Symbolic Interaction and its Relevance to Lebanon
Dr. Munir Khuri
Before we come to the discussion of the relevance of symbolic interaction to Lebanon it is important to highlight some of the most important meanings of this concept. Students of symbolic interaction, despite their methodological differences, seem to unanimously agree on the following:
a) that the essence of human interaction is symbolic;
b) that the symbol is nothing but a meaning bestowed upon things by the interacting groups; and
c) that "meaniningful" (symbolic) interaction is always reflective and not reflexive.
Herbert Blumer, one of the most faithful adherents to George Mead's theory of symbolic interaction sees the whole theory as resting on the following premises.
Human beings interact with each other on the basis of meanings which are derived from social interaction, and modified through an interpretive process.
"Put simply, human beings in interacting with one another have to account of what each other is doing or is about to do; they are forced to direct their own conduct or handle their situations in terms of what they take into account. Thus the activities of others enter as positive factors in the formation of their own conduct; in the face of action of others one may abandon an intention or purpose, revise it, check or suspend it, intensify it, or replace it ... One has to fit one one's own line of activity in some manner to the actions of others" (Blumer p. 8).
Thus, symbolic interactionists recognize social interaction to be of vital importance in its own right, for it is basically a process that forms human conduct and not a means for the expression of human conduct.
Leslie White, in his bookThe Science of Culture considers that,
"All Human behaviour originates in the use of symbols. It was the symbol which transformed our anthropoid ancestors into men and made them human. All civilizations have been generated, and are perpetuated, only be the use of symbols. It is the symbol which transforms an infant of Homo Sapiens into a human being; deaf-mutes who grow up without the use of symbols are not human beings. All human behaviour consists of or is dependent upon, the use of symbols. Human behaviour is symbolic behaviour; symbolic behaviour is human behaviour. The symbol is the universe of humanity" (White, p. 22).
It must be noted very clearly that in symbolic interaction meanings are not inherent or intrinsic in things, that is, we never react to, or interact with things, without a process of interpretation (William Thomas's "Definition of the Situation"). Furthermore, Symbolic Interaction does not view that interpretation should be regarded as a mere automatic application of established meanings. The human being, according to this theory, constructs or builds his action upon the meanings he gives to objects. Such meanings are always acting on the "self' which, according to Mead, becomes an "object" extricated from its setting. Here, "self-indication" becomes a very important "communicative process in which the individual notes things, assesses them, gives them a meaning, and decides to act on the basis of the meaning." (Manis p. 145).
In practical non-sophisticated words what does this theory imply? The whole thing amount to the following: that there could be no human society, no culture, no social bond of any kind, no love, no affection, no civilization, no "human" being without symbolic interaction.
What is the relevance of this theory to the Lebanese situation? First, let us emphasize the fact that since symbolic interaction presumes that group life, by necessity, consists of members interacting meaningfully (symbolically) with each other, and that the more intimately, lastingly (Cooley's Primary Groups), and "vertically" (culturally) this interaction is, the more cohesive the society becomes. The answer to our question of relevance becomes, at least to the author, very clear, and that is this kind of process of interaction does not exist, or at best is superficial, in urban Lebanon.
I say urban Lebanon only, for there is a deep and very cohesive symbolic interaction at the level of the Lebanese rural sector: family and kinship ties, communal identifications, land attachment, genuine religious affiliations, friendships, loyalties, and a host of other norms and values that reflect deep meaningful (symbolic) interaction. The schism that exists between the two Lebanese sectors - the rural and the urban - deserves special attention. But, for the purpose of our present discussion, we can safely say that urbanism in Lebanon, as well as in the World is in complete dominance when it comes to decision-making policies. The rural sector remains, so far, relegated to the background. Much of what is going on in Lebanon today with regard to bloody conflicts is a product of urbanism - a product that is due, mainly, to lack of symbolic interaction - an interaction that is supposed to be meaningful. Non-symbolic interaction may cover a variety of social behaviour in much of our daily life activities: reflexive behaviour, impulsive behaviour, imitative behaviour and the like; but all of these, however, are not conducive of a unified cultural personality of the group. Such types of behaviour, just mentioned above, are apt to remain on a horizontal level as long as they are not anchored in depth to form a meaningful "cultural heritage" for the society concerned Lebanese do not seem to have "common definitions" of things that enable them to act alike. When "situations" do not have "common definitions" by the participating people, then different lines of action are apt to appear (exactly what is going on in Lebanon today) that may be in conflicting positions, and hence, may block collective action and stop development. George Mead's theory of the "Generalized Other" simply means when the individual member of a society takes the role of others, and "in taking such roles the individual seeks to ascertain the intention or direction of the acts of others. He forms and aligns his own action on the basis of interpretation of acts of others. This is the fundamental way in which group action takes place in human society" (Blumer p. 82).
