Symbolic Interactionism

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/303056565
Symbolic Interactionism
Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.1177/205684601561
CITATIONS READS
153 149,277
2 authors:
Michael J. Carter Celene Fuller

California State University, Northridge University of Nevada, Las Vegas
36 PUBLICATIONS 1,573 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 346 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael J. Carter on 13 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Symbolic interactionism
Michael J Carter and Celene Fuller California State University,
Northridge, USA
abstract Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theoretical perspective in sociology that addresses the
manner in which individuals create and maintain society through face-to-face, repeated, meaningful inter-
actions. This article provides an overview of three theoretical traditions in symbolic interactionism, focus-
ing on the work of Herbert Blumer (the Chicago School), Manford Kuhn (the Iowa School), and Sheldon
Stryker (the Indiana School). A brief summary of each figure’s general perspective on symbolic interac-
tionism is provided, followed by a discussion of the research methodology that defines and distinguishes
each. The article then reviews and assesses the empirical research that has emerged from these traditions
over the past decades. It concludes with a discussion of future directions symbolic interactionists should
attend to in continuing to develop the field.
keywords microsociology ◆ social psychology ◆ symbolic interactionism
Introduction
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theoretical tion of society. For symbolic interactionists, the pre-
framework and perspective in sociology that addresses vailing structuralist perspectives reified society as a
how society is created and maintained through repeat- constraining entity that ultimately defines an individ-
ed interactions among individuals. The perspective ual. Symbolic interactionism moved away from such
emerged in the mid-twentieth century from a variety perspectives that (perhaps) provided over-socialized
of influences, including the Scottish Moralist and views of the individual to conceive the individual as
American Pragmatist philosophers – its greatest influ- agentic, autonomous, and integral in creating their
ence being American philosopher George Herbert social world.
Mead (1934) and his theories about the relationship Central to symbolic interactionist thought is the
between self and society. The emergence of symbolic idea that individuals use language and significant
interactionism was a response to the mainstream per- symbols in their communication with others. Rather
spectives on society that dominated sociology at the than addressing how common social institutions
time (such as Talcott Parsons’s structural functional- define and impact individuals, symbolic interaction-
ism). These dominant, positivist approaches tended to ists shift their attention to the interpretation of sub-
examine society from the ‘top down,’ focusing on the jective viewpoints and how individuals make sense of
impact of macro-level institutions and social struc- their world from their unique perspective. Symbolic
tures and how they impose on and constrain individ- interactionists are often less concerned with objective
uals. Departing from this tradition, symbolic structure than with subjective meaning – how repeat-
interactionism was developed to understand the oper- ed, meaningful interactions among individuals come
ation of society from the ‘bottom up,’ shifting the to define the makeup of ‘society.’ Summarized suc-
focus to micro-level processes that emerge during cinctly, the basic tenets of symbolic interactionism
face-to-face encounters in order to explain the opera- state that: (1) individuals act based on the meanings
Sociopedia.isa
© 2015 The Author(s)
© 2015 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of Sociopedia.isa)
Michael J Carter and Celene Fuller, 2015, ‘Symbolic interactionism’, Sociopedia.isa,
DOI: 10.1177/205684601561
1
Carter and Fuller Symbolic interactionism
objects have for them; (2) interaction occurs within some degree with his vision.
a particular social and cultural context in which Blumer emphasized how the self emerges from an
physical and social objects (persons), as well as situa- interactive process of joint action (Denzin, 1992).
tions, must be defined or categorized based on indi- Blumer, like Mead, saw individuals as engaged in
vidual meanings; (3) meanings emerge from ‘mind action’: humans do not ponder on themselves
interactions with other individuals and with society; and their relationships to others sometimes – they
and (4) meanings are continuously created and recre- constantly are engaged in mindful action where they
ated through interpreting processes during interac- manipulate symbols and negotiate the meaning of
tion with others (Blumer, 1969). situations (Mead, 1934). Echoing Mead, Blumer
In this article we examine past and present theo- believed that the study of human behavior must
ry and research in symbolic interactionism. We first begin with human association, a notion that was not
discuss three theoretical approaches within symbolic common in the viewpoint of early American sociol-
interactionism that have defined the field. Next, we ogy, which treated the individual and society as dis-
review and assess the empirical research that has crete entities (Meltzer and Petras, 1970).
emerged over the past decades to show how the per- Blumer’s symbolic interactionism centers on
spective has evolved. Lastly, we discuss the future of processes actors use to constantly create and recreate
symbolic interactionism and identify key areas that experiences from one interaction to the next. For
the next generation of scholars should attend to in Blumer, symbolic interactionism was simply ‘the
continuing to refine and develop symbolic interac- peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it
tionism as a leading sociological perspective. takes place between human beings’ (Blumer, 1962:
179). In his view, social institutions exist only as
individuals interact; society is not a structure but
Overview of theoretical approaches rather a continuing process where agency and inde-
within symbolic interactionism terminateness of action is emphasized (Collins,
1994). Treating society as structured, patterned, or
Theory and research in symbolic interactionism has stable is a reification because society, like individual
developed along three main areas of emphasis, fol- actors’ interactions and experiences with one anoth-
lowing the work of Herbert Blumer (the Chicago er, is constantly in flux. Following Mead, Blumer’s
School), Manford Kuhn (the Iowa School), and symbolic interactionism conceives social institutions
Sheldon Stryker (the Indiana School). Herbert as ‘social habits’ that occur within specific situations
Blumer coined the term ‘symbolic interactionism’ that are common to those involved in the situation.
and was the first to formulate Mead’s ideas into a For Blumer, meanings are intersubjective and per-
cohesive theory with specific methodological impli- ceived, and constantly reinterpreted among individ-
cations for study. Kuhn and Stryker, while method- uals. There are no meanings inherent in the people
ologically at odds with Blumer, share much of the or objects which an actor confronts – actors rather
same theoretical orientation as him, following Mead. place meanings upon such entities which are per-
Let us examine these theoretical approaches in more ceived as unique (House, 1977). Behavior is simply
detail to understand how they together make up our an actor’s idiosyncratic way of reacting to an inter-
contemporary understanding of interactionist pretation of a situation. It is therefore not to be
thought. examined or predicted from antecedent knowledge
about how actors generally respond to given situa-
The Chicago School tions. This is impossible since each encounter is dif-
The main variant of symbolic interactionism was ferent from others (and therefore unique).
developed by Herbert Blumer (1969) at the Understanding social behavior requires an interpre-
University of Chicago in the 1950s. Blumer brought tive perspective that examines how behavior is
Mead’s philosophically-based social behaviorism to changing, unpredictable, and unique to each and
sociology, even if some have seen his conception of every social encounter.
symbolic interactionism more resembling WI Blumer’s theoretical contention was that human
Thomas’s (1931) notion of the ‘definition of the sit- behavioral patterns must be studied in forms of
uation’ than what is purely found in the work of action, and that human group life should be studied
Mead (Collins, 1994). Blumer laid the groundwork in terms of what the participants do together in units
for a new theoretical paradigm which in many ways (Blumer, 1969; Shibutani, 1988). Blumer’s orienta-
challenged sociology’s accepted forms of epistemolo- tion toward social phenomena centers on the notion
gy and methodology. Blumer’s brand of symbolic of independent action: human society is distinctive
interactionism has been the most influential in soci- because of the capacity of each member to act
ology; most interactionist scholarship is aligned to independently. Each person can regulate their
2
contribution so that the entire group is able to such established research methodology, but rather by
achieve goals under diverse circumstances. This examining each social setting – i.e. each distinct
viewpoint understands the agent’s role in society as interaction among individuals – directly. Blumer’s
free and flexible; an individual reacts on his or her more subjective methodology attempts to measure
own accord and without structural influence. and understand an actor’s experience through ‘sym-
Blumer believed that any adequate explanation of pathetic introspection’: the researcher takes the
human social life must consider the autonomous con- standpoint of the actor whose behavior he or she is
tributions of each participant (Shibutani, 1988). studying and attempts to use the actor’s own cate-
Blumer’s theoretical orientation toward symbolic gories in capturing the meanings for the actor during
interactionism can be summarized through three social interactions. To summarize Blumer’s method-
premises (Blumer, 1969): (1) human beings act ological approach, an understanding of social life
toward things on the basis of the meanings that the requires an understanding of the processes individu-
things have for them; (2) the meaning of things is als use to interpret situations and experiences, and
derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction how they construct their actions among other indi-
that one has with others; (3) meanings are handled viduals in society.
in, and modified through, an interpretive process
used by a person in dealing with the things they The Iowa and Indiana Schools
encounter. While these three premises remain for While Blumer’s work has been seen as the most com-
many the core tenets of symbolic interactionist prehensive overview of Mead’s symbolic interaction-
thought, some have noted a need for their expan- ist ideas, the methodological aspect of his perspective
sion. For example, Snow (2001) believes that sym- was what Blumer saw as the most appropriate
bolic interactionism is better conceived around four approach to test Mead’s main tenets. Perhaps the
principles: the principle of interactive determination, absence of a methodological dictum in Mead’s sym-
the principle of symbolization, the principle of emer- bolic interactionist approach is responsible for the
gence, and the principle of human agency. For Snow, varieties of techniques that have been proposed fol-
these broader principles connect a wider array of lowing his work. According to Blumer, qualitative
work to symbolic interactionism, helping scholars methods of study are the only way to study human
understand the various tensions within the perspec- behavior, by rigorously defining concepts and using
tive (Snow, 2001: 375). them to understand the nature of behavior.
Since Mead never actually put his perspective However, other sociologists writing in the symbolic
into writing and much of his work was published interactionist perspective saw the study of interac-
posthumously, a proscription for methodology with- tion as not limited to qualitative approaches.
in his symbolic interactionist framework was nonex- Manford Kuhn (1964) and Sheldon Stryker (1980)
istent until Blumer set out to develop an approach are two such sociologists who utilized positivist
using Mead’s ideas. Blumer was a staunch critic of methods in their studies of the relationship between
