Symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective of assessment of the family comes in as the most robust among the others since it depicts a situation in which it an individual in the society has to constructively and actively interpret symbols within their actions. Symbolic perspective explores the family at a micro level unlike the other theories hence coming up with a detailed understanding of the relations in the family. These social ties within the society depict a situation in which the iconoclastic nature of the various aspects stands out on the running of day to day activities of members of the society. Science has it that the interaction or relationships fostered among individuals in the society traces its origin on the evolution of man and the implications that the process of natural selection had on the behavior of an individual. Moreover, the altruistic nature of human beings is attached to the competitive advantage that each depicts in the form of symbolic interaction to establish a brand for themselves making it part of his or her culture.
For instance, making a family is a symbolic trait of human beings, and the procreation or giving birth to children is a symbol enough to show that social ties revolve around strategies aimed at improving the chances of survival of man. There is a vast difference between symbolic interactionism and the other perspectives of family assessment. For instance, structural functionalism does not pay attention to the detailed aspects of the family; it tends to justify the process of division of labor within the sexual constructs in the society without paying attention to the gender inequalities as brought forward by theorists who proposed the complementary roles structure. Symbolic Interaction appeals to the basics of life within the constructs of the family; it looks into the family as a part of a system, the society which acts as the original source of the interactionism that is to be displayed by all the members.
McShane, R. E. (1991). Family theoretical perspectives and implications for nursing practice. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 2(2), 210-219.