texto TG TAS Brian Roberts_MicroSocialTheory.pdf

8/10/2019 texto TG TAS Brian Roberts_MicroSocialTheory.pdf

1/31

31

3

Symbolic Interactionism 1

Origins

Introduction

An il1llllt'diatc

i ~ s u c in

tht, ('oIlsidera on

of

s)'l1lbolic

ilH

CrJetio

lli

s

lll is

q u e ~ t i ( ) n

of

dcfinitioll , Th ere

j

..

so

rne eOllfllsioll

in

thc :

U

M () f th

t

tl'flll h,

hoth

ib

adlll'rt'nts alld COI1lIllCIH

at

l)rS: 1 I 1 t t i r U 'sYll1 bo lic

i n t e r J c t i o

n j ~ J l 1

l'alled 'interactionisrn' , o r evell (nt'o )Chicagn SdlOtll

or

rrJdiriol) ( ~ c ( '

h ~ h e r anel

'itrau

..

1Q

79J t=or

:> me,

r a t i o n i ~

th

t'

later

influelKl'd ,riters such as Ho'Vard Bt'cker

and

Er ving Goffrnan . But the,c

f i g u r e ~ leaLl

lI'> hack to

E.c... Hu

ghcs,

::Jn

d thcn 1'hOl11.1 .. a nel Park, \V irh con

cerns taccording to On e v

ie w)

for ' field\\'o

rk

, urball $oc iology, anel defend

the-underdog

..nciolog y' whieh

a nided

'l1111croStrul'tural l l l p h a ~ i .. in favo r

of

its Illicru .copic int('I'acrionJI

011C'

(h ..her

and S t r a l l ~ . . , 19

79:

45 7)

. 1-or

others,

~ y l l 1 h o l i l

intcraet ioni


2/31

3

f 2 . o ~ t e . . - k . t I O U

\

z...o-o

K ~

h t.iZL.l

~ . l t .

H t:. - P U : ZR : a

\

ll.C:h).

MIcro Social

Theory

!\

major

changes restIg on little evidcllce:

The

sci

.entist's attitude is th'lt of a

man

iJl a going COllcern

\Vhich

requires at various

points reacljustments and

recOllstructiollS.

The success of the readjustments and

reconstruction5

is founcl

in the triulllph over the

difficult)"

as

cviclcl1ced by

lhe fact

that lhe concem continues to operate. He finds bis tests in the pans of the wholc

which still operate. (Mcad

1964:

48-9)

In Meac!'s view the minei anel social experience are involved

in

experimental

science. Within the tbought of the scientist engaged in experimental anel other

scientific work

anel

in the operation of the minei generaJly, there is always t 1 ~ e

awareness of the existence of selves

anel

minds of the

cOl11l1lunity

of colJeagues

and others. This is a differellt view from one that sees lhe coJlection of facts

anel

formation of scientific ideas

anel

important theoretical systems separate

from a social contexto For Mead, in his

rbe Natme

of Scientific

Kn

owleelge',

rbeoretical systems are eleveloping within social process

in

institutions - within

the activities of scientists - aml :15

part of

rhe problems they tr)' to understand

rather than as a c1ash

of

systems (Mead 1964). There remained socnething of a

social evolutionar)' model in Mead, the irnplications

of

which hal'e not always

been

fuH)'

recognised - the pattem

of

succession

of

theoretical systems was

being replaccd itselE. As society, minei

anel

self altered, so eliel the content

anel

fo m of social ideas . The progress of any thought rcflected how social individ

uais considered themselves anel the social relationslJips they participateel in.

Mead's portrayaJ oJ socicty's social structure anel social organisation is

rather thin - there is a 'liberal pluralism' where

c1ass

relations are differenti

ated ar, furtber, are merely orte of a number of types of relationsbips, sucb as

buyer anel seller, with some relations more important socialJy than others.

According to .Meacl, eaclt relationship is 'socially functional' anel eacb individ

uai a 'socialJy fllnctional' member of a group. In the 'ideal society' a 'functional

differentiation' wouJd stilJ exist according to individual abilities and tasks.

However, rhrough greater social participation, old ieleological conflicts (and

the

social disruption they produced) would be overcome. Mead believeel

tbat lhe future 'ideal societ)" could be approacheel by a combination of tbe

'economic' aspects of society and the 'communaJ' features of religion:

Those abstractions calll

be

put together

in

a

single

community of the delllocratic type.

As

democracy

n.ow

exists, there

is

not this development

of

communication

50

that

individuais

can

put

thcmse]ve.\

into the attitudes of those

whol1l they affeet

. (Mead

1967: 328)

I

t

In summary, within the work of

Mead

there

is

a 'liberal pragmatist' view and

a rhread of debate with 'Social Darwinism'. As Mills (1970b) argues, Social

Darwinism and instinctivist psychoJogy posed a problem for a liberal view

since such aDl1l"oaches

supponed

tradtional forms of individualismo Instead,

I

Symbolic

I

llter< cCi

ollism

J - Otigi ls 33

pragmatists 'wantccl to

give

mind, rationality, a place in n,ltllre anel

in

the psy

chology Df human afLtirs; anel

the}'

wamed to see hlllllan nature as lllodifiable

through the reconstruction of the social "envirolllllent", hence the il1lpottal1cc

they attached to cOlllrnunicaton and "mass educatioll" , (M.ills 1970b: 42).

hat is

'Symbolic Interactioni sm' ?

Vhile not underestimating the contribution of Dewcy, Jalllcs alld utbe!"

pragmatists to symbolic interactionism, Mead's work is usually seell as the

connecting link betwecn pragmatist phil

Os

p

l ly

nel social psycholng)' alld

sociology. The connections were cemcnted by

l'v'lead's

stuclellt and followe

r,

Herbert Blumer, who was his leadng interprete . For Blulller, the sl'lllbolic

interactionist approach

sees

a 'human society'

as eo le en a

f

l in liviu . Such living

is

a process or ollgoil1g ac

tiviqr

il1

wh

ic h

partlClpants are e

ve oping

lines of actioll in the

nlllltitudinOlls

sitl ;J tiolls they

encounter. They are

.:aught

up in a vast p

roc

ess of i n t c r ~ c t i U I l ...

in

IIl;lkillg illclica-

tions

to

others of what

to do

and intcrpretiJlg

the

intlicatiolls

as

lI1acle

b)'

others.

(Blumer 1969: 20)

Ind ividuais are 'formed, sustained, weakene

d,

lnel tra ns[oflllecl ill lheir interac

tion wUh one a g ~ l e r as they join together

in

di(ferent associati O

lls

aml pos itions

(Blull1e

r 1969: 21). AccordiJ1g to Meltzer et

a!.

(1975) (broadly llsing the tCrI"

'interaction ism'), Dewey, l'v'leacl, CQoley

anel

Thomas gave prol11 inence to t

hc

'gcoup' as composed of individuais sharing ideas alul as SOl1l"ce

oF

ndividu'lJ

interpretation and col1ditions of bchaviollr. [-lere was a COllCCI ll for the

development of the personality and self, which incllldecl dll e attcntion to the

biological aspects of individual motivation in acting (Meltzer et

aI. 1.975:

48).

