Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology

Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology, while apparently similar in topic and approach, are radically different sociological perspectives. Garfinkel's notion of a plenum is used to illustrate this difference with regard to their approaches to the concept of interaction. Ethnomethodology's rejection of the concepts of actor and context, and its different treatment of meaning, are contrasted with symbolic interactionism's terms of reference.     

The sociological construction of gender and sexuality

This essay considers how we might come to understand social constructionism sociologically. It examines a number of related approaches to gender and sexuality that speak to sociological concerns and might be termed social constructionist: historicism, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and materialist feminism. By recognising that social constructionism is multifarious rather than unified, we find that each social constructionist approach offers particular strengths for analysing the complexities of gender and sexuality. Through closely analysing these approaches and some of the criticisms of them we can reassert sociology's specific contribution, and embrace social constructionist analyses which address the multilayered characteristics of the social in general and gender and sexuality in particular.     

Memorial Essay: Harold Garfinkel (1917–2011): A Sociologist for the Ages

Harold Garfinkel, the founder of Ethnomethodology, died at home on April 21, 2011 of congestive heart failure. A major sociologist of the twentieth century, his contribution to many fields will undoubtedly continue to be felt for years to come. In this essay, I will discuss the origins of the term “ethnomethodology,” briefly explore ethnomethodology's relationship with symbolic interactionism, provide a biographical overview of Garfinkel's oeuvre, list some ways in which the work has had a massive influence, and end with a short discussion of Garfinkel's legacy.     

Inequality and the Self: Exploring Connections from an Interactionist Perspective

Symbolic interactionism provides a major contribution to understanding inequality by illuminating the various manifestations and contexts of inequality at the micro, everyday level of social life. Drawing on a spectrum of symbolic interactionist theory and research, we examine the range of symbolic and interactional manifestations of social inequality, the consequences of being the object of patterned interactional affronts, and the strategies people use to negotiate interactional stigmatization in everyday life. We argue that symbolic interaction's unique contribution to understanding inequality results from two of the perspective's central features. First, symbolic interactionism emphasizes the necessity of investigating social life in situated social interaction. Second, it highlights social actors' capacities to interpret and construct lines of action rather than respond directly to the stimuli they encounter. Symbolic interactionist research and theory thus contribute to a more complex understanding of social stratification than that provided by perspectives focused exclusively on macroscopic structural factors.     

SIGN,SYMBOL, AND METALANGUAGE: AGAINST THE INTEGRATION OF SEMIOTICS AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Dean MacCannell's proposal for a “rapprochement” between symbolic interaction-ism and semiotics, in which the “generality” of symbolic interactionism's conception the sign is “raised” to that of semiotics, is examined. By turning exclusively to Saussurian semiotics, MacCannell does not adequately reflect the distinction between “natural” and “arbitrary” representation in Peirce's semiosis that is the most fruitful link with Mead's symbolic interactionism. Consequently, MacCannell's argument at the level of terminology is flawed. Rather than merging, the perspectives might benefit from a radical rethinking of representation. This would involve preserving the distinction between the “natural” and “arbitrary,” while at the same time recognizing that in mass society “arbitrary” representation has become a kind of “second-order” (Barthes) indexical metalanguage of membership within which symbolic interaction may occur. As Baudrillard claims, “commutation of signs” has replaced “interaction of symbols,” yet strains against an unfulfilled symbolic demand. Efforts should be directed at generating a theory of representation capable of addressing the tension that produces this symbolic demand.     

The Classic American Pragmatists As Forerunners To Symbolic Interactionism*

Although it is generally known that symbolic interactionism is historically and philosophically linked to American pragmatism, relatively little attention has been given to assessing the separate influences of Peirce, James, Dewey, and Mead upon its development. This paper contends that there were two opposing branches of American pragmatism: (1) the social realism of Peirce's pragmatism, and (2) the social nominalism of James's pragmatism. The writings of Dewey and Mead reflect the influences of both of these branches. Dewey, however, was more closely aligned with James while Mead's work is more consistent with Peirce's principles. Blumerian symbolic interactionism is essentially a continuation of the nominalistic James/Dewey branch of American pragmatism, notwithstanding the popular notion that, among the classic American pragmatists, Mead was the principal precursor of symbolic interactionism.     

