The Conceptions of Man in Symbolic Interactionism and the Problem of homo aestimans

Abstract

Symbolic interactionists did not pay attention to analysis of the ontological foundations of their theory. However, this direction of theoretical thinking in sociology does contain such most general assumptions, particularly with respect to man as a social creature. In symbolic interactionism three images of man can be pointed to: homo reciprocus, homo symbolicus, and homo faber − man entering mutual interactions, using signs, and efficiently manipulating objects in his environment. The orientation of symbolic interactionism is subject to significant limitations as the dimension of valus in communication and interaction has not been duly taken into account. It is necessary to accept also the image of homo aestimans − man evaluating. Florian Znaniecki's conception of value is suggested which includes both the meanings and the axiological significance of objects in interaction contexts. Symbolic interactionism does not also use such a conception of symbol that surpasses the domain of signs in everyday reality of activity. Hence developing the symbolic-interaction theory requires differentiation between the signs and symbols which are equally axiologically characterized in communication.