Symbolic interactionism perspective and method PDF

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

5

Carter and Fuller Symbo li c in ter act ionis m

through which individuals learn normative expecta-

tions for actions as they relate to role relationships.

By building up from the person to the situation

within the larger social structure, Stryker showed the

reciprocity of the individual and society. In every sit-

uation, individuals identify themselves and others in

the context of social structure. Individuals then

reflexively apply what they perceive to be others’

identifications of them that, over time, become

internalized expectations for behavior as part of the

self. These internalized expectations, when accepted

and enacted by individuals in various roles, become

identities. In emphasizing the impact social structure

has on how roles are played in interaction, Stryker’s

structural approach to symbolic interactionism is an

attempt to bridge the gap between micro- and

macro-sociological and social psychological theories.

Stryker’s structural symbolic approach therefore pro-

vides significant theoretical insights to social roles in

expanding symbolic interactionist concepts.

Review and assessment of empirical

research within the symbolic

interactionist tradition

During the twentieth century, symbolic interaction-

ist research held a prominent place within sociology

despite periods of backlash and criticism for being

unscientific, apolitical, and too micro (Fine, 1993).

Even though symbolic interactionism is often criti-

cized, there is little denying that it has been as pop-

ular and influential over the past half-century as any

competing sociological perspective; hundreds of

books, research articles, and monographs written in

its vein are evidence of this. This abundance of

research has led multiple scholars to note the diffi-

culty in summarizing advancements within the field.

In previous synopses of symbolic interactionism,

Hall (2003) and Plummer (1996) both noted that

any attempt to summarize the field must be – by

necessity – partial and selective. With the under-

standing that any article-length summary of the

research produced within symbolic interactionism

cannot be exhaustive, let us examine its substantive

areas of inquiry and a few empirical studies that have

defined the field.

Classical s ymbo lic interacti onis t r esearch

Although some may not specifically identify as a

symbolic interactionist, clear traces of interactionist

ideas are apparent across sociology, specifically in

ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967; Scott and

Lyman, 1968), dramaturgy (Goffman, 1959b),

research on the family (Stryker, 1959), theories on

identity and social roles (Burke and Stets, 2009;

Heise, 2002; MacKinnon, 1994; Stryker and Serpe,

1982), deviance (Becker, 1953), and phenomen -

ology (Schutz, 1962). Beyond these subfields, com-

mon areas of inquiry in symbolic interactionism

include social problems (Best, 2003), cultural studies

(Becker, 1982; Fine, 1996), semiotics (Manning,

2003), narratives (Reynolds and Herman-Kinney,

2003), feminism (Deegan and Hill, 1987; Thorne,

1993), neo-Marxism (Schwalbe, 1986), and post-

modernism (Gergen, 1991; Lemert, 1997;

Sandstrom and Fine, 2003). There have been signif-

icant developments in other areas (Hall, 2003),

including a resurgence in studies on pragmatism

(Joas, 1993; Maines and McCallion, 2007;

Plummer, 1996; Saxton, 1993; Shalin, 1986;

Strauss, 1993), work on collective behavior and

social movements (Lofland, 1996; McPhail, 1991;

Morris and Mueller, 1992; Snow et al., 1986; Stryker

et al., 2000), further studies on deviance, mostly

focusing on labeling theory and social problems

(Best, 1989; Conrad and Schneider, 1980; Loseke,

1999), research on temporality (Couch, 1984;

Flaherty, 1998; Maines et al., 1983; Strauss, 1993;

Zerubavel, 1985), and the implementation of emo-

tions and affect into studies on symbolic interaction

(Hochschild, 1979, 2003 [1983]; Scheff, 1979;

Shott, 1979).

One of the more famous examples of symbolic

interactionist scholarship was provided by Glaser

and Strauss (1964) in their examination of awareness

contexts that influence social interaction. These

scholars noted how social interactions vary by struc-

ture, awareness of members, and tactics of maintain-

ing awareness/unawareness. For example, nurses in

hospitals often must interact with patients who are

terminal but unaware of the severity of their condi-

tion. Glaser and Strauss’s work showed how, in

examples such as this, the knowledge of a patient’s

condition is controlled and kept from the patient.

Here, the awareness of impending death is construct-

ed – and avoided – in order to maintain a patient’s

positive outlook and psychological well-being.

In other classic studies, Brooks (1969) examined

the relationship between the self and political ideol-

ogy, revealing that how one identifies depends on

their political orientation (specifically, he examined

how self-views correlate with right-wing or left-wing

ideologies). Stryker’s (1957) work on role-taking

applied symbolic interactionist ideas to understand

why family members often have differing levels of

commitment to their family roles. Glaser (1956)

showed how criminal behavior can best be under-

stood using a social psychological lens.

One of the most famous interactionist studies