 Dear students, in this module, we are going to discuss the symbolic interactionist perspective and how it views the process of stratification. In our previous modules, we discussed two macro level perspectives which deals with the macro structures of stratification. Symbolic interactionists, they often view the micro level structures and they perceive and they think that individuals in their everyday life are creating these strategies of stratification based on the use of symbols and meanings. So formally speaking, symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that emphasizes the ways in which individual interactions and relationships shape the social behavior and patterns of inequality. For example, in the functionalism and conflict perspective, we looked at the macro level structures and how the stratification process produces inequality. Symbolic interactionists look at this on the micro level and try to understand that the individual behaviors and the process of interaction and the human relationships are embedded in the stratification. So according to symbolic interactionist theory, social stratification is based on the meanings and symbols attached to different social positions and the ways in which individuals interact with one another in different social contexts. So what is more important and what is the focus of attention is the meanings and symbols attached to certain social positions. So any position in society is subject to interpretation. For example, in any education system, the status of the teacher is very high compared to the other employees in that institution. So the status given to the teacher is a certain symbolic value and because of this, the status is given to the teacher and he exercises that status so that his authority can be reflected through that status. So the meanings attached to the teacher's position are placed above the higher level in this hierarchical position. Similarly, all the other hierarchical positions are called interactionists in which the meanings or symbolic values are defined and decided by them which social position will be placed above the higher level. So they argue that the social class is not a fixed or objective category but rather is constructed and negotiated through individual interactions and social processes. So interestingly, in their opinion, any social position has no absolute value. In fact, societies construct the meanings related to those social positions. Now this social construction of reality or the construction of meanings is also subject to change. According to the circumstances of the times, if the meaning of these social positions is changed, then they also change their importance in hierarchical positions. So overall, if we look at the process of social stratification from this symbolic interactionist point of view, then according to them, the stratified positions are actually constructed positions. They have no absolute value. If we look at Pakistan, they are of the view that stratification are often associated with the ways in which cultural beliefs and practices shape the social behavior and social class identities. We can look at different social class systems or we can look at the class system or we can look at the best stratification based on education. The interpretations and meanings related to those people define and designate those positions in a very important role in society. So for you, the food for thought is that whatever systems you have in your mind, such as our education system or our political system or our economic system, we can look at how people interpret any particular position, attach meaning to it, and establish its significance. So as a sociologist, it's a food for thought for you.