Blumer, Weber, Peirce and the Big Tent of Semiotic Sociology: Notes on Interactionism, Interpretivism, and Semiotics (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Past and Future of ‘Symbolic Interactionism’
Semiotica, 1976
An important line of sociological thought extending back to Rousseau through Durkheim has recently been revitalized in France, largely through the works of Claude Levi-Strauss (e.g., 1967) who has discovered semiotics at the heart of the Durkheimian enterprise. It would be more correct to say 're-discovered' because it was Durkheim (1965: 264) himself who wrote in a passage that is not in the least obscure: "social life, in all its aspects and in every period of its history, is made possible only by a vast symbolism". This article is on semiotics in American sociology. I draw together fragments of a sociological semiotic already in existence and attempt to assemble these in an orderly fashion. In writing the article, I found it necessary to devise some new elements as well-American sociology does not at the present time contain a complete semiotic. I have stressed American sociology because it is a field with which I am familiar by training. The influence of Durkheim in American now is stronger than ever before, but there is no organized awareness in American sociology, as there is in France, of the potential that resides in the development of semiotics in the context of empirical studies of social life. I find this to be a paradox and perhaps a sign of a serious deficiency in graduate departments of sociology for the following two reasons: (1) a primitive sociological semiotic has long existed in American sociology in the variant called 'symbolic interactionism'; and (2) .unlike their European colleagues, American sociologists are most comfortable working at the level of individual behavior and face-to-face interaction, an empirical domain which has yielded to scientific understanding only insofar as the investigator develops a semiotic of it. TErving Goffman's respected study of The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is also the last word' in the Symbolic Interactionist school. American sociologists like to think of Durkheim's dictum "to treat a social fact as a thing" in its most deterministic sense, as a force, external and coercive, which weighs heavily on the individual and prevents him from developing his true humanity. They tend to ignore those passages on 'collective effervescence' wherein Durkheim describes the ways the individual may be elevated by society and projected beyond his own animal existence,
The Sad Demise, Mysterious Disappearance, and Glorious Triumph of Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism has changed over the past two decades, both in the issues that practitioners examine and in its position within the discipline. Once considered adherents of a marginal oppositional perspective, confronting the dominant positivist, quantitative approach of mainstream sociology, symbolic interactionists find now that many of their core concepts have been accepted. Simultaneously their core as an intellectual community has been weakened by the diversity of interests of those who self-identify with the perspective. I examine here four processes that led to these changes: fragmentation, expansion, incorporation, and adoption. I then describe the role of symbolic interactionism in three major debates confronting the discipline: the micro/ macro debate, the structure/agency debate, and the social realist/interpretivist debate. I discuss six empirical arenas in which interactionists have made major research contributions: social coordination theory, the sociology of emotions, social constructionism, self and identity theory, macro-interactionism, and policy-relevant research. I conclude by speculating about the future role of interactionism.
Symbols, Meaning, and Action: The Past, Present, and Future of Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical perspective in sociology that addresses the manner in which society is created and maintained through face-to-face, repeated, meaningful interactions among individuals. This article surveys past theory and research in the interactionist tradition. It first provides an overview of three main trajectories in symbolic interactionist thought, focusing on the work of Herbert Blumer (the Chicago School), Manford Kuhn (the Iowa School), and Sheldon Stryker (the Indiana School). A brief summary of each figure's general perspective on symbolic interactionism is given, followed by a discussion of the research methodology that defines and distinguishes each. The article then reviews and assesses the empirical research that has emerged from these trajectories over the past decades, beginning with the classical studies of the mid-twentieth century and culminating in research programs that have emerged in the contemporary era. Specifically, this article surveys significant contributions to the symbolic interactionist literature in areas such as dramaturgy, cultural studies, postmodernism, gender/status/power, self and identity, collective behavior and social movements, and social context and the environment. It concludes with a discussion of future directions symbolic interactionists should take in continuing to develop the field.
Weber and Interpretive Sociology in America
The Sociological Quarterly, 1990
This article examines the role of Webcr's methodological writings on verstehende Soziologie in the construction of an American variant of interpretive sociology during the first half of the twentieth century. It thereby illustrates thc connections between intellectual appropriation and the academic institutionalization of competing sociological schools. After reviewing Weber's general reception in American sociology, it focuses on the respective relevance of Weber for symbolic interaction, which developed out of the Chicago School; Parsonian action theory; and the phenomenological social theory of Alfred Schutz. Three conclusions emerge. First, the symbolic intcractionists and their predecessors operated with the implicit assumption that they did not need Webcr. Second, Weber was not only intellcctually valuable to Parsons, but also useful in his qucst for intellectual hegemony. Finally, Schutz, in offering a third, alternative and competing interpretation of Weber, served to complicate this struggle bctwecn the two American sociological schools. The relationship between Weber's methodological writings on verstehende Soziologie and the construction of an American variant of interpretive sociology during the first half of the twentieth century constitutes a particularly curious tale in the history of the discipline. A review of that history from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge illustrates the connections between intellectual appropriation and thc academic institutionalization of competing sociological schools. Specifically, we focus on three interconnectcd issues: the first, factors that conuibuted to what Jennifer Platt (1985) rcrers to as the "missing link" between Weber and the Chicago School; the sccond, the manner in which Weber was appropriated by and accorded a privileged position in Parsonian theory; Ihe third, the role played by European scholars who migrated to America betwecn the wars in articulating a Weberian-inspired phenomenological sociology. Our argument parallels Besnard's (1986) discussion of Parsons's use of the Durkheimian concept of anomie. Besnard contends that Parsons ignored the Chicago School's concept of
American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 2018
Meaning makes the social world go round and signs play a crucial role in processes of meaning-making. A cultural sociology that advocates a meaning-based analysis of social phenomena needs – in one form or another – a theory of semiotics. We can also speak of social semiotics, not as a subfield, but rather as recognition of the fact that the use of signs is inherently social. Two classical figures dominate the field of social semiotics: One is Charles S. Peirce, who coined the term ‘‘semiotics’’ and proposed a pragmatist theory of signs; the other is Ferdinand de Saussure, who developed in his Cours de linguistique ge´ne´rale a theory of the linguistic sign as a general model for ‘‘semiology,’’ ‘‘a science which studies the role of signs in social life’’ (quoted in Heiskala, 2003, p. 166). With the rise of the structuralist movement in the second half of the twentieth century, the Saussurean approach to semiotics became dominant in social as well as cultural theory, even though Roman Jakobson (1977), one of the founders of linguistic structuralism, was critical of Saussure while promoting the ideas of Peirce. In the last years, there has been a revival of Peirce in the social sciences, and of Peircean semiotics in particular (e.g., Keane, 2003). The following essay discusses three contemporary contributions to social semiotics. Each book has a distinct style and thematic focus, but they are all concerned with the role of signs and systems of signs in society. Risto Heiskala’s book Society as Semiosis, published already in 2003, argues that the rival theories of Saussure and Peirce actually converge and can be used as a foundation for a neostructuralist theory of culture and society. In Meaning in Action, published in 2016, Rein Raud presents a theory of culture as a network of texts and practices based on an innovative account of signification. The newest book, Social Semiotics for a Complex World by Bod Hodge, does not offer a coherent theory or framework, but rather ‘‘ideas and approaches for readers who want to understand and cope better with their world’’ (2017, p. vi). Despite the fact that each book differs in form as well as content, they intersect at points of crucial importance for social semiotics and cultural sociology. Focusing primarily on those intersections, I will discuss the works in chronological order and conclude with a synopsis suggesting directions for the future development of social semiotics in cultural sociology.
Toward semiotic sociology. A synthesis of semiology, semiotics and phenomenological sociology.
Departing from the common view according to which structuralist semiology (the Saussurean tradition), pragmatist semiotics (the Peircean tradition) and phenomenological sociology (Husserl, Schutz, Berger and Luckmann, Garfinkel) are seen as mutually exclusive alternatives, the article attempts to outline their synthesis. The net result of the synthesis is that a conception emerges wherein action theories (rational choice, Weber, etc.) are based on phenomenological sociology, and phenomenological sociology is based on neo-structuralist semiotics, which is a synthesis of the Saussurean and the Peircian traditions of understanding habits of interpretation and interaction. This provides us with a research programme for semiotic sociology.