logical empiricism, and for him the idea that science the self and social structure.
was the one and only true vehicle for discovering Stemming from his work in the mid-twentieth
truth was inherently flawed. For Blumer, any century, Manford Kuhn’s positivism influenced a
methodology for understanding social behavior must new sociological tradition termed the ‘Iowa School’
‘get inside’ the individual in order to see the world as of symbolic interactionism. Kuhn sought to recon-
the individual perceives it. A sound methodologist cile Mead’s framework with rigorous, scientific test-
must take it as given that patterns of behavior are not ing of symbolic interactionist principles. Kuhn and
conducive for scientific insight as are other worldly the Iowa School emphasized process in interaction
phenomena because behavior takes place on the basis and viewed behavior as ‘purposive, socially con-
of an actor’s own particular meanings. Blumer’s structed, coordinated social acts informed by preced-
methodology emphasizes intimate understanding ing events in the context of projected acts that occur’
rather than the intersubjective agreement among (Katovich et al., 2003: 122).
investigators, which is a necessary condition for sci- The basic theoretical underpinning of Kuhn is
entific inquiry to have worth. summarized around four core themes (Katovich et
Blumer’s stance on social psychological method- al., 2003): the first is that social interaction can be
ology is particularly dismissive of empirically driven examined through a cybernetic perspective that
research designs which employ the scientific method emphasizes intentionality, temporality, and self-cor-
to analyze loosely defined or standardized concepts. rection. Second, scientists should focus their atten-
Blumer felt that empirically verifiable knowledge of tion on dyads, triads, and small groups as these are
social situations cannot be gleaned by using statisti- the loci for most social behavior and interaction.
cal techniques or hypothesis testing which employ Third, while social behavior can be studied in its
3
natural form (i.e. in naturally occurring settings) it using innovative experiments to understand interac-
should also be studied in a laboratory; incorporating tions among actors. Couch’s brand of interactionism
both environments allows us to articulate behaviors attempted to understand individuals’ orientations
and identify abstract laws for behavior which can be toward one another across time and space, improv-
universally applied to actors. And fourth, social sci- ing on the cross-sectional methodological approach
entists must endeavor to create a more systematic that mostly defined Kuhn’s research (Herman-
and rigorous vocabulary to identify the ontological Kinney and Vershaeve, 2003). Couch’s role in
nature of sociality (i.e. operationalize concepts in a extending symbolic interactionist knowledge has led
much more thorough manner than what had been many to differentiate the Iowa School as ‘old’ and
previously accepted by social psychologists). ‘new,’ representing Kuhn’s and Couch’s respective
While Kuhn and those associated with the Iowa influence during those eras.
School follow a symbolic interactionist framework Sheldon Stryker’s work is similar to Kuhn’s in its
generally consistent with Mead, their methodologi- scope as well as in methods employed. As Blumer
cal stance directly contradicts that proposed by and Kuhn are associated with the Chicago and Iowa
Blumer. Rather than viewing quantitative analyses of Schools respectively, Stryker is a sociologist from
social interaction as abstract empiricism, Kuhn what is referred to as the ‘Indiana School’ of symbol-
asserted that the use of quantitative methods could ic interactionist thought, representing theory and
provide systematic testing of Mead’s theoretical prin- research generated in the mid to latter part of the
ciples. Kuhn saw the study of the complexity of twentieth century at the University of Indiana.
social life and of selfhood as a scientific endeavor While Mead and Blumer emphasized the fluid
requiring sociological analysis. He believed that nature of meanings and the self in interaction,
social science was indeed consistent with the quanti- Stryker emphasized that meanings and interactions
tative study of human behaviors and conceptions of led to relatively stable patterns that create and
the self when properly executed. uphold social structures. Stryker believed that sym-
Rather than relying on subjective survey respons- bolic interactionist ideas could and should be tested
es to assess attitudes toward the self, Kuhn developed using both qualitative and quantitative methods.
the ‘Twenty Statements Test’ (TST). Following According to Stryker, Mead’s work can be conceived
Mead’s work on the emergence of the self through of as a ‘frame’ rather than a coherent theory with
interaction, Kuhn’s TST is based on self-disclosure of testable propositions (Stryker, 2008: 17). Stryker
respondents in answering the question ‘Who Am I?’ expanded symbolic interactionist ideas through
on 20 numbered lines. Kuhn believed that responses operationalizing variables that Mead presented
to this question could provide a systematic study of as general assumptions and concepts by hypothesiz-
an individual’s self-attitudes and organization of ing and empirically testing relationships among
identities as they emerge from symbolic interaction Mead’s concepts while incorporating elements of role
with others. By coding these responses, a researcher theory.
may find both conventional and idiosyncratic reflec- Stryker further expanded Mead’s concept of role-
tions of social statuses and identities. Furthermore, taking in order to demonstrate the structural aspect
since the test relies on self-report, it serves as a useful of interaction. Stryker’s work on roles treats social
tool for discerning individual meanings without pre- roles as emerging from a reciprocal influence of net-
senting them as objective facts. Kuhn and the Iowa works or patterns of relationships in interactions as
School utilized the TST among other quantitative they are shaped by various levels of social structures.
measures (including data collected from laboratory Stryker defines roles as ‘expectations which are
experiments) to attempt to predict how individuals attached to [social] positions’; or ‘symbolic categories
see themselves in situations, but did not focus solely [that] serve to cue behavior’ (Stryker, 1980: 57).
on conceptions of the self. Despite criticism of According to Stryker, expectations of roles vary
Kuhn’s techniques as being deterministic or suc- across situations and within the context of cultural
cumbing to reductionism, the Iowa School following or social change. In taking the attitudes of others in
Kuhn’s work has contributed much to research a situation, an individual uses ‘symbolic cues’ built
addressing the problematic nature of coordinated from prior experiences and normative expectations
social action as well as meanings as responses in of status from social positions to assess potential lines
interaction. of action. In this way, roles as they are attached to
Kuhn’s student and successor Carl Couch (1984; positions may be analyzed as predictors of future
Couch et al., 1986) continued the symbolic interac- behavior for individuals in various social categories.
tionist tradition at Iowa, applying a more pragmatic As with symbolic interactionism, Stryker’s struc-
approach to the study of social phenomena and tural role theory views socialization as the process
4
through which individuals learn normative expecta- identity and social roles (Burke and Stets, 2009;
tions for actions as they relate to role relationships. Heise, 2002; MacKinnon, 1994; Stryker and Serpe,
By building up from the person to the situation 1982), deviance (Becker, 1953), and phenomen-
within the larger social structure, Stryker showed the ology (Schutz, 1962). Beyond these subfields, com-
reciprocity of the individual and society. In every sit- mon areas of inquiry in symbolic interactionism
uation, individuals identify themselves and others in include social problems (Best, 2003), cultural studies
the context of social structure. Individuals then (Becker, 1982; Fine, 1996), semiotics (Manning,
reflexively apply what they perceive to be others’ 2003), narratives (Reynolds and Herman-Kinney,
identifications of them that, over time, become 2003), feminism (Deegan and Hill, 1987; Thorne,
internalized expectations for behavior as part of the 1993), neo-Marxism (Schwalbe, 1986), and post-
self. These internalized expectations, when accepted modernism (Gergen, 1991; Lemert, 1997;
and enacted by individuals in various roles, become Sandstrom and Fine, 2003). There have been signif-
identities. In emphasizing the impact social structure icant developments in other areas (Hall, 2003),
has on how roles are played in interaction, Stryker’s including a resurgence in studies on pragmatism
structural approach to symbolic interactionism is an (Joas, 1993; Maines and McCallion, 2007;
attempt to bridge the gap between micro- and Plummer, 1996; Saxton, 1993; Shalin, 1986;
macro-sociological and social psychological theories. Strauss, 1993), work on collective behavior and
Stryker’s structural symbolic approach therefore pro- social movements (Lofland, 1996; McPhail, 1991;
vides significant theoretical insights to social roles in Morris and Mueller, 1992; Snow et al., 1986; Stryker
expanding symbolic interactionist concepts. et al., 2000), further studies on deviance, mostly
focusing on labeling theory and social problems
(Best, 1989; Conrad and Schneider, 1980; Loseke,
Review and assessment of empirical 1999), research on temporality (Couch, 1984;
research within the symbolic Flaherty, 1998; Maines et al., 1983; Strauss, 1993;
interactionist tradition Zerubavel, 1985), and the implementation of emo-
tions and affect into studies on symbolic interaction
During the twentieth century, symbolic interaction- (Hochschild, 1979, 2003 [1983]; Scheff, 1979;
ist research held a prominent place within sociology Shott, 1979).
despite periods of backlash and criticism for being One of the more famous examples of symbolic
unscientific, apolitical, and too micro (Fine, 1993). interactionist scholarship was provided by Glaser
Even though symbolic interactionism is often criti- and Strauss (1964) in their examination of awareness
cized, there is little denying that it has been as pop- contexts that influence social interaction. These
ular and influential over the past half-century as any scholars noted how social interactions vary by struc-
competing sociological perspective; hundreds of ture, awareness of members, and tactics of maintain-
books, research articles, and monographs written in ing awareness/unawareness. For example, nurses in
its vein are evidence of this. This abundance of hospitals often must interact with patients who are
research has led multiple scholars to note the diffi- terminal but unaware of the severity of their condi-
culty in summarizing advancements within the field. tion. Glaser and Strauss’s work showed how, in
In previous synopses of symbolic interactionism, examples such as this, the knowledge of a patient’s
Hall (2003) and Plummer (1996) both noted that condition is controlled and kept from the patient.
any attempt to summarize the field must be – by Here, the awareness of impending death is construct-
necessity – partial and selective. With the under- ed – and avoided – in order to maintain a patient’s
standing that any article-length summary of the positive outlook and psychological well-being.
research produced within symbolic interactionism In other classic studies, Brooks (1969) examined
cannot be exhaustive, let us examine its substantive the relationship between the self and political ideol-
areas of inquiry and a few empirical studies that have ogy, revealing that how one identifies depends on
defined the field. their political orientation (specifically, he examined
how self-views correlate with right-wing or left-wing
Classical symbolic interactionist research ideologies). Stryker’s (1957) work on role-taking
Although some may not specifically identify as a applied symbolic interactionist ideas to understand
symbolic interactionist, clear traces of interactionist why family members often have differing levels of
ideas are apparent across sociology, specifically in commitment to their family roles. Glaser (1956)
ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967; Scott and showed how criminal behavior can best be under-
Lyman, 1968), dramaturgy (Goffman, 1959b), stood using a social psychological lens.
research on the family (Stryker, 1959), theories on One of the most famous interactionist studies
5
was provided by Becker (1953) in his work on Dramaturgical analysis

