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.     

REPLY TO ULMER: Symbolic Interactionism or A Structural Alternative?

In his critique of our 1999 article "Desensitizing Herbert Blumer's Work on Race Relations: Recent Applications of His Group Position Theory to the Study of Contemporary Race Prejudice,' Jeffery Ulmer charges us with providing a "questionable' interpretation of Blumer's ideas on the grounds that we (1) neglect (or distort) Blumer's advocation for making abstract generalizations in the form of "definitive' concepts, and thus sabotage Blumer's empirical methodology as well as that of symbolic interactionism in general and (2) fail to address a body of literature that deals with "repackaging' Blumer's ideas in such a way that "solves' the sorts of tensions we raise between Blumer's theory and quantitative research. Ulmer fears that our representation of Blumer and symbolic interactionism may result in a host of "mythic facts' (a term borrowed from David Maines) that will undermine Blumer's contributions "to a viable and whole science of the social, including race relations."     

W. E. B. Du Bois as Interactionist: Reflections on the Canonical Incorporation of a Marginalized Scholar

Recent scholarship explores the relevance and canonical status of W. E. B. Du Bois in sociological theory; yet less is said about his contributions to symbolic interactionism. This paper interrogates the emerging meaning of W. E. B. Du Bois for sociology, and the nature of his canonical incorporation. We explore the less “official” dimensions of Du Boisian theory, and in particular two of his contributions to symbolic interactionism: double consciousness and autoethnography. In the last part of the paper, we suggest that Du Bois's incorporation into the sociological canon can be viewed as a process of “centering,” and argue that this form of sponsoring of Du Bois's work can elevate some interpretations of Du Bois to the detriment of others.     

The Origins of Divergent Methodological Stances in Symbolic Interactionism*

Utilizing replies from a selected sample of contributors to the literature of symbolic interactionism, this paper examines the nature and extent of institutional ties among respondents holding similar views as to appropriate methodology in sociology. The specific institutional ties examined are those as: (1) fellow graduate students, (2) teachers and students, and (3) departmental colleagues. The methodological differences between the Chicago and Iowa schools, described in other studies, manifest themselves in the present sample, as do other views not neatly classifiable within either of these schools of symbolic interactionism. The more unconventional the conception of methodology held by a respondent, the more likely is the respondent to have been a fellow graduate student, a departmental colleague, and/or involved in a teacher-student relationship with other symbolic interactionists favoring the same conception. Respondents preferring the more orthodox methodological stances in modern sociology are less likely to have shared in such institutional ties.     

Redefining the Refuge: Symbolic Interactionism and the Emergent Meanings of Environmentally Variable Spaces

I utilize ethnographic data to illustrate how the meanings of a National Wildlife Refuge were being rearticulated following a shift in Canada goose migrations that undermined previously established meanings of the space. Beyond highlighting the ability of symbolic interactionism to incorporate a range of interdisciplinary works on space, I illustrate how the Meadian approach to temporality can be useful for understanding how the meanings of spaces are rearticulated in response to variable socio‐environmental processes like goose migrations or climate change. Through this analysis, I hope to highlight the usefulness of symbolic interactionism for future research on space generally and adaptations to socio‐environmental variabilities specifically.     

Extension of Sartre's Philosophy for Today's World Situation

Sartre's philosophy was futurogenic. He was also a political activist. This article discusses how his philosophy applies to today's and tomorrow's political situations in the world. This article also extends his theory in the light of recent findings in social sciences and neuroscience. lf he were living today: (1) he would condemn collectivistic theories such as symbolic interactionism in sociology, and constructionism in psychology, which foster ingroup homogenization and self-stereotyping, and rationalize group-against-group hostility, violence and terrorism; (2) he would promote the understanding of HTICT (heterogeneity and trans-groupness of individual cognitive/cogitative/action types); and (3) he would reform inbreeding in organizational practice and replace it with outbreeding and polyocular vision.     

Sociology,Psychoanalysis, and Marginalization: Unconscious Defenses and Disciplinary Interests

American sociology as a field tends to marginalize psychoanalytic perspectives despite scholars Cavalletto and Silver showing that this was not the case during Talcott Parson's intellectual heyday in the 1940s. From the 1970s on, though, constructionists emphasized the conservative rather than liberatory side of the Freudian tradition and symbolic interactionism took the place of psychoanalysis as the legitimized framework for understanding individuals. Marginalization has occurred for at least three reasons: (1) the legacies of positivism created a bias toward empirically observable rather than relatively unmeasurable concepts like the Freudian unconscious; (2) psychoanalysis uses internal data whereas sociologists look externally rather than inward; (3) because psychoanalysis focuses on individuals and sociology on groups, it is argued that the two are incommensurate. Nevertheless, even in the face of marginalization, some scholars have combined psychoanalytic and sociological perspectives in myriad ways conceiving of multi dimensional rather than rationalistic individuals within social and cultural settings; exploring interactional dynamics that are at once psychic‐and‐social; and, as in the work of Wilfred Bion, studying the psychoanalytic mechanisms of groups themselves. I posit that the ongoing marginalization of psychoanalysis deprives the discipline of an innovative tool of analysis, an especially salient one at times when the emotional and psychological dimensions of social life are glaringly evident.     

