The film 12 Angry Men can be used to illustrate a good number of communication theories, and it can be used to disprove the theories as well. Out of the five theories –symbolic interactionism, hierarchy of needs, social penetration theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and groupthink – it would be interesting to see how symbolic interactionism applies to the movie.
Symbolic interactionism has a good number of underlying concepts. Although its main thesis statement would be that the identity is formed by the interaction of symbols --or in short, through the communication process—it also includes concepts such as symbolic naming, role taking, the looking- glass self, the I vs. the Me, and self-fulfilling prophecy. All these concepts have their own place in the film, and this paper will attempt to highlight and expound on these moments.
It is quite a challenge to use an intrapersonal communication theory to explain the movie because all the jurors have no names. Once a person is skipped and a mistake is made in counting, one would be talking about an entirely different person without realizing it.
But symbolic interactionism explains the significance of the nameless jurors: there is a certain amount of importance that comes with having a name. As the theory states, “the extent of knowing is the extent of naming” (Griffin, 1994). It can be said that because the twelve men did not know each other prior to the murder case that brought them together, and perhaps did not wish to know each other on a deeper level, they did not find any importance in introducing and calling each other by name. Since naming is an important aspect of gaining an identity, the absence of a name formed a sense of detachment among the men and each one is seen as nothing more than just a juror.
Because of all the personal details that had been implicitly disclosed throughout the discussion, some jurors may have felt a certain bond with another. In particular, Juror No. 9 felt compelled to ask for Juror No. 8’s name at the end of the movie. Recalling the early part of the film, the former had been the first to side with the latter by changing his vote to Not Guilty. The similarity in opinion distinguished them from the others, and this distinction was the birth of a sense of self for the two of them. This formation of an identity was completed by the naming process, even if it came at the end of the film.
Apart from the jurors not having any names, it should also be noted that throughout the film, no other names were mentioned. All other characters in the case were referred to in a very impersonal manner: the boy, his father, the old man, the lady. Aside from a sense of detachment from one another, this absence of names for the people involved in the case also created a wall between the jurors and the case. Not naming the people in the case translates to not knowing them, and this allowed the jurors to remain objective throughout their deliberations. The person’s identity did not influence the case and the verdict. The jurors did not arrive at a verdict because they personally knew the boy and felt sorry for him; they made a decision based on facts and objectivity. It was an unbiased decision-making process that would not have been possible if the people involved had been given names.
One of the more interesting parts of the movie was the demonstration of how the old man would have made it to his front door. It was the first of more role-taking activities throughout the movie. Through this demonstration, the jurors were able to put themselves in the place of the old man, wondering how they would have made it to the door in fifteen seconds. Although they had been spectators and only Juror No. 8 had done the actual role taking, they had all been a part of the experience and somehow pictured themselves doing the same thing. The same holds true for the demonstration on how a switchblade was really used. Because of this reflection that took place on their part, many of the jurors changed their votes from guilty to not guilty.
Another scene that exhibited this role taking was the part where Juror No. 9 explained why the old man could have lied in his testimony. He claimed that the old man could have done it for attention. When asked to elaborate, he proceeded to put himself in the old man’s place and spoke on how he would feel: old, insignificant, then suddenly thrown into the limelight and given importance. Through just his very words, the old man as a witness suddenly holds a boy’s life in his hands. It would be a natural instinct to play the role to the hilt. Here, the parallelism between the old man and Juror No. 9 comes into play. He could see that, just like the old man, he may be old and insignificant, and suddenly by being a juror, he holds the boy’s fate in his hands with the verdict that he would give together with the others. His words, too, could make or break the boy.
In putting himself in the old man’s place, Juror No. 9 fell silent; he may have felt the need to reflect on what he just said since he himself was an old man. He could thus clearly see himself in the witness’ situation, and perhaps he questioned his own motives and decisions. Because of this role taking, he was able to look inward and discover more of himself, thus altering the way he would proceed to communicate with the others much later on: he fell silent until much later on in the film, where he became the catalyst for yet another role taking.
This time, he was the one who caused Juror No. 4 to do the role taking. In asking Juror No. 4 about his glasses, the latter was able to think back to the woman’s testimony and discover a vital detail that would disprove her words. In putting himself in her place that night –sitting in bed, watching the train go by and witnessing a murder without her glasses on—he was able to conclude that if he couldn’t have seen the murder from that distance without his glasses, then she may not have been able to do so either. Again, this shows how role taking can bring one back to himself and alter communication: after this, Juror No. 4 was definite in his reply that the boy was not guilty.
A key word to role taking is introspection: putting oneself into another’s shoes in order to better understand himself and his motivations. However, the concept of looking-glass self in symbolic interactionism will somewhat contradict and, at the same time, complement this idea.
The looking-glass self requires one to putting himself into other’s shoes and looking at himself in an objective manner from the outside. So as role taking involves looking into the self, the looking-glass self involves looking at the self. At first glance, it is contradictory: it questions how self concept is really formed, whether through introspection or looking at the self through other’s eyes. But it actually illustrates a dual purpose. With the ability to take a look inside comes a converse ability to look at the outside. Realistically, one has the ability to look both inward and outward.