becoming a marihuana user, where he showed how One of the most important symbolic interactionist
‘feeling high’ when using marihuana is a social theorists of the classical era was Erving Goffman,
construction rather than a physiological, internal though some might hesitate to classify his work as
motivational state caused by the drug. Becker representing purely an interactionist standpoint.
revealed that in marihuana users, feeling high Regardless, interactionist themes are found through-
requires both the presence and recognition of the out Goffman’s work: symbols, shared meaning, iden-
drug’s symptoms – and recognition of the drug’s tity – all are common elements in his scholarship,
symptoms is constructed socially through interac- which spanned multiple decades and influenced a
tions with others. Applied more broadly, Becker’s legion of sociologists. To this day, Goffman contin-
study shows how role behaviors are socialized and ues to be one of the most inspirational and cited
acquired through interactions with others. Becker’s sociologists.
marihuana study had a massive influence, not only Goffman’s seminal book The Presentation of Self
for symbolic interactionists but on the field of soci- in Everyday Life (1959b) used the metaphor of a the-
ology, as it challenged and widened the boundaries atrical performance as a framework to describe how
of what was considered acceptable for rigorous study. actors present themselves to others, and how they
To this day, when students read ‘Becoming a mari- attempt to control others’ impressions to be seen
huana user’ they realize how creative one can be as a positively. Here Goffman documented the myriad
researcher; Becker was instrumental in inspiring strategies actors use in face-to-face interactions to
scholars to dare to examine unique, taboo, and eso- manage impressions. Other work by Goffman
teric phenomena not studied by others. (1959a, 1961) examined the ‘moral career’ of mental
Another seminal study was conducted by patients and the impact of total institutions on indi-
Rosengren (1961), who examined the nature of self- viduals. Here he studied how individuals’ identities
meanings in those who are ‘emotionally disturbed.’ are altered – indeed redefined – when placed in insti-
Here, young boys who were institutionalized were tutionalized settings, noting the mechanisms by
studied to identify how self-meanings change over which people’s self-definitional meanings change
time, specifically how self-meanings shift based on when being removed from significant others and
how individuals believe they are seen by others. By immersed in a psychiatric hospital.
examining an institutional setting where the boys Goffman’s (1963b) later work on stigma
experienced continuous, close contact with others, addressed how those with ‘spoiled identities’ (e.g.
Rosengren was able to study change in self-meanings those with physical deformities, drug addicts, prosti-
more rapidly than what normally occurs in individ- tutes) have difficulty in negotiating their environ-
uals. His study was important in demonstrating how ment due to others’ hesitation or refusal in accepting
Mead’s ideas could be applied in a testable environ- them. Goffman’s work also addressed how rituals
ment and in revealing how to conceive a research influence social interactions (Goffman, 1967), prop-
design capable of measuring symbolic interactionist er etiquette for behaving in public places (Goffman,
concepts. Continuing the theme of studying individ- 1963a), and how actors use frames to interpret real-
uals in an institutionalized setting, Daniels (1972) ity and organize experience (Goffman, 1974).
revealed how psychiatric diagnoses in the military are
socially constructed. Here he showed how diagnoses Cultural studies and postmodernism
of mental illness are dependent not only on patients’ Scholars have also applied symbolic interactionist
symptoms in institutionalized settings, but also by thought to a variety of sociological subfields. Many
doctors’ awareness of the consequences that a specif- have applied symbolic interactionism to cultural
ic diagnostic label may have for the patient. studies (Becker and McCall, 1993; Carey, 1989;
The previously described studies by Glaser and Diawara, 1996; Giroux, 2001) and even postmod-
Strauss, Becker, Daniels, et al. are revered today for ernism (Maines, 1996). Norman K Denzin’s (1983,
their innovative genius, and for providing a founda- 1985, 1991, 1992, 2008) work provides a multifac-
tion for how symbolic interaction theory can be eted and inventive application of interactionist theo-
applied to understand the contexts of everyday life. ry to these fields, incorporating ideas from
Perhaps more than anything, these classic studies poststructural theory and focusing on the politics of
inspired a future generation of scholars to apply sym- interpretation. For example, Denzin has applied
bolic interactionist theory in novel ways. Let us now symbolic interactionist theory to better understand
examine the research trajectories that followed – or alcoholism, examining the alcoholic self and the
were influenced by – the classical era in symbolic processes of an alcoholic’s recovery (Denzin, 1987,
interactionist research. 1993). Others have also applied interactionist
themes to cultural studies and/or postmodernism,
6
specifically regarding semiotics and narratives ‘problem,’ and the formulation of policy to assuage
(Manning, 2003), qualitative research methodolo- the issue. Similarly, applied research using the sym-
gies (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005), sickness and health bolic interactionist framework should focus on
(Charmaz, 1991), and experiences in the workplace processes associated with the policies and the result-
(Fine, 1996). ing social change or inhibition of social change.
Here, the symbolic interactionist emphasis on social
Gender, status, and power actions and their consequences may inform
Many have found symbolic interactionism useful for researchers of key factors of policy design and the
understanding the construction of gender and sexu- experiences and meanings actors attach to them.
ality. West and Zimmerman’s (1987) ‘Doing gender’ In a similar vein, Candace West (1984) observed
set the stage for social constructionist research on 21 patient–physician interactions during doctor vis-
gender and sexuality. The concept of ‘doing gender’ its at a family practice in the southern United States
demonstrates the socially constructed nature of mas- to assess status implications of interactions. West uti-
culinity and femininity as developing out of repeat- lized already existing recordings of patient–physician
ed, patterned interaction and socialization processes. interactions and transcribed and coded them for
The authors contend that gender emerges through interruptions (defined as speaking over the current
interaction, directly contradicting the normative per- speaker more than a syllable away from the transition
spective of gender as an innate state of being or indi- to their turn at speaking) (West, 1984: 91).
vidual quality. West and Zimmerman additionally Following West and Zimmerman’s (1977, 1983)
expanded on Goffman’s (1976) treatment of gender studies of interruptions in cross-sex interactions,
displays by demonstrating the salience of gender in West sought to explore power dynamics between
interaction as a master status. According to West and male and female physicians and their patients. While
Zimmerman, individuals are constantly assessed for West and Zimmerman found that men talk more
their gender performances in both interactional and than women in cross-sex interactions and are more
institutional contexts; thus, ‘doing gender’ is likely to interrupt the other sex, the higher status of
unavoidable because sex category membership is a medical authority led physicians to interrupt
attached to the allocation of power and resources patients 67% of the time. However, when looking at
across various social institutions. West and the sex of the physician, male physicians interrupted
Zimmerman’s social constructionist approach to 68% of the time compared to female physicians who
gender and sex hugely impacted sociology as well as interrupted 32% of the time. While there were only
gender and feminist studies. four female physicians, results of the study showed
In other research, Estes and Edmonds (1981) that their patients interrupted as much or more than
advocated for the use of symbolic interactionist ideas physicians. West, however, noted that the two
in policy research, suggesting that WI Thomas’s ‘def- encounters with female patients and female physi-
inition of the situation’ could be applied to under- cians had symmetrical interruptions. Concluding the
stand power relations, specifically to understand why research, the author asserted that male physicians
those in higher status positions are more successful interrupt more in order to assert dominance over
in defining situations to assert dominance. These patients. West suggested this contradicts prior
scholars showed how interactionist theory is fruitful research that found doctors to disproportionately
for policy research in (1) formulating policies interrupt patients without analyzing the sex of the
through negotiation in a structural context, (2) physician and patient. West concluded by noting
implementing policies by emphasizing multiple that research on these interactions should examine
interpretations of policy intent, and (3) influencing the effect of gender as a ‘master status’ that may
meaning for those who are objects of the policies as trump other power relations such as physician status.
well as differential effects and social relationships Schilt (2006) followed West’s work in her study
(Estes and Edmonds, 1981: 77). Due to symbolic of transmen’s experiences at work post-transition.
interactionist emphasis on meanings, the application Combining West and Zimmerman’s concept of
of these concepts in policy formulation and imple- ‘doing gender,’ Connell’s (1995) ‘patriarchal divi-
mentation ensures that experiences and meanings of dend,’ and Collins’s (1991) ‘outsider-within’ con-
those in lower status groups are viewed as significant cept, Schilt’s study demonstrated how gender and
as those in high status groups. The authors asserted workplace inequality are reproduced through narra-
that basic (or ‘pure’) research should incorporate tives of transmen who saw upward mobility, an
competing and dominant definitions of the situation increase of perceived competency, and other status
and a description of how these definitions are creat- privileges after transitioning to male. Other research
ed and maintained. These definitions include what is has applied a symbolic interactionist framework to
defined as the problem, the population defined as a understand relationships among gender, culture,
7
identity, emotions, and personal change (Schrock every year (Rogers and Robinson, 2014; Rogers et
and Padavic, 2007; Schrock and Schwalbe, 2009; al., 2014).
Vaccaro et al., 2011). Those who work in identity theory have also pro-
duced an extensive program of research under the
Self and identity umbrella of symbolic interactionism (Burke and
Over the past decades many scholars have applied an Stets, 2009; Serpe and Stryker, 2011). In identity
interactionist framework to understand self and theory, Mead’s theories on the reflexivity of self and
identity processes, specifically in the areas of role the- society are applied to understand how identities
ory, affect control theory, and identity theory. Ralph motivate behavior and emotions in social situations.
Turner’s (Turner, 1956, 1990; Turner and Killian, Research in this vein has three main emphases that
1987) role theory emphasized role-making, or the all focus on the structural nature of identities. One
process of creating and modifying definitions of one- emphasis, stemming from the work of Stryker et al.,
self and one’s roles as the orienting mechanism in reveals how behavior is a function of how committed
interaction (Turner, 1962). He emphasized the dual and salient one’s identities are in their overall identi-
nature of role relations, emphasizing that role expec- ty hierarchy (Brenner et al., 2014; Merolla et al.,
tations must always be understood in relation to the 2012). Research in this area has examined how a
counter-role in which they are juxtaposed (e.g. one salient blood donor identity predicts the frequency
cannot understand the motivations or meanings of of giving blood (Callero and Piliavin, 1983), and
being a worker without understanding the corre- how a salient religious identity influences one’s time
sponding role of manager). Turner’s role theory spent praying and attending religious services
attempted to capture not only the ways in which (Stryker and Serpe, 1982). Some of the most recent
individuals define role expectations themselves, but research in this area has applied structural identity
also how role expectations are embedded in the theory to understand how ‘hookup scenes’ serve as
social structure. His theory highlighted that the self opportunity structures to explore same-sex attrac-
is as much a sociological as psychological entity. tions, and for women, to verify bisexual, lesbian, or
Turner’s role theory was a formalized system, involv- queer sexual identities (Rupp et al., 2014).
ing a series of axiomatic propositions that addressed A second area within identity theory examines
how roles emerge in individuals and how they relate roles and how identities operate to motivate behav-