A further factof

is

the use of the term 'symbolic behaviour'. This involved

mo

re

than language; it incllleled other forms of c

im

nllll

lc

ation - 'it was

(111)'

witil

reference

to

certain specific aspects of the theory tbat lal1guage was elel'


3/31

34

icro Social

TIJeol'J'

,! \

cmly material anel objective bllt also il11l11ensdy symbolic'. Unlike uimals,

human

beings employ their 'elaborate symbol-producing capacity which enables

them to procluce a l'listory, a culture anel very inrricate webs of cornlTlllllication'.

Althol.lgh

we

rotltinely

creale'

"accounts" to explain our actions

anel

livcs', we

prodLlce 'sharcel meanings' whiclt

'are

always o])en

to r e a p p r a s ~ 1 anel

further

adjustmcl1t'. Sccolld

is

the idea of 'process': 'Lives, situations anel even

i e t i e s

are w a j a n d e v e r y w h e l ~ ~ o l v i n g , adjllstiilg, emerging, beeoming.' Hence,

in tbis perspective, there

is

a

f

0

8

upon lhe strategies of acquiring a scnse

of

self, of developing a biography, of adjusting to others'. Finally, rhere

is

a focus

011

'inreraction' - rather rhall attention to self or socicty tbere

is

a concern

'with

the j int acts throllgh which lives are organized and societies assernbled' . In

short, as Plummer says, t!lere

is

'behind ;;yrnbolic interactionist sociologies a

pervasivc imagery - of

...!2'.11lboI, i l l 9 c t ~ ( P I U l l l m ( ~ r

1991a:

x-xi). Symbolic interactionism appears to have scveral characteristics: the

formation and

e X ~ n

~ of meanings; an emphasis on social process anel the

lllEerrelFlon between individual

anel

group; the social consrru

Ct

ion oT social

strLlcture ratber

than

as merely externalTy impose

d; anel

a declication to

'subjective' ar

'naturalistic' methods

of

r

es

earch

a t j

For ~ y n ~ b o l i c interactionists it is through interaction that mealllngs are

negotiated in defining the social worlcl. People act accordillg to the meanings

they have

anel

as formeel

in

the contin ing intcraction with others, wbich in

turn inforllls new interaclion. It is, therefare, the researcher's task

to sruely

such

processes and llleaning.

In

sumrnary, symbolic i.nteractioniSI11 constructs

-

particular sense of rationaJity, elerived

frol11

lts pragmatlst roots:

Pragmarisll1 draws neirher explicitly

011

tbt:

comtnOll-sense

notion of means-end

rationality of Max Weber [lor on the more' rigorolls cOllceprion of rational c1lOicc

theory, but talks lUore about

rhe

diEferent rarionaliries that exist

in c1iffcrent

siruatiolls.

There

are

many

differenl means-cnd chains,

varying

from situatioll

to

situation ...

lhe

llleanings

anel

relatiolls

C:In bc

undersrood

ill lhe

context of pursuing practicaI

purposes

ill

the worId. (Benton and Craib 2001: 87-

8)

George Rerbert Mead -

Ris

Philosophy and

Social Psychology

George I-lerbert lvleael was a colleague of Dewey's at N1ichigan

nncl

Chicago,

anel he studied uneler Rayce

anel

in Gennauy. Hc was familiar witil Cooley's

idea of Lhe looking-glass self. Mead was influenced by the experimental

psychologist Wilhelm Wunelt and a nUlllber of his ideas, although lllodificd,

. appear prominently in his wOI:k (Deegan 2001: xxvi-xxxi). During his life his

influcnce was rhough studcnts taking courSl:S on

SOci,ll

psychology and phi

losophy and through varioLis wrtings and articles

in

tlle fields of rcform

anel

edLlcali

on

(see Deegan 2001).

Ee

has had a

wicle

influcnce within sociology

Symbolic

Interactionis1 1l l - Origins

35

I

anel some areas of social psycholog)'; particularly

frol11 t11e

1960s

ol1w

,

Hcls, he

was

reael by

sociologists

in

the

Eields

f

deviance

anel

stuclying stllaller

i l s r i t

tional settings sceking to explore the formation and interchange af

IllC:ll1illgS.

c.g. the givillg and acceptance of 'Iabels' in weltaie, edllcatio

l1

Oi policing. Thc

\Vork

of Goffl1lan Oll the 'presenlarion of self' (see Chapter 5)

C


4/31

37

. It

] ( ;

c1

O Social

TheOl)

]V[cao's staning point was lhe clynamic social I?rocess containing social acts;

from this basis he attemptecl to oveJ'come the 'mentalism of the introspection

ists' and the limitatiol1s of Watsonian behaviourism (Martinelale 1961: 354). In

silol.'t, lhe restriclive dualism of 'min d' ano ph)'sical being - founel in previous

theoretical 'subjectivisJ11' and 'objectivism' - hacl

to be

ovcrcome. IndividuaLs

could perceive thcll1selves as objects anel , through sYl1lbolic cOll1l11l.lllication,

p

I t

icJar!Y1i1gUag, coulel r espon

dto anel

anticipate

o t 1 e r ~

Similarly, Mea d

developed the ioea of 'attitudes' as both ' introsp-ective states anel the startin

poillt of the act' (Marcirrda

:t el961:

355).

S)Ill1b

oJic cOlTIlTlullication, particll

lrly through vocal language, .was centrally importallt. \'(fhere a gesture pro

duces the sarne idea in the giver and receiver theh a 'significant symbol' is

present. The individual is able to take the 'attitude of the other' in his or heI.'

gestures . This is a convel'sation of S i g l ~ i ficallt gestures, whicll is prepared for

'internally' and takes place extemaJly with others through the operation of the

'minei' in thought . ThllS, the 'mind' is formed within a social process in tbe

cOlTll11\.lllication of gestllres

as

significalll symbols (Mead 1 7: 47,

50).

for

Mead, rhe self has a development -

it

forms wirhill c e s s of social

e x p e l ' i

i l h oThers rather tbaii:being giveu..a.thlrth. Howevcr,

in ' habitual action', lifce in the intelligence of lower forms of animallife, there

is

not a self, since no thinking

is

required as we merely adj ust; it

is

not neces

sary for

it

to

be

organiscd within the self. The bod),

'can be

lhere

anel

can operate in a very intelligent fashion without there being a self illvolved in

the experience. The self has the characteristic that it is an object to itself'

(M.ead 1967:

136).

There are t.wo stages in the self's

fuH

development. First,

the self is formed by the orgalllsations of ccrtain

attitudes towards

him

or

herself through taking

part

in. social acts,

anel

secondly, by lhe organisation

!

f the general social altitudes

of

the social group (ar gencralised other) (Mead

\ 1967:

158):

the individual's

self

is constilured

simply b}

I

OTganizatioll

of lhe particular atti

tudes of other individuals roward himseJf

anel

roward une anothcr

in

the

spccific

social acts

in

wbi ch

he

participares

wi

th

rh

em ... at lhe

second stage

..

