Symbolic Interaction Theory and Architecture

Architectural sociology is receiving renewed attention but still remains a neglected area of investigation. As a major theoretical perspective within sociology, symbolic interaction helps us understand how the designed physical environment and the self are intertwined, with one potentially influencing and finding expression in the other; how architecture contains and communicates our shared symbols; and how we assign agency to some of our designed physical environment, which then invites in a different kind of self‐reflection. This article discusses numerous instances of symbolic interaction theory–architecture connections, with applied examples showing how symbolic interactionists and architects can collaborate on projects to the benefit of each, and to the benefit of humanity.     

Driving and Symbolic Interaction1

Although it is a prominent feature of modern experience, driving has received little attention from sociologists. Yet social interaction between motorists is an integral part of the traffic situation. This paper explores its bases and some of its typical dynamics. Other sociologically relevant aspects of driving are delineated and the issue of how driving may influence modern culture is addressed.     

Symbolic Interaction and Social Work Education

This paper summarizes the findings of an empirical study that utilized symbolic interaction theory as an underlying framework. It focused on a basic tenet of symbolic interaction theory which states that individuals take the role of significant others in order to pattern their responses to meet the expectations of these significant others. The central hypothesis inferred that there was a relationship between the students' cognitive reorganization of the meaning of certain social work concepts and the formal socialization process that they experience in a graduate school of social work. It was found that during the first semester of graduate study this did not exist.     

A Journey with Symbolic Interaction

In this cranky and arrogant chapter I consider several aspects of my use of symbolic interactionist perspectives on my research and thinking. The following are the elements of the chapter: (1) the historical context of my initial encounter with symbolic interactionism (SI); (2) my interpretation of key ideas of SI; (3) its relation to specific research of mine; (4) the relation of other perspectives to my research; and (5) some critiques of SI. I conclude with a truncated discussion of my dissatisfaction with the overtheorizing and overscientizing of sociology. Seeking balance, I end with predictions of a grand and glorious future.     

Interaction Ritual Theory and Structural Symbolic Interactionism

This article develops a comparison between structural approaches to symbolic interaction, as described by Sheldon Stryker (1968, 1980, 2008) , and interaction ritual theory, elaborated by Randall Collins (1981, 1998, 2004) . The value of this comparison lies in both the similarities and differences between the perspectives: each is committed to developing empirically grounded, general knowledge and emphasizes interaction as an emergent unit of sociological analysis. However, their disparate intellectual heritages lead them to stake out different positions regarding the nature of interaction, the self, and social structure. We suggest that the differences between structural symbolic interaction and interaction ritual theory offer important areas for theoretical innovation, and we highlight a few directions that seem especially promising.     

观念创新与符号交往的经济学

一、引　言在这篇文章里,观念创新被理解为发生在群体组织内部的人际交往的诸多结果之一(汪丁丁,2000ａ)。在这类人际交往过程中,符号(包括“语言”、“声音”、“手势”、“眼神”、及用以传递信息的其他身体动作)的意义被每个参与交往的个体加以阐释并达到均衡(汪丁丁,1996ａ)。参与交往的个体靠了对历史上已经实现的均衡状态加以观察和阐释来习得特定传统中的个体理性及理性行为(汪丁丁,1996ｂ)。但所有这些概念,不论是已经实现的均衡还是个体对这些均衡的阐释(再阐释),都没有明确刻划出新观念产生过程的细节。这些细节包括两个主要的方…