to society (Turner, 1968). ior during interactions (McCall and Simmons,
Other symbolic interactionist work on self and 1978). Role identity theory has remained more the-
identity is found in the work of scholars aligned with oretical than empirical, as a cumulative research pro-
affect control theory, who have shown how individ- gram is yet to emerge within this area. A third
uals reduce uncertainty about their existence by variant of identity theory examines identities, behav-
developing a working understanding of their social ior, and emotions as a process of cybernetic control
worlds (Heise, 1999, 2002; MacKinnon, 1994; (Burke, 1991). Here, individuals’ identity meanings
Robinson and Smith-Lovin, 2006). Affect control are standards by which to compare the self to others
theory allows one to predict what individuals will do in social situations. Individuals have a main goal of
when others violate expectations in social situations, verifying identity meanings among others in the
or specifically how individuals act to restore identi- environment in order to feel positive emotions.
ties when they have been discredited, based on an Recent research in this area has shown how one’s
individual’s definition of events and the emotional moral identity predicts moral behavior (Carter,
reaction they have to such events. Research in affect 2013; Stets and Carter, 2006, 2011, 2012), how sta-
control theory has shown that individuals construct tus mediates identity processes (Stets and Harrod,
events in order to confirm fundamental meanings 2004; Stets et al., 2008), and how various cognitive
regarding self and others, and how individuals use and behavioral outcomes emerge for those with a
emotions as indicators for whether events are played criminal identity (Asencio, 2013; Asencio and
out as expected or not. When individuals experience Burke, 2011).
emotional outcomes in a situation that are different
from what is expected in one’s culture, a ‘deflection’ Collective behavior and social movements
occurs, motivating the individual to restore mean- Scholars have also applied symbolic interactionist
ings of self and situation back to the cultural stan- ideas to understand collective behavior and social
dard. Affect control theory is a cumulative theory of movements. For example, Britt and Heise’s (2000)
identity, emotions, and behavior that has established work has applied identity theory to social move-
an extensive research program over the past half-cen- ments to understand how participants construct
tury, with new empirical studies being published clear categories of oppressed versus oppressor, and
8
how a previously stigmatized identity (causing nega- ago posited that non-social objects can constitute the
tive emotions) transforms into an identity recog- generalized other such that individuals may interact
nized by the movement (causing positive emotions). with the environment and behave reflexively despite
Further, this work demonstrates how members of the inability of objects to respond. Furthermore,
movements construct identities for themselves as vic- William James classified the material self as part of
tims of marginalization due to institutional and the empirical self, which includes non-social objects
structural processes rather than individual deficien- and places. Along with the social self and the spiritu-
cies or flaws. Beyond this, this work describes the al self, James suggested that these objects influence
importance of the social processes of identity con- the development and maintenance of the self. These
struction during both formal and informal interac- objects and designed environments further influence
tions between members of the movement – how roles are played and how status is created and
including newsletters for prison inmates, college maintained, such as spatial segregation by gender in
courses and campus organizations, cultural commu- office settings. The authors further suggested that
nities, etc. symbolic interactionist concepts can be applied to
Verta Taylor (Taylor, 2000; Taylor and Whittier, better understand school environments, retirement
1992) has also applied interactionist theory to better homes, and sacred places that shape meaning and
understand identity processes and emotions in social interaction with the environment.
movement communities, collecting data from vari- In other work, Robinson (2007) applied symbol-
ous self-help and identity movements such as post- ic interactionist ideas to understand how the self is
partum depression movements (Taylor, 1996), constructed in online environments. Discounting
movements of women convicted of infanticide dur- postmodernist assertions that the online self is an
ing postpartum depression (Taylor and Leitz, 2010), attempt to shed the offline identity, Robinson cited
and queer movements and global feminist political research suggesting that role players incorporate their
movements (Hurwitz and Taylor, 2012). Taylor and offline identities into their identities online. The
colleagues have combined affect control theory, individual becomes immersed in a new character,
identity theory, and social movement theory to bet- thus highlighting the constraint of having one iden-
ter understand various social movements in society. tity associated with a physical body offline. Further,
In more recent work that applies Stryker’s identi- because many multi-user domains require users to
ty theory, Viterna (2013) examined how micro- create an identity (including a gender) before play-
processes of identities served as mobilizing factors for ing, offline norms permeate online identities. The
women in El Salvador during times of war. White bodies that players engender in their games are high-
(2010) applied a structural identity framework to ly idealized versions of masculinity and femininity.
understand Irish Republican activist movements and Thus offline norms are reproduced in online envi-
observed that over time, members entered and exit- ronments, far from being completely removed from
ed roles (identity transitions) that caused changes in social structures and statuses of everyday reality.
the salience of their role identities (identity transfor- Robinson also applied the creation and maintenance
mation). Members of various Irish Republican of online and offline identities to Mead’s ‘I’ and ‘me’
activist movements consistently joined or created concepts, where the ‘I’ consists of multiple online
factions, and over time many activists left move- identities and selves while the person maintains their
ments in favor of family and other roles. singular ‘me.’ Robinson further likened the emer-
gence of the ‘cyberself ’ as a product of interaction
Social context and the environment through reflexivity to the same socialization process
There also is research that applies symbolic interac- that creates the self offline. Finally, Robinson argued
tionist ideas to understand social context and the for the efficacy of symbolic interactionist and dra-
environment. For example, Smith and Bugni (2006) maturgical analyses of performances in chat rooms
proposed three ways in which symbolic interaction- and other online interactions, which lack the usual
ism and studies of the self may be useful for architec- sensory cues (e.g. Goffman’s ‘expressions given off ’),
ture. First, symbolic interactionism recognizes the but allow for other contextual clues as to the authen-
mutual influence of physical environments and the ticity of one’s performance. Given the technological
development of the self. Second, symbolic interac- advances in the years since Robinson’s article, more
tionism allows researchers to study the symbolic empirical research on the cyberself in the symbolic
meanings of designed environments. Third, symbol- interactionist tradition would likely lead to new
ic interactionism reveals the influence of designed findings regarding interaction through digital media.
environments and buildings on our actions and The studies described above provide examples of
reflexivity (Smith and Bugni, 2006: 124). Mead long symbolic interactionist thought that have emerged in
9
both the distant and recent past. Of course, there are topics and areas of inquiry than by innovations in the-
literally hundreds of other symbolic interactionist ory and method. There is evidence for this: recent
studies one could summarize in this article. But articles in the journal Symbolic Interaction feature
those addressed here provide a conception of the studies on coffee breaks (Stroebaek, 2013), identity
common work in the discipline. Let us now turn our construction in World of Warcraft MMO role playing
attention to the future of symbolic interactionism. gaming (Linderoth, 2012), and even the experience
of those who belong to support groups aimed at cop-
ing with inflammatory bowel disease (Thompson,
Future directions of symbolic 2013).
interactionism To this point, Sandstrom and Fine’s third predic-
tion is not evident to any significant degree. There
Over a decade ago Sandstrom and Fine (2003) have been a few isolated studies that have applied
offered a set of predictions regarding the future of symbolic interactionist ideas to greater levels of
symbolic interactionism. The first prediction was analysis (Dennis and Martin, 2005; Salvini, 2010),
that moving forward, symbolic interactionism would but even in these studies the true level of analysis
succeed in maintaining its label, familiarity, and pop- seems to be rooted more in micro-level processes
ularity within sociology. A second prediction was than directed at the macro realm. It seems the most
that symbolic interactionism would become more macro applications of symbolic interactionist
characterized by diversity in theoretical and method- thought still address social movements and collective
ological applications to topics of interest, forcing the behavior (Goodwin and Jasper, 2004; Stryker,
field to abandon old distinctions made by those in 2008), and that much remains to be done regarding
the Chicago and Iowa/Indiana traditions. A third applying symbolic interactionist thought to better
prediction was that symbolic interactionists would understanding macro-level structures and large-scale
begin to place a greater emphasis on the develop- aggregates.
ment of macro-level concepts and analysis aimed at Regarding the final prediction, the ‘demise’ of
understanding relationships among large-scale socie- symbolic interactionism has not occurred – at least
tal entities. A final prediction was that the continued not yet. Students of sociology still learn that symbol-
triumphs of symbolic interactionism would likely ic interactionism is a discrete perspective/framework
lead to its demise, as the concepts that once were within sociology proper, and concepts such as
unique to those in the discipline would inevitably Mead’s ‘I’ and ‘me’ and Cooley’s (1902) ‘looking
become more diffuse and integrated into mainstream glass self ’ are still largely attributed to symbolic
sociology. interactionism. Symbolic interactionism continues
Looking back, it seems that some of Sandstrom to be a widely recognized subfield and perspective
and Fine’s predictions have been realized, though not within sociology.
all of them. The first prediction is certainly docu- Writing about the same time as Sandstrom and
mented: symbolic interactionism continues to be a Fine, Hall (2003) cited multiple areas of inquiry
highly recognized subfield in sociology, and it con- future symbolic interactionists should address. The
tinues to serve as an organizing force, both themati- first regards interaction orders, specifically the areas of
cally in academic journals and structurally with its race, class, and gender. The second regards institu-
organizational entity, the Society for the Study for tional analysis, where symbolic interactionists lend
Symbolic Interactionism (SSSI). There also is evi- their perspective and methodology to understand
dence supporting the second prediction, though one policy creation at the meso-level to better under-
might question whether interactionist scholarship is stand how behavior in organizational settings
truly more diverse in theory and method than in the becomes institutionalized through a process of social
past. It also seems extreme to claim that the distinc- construction over time (Estes and Edmonds’ work
tions between traditional (Chicago School) and described above begins to answer this request). The
structural (Iowa and Indiana Schools) symbolic third topic regards turning attention toward better
interactionism have diminished. Scholars might not understanding collective action across space and time.
state their orientations or alignment with one school Addressing collective action seems more and more
as much as in the past, but those trained in the necessary as individuals’ actions in the present world
Blumerian tradition still tend to publish more quali- are more and more directed toward future events and
tative research, while those trained in the activities; much of the past work in symbolic inter-
Kuhn/Stryker tradition still tend to publish more actionism has examined elements within a situation
quantitative research. It might be more appropriate in isolation while disregarding how individuals with-
to say that symbolic interactionism in the past in situations are oriented toward future interactions
decade has been more defined by novel research (Collins’s [2004] work on interaction ritual chains
10
attempts to correct this problem), so considering fields continue to merge.