. (the) ... self

is constituted not only

by

a11 organizalioJl of thcse particulnr

ind ividual

attitudcs,

but

als

o by an orgallization of t

he

social attitudes of the gcneralized other or

the

suc ial group

as

a wh .ole

to

which he be.Jollgs. (lvlad

1967: 158)

t.,,[ead's emphasis is

Oll

the self as refJexi

ve,

as both sl1bjcct

anel

object, an object

basical\y different

fram othu

objects. IntelligcJ1t rational conduct. has to

involve the individual taking an 'objective, non-affective attitude t o w a r ~ itself'

to become an object (Mead 1967: 137-

8).

He slates lhat

g i l l

of th

thil1king, reflective

seU

are social: the self is 'cogniiive'

a n a T t S f o r l 1 1 a t ~ 1

can

be

. fOlllld in the

l i s e

'co uversation of gestures' with oncself and others.

Hellce, Mead argues that the individual entcrs into experience of self , only in

50

far as he first becomes

an

object to himself just

as

other individuaIs are

S) mbolic IlIteractionisl1l 1 - Origins

objects to him or are

in

lus experience'. Individuais be

co rn

e an o bject

to

rhelll

selves by specifically tak!

ng

the altitudes of others rowards lhelllselves lVithin a

shared context and expf'ricnce (Mead 1967: 138).

A

tcnsi.

ol1

may he

seCll

in lvleacl's discllssion

af

the selr betwecll S ( ) C i ~ l l

Darwinist anel praglllati ,t influences - a pull between (biological) imlividuality

,

f

ano rationalit)'. For lvlills, Jylead altelllpts to ovcrcol1le this conceptllal

tCllsiol1

between the

'J'

of

a

'liberal' individual and the 'mc'

of

sociologised

COllscicm:e

(Mills 1970b: 42,

fll).

Pur rather differcntly (anti

sil11ply)

, the self

s

puised

betwet!n all evolutionar)' notioJl of the cre,ltive, open, ) l l t ~ C O l 1 S bu t !lo tC

lI-

'tiall)' conflictllal, individual and group acriol1 anti an 'illstrumental rationality'

which attempts bo th praclical and progressi

ve

social ourcomes;

'Then: is n limited l'csclIlblance here to the

il1SrrUlllcntalisl11

cspouscd by positivists,

w!lo

have

proble

ms wi

th the statlls of 'thtoretical' cntities [hat

C


5/31

38

39

r

Micro Social Theory

I

I,

individual aware of it

SillCC

its response i5 uncertain

rather

tha

il

prcl11editated

(Mead 1967: 175-6):

Tlte '1'

is

a lll


6/31

40

lI-Jicro Social

Theol y

take the attiweies o others towards hil11/herself and to each other illto the indi

vidual experience. The others attitudes towards the organised society and dif

fering social projects also

l11ust

be taken in. rt

is

through lhe operarion of the

generaliseJ other that the community contrais the behaviOlu'

and

tb.inking of

inclividualmembers of the

cOl11l11unity (Meacll967: 155).

Mead's ideas on soci a l structure are limited out

he

does describe twokinds

of ' socially fUllctional classes or subgro ups ' to which individuais belong. First,

there are 'concret e social classes or sllbgrollps' (e.g. political parti es, clllbs, COI

poratiofls) wbich he regareis as 'functional social units' where individuais are

directly related to each other. Secondly, there are 'abs tract social classes or sub

groups (e.g. debtors, Cf-editors) to which individuais are less clirectly connecteel

but which

l11ay

carry possibilities for 'enriching' social relations between ali the

members of the wbole, ullified society (Meael 1967: 157).

Case

Study:

Time

Mead's philosophical work has been relatively ignoredj it

is

his 'social

psycholagical'writings which have becn more apparent as within social psy

chology anel sociology. J3ul his work, including his social psychologl', I would

arguc,

C ln

only

be

flllly understooel

by

putting' it

in

this wider philosophical

contexto For example, a long neglecteel are a bas been Mead's work

011

time

our

concept.ions of lhe pasl, lhe preseat

anel

the fllt.ure. Recemly, lhcre has bcen

an increasing interest in time in sociologl' anel, in particular, Mead's work

011

the topic (see AJam 1990, 1995; Robcrts 2002: 82-4; Mead 1932, 1964:

328-41). Bis emphasis i5 r e s e l ' ; 1ct:.gent event': the past is not

recoverabre 'as it was', it

is

lot a view of th e past as recoverable, bLlt as a con

tiuuolls construction through the present experience (see Ad

am

1990; Maines

et aI. 1983; Flaherty and Fine 2001). Thl1s, the past only influences as it

is

rewritten anel seleted according to the prescnt, where the futl'lre

is

also coming

aboLlt. As Mead says: 'The assurances which we give to a remembcreei OCCl1r

rence come from the structures with

wlJi

ch they accord' (Nleael

1929:

237).

Mead's theory of time conceived of the past llLHl the

flltl1re as

expansiolls out of the

prcsent, rather than the

C0111111011 conceptiol1

of

a seqllcl1ce

pt'Oceeding fram the past,

to

lhe presem, to the fnture. The reconstructiall af th e past and the anticipatian

lhe

fllture arise fram

lhe same'1o

lilldation, the re

ality of lhe

prescllt. The past, the

re

fi-e,

is

not a fixed cOllditioll of a structured time 'pcl'iad, bllt wll

\lar}'

in accordance

wirh

any

particular prescnt.

(Petras

1968:

12-13)

.

I

In Meael's notion of time, even if we were able to collect ali the information

about

a life or past evenl, lhe truth would remain in the present. A later pres

ent would remake it through its 'emergcnr nature' (Perras 1968:

13).

As 'Aeiam

remarks, the 'reality' for Mead rests in the present: 'The present impliesa past

Symbolic

171teractiol1isl1 1 - rigills

4J

and a futllre, but they are denied existence. Any reality that trallscelllls the

present, he argues, must exhibit itself

in

the prcsent' (Adalll, J990: :IH).

A ratllCr differenr, and gcnerally overlookcd, aspect of Mead's allalysis

[)f

thc

past

is his

insightful llnking of the changes

in

philosophical ieleas with

lhe his

tocal development of the self (see Martindale 1%1: 359). T-lis idcas (Hl thc

seH carne at a time of increasing ps}'chological, alllhropologicaJ anel 'popular'

interest in the inncr workings of lhe individual personality. For Mead tllC self

was becoming more 'social'

01',

to put it rather bctter, inc.reasingly abte tu talce

the role of the other and

.1Ct

towards lasting social bctterl1lcnt

due

to

incre,lscd

social knowlcuge

(see

J\ [;ncs ct aI. 1933). The clisCll.,sioll

oI'

time hils

hecollle

3n

ill1portant sub-arca

in

social lheory, with l\ilead's warle a key l-c(erwcc

fOI

an ul1cle.rstancling of how individuais pcrceive experiences of the past alld

presellt alld act accordillg to an anticipated future.