Editor's Choice: An Interview with Hans Joas

The interview explores multiple aspects of social theory, most of them directly related to Joas's theory and others to symbolic interactionism and Goffman. The first part delves into Joas's theory in three respects. First, a clarifying note on a common misunderstanding about his book The Creativity of Action. Second, a clarification on the scope of his theoretical endeavor, and third, a look into his coming books to have a better grasp of the course that his theory is taking. The second part is dedicated to symbolic interactionism and Goffman. Firstly, Joas's opinion about the theoretical relationship between symbolic interactionism and macrosociology is emphasized, secondly, his opinion about the pertinence of locating Goffman within symbolic interactionism is stated, and thirdly, a brief commentary about the relationship between Joas's theory and Goffman's is introduced.     

Convergences Between Symbolic Interactionism and Systems Theory1,2

This paper explores certain theoretical convergences between symbolic interactionism and systems theory. Important similarities between these two perspectives with respect to their basic ontological and epistemological assumptions are pointed out and discussed. The systems theory concepts of feedback and redundancy are seen to have important counterparts in symbolic interactionism. Finally, the parallel concerns of symbolic interactionism and systems theory with emergence is discussed in terms of the concepts of hierarchical structure and the law of requisite variety.     

David R. Maines: Embedding Symbolic Interactionism at the Heart of Sociology

David R. Maines was a key founder of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, and a champion of symbolic interactionist sociology. Maines fought against characterizations of symbolic interactionism as astructural and “subjectivist.” He was adamant that symbolic interactionism offered vital perspectives on the study of social structure and organization, and that it was compatible with a variety of research methods. He played a vital role in developing narrative sociology and bringing narrative scholarship from communication studies to sociological audiences. In this retrospective on his life and career, I detail what Maines saw as the five central features of symbolic interactionism: (1) interpretation and meaning, (2) communication, (3) temporality and process, (4) agency, and (5) dialectical thinking. I then examine four interrelated themes of Maines' sociological contributions: (1) temporality, (2) debunking myths about interactionism, (3) mesostructure, and (4) narrative sociology. A video abstract is available at https://youtu.be/YodjvXbo51Q .     

Symbolic Interaction with Consumer Products: An Affect Control Theory Approach

Symbolic interactionism is one of the few social psychology perspectives that recognizes the important role of physical artifacts, including consumer products, in social life. Consumer products are artifacts people can use to maintain the expressive order within social life – the order that is embedded within the shared meanings of a culture. As a formal theory of symbolic interactionism, affect control theory emphasizes culturally shared affective meaning, the impressions produced within social events, and identity processes that rely on those cultural meanings and social events. We contend that affect control theory provides a framework for understanding and researching how consumer products influence people's social experience and interaction. First, we specifically explore how affect control theory's concepts of affective meaning, identity modification, and impression management can be applied to understanding consumer products. Building on this foundation, we then consider how affect control theory might also contribute to three new research directions: social interaction with consumer products, affective design of consumer products, and the prosumer identity created from consumer products. Our conclusion is that affect control theory provides sociologists with a means of exploring the important and fascinating questions that emerge when we consider people's symbolic interaction with consumer products.     

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.     

Introduction: The Senses in Social Interaction

In this introduction, we provide the scholarly background that motivates the special issue and briefly discuss its content. We touch on contemporary debates in symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, and anthropology that inform the research undertaken by the contributors. We conclude by deriving six interrelated themes—intersection, entwinement, multimodal, contextually embedded, structured, and serendipitous—from an examination of the articles.     