space/time dimensional factors that connect interac- Lastly, we echo Sandstrom and Fine’s point that
tions seems important. A fourth topic follows the symbolic interactionists need to continue to turn
last, and regards spatiotemporal orders (Friedland and attention toward the macro realm. Fine (1993) has
Boden, 1994) where interactionists continue to been noting this need for decades, but few are yet to
observe how time and space are constructed to shape seriously address how symbolic interactionists can
conditions, consciousness, and actions (Hall, 2003). help understand the link between micro and macro
Let us conclude by citing a few areas beyond structures. Work on micro–macro connections in
those mentioned by Sandstrom, Fine, and Hall that recent decades can be seen in the work of Bourdieu
future interactionists should attend to. One area of (1977), Habermas (1984), and Giddens (1984). The
inquiry regards relationships among the individual, theories of these well-known sociologists both
technology, and society. The past decade has witnessed implicitly and explicitly incorporate symbolic inter-
incredible advancements in communication technol- actionist concepts to understand macro-level
ogy, such as the emergence and ubiquity of social processes. Bourdieu’s work highlights the constraint
media, the ever increasing reliance and use of cell of social structures in defining individual habitus, or
phones, and of course the Internet. If there ever was dispositions, and how this produces subjective
a time when technological innovations have rede- meanings as well as objective consequences and life
fined the manner in which interactions and shared chances. Habermas emphasizes the need for commu-
meaning occur, it is now. More and more, virtual nicative action, or discourse based on mutual under-
communication technologies are taking the place of standing and shared meaning in influencing political
traditional, face-to-face interactions. One can only change and in creating a truly democratic society.
wonder how Herbert Blumer and Erving Goffman Giddens, following the symbolic interactionist
would comment on modern means of communica- emphasis on communication, discusses the mutual
tion! Technological developments that assist in or reinforcement of society and the individual at the
take the place of interactions must be a focus for level of the interaction in his ‘structuration’ theory.
symbolic interaction moving forward. And, of These theorists successfully bridge macro- and
course, many scholars across the past decade have micro-sociological concepts in a way that demon-
addressed technology and interaction beyond strates the significance of interaction and meaning in
Robinson’s work described above (Altheide, 2004; producing the very structures that both enable and
Brickell, 2012; Fernback, 2007; Gottschalk, 2010; constrain individual behavior. The age-old sociolog-
Williams and Copes, 2005; Yurchisin et al., 2005; ical debate of micro versus macro theories seems to
Zhao, 2005). end with the synthesis of both as equally important
Neurosociology is another area in sociology that and inseparable units of analysis within the disci-
symbolic interactionists should turn their attention pline. While these theorists have been relatively suc-
to in future studies. Over the past decade advance- cessful in addressing the micro and macro, symbolic
ments in neuroscience have caught the attention of interactionists should turn their attention and offer
some sociologists who study micro-level processes their own perspective to better understand the link
(Franks, 2010; Franks and Turner, 2013; Shkurko, between micro- and macro-social processes.
2012). For example, some have applied neuroscience
to understand basic elements of interpersonal behav-
ior often addressed by symbolic interactionists, Conclusion
specifically the areas of social cognition and mind
(Franks, 2013; Hopcroft, 2013; Humphreys and In this essay we have discussed the three main theo-
Bedford, 2011; Maryanski, 2013; Shook, 2013). retical perspectives in symbolic interactionism, sur-
Others have applied neuroscience to understand veyed and assessed the empirical studies that have
familiar sociological processes, such as aggression emerged over the past decades, and provided recom-
(Bufkin and Luttrell, 2005; Mehta et al., 2013; mendations for areas of inquiry to which future
Siever, 2008), self and identity processes (Arzy et al., scholars of symbolic interactionism should attend.
2008; Gillihan and Farah, 2005; Molnar-Szakacs We have contended that the symbolic interactionist
and Uddin, 2013; Niemeyer, 2013), stereotyping framework, despite fragmentation and expansion
and prejudice (Amodio and Lieberman, 2009; throughout the years, is a perspective with historical
Brauer and Er-rafiy, 2011; Nelson, 2013), and even as well as contemporary significance for the field of
inequality (Davis, 2013). Neurosociology promises sociology. Rather than pointing to the variety of
to be one of the cutting edge subfields in sociology, theories and methodologies that have emerged since
and symbolic interactionists have much to learn Mead’s work as evidence of the demise of symbolic
from (and offer to) neuroscientists as these interactionism, we posit that the diversity of
11
sociological work in the symbolic interactionist tra- lectures that together lay the groundwork for his
dition is evidence of its utility and well-deserved brand of social behaviorism. Here Mead’s classic
endurance within the discipline. Furthermore, future concepts are presented, including ‘taking the role of
directions for symbolic interactionist theories and the other,’ the self as a dichotomoy of the ‘I’ and the
research are constantly emerging. Because of this, we ‘me,’ and the ‘play, game, and generalized other’
stages of development. It is required reading for any
believe the future of the perspective is bright.
student of sociological social psychology.
Shott S (1976) Society, self, and mind in moral
philosophy: The Scottish Moralists as precursors of
Annotated further reading symbolic interactionism. Journal of the History of the
Behavioral Sciences 12(1): 39–46.
Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Shott provides a concise summary of the influence of
Method. Berkeley: University of California Press. Scottish Moralist thought on symbolic
In this seminal work, Blumer delineates symbolic interactionism. She reveals how GH Mead’s
interactionism as a distinct sociological framework. conception of the self as an internal dialogue between
In developing the ideas of GH Mead into a set of the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ and the notion of the ‘generalized
basic propositions, Blumer’s text is perhaps the other’ were foreshadowed by Adam Smith and others
definitive source on interactionist theory and in the Scottish Moralist tradition. In addition,
method. This work inspired a legion of scholars in symbolic interactionist treatment of emotions,
the years to come after its publication, and it remains communication, political structures, and sympathy is
an often-cited work across sociology. compared and contrasted to the Scottish Moralists.
Denzin NK (1992) Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Stryker S (1980) Symbolic Interactionism: A Social
Studies: The Politics of Interpretation. Malden, MA: Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin
Blackwell. Cummings.
In this book Denzin charts the history of symbolic In this book Stryker provides the framework for what
interactionism, spanning a century of social thought has come to be known as structural symbolic
beginning with American pragmatism and ending interactionism. Diverging from Blumer’s notion that
with postmodern and poststructuralist thought of the society is constantly changing and in flux, Stryker
latter twentieth century. Denzin uses a cultural, develops a symbolic interactionist framework that
interpretive lens and applies symbolic interactionism emphasizes the patterns and stable social structures
to understand various topics, including history, that influence individuals in society. Now a classic
politics, and feminism. and seminal text in its own right, Stryker’s Symbolic
Fine GA (1993) The sad demise, mysterious Interactionism has influenced a wide variety of
disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic contemporary research programs in sociology,
interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology 19: including identity theory and affect control theory.
61–87.
In this now classic essay, Fine discusses changes that
occurred within symbolic interactionism in the latter
part of the twentieth century. The mainstreaming of References
symbolic interactionist thought is discussed, and how
the intellectual community of interactionists Altheide DL (2004) The control of narrative of the
weakened over the years due to the diversity of internet. Symbolic Interaction 27(2): 223–45.
interests within the field. Fine cites four occurrences Amodio DM and Lieberman MD (2009) Pictures in our
that led to this weakening, including fragmentation, heads: Contributions of fMRI to the study of
expansion, incorporation, and adoption. Fine also prejudice and stereotyping. In: Nelson TD (ed.)
describes the role of symbolic interactionism in three Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and
debates within sociology, the micro/macro debate, Discrimination. New York: Psychology Press, pp.
the structure/agency debate, and the social 347–65.
realist/interpretivist debate. The article ends with a Arzy S, Molnar-Szakacs I and Blanke O (2008) Self in
summary of empirical arenas in which interactions time: Imagined self-location influences neural activity
have made contributions (social coordination theory, related to mental time travel. The Journal of
sociology of emotions, social constructionism, self Neuroscience 28(25): 6502–7.
and identity theory, macro-interactionism, and Asencio EK (2013) Self-esteem, reflected appraisals, and
policy-relevant research). self-views: Examining criminal and worker identities.
Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self, and Society from the Social Psychology Quarterly 76(4): 291–313.
Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University Asencio EK and Burke PJ (2011) Does incarceration
of Chicago Press. change the criminal identity? A synthesis of labeling
This classic work provided the inspiration for Blumer and identity theory perspectives on identity change.
in his creation and development of symbolic Sociological Perspectives 54(2): 163–82.
interactionism. Published posthumously, Mind, Self, Becker HS (1953) Becoming a marijuana user. American
and Society is a collection of Mead’s notes and Journal of Sociology 59(3): 235–42.
12
Becker HS (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of Collins R (ed.) Four Sociological Traditions. New
California Press. York: Oxford University Press, pp. 242–89.
Becker HS and McCall MM (1993) Symbolic Interaction Collins R (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton,
and Cultural Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago NJ: Princeton University Press.
Press. Connell RW (1995) Masculinities. Oakland: University
Best J (1989) Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary of California Press.
Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Conrad P and Schneider J (1980) Deviance and
Best J (2003) Social problems. In: Reynolds LT and Medicalization. St Louis, MO: Mosby.
Herman-Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic Cooley CH (1902) The social self: On the meanings of
Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, ‘I’. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York:
pp. 981–96. Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 136–41.
Blumer H (1962) Society as symbolic interaction. In: Couch C (1984) Constructing Civilizations. Greenwich,
Rose AM (ed.) Human Behavior and Social Processes. CT: JAI Press.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., pp. 179–92. Couch CJ, Saxton SL and Katovich MA (1986) The
Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Iowa School. In: Couch CJ, Saxton SL and Katovich
Method. Berkeley: University of California Press. MA (eds) Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Supplement
Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daniels AK (1972) The social construction of military
Brauer M and Er-rafiy A (2011) Increasing perceived psychiatric diagnoses. In: Manis JG and Meltzer BN
variability reduces prejudice and discrimination. (eds) Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47(5): Psychology, 2nd edn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, p.
871–81. 554–71.
Brenner PS, Serpe RT and Stryker S (2014) The causal Davis J (2013) Persistent inequality: A neurosociological
ordering of prominence and salience in identity perspective. In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds)
theory: An empirical examination. Social Psychology Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp.
Quarterly 77(3): 231–52. 333–48.
Brickell C (2012) Sexuality, power and the sociology of Deegan MJ and Hill MR (1987) Women and Symbolic
the internet. Current Sociology 60(1): 28–44. Interaction. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Britt L and Heise D (2000) From shame to pride in Dennis A and Martin PJ (2005) Symbolic interactionism
identity politics. In: Stryker S, Owens TJ and White and the concept of power. The British Journal of
RW (eds) Self, Identity, and Social Movements. Sociology 56(2): 191–213.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. Denzin NK (1983) A note on emotionality, self, and
252–70. interaction. American Journal of Sociology 89(2):
Brooks RS (1969) The self and political role: A symbolic 402–9.
interactionist approach to political ideology. The Denzin NK (1985) Signifying acts: Structure and
Sociological Quarterly 10(1): 22–31. meaning in everyday life. American Journal of
Bufkin JL and Luttrell VR (2005) Neuroimaging studies Sociology 91(2): 432–4.
of aggressive and violent behavior: Current findings Denzin NK (1987) The Alcoholic Self. Newbury Park,
and implications for criminology and criminal CA: Sage.
justice. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 6(2): 176–91. Denzin NK (1991) Images of Postmodern Society: Social
Burke PJ (1991) Identity processes and social stress. Theory and Contemporary Cinema. Newbury Park,
American Sociological Review 56(6): 836–49. CA: Sage.
Burke PJ and Stets JE (2009) Identity Theory. New York: Denzin NK (1992) Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural
Oxford University Press. Studies: The Politics of Interpretation. Malden, MA:
Callero PL and Piliavin JA (1983) Developing a Blackwell.
commitment to blood donation: The impact of one’s Denzin NK (1993) Women with alcoholic husbands:
first experience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology Ambivalence and the trap of codependency. American
15(1): 1200–13. Journal of Sociology 98(4): 952–4.
Carey J (1989) Communication as Culture. Boston: Denzin NK (2008) Searching for Yellowstone: Race,
Unwin Hyman. Gender, Family and Memory in the Postmodern West.
Carter MJ (2013) Advancing identity theory: Examining Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
the relationship between activated identities and Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2005) The Sage Handbook
behavior in different social contexts. Social Psychology of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks,
Quarterly 76(3): 203–23. CA: Sage.
Charmaz K (1991) Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Diawara M (1996) Black studies, cultural studies:
Chronic Illness and Time. New Brunswick, NJ: Performance acts. In: Storey J (ed.) What is Cultural
Rutgers University Press. Studies? A Reader. London: Arnold, pp. 300–6.
Collins PH (1991) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Estes CL and Edmonds BC (1981) Symbolic interaction
Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New and social policy analysis. Symbolic Interaction 4(1):
York: Routledge. 75–86.
Collins R (1994) The microinteractionist tradition. In: Fernback J (2007) Beyond the diluted community
13
concept: A symbolic interactionist perspective on Anthropology of Visual Communication 3: 65–8.