The Influencc of Mead's Work

Meacl's influence was reLltively lirniteel during his life to his students


7/31

4 1

2

Micro Social Theor)

actiOI1. As Joas states, the 'rich sociological rescarch traelition' set bl' Blumer

anel otbers instcad 'emphasized the openness of social structures, the creativity

of social actors anel the nceel for interpretation of the data of social science'

(Joas 2003 : 96). While onll

palt

of Mead's worle, at least untilll10re recently,

was

L1sed

in sociological

tlIeQ{y

, toda)' his ideas have been consiclerecl bl C011-

fliet sociologists, feminist s ~ c i o l o g i s t s , phcnomenolggists

anel

otbers, indicat

ing thar he has gained a 'classic' status

as

a rderence paira for sociologisls of

many viewpoints (see ]oas 2003: 96-7) . In a w ieer context, given the inclllsion

of s)'mbolic interactionisl11 within interacrionisl11,

anel

the latter's petvasivc

presence, some llave cOllsidercd whether we are 'ali interactiollists now' in

sociology (Atkinsoll anel HOllsley 2003: 144-75). Such a view, obviousll', necds

to be considered with some caution accQrding to the depth of iofluence in the

orisation and research practice. Ao immediate problem with ielentifying the

influence of Meaa in p a ~ t i c u l a r b s e q u e n t work is the actual Oleaning of

syrnbolic intcractionislIl. A symbolie interactionist approach to its own devel

opmellt, as Plull1rner points out, would highlight its challging meaning, shift

illg descriptions of tts origins, the debates about its development, anel so on

~ c e Plul11mer

"1991 a, 1991 b) . Therc is also the issue of 'reacling' Mead since

much debate has also Oourished on the 'authenticity' of the accounts anel

developOlellt Clf his ideas by his interprcters slIeh as BlwlJer.

Another question is whether M.ead is the f O L J I ~ d e [ of 'symbolic intcraction

iSlll or more

wideli

'interactionism', since there is the increasing reeognition

of the broader 'l egacy' of praglllatislll - as an influence on both Meael anel later

writers. 50, for some, the work of Peircc, ]ames and Dewey anel others has to

be

ta cen

into account. \Vithin 'interactionism' lhere is rhe additional legacy of

the Chicagoan sociology of 1'homas and Zoaniecki, Park

aoel

others - along

siele anrhropological theorl' anel fieldwt'k methods (through Thomas), and

Simmel's 'formalism' (rhrough Park). A range of subsequetlt approaches

illcluding phenomenology, ethnomethoelology (and conversational analysis),

feminist rhougbt and varicties of cultural stuclics and postmodern ideas could

also be adeleel ro the diverse 'tradition' of interactionisl11

(see

Plull1mer 1991b;

Dcmin 1992, 2001; Meltzer ct aI. 1975; Atkinson and Housley 2003).

Plurnmer,

in

atrempting to

finei

a cOlTImon thread

in

'interactionism', eonclllded

tbat there is a ce rta in odd unit)' in its impatiellce with traelitional philosophical

polarities,

fOF

instance betwecn frecdom and constraint, or holding a scientific

approach while leaning towarels refonnism. Jnteractionisl1l, lnoaelly in origin,

was not bascd 50 much 011 an attempt to pursue abstract isslles but rarher on

a practical, contextual, 'progressive' approach to acting 'lived' expcrience

(see Plummer 1991a: xiv).

Returning to 'symbolic interactiollism',

we can say that it is at base an

interpretatlve

approach

whch has an undedying 'noton of instrumental

rationality' shaping rcseareh practice anel the view of the individual and socal

intervention

or

reform derived generally fIom the versions of pragmarism

fouud

in

Peir

ce

, ]ames and Dewcy. While sllbsequcnt syrnboLic interact\onism

,

Symbu ic

Interactionism 1 - OTigins

has developed from these bases, it has "Iso changed in emphasis (for eX


8/31

44

45

icro Social Theol J

;

Conclusion

\X/hile thcre are difficulties in pinning dG\vn tbe exac " or consistent meaning of

rnany of the central ideas in Mead's work, his contribution to micro social

theory has been very substantial.

He

was able to include lhe subjcctive under

.:

standings of individuais w i t h i r c i a l action

a t 1 ( c e s s e s

anel

in

interconnect the individual

anel

society. For Joas, 'Mead's grasp

of

the unity

of

inelivicluation

anl

sociali

i t

ion defines bis place in the history of

s o c ~ o l o g y

(Joas

2003:

96). In

pan,

his

contributiol1 was an histo.rjcal one - of its time in

changing the assllrnptions of social theory - but bis micro social theorisation is

still

rekvant

and referred to since he was iuquiring into central issues within

social psychology and sociology.

He

provded a view

of

the indivdual self

within its

SOCi,ll

settng -- including time anel space, elements that have been

generally neglected (unl recently).

As

Mc1tzer et a . state:

The prill1ary

fU[Jction

of Mead's philosophy was to providc a conlext within

which

lhe

nature of

self was boLnded by time, as

well

as by space. Tlle role

of

the

future,

iJl adclition to the past,

W


9/31

47

Symbolic Il teractionism

2

Developtnents

lntroduction

This chaptcr examines lhe :deve opment alld diversity of symbolic intcr3ctionislll

with particular reference to the

work

of Herbert I31umer, its contributions in

cerlaill substanlive arcas, and methocls and methodological issues. In addition,

it notes lhe critiques of symbolic interactionism, and interactionism more

broadly, and the various recent developmcnts and reassessments of its origins.

Symbulic interactionism, while initially (particularly through I3111l11er's work)

very much grouneleel in the concepts of G. H. Mt ad, has witnessed a series of

influences both from olher theoretical deve opments in micro social theory as

well

as

a 'rediscovery' of the wider tradition of pragmatismo The criticisms of

symbolic intcractionisl11 have also

hael al1

influence on its recent e1evelopment

as

it has turneel to discuss a number

of

overlookeel arcas and theoretical

anel

metlJocloJogical difficulties. Its contribution to micro social lheorisation has

been very extensive, in particular on the c iscussion of

~ o c i a l

conlexts - the

meaniugs given to social situations, the 'settings'

of

social interaction (for

instance, deviancy anel social organisations), and the exploral"on of the natllre

of social inte raction itself.

The Development

of

Symbolic Interactionism

The

issue of terminology again needs to

be

emphasised.

To

resta te (from

Chapter 3), 'illtcl:actionism' can bc consielered to

be

a wider

bocly

of theory

than "symbolic interactionism', inclucling some but

HOt ali of the theory and

methocls unelertakcn during the 1920s and 19305 by Chicago sociplogists

(Atkinson and Housley 2003: 2). Thus, interactionislT1, following fisher anel

Strauss (1979), has within it parallel but related traditions clerivcd

fro;I1

some

Chicago sociology

and

fram the 'symbolic intcJ:actionism' of G. H. Mead (anel

his

i n t e r p r ~ t e r , Herbert B1umer). There lIas also been considerabJe debate

regarding whether thece

is

a unifying pragmatist inhcritance within

anel

Symbolc 11lteractiollism 2 Deve oprnents

between these strands, centreel 011 the differences between Jvleacl, Dewey


10/31

48

J vlicro Social Theol )/

l11acle

very

important

theoretical and methodological contributions, other

man

his work on Mead, particularly

011

rhe nature of cOl1ceptualisation and the cri

tique of traditional methodology. .