Whither Symbolic Interaction? Reflections on a Personal Odyssey

This essay reflects my experiences over fifty‐five years in the world of sociology and sociologists. It assumes these experiences hold more general meaning and so can illuminate the present and anticipate the future of symbolic interactionism. My views of interactionist theory and methods developed in opposition to widely accepted views stemming from Herbert Blumer's writings, creating a cycle of antagonism that impeded communication and learning across the divide. Recently, antagonism apparently has decreased, and respect and trust have increased commensurately If true, the future of symbolic interactionism is brighter, as respect and trust allow the communication and learning from one another that was missing previously.     

MYTHIC FACTS AND HERBERT BLUMER'S WORK ON RACE RELATIONS: A Comment on Esposito and Murphy's Article

Luigi Esposito and John Murphy (1999) have argued that research using Blumer's group position theory of race relations using statistical analysis of survey data research actually undermines Blumer's theory of race relations by ignoring its definitional and dynamic emphases, as well as its emphasis on human agency. Furthermore, they argue that surveys and other quantitative data are directly antithetical to Blumer's perspective and symbolic interaction in general, which instead supposedly espouse nongeneralizing, idiographic, interpretive methods, such as "sympathetic introspection.' This commentary focuses on these latter points of their argument. I think Esposito and Murphy present questionable interpretations of Blumer's view of scientific concepts, of his methodological position, and symbolic interactionism. I first discuss Esposito and Murphy's depiction of Blumer's perspective as being "non-generalizing' with a focus on the sensitizing-definitive continuum of concepts. Second, I address the question of whether Blumer, and symbolic interactionism in general, is antiquantitative. I conclude by noting the importance of this debate for understanding race relations as well as the present and future place of symbolic interactionism in sociology.     

Networks and Complexity: Directions for Interactionist Research?

In this article I consider the potential importance of social networks for symbolic interactionism. Specifically, I argue that symbolic interactionism operates with an underdeveloped and often tacit conception of networks; that network analysis offers us various tools for further developing and operationalizing this conception, empirically; and that doing so would be to our considerable advantage. In addition, I argue that a stronger focus on networks would give interactionism an inroad into important contemporary debates on “complexity,” building on an obvious but again underdeveloped affinity between these two academic domains. Moreover, tackling complexity raises important and central sociological concerns of structure/agency and micro/macro, with the additional payoff that interactionism can develop and demonstrate its strengths, as an approach, in addressing the problems often associated with these concerns.     

Situation,Structure, and the Context of Meaning*

Two of the approaches at the forefront of contemporary sociological interest in meaning, symbolic interactionism and structuralism, share an interest in the role of signs and symbols in social life, yet take radically different standpoints concerning the nature of signs and the locus of meaning. Symbolic interactionists stress the ongoing process of the “situation” as the determinant of meaning, whereas structuralists claim that meaning must be sought at the deeper level of “system” or “structure” rather than at the surface. By comparing some foundational concepts underlying these traditions, such as the nature of the sign in Peirce and Saussure and Durkheim and Mead, and then exploring recent developments in structuralism and symbolic interactionism, a critical appraisal of their theories of meaning is made in the context of an emerging semiotic sociology.     

Theorizing morality in context

How does context condition morality? This is one of the core questions of the sociology of morality and also one that has remained largely untheorized till date. In this article, we draw on insights from symbolic interactionism, and develop a theoretical framework that highlights the role of context in variation of morality. This framework is informed by a view of the self as a reflexive process that engages with moral norms through giving a self-account in relation to the norms. Based on this view, we distinguish between three contextual dimensions that condition morality: symbolic forms, scenes of address, and narrating subjects. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the presented theoretical framework for sociological studies of morality.     

A Sociology of No‐Self: Applying Buddhist Social Theory to Symbolic Interaction

Although fraught with complexity, the self is a central phenomenon of discussion and analysis within sociology. This article contributes to this discourse by introducing the Buddhist ideas of anatta (no‐self) and prattyasamutpāda (interdependence) as analytic frameworks to deconstruct and rethink the self within sociology. We argue that the sociological self, most clearly articulated by symbolic interactionism, is premised on a self‐other dualism. This dualism leads to a conceptualization of the self as constantly threatened and anxious. Using these Buddhist concepts we propose an alternative interpretive schema, a sociology of no‐self, for analyzing social interaction and understanding the roots of social angst.     