MYTH,TEXT, AND INTERACTION COMPLICITY IN THE NEGLECT OF BLUMER'S MACROSOCIOLOGY

This article depicts a major line of assessment of the work of Herbert Blumer as constituting a series of myths. Portrayals of his work as subjectivistic and ideographic combine with the predominant myth that Blumer ignored issues of large-scale organization and social structure. Documentation of his analyses of corporate power relations, racial stratification, and industrialization and industrial organization reveals the mythical character of much published opinion regarding his work. The micro-macro distinction is an ideology within which these myths have been created and perpetuated. Interactionists who have benignly bought into that ideology contribute to the myth of Blumer's neglect of societal organization. In closing it is suggested that greater attention needs to be given to the influence of Robert Park on Blumer's perspectives and that such an assessment might contribute to a broadening of the base of symbolic interactionism.     

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.     

Dramas,Metaphors, and Structures*

It is argued that dramaturgical sociology/social psychology must be examined as a continuation of the methods and practices of dramatism. Such an examination will reveal answers to the persistent questions regarding the work of Erving Goffman: Is he using a metaphor, simile, analogy, etc.! Is he a symbolic interactionist! Is his work a form of structuralism! What is the relationship between the sociologist and the drama of human relations! What is the relationship between interactionism and structuralism! The answers to these questions, it appears, are that drama is not used as a simple analogy in the study of human relations and that the separation of structuralism and interactionism is yet another essay in the confrontation between Heraclitus' flux and Zeno's paradox. You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. Heraclitus In which case, you cannot step even once into the river: there will in fact be no river. after Parmenides, Zeno etc.     

Teacher Careers and Inhabited Institutions: Sense‐Making and Arsenals of Teaching Practice in Educational Institutions

This article advances emerging scholarship that emphasizes the benefits to new institutional theories of organizational functioning offered by empirical research rooted in the tradition of symbolic interactionism. I present evidence from in‐depth interviews with teachers from three high schools to show how individuals' perspectives about pursuing institutional goals are filtered through their accumulated experience working within those institutions. Findings show teachers develop what I call “arsenals of teaching practice” as they accumulate work experience, and this process creates a key source of difference by career stage among teachers that shapes their instructional decisions. I discuss implications for understanding the relationship between policy and practice, and extend existing theory of inhabited institutions by identifying a key way that people's sense‐making through experience drives institutional functioning.     

SUBSTANCE AND STYLE: AN APPRAISAL OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL LEGACY OF HERBERT BLUMER

The substance and the style of Herbert Blumer's legacy to sociology are examined. Examining the former proceeds by specifying essentials and nonessentials of a symbolic interactionist framework, and by distinguishing between Blumer's ideas that do and do not contribute toward the objective of general explanatory theory premised on the framework together with rigorous tests of such theory using a full arsenal of research methods and techniques. Examining the latter proceeds by suggesting that Blumer's style of combative and oppositional argumentation, while not without its utility, has contributed to a present-day scholasticism within symbolic interactionism that inhibits the development of the framework.     

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.     

Exhibiting Interaction: Conduct and Collaboration in Museums and Galleries

This article explores how individuals, both alone and together, examine exhibits in museums and galleries. Drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, it focuses on the ways in which visitors encounter and experience exhibits and how their activities are organized, at least in part, with intimate regard to the actions of others in the domain, both companions and “strangers.” This study contributes to the long‐standing concerns of symbolic interactionism with (mutual) attention and involvement, materiality and social relations, and interpersonal communication. The data consist of video recordings of naturally occurring action and interaction in various museums and galleries.     

Extending the Symbolic Interactionist Theory of Interaction Processes: A Conceptual Outline

This article outlines the elements of a more robust symbolic interactionist theory of interpersonal processes. I argue that George Herbert Mead's conceptualization of interaction processes can be extended to explain not only micro‐level social processes but also key elements of meso‐ and macro‐level dynamics. By expanding Mead's and more recent symbolic interactionist theorizing, and incorporating key ideas from other theoretical traditions outside symbolic interactionism proper, it becomes possible to develop a theory of interaction that fills in important conceptual gaps in theories on the dynamics of micro‐, meso‐, and macro‐level social phenomena.