Blumer's

work,

as Mead's, can

be

placed

in

the pragmatist traelition of

Dewey, Jal es

and

others.

For

Blumer, 's

. . 1 : t b o l ~ t e I a c t i o J l s m ~ L d . e r s

to

particular ld distinctive_ eatures

of i n t e r a c t i o .

~ ' d l i c h

Q l a c e between

human bei s.

In

mdUals do not react accordin to a sim

le

stimulus but ro

VOt e an reconsl ef mealllng to o jecrs in tlleir social situation.

A

considera

rion o sym o ic interaction thus

Il1VO

ves le no IOn

at IIld

vIduals' kction i5

COl1struc

and not

a mere'release,

that indivTcIuals

have selves alld can rfer

to themselv

s

,

and

that group action is an outcome of the bringing together of

m clividuals' interpretatiol1s of each other

anel

rhe graup. Blumer

is

a key figure

in

dlC

'pragrnatic

tum

which aclvocateel methoels focllsed

on

locating analysis

in

everyclay experience of situalions (Plul11rner 1998: 89). Here,

he

was following

pragmatism's distaste for abstract theorisation

and

sterile 'dualistic' philo

sophical .distinctions (e .g. subjet/object) and aelvocating a more practical

approach

to the

stLlely

of grounded evenrs and experience. He arglled that

syl11 bolic interacrionism formed lhe basis of a philosophy with a 'strong

humanislic cast' which was particularly appropriate for the understanding of

social experience through its central focus

011

rhe 'self' as it arises ill taking the

roles

of

others (Blumer 1969:

21,

fn).

Blllmer's article,

What

Is Wrong with Social Theory?' (1954),

obse!"ved

that

tra ditional social theory was divOl:ced from the empirical

\Vorlel

(see Blumer 1969). It coml11only developecl

by

referri;;g to

"tSe

lTif

by

an easy

borrowing of theorisation from other [ields.

Ir

related to the wodel by inter

preting

tr in

its own image, Po

..:..

Blllmer,

t r a d i t i o n ~ f s o i a l

theor)'

i5

c1early

i n a ~

eqllate in guiding resem h

anel

does ilOt appear to

bene

fit much from the

Illassive collection of 'facts' that arise fram el11pirical work, Faceel with these

problems, he says there are two possibilities. First,

to

dvclop precise and

fixed procedures that will yield a stable anel d efinitive empirical content'. The

inrention 'is to

return

to the natural social world with c1efinitive concepts baseei

011

precisel)' specified proceelures', and seconelly, to accept

om

concepts as

being intril1sically sensitizing anel !lot elefinitive' (Illumer 1954: 9) . Ir i5 this sec

onel

response which is eloser to Blul11,er's OWI approach, since it 'seeks to

il11prove concepts by naturalistic research, rhat is by direcr study of oue natu

raJ social wor/d, wherein empirical instances are accepred in tbeir concrete and

distinctive form' . Rather

l l P l y

'guick staJ..ements o

::.

tecbnical instru

l 1 1 e n t t9 c ~ s t r u c t

e l e f i n i t i v e

c o n c e p t

'clel2ends gl.!.jaithfu l..!el20rtoril

depiction of the instances and on analytical probing into the ir charaGter'. The

- ---:-r:-

success of the approach relies

on

natient, careful anel imaginative life stuely'

J: : I

anel has the 'virtue of remaining in elose anel continuing relations \-virh rhe 11at

mal

social world' (Blumer 1954: 9-10).

Tbe core assumpt ions

and

methods oL guantirative research, such as the

survey, and dominant eypes of theorisation foul1d within s0cio!ogy

--::--we.;

e

Symbolic Interactionism 2 - Deve/ofJl1 lellts

49

l

challenged by Blllmer, Such proceelll[es and conceptualisatioJl drew cOl1cepts

8way from pracrical COl1lexts anel the meaning given by individuaIs to the ir set

tiug, He clllls adv ocated rhat empirical study shonld begin witll the actiolls of

social groups rather tllan a conceptiol1 of individuais as merely conforming to

the restraiIlt

of

structureSj in his view, individuais take part in inreractiol1 with

others according to cOJltinlling experiel1ce (Rlumer "969: 6), BllImer W8S

criticaI of rhe adherence to

a

certain: model of science - that ti

I'a WIl frol11

tlle

natural sciences. In 'Sociological Analysis anel the "Variable'" (1956)

he

argues that the effort

11ad

beco towards the construction of

I


11/31


12/31

52

MiGro Social

heory

his foeus on the interconnection betwecn individual and group which ~ a s part

of a pragmatic attel11pt to ovcrcome the dualism between Sllbject and object.

Ilut Blllmer's rcading

of

Meacl is considercd

by

some critics to be oriented

toa

far towards the individual creation of subjective meanings dissociated from

practiccs witbin structure (May

1996: 81).

While J3lumer points out that Mcad did not provide the methodological

detail of his approach, a similar

poim

could bc made against his own .form of

stlldy.

In

seeking to avoid 'reification' of human interaction it could be:said (at

lcast

in his

more theoreticaIsymbolic interactionist writings) that

he

'flattens

out both "society" and the "individual" , (Zeitlin 1973:

216).

The result, for

Zeitlin, is that Bll1mer's noti.on of societ loses 'st

JJ 1Ure':"

siuce jts

COm

p911ents

ha ve

to

De Immediate y and empirically observable as

actl.Li;

hence how, for

inst ante , (a n socwTclasscs be said

to

exist if we cannot obse rve thcm acting?

Similarly, he appears to exc ude motives and drives so he can reta in al1 ldea or

a 's.df' referring to itself

--

the result seems to be, ironically, an opening for a

'crude positivism or empiricisrn' iil which concepts cannot be utilised withol1t

a 'direct empirical referent' (Zeitlin 1973:

216-17).

While Blumer did under

take the stucly of a range

of

organisations and other work, his approach has

bee n criticisecl for its relative inattention to structure. However, one defcl1ce is

thar

it

'neithcr ignores flor minimises the importance of wider social [orces,

power, history

or

the economic' - rather

he

is against 'granel theory in the

abstract' (PlulllJ11er

1998: 88). In

Blumer's view the 'empirical worlel must for

ever

be

the central point of concern'

as

'the point

of

cleparture and the point of

return

in

the case of empirical science' (Elumer

1969: 22) .

finally, there has bcen a great eleal of debate on the degree of convergence

between Meael's ideas and Blumer's interpretation. One view is that Mcacl is a

real.ist' - that social reality can be studied as not simply a construction of the

minei, wbile

BlUlTIer

is nominalist - emphasising interpretation

anel

coml1111ni

cati.on (Nlay

1996:

75). This debate centr.esOH how far Blulller has interpreted

Mead in a particular manner and a wicler eliscllssion of whether there are two

strands of pragmatism (see Lewis anel Smith J980; Denzin 1984) . For instance,

Zeitlin argues that while langl1age

is

essential, ater interplcetati.ons took one

sided, non-dialectical view

of

Mead 'treating social

i n ~ e r a c t i o n anel

socializa

tion

as if t:hese

processes were Jlotbing more than symbolic communicatioll .