Interaction Theory in the Federal Republic of Germany: Development,Current Position,Themes, and Problems

After the end of World War II in West Germany, action and interaction theories and phenomenological sociology occupied only fringe positions. At the end of the 1960s, criticism of the prevalent neopositivistic research methodology, systems theory, and the rapidly spreading critical theory increased. This, coupled with the positive reception given symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology from the United States, caused interaction theories to flourish. Today they are among the four or five main schools of thought in West German sociology. In methodological work, the “interpretative” or “communicative” social research of the time developed the narrative interview and life history method. Group discussion and participant observation were also used for interactionist social research. A survey of the subjects interactionists have covered in their research shows how widely interaction theory has been applied. The main themes of current interaction theory are: (1) conceptualizing the difference between unpremeditated behavior and meaningful action, (2) formulating a theory that covers both “structure” and “action”, and (3) developing an interactionist macro theory. The future of interaction theory is analyzed and assessed optimistically.     

Keeping Sociology in Perspective: Roy Francis' Academic Odyssey*

During a career that has spanned more than 40 years, Roy Francis has made substantial contributions to sociological teaching and research. Building on his experiences as a student, he holds dear the ideals of a liberal education and continues to search for new ways of transmitting those ideals in the face of changing social patterns. A prolific writer, Francis’books and papers often examine the proper relations between theory and research and explore the potential of symbolic interactionism as an epistemological framework. He has been active in sociology's professional affairs, especially in promoting visual sociology as a teaching and learning medium. His roles as a student, professor, administrator, and president of the Midwest Sociological Society round out a career that has encompassed all facets of modern scholarship. In each of these roles, Francis stresses the moral dimensions of the academic life, and he instills in his students the sense of intellectual obligation to their scholarly forebears that he feels toward his own.     

Symbolic Interactionism in Canada: Shared Meaning and the Perpetuation of Ideas

In this paper I critically discuss Helmes‐Hayes and Milne's institutional perspective, as well as Neil McLaughlin's emphasis on scientific intellectual movements and Coserian intellectual sects, in explaining the emergence and potential future of symbolic interactionist theory in Canada. I contest claims that the interactionism is on the verge of disappearing and instead offer an explanation grounded in insights about shared meaning. I conclude that it is ironic that debates over the presumed demise of symbolic interaction may well contribute to its continued existence within the canon of Canadian sociology.     

Academic odyssey: The training of an African sociologist

This article describes my experience of graduate training in sociology at an elite American university. As an African, I faced cultural and intellectual pressures to adopt white middle class cultural norms and a Eurocentric worldview. The article critiques American sociology, including symbolic interactionism, the sociology of the Third World and the study of race and ethnic relations. I describe my personal encounter with American racism and the process that led me to conduct research on black immigrants. I argue that my exposure to American sociology and experience of American society transformed me into a black marginal sociologist, specializing in teaching and research on the African-American experience in the New World. His forthcoming book,Becoming Black American, is being published by AMS Press.     

The Jamesian theory of action

By emphasizing the emotional basis of action and the orientation of action to the future, the theory of action in William James challenges and provides an alternative to accounts of action which emphasize cognition and norms. This paper provides a statement of the Jamesian theory of action, which has been neglected in sociology. The Jamesian critique of the approach to social action in symbolic interactionism and in Parsons's voluntaristic theory of action is also indicated in the paper. Other aspects of the Jamesian theory of action of interest to sociological concern treated in the paper are the non-constructionist account of emotion developed by James, and his reconceptualization of rationality as continuous with rather than opposed to emotion.     

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM VS. ETHNOMETHODOLOGY*

Are ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism essentially the same? An examination of these perspectives suggests that each offers a unique contribution to sociological knowledge. Although both perspectives have been influenced by pragmatism, ethnomethodology shares affinity with James' philosophy while symbolic interactionism is allied with Dewey's and Mead's. Both perspectives emphasize meaning and constraints, but each offers critically different conceptualizations of them. Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology share a verstehen outlook, yet each perspective uses different methods to gain “understanding.” Hence, these perspectives differ philosophically, conceptually, and methodologically.     

Interactionism in the Twenty‐First Century: A Letter on Being‐in‐a‐Meaningful‐World

Half a century after its crystallization, interactionism faces new challenges. While elements of this theoretical tradition have percolated into the broader field of sociology, some of its most radical promises have been ignored. This essay provides a blueprint for how to approach interactionism today: not as a historical remnant, but as a living tradition with much to offer contemporary scholarship. Yet to do so, we argue, interactionism must develop some of its core tenets, offering more explicit links both to the sociology of culture, and to other areas in sociology. Focusing on our own experiences and writings, we point to ways in which the careful study of interaction can provide a font of ideas for the broader sociological discipline. We address the significance of affordances, situational webs, group commitment, embeddedness, and disruption, and show how such reorientation can help us better analyze oppression and privilege.