Along the same stream of thought presented above, we can safely say that when the individual Lebanese begins to fit his own lines of action into the society's (group) action, then we can say that there is a direction or trend toward national unity. When social actions and transactions, that are "horizontally" oriented, begin to take roots "vertically" and crystallize to form a meaningful (symbolic) type of behaviour, then and only then, cultural anchors may begin to have stabilizing effects.
We mentioned earlier, at the risk of being criticized by many Lebanese, that the process of symbolic interaction, which is responsible for the development of a real social bond and national unity, does not exist in Lebanon, or at best is superficial. In fact if one is to describe the Lebanese cultural personality (again we are referring to urban personality) in few words the following characteristics will most likely stand out: it is typically mercantilistic, individualistic, levantinistic, anomic and sectarianly pluralistic. But these characteristics must be taken with reservation, for they are applicable more to urban than to rural life. Rural Lebanon has developed a sub-culture that is, in many ways, different and sometimes in contradiction with the Lebanese urban culture. Land, family and communities and to a lesser extent, religion, are basic anchoring features that act as stabilizing factors. Rural loyalties remain to be confined to these primordial areas where vertical identification has gained preponderance over the horizontal one. This rural model could contribute a great deal toward the preservation of a cultural base which, hopefully, will serve as an anchor for the nation at large, and not remain limited to the rural sector. This could also check such extreme tendencies toward individualism, mercantilism and levantinism. The rural sector in Lebanon, has always been the carrier of the most important norms, values, customs and traditions, and consequently can be considered the best representative of a Lebanese indigenous culture. To name but a few, there are family loyalties, kinship ties, friendship, hospitality and generosity, and a host of other values which constitute the backbone of the Lebanese indigenous rural culture. Yet, despite all of this, the driving and leading force that determines the fate of Lebanon remains to be in the hands of the city, for national identification has always been a function of urbanism.
Going back to the above-mentioned urban characteristics of individualism, mercantilism, and levantinism, the irony is that despite their dis-unifying effects, they remain to be the source of ambivalent feelings of criticism and commendation at the same time. They have been acting, at once, as positive and negative actors; positively, they have rendered Lebanon a unique personality that distinguished it from many other countries in he world, and certainly from its neighboring Arab and Middle Eastern countries. Depicting the "cultural personality" of the Lebanese through the titles of individualism, mercantilism and Levantinism certainly does not describe the whole picture, though we feel that these characteristics are representative enough to give Lebanon a unique position. It is often said and ragged about, that the Lebanese are shrewd business people, flexible, adaptable and freedom-loving. But, by over-playing these characteristics with such a high profile, the Lebanese fell prey to this spell of magnetism that surrounds these characteristics. Despite the positive contributions of these characteristics, conspired we feel that all of them have, in one way or another, conspired against the unity of Lebanon. The spirit of individual m and mercantilism, if not harnessed and anchored into a cultural base will ultimately defeat its purpose. The Lebanese seem to have eminently succeeded as individuals but miserably, ailed as a group. A very important factor behind this failure may be attributed to the absence of a cultural base with which symbolic interaction takes place. Within the context of symbolic interaction which is considered to be indispensable for the formation of an integrated human society, there are other actors that seem to counteract this concept; these must be given special attention. Though these factors are by no means mutually exclusive, the nevertheless stand out as major problems rendering the theory of interaction relatively ineffective; these are briefly discussed below.
Mercantilism and the Problem of Services
Sociologists usually complain that many economists do not take into account "cultural" factors in their planning and analysis. The same criticism may be directed toward sociologists themselves who do not pay attention to the effect of certain economic factors on the social and cultural structures of societies. For example, very few studies, if any (at least not to the author's knowledge) have considered the impact of "services" on the Lebanese personality.
The theory we are advancing under this topic may be stated in the form of a hypothesis: a well-balanced citizenry is positively correlated with a well-balanced economy that, presumably, we have in mind is that which is based on a tripod of economic activities: agriculture, industry and services. The more these are balanced, the greater, in our opinion, the stability of the concerned society. It is this stable economic tripod that is, to a great extent, responsible for both unity and national stability.