Society

is

dissolved into cliscourse' (Zeitlin 1973: 218).

Although Blumer wrote relatively litrle across his long career, he did publish

several seminal articles anel was inflllential through his teaching - a legacy

which beca

me

more 'formaliseel'

as

symbolic interactionism was developecl by

rhe founcling of associations, journals and textbooks in the area.

l l l m l ~ e r

says

that IHumer influenced a 'great many stuJics'

'frOI11

illness and cJying to

occupatiuns and classroom interaction; Erom social movements and collective

behaviour to th e patterning

anel

organisation of social problems; frorn crime

anel devian

ce

to labour and industrial relations;

frOl11

media studies to life his

to

ry

res

earch;

fr01l1

self theory to race relatiol1s'

(P

,tuOlmer 1998: 93). Blumer's

Symbolic

Interacti 1sl11 2 -

Deve opments

13

general objective was to reta in closeness to the subject of study; rather than be

impedcd

by

technical procedures, he was intcnt to elaborate va rious principI es

that should inform research

and

theorisatioll.

Varieties of Symbolc Interactiollism

A numb er of 'varieties' of symbolic interactionism lave been identified whch

to some extent rdlecr differences surrol1l1ding the initial

anel

cOlltilluing

inilucnces and the broadcning of the body of tbeory anel research . A starting

point for some writers are the writings of Ja

mes,

Dewey,

CooLey anel

Mead,

with perhaps the addition of the pre-war work of Royce anel Balt win

(see Denzin

1992).

Acc ording to others, considering 'interactiollislll' gencrally,

lhe influence of Simmel's formalism sholJid be added, alongside the pragmatist

emphasis on n1eaning within groundecl activity (as opposee to philo sophical

abstraction), as

in

Robcrt Park's sociology. Simmel and Park shareel an

'emphasis 011 the elialectical union betwecn the observer, the process of obser

vation and the phenomena observed' . Tbey also sharcd a 'fonnalisrn' with the

notion o( 'social forms' eltabling individllals

anel

groups to give a patterning to

social life; the identifica rion of such forms (e .g. 'conflict', 'colllpetition'

i

lJ

Park) 'permitted a

leve

of

abstraction and generalization which transccnt cd

the particularities of anchorecl experience' (Rock 1991:

234).

)'ct wide,.

SOllfces of influcllce on interactionism can be discernecl. For ex,'lllple, Plull1ll\cr

adcls that there 'is also a lllctatheorelical

fo

unclalion

less

cleady

t

l icnlated in

which hU1l1anism, IOmanlicism and a mild libertarianisl11 play important roles'

(Plul11mer

1991a: xv) .

Obviously, interactioni

ilTI

(and symbolic interactionisll1) have changed over

time

anel incll.lde

a wide range of individuais anel ideas. 'I-lisloricaIly' , (( l l l -

meBrators have descl"ibed a 'second generation' of interactionists folluwing

Park, Mcad and TllOmas, incll1ding J-Ierbert Blulllcl" and Everett Hllghes, with

a

'third'

including HO\\ard Becker, Erving Go ffm:l11 , Barne)' Glaser, a llel

Anselm 5trauss anel Barney Glaser, witil funher 'modification' by Denzill,

Lofland, Lyman and otbers (May 1996:

68).

AnotlJer variation was l

he

clevel

opment of the so-called 'Jowa 5chool', which attempted

to

show t lar lhe cell

trai notions of symbolic interactionism coulel be operationalised, l pplied anel

verified within emprical rescarch rather than pllr su

iu

g ahstract philosophical

issues, for cxam [Y

le,

surrounding the nature of social beings.

Qualitat ive Research and 'Interactionism'

Bll1mer's three 'prcmises' provided a starting

paim

for sYl\lbulic intel"actio llism

anel for wider inleractiollisl11, but perhaps, as Sanels u om et ai . (20lJ] ) point

out, there are other asslImptions which infonn its philosophical Das is. Despire
http:///reader/full/act%DC%AC.Lihttp:///reader/full/centr.eshttp:///reader/full/act%DC%AC.Lihttp:///reader/full/centr.es


13/31

I

5 1

Micro Social

h ory

4

. I

variations

and

debates Oll origins

and

developments, they say, perhaps it

is

still

/ POSSible to eluciclate some 'guicling premises' of symbolic interactionism: for

instance,

human

beings as

unique

due to their use of 'symbols'; individuais

are 'hull1an through thelr Interaction ' ; we are 'conscious and self-reflexi '

nd

purposlvc ' in form1l1g om behavlOUf and acting

Wlt 111

social contexts; society

\

is

composecl of symbolic interactions between individuais; and, finally, as

investigators, t understanel individuais' actions 'we need to use methods that

enable us lO discern the meanings they attribute to

l:hese

acts' (Sandstrom et at.

2003: 218-19).

Sandstrom et

aI.

rightly point to major areas of growth in

'interactionists' work, sllch as the 'sei f

and

identity theorYi emotioJ1s and cmo

Llon work; social coordination; social cOllstructionisl11; culwre and art, and

macro

-analysis' (Sandstrom et at. 2003: 219). But, it seems here, again, we

have

moved betwecn 'symbolic inter;ctionism'

anel

'interactionism'.

The pragmatist infiuence of Dewey and Mead also brought an antipathy to

the idea of 'the passive observer' in relation to kllowledge and to the 'mislead

illg separation bctween mind

anel

body, subject

anel

object' (Rock 1991: 229).

The

pragmatists also drew

on

evolutionary theory to give

what

they regarded

as a firmer, less mctaphysical

and

more scienrific theory of kllowledgc' as tbe

Olltcome

of

a process of purposive questioning which can render features aflhe

envolll11ent problematic, interrogate them, learn,

anel

return to the ellviron

ment with new questions' (Rock 1991: 229). Pragmatisl11:

gave

a persistent stress

to

the

dialectical and situated character

of

knowleelge

...

It is

a person's illterests and

ql1est for

meaning that srabilize situations

and give them

shape. COllverscly,

situations

will

give order

and

clir:ection

to

interests:

motives

and lIJlderstanelings f10w from

the

practical and symbolic organization of an

ellvicolll11Cnt.

(Rock, 1991: 230)

In the wider traelition

of

'interactionisrn',

in

which symbolic interactionism

anel Chicagoan sociology a re related, a num ber of l11ethods, such as the

Jife

bis

tO

I)'

anel

participant observation or ethnography,

anel

variely of approaches,

uneler the heading af fieldwork, hal'e been piolleered (see Denzin and Lincoln

2000) Much of interactionist research has

focuseel

011 deviance, the workplace

anel scbools and, more theoretically,

011

the self, self-identity and social inter

action. But

it has developed beyond its oginal areas; for some, 'it has became

the harbinger of post1l1odern social theor y' while also making a contribution to

'feminism', gar ac[ivist theory' and the 'politics of race' (Plull1l11er 1998: 95).

