed. It goes like this..
A man and his son were driving home one day and got into a terrible accident. The father was killed in the accident and the son was rushed into the hospital in critical condition and needed surgery immediately. In the operating room, a doctor came in and looked at the boy but said “I can’t operate on this boy, he’s my son!”. Who is the doctor?
I thought, and thought, and thought, yet could not think of the answer. I asked if it was the boy’s step father, incorrect. I even asked if the doctor was God, creative but also incorrect. Finally I did what I absolutely do not enjoy, I gave up and asked for the answer. The correct answer, though relieving to finally find out, opened my eyes to a world of more questions. The doctor was the boy’s mother. WHAT? How did I not think of that? Why was it so hard for me to come to that conclusion? The Communication Theory known as Symbolic Interaction offers some ideas and answers to those questions.
Symbolic Interactionism is a theory by George Herbert Mead. Mead can be described as a social constructionist, meaning that he believed an individual’s thoughts, self-concept, and view of society are a reflection of reality that has been created through communication and interaction with the world. This view of reality led Mead to the theory of Symbolic Interactionism which can be defined as “the ongoing use of language and gestures in anticipation of how the other will react, a conversation,” (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, pg 53). Likewise, the theory operates under three points, concerning social reality, the source of meaning, and taking the role of others. The first point states, “humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things.” (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, pg 54) our personal interpretations have a large factor in what we believe, and consequently will affect how we act. The second point states that, “meaning arises out of the social interaction that people have with each other.” (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, pg 54) which means whether or not we like it, through the exchange of language and everyday interactions, meaning is created. This second premise can largely explain why in my mind, and probably the minds of many others, the word “doctor” evokes the image of a man in a white coat and a stethoscope. This could be because in most of my experience I have encountered male doctors, on TV, in pictures, and in real life. This does not mean that I don’t believe woman can and should be doctors, rather the meaning of the word has been affected by my experience. Mead’s final point states, “an individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought processes.” (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, pg 56) this premise acknowledges the ability we have to communicate within our own minds and determine our individual truths.
I believe this theory is a great way to explain how much of the reality we face day to day is consequence of the language we use and the meaning we attach to it. As an interpretive theory, Symbolic Interactionism is a helpful resource because it leaves room for uniqueness of individuals and the fact that though as a society we may hold similar truths, each person’s mind is subject to their own way of processing truths based on their unique lives. A study by Fusun Alver and Sebnem Caglar focused on the strengths of Social Interactionism, specifically how it the theory remains applicable with time. As years go by and time progresses, so does language and meaning. This is a powerful tool to have as a theory. Some flaws of Symbolic Interactionism occur in its lack of objectivity. With the nature of this theory, there is little “proof” and room for experimentation. Another flaw, as a micro theory, is that Symbolic Interactionism lacks the ability or strength to go apply to society holistically.
For an interesting article on the riddle and how it may relate to gender bias,
Click HERE