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