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.     

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.     

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.     

Looking‐Glass Self: Goffman as Symbolic Interactionist

My thesis is that for most of his career, Erving Goffman was a symbolic interactionist in the Cooley line. The only sustained theoretical structure in Goffman's work before 1974 follows Cooley's conjecture of the looking‐glass self. Cooley assumed shared awareness, that we “live in the minds of others.” He also realized that shared awareness is virtually invisible in modern societies and proposed pride or shame as the emotions that resulted. Goffman emphasized embarrassment over shame and implied a fourth step beyond Cooley's three: the management of embarrassment or shame. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is dense with these emotions. Goffman proposed conceptual definitions of the embarrassment and shared awareness that are central to Cooley's idea. The conjunction of shared awareness and emotion in Goffman's examples may be the main feature that arouses reader sympathy. Two hypotheses are formulated here, along with techniques that might be used to test or apply them.     

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.     

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.     

Erving Goffman: The Reluctant Apprentice

The intellectual relationship between Erving Goffman and Everett C. Hughes is explored in the context of an apprenticeship model derived from correspondence between the two sociologists. Goffman is identified as a “reluctant apprentice” because his work and his letters to Hughes display a tension between a striking originality and a fidelity to his “master.” Three phases of their ambivalent relationship are described and an explanation for Goff‐man's reluctant acknowledgment of Hughes's influence is briefly explored.     

Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment

Abstract A theoretical framework is provided to understand a cultural group's definition of and relationship with nature and the environment. The framework draws on a social constructionist perspective that includes aspects of phenomenology and symbolic interactionism to define “landscape” as the symbolic environment created by a human act of conferring meaning on nature and the environment. This landscape reflects the selfdefinitions of the people within a particular cultural context. Attention is directed to transformation of the physical environment into landscapes that reflect people's definitions of themselves and on how these landscapes are reconstructed in response to people's changing definitions of themselves. Case studies from sociology and anthropology illustrate the social construction of nature and the environment. A discussion of the applied implications of the theoretical framework in social impact assessment and the global implications in the shifting power struggle over competing landscapes concludes the paper.     

Systemic Senses of Self*

An effort is made to extend the scope of the general theory of action to encompass some of the major dimensions of the individual's structure of self-conceptions. This is attempted through formulation of four subjective “senses of self,” one corresponding to each of the functional problems held in action theory to be essential features of all systems. The senses of competence, self-determination, unity, and moral worth are offered as the individual's subjective interpretations of his standing in relation to his objective problems of adaptation, goal-attainment, integration, and pattern-maintenance. It is argued that these four senses subsume and organize many important but scattered themes in the literature of self theory and general symbolic interactionism. Operational, procedures are offered with which these senses may be assessed in empirical research, and some illustrative outcomes are presented from the author's longitudinal study of self-conception changes over the course of retirement. The discussion also touches upon some of the methodological problems encountered in attempting to establish the empirical validation for this kind of theoretical extension.     

An Underestimated Alternative: America and the Limits of “Critical Theory”

The main goal of this paper is to examine the intellectual and biographical reasons why the theorists of the Frankfurt school did not embrace pragmatism. This goal is pursued in four areas: (1) the epistemological area of the debate about subjective and objective “reason”—here the misleading character of Horkheimer's and Mar-cuse's writings on pragmatism is demonstrated; (2) the area of political theory—here the tension between the American democratic tradition and a quasi-Marxist functionalism is exposed; (3) the area of social psychology—here the inability of the Frankfurt school to incorporate symbolic interactionism becomes evident; (4) the elitist relationship to American mass culture. The paper ends with brief remarks on Habermas' ambivalent position between pragmatism and “Critical Theory” and with a perspective of transcending this ambivalence.     

Structure,Agency, and Social Reality in Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism: The Influence of Georg Simmel

Mead no doubt had a manifest influence on Blumer's thinking, and Blumer's acknowledgment of his indebtedness to Mead is a central feature of Blumer's writing. While I do not presume to question the importance Blumer assigns to the role played by Mead in the development of Blumerian symbolic interactionism, I argue that the perspective also owes much to the insights of Georg Simmel. In particular, a Simmelian flavor is evident in how Blumer addresses the core sociological issues of the nature of social reality, the nature of the relationship between the individual and society, and the nature of social action.     

