Randall CRandallCollinsCap4ollins Cap 4

8/13/2019 Randall CRandallCollinsCap4ollins Cap 4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/randall-crandallcollinscap4ollins-cap-4 1/25

4: The Microinteractionist Tradition

Just as we say that a body is in motion, and not thatmotion is in a body we ought to say we are in thought,and not that thoughts are in us.

Charles Sanders Peirce, 1868

A Native American Sociology

We come now to the distinctively American tradition themicrointeractionist and inter!retive sociology that e"tends #rom Charles$orton Cooley, W. %. &homas, and 'eorge $erbert (ead through $arold'ar#in)el and the ethnomethodologists. *ot that this is the only )ind o#sociology we have ever done in the +nited States. &he ur)heimian and

the con#lict traditions have been im!orted and have #lourished on this sideo# the Atlantic. And there are other native traditions such as theevolutionism o# -ester Ward or that o# William 'raham Sumner who#ounded American sociology/ or the statistical em!hasis o# the lastseveral decades. (icrointeractionism is not the only American tradition insociology0 my own claim is that it is our most original contribution tosociological thought. %t is not the American tradition, but only what we dobest.

%t is o# course not without #oreign relatives and even ancestors. %t is atradition that concerns the human subect and builds the social world outo# human consciousness and human agency. %t o!!oses the hard,

structural image o# society !ut #orward by the ur)heimians, as well asthe materialism o#

23432

con#lict theory. Against the rigid !redictableness o# science, it u!holds the#luidity and meaning#ulness o# humanism. &hus it ties to what issometimes called the 5omanticist tradition in 'erman !hiloso!hy theidealism o# %mmanuel ant and es!ecially the #lowing historical streams o#

'eorg $egel, Arthur Scho!enhauer, and Wilhelm ilthey. 7ne can seethe contrast between this and the rench tradition by com!aring 9mileur)heim with erdinand &:nnies, who launched 'erman sociology in the188;s with his Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft Community and Society /.

&he boo) rather !arallels ur)heim The Division of Labor in Society bothcontrast a !ersonalistic traditional ty!e o# society with the im!ersonalmodern society. <ut where ur)heim=s >mechanical> and >organic>solidarity are two di##erent structural ty!es, distinguished by !o!ulationdensity and the e"tent o# the division o# labor, &:nnies !olar ty!es arebased on two )inds o# human will Wesenwille, which is a >natural>e"!ression towards other human beings, and Kürwille, which is rationaland calculating. 7ne might say &:nnies !sychologi?es and subectivi?essociety, ma)ing it into a !roection o# individual mental !rocesses blownu! to a large screen.

SOME MAIN POINTS OF THE MICOINTEACTIONIST TA!ITION

18@;21;;

American!ragmatists

'ermanobectivists

Peirce, James <rentano, (einong1;;21B;

ewey Cooley $usserl

&homas(ead

1B;216;

symbolicinteractionism

Schut? e"istentialism

<lumer $eideggertheories o#

deviance,Sartre

occu!ations and !ro#essions$ughes

16;21;

role theory ethnomethodology

'ar#in)elconversationalanalysiscognitive



sociology'o##man=s #rame analysis

234B2

%t is this ty!e o# theme that the American sociologists were #ollowing. &heearly American sociologists and !hiloso!hers all went to study in'ermany, as was the #ashion in the late nineteenth century. &his was thetime, we should recall, when the American colleges were being re#ormedinto graduate research universities. 'erman universities, which hadundergone this revolution @ years earlier, were the model. &hus, it is notsur!rising that the early American sociologists im!orted 'erman ideas. Again, in the 14;s and 1;s, another wave o# microsociology was seto## in the +nited States by a 'erman re#ugee, Al#red Schut?, who ins!ired$arold 'ar#in)el to create ethnomethodology. 'ar#in)el !roceeded tobring in an additional set o# 'erman intellectual ancestors, es!ecially the!hiloso!hers Ddmund $usserl and (artin $eidegger.

es!ite these 'erman roots, American microinteractionism is much morethan an imitation. %n both the earlier wave that gave rise to symbolicinteractionism and the later wave. that resulted in ethnomethodology and!henomenology, the Americans !ro#oundly trans#ormed what theyreceived. 'erman !hiloso!hy was a stimulus, but it was the Americanswho went on to create genuinely sociological theories. Where the'ermans, so to s!ea), le#t the !hiloso!hical level o# consciousness assomething inviolable to which one must !ay one=s res!ects, the Americans too) it a!art and in the !rocess created a social theory o#mind.

%n what #ollows, % will concentrate on these achievements inmicrosociology. &hat is not to say that theorists li)e Cooley and (eadwrote only about the mind and the sel#. &hey also s!un out theories aboutthe larger structure o# society. <ut this was not their strength0 the !icturethat emerges is com!aratively naive and unso!histicated by com!arisonto the strengths o# the ur)heimian and the con#lict traditions. %t has a)ind o# goody2goody Euality about it that ma)es social institutions seemli)e a grade2school assembly. When &alcott Parsons came bac) #romsoourning in $eidelberg and the -ondon School o# Dconomics in the13;s, he had little trouble in swee!ing this away be#ore his more

!ower#ul im!orts o# Duro!ean macrosociology. What has maintained itsstrength in America is the !art the Duro!eans lac)ed a genuine micro2

23442

sociology o# the sel# and the #lu" o# situations that it immediately #aces. %tis to this we now turn.

PHI"OSOPH# $ECOMES A $ATT"E%O&N! $ET'EEN E"I%IONAN! SCIENCE

&he American tradition arises at #irst, not within sociology but among American !hiloso!hers, in the #orm o# !ragmatism. &he sociologists o# thelate 18;;s were by and large concerned with social !roblems such asimmigration and crime, and when they did raise theoretical issues they didso by invo)ing evolution, a macroconce!tion. %n !hiloso!hy, though, thetime was one o# maor intellectual u!heaval owing to the universityrevolution. &he new research2oriented university was re!lacing a systemo# colleges that had !rovided religious instruction. &he original mission o# American colleges was largely to train ministers. &he reason why the+nited States has so many hundreds o# colleges goes bac) to the #rontierdays when every Protestant denomination #elt it had to have its owncollege in every locality so that the <a!tists could study good <a!tistdoctrine, the (ethodists could study good (ethodist doctrine, and so#orth. <ut the new 'erman2style universities no longer em!hasi?ed !ietybut rather science and scholarshi!. Dven biblical studies had now beentrans#ormed into history and te"tual criticism. %n the modern world, the old>unre#ormed> colleges and their religious instruction carried the sign >7ut2o#2date.>

&his created a !roblem #or the American !ro#ession o# university!ro#essors0 none #elt it more acutely than the !hiloso!hers. 7thers!eciali?ed subects might evade the issue o# what to ma)e o# the oldreligious studies, but the !hiloso!hers had to meet it head on. Philoso!hyhad been a maor subect in the old colleges, but it too) the #orm o# a!reliminary to theological studies. What could it now grace#ully say aboutreligion in a time when science was riding highF arwin, S!encer, and thecontroversy about evolution had !ut religion on the de#ensive0 at the same

2



time a da??ling set o# discoveries in !hysics and chemistry were changingthe world with electricity, steel mills, and gasoline engines.

&he same issue had to be #aced in Duro!e as well. 7ne

2342

ty!e o# reaction was that o# rance. &he rench 5evolution already at thetime o# *a!oleon had abolished the old medieval university dominated bythe theologians and re!laced it with technical schools li)e the tcolePolytechniEue and the Dcole *ormale Su!Grieure. rance reacted to thenew science by embracing it wholeheartedly and abolishing religionentirely #rom its o##icial intellectual !urview. &he ty!ical rench intellectual,li)e 9mile ur)heim, was an atheist who wished to re!lace religion withan entirely secular outloo).

%n Dngland and 'ermany, the old religious instruction was not re!laced soabru!tly. %t was necessary to ma)e some com!romise between religionand the new secular scholarshi!. &he #orm this too) was %dealist!hiloso!hy the generation o# ant and $egel around 18;;/ is thegeneration o# the 'erman university re#orm. <ecause the <ritish re#ormedtheir universities much later in the 188;s, at about the same time as the Americans/, their wave o# idealist !hiloso!hy came later, led by suchthin)ers as &. $. 'reen and . $. <radley. %dealist !hiloso!hy is a )ind o#intellectual com!romise with religion it declares that the world is amani#estation o# S!irit and that there are transcendent values. 5eligionthus still has a !lace, but at the cost o# abandoning the old literalinter!retation o# the Scri!tures. &he bulwar) o# #aith is no longer the <ible,but a liberali?ed theology wor)ed out by the reasoning o# !hiloso!hers.

rom the !oint o# view o# the orthodo" believers, this was all ratherheretical. &he virgin birth, the miracles, the literal divinity o# Jesus, eventhe stern !unishments and $eavenly rewards o# 'od the ather werebeing dis!laced by a reasoned argument #or S!irit and the im!ortance o#social good wor)s. %n America, one !hiloso!her declared that 'od=s worldwas not a ingdom but a 5e!ublic, and the $arvard !hiloso!her Josiah5oyce must have raised some eyebrows by his assertion that >it is theState, the Social 7rder, that is divine.> *evertheless, something had to bedone to ma)e religion more !alatable in a secular world dominated by the

obvious trium!hs o# science. rom about 188; to 13;, %dealism becamethe leading !hiloso!hy throughout American universities.

&his by itsel# does not sound li)e a !romising basis #or a sociology o#mind. <ut it o!ened the way #or it. Part o# its

23462

argument #or the reality o# s!iritual #actors in the universe was to !oint outthe im!ortant role o# consciousness in the material world. &he mostobvious >s!iritual> institutions are such entities as art, literature, law, thehistory o# thought. 5oyce and the young John ewey went #urther andargued that social institutions li)e the state are not material, but are setso# ideals that !eo!le orient towards and by which !eo!le guide theirconduct. &hus, the social world was inter!reted as mani#estations o#human consciousness. %deas were ta)en as obective 2e"isting outsidethe individual human being 22 because one can actually see them out

there. 7ur ideas are not invented by ourselves, the way the materialist!hiloso!hers had claimed. 7ne does not get ideas by viewing things withone=s senses and then #orming mental associations that result in ideasli)e >chair,> >red,> and so #orth. 7n the contrary, these ideas are !assed tous ready2made in the #orm o# language. &he argument was made on a!hiloso!hical level as a way o# de#ending the !riority and obectivity o# theS!iritual side o# things over the material. <ut one can see that thisargument o!ened the way #or a sociological inter!retation o# the mind theindividual not as an isolated observer o# the !hysical world abstracting#rom chairs and !atches o# color, but the individual as a !artici!ant inhuman society whose mind is #illed u! through the medium o# language.

&he %dealist !hiloso!hers o!ened the !athway, but they could not #ollow it.or them, the em!hasis was too much on the obective side o# the S!irit.$uman beings were merely !assive reci!ients o# the S!irit, a )ind o#register #or receiving a ivine message 'od declaring himsel# in asecular world. &o turn this into sociology, ideas had to be brought bac)down to earth and given their origins in real individuals. And thoseindividuals had to be set in motion, made into active agents in the hereand now o# the real world. &he thin)ers who too) this. ste! were the!ragmatists.

3



The Pragmatism o( Charles Sanders Peirce

&he most #amous !ragmatist was William James, the $arvard!sychologist and !hiloso!her. $is basic argument was that

234@2

ideas are not co!ies o# e"ternal obects but rather that truth is sim!ly a#orm o# action, consisting o# ideas that wor), that bring about theconseEuences we desire. James was rather a lightweight !hiloso!her,and the lac) o# obectivity in his system le#t him an easy target #or his!ro#essional colleagues. Actually he was not really interested in Euestionso# e!istemology, but in using !hiloso!hy to de#end religion. &his was o#course what the %dealists were doing too, but whereas they tried to #ind aS!iritual eEuivalent o# 'od in the world around us, James too) a more!sychological a!!roach to the sentiment o# belie#. or James, it iscorrect.to believe in #ree will because one could not otherwise act morally0

and it is correct to believe. in 'od, even with the absence o# convincingevidence, because all o# our thoughts in #act are li)ewise based on #aithrather than com!lete evidence. James ends u! in e##ect endorsing anyreligion, without !roviding any means to ascertain what !recise theologymight be true. &his was not very satis#actory to theologians, but it was as#ar as James wished to go. 1

&he real intellectual leader o# !ragmatism was James=s #riend, CharlesSanders Peirce. Peirce is !robably the greatest !hiloso!her ever!roduced in the +nited States. At the same time he was one o# the mostidiosyncratic. $e never held a regular academic !osition though helectured at $arvard and Johns $o!)ins/ nor !ublished a boo). $e le#tbehind a umble o# manuscri!ts on all manner o# to!ics, much o# itcon#used and ill integrated. $e was o#ten deliberately esoteric, and hewas #ond o# obscure e"!ressions and o# coining new ones aga!asticism,idiosco!y, #allibilism Peirce=s term #or his own !hiloso!hy/, !haneron #oridea/, !hernerosco!y #or !henomenology/, synechism, enthymene,illation, not to mention >the Chorisy, Cyclosy, Peri!ra"y, and A!eiry o#S!ace.> $is own meta!hysics divides the world into three as!ects, whichhe in#elicitously labeled irstness, Secondness, and &hirdness.Psychology #or Peirce was >!sychognosy,> geology was >geognosy.>, 7nesus!ects he was o#ten o)ing at his colleagues= e"!ense, such as when

he obected to the way James had develo!ed !ragmatism and announcedthat he would use the word >!ragmaticism> #or his own doctrine because itwas >ugly enough to be sa#e #rom )idna!!ers.>

23482

7ne might wonder how Peirce=s ideas ever received any recognition. &heanswer is sim!le Peirce was a genius, and he was right in the center o#things. $is #ather, <enamin Peirce, was a $arvard !ro#essor and America=s most #amous mathematician. Charles Peirce lived inCambridge.and was regularly consulted by im!ortant intellectuals. 5oycereceived what technical so!histication there is in his system #rom Peirce=ssuggestions0 John ewey, too, came under Peirce=s in#luence. %n the early18@;s, William James and other #uture luminaries including the!ioneering legal !ragmatist and Chie# Justice o# the (assasetts Su!remeCourt, 7liver Wendell $olmes/ used to meet #or an in#ormal seminar inPeirce=s study and carried away his ideas, i# only in a less so!histicated

version.7ne di##erence between Peirce and the later !ragmatists was thathe was much more dee!ly grounded in science and less #avorable toreligion than they were. Partly this may be accounted #or by theirbac)grounds. William James=s #ather, $enry James, Sr. the unior $enryJames, the novelist, was William=s brother/ was a well2)nown !o!ular!hiloso!her, a #ollower o# the Swedish s!iritualist Swedenborg. the Peirce#amily loyalty, by contrast, was #irst o# all to science, and they weresomewhat hostile to religion because o# the obstacle its dogmas had beento the develo!ment o# scienti#ic truth. Charles Peirce too) the a!!roachthat he would ma)e !hiloso!hy into a science by e"!anding on thedisci!line o# logic.&his was a visionary ste!. -ogic in Peirce=s day was aset o# #ormal deductive e"ercises, going bac) to the medieval scholastics

and beyond them to Aristotle. Harious #orms o# thin)ing were classi#iedinto ty!es o# syllogisms, o# which the most #amous, re#erred to in studentcolloEuialism as Barbara, ran

A/ All men are mortal.</ All 'ree)s are men.C/ &here#ore, all 'ree)s are mortal

Peirce obected to this version o# logic as a hindrance to actual reasoning.-ittle o# the way we actually thin), he !ointed out, ta)es this #orm. $owdoes one arrive at the maor !remise A/ #or e"am!leF %t is here wheremost o#

4

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52271130





2342

science ta)es !lace, and indeed much o# ordinary thin)ing. Deduction ismuch less im!ortant than induction, the !rocess o# arriving at suchgenerali?ations.

<ut Peirce goes even #urther. %nduction is not sim!ly a matter o# loo)ing atthe evidence and automatically coming u! with a conclusion. +nli)e manyo# the >associationist> !hiloso!hers o# his day, Peirce )new enough aboutscienti#ic research to reali?e that generali?ations do not ust lea! out o#the #acts. &here is a whole strategy o# investigation, not the least o# whichis a !urely mental e##ort to #rame one=s hy!otheses. &his !reliminary!rocess o# conecture Peirce called abduction %t is nonrigorous andnonem!irical, a mere guessing at relationshi!s. <ut nevertheless it is acrucial as!ect without which science could never accom!lish anything.(oreover in Peirce=s view abduction too, is a #orm o# in#erence 22 o# logicin the largest sense 22 by which one moves #rom one set o# ideas to their

conclusions in another set o# ideas. At its basis, science is #ounded on!rocesses o# the human mind that are the same as those involved incommon sense.

&his gave Peirce a way o# broadening the method o# logic, not merely toinclude science and !hiloso!hy, but to become an entire theory o# themind in all its activities. Dvery #orm o# thin)ing, he !ro!osed, consists o#some connection #rom one idea to another. &hese connections and theirlawscan be investigated em!irically. &he science that he #ounded to dothis, he called >semiotics.> $ere at least the term stuc) although Peircealso used his own !eculiar variants >semiosy> and >semiosis>/, unli)e histerm >abduction,> which never achieved !o!ular usage.

Semiotics is the science o# signs. %n Peirce=s view one never !erceives orthin)s about the world directly, but only through the mediation o# a sign.(eaning is always. a three2cornered relationshi!, between the sign, theob!ect but only in the as!ect to which the sign re#ers/, and the internalreferent or thought. &here is no direct connection 22 as the associationist!hiloso!hers li)e John -oc)e and his #ollowers had believed 22 betweenthe idea and the e"ternal obect to which it su!!osedly re#ers. &he sign isalways there in the middle, e"erting a controlling in#luence. or signs arenot isolated. &hey are e"ternal to the

23;2

individual and their essence is that they are eEuivalent #or everyone whouses them. &hus, words or visual symbols, noises, etc./ always intervenein the !rocess o# thin)ing and intrude an element o# the universal and the

social into the individual mind.

(oreover, in a second sense, signs are not isolated. Signs are used inchains, one a#ter another0 they connect not only to obect and to innerthoughts, but also to each other. 7ne sign carries connotations o# othersigns. Part o# this connectiveness is in the sign=s !enumbra o# meaning,as one word re#ers to other words into which it may be !artly or whollytranslated what is now called semantics/. Another !art is the dynamicconnection o# words in a sentence or chain o# thought what is now calledsynta", although Peirce had in mind a very broad conce!tion o# suchthought seEuences, #ar beyond the individual sentence/. -ogic, in Peirce=ssense, consists o# these connections o# signs with each other, with all that

this im!lies about their relation to thoughts and obects as well. 7urlogical in#erences are mental habits0 what we consider to be a valid belie#is a habit o# moving #rom one sign to another that is so well establishedthat it ta)es !lace without any doubt at all.

Dven emotions come into this scheme. Dmotions have their own logic 22an in#erence #rom one mental state to anotherthrough the mediation o#signs and sometimes with re#erence to outside obects/. Consciousnessitsel# is a certain )ind o# emotion, usually very mild, attached to certain)inds o# sign relations. Peirce, 3; years or more be#ore reud, wasconceiving o# mental !rocesses as o!erating unconsciously as long asthe habits o# connection are #irmly established and nothing ha!!ens to

disturb the smooth #low o# in#erence. 7n the other hand we become highlyconscious o# something, when we become emotionally aroused about it0in #act the emotion is sim!ly the !articular ty!e o# disturbance we aree"!eriencing in the #low o# in#erence.

rom this vantage !oint, Peirce attac)s the ty!e o# !hiloso!hy e"!ressedby 5enG escartes, which attem!ts to reach certainty by doubting.everything until there are only certain #undamentals le#t that cannot bedoubted. escartes= >Co"ito, er"o sum> >% thin), there#ore % am>/ is anim!ossibility, Peirce

5



2312

!roclaims, because we cannot thin) at all without having signs, and thesigns contain a re#erence to other signs and to other !eo!le who also usethem. &hin)ing always ta)es !lace in a community, and indeed what we

call truth is obective only because it is the mental habits towards whichwe as a grou! will inevitably tend as these mental habits enable all o# usto o!erate in the world. Peirce=s e!istemology, thus, leaves room #or anobective, material world in a way that James merely glossed over. At thesame time it !ro!oses an essentially social theory o# mind. (an, saidPeirce, is sim!ly the sum total o# his thoughts, and this sum is always ahistorical bundle o# his society=s e"!erience. We never arrive at totalcertainty on anything in the sense o# a rigorous logical !roo#0 even inmathematics, it is !ossible to Euestion the #ine basis o# connections #romone idea to another. %n #act we never do so0 our wor)ing criterion o# truthis sim!ly the absence o# doubt, a !ragmatism that is wor)ing well enoughat the time so that the ideas #low seemingly automatically, &his is what we

mista)e #or absolute truth.

Peirce was not e"!licitly a sociologist. $e did not visuali?e the !ossibilityo# such a science, though he does include in his classi#ication o# the>$uman Sciences> a branch called >escri!tive Psychics, or $istory.> $ehad little conce!tion o# social structure. &his was Euite ty!ical o# most American thin)ers o# his generation and several generations therea#ter.7ne o# his !ragmatist successors, John ewey, wrote a great deal aboutEuestions o# social !hiloso!hy, although this can hardly be considered arealistic contribution to sociology. ewey was more concerned with theideals o# democracy than its actualities. $e did a great deal o# !ublicitywor) #or >Progressive Dducation,> the notion that schools should become

!art o# a general course o# li#e adustment rather than a learning o#traditional subects. &his served as an ideological usti#ication #or dilutingthe scholastic contents o# schooling in a !eriod o# massive e"!ansion o#the school system in the early twentieth century0 but neither ewey norany o# the other #ollowers o# !ragmatism had the detachment to see thestruggles over social status that were involved in this nor the trend o#credential in#lation that they were setting in motion. As is ty!ical with

2332

most !hiloso!hers who want to treat society without mastering anye"!lanatory !rinci!les o# sociology, their ideals o# how things ought to beget in the way o# seriously understanding why things are as they are and,hence, o# having any realistic chance o# !utting their ideals into !ractice.

&he !ragmatists never dominated their home ground o# American!hiloso!hy. uring the heyday o# Peirce, James, and ewey 22a!!ro"imately 18@; to 1B; o# their overla!!ing li#etimes 22 !hiloso!hyde!artments usually taught versions o# %dealism, which could claim to bemore genuinely !hiloso!hical than !ragmatism in dealing with grandEuestions o# meta!hysics and more obective in its conce!tion o# truth.When %dealism #inally colla!sed in the. secularism o# the twentiethcentury, it was re!laced in the 1B;s and 14;s by logical !ositivism,which concentrated on a narrow technical set o# rules o# what wasconceived to be the scienti#ic method. Peirce=s broader and more realisticconce!tion o# science was #orgotten. %t has only turned u! again, in asomewhat di##erent guise, in the echoes #ound recently in the sociology o#

science.

%n general the sociologists ended u! being the heirs to the !ragmatisttradition. *ot that they acce!ted everything. &he !ragmatist de#ense o#religion, James=s !rime interest, was the #irst to go. ewey=s Progressiveideology, too, did not stand a chance once American sociologists beganto im!ort the more serious ur)heimian and con#lict theories. ewey didma)e a contribution, !erha!s not yet su##iciently a!!reciated, to the senseo# the #luidity o# li#e as it emerges in an ongoing seEuence o# situations.&he most im!ortant contribution o# !ragmatism though was to stimulateem!irical sociologists to set #orth an action2oriented and com!letely socialtheory o# the nature o# mind and sel#.

Society Is in the Mind: Cooley

Charles $orton Cooley was a colleague o# John ewey at the +niversityo# (ichigan. <ut Cooley was a member o# the newly #ounded sociologyde!artment, not a !hiloso!her, and his theory is built u! #rom em!iricalobservations, i# only a somewhat

23B2

6



casual )ind. &he #irst signi#icant statement o# American microsociologycame early in the twentieth century, in Cooley #uman $ature and theSocial %rder 1;3/.

Cooley begins with the common!lace observation that children o#ten have

imaginary !laymates. Physically they may be alone, but in theirimagination they are still in the !resence o# others. Cooley ta)es this as aclue to the develo!ment o# the mind. &hin)ing, he !ro!oses, consists o#imaginary conversation, carried on silently inside. Children learn to thin)initially by learning to tal). &al)ing with imaginary !laymates, then, is anintermediate stage as the child learns to internali?e tal)0 here the tal) isstill carried on out loud, but with an imaginary !artner.

Dven #or adults, Cooley continues, there is no essential di##erencebetween real and imaginery !ersons. 7ther !eo!le are real to us onlybecause we imagine an inner li#e that we do not directly observe, butwhich we !roect into them. >All real !ersons are imaginery in this sense,>

Cooley declares. >(y association with you evidently consists in therelation between my idea o# you and the rest o# my mind.> Cooley thus!ro!oses a )ind o# !henomenological em!iricism. 7ne only encountersone=s ideas o# other !eo!le, never the !eo!le themselves. &heir !hysicalbodies standing be#ore us are im!ortant only because they !rovide acenter around which to crystali?e our sentiments. A#ter all, as)s Cooley,what can one learn #rom weighing or measuring !eo!le=s !hysical traitsthat gives any clue to their true !ersonalityF &he aim o# sociology is toobserve the true #acts o# society, and these consist o# no more than theimaginations that !eo!le have o# one another.

Society, then, must be studied !rimarily in the imagination. Physically real

!ersons are not socially real unless someone actually imagines them.&hey cannot act u!on us unless we become consciously aware o# theirsocial intentions towards us. %# someone went into a strange country andhid himsel# so well that no one )new he was there, Cooley declares, hewould have no social e"istence #or the inhabitants. &his seems to give arather ethereal view o# society, but Cooley ma)es this into a theoreticalvirtue. %# !ersons are thought o# as !rimarily !hysical, there is no way toe"!lain how society e"ists. 7ne observes

2342

only se!arate bodies, and society must be conceived o# as somemysterious #orce added on #rom outside, called sociality, altruism, or theli)e. <ut there is no !roblem when one reali?es that each !erson=s mind isalready social and that the social is the mind. Society is a relation amongideas. >%n order to have society it is evidently necessary that !ersons

should get together somewhere0 and they get together only as !ersonalideas in the mind. Where elseF> &he human (ind which Cooley nowca!itali?es/ is a= collective growth e"tending across the ages, and it is thelocus o# society in the broadest sense.

Cooley=s view o# society, as one can imagine, is e"traordinarily benign.&here is no real di##erence between sel#ishness and altruism, he declares,because the sel# and the other do not e"ist e"ce!t in relation to eachother. Altruism is not a s!ecial motive but is im!lied in all our sentiments0and one can never even thin) >%,> e"ce!t with an im!licit re#erence toother !ersons. Con#lict or domination can scarcely enter into such ascheme. Social !roblems are ust a matter o# misunderstanding and can

be solved by a broader a!!reciation o# the !oint o# view o# others. &henaive American ideology is a!!arent here. Cooley=s social idealism is soe"treme that he sees no di##erence between #ictional !ersons and reallye"isting ones0 $amlet is ust as socially real as the anitor downstairs 22 in#act !robably more so because more !eo!le thin) about $amlet. Cooleydeclares that the 5ussian nobleman who thin)s o# the ser# as a mereanimal is not socially a##ected by him because the ser# does not act on hismind and conscience. &he e"am!le is e"tremely ill chosen because theser# !rovides the material labor on which the nobleman=s style o# li#ede!ends, and indeed his very e"istence as a social class. Cooley writingin his middleclass study in Ann Arbor, (ichigan, 1 years be#ore the5ussian revolution was lulled into a #anci#ul view o# such things.

*evertheless one cannot write o## Cooley as a mere dreamer. $is theoryis ne"t to worthless as a model o# the larger structures o# society. <ut itdid o!en the way to a theory o# microsociology as a !rocess o# mentalinter!retation. Cooley=s e"am!le o# $amlet being more socially real thanthe !eo!le around us is a little #oolish, but it becomes much less so i# onesubstitutes an historical name li)e Jesus or (ohammed2or the

232

7



contem!orary name o# some distant !o! star who sets the ideal #ormillions to emulate. >&he imaginations which !eo!le have o# one anotherare the solid facts of society,> Cooley declared. *ot the only solid #acts,one should add, but solid and im!ortant enough nevertheless.

%eorge Her)ert Mead*s Sociology o( Thin+ing

Where Cooley was suggestive but su!er#icial, 'eorge $erbert (eaddevelo!ed this line o# thought into a so!histicated theory o# the socialmind. (ead was not a sociologist, but a !hiloso!her who taught at the+niversity o# Chicago in the same de!artment as John ewey who hadmoved on #rom (ichigan/. $e had studied at $arvard with Josiah 5oyce,the %dealist !hiloso!her mentioned earlier #or his e"travagant belie#s in thedivinity o# the state. <y com!arison, (ead was a hard2nosed em!iricist,even a materialist. $e called himsel# a social behaviorist and admired the!sychologist John <. Watson who !ro!osed to reduce the mind to thestudy o# overt behavior and to induct the laws o# human behavior #rom

e"!eriments on animals. or (ead, however, the crucial behavior isalways social behavior. %t is the interaction between biological organismsand the internali?ation o# this bac)2and2#orth motion inside human beingsthat constitutes the mind.

(ead ta)es his !oint o# entry by distinguishing shar!ly between the sel#and the body. &he sel# is something that is re#le"ive, that can be both asubect and an obect, and that can ma)e an obect o# itsel#. 7ur bodily!arts e.g., the heart, the digestive system/ are ca!able o# running alongwithout our conscious control, and they ta)e what unity they havebecause we ma)e them belong to our sel#. When we are com!letelyabsorbed in doing something, there is no sel#. (oreover there are many

e"!eriences o# the sel# without re#erence to a body in thin)ing, inimagination, or in memory.

Where, then, does this nonbodily sel# come #romF &he sel# is a !oint o#view. We can never see our body as whole, even in a mirror. &heindividual e"!eriences himIhersel# not by direct observation, but onlyindirectly #rom the stand!oint o#

2362

others. &his is what is distinctive about human communication as well0 ananimal ma)es noises that carry some signi#icance to other members o#their s!ecies, but the human=s words are symbols that are directed notonly to others, but also to onesel#. +nli)e Cooley, who had only a crudesense o# the mind, (ead had assimilated the so!histicated three2!ointed

structure o# Peirce=s theory, o# meaning. &he human being isdistinguished #rom other animals because heIshe can be an obect #orhimIhersel#. %t is this re#le"ivity, (ead declares, and not somesu!ernatural entity li)e the Soul, that ma)es one uniEuely human, thusbrea)ing entirely #rom the religious sentiments o# his own teacher 5oyce.

&his sel#, which can be an obect #or itsel#, arises only in sociale"!erience. A#ter one has acEuired this social view!oint, one can thenbecome solitary and carry on one=s internal thoughts, but not be#ore.&hought is a conversation o# gestures carried out with onesel#. <ut evenconversation with others has this sel#2re#erential Euality. We are able tothin) o# what words we are going to say ne"t because we ta)e the !oint o#

view o# the other and assess the other=s reaction to what we have said so#ar. &his also a!!lies in the internali?ed conversation that constitutesthought we have to monitor ourselves continually as inner s!ea)er byta)ing the stand!oint o# inner audience so that we can direct the #low o#the subseEuent !arts o# our thoughts.

(ead goes #urther than Cooley in yet another res!ect. Whereas Cooleyhad the commonsense notion o# a unitary sel#, (ead !ointed out thateach individual has multi!le selves. We have di##erent relationshi!s todi##erent !eo!le and are one thing to one !erson and another thing tosomeone else. &here are di##erent selves #or di##erent )inds o# socialrelationshi!s and some !arts o# the sel# that e"ist only subectively in

relationshi! to onesel#. (ead thus enters into the same )ind o# territory asSigmund reud, although with a rather di##erent division o# !arts o# thesel#. As we Will see, this em!hasis on multi!le selves was es!ecially#ollowed u! by Drving 'o##man.

(ead was a !ragmatist in his em!hasis on meaning and belie# as a #ormo# action. $e elaborates Peirce=s semiotic triad o# meaning there isalways a gesture which might be a sound/ made by one organism toanother, a res!onse by the other,

8



23@2

and the resulting act that res!onds to the gesture. 7ur thin)ing ta)es!lace by means o# symbols charged with meaning in this manner. Dvensomething as mundane as a chair is symboli?ed by the gesture verbal or

!ossibly otherwise, such as the !hysical act o# sitting down/ that entersinto communication in. this way. Symbols are not !art o# the !hysicalworld around us because that always consists o# !articular obects 22 thischair, that corner o# the room 22 whereas symbols are universals. &heycall out the same res!onse in everyone and, hence, cross overinnumerable !articular situations. Dven nonverbal language de!ends oncalling out the same res!onse in others. >A !erson who is sayingsomething is saying to himsel# what he says to others,> declared (ead,>otherwise he does not )now what he is tal)ing about.>

(ead describes the develo!ment o# the mind in childhood in a #ashionthat ta)es o## #rom Cooley=s descri!tion o# children=s imaginary !laymates.

(ead broadens this to !lay in general, whether alone or with otherchildren. &he earliest #orm o# !lay is a version o# ma)e2believe being amother, a !oliceman, the driver o# a toy car or even the car itsel#/, orwhatever. Small children !lay endlessly at these !asstimes because thisis the #irst and sim!lest stage o# >being another to one=s sel#.> %t is learningto ta)e the role o# the other, which is crucial #or being able to ta)e ane"ternal stance on onesel#.

&he ne"t stage, #or older children, is organi?ed games. Whether it is hide2and2see) or baseball, there is now a new structure to be mastered. &hechild must ta)e the attitudes o# everyone involved in the game to !lay anyone !osition. &he shortsto! must )now what the batter is doing as well as

the #irst2baseman to whom he or she is throwing the ball0 the attitudes o#all the others are intertwined in every !osition. At this stage one=s socialsel# becomes #urther crystali?ed. Darlier the small child switches ra!idly#rom one role to another, #rom one imaginery game to the ne"t, and #romone mood to its o!!osite. &his ra!id succession o# roles, (ead !oints out,is both the charm and the wea)ness o# childhood. %t e"!lains both thechild=s wonder#ul s!ontaneity and ca!acity to be absorbed in things andalso the volatility that will !itch him or her #rom laughter to tears in amoment.

2382

7rgani?ed games re!resent a more advanced stage o# the organi?ation o#the sel#. 7ne ta)es on roles more deliberately and stays in them as thesocial situation demands. <oth the sel# and the surrounding networ) o#

roles become more solidly structured. %t is #or this reason that childrenbegin to ta)e an interest in rules and may become Euite in#le"ible aboutthe im!ortance o# #ollowing them e"actly. &he higher level o# re#le"ivity inwhich the !layers reali?e that rules are invented and can be changed hasnot yet been reached. What these e"ternal2seeming rules re!resent is theattainment o# a mental structure that (ead calls >the 'enerali?ed 7ther.>&his is not merely the ta)ing o# the stance o# some !articular other !ersonu!on onesel#, but a !ermanent #aculty o# the mind that ta)es the attitudeo# the whole community. %t is a )ind o# s!ectator=s2eye view o# the entirebaseball team, with each role intermeshed into the others. >&he'enerali?ed 7ther> is the basis #or the com!le" institutional coo!erationthat ma)es u! the institution o# society. Pro!erty, #or e"am!le, is not

merely one=s relationshi! to some !hysical thing, but a recognition thatone=s right will be generally recogni?ed by others.

>&he 'enerali?ed 7ther> is also crucial #or the individual=s own mind. 7nlyby ta)ing the attitude o# >the 'enerali?ed 7ther> towards one=s=sel# is it!ossible #or the individual to thin) in those abstract symbols thatconstitute the rational, adult mind. Words are universals, which call outthe same attitude in everyone0 this im!lication o# universality could note"ist i# there were not some mental structure that ta)es the attitude o#everyone. %t is a )ind o# global mirror o## which each individual !ersonbounces his or her own utterances to give them a general signi#icance.

&he other !arts o# the sel# are derived #rom this structure. Cooley s!o)e o#>the loo)ing2glass sel#,> as a )ind o# sel#2image derived #rom outside.(ead !ointed out that this is only !art o# the structure. &here is an >%,> as!ontaneous action !art o# onesel# that res!onds to the social situationand ma)es gestures to others. &he sel# is not com!letely determined #romoutside, but it has an element o# #reedom and initiative. &here is also the>(e,> the sel# com!rised by the attitudes ta)en by other !eo!le towardsone. &his is the sel#2image, the sel# as

232

9



!roud or humble, good or bad, ugly or beauti#ul. &he >(e> is a derivedsel#, which emerges only re#lectively a#ter one has made active gesturestoward other !eo!le. Cooley=s loo)ingglass sel# is reduced to a lesser!osition and, thus, the entire system is made more dynamic. %n all o# thisthe 'enerali?ed 7ther !lays a !ivotal role. &he >loo)ing2glass> is not

merely outside, as Cooley had it0 rather, it has to become a !ermanent#i"ture inside one=s mind i# one is to be able to glance one=s thoughts o## itand thus give them the general signi#icance that ma)es themcommunicable. %t is eEually im!ortant even when one is alone. %t is the'enerali?ed 7ther that !rovides an abstract, nons!eci#ic audience thatcan be used #or the internal conversation that ma)es u! one=s thin)ing.

(ead thus !rovides a model o# the mind as a set o# interacting !arts. %t issocially anchored because >the 'enerali?ed 7ther> is its central re#erence!oint, though an invisible one. At the same time it is individual and#undamentally #ree because the >%> always negotiates with other !eo!lerather than acce!ts !ree"isting social demands. et again one=s thin)ing

is !erme!ted by society because the counters that one moves around inone=s mind as one !lans out a course o# action are as!ects o# the >(e,>little images o# onesel# that one imagines in various situations as onementally tries out various alternatives. 7ne might say though this is mymeta!hor, not (ead=s/ that the sel# is a )ind o# chec)erboard on which the>(e> really the several >(e=s>/ are the chec)ers, the >%> is the !layer whoma)es the moves, and the >'enerali?ed 7ther> is the light hanging overthe board that ma)es the moves intelligible. 7r to use another meta!hor,the sel# is a series o# mutually re#lecting mirrors continually in motion.

$l,mer Creates Sym)olic Interactionism

7ne can see that there are several di##erent directions in which (ead=ssystem can be ta)en. 7ne direction em!hasi?es the #luidity andnegotiatedness o# the social order. &his is the direction ta)en by $erbert<lumer, rein#orced by the tendency o# the Chicago school o# sociology. Another direction is e"actly

236;2

the o!!osite, to stress the embeddedness o# the sel# in a set o# socialroles, which gives rise to so2called role theory. We will ta)e u! each o#these in turn.

'eorge $erbert (ead, as noted, was not a sociologist, nor did he !ublish

more than a #ew sociological writings in his own li#etime. <ut his lecturesat the +niversity o# Chicago were !o!ular in the 13;s among sociologystudents. &his was the time when American sociology was acEuiring its#irst real research tradition, led by the Chicago sociologists W. %. &homasand 5obert D. Par). &hese sociologists were not !articularly strong ontheory, and their research interests tended to #ocus on social !roblems o#the modern city and the assimilation o# new immigrants into Americansociety. What theories they did derive tended to be ecological andstructural rather than microinteractional. <ut W. %. &homas, who had sometraining in 'erman !hiloso!hy owing to his soourn there around the turno# the century, did stress a voluntaristic element that #itted in well with theactivist side o# (ead. -odged in the !ages o# a social !roblems tract

called The Child in &merica, &homas #ormulated a #ew brie# sentencesthat have subseEuently become #amous as >the &homas theorem.> >%#men de#ine situations as real, they are real in their conseEuences,> goeshis leading !oint. Social li#e has the Euality that what !eo!le thin) it is, ittends to become. %# a certain behavior becomes de#ined as !restige#ul,that will be what !eo!le will do0 i# it is de#ined as the reverse, it willbecome socially deviant and avoided by those who wish to beres!ectable.

&his ma)es li#e highly #luid and ca!able o# ra!id changes. %# the de#initiono# a situation can be shi#ted, the behavior it elicits will switch, sometimesto startling e"tremes. %t was this inter!retation o# (ead that was stressed

by $erbert <lumer, at the time a young instructor in the +niversity o#Chicago=s sociology de!artment. A#ter (ead=s death in 1B1, <lumerbecame his ardent s!o)esman. $e coined the term >Symbolic%nteractionism> to summari?e (ead=s !osition, which he claimed to be#aith#ully reiterating. %t should be noted, though, that there has beenconsiderable controversy over this !oint. <lumer=s Symbolic%nteractionism loo)s a good deal more li)e a develo!ment o# &homas=s>de#inition o# the situation> than it does li)e

23612

10



the side o# (ead that #ollows the behaviorist Watson, and it is verydi##erent #rom the role theorists who attem!ted to crystali?e (ead into adeterminative set o# e"!lanatory laws.

&here may also be an element o# John ewey=s !hiloso!hy in <lumer=s

Symbolic %nteractionism. ewey had also been on the !hiloso!hy #acultyat the +niversity o# Chicago be#ore moving on to Columbia, and he couldeasily have been !art o# the intellectual atmos!here surrounding <lumer.ewey had attac)ed the utilitarian model o# the rational actor as someonewho chooses means to achieve ends and thereby ma"imi?e one=srewards and minimi?e one=s !unishments. ewey !ointed out that meansand ends are not really se!arated in the real world. %n ordinary situations,one merely acts habitually, #inding ends as one moves along at the sametime as one #inds means to reach them. 7ne situation #lows into another,and a rational calculating mentality does not ordinarily enter into it.

<lumer ado!ted this situational model and !ushed it to an e"treme.

Peo!le do not sim!ly #ind roles ready2made. &hey constantly create themand recreate them #rom one situation to the ne"t. So2called socialinstitutions 22 the state, the #amily, the economy 22 only e"ist as !eo!leactually come together in situations. We can act together because weconstruct actions together. &his is done through the mechanism (eadhad !ointed out each individual !roects himsel# or hersel# i.e., the >(e>as!ect o# the sel#/ into various #uture !ossibilities0 each one ta)es the roleo# the other in order to see what )ind o# reaction there will be to thisaction0 as a result each aligns his or her own action in terms o# theconseEuences he or she #oresees in the other !erson=s reactions. Societyis not a structure, but a !rocess. e#initions o# situations emerge #rom thiscontinuous negotiation o# !ers!ectives. 5eality is socially constructed. %# it

ta)es on the same #orm over and over again, it is only because the !artiesto the negotiation have wor)ed out the same resolution and becausethere is no guarantee that they cannot do it di##erently ne"t time.

<lumer=s version o# Symbolic %nteractionism !laces a !remium ons!ontaneity and indeterminateness. Any institution can change0 societycan eru!t into revolution. &his never became the dominant !osition in American sociology. Dven dur2

23632

ing <lumer=s own career, the evolutionary and ecological a!!roaches tostructure gave way to &alcott Parsons= and 5obert (erton=s structural#unctionalism on the one hand and then increasingly to macrocon#licttheories on the other hand. <ut <lumer made Symbolic %nteractionism intoa !ower#ul undercurrent and a vocal o!!osition. $e vehemently critiEued

all rival !ositions, which in his view rei#ied the social structure and lostsight o# the !rimary reality, the individual negotiating social situations.unctionalism, in <lumer=s view, was an unreal !laying with abstractcategories. Survey research and the Euantitative research methods ingeneral which became increasingly !o!ular in one wing o# sociology #romthe 1;s onwards/ were eEually condemned by <lumer as losing theessence o# social li#e. Answers to a Euestionnaire about one=s, attitudes,<lumer stated, are com!letely unrealistic because they abstract out thereal situations in which !eo!le act. &o as) someone their attitudes aboutrace relations, #or e"am!le, is merely showing how !eo!le act in thesituation o# tal)ing to an interviewer and has nothing to do with how theybehave in various situations when they actually deal with blac) or white!ersons. <lumer=s negative comments stung his o!!onents, one o# whomcharged him with being >the grave2digger o# sociological research.>

*evertheless <lumer e"erted considerable in#luence. $e held #orth at the+niversity o# Chicago #or 3; years and edited the !restigeous &merican'ournal of Sociolo"y 0 then in the 1;s, he moved to the West Coast toorgani?e a #amous sociology de!artment at the +niversity o# Cali#ornia,<er)eley. Symbolic %nteractionism did not remain merely a critiEue o#other sociologies, but created its own tradition o# research. <uilding on thestrength o# the Chicago School in !artici!ant observation, it develo!ed atheory o# occu!ations and !ro#essions in which these become not entitiesbut !rocesses #orms o# interaction negotiated by the !artici!ants

themselves. +nder the guidance o# <lumer=s Chicago colleague Dverett$ughes, the symbolic interactionist a!!roach to !ro#essions saw doctors,lawyers, and anitors ali)e as maneuvering to hide their dirty wor) andmani!ulate their !ublic image. K&he em!irical in#luence o# this on Drving'o##man has already become obvious, although

236B2

'o##man brought his theoretical inter!retations #rom a di##erentur)heimian/. tradition.L &he !icture that emerges is #ar #rom the o##icial,

11



laudatory view o# the !ro#essions held by the #unctionalists0 instead, it is a)ind o# e"!osG o# the hidden !olitics o# !ro#essions.

&he other stronghold o# Symbolic %nteractionism has been the #ield o#deviance. Such researchers as Al#red -indesmith, $oward <ec)er, and

Ddwin Schur too) an >insider=s> a!!roach to the situations and outloo)s o#delinEuents, alcoholics, drug users, and other violaters o# society=sstandards rather than acce!ting the o##icial view!oint o# the social controlagencies. &hey !ointed out how >deviants> go through their own careersand arrive at an inter!retation o# themselves that ma)es them !ursue a!ath contrary to the >straight> or >sEuare> world. rom this !ers!ective,>deviance> itsel# is not a category to be ta)en #or granted0 the standardsthat are violated are not an obective entity, but are themselves !oliticallynegotiated. Ddwin Schur describes the creation o# >crimes withoutvictims,> such as drug use, gambling, or abortion,=and $oward <ec)ercreated the conce!t o# >moral entre!reneurs> to analy?e the manuevers o#!ersons on the o##icial side who attem!t to create categories o# deviance

to im!ose on others.

Symbolic %nteractionism has ta)en an underdog slant that contrastsshar!ly with the benign and o##icial !latitudes about society that Cooleyused to endorse. &he traectory o# the last @; or 8; years has been #romthe su!erstraight into the underground, with <lumer=s critiEue o# o##icialsociology as the turning !oint. %n recent years Symbolic %nteractionismhas even become allied, at least #or some sociologists, with a (ar"iancon#lict a!!roach. &his is not true o# all #orms o# con#lict theory, es!eciallythe more hard2nosed materialist variety, but Symbolic %nteractionism hasbeen made to #it #airly well with an anti!ositivist, antiscience version o#(ar"ism that s!ea)s o# the transitoriness and arbitrary #eatures o# the

ca!italist social order. &here is even a dee! intellectual logic to thisconvergence because both traditions have remote ancestors in the'erman idealist and historicist !hiloso!hies such as those o# $egel andilthey.

*ot all o# (ead=s #ollowers have gone in this direction,

23642

however. &here remains another branch, which also calls itsel# Symbolic%nteractionism 22 though sometimes also called >role theory> 22 whichattem!ts to wor) out a general scienti#ic theory o# the sel# in relation to thesocial structure. or this line o# analysis, social institutions are made u! o#roles into which individuals #it. &he #amily has roles o# #ather, mother,

children, sibling, and so on. &hese roles are !ree"isting rather thannegotiated by the !artici!ants. &his theory lin)s u! with the #unctionalistview o# society, es!ecially when it describes the roles as being made u!out o# institutionali?ed norms and values. &his may be somewhat em!tycategori?ing, but one !art o# the theory attem!ts to deal with em!iricallydiscernable di##erences in individual behavior. &he most elaborate !art o#the theory deals with multi!le roles that an individual may have in their>role set> a term created by 5obert (erton, who integrated role theoryinto his #unctionalist analysis/. &hus, one individual can be simultaneouslywi#e to her husband/, mother to her children/, daughter to her own!arents/, em!loyee to her boss at wor)/, leader o# a P&A committee/,and so on. &he Euestion then becomes $ow do individuals deal with!ossible con#licts among di##erent !arts o# their role setF %n the mostre#ined !art o# the theory, develo!ed by 5al!h &urner, a set o#!ro!ositions is o##ered that attem!ts to !redict in what roles the individualis most li)ely to lodge himsel# or hersel# that is to say, which roles will theindividual most identi#y with as >truly> himsel# or hersel# and which roleswill the individual see as the most su!er#icialF

&here is a considerable di##erence in tone between the two branches o#Symbolic %nteractionism. 5ole theorists li)e the )ind o# banal and homeyillustrations given above the P&A mother and so #orth/, as com!ared to>underground> to!ics !re#erred by the more radical <lumeriansituationalists. &he role theorists have resolutely !lodded ahead in

creating a scienti#ic theory, while the situationalists have generallyattac)ed abstract theori?ing in #avor o# being true to the #luidity ands!ontaneity o# real li#e. *evertheless the tradition may have run itsel# intothe ground theoretically. &he situationalists have tended to abandontheory #or the e"amination o# !articular social !roblems, thus returning tothe latheoretical stance that

2362

dominated in the early years o# the century. 5ole theory continues to wor)towards an advancing scienti#ic model, but it has cut down its sco!e to the

12



#airly narrow Euestion o# how the sel# is embedded in social roles. &his notonly loses the dynamic side o# the individual, which (ead had stressed,but also it becomes only a !artial theory o# the sel#. or (ead had!roduced a model o# the mind, s!eci#ying the internal a!!aratus o#consciousness 22 the internal conversation o# >%,> >(e,> and >the

'enerali?ed 7ther,> that ma)es u! a 22 sociological theory o# thin)ing.5ole theory loses #ocus on this internal structure and merely !oints toways in which the sel# becomes attached to one or another !art o#society. %n (ead=s terms, this is really only a theory o# the >(e.>

%n my o!inion the (eadian theory o# the mind has not been e"hausted. %n#act it has scarcely been touched. <oth the situationalist and the role2theory versions o# Symbolic %nteractionism have ta)en attention away#rom (ead=s most im!ortant contribution, a genuinely sociological theoryo# thought. Perha!s this is one reason why the theoretical im!etus inmicrosociology has been ta)en over in recent years by another line o#theory, one that does not come #rom the American roots in Peirce,

Cooley, and (ead at all. &his is an entirely di##erent a!!roach to thesociology o# consciousness, sailing under the #lags o# ethnomethodologyor !henomenology.

The Sociology o( Conscio,sness: H,sserl- Sch,t.- and %ar(in+el

%n 166, Peter <erger and &homas -uc)mann !ublished a boo) with therevealing title, The Social Construction of (eality . &he authors, an American and a 'erman, had been students o# theology and !hiloso!hy,and their argument brought a shoc) to the mainstream o# sociology, whichwas used to regarding the world as obective and inde!endent o# thehuman beings within it. A year later came an even more radical

statement, = $arold 'ar#in)el=s Studies in Dthnomethodology. 'ar#in)el=sboo) was a collection o# !revious !a!ers, which had already beene"tensively studied by a grou! o# his ardent #ollowers meeting in !rivate.With the !ublication o# the boo), this >under2

23662

ground> movement was suddenly cast into the s!otlight. Sociology wasbeing challenged at it=s core by a grou! o# e!istemological radicals who

declared that sociology was naive, ungrounded, and needed to bere!laced by a new disci!line called >ethnomethodology.>

*eedless to say this did not ha!!en, but it did ma)e everyone aware thatthe old sociological Dstablishment was no longer commanding allegiance

everywhere and that among the contending #actions o# the newintellectual scene was one that was e"!licitly revolutionary. &he >ethnos,>as they came to be called, were not necessarily revolutionary in the!olitical sense0 #or most o# them (ar"ism was ust as much a !art o# theold way o# thin)ing that had to be overthrown.

What were they demandingF (any !eo!le were not Euite sure. 'ar#in)eland his #ollowers tended to write in a convoluted language with a !rivateterminology, and they usually met in !rivate and made little e##ort tointroduce the rest o# the #ield into their !rovince o# understanding. (anysociologists sim!ly regarded them as a cult. Part o# the issue was that theethnomethodologists were ma)ing two radical innovations at once. 7n the

one hand, they were ma)ing sociology much more !hiloso!hical than ithad been #or 6; years or more, and on the other hand, the !hiloso!hy thatthey were introducing was a hitherto un#amiliar strain going bac) to'erman !henomenology. <ut i# the ethnos had been merely!hiloso!hical, they would have been easier to dismiss. <ut they alsoclaimed to be much more em!irical than conventional sociology. %n #actone o# their main grounds #or dismissing e"isting sociology was thecharge that it has not gotten to the real bedroc) o# #acts that we ought tobe observing. Survey research merely as)ed Euestions and mistoo) theanswers #or the real ways !eo!le handled their lives0 historical sociologywas based on documents even more remote #rom social reality. Symbolicinteractionists li)e <lumer had made some o# these criticisms, but the

ethnos turned the same wea!on on them. Symbolic interactionists merelyglossed over the sur#ace o# interaction0 they constructed inter!retations o#it but did not get to the heart o# it because they #ailed to e"amine it closelyenough

*ot sur!risingly the symbolic interactionists were usually

236@2

13





!eculiar way. What one does is !ractice the method $usserl callede)och* or >brac)eting> one ta)es the contents o# consciousness as theycome, but sus!ends udgment as to whether it is true or #alse. %t otherwords one ta)es e"!erience not as e"!erience but sim!ly as a !ure #ormo# consciousness. $usserl was convinced moreover that thesee"!eriences contained the !ure #orms or essences. or one constantlysees things as universals, whereas em!irical reality always comes in the#orm o# )articulars When one sees two obects that are both red, #orinstance, one )nows that they are the same color, although there is noway that this could be inducted #rom e"!erience. or e"!erience is awayso# some !articular obect, and one would not be able to ma)e thecom!arison and recogni?e both obects as red unless one already had ageneral, universal conce!tion o# red to a!!ly to both o# them.

$usserl thus set out to inventory all the !ure essences that ma)e u! theabsolute structure o# the universe. Although he reected the method o#em!iricism in the ordinary sense nevertheless he !roceeded, so to s!ea),

>em!irically.> &he !hiloso!her does not )now in advance what theseessences are0 he or she must #ind them out by brac)eting one #orm o#e"!erience a#ter another and inventorying what one #inds there. 7ne,thus, comes out with laws that are su!!osed to be absolutely valideverywhere and under all circumstances. A!!lying this method to thestudy o# time, #or instance, $usserl o##ers such !rinci!les as >tem!oralrelations are asymmetrical.>

rom time to time, however, $usserl was assailed by doubts as towhether he had !robed dee!ly enough, whether the !rinci!les he!ro!osed were su##iciently universal to be the absolute structure o# theuniverse. And we might Euestion, too, whether a 'erman e"amining the

>brac)eted> #orms o# his own consciousness in the year 11; wouldnecessarily come u! with the same things as, say, a <uddhist mon) in%ndia in the year 4;; <.C. *evertheless $usserl=s method gave atremendous im!etus to subseEuent generations o# #ollowers. %t set o## asearch #or the essence o# things, #or the laws, i# not o# the whole universe,at least #or the universe as strained through human e"!erience in variousrealms. $usserl=s most #amous student, (artin $eidegger, set o## moderne"istentialism by

23@;2

searching #or the essence o# the human being. $e came to a dramaticconclusion human e"istence ta)es !lace Euintessentially in time, and itsultimate essence is >being2towardsdeath.> &he essence o# the humanbeing is that he or she has no essence0 he or she is logically un#oundedthere is no reason why he or she should e"ist in the #irst !lace rather thannothing at all. &he human being is merely >thrown into the world,> with noultimate reason. &his is mirrored in the way time is the #undamentalcategory o# e"istence. &he logical un#oundedness o# e"istence #inallycomes due at its end in the #orm o# death. %n the 14;s, Jean2Paul Sartremade an even shar!er #ormulation o# this human e"istence is sheernegation, and the #low o# our lives is an endless series o# acts o#*othingness carving out the blan) #uture #rom the dead bloc)s o# the !ast.

A dramatic set o# ideas to be sure0 but how do we get #rom here toethnomethodologyF Actually there is a more direct route through anothero# $usserl=s students, Schut?. <ut the e"istentialists should not be#orgotten, because the underlying tone in 'ar#in)el is much more li)e

$eidegger than it is li)e either $usserl or Schut?. 'ar#in)elintroduces adramatic #lair into sociology as well as an im!assioned intensity that issomething li)e the e"istentialist an"st an"iety/ that $eidegger declaredwas the essential human emotion. %# #or $eidegger and Sartre human li#eis un#ounded and hovering on the edge o# oblivion, #or 'ar#in)el the sameun#oundedness characteri?es society itsel#.

<ut let us ta)e #or a moment the sa#er !ath, through the social!henomenology introduced by Al#red Schut?. Schut? set out to investigatewhat essences could be #ound in a !articular ty!e o# e"!erience, !eo!le=se"!erience.o# the social world. %n this, he was sim!ly a!!lying $usserl=smethod to yet another s!eciali?ed area. $e also conceived himsel# to be

tracing out in detail what (a" Weber should have done in #ollowing u! hismethod o# verstehen./ Schut? came u! with a series o# !ur!orted laws,among them the !rinci!le that social consciousness has a s!eci#ictension, that o# being wide awa)e0 that social consciousness involves thesus!ension o# doubt 22 we acce!t the reality o# what is !resented to us0that we assume a reci!rocity o# !ers!ectives 22 the world !resumablyloo)s the

23@12

15



same to you as it does to me0 that our !revalent attitude is that o# wor)ingtowards some goal, and that we e"!erience our sel# as our wor)ing sel#.

*ow these may or may not be valid laws. Drving 'o##man, #or one,thought that they were not, and argued as we shall see/ that his own

investigations turned u! a much more com!le" and so!histicated versiono# the attitudes o# everyday li#e. Certainly the notion that each !erson=ssel# is e"!erienced as the sel# wor)ing towards some goal is an unduegenerali?ation #rom Schut?=s e"amination o# his own !ersonality #or manyyears he wor)ed in a ban), unable to get an academic ob/. 'ar#in)elacce!ted some o# Schut?=s !rinci!les but only a#ter he had e"amined thewhole subect a#resh. What #or Schut? had remained an armchair!henomenology, 'ar#in)el turned bac) into an em!irical investigation,although o# a novel or even bi?arre )ind. %n the !rocess 'ar#in)el came u!with some new discoveries that went #ar beyond what either $usserl orSchut? had seen.

'ar#in)el has been the most #amous o# the sociological #ollowers o#$usserl=s !henomenology, and deservedly so. <erger and -uc)mannintroduced the general notion o# >the social construction o# reality,> but the!henomenological world that they s!ell out loo)s a great deal li)e theordinary mundane world. %t is subectively 22 or rather intersubectively 22constructed, but it is !retty much the same straight world o# ordinarybelie#, not unli)e the ideali?ed <oy Scout world described by Cooley.'ar#in)el is in a di##erent universe. $is world sits over an abyss. %t issocially constructed, mundane, and ta)en #or granted but not because itis really so. 7n the contrary. or 'ar#in)el the real world is unutterableand untouchable. %t is there, but as a mysterious >N2#actor> that we glossover with social inter!retations. 7ur strongest social !rinci!le is to leave

the inter!retations alone, lest we see how #limsy they are and reveal theun#oundedness beneath.

% said that 'ar#in)el is a radical em!iricist. &his is true in the sense that heholds one cannot ma)e. in#erences about the world based on any )ind o#re!ort. 7ne must go and loo) onesel#, and one must include onesel# in theobservation. %n #act one=s own methods o# ma)ing sense out o#e"!eriences are

23@32

the !rime= obect o# investigation. &he term >ethnomethodology> itsel#re#ers to this #ocus >ethno> or >ethnogra!hy,> the observational study o#0>methodology,> the methods that !eo!le use to ma)e sense out o#e"!erience.

'ar#in)el was #amous, at one !oint in his career, #or sending his +C-Astudents out to do >e"!eriments> that involved >breaching> the ta)en2#or2granted sur#ace o# everyday li#e. Students would be sent home to act li)estrangers in their own houses, !olitely as)ing i# they could use thebathroom, and so #orth. 7r other students would be told to go into a store,!ic) out a 2cent tube o# tooth!aste and see i# they could bargain thecler) into ta)ing 3 cents #or it. &he !oint o# this is not the !articular socialcustoms that ha!!ened to !revail in the home or the store, which werethrown into shar! contrast by violating them all that is >brac)eted> in the$usserlian manner/. What is at issue, instead, is the general structure o#the >natural attitude> how !eo!le e"!ect everyday li#e to be organi?ed.'ar#in)el=s method was !erha!s more a teaching device than an

e"!eriment #or a scienti#ic audience. &he obect o# studying!henomenology is to learn about the structures o# one=s ownconsciousness. oing these e"!eriments, as 'ar#ir)el would say, is >good#or one=s soul.>

*evertheless 'ar#in)el has= tended to vacillate on the issue o# whetherthese e"!eriences are generali?able and re!ortable. 7n one side, he stilladheres to $usserl=s !rogram to arrive at absolute certainty and show themost general, universal structures o# e"!erience0 hence, it should be!ossible to re!ort them in scienti#ic discourse and write them u! in boo)s.7n the other side, though, there is 'ar#in)el=s own maor discovery thatthe world does not lend itsel# to being generali?ed in this manner. &o

re!ort on it inevitably distorts its true nature. %t is because o# this insightthat 'ar#in)el has a!!arently #elt the only way truly to convey his!rinci!les is to his immediate students by having them go through theresearch e"!eriences themselves. %t is this intellectual stance more thananything else that has given ethnomethodology the re!utation #or being acult.

%t is still !ossible, though, #or an outsider to convey something #romethnomethodology, laying stress on $usserl=s own

16



23@B2

aim o# #ormulating general )nowledge. %n his later terminology, 'ar#in)els!ea)s o# the world o# >Lebenswelt obects> being turned into >signedobects.> Lebenswelt, a term o# the 'erman !henomenologists, is literally

>li#e2world,> the world we live in as we actually e"!erience it. >Signedobects,> on the other hand, are the world as we tal) about it or re#er to itsocially. &his seems li)e the same thing, but with a shar! di##erence theso#a over there, the ty!ewriter on the table, the car !ar)ed out in thestreet 22 they are one )ind o# thing as we sim!ly ta)e them #or granted,use them, live with them, and ignore them, but something else againwhen we re#er to them by our verbal signs. (oreover, we are caught inour signs. We cannot um! out o# our verbal s)ins. As soon as we start!aying attention to things, we have made them into signed obects andlost them as Lebenswelt obects. or us, as 'ar#in)el !uts it, the obectso# the world are constituted by what ma)es them accountable0 they arewhat they are to us socially because o# the symbolic structure we use to

account #or them to other !eo!le.

'ar#in)el=s world, then, is multileveled. &here is the world itsel#, and thenthere is the world as we re#lect on it. &he re#lection inalterably trans#ormswhat the world is #or us0 we cannot )now what the world is li)e without ourre#lecting on it, any more than we can see what things are li)e when weare not loo)ing at them. %n truth they do not >loo)> li)e anything. All thatwe can say is that they are and that the world has this dual structure. &hislast statement, then, is the #undamental $usserlian law in 'ar#in)el=su!dated version o# the system.

What are the sociological im!lications o# this discoveryF Sociology, in

'ar#in)el=s view, merely deals with >signed obects.> %t does not get to thereality o# things, to the true lebenswelt. Dven the symbolic interactionistsare #ooling themselves in thin)ing that they are getting to the bedroc) o#social li#e in their situations and role2ta)ings. &hey, too, are merely!roducing yet another set o# >signed obects,> which stand in the way o#actual li#e as it is e"!erienced.

%s there any way out o# thisF 'ar#in)el recommends that sociologists startover again and get as close as they can to the actual e"!eriences thatma)e u! the moment2by2moment detail

23@42

o# social li#e. 7# course they cannot re!ort the Lebenswelt itsel# becausethat is im!ossible0 but they can get at the actual methods by which !eo!leturn their various Lebenswelt obects into the !articular >signed obects>

by which they believe they are surrounded. &hus, ethnomethodologyturns into an elaborate and ultradetailed !rogram o# research.Dthnomethodologists, #or e"am!le, have invaded the realm o# thesociology o# science. 'ar#in)el himsel# e"amined in great detail a ta!erecording o# astronomers while they made an >ine"!licable> discovery inthe night s)y and, then, gradually turned it into a >signed obect> to whichthey gave the structure o# a >!ulsar.> Science, li)e everything else, issocially !roduced by !eo!le who ma)e inter!retative statements that inturn become the allegedly obective )nowledge itsel#.

7ther ethnomethodologists have studied mathematics as it is actually!roduced, ta)ing the real2li#e struggles o# mathematicians to construct

arguments and showing how these give rise to a set o# theorems and!roo#s that are ta)en to have universal validity. 7nce the mathematical!roo# is created, all the real2li#e thin)ing that went into creating it iscleared away and the !ublished #ormula gives a mista)en image o#e"isting obectively, untouched by human hands. &he entire world o# wor)is e"amined in the same way. %n every instance the crucial !oint is the>local !roduction> o# something that is then socially believed to bere!eatable, accountable, and generali?able. A !erson constructs theoccu!ation o# being a >!lumber> by certain local !ractices in very s!eci#icsituations by !utting a social inter!retation on what is being done thattranscends the situations themselves. &he Lebenswelt underneath thesin) is trans#ormed into the allegedly thingli)e social >role> o# being a

>!lumber.>

%n a certain sense, then, society is #ull o# illusions. <ut they are necessaryillusions. We cannot do without signed obects0 we cannot live withoutturning s!eci#ic situations into instances o# general rules and roles, eventhough the latter e"ist only in our system o# accounts. As the early>breaching> e"!eriments revealed, when !eo!le are #orced to Euestionthe ta)en2#orgranted nature o# their conventionally assigned meanings,they become u!set. &hey reali?e intuitively that i# things are recog2

17



23@2

ni?ed as arbitrary, there is nowhere to sto!. Dverything can crumble i# were#use to acce!t the conventional inter!retations. Social reality is #limsy.Parado"ically its strength comes mainly #rom its #limsiness. Peo!le are

#undamentally conservative, not in a !olitical but in a cognitive sense,because they intuitively #eel the social world is a set o# arbitraryconstructions built over an abyss. &hese constructions remain in !lacebecause we do not Euestion them, and we resist Euestioning lest thewhole thing #all down.

THE SOCIO"O%# OF "AN%&A%E AN! CO%NITION

&here is another route #orward #rom 'ar#in)el=s ethnomethodology. &he!rogram analy?ing local !roduction leads to e"tremely detailed accountso# how social events are constructed, but to no generali?ations. %tsmessage in #act is that all generali?ations can be reduced bac) to the

local situation that !roduced them. *evertheless in the bac)ground thereis $usserl=s ideal o# science universal, absolutely valid )nowledge.'ar#in)el gave this an ultraem!irical !ush, and modern researchtechnologies have ta)en it even #urther. About the same time Studies in+thnomethodolo"y was !ublished in the late 16;s, !ortable cassetteta!e recorders began to be available. &hey made !ossible a new degreeo# !recision in research on everyday li#e. Whereas !reviously the>!artici!ant observer> had to ta)e things in with his or her bare eyeballsand eardrums and occasionally rush o## to the bathroom to write downnotes, now the ta!e recorder could do the ob o# ca!turing every word thatwas said. And not only every word, but every intonation, !ause, #alsestart, and all the other details that ma)e u! the actual sounds o# real2li#e

tal).

'ar#in)el=s #ollowers, notably $arvey Sac)s and Dmanuel Scheglo##,Euic)ly e"!loited the new technology and created the em!irical research#ield o# conversational analysis. &hey develo!ed a transcri!t with s!ecialsigns to indicate all the ways in which s!o)en s!eech di##ers #rom thecleaned2u! version we see on the !rinted !age. And they began to inductlaws 22 general !rinci!les 22 about the organi?ation o# tal). *o area o#social li#e was ever studied in such !recise detail be#ore.

23@62

With the introduction o# !ortable videota!e machines a #ew years later,the #ield o# em!irical detail was broadened still #urther to include thenonverbal conte"t as well as the s!o)en !art. As yet video analysis has

not been develo!ed as #ar as that o# audio recordings./

&his im!ressive amount o# detail was not merely to be another researchs!ecialty among others. Sac)s !ro!osed that the entire social structure is!resent, actually embodied in the language !ractices themselves. Whereelse could it be #ound i# not in real !eo!le in real, em!irically observableinteractionF Scheglo## and his colleagues stressed that their method wasthe truly scienti#ic one, dealing with the only absolutely !rimary data and#rom it building u! generali?ations about the s!eech !ractices thatconstitute society. %n a di##erent direction, Aaron Cicourel !ro!osed thatthe modern social structure is largely made u! by the accumulation o#written records. %t is these that com!rise the bureaucracies o# government

and business and that channel one=s career through the school system ordownwards into the criminal2!rocessing agencies o# delinEuency andcrime. Cicourel broadens the study o# language to include the inter!laybetween #ace2to2#ace tal) and the seemingly >obective,> thingli)e writtenrecords o# modern bureaucracy. 7n both sides society is made u! o#!articular ways that thought is constrained by the verbal and writtenchannels through which it !asses. Cicourel !ro!oses that the main to!icis really the sociology o# cognition in all its socially embodied #orms.

Erving %o((inan*s Co,nterattac+

Drving 'o##man has already been discussed in a di##erent intellectual

lineage. $is #orte is microsociology, but his theoretical a!!aratus was theur)heimian theory o# rituals rather than the American tradition o#symbolic interaction. 'o##man always stressed that social structure comes#irst and subective consciousness is secondary and derivative0 even histheory o# the !resentation o# the sel# is essentially a model o# the sel# as amodern2day myth that !eo!le are #orced to enact rather than a subectiveentity that !eo!le !rivately !ossess. &he symbolic

23@@2

18



interactionists 22 whom 'o##man certainly )new #rom his student days atChicago and with whom he was #reEuently classed by undiscerningoutsiders were never regarded by 'o##man as intellectually very serious.$e scarcely mentioned them in his earlier wor)s, even to bother tocritici?e them.

<ut the ethnomethodologists were something else again. &hey came onthe scene a#ter 'o##man had established himsel# with his maor em!iricalwor)s on everyday li#e and microinteraction. <ut now they were intrudingon his tur# with an entirely alien !hiloso!hy and even claiming that he hadnot even done his own wor) wellM <y the standards o# 'ar#in)el=sultradetailed e"amination o# social cognition and the !recision o# ta!erecordings o# conversation, 'o##man=s studies #ade into a vague blur o#casual observations, almost reconstructed armchair sociology. *ot onlythat, but the younger >second generation> ethnomethodologists such asSac)s and Scheglo## were actually <er)eley Ph..s under 'o##man=s owns!onsorshi!. %n the late 16;s, 'o##man had the e"!erience o# seeing his

own #ield grow u! and move beyond him, away #rom the concern withinteraction ritual and the nature o# the social sel# and into more!hiloso!hical Euestions o# e!istemology and cognition.

$ence, a turn ta)es !lace in 'o##man=s last maor boo)s, rame &nalysis1@4/, and orms of Tal- 181/. $e reenters microsociology as i# it werean alien territory, ta)ing on the new ethnomethodological themes andentering into the close analysis o# ta!e2recorded tal). And not only theethnomethodologists, but all the rest o# language studies become histarget. &he 16;s and 1@;s had become a modern 'olden Age o#linguistic analysis. %n #ormal linguistics itsel#, *oam Choms)y had set o## arevolution by !roducing a method #or analy?ing the >dee! structure> o#

grammar. Anglo2American !hiloso!hy had long since #orsa)enmeta!hysics and was burrowing more and more dee!ly into the nature o#>s!eech acts>0 rench !oststructuralists and 'erman !hiloso!hical(ar"ists li)e Jurgen $abermas were searching #or the basic cognitivecode or analy?ing society into acts o# communication. 'o##man too) themall on, mounting an o##ensive to reconEuer his own tur#.

rame &nalysis is !artly directed against 'ar#in)el=s ethno2

23@82

methodology, !artly a cleaning u! o# old business by critiEuing <lumerand the symbolic interactionists. Schut? had declared that everyday li#ehad certain Eualities the reci!rocity o# !ers!ectives, an immersion in thesel# as wor)er, and so #orth. &o which 'o##man re!lies Why should weta)e his word #or itF %n. #act there are !lenty o# situations in which one!erson=s #rontstage is not the !ers!ective o# the !erson to whom it isdirected, and the other !oints in Schut?=s list ought to be treated ust asdubiously. &he same a!!roach, 'o##man insinuates, ought to be ta)enwith 'ar#in)el and his #ollowers. &heir >e"!eriments> and observations aresometimes !recise, sometimes merely #ragmentary0 we should not becarried away by their dramatics or by their high2sounding analysis intoassuming that their inter!retation is necessarily the right one.

'o##man !ro!oses an alternative conce!tion, !ulling together his earlierwor) around a device that he now calls >#rames.> &he meta!hor evo)es a!icture with a #rame around it0 one can then !ut another #rame aroundthat, and then ste! bac) and re!eat the !rocess still #urther0 or one can

descend inside the inner #rame and !lace a still smaller #rame there, andso #orth. 'o##man, who never stic)s to his meta!hors very long, alsocalls this >)eying,> in the sense that one can trans!ose the same melodyon the !iano into another )ey./ &he notion is !artly a re!ly to 'ar#in)el=sclaim that social cognition is characteri?ed by re#le"ivity and the danger o#in#inite regress. or 'ar#in)el social reality is merely the methods that weuse to account #or it0 hence, we are always stuc) on the level o# the>signed obect> and can never get to the >-ebenswelt obect> beneath.&his is the meaning o# >re#le"ivity,> as i# we are caught in an endless circleo# trying to !ull ourselves u! by our own bootstra!s. 'ar#in)el had alsodrawn the conclusion that !eo!le im!licitly reali?e they should notEuestion the arbitrariness o# their social constructions #or #ear that theywill #all into an in#inite regress o# Euestioning everything 22 with nowhere tosto!.

'o##man reects this as abstract !hiloso!hy, not real social !ractice. %nactual #act !eo!le deal with the arbitrariness o# social li#e Euite readily,and we have devices that everyone uses #or moving #rom one level o##rame to another. %n !rinci2

23@2

19



!le the number o# levels may be endless but, as a !ractical matter, wenever ta)e it that #ar. We are ca!able o# embedding Euite a #ew #ramesaround #rames and still )nowing where we are.

or e"am!le, !eo!le o#ten !lay games, go through ceremonies, or sit in a

theatre watching ma)e2believe. &hese are all trans#ormations o# !rimaryreality not a real room but a room on a &H set, not an ordinary #ield o#grass but a #ootball game, and so #orth. +!on these can be created yetother levels a !ractice session #or a game, #or instance, or an e"hibitiongame, or children !retending to !lay a game. &hen we add the world o#tal) onto this and we see that conversation has its own level o#conventions and rules, not to mention the times when it addssu!erim!osed commentary onto some game or ceremony that is tal)edabout. &al) also can comment on itsel# in various ways. When we add#rontstages and bac)stages, which ma)e u! so much o# the wor) worldand also the world o# staged sociability such as !arties/, we can see that!eo!le are able to deal with multi!le levels o# reality as a matter o#

course. We are by no means con#ined to the sur#ace, the way 'ar#in)elseems to im!ly.

rame &nalysis can also be regarded as a criticism o# symbolicinteractionism. %t deals with the definition of the situation, the answer tothe Euestion, >What is going on hereF> <ut whereas the symbolicinteractionists deal with this #rom the !oint o# view o# the individual, whosebehavior is su!!osedly determined by the !revailing de#inition, 'o##man!oints out the structure that encom!asses the view!oints o# all !artiesand all !ossible vantage !oints. &his is the dress rehearsal #or a weddingceremony that will itsel# constitute a #rontstage dis!lay o# social status0 itis a bac)stage conversation among lawyers out o# sight o# their clients,

but they are tal)ing about their children=s #ootball game. &he outermostlayer o# de#inition is not necessarily the controlling one. 'o##man is notmerely doing tric)s with mirrors, and social li#e is not an endless #lu". %#necessary, we can !eel o## the layers Euic)ly and dro! bac) to the core.

What is the core, the !rimary #rame, as 'o##man !uts itF %t is the real!hysical world and the real social !resence o# human

238;2

bodies within it. >e#ining situations as real certainly has conseEuences,>'o##man says, >but these may contribute very marginally to the events in!rogress. . . . All the world is not a stage 22 certainly the theatre isn=tentirely. Whether you organi?e a theatre or an aircra#t #actory, you needto #ind !laces #or cars to !ar) and coats to be chec)ed, and these hadbetter be real !laces, which incidentally, had better carry real insuranceagainst the#t./> We are bac) at ur)heim=s vision o# a real material worldin which human bodies come together, rituals are carried out, andcollective mental re!resentations are thereby created. 'o##man addslayer on layer o# how these ceremonies and mental de#initions can !layo## each other, but the material world o# human bodies is still basic. Whena #ire brea)s out in a theatre, all the other games= are o##.

'o##man=s last boo), orms of Tal- , ta)es this model o# multi!le #ramesand a!!lies it to conversation. $e is critical o# the ethnomethodologicala!!roach o# Sac)s and Scheglo##as well as o# linguists li)e Choms)y or!hiloso!hers li)e John Austin and John Searle. or the constraints on

how one s!ea)s and re!lies are not in the #ormalities o# language, but inthe realm o# social relationshi!s, that is, in how one must dis!lay onesel#with res!ect to others. S!eech is embedded in ritual. &he units o#language are not grammatical the sentence/, nor the turns !eo!le ta)ehow long one has the #loor #or one utterance/, but social moves in somesituation, which may ta)e either a good deal longer or a good deal lessthan a turn. Social action is more basic than tal).

&o buttress his !oint, 'o##man o##ers a collection o# evidence that only hewould have noticed the )inds o# cries, mutterings, and so #orth, that!eo!le utter in the !resence o# others=but without being in conversationwith them. &his >sel#tal),> as 'o##man calls it, shows that a social situation

is based on the )hysical co)resence o# !eo!le, not necessarily on theirsubective and intersubective awareness. Sel#2tal) is embarrassingbecause it violates the demand that we should show ourselves ascom!etent and sel#2controlled !ersons. &he blurted sounds we ma)e arenot mere biological grunts, cries o# !ain, or other sheer asociale"!ressions. 7n the contrary, they arise #ollowing some action that otherswill notice, and they

23812

20



invite other !eo!le=s attention into our interiors, >not a #looding o# emotionoutward, but a #looding o# relevance in.> We gas! or swear when westumble on the sidewal), not because it is an involuntary !hysiologicalres!onse, but because we are thereby signaling to other !eo!le that we,too, regard it as a clumsy accident. &he cry serves to distance our socialsel# #rom our biological sel#. %t is a )ind o# tiny ritual re!air o# thecom!etent sel#2image we #eel obliged to maintain.

Another thing this reveals is that the social situation is larger and more#undamental than a #ocused conversation. >Dven when nothing event#ul isoccuring,> 'o##man sums u!, >!ersons in one another=s !resence are stillnonetheless trac)ing one another and acting so as to ma)e themselvestrac)able.> <eneath our human roles, we still do the same things as otheranimals, that is, chec) #or !ossible threats and allies. or this reason, thesociolinguists= method o# dividing tal) into that o# >s!ea)er> and >hearer> isnot basic enough. <ystanders in visual and aural range are also !art o# aconversational situation, although linguists would not recogni?e them as

such. &he situation may brea) u! into three !arts s!ea)erIaddressedreci!ientIunaddressed reci!ient. %t is this com!le"ity that allows #or>collusion,> >by!lay,> >cross!lay,> and other modes o# communicationsuch as a )nowing win) #rom the s!ea)er to an onloo)er, etc./. And thereare other )inds o# tal) besides a conversation !ublic ceremonies,collective singing, lectures, s!eeches. &hese are di##erent )inds o#ur)heimian rituals, not ust because o# the di##erent numbers o# !eo!leinvolved in them, but because o# the di##erent #rames they involve and,hence, the ways they channel !eo!le=s attention. %n e##ect they arecreating Euite di##erent )inds o# >sacred obects.>

Social li#e is a series o# embeddings. &here is human tal), with all the

levels o# game !laying and !retence to which it is subect. &he tal) is !arto# a larger social situation Among the !eo!le involved, and this socialsituation is itsel# embedded in an ethnological situation and in a sheer!hysical one. 7#ten the way tal) arises or ta)es on meaning comes #romthe relationshi! o# !artici!ants to some event or tas) in the !hysical realmaround them. &he tal) that occurs when individuals are re!airing a car>&here=s the !roblem>/ or !laying cards >S!ades.>/

23832

is not understandable unless one )nows what is being done !hysically,and o#ten this may reEuire being right there on the s!ot and loo)ing underthe hood o# the car #rom the same angle as the s!ea)er. As 'o##mansays, the basis o# language is not some !rimal intersubectivity, but rathera common #ocus on a !hysical scene o# action.

%n addition to these series o# embeddings, our distinctively humanca!acity #or still #urther #raming and #rame brea)ing builds u! the #amiliarmultileveled world in which we live. Social so!histication consists largelyin how easily one can move among #rames and either #it them togethersmoothly with other !eo!le=s #rames or else deliberately mani!ulate#rames to mislead other !eo!le about what we are doing. Although'o##man does not mention it, it seems li)ely that the invisible barriersamong the cultures o# di##erent social classes have to do with thesedi##erences in #raming techniEues. $e does show that the di##erencebetween #rontstage and bac)stage can be stated more !recisely in termso# the amount o# #reedom one has to brea) one=s own #rame and shi#t to

another one.

rom 'o##man=s view!oint, then, the e##orts o# Choms)y and other #ormallinguists to #ind a single dee! structure underlying all tal) is a #oolishEuest. -anguage is inherently !art o# a multileveled situation. %t islanguage=s ca!acity #or endlessly distancing onesel# #rom, and redoing,more !rimary situations that constitutes the )ey. ar #rom being a code!rogrammed inside the brain, language is built u! by a series o# socialactions, each re#le"ively re#erred bac) to the last. At the o!!ositee"treme, the abyss o# relativity e"!ounded by the ethnomethodologists iseEually unreal. &he world is ca!able o# being Euite #luid, but the #luidity israrely out o# control. Whenever it gets carried too #ar away 22 or #or that

matter whenever something more im!ortant intervenes 22 we can Euic)ly!arachute bac) to ground ?ero, the !hysical world we are standing in andthe !osture o# the human bodies around us. &he world can become verycom!licated, but it is built u! by re!eating a small number o# re#le"ivemechanisms. Scienti#ic generali?ations are !ossible because we can.describe the mechanism.

238B2

A S,mming &/

21



7# all the intellectual traditions we have surveyed, the lineage o# ideasdescribed in this cha!ter is !robably the most chaotic. All the !ositionsreviewed here still have their adherents today0 hardly anyone would agreethat there is a !rogression, that is, that more recent theories are advancesthat build on the older one theories. &here are at least #our great out!oststhat have never been ta)en in the endless s)irmishes o# themicrosociology wars Peirce, (ead, 'ar#in)el, and 'o##man. orconvenience we might reduce these to three because Peirce was!rimarily a !hiloso!her with broad interests rather than a sociologist, andthe most relevant !art o# his !hiloso!hy 22 his theory o# semiotics 22 islargely incor!orated in (ead=s system. %n the same way and onlystretching things a bit, we may say that 'o##man incor!orates ande"tends ur)heim=s ritual theory o# microsociology.

*ow what o# these threeF %# not a !rogression, can we decide amongthem on the various !oints at issueF %n some ways this is sur!risingly!remature. Although a good deal o# em!irical wor) has come out o# andsometimes gone into/ the three theories, not much o# it has tried actuallyto test the core theories themselves. Symbolic interactionists have usually ust assumed (ead=s and <lumer=s theories and used them to inter!retvarious !ieces o# descri!tion about deviance, the !ro#essions, and so on.&he ethnomethodologists have used their evidence more to illustratearguments than to su!!ort them in any care#ul showdown againstcountertheories. Although the various theories have inhabited the samearena #or decades, they have done little more than shadowbo". 7nly'o##man has made any !ointed attac)s on their !oints o# di##erence, andthese have been mostly buried in the #orm o# veiled allusions.

<ut let us see what might be ventured. irst, (ead versus 'ar#in)el. &his

is a con#rontation between two Euite di##erent !hiloso!hies, the!ragmatists on one side versus the !henomenology o# $usserl. $usserlset out to do e"actly what Peirce said it was unnatural #or the human mindto do, namely, to doubt everything and to= sus!end one=s sense o# belie#.or the !ragmatists, on the contrary, the >will to believe> without su#2

23842

#icient evidence is the most #undamental Euality o# the human mind. *otonly that, but the !ragmatists con#idently believed that !eo!le are right

enough o# the time as things wor) out in !ractice/ so that this loose2edged !rocedure is Euite satis#actory. or (ead and the !ragmatists,there is no !roblem o# how society is !ut together0 we sim!ly wor) it out.

&he ethnomethodologists could hardly be #arther away #rom this sim!le

con#idence. $uman cognitive ca!acity has its strict limits and we can onlyhold things together because we shy away #rom Euestioning ourconventional understandings very #ar. Society holds together as well as itdoes, not because we have wor)ed out any common understandings norbecause it is a !ragmatically e##icient instrument #or achieving ourcollective !ur!oses, but merely because we assume things are normaluntil they brea) down so badly we cannot avoid ma)ing some )ind o#re!air. 7n this !oint % would say that the greater realism goes to theethnomethodologists. &he o!timism o# (ead and the !ragmatists soundsli)e a !hiloso!hical version o# conventional ideology, whereas 'ar#in)el=smodel #its more realistically with the macroevidence amassed by con#licttheory.

&he same thing can be said on a more detailed level. (ead had !ro!osedthat social order is #itted together in each situation as the !artici!antseach ta)e the role o# the other and mutually align what they are trying todo. <ut 'ar#in)el ma)es us aware o# the in#inite regress that lur)s here. %#you are trying to ta)e account o# my reactions as you !lan your movesand % ta)e account o# your reactions as % !lan my moves, each o# us isgoing to have to ta)e account o# the ne"t level o# monitoring the other,and so on. $uman cognition is ust not ca!able o# dealing with that levelo# endless re#le"ivity. 5ather than really ta)ing the role o# the other, moreli)ely we do what 'ar#in)el says we sim!ly assume the most normal,conventional understanding and go ahead with what we were going to do.

Peo!le do not have to understand each other to interact, and they do noteven have to worry about whether their understanding is true, unlessthings get so #ar out o# line that the situations brea) down0 even then,!eo!le tend to ma)e only the minimal re!air to restore a sense o#normality.

2382

*e"t, 'o##man versus (ead. 'o##man is critical o# many as!ects o#symbolic interactionism. &he >%,> the >(e,> and the >'enerali?ed 7ther>

22



are #ar too sim!le to ca!ture the actual selves that one #luctuates in andout o#, sometimes within minutes or even #ragments o# seconds. Whensomeone is giving a lecture, #or e"am!le 22 bear in mind that 'o##man wassaying this #rom a lecture !lat#orm, delivering a lecture entitled >&he-ecture> 22 there are >multi!le selves in which the sel# o# the s!ea)er cana!!ear.> &here is the sel# who enunciates what it actually believes orwants, but also the sel# as a #igure within the tal), and also the sel# asanimator 22 the sel# who delivers a !er#ormance in that situation thelecturer.as lecturer/. urthermore one can brea) #rame say by stumblingover one=s words and, then, a!ologi?ing in one=s ca!acity as the !ersonwho is trying to be a lecturer/0 then again one can get into some !ersonalby!lay o##stage0 or one can sto! to ma)e one=s #urther commentary onwhat one has said. %n (ead=s terms, one would have to say that all theseare actions o# the >%> trying out various >(e=s> against the bac)dro! o# a>'enerali?ed 7ther.> <ut the >(e> and the >'enerali?ed 7ther> in each o#'o##man=s e"am!les is on a di##erent level o# analysis and located in adi##erent social s!ace. &here is no unitary >'enerali?ed 7ther> insideone=s head, 'o##man seems to im!ly. What ta)es its !lace is o#ten outsideus, in the social situation, and also in some sense in our immediate !ast,as each sel# !lays o## the #rame that was ust set in !revious moments.

'o##man critici?es, too, the develo!mental model by which the small childis su!!osed to have acEuired this mental eEui!ment. $e comments thatadults tal) to small babies in a com!le", not a sim!le way they imitate ababyish tone o# voice and s!ea) #or the child, not to it. >oes baby wanta nice. teddy bearF>/ &his is an embedding o# social roles. &he child is notsim!ly acEuiring a >(e> and a >'enerali?ed 7ther,> but is. learning a #airlycom!le" !rocess o# how to decode and !er#orm embeddings. <aby tal)may involve a sim!li#ied grammar and vocabulary, but >its laminative#eatures are anything but childli)e.> Although the analysis has not yetbeen carried out, 'o##man is suggesting an entirely new way to a!!roachboth the study o# language and child !sychology generally.

23862

or all this, % would udge that 'o##man here is ma)ing !rogress on the!ath started by (ead rather than turning in an entirely new direction.(ead and the symbolic interactionists are not very good at how socialorgani?ation is !ut together, but their real strength is (ead=s theory o#thought. &he criticisms % have ust s)etched coming #rom 'o##man are no

more than suggestions, not a systematic model, because 'o##man neverbuilt a system. (ead still !rovides the basic outlines o# a theory o#thin)ing as an internali?ed social !rocess, which remains the best buildingbloc) available. 'o##man !oints out that we need a much more re#inedand com!licated !icture o# the com!onents o# the sel# and a moredynamic and multileveled view o# how the com!onents o# the sel# interactwith ongoing social situations. <ut this can be used to build onto (ead=s#ramewor). &he only drawbac) is that we have not been used to buildingon it or #or that matter on anything else. 7ur social !sychology, as % havealready said, has largly ignored (ead=s theory o# thin)ing in #avor o# ane"ternal a!!lication to social !roblems and social roles. And we are moreused to debating and )noc)ing down each other=s !ositions than tobuilding on what is use#ul !rogress within them. *evertheless the!otential is here #or a so!histicated sociological theory o# the mind.

inal ly 'o##man versus 'ar#in)el. 'o##man attac)s theethnomethodologists #airly severely. $e acce!ts their ultraem!iricism butnot their theoretical conclusions. &he ethnos are too radicale!istemologically. &hey insist that everything is locally !roduced, thatthere are no general laws at all in 'ar#in)el=s version o# theuna!!roachable Lebenswelt,. or that the laws are sim!ly those o#conversation itsel# in Sac)s and Scheglo##=s version/. 'o##man denies it.&here is an overall social structure and we can ma)e valid generali?ationsabout it. Dven within any situation, the tal) and the cognitive constructionsare not !rimary, but only !art o# a set o# embedded #rames. &he largest#rame is the !hysical world and the bodies o# the !eo!le interacting in it!er#orming ur)heimian rituals.

(y own !redilection is to side with 'o##man on this !oint. &he !hysical

world is not as mysterious as 'ar#in)el ma)es it out to be, even though itis !er#ectly true that no one can ever

238@2

ca!ture in words all that might !ossibly enter into any !articular situationin which one #inds onesel#. <ut interestingly enough there is a way inwhich 'ar#in)el and ur)heim 'o##man=s lineage chie# 22 converge on thisbasic !oint. 'ar#in)el is constantly arguing that human cognition is limited,and that it does not !rovide its own #oundation. &hat is his big discovery

23



as he carried out $usserl=s inunction to go e"!lore the #undamentalstructures o# human e"!erience, in this case in the social world.+nderneath the world o# >signed obects,> there is always the/Lebenswelt/ looming dar)ly and never reducible to what we say about it.<ut this is another version, on the cognitive !lane, o# what ur)heim hadsaid about social solidarity in dis!roving the utilitarian social contract.Socielty cannot be held together by rational agreement, ur)heim argued,because that would lead to an in#inite regress o# necessarily !rioragreements to live u! to one=s agreement.

'ar#in)el and ur)heimboth come to the same !oint. &here is a large >N2#actor> underlying society that is not !art o# our own rational agreements.ur)heim called it >!recontractual solidarity>0 'ar#in)el described it as our!re#erence not to Euestion what holds things together. <ut in #act the >N2#actor> may be e"actly the same thing on both angles o# a!!roach. %t isthe emotional relationshi!s among human beings that inevitably arisewhenever human bodies are in the same !lace. %t is this that !rovideswhatever im!licit understandings we have in any situation. Where theemotion is curtailed, negative, or distrust#ul and we have to #all bac) oncommon rational understandings, we #ind ourselves in e"actly the in#initeregress o# arguments and misunderstandings that 'ar#in)el suggested isalways !otentially there.

'ar#in)el, then, is !artly right, at least on a crucial !oint o# how society isheld together. %t is not held together by rational agreement or mutualunderstanding, and whenever it is reduced to that, the structure is boundto #ail. <ut to the e"tent that it is held together, it is because there issomething else going on. 'ar#in)el is too sel#2limiting in his unwillingnessto e"!lore the >N2#actor> and come out with any general characteri?ation

o# what lies inside. or what is inside the >N2#actor> is e"actly whatur)heim saw emotional solidarity. %t is not

23882

automatic0 ur)heim and some o# his #ollowers went too #ar in assumingthat society is inevitably integrated in almost every situation. Dmotionalsolidarity is a matter o# degree, and it is !roduced by Euite observableconditions o# !hysical interaction that ma)e u! rituals.

'o##man never succeeded in integrating his earlier theories o# interactionrituals in everyday li#e with his later analysis o# #rames and tal). <ut theoutline o# how they #it together is clear enough. &he bedroc) o# socialinteraction, the outmost #rame around all the laminations o# socialsituation and sel#2re#le"ive conversation, is always the !hysicalco!resence o# !eo!le warily attending to each other. &his, too, is wherethe basic ingredients o# ur)heimian rituals are #ound. &he tal) embeddedwithin becomes in various degrees a sacred obect loaded with someemotional signi#icance, large or small, that ma)es it a symbol #ormembershi! in some !articular grou!. 'o##man=s later analyses give usan enormous range o# !ossible grou!s o# which one can be a member,many o# them situational grou!s o# only the most #leeting duration. Andthis, % would say, is scienti#ic !rogress. &he com!le"ity o# social li#e isslowly being brought into the !urview o# a general theory o# e"tremelywide a!!lication.

NOTES1. As a !sychologist James does not greatly concern us here, although

there are some elements o# his !sychology that #oreshadowedCharles $orton Cooley and 'eorge $erbert (ead=s theory o# the sel#.James was ty!ical o# the early generation o# e"!erimental!sychologists still wor)ing within !hiloso!hy de!artments whocombined a descri!tion o# the !hysiology o# the brain with analyses o#various mental #unctions. James=s #amous 0rinci)les of 0sycholo"y 18;/ thus contains cha!ters on sight, hearing, attention, memory,habit, instinct, and so on. Among these to!ics he treats the stream= o#consciousness and the sel# as a center within this stream. 7ne as!ecto# the sel# is the Social Sel#, the >(e> as an image seen #rom the !ointo# view o# others. $ere we already have Cooley=s discovery, one mighte"claimM &he udgment would be a little hasty. James=s Social Sel# isonly one !art o#

2382

a hierarchy o# selves, including the <odily Sel# and the S!iritual Sel#0the alleged unity o# all these into one Sel# is James=s argument #or thereality o# the Soul. James was still !reaching religion, even in his!sychology. %n a way James was the American eEuivalent o# WilhelmWundt, the #ounder o# e"!erimental !sychology in 'ermany0 both

24





were medical scientists who went into !hiloso!hy and establishedlaboratories #or the e"!erimental study o# the mind. <ut Wundt,o!erating in a more scienti#ic atmos!here, too) a much more e"treme!osition and bro)e !sychology #ree #rom !hiloso!hy0 James, instead,la!sed #rom e"!erimental !sychology bac) into a religious !hiloso!hy.$ence, the #ounders o# American !sychology were students o# Wundt,not o# James. &hese intellectual networ)s are treated in <enavidand Collins, 166/. &he ways in which James #oreshadowed thesociological theory o# the sel#, in my o!inion, are not very signi#icantbecause James=s= line o# thought would never have lead to a !urelysocially grounded sel#. (oreover his cardinal !rinci!le o# a uni#ied sel#is one o# the main !oints that gives way under sociological analysis.We will see the most e"treme #orm o# this in 'o##man=s theory o#multi!le selves.

23;2

25

Documents

Randall CRandallCollinsCap4ollins Cap 4