With reference to Lebanon, in this context, the Lebanese economy has been for generations, heavily dependent on services. This over-dependence, throughout a very long history, on services, has, in our opinion, created a very precarious type of practically one-legged economy, and consequently a very precarious type of citizenry. Sticking to our theory of Symbolic Interaction we feel that the dominant character of services has, to a great extent, emasculated the unifying function of this important theory. In contrast with the other two legs of our tripod, namely agriculture and industry that are firmly rooted in relatively fixed and stable areas, services are far from rendering such stability. Servicemen, as a result, remain "free" and "far" from any kind of attachment to a specific place, area or homeland. This explains a number of phenomena that seem to appear in service-dominated countries such as Lebanon.
Legal vs. Cultural Ownership
In a lecture delivered in Arabic in the Fall of 1974 at the "Beirut International" under the topic "Investment of Oil Revenues for Social Development in the Arab World," I began my lecture with the following statement: "Though oil springs from Arab lands, Arabs cannot claim their ownership of it." I still remember very vividly the stunning effect my statement had on my audience then. In order to have some of the aroused emotional feelings of indignation subside, I immediately followed my statement by explaining that the kind of ownership I meant was not the legal but the cultural, for the two types of ownerships, the "legal" and the "cultural" are not, in my opinion, the same; they are qualitatively and significantly different from each other, and, therefore, must be seen and treated as such. In order to simplify my theory and facilitate comprehension I held a book in my hand to which I referred to is "my book"; "I own this book", I said, "but my ownership of it s only a "legal" one and not "cultural". I went on to further explain that the person who really owns "my book" is the author who, through his laborious years of research and interaction symbolic) with books, ideas, pencils and paper was able to produce such a cultural product which he, rightfully and permanently, can claim as his own.
I have used, and am still using the term "cultural ownership" n my own responsibility, for culture, after all, is a product of interaction, and nothing else. When I say that "legal ownership" and "cultural ownership" are qualitatively distinct from each other, I say this for a number of reasons. "Legal ownership" is easily transferable but non-transformable, while "cultural ownership" is exactly the opposite. Human beings, in their daily interactions, give and take, borrow and lend, buy and sell and perform hundreds and thousands of such similar interactive activities, including "legal" transactions, yet most of these activities remain on the "horizontal" level: short-lived, shallow, and to a great extent superficial. All human beings in the world, in one way or another, can be, and indeed are, involved in such activities that entitle them to a number of so-called "legal ownerships," yet very few are capable of attaining what we are ailing "cultural ownership" - an ownership of a product of interaction that gives the owner a deep sense of pride and belongingness, a product that is not as easily transferable as "legally" owned products are.
Coming back to the example of oil which I gave as an example in my above-mentioned lecture, we seriously feel that this product, to be owned meaningfully and effectively, cannot and must not remain permanently contained in "barrels for sale"; it must stop being mercantilistically exchanged from "black gold" to "yellow gold." To be owned "culturally" the process of interaction must take place, whereby this black liquid is transformed into a "sap" that flows through the whole culture fabric of the society. It must give nourishment to all industrial, social, educational and economic activities, not merely through cash revenues but more effectively, more constructively and more permanently through direct use as an important source of energy for a number of petro-chemical and pharmaceutical by-products. This seems to be the only way to transform, not only oil but anything in life, from a pure mercantilistic and "legal" type of ownership into a meaningful cultural type of ownership.
To be culturally owned, there must be a culture to own; or, to use Nasr's analogy, though from a different perspective, a "Center and an Axis" to which man must always refer. According to Nasr, modern man seems to have alienated himself from this "Center and the Axis through the spokes of the wheel of existence to the rim where modern man resides" (See Nasr, "Islam and the Plight of Modern Man"; Chapters 1 and 2) This kind of alienation from "The Center ", spiritually according to Nasr, and culturally according to our thesis, is behind much of man's dilemma, spiritually and culturally. The "rim" man can never separate himself from his inner spiritual "axis", if life is to have any meaning to him at all.