Jazz in Social Interaction: Personal Creativity,Collective Constraint,and Motivational Explanation in the Social Thought of Howard S. Becker

Although symbolic interactionist studies are often thought to abandon motivational explanation in favor of a focus on social process, the interactionist tradition has usefully employed two deterministic themes. One is inherent in the appreciation of the actor's inescapable sense of interactional significance for behavior that will be socially witnessed. A second deterministic theme appreciates external constraints on the individual's perception and generation of social acts. The former shapes all work in symbolic interactionism. The latter has been developed most consistently in the work of Howard S. Becker. Without addressing the matter as such, Becker has worked with a series of ideas about constraint on individual motivation, ideas that are harmonious with the interactionist's understanding of personal creativity in social action. His writings invite a reconsideration of the supposed antagonism between the appreciation of interactive process and the understanding of motivational constraint. Becker's work on motivation is also notable for outlining a theory of increasing constraints through the life cycle, constraints which, if appreciated by the actor, carry paradoxically liberating implications. The distinctive interplay of personal creativity and collective constraint in his thought is succinctly captured by the metaphor of jazz in social interaction.     

Communicate over a network: the blog as a ‘new’ social space

The contribution analyzes from a sociological perspective the development of the blog, passing through the different typologies, to define the relationship that develops in today's society between the network and the individual, through a theoretical comparison of the major scholars who have dealt with the issue of network. From Sherry Turkle to Manuel Castells up to the studies of Barry Wellman, we will define the development of the network as a new social space. The work incorporates some classical theories of Simmel, some by Goffman and Thompson about interaction, of community-society by Töennies and the action-system of Luhmann. The central part of the article focuses on how the space of the network can become, in some cases, a ‘place’ of sharing not only of entertainment topics but also of those that have some importance for public opinion. Then the blog becomes a ‘showcase’ in which to expose the peculiar characteristics of one's identity, but also a point of listening for those who do not have easy access to traditional media. Through the testimony of two young people, we will highlight those aspects that characterize the blog as a communication tool, from the diary to the letter, as well as the role played by these documentary sources in the past in sociology's field. In this way, some salient points arise about the use of the network space, compared to traditional media. The last part of the contribution proposes a comparison between America and Japan about the use of blogs and social networks, no longer in numerical terms, but proposing a reflection that brings out an individual who, as a sociable being, exploits all the possible ways to communicate, feeling in such situations freer to express his emotions, and able build a dialogue that turns out to be an added value to his person and in relationship with others outside.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 .     

Bridging the Gap: On the Collaboration between Symbolic Interactionism and Distributed Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Multi-Agent Systems Research

This article discusses the relationship in the U.S. between current symbolic interactionism and computer sciences—specifically, distributed artificial intelligence (DAI). The general thesis is twofold. First, current interactionist approaches to organization, science, and technology show a special affinity to goals and problems of DAI research, and in research style, methods, and theoretical concepts, symbolic interactionism can provide useful suggestions in the design of DAI systems. Second, a good way to analyze the relationship between computer sciences and symbolic interactionism is reflexive of theoretical concepts provided by interactionist approaches. In this sense, DAI is a “going concern” which extends across various fields and intersecting social worlds connected through a set of conceptual “boundary objects.” It is concluded that the interaction between technology and sociological thought must go beyond a mere exchange of ideas. What is required is continual, hands-on, trans-disciplinary collaboration.     

Telling Others How You Live—Refining Goffman's Stigma Theory Through an Analysis of Housing Strugglers in a Homeowner Nation

This article revisits Goffman's stigma theory from the perspective of housing studies. We elaborate on Goffman's approach by exploring how housing tenure can work as a proxy for moral character. We interviewed twenty‐seven people who are excluded from access to homeownership in two cities in Norway, which is a “homeowner nation.” These individuals are unable to enter the dominant “homeowner class” for different reasons, including drug‐dependency, mental illness, refugee background, low socioeconomic status; thus, they must access housing through other tenures; private renting or social housing. To many of them, housing becomes a stigma, in Goffman terms, an “undesired differentness.” Social housing is known to carry stigma in Norway. It was thus a paradox, that those with the softest differentness—private rental—were most likely to practice (Goffman:) “information control” over their housing situation. Goffman's theoretical apparatus, and his distinction between the discreditable and the discredited in particular, helped us make this paradox comprehensible. Through this analysis, refinements to Goffman's theory were discovered. We suggest that “multiple stigmas,” which was not seen clearly by Goffman himself, should be a key notion in stigma studies. We use this notion to distinguish between possible sub‐types to the discredited‐discreditable distinction.