This would then go back to the previous example of Juror No. 9 putting himself in the old man’s place. It can be taken a step further that although he may have fallen silent as a sign of introspection, seeing his own motives and decisions, he may have also seen that in disclosing this information about himself, the other jurors may see him as not unlike the old man: hungry for attention and willing to say anything just to get it. Both acts help in forming a more accurate self concept for Juror No. 9.
An interesting juror to examine would be Juror No. 2, primarily because he seems like such a wimp. Perhaps, throughout the deliberation, he placed himself in the boy’s position and saw that he was just as helpless and powerless in his own life, unable to assert and defend himself. This would be the role taking dimension. But he may have also taken a step outside of himself and examined how he must seem to the other jurors: weak and a pushover, as Juror No. 3 always talked down to him. This is where the looking-glass self comes into play. It was here that he saw that perhaps he did need to assert himself more, which he did by calling into question how the stab wound was created. Therefore, it can be assumed that before one can look outside of himself and be concerned with how others perceive him, he must have a certain degree of self-awareness that can be achieved through introspection. This is how role taking and the looking-glass self come hand in hand to complement --not contradict—each other.
The I vs. the Me
In connection to Juror No. 2, he may have already have a sense of self-concept prior to the introspection. This self-concept would be known as the I, and is something that was only reinforced and affirmed by the introspection.
The symbolic interactionism theory tells us that everyone has an I which is the source of motivation, the self’s spontaneous driving force (Griffin, 1994). It may be easy to think of it as a part of the consciousness that one cannot fully grasp but is always there. However, humans have the power to take this I and objectify it into a Me that is affected by the external environment. The Me is the part of the person that is altered by communication, while the I stays the same.
An interesting example would be Juror No. 10, who did nothing but scream out his opinions all the time. It seemed that he was a very proud man, not one to back down on his opinions and beliefs, and quite prejudiced: he objects to the boy’s intelligence by saying that those living in the slums are ignorant. He must have thought of himself as above other people, owning a superiority that gave him the right to talk down to anyone not on his level, which was everybody else. This could have been his I, although one can only speculate since the I is buried deep inside the person and manifests itself through the Me. But towards the end of the film, people turned their backs on him as he started screaming out his opinions yet again. He noticed this, and it was at this point that he may have taken his I and objectified it into the Me, looking at himself through other’s eyes. In doing this, he slowly began to falter and sound more desperate, seeking out someone who would listen to him. He had been able to see that he was a proud and prejudiced man who could not open himself to the possibility that his opinions may be flawed. When Juror No. 4 finally told him to shut up and sit down, he complied and did not speak for the remainder of the film. The Me was significantly altered by the way his fellow jurors communicated with him: turning their backs on him and talking down on him for a change. So although as a person, Juror No. 10 may still remain proud and prejudiced, at that moment in his life, the Me was changed as a result of communication with others. And after the trial, the Me will still be altered and developed through his communication with other people. Thus, it can be said that the I will always remain constant, while the Me is the dimension shaped by communication with others through a period of time, a dimension of the self which can always undergo change and further development.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy may be an apt summary of the symbolic interactionism theory. It tells us that each person has “a significant impact on how others view themselves,” and consequently, “a person’s identity is shaped not by his or her own actions but by our reactions” (Griffin, 1994). The integration of all the previous concepts can be seen here: one puts himself into another’s place and undergoes some introspection, but ultimately this is not how one’s identity is shaped. The identity is shaped by taking the I that is discovered through introspection and turning it into a Me by applying the looking-glass self. By examining the Me through the eyes of others, as well as examining the way others relate and communicate to the Me, one is able to make the necessary adjustments in his personality.
Perhaps this can be seen in the context of the entire situation itself, and the role the Juror No. 8 played in it all. He must have put himself in the boy’s place first and realized that if it were his life on the line, he would have wanted the jurors to allot an ample amount of time discussing his fate and not just make a snap decision. This consciousness or I was objectified into a Me through his dissenting vote. Because he was all alone in this, he must have looked at himself through the eyes of the others and saw that since he was holding them up, he might as well make the most of their time by exhausting all possible angles of the case. In doing so, others began to change their minds about their vote and, in the end, they all voted in favor of acquittal. This is probably the vote he was hoping for to begin with, especially since he had been the one who voiced it out in the first place. Thus, the vote itself is the self-fulfilled prophecy: his expectation of an acquittal evoked a response that confirmed what he had anticipated.
Conclusion
The film 12 Angry Men has many instances that illustrate how symbolic interactionism may apply. It shows that although they are a group working towards a common goal, the group is composed by individuals that approach the same issue from different angles precisely because they are different from one another. It was because of this that it was just right for everyone to discuss the decision before handing down the verdict. Even in a group, one must take into account individual differences because these differences can adversely affect the decision: because of the stand of one man, the initial vote to convict was turned around and everyone voted for acquittal in the end. If individual differences had not been accounted for and everyone just fell victim to groupthink, a young boy’s death would not have been justified.
Thus, within a group, one has to find a balance. One cannot isolate himself and just consider his own opinions, refusing to listen to that of others. On the other hand, one cannot just go with the flow and abide by a group’s decision. The balance is to communicate one’s self with others, accepting that in every group, there are three people: I, Me, and everybody else.
Reference: Griffin, Em. “The Symbolic Interactionism of George Herbert Mead.” A First Look at Communication
Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.