online social relations. New Media and Society 9(1): Goodwin J and Jasper JM (2004) Rethinking Social
49–69. Movements: Structure, Meaning, and Emotion.
Fine GA (1993) The sad demise, mysterious Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic Gottschalk S (2010) The presentation of avatars in
interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology 19: second life: Self and interaction in social virtual
61–87. spaces. Symbolic Interaction 33(4): 501–25.
Fine GA (1996) Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work. Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Boston: Beacon Press.
Flaherty M (1998) A Watched Pot: How We Experience Hall PM (2003) Interactionism, social organization, and
Time. New York: New York University Press. social processes: Looking back and moving ahead.
Franks DD (2010) Neurosociology: The Nexus between Symbolic Interaction 26(1): 33–55.
Neuroscience and Social Psychology. New York: Heise DR (1999) Controlling affective experience
Springer. interpersonally. Social Psychology Quarterly 62(1):
Franks DD (2013) Why we need neurosociology as well 4–16.
as social neuroscience: Or – why role-taking and Heise DR (2002) Understanding social interaction with
theory of mind are different concepts. In: Franks DD affect control theory. In: Berger J and Zelditch M Jr
and Turner JH (eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. (eds) New Directions in Contemporary Sociological
New York: Springer, pp. 27–32. Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp.
Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) (2013) Handbook of 17–40.
Neurosociology. New York: Springer. Herman-Kinney NJ and Vershaeve JM (2003) Methods
Friedland R and Boden D (1994) Nowhere: Space, Time of symbolic interactionism. In: Reynolds LT and
and Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Herman-Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic
Press. Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press,
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. pp. 213–52.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hochschild AR (1979) Emotion work, feeling rules, and
Gergen K (1991) The Saturated Self. New York: Basic social structure. American Journal of Sociology 85(3):
Books. 551–75.
Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of Hochschild AR (2003 [1983]) The Managed Heart.
the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of Berkeley: University of California Press.
California Press. Hopcroft RL (2013) Neurosociology and theory of mind
Gillihan SJ and Farah MJ (2005) Is self special? A critical (TOM). In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds)
review of evidence from experimental psychology and Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp.
cognitive neuroscience. Cognitive Neuroscience 231–41.
131(1): 76–97. House JS (1977) The three faces of social psychology.
Giroux H (2001) Cultural studies as performative Sociometry 40(2): 161–77.
politics. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies 1(1): Humphreys GW and Bedford J (2011) The relations
5–23. between joint action and theory of mind: A
Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1964) Awareness contexts neuropsychological analysis. Experimental Brain
and social interaction. American Sociological Review Research 211(3–4): 357–69.
29(5): 669–79. Hurwitz HM and Taylor V (2012) Women’s cultures and
Glaser D (1956) Criminality theories and behavioral social movements in global contexts. Sociology
images. American Journal of Sociology 61(5): 433–44. Compass 6(10): 808–22.
Goffman E (1959a) The moral career of the mental Joas H (1993) Pragmatism and Social Theory. Chicago:
patient. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of University of Chicago Press.
Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Katovich MA, Miller DE and Stewart RL (2003) The
Anchor Books. Iowa School. In: Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney
Goffman E (1959b) The Presentation of Self in Everyday NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism.
Life. New York: Doubleday. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 119–39.
Goffman E (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation Kuhn MH (1964) Major trends in symbolic interaction
of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: theory in the past twenty-five years. The Sociological
Anchor Books. Quarterly 5(1): 61–84.
Goffman E (1963a) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on Lemert C (1997) Postmodernism is Not What You Think.
the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Press. Linderoth J (2012) The effort of being in a fictional
Goffman E (1963b) Stigma: Notes on the Management of world: Upkeyings and laminated frames in
Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. MMORPGS. Symbolic Interaction 35(4): 474–92.
Goffman E (1967) Interaction Ritual. Chicago: Aldine. Lofland J (1996) Social Movement Organizations: Guide
Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the to Research on Insurgent Realities. New York: Aldine
Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and de Gruyter.
Row. Loseke D (1999) Thinking about Social Problems: An
Goffman E (1976) Gender display. Studies in the Introduction to Constructivist Perspectives. New York:
14
Aldine de Gruyter. In: Turner B (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Social

McCall GJ and Simmons JL (1978) Identities and Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 223–51.
Interactions: An Examination of Human Associations in Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney NJ (2003) Handbook
Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press. of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA:
MacKinnon NJ (1994) Symbolic Interactionism as Affect AltaMira Press.
Control. Albany, NY: State University of New York Robinson DT and Smith-Lovin L (2006) Affect control
Press. theory. In: Burke PJ (ed.) Contemporary Social
McPhail C (1991) The Myth of the Madding Crowd. New Psychological Theories. Stanford, CA: Stanford
York: Aldine de Gruyter. University Press, pp. 137–64.
Maines D (1996) On postmodernism, pragmatism, and Robinson L (2007) The cyberself: The selfing project
plasterers: Some interactionist thoughts and queries. goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age.
Symbolic Interaction 19(4): 323–40. New Media and Society 9(1): 93–110.
Maines D and McCallion M (2007) Transforming Rogers KB and Robinson DT (2014) Measuring affect
Catholicism: Liturgical Change in the Vatican II and emotions. In: Stets JE and Turner JH (eds)
Catholic Church. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, Vol. II. New
Maines DR, Sugrue NM and Katovich MA (1983) The York: Springer, pp. 283–303.
sociological import of G. H. Mead’s theory of the Rogers KB, Schroder T and von Scheve C (2014)
past. American Sociological Review 48(2): 161–73. Dissecting the sociality of emotion: A multi-level
Manning PK (2003) Semiotics, pragmatism, and approach. Emotion Review 6(2): 124–33.
narratives. In: Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney NJ Rosengren WR (1961) The self in the emotionally
(eds) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut disturbed. American Journal of Sociology 6(5):
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 1021–39. 454–62.
Maryanski AM (2013) The secret of the hominin mind: Rupp LJ, Taylor V, Regev-Messalem S et al. (2014)
An evolutionary story. In: Franks DD and Turner JH Queer women in the hookup scene: Beyond the
(eds) Handbook of Neuroscience. New York: Springer, closet? Gender and Society 28(2): 212–35.
pp. 257–87. Salvini A (2010) Symbolic interactionism and social
Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self, and Society from the network analysis: An uncertain encounter. Symbolic
Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University Interaction 33(3): 364–88.
of Chicago Press. Sandstrom KL and Fine GA (2003) Triumphs, emerging
Mehta PH, Goetz SM and Carré JM (2013) Genetic, voices, and the future. In: Reynolds LT and Herman-
hormonal, and neural underpinnings of human Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism.
aggressive behavior. In: Franks DD and Turner JH Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 1041–57.
(eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Saxton S (1993) Sociologist as citizen-scholar: A
Springer, pp. 47–65. symbolic interactionist alternative to normal
Meltzer BN and Petras JW (1970) The Chicago and sociology. In: Vaughan T, Sjoberg G and Reynolds L
Iowa Schools of symbolic interactionsim. In: (eds) A Critique of Contemporary American Sociology.
Shibutani T (ed.) Human Nature and Collective Dix Hills, NJ: General Hall, pp. 232–50.
Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, Scheff TJ (1979) Catharsis in Healing, Ritual, and
pp. 3–17. Drama. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Merolla DM, Serpe RT, Stryker S et al. (2012) Structural Schilt K (2006) Just one of the guys? How transmen
precursors to identity processess: The role of make gender visible at work. Gender and Society
proximate social structures. Social Psychology 20(4): 465–90.
Quarterly 75(2): 149–72. Schrock D and Padavic I (2007) Negotiating hegemonic
Molnar-Szakacs I and Uddin LQ (2013) The emergent masculinity in a batterer intervention program.
self: How distributed neural networks support self- Gender and Society 25(5): 625–49.
representation. In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) Schrock D and Schwalbe M (2009) Men, masculinity,
Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology 35:
167–82. 277–95.
Morris A and Mueller C (1992) Frontiers in Social Schutz A (1962) Collected Papers, Vol. 1: The Problem of
Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijoff.
Press. Schwalbe ML (1986) The Psychosocial Consequences of
Nelson TD (2013) The neurobiology of stereotyping and Natural and Alienated Labor. Albany, NY: State
prejudice. In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) University of New York Press.
Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. Scott MB and Lyman S (1968) Accounts. American
349–58. Sociological Review 33(1): 46–62.
Niemeyer RE (2013) What are the neurological Serpe RT and Stryker S (2011) The symbolic
foundations of identities and identity-related interactionist perspective and identity theory. In:
processes? In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) Schwartz S, Luyckx K and Vignoles V (eds)
Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. London:
149–65. Springer, pp. 225–48.
Plummer K (1996) Symbolic interactionism in the Shalin DN (1986) Pragmatism and social interactionism.
twentieth century: The rise of empirical social theory. American Sociological Review 51(1): 9–29.
15
Shibutani T (1988) Herbert Blumer’s contributions to salience, and role behavior: A theory and research
twentieth-century sociology. Symbolic Interaction example. In: Ickes W and Knowles ES (eds)
11(1): 23–31. Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior. New York:
Shkurko A (2012) Role behavior: A neurosociological Springer-Verlag, pp. 199–218.
perspective. Social Science Information 51(3): 338–63. Stryker S, Owens TJ and White RW (2000) Self,
Shook JR (2013) Social cognition and the problem of Identity, and Social Movements. Minneapolis:
other minds. In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) University of Minnesota Press.
Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. Taylor V (1996) Rock-a-By-Baby: Feminism, Self-Help,
33–46. and Postpartum Depression. New York: Routledge.
Shott S (1979) Emotion and social life: A symbolic Taylor V (2000) Emotions and identity in women’s self-
interactionist analysis. American Journal of Sociology help movements. In: Stryker S, Owens TJ and White
84(6): 1317–34. RW (eds) Self, Identity, and Social Movements.
Siever LJ (2008) Neurobiology of aggression and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
violence. American Journal of Psychiatry 165(4): Taylor V and Leitz L (2010) From infanticide to
429–42. activism: Emotions and identity in self-help
Smith RW and Bugni V (2006) Symbolic interaction movements. In: Banaszak-Holl JC, Levitsky SR and
theory and architecture. Symbolic Interaction 29(2): Zald MN (eds) Social Movements and the
123–55. Transformation of American Health Care. New York:
Snow DA (2001) Extending and broadening Blumer’s Oxford University Press, pp. 266–83.
conceptualization of symbolic interactionism. Taylor V and Whittier NE (1992) Collective identity in
Symbolic Interaction 24(3): 367–77. social movement communities: Lesbian feminist
Snow DA, Rochford EB Jr, Worden SK et al. (1986) mobilization. In: Aldon DM and Mueller CM (eds)
Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven,
movement participation. American Sociological Review CT: Yale University Press, pp. 104–29.
51(4): 464–81. Thomas WI (1931) The definition of the situation. The
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2006) The moral identity: A Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown and
principle level identity. In: McClelland K and Fararo Company, pp. 41–50.
TJ (eds) Purpose, Meaning, and Action: Control Thompson AI (2013) ‘Sometimes, I think I might say
Systems Theories in Sociology. New York: Palgrave too much’: Dark secrets and the performance of
Macmillan, pp. 293–316. inflammatory bowel disease. Symbolic Interaction
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2011) The moral self: Applying 36(1): 21–39.
identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 74(2): Thorne B (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School.
192–215. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2012) A theory of the self for Turner RH (1956) Role-taking, role standpoint, and
the sociology of morality. American Sociological reference-group behavior. American Journal of
Review 77(1): 120–40. Sociology 61(4): 316–28.
Stets JE and Harrod MM (2004) Verification across Turner RH (1962) Role-taking: Process versus
multiple identities: The role of status. Social conformity. In: Rose A (ed.) Human Behavior and
Psychology Quarterly 67(2): 155–71. Social Process: An Interactionist Approach. Boston:
Stets JE, Carter MJ, Harrod MM et al. (2008) The Houghton Mifflin.
moral identity, status, moral emotions, and the Turner RH (1968) Social roles: Sociological aspects.
normative order. In: Robinson DT and Clay-Warner International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New
J (eds) Social Structure and Emotion. San Diego, CA: York: Macmillan, pp. 552–6.
Elsevier, pp. 227–51. Turner RH (1990) Role change. Annual Review of
Strauss AL (1993) Continual Permutations of Action. New Sociology 16: 87–110.
York: Aldine de Gruyter. Turner RH and Killian LM (1987) Collective Behavior.
Stroebaek PS (2013) Let’s have a cup of coffee! Coffee Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
and coping communities at work. Symbolic Vaccaro C, Schrock D and McCabe J (2011) Managing
Interaction 36(4): 381–97. emotional manhood: Fighting and fostering fear in
Stryker S (1957) Role-taking accuracy and adjustment. mixed martial arts. Social Psychology Quarterly 74(4):
Sociometry 27(4): 286–96. 414–37.
Stryker S (1959) Symbolic interaction as an approach to Viterna J (2013) Women in War: The Micro-Processes of
family research. Marriage and Family Living 21(2): Mobilization in El Salvador. New York: Oxford
111–19. University Press.
Stryker S (1980) Symbolic Interactionism: A Social West C (1984) When the doctor is a ‘lady’: Power, status
Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin and gender in physician–patient encounters. Symbolic
Cummings. Interaction 7(1): 87–106.
Stryker S (2008) From Mead to a structural symbolic West C and Zimmerman DH (1977) Women’s place in
interactionism and beyond. Annual Review of everyday talk: Reflection in parent–child interaction.
Sociology 34: 15–31. Social Problems 27(5): 521–9.
Stryker S and Serpe RT (1982) Commitment, identity West C and Zimmerman DH (1983) Small insults: A
16
study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations Williams JP and Copes H (2005) ‘How edge are you?’
between unacquainted persons. In: Thorne B, Constructing authentic identities and subcultural
Kramarae C and Henley N (eds) Language, Gender, boundaries in a straightedge internet forum. Symbolic
and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. Interaction 28(1): 67–89.
86–111. Yurchisin J, Watchravesringkan K and McCabe DB
West C and Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing gender. In: (2005) An exploration of identity re-creation in the
Fenstermaker S and West C (eds) Doing Gender, context of internet dating. Social Behavior and
Doing Difference. New York: Routledge, pp. 3–24. Personality 33(8): 735–50.
White RW (2010) Structural identity theory and the Zerubavel E (1985) The Seven Day Circle: The History
post-recruitment activism of Irish Republicans: and Meaning of the Week. New York: Free Press.
Persistence, disengagement, splits, and dissidents in Zhao S (2005) The digital self: Through the looking
social movement organizations. Social Problems glass of telecopresent others. Symbolic Interaction
57(3): 341–70. 28(3): 387–405.
Michael J Carter is Assistant Professor of Sociology at California State University, Northridge.

His main research interests are in social psychology, specifically the areas of self and identity.
Recent publications include ‘Advancing identity theory: Examining the relationship between
activated identities and behavior in different social contexts’ in Social Psychology Quarterly, and
‘A theory of the self for the sociology of morality’ (with Jan E Stets) in American Sociological
Review. [email: [email protected]]
Celene Fuller is adjunct lecturer of sociology at California State University, Northridge. Her
main research interests are in gender and sexuality, social psychology, and social inequality. Her
current research examines the stigma of bisexuality within the LGBT+ movement and within
larger society.
résumé L’interactionnisme symbolique est une perspective théorique de la microsociologie qui étudie
le comportement des personnes en société et les processus dynamiques d’interaction. Cet article nous
donne un aperçu de trois traditions théoriques de l’interactionnisme symbolique et se concentre sur les
travaux d’Herbert Blumer (l’école de Chicago), Manford Kuhn (l’école de l’Iowa) et Sheldon Stryker (l’é-
cole de l’Indiana). Un bref résumé de la perspective globale de chaque figure dans l’interactionnisme sym-
bolique est effectuée, suivie d’une discussion de la méthodologie de recherche qui définit et distingue
chaque théorie. Nous faisons également une analyse pour évaluer la recherche empirique qui a émergé de
ces traditions théoriques au cours des dernières décennies. Nous concluons par une discussion sur les ori-
entations futures que doivent suivre les interactionnistes symbolique, afin de continuer à développer ce
domaine.
mots-clés interactionnisme symbolique ◆ microsociologie ◆ la psychologie sociale
resumen El interaccionismo simbólico es una perspectiva teórica a nivel micro en sociología que estu-
dia la manera en la que los individuos crean y mantienen una sociedad a través de repetidas interacciones
cara a cara y llenas de significado. En este artículo ofrecemos una perspectiva general de las tres tradi-
ciones teóricas en el interaccionismo simbólico, enfocándonos en el trabajo de Herbert Blumer (escuela
de Chicago), Manford Kuhn (escuela de Iowa), y Sheldon Stryker (escuela de Indiana). Se ofrece un breve
resumen sobre la perspectiva general del interaccionismo simbólico en cada una de estas figuras, seguido
de un debate sobre la metodología investigadora que define y distingue a cada uno de ellos. A contin-
uación se analiza y se evalúa la investigación empírica que ha surgido de estas tradiciones a lo largo de las
últimas décadas. Concluimos con un debate sobre las direcciones futuras a las que los interaccionistas
simbólicos deben prestar atención para continuar el desarrollo de este campo.
palabras clave interaccionismo simbólico ◆ microsociología ◆ psicología social
17
View publication stats

Symbolic Interactionism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Symbolic Interactionism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Symbolic Interactionism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article · January 2015

Michael J. Carter Celene Fuller

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

was provided by Becker (1953) in his work on Dramaturgical analysis

attempts to correct this problem), so considering fields continue to merge.

concept: A symbolic interactionist perspective on Anthropology of Visual Communication 3: 65–8.

Aldine de Gruyter. In: Turner B (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Social

Michael J Carter is Assistant Professor of Sociology at California State University, Northridge.

View publication stats

You might also like