In summary, Fisher

anel

Strauss give a [ist of the 'conccpts and ideas associ

ated witil lhe tradition': '

Thomas's 'dcfillitioll

of the

situation,' 'rhe

four

wishes,'

and the

social organizatioll

social

disor.ganization

scheme;

Park's 'race-relaliolls

Cl'c1e,'

'the marginal man,'

processes

like

conflict, accommodatLon, and assimilation, anel the

idea

of the forma

tion of institutiolls through collective

behavior

and social movements; Mead's

Symbo{ic Jllteractionism 2 - Deve{opl lellts

'I

concepts of 'significant

otlJer,' 'generalizeel

other,' 'role-taking,' anel the l-me phases

of

the

self;

Hughcs's 'carcers,' 'dirty work,' anel other

ways

01

]ookillg

sociologically

at occupations, work,

and

professions; Blumcr's merhodological

idea

of 'sensit

izin

g

.,

concepts'; Gofiman's innumerable and influential

ideas and cOllcepts abOllt

interactionj

Stcauss

and

his

associates'

..

.. formlllations of

identitYi Shiblltflni's

abollt

socia

l con

trol and 'reference group,'

Beckec's

abollt deviancy;

anel

Lilldcslllith's

abol1t addic-

d

tion . Edwill

SuthcrlaIHI's

theories ('different

al

association')

of cl.'inlnality also

:..!

.1

belong

to this

tradition.

(Fisher

anJ Strauss

1979: 460)

"

i

Fisher

anel

Strauss argued in the late

1970s that

'some

o

the

major

problellls

that still plague the interactionist traditlon derive' from the Tholllas - Park sicle

of interactioniSIl1' and that some of the criticism of

s)'l11bolic

interactonislll

is

f

a result of how interactionists have themselves "construeel

IvLead"

, (Fisher and

I

Strauss 1979: 460). In their view, Thomas

and

Park tried to finei

a

Illode of

eXplaining and pi'omoting social change that woulel

avoiel

both the image

of

lInimpeded individual actiOI1 and the idea of a totally constrainillg society' .

Broadly, in relation to sociological research and social illtervelitioll,

I hc

intc[

actionist endea vour restcd on finding the possible meallS of actiou leading to

lasting change in the face

of

rcstrailling forces. Change woulel be brollght

about by incrementaI, consistent action through greater social kl10wlcclgc and

reflection (Fisher anel Strauss 1979:

463-4).

' I

It

can

be argued, following Fishcr

ane

Strallss, that there are a llul.llber of

..ri

'problematic areas' of the Park and Thomas (and 'Meadian, as interpretecl

::1

by

the sociologists') illteractionist legacy .- including

progress,

process (l

he

characteristics of changel, consent (active participation), limitatiolls 011 social

activity,

power

anel eqllity, anel lhe intellectual's (del1locra1:ic) role. They

conclude that these problems have

'comCl1011 fe

atures' reflecting

a

'libcl'al

:J

conservative bind' which stresses 'the virtues

af

botb Jctive, creative illclividu

alit)'

anel

of

sccure, stable association' (Fisher

anel SUallSS

1979: 488) While

interactionislll bas,

in

fact, had a llumber

of

theoretical divergcnt trcnds,

st

(according to PluI1lmer) it is said to retain a shared 'lIatur,llisric _. humanstic'

approach

that

regards much abstract philosophical debate as decidrdly

, I

,

unhelpful for the study

of

daily contexts

and

experiences: 'It

is

a full}' d,llccti

cal theory where subject

and

object, creativity

anel

restraint, pa

trem anel

chaos,

;I

,

structure and Illeaning, knowledge anel actiOIl are ceaseless/y enH::rgc ltly

intertwi,ned' (Plummer 1991a: xv).

1' J

,Case Study: Deviancy Theory

and

Careers

Durillg the 1960s inter:1ctionism underwent a ver)' rapid theore(ica l ~ l I d

methodological dcve!opment. Olle

major

area o focus was the

stu l y

of crime

and 'deviance'. Yarious

n


14/31

5

rving Goffrnan

Introduction

The work

ot

Erving Goffman has product'd variou s

re

sponses with

in

sociolog) .

He rccogni


15/31

64

65

Micro Sodal Theory

madt, to fiml its key t h c m c ~ - usuaIJy

self, s l ) ~ i

in i.'ral:tiulI, social

order

anu

the general metaphor

of

drama

are

iuenrified,

Goffman's work can

be

said

to

fools

on the 'illll'r;l...rion

order'

- the situa

tions

of \ ; o - p r e ~ e n c c '

wherc f a c e - t o - f a ~ e

~ U m I l l U I 1 l , - l o n

allJ JIlutual ubserv:l

tion take place. Individuais in this vie\\' may appear manipulati\'l',

hut

can also

he seen rather a< cllgaging

in

social activitic > that

im

'

oh

'c colllnlunic:1tion and

impression

in

a self-con of

fac

e-

to -fa.:c

intc

ra

d i

on ,1 natuJ':llly

hOllnJed, ;lll'llyti.:ally coh('rcnt ficld - ,1 ,uhare,1 nf soe i"l ogr, To

Jo

(lnc 1l1U$

COI1ll' to t l ' r m ~

\Vith

the

fact that

the

central c ( ) n c ( ' p t ~ in

tht:

a

rca

:1 re

a

mbl

guoll'

thl'lll

sc h-cs to

nrhcr

and

tries to

contrai

the

il11pr

cs>lon

that

u t h c r ~ gain of him

ur

her

in

acting in

their pre"ence ((;offlllan

I Y7 1

1:

Prdac

c).

A"

~ l C t O r < ; nn a stagl', individuais gi\'c a pl'l'forlllance (Io"er, gardl'ncr,

p,

)

li

ti

ciJn) according to a 'script' which can hc l'uitl'd and ueli\'ered to portra y a pa r

ricular self-illlage thl' }'

to he l p t l d \\'hik

recogni'iing

that

an l l I u i l n

may havc certain expectatiOll5 uf th_acror, Thc

~ l c t o r or 'tcam

' oi acrors

'per

form thei '

p a r t ~

u,ing the ~ I : t

and

it, proP'i, Thl'\' a re

011

stagl'

in

a 'front

region' -

or

backstage

in

' back region< lIn"een hy the audicnce as the actors

perfOJ'lll their rourincs. The audicncc is g

in'n

performancc thar prodllce'i a n

illlagc throllgh

t a c t i ~

and ,tratcgy

OI'

' imprcssion mclf to othcrs rathl'r

rh.UI

certain

other

~ l s p e c t s , while

he or

she also re.l iscs

that

a particular part may havt: to be

given

to

diffcrent grollpS who Illay respond

in

diffcrenr ways

to

the performan ce.