Translated into sociological terms this means that it is always the frequency, intensity and type of interaction which take place among human beings, as well as between human beings and things, that determine the quality and meaning of cultural products. Ownership of a small house, for example, that is built stone by stone or brick by brick by its occupants, is qualitatively and meaningfully (symbolically) different from a bequeathed palace or an inherited skyscraper. A piece of land worked out over a life-time by a farmer has a totally different meaning that a large estate has in the eyes of its absentee landlord. This is what probably Father Henry Ayrout meant in his book "Fellaheen" by his statement, which might not be as applicable to present day Egypt as it was in the past, that the Fellah (peasant) of Egypt, though he does not own his land, he certainly is owned by his land. "To this soil the Fellah devoids all his energies. He gives himself to it without reserve, even passionately when it is his own. But that is very rare. Here man belongs to the land, not the land to him." (Ayrout, p. 67).
A study of the Palestinian Diaspora most likely will reveal that the great majority who left Palestine were businessmen. Those who fought against the British and the Israeli occupation were and still are the farmers par excellence. Farmers who fled their homes and homeland were either terrorized or forced, and yet they took that step with tears in their eyes.
Preponderant services in Lebanon, or, to be more exact, in urban Lebanon, have, in our opinion, enhanced the spirit of mercantilism, and, consequently contributed to the domination of the "legal" concept of ownership over the "cultural". This, in a sense, reflects at least one difference between Ferdinand Tonnies' Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft types of societies, the first being partly a function of contractual, mercantilistic and service - dominated type of life, while the second remains to be a function of primary group relationships based primarily on loyalties to land, family and religion. Unfortunately neither of the two is contributing toward national integration. The balance between the two functions is not struck yet.
Two factors seem to have given rise to the predominance of services in Lebanon: lack of natural resources and its strategic location at a cross-road of the world. With regard to natural resources, Lebanon is not endowed (at least so far) with any significant natural resources that are conducive of large-scale industrial development, nor does it have, on the other hand, vast lands for agricultural development Industry remained to be confined to very limited areas and to a very small sector of the population. So is the case with agriculture which is maintained on a very intensive, rather than extensive, level.
By the end of 1974, that is just before the Lebanese civil disturbances broke, almost 70% of the total national economy was derived from services, while 21.0% came from industry and only 9.0% came from agriculture. The capital city, Beirut, has always been the haven for Arab capital, indicated by the tremendous number and variety of services rendered. An example of this is the growth of banks which mounted from nine banks in the year 1945 to ninety three banks in 1966 (Roger Owen in Toward a Viable Lebanon, p 33).
The Lebanese, faced with these limited conditions, were left with no other alternative for living except the area of services which they have masterfully excelled in.
The other factor responsible for the enhancement of services is Lebanon's strategic position as a world trade center. Surrounded by their neighboring "Four Houses" that gave them access to a number of business transactions with relatively rich neighboring countries, on the one hand, and being located at the eastern shore of the of the Mediterranean Sea, on the other hand, the Lebanese were induced to expand their trading and business services across the seas to the Western and African worlds. Those services that were behind the Lebanese economic boom, particularly that which stretched from 1943 since independence, to 1975, when the Republic broke, are not likely to regain their historic status again; a more balanced economy may be achieved through a more realistic approach based on a genuine socio-economic cooperation, if not union, with the neighboring Arab countries.
The idea that the "Lebanese model" is an ideal and everlasting one owed its survival to a number of factors that do not exist anymore:
a) the inflow of money from rich neighboring countries;
b) the relatively peaceful years that followed the 1943 National Pact;
c) the great freedom and facilities that international firms and companies enjoyed by having their headquarters located in Beirut;
d) the satisfaction of political leaders with their status quos, whether ascribed or achieved.
Put in a nut-shell, the over dependence on services, on the part of the Lebanese, to the extent they have been for generations, did not seem to be conducive of "symbolic interaction" which is a pre-requisite for an integrated society. In fact it undermines the interactive process between man and man, and between man and his home-land, hence loyalty was diverted toward something else - toward anywhere, where profit may be achieved. Services alone are apt to enhance the spirit of mercantilism and individualism, while industry and agriculture, by necessity, thrive on collective and cooperative behaviour. Both tie the individual to the fixed, and consequently, both contribute toward the development of social as well as national integration which Lebanon so desperately needs.
References
Nisbet and Perrin, The Social Bond, New York: A. A. Knopf, 1977.
Herbert Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Berkley: University of California Press.
Leslie White, The Science of Culture, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1969.
Jerome Manis, Symbolic Interaction, Boston: Allynan Bacon, 1972.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islam and the Plight of Modern Man, State University of New York Press, 1975.
Henry Ayrout, The Fellaheen, Cairo: R. Schindler Publisher, 1938.
Halim Barakat, (ed.) Toward a Viable Lebanon, London: Croom Helm, 1988.