Editors' Introduction: Symbolic Interaction - Serving the Whole Interactionist Family (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,
BOOK REVIEW FORUM: Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic Interaction, 2005
This book is a major scholarly achievement. As a handbook of a specific school in sociological and socio-psychological research, it is more comprehensive than any comparable work I know. It presents the symbolic interactionist tradition in such a richness and vitality that, with its publication, all rumors about a loss of its productivity or its obsolescence must die. Praising the symbolic interactionist tradition in the pages of this journal is, of course, like preaching to the choir. But it is worth mentioning that this book demonstrates the fruitfulness of the approach in areas far beyond those that have for a long time been considered the strong sides of symbolic interactionism. It is a sign of the courage of the editors of this handbook (and of some of its contributors) that in several cases the inclusion of institutions, substantive areas, or research problems demonstrates that symbolic interactionists are not yet fully competitive there. Although a handbook can be rather dry, this attitude leads to an undertone of optimism and curiosity throughout the more than 1,000 pages of the text.
The article, "Mead vs. Blumer. . ." (American Sociological Review, June, 1979), carries serious misrepresentations. The authors, Clark McPhail and Cynthia Rexroat, have given an erroneous picture of (a) Blumer's view of social reality, (b) Blumer's view of naturalistic study, (c) Mead's view of scientific method, and (d) Mead's view of social behavior. Their misrepresentations arise from an effort to reduce Mead's thought to a much narrower scheme of how human social behavior should be studied.
Symbolic interactionism Article
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theoretical perspective in sociology that addresses the manner in which individuals create and maintain society through face-to-face, repeated, meaningful interactions. This article provides an overview of three theoretical traditions in symbolic interactionism, 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 provided, 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 traditions over the past decades. It concludes with a discussion of future directions symbolic interactionists should attend to in continuing to develop the field. keywords microsociology ◆ social psychology ◆ symbolic interactionism
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.
Symbolic Interaction, 2020
The papers in this special issue celebrate and build on the insights Blumer provides in his pivotal book Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. In setting the context for these papers, we discuss the significance of Blumer's variant of interactionism, his contributions to the discipline of sociology, the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of his approach, and the way in which the papers in this issue carry forward his legacy.
The Influence of Charles A. Ellwood on Herbert Blumer and Symbolic Interactionism
Journal of Classical Sociology, 2006
Most textbooks today reserve the history of sociology for names like Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Mead. This abbreviated version of the history of the discipline leaves the reader with only a rudimentary understanding of the evolution of sociology, yet at the same time it deviates from the basic premise of sociology, which suggests understanding the relationship of the individual to society and the history of both. We have McDonaldized the history of sociology and in the process erased many individuals who were paramount in its development. The following study addresses the influence of Charles Abram Ellwood on the development of sociology, specifically the development of Herbert Blumer and subsequently symbolic interactionism. There are four main areas where Ellwood's ideas can be found in Blumer's work as well as within symbolic interactionism: (1) interactionism; (2) methodology; (3) emotions; and (4) group behavior. It is advocated here that Ellwood should be included among the names of Dewey, Mead, Cooley and Thomas as a central figure in the development of both Blumer and symbolic interactionism.