TEXT AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTION

Some 12 years ago I was contemplating doing a research degree having completed an MA in performance writing under the tutelage of Jerome Fletcher, a most excellent instructor and advisor. My subject was intended to examine the performance of writing in the environment, displaying social identity. 

The premise was that every sign in a public space is open writing, a public ‘text’. This included all posters and placards pasted on walls or held up on demonstrations, advertisements, shop signs, bus stops, traffic signals, subway stations, the entirety of all public displays of images and words in the environment including the digital world.  It is writing addressed to a public audience continuously reminding the observer of ‘reader’ of some official or unofficial information, or some social or political position. Some of these public signs are significant public art. Indeed artistic displays of any kind are a form of public text to be viewed and read.

My initial questions were whether this ‘writing’ signified as social and political? Do the majority or ruling groups support their political and territorial interests through the use of public writing? Does this ‘public text’ perform as a display of the social identity of a given group? Does public text  have  real  power and influence? Can one include aural rhetoric as a form of writing? 

As you can tell the questions go on and on and I was never able to pinpoint any specific question to explore which would encapsulate the essence of the performance of text other than it ‘informs’. It simply imparts information which can be either accepted and acted upon or just observed and ignored. It is similar to an accept all, reject all or accept essential only, as in the manner of cookies. 

But what is public. Does one include books and magazines. They are displayed and open to the public, although they have to be bought or at least handled by the reader, which requires the reader to actively seek out whatever the book or work conveys. Likewise any open performance, film, television or online streaming requires the deliberate participation of the reader. There is stuff just put out on display whether anyone likes it or not. Is that really a distinction? 

So far as the power of text is concerned, there are statutes and laws which are written and necessarily available to the public, which the public are deemed to understand and abide by. The fact that one is unaware of a particular prohibition or mandatory action is considered inexcusable. The rule of law is embodied in text. . 

The more one looks into Text, the more one accepts Jacques Derrida’s statement "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte” - There is nothing outside the text. In effect, there is nothing but text. In preparing my project back in 2013 I put together a short video in an attempt to formulate “The Question”: 

  

In my view, on reflection after 12 years, it is perhaps not sufficient, as it does not to take into account the myriad of public texts which was the object of the investigation. In particular, when it comes to social identity, it does not stress enough the real power that text has on our daily lives. Legality, religion, economics, health, nationality, political affiliation, employment, status, everything is dependent on the “written manual’ that goes with it. That text has its influence is one thing, but of course, along with the reader is the writer. Someone has put the text on display. Whether it is done simply to display a statement without expectation of reaction or comment, or with a very specific intent of causing reaction and comment, it will cause, by itself,  reaction and comment, both positive and negative. There will be some interaction between people. How human beings act towards other people or things is based on what meanings are assigned to them. 

There is a theory of symbolic interaction which focuses on the analysis of the patterns of communication, interpretation and adjustment between individuals. The theory is a framework for understanding how individuals interact with each other and within society through the meanings of symbols (or text) Both the verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then delivers are similarly constructed in expectation of how the original speaker will react. 

There are a number of people who has pronounced on the matter. Erving Goffman believed that when an individual comes in contact with other people, that individual will attempt to control or guide the impression that others might make of him by changing or fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner. At the same time, the person the individual is interacting with is trying to form and obtain information about the individual.Herbert Blumer (set out three basic premises of the perspective:
•    "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
•    "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."
•   "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

Others, such as George Herbert Mead and Joel M. Charon have expressed views. In deed Charon is the author of Symbolic Interaction An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. Mr Charon expresses five central ideas symbolic interaction. Briefly, 1- The human being must be understood as a social person, 2- The human being must be understood as a thinking being. 3- Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in.4- The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present. 5- Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment.

The theories as proposed by these three are very similar, and in particular I note “Human beings must be understood as thinking beings”, “Human act towards things on the basis on the meanings they ascribe to those thing” and “When individuals come into contact with other people, the individual will attempt to control or guide the impression that others might make of him/her by changing or fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner”

Of course, the theory of human beings being understood as thinking beings presupposes that the human in question is an honest and ethical individual. On the whole one should be able to suppose that integrity and character are widespread. I have often stated before that human beings, when  departing from the norm, do  two thing, they steal and they hit. Violence or dishonesty is what appears to be the default mode when human beings fall short of clear thinking. 

I should like to add here that civilisation has accepted that, in order to survive as thinking human beings, we have a duty or care towards one another that follows on from the rules which have been written as rules of law which ensure that we can interact with each other even symbolically. There is a passage written by Northrup Frye, a Canadian literary critic and theorist who commented on the law and artistic endeavour as it relates (in my view) to symbolic interaction:
All respect for the law is a product of the social imagination, and the social imagination is what literature directly addresses.…If the law were to be completely absorbed into the internal discipline of honest men, there would be no more law and we should all be living in the Garden of Eden. We are not there, but in the meantime law still depends upon the imagination, and the fostering and cherishing of the imagination by the arts is mainly what makes [the] profession honourable, perhaps even what makes it possible.

In the light of all of the above, I am compelled to ponder on the beings who are now in the process of scarfing ups the planet and turning it to shit in the very neighbourhood of the supposed site of the garden of eden. They are not at all what one could describe as truly thoughtful and the only interaction they seek is to control. They preen and pose like peacocks and are prone to violent outburst of insult and arrogance, and are unable to adhere to any duty or care or rule of law. They are not honourable men and women and have no concept of what service to a nation means. Thoughtlessness, violence and dishonesty are there go to norms rather than the opposite. You know who they are. Unfortunately their 15 minutes of fame has been extended for far too long. If ever the world needed the American people to come up trumps, it is to clip Trumps wings on the 3rd November 2026. It is hoped the other miscreants will follow suit.