In the srage setting the

acta

r is jlldged ac

ca

rding

t

the appropriateness a nd

aecepDhil itv of the i m p r givCJl, TCaIllW()rk is a lso involvcd

in

giving

an

i l l l p r l ~ i o l l

t

others (e.g. of profes.-;iQnal (ornpctencc, honcsty "nel trus t);

thc acror front

of S[ogc

depcnds on a varicty

of

others

in

complering rhe per

forman ce,

50, .1

grcar ueal

dcpC'nd :, 0 11

thl' cOlllhination of work wirh o

thcrs

e.g. as

in

legal, medicai, comlllercial, educational

and othcr

setrings). Variolls

reaSoll$ may inform


16/31

66

Micro Soci,l he nry

Of course,

in

the performance

or

encountl'r t lle ,1Clors may

nO(

realise

completelr

their I l l ( ) ( i v e ~ while the)' l11ight a l ~ ( ) others; also a cynicislll

can be mixeJ \Vith hdicf in \Vhat heing perfO nlll' to pcrccptiol1,

Reg i()ns .. ' in

the

de

grcc

tO wh

ich the

)

,1[C ho

und

ed 'lIld

a-:cording

to

the

Illcdi'l (lf

CIJ fI1 l1lu

r

o.:ation

in which

thl' h'Hricr

.. til

t i ( ) 1 1 nccu r

, (Gofiman 197 1.1:

26 -7, Hl91
http:///reader/full/rnl~le.1Jhttp:///reader/full/rnl~le.1Jhttp:///reader/full/rnl~le.1Jhttp:///reader/full/rnl~le.1J


17/31

68

69

icro SoaITh('o/ \,

Goffman

says

that

for

an

d f e ~

t i H '

pcrforlllanct ';lIllllllllnly tht' cxtt:f1(

of

..:o-operation

rtqllired

....,

ill

he concealt'd

and Sl',:r

t 'q

IIll1

inraineti, A perform

an..:c 'team' he Iikens to a s

e..:ret

~ o l . ' i e t y ; m e l l 1 h c r ~

,,:o'opnate to

maintain

;1

specific 'definition

of

the

situation'. As team

ml'mhl'r5, he

,ay."

\\'e ali carry

'sol11ething oi the sWt'ct guil t nf cOl1spirators'. Here. wc can scc the il1fluence

of

Silllmcl 011 the n ~ l t u r e

of

sc'uecy

and

seUl't so..:ieties (sce Sillll11d

1906;

Ritzer

and Goodman 2004:

175-H I). Performance,>

in the

front region

can

he

regarded as an

~ l t t e l 1 l p t

to meet ..:ertain

moral and in

strUl11cmal requirel11cllts OI

standard in

the activity - in t h i ~ per"ol1al

fmm, '111.1I1I1er' or

'de..:orlll11' (polite

ness, appcaran..:c) \\'ill he

importam, - 1 c a l 1 w h i l c , in

til(' 'hack regiol1,

a pLKC'

,here the i J l 1 p r e ~ i o l 1

gi\'Cn

in

the

performancc

is k n ( ) w i l 1 ~ l y L'oIHradictcd",

a nllmher

of

a..:tivities rakc plaL'C, inclllding: rhc ...toragc

oi

L'quipl11ellt

and

co

>

rUllle, the u"c

()f pri\

'

ate f a c i l i t i e

:lJ1d rhl' cheing anti adjustllll'Jlt of rhe

"per


18/31

70

icro

Soeidl T/Jeorv

Another way

of

seeing Goffman's trcatlllem of th

..:

"" If, as Br,lIlJman (1997

argues,

is

according

to

t\\'o contrasting (perhaps

in

colllpatible) definitions,

first,

the sei f

is

a 'dualistic'

ide;1

.

It

a social product r,llher thall ha\'ing a 'per

sonal core', whilc also there is an

'unso

cialized compollenr

to

the self' which

Illa)' lead the individual to oeh;]\'e

in

cOlltra\'l'lltioll

of l o r m ~

(Branalllan 1997:

xlvii). Secondly,

thl.

individual not ,:omplctdr formed br '()Ciel)' bur

do

es

engage in stratl.'gic actiolls

in a

social sctting

to

create impress ions to ;ln audi

em

:e (Iike a drama). But

l,'\'(

:n so, the

individual\

images

of

the

~ c l f

are

subjcn

to

the dcfinitinn

of soc ia l ritual

or

part

of 'strategy' making (Br alw nan 199 7: Ixii i ). T hese Goffrnanian noti ons of t

he

self are rcgarded, hy so m(', as

((}nccrning wh :

tt

",ill

be

tClI1r

orar ilv ho

nour

e

c

' and 't he de

..

irah ility uf ;

woiJin

g an 0Pl'll c

()n fl

ict of

definitions f)f the - OI' a ' \\'orking L'('lhClhll'" {Gofflllan

19

71 : 1 1 ,

Co-presencc

For

Cidd

ens, Gofflll an is :l significant sociological thinker, who 'developed a

sy

stell1 .ltic appr o

Jch tO

tbe stllll\' o f hllman

li

fe'

a

nd

who

sc have s

uf

fered from < 1l11111ber )f ~ c o n c c p t i ( ) l l ~ fGidde ns 1987

b:

109-1 0 ). Hc is

an

important


19/31

72

73

Micro Social Thcor}'

co-operation through routinr 'repairing' in r ~ l . . h a n g through apologies,

and forms a

slIpportive interchange using l:ollabor'lllon

,lIld

trust. Goffman

5

interest

is

not only with ritual, g,lme and drama in rdJlifJfl

to

physical space

in

c o - p r e s e n c e ~ in his later writings he is concerned wi rll noth verbal and nOIl-

verbal interaction, forms of talk and the houy t ,otlman 1979, 1981).

Gofflllan shows the great intricacy

of

the fratures

of

social interaction in every

day life, including the display and l1Ianner of the hod)'

in

commllnicHion, anti

the importance of space and time (see Giddens 1987

0:

]20).

Ritual - Regions

and

Frames

The

dcpth and complcxity

in

Goffman's work in part ~ t e m s from the inflll

ence of Durkheirn's notion of Ocial relatiomhips. The greater the intimacy

in

personal re1ations the more the)' take place hackstagc (e.g. between hus

band and wife). Thus, rather than being private, the sclf

is

.15 Jl1uch a 'public

reality'

drawn

from the social constructions of people ,1djusting

tO

caeh

othcI"

in

social interaction -

our

sel cs are ritually cnac ted

,lS

each defers to each

other to

uphold

demeanour

(Collins 1994: 73). For CoJlins, Goffman

is

arguing that there

is

a 'cuh of the sclf ' (d. Ourkheim on the 'cult of thc

individual') in moJern socicty:

If rhc self

is

rhl cenrral si1cn:d objccr of modern i e r ~ ir is correspondingly Ul1rt al.

The

~ d i in Goffmi1n

is

11m somerhing rhat indhidll.ll s negoriarc

our

of social intcl'

acrions:

ir

is, rarhcr, rhc an:herYP'

llmlldern

rnyrh. Wc a

re

(1)

/111 e/le.l

to

have an indi

viduaI seli, nor hecallsc we acrllally have une bm

bec

:lI se social inreracrion reqllires

us to acr if

Wt'

Jo. (Collins 1994: 74-5)

En illg Gotlmm/

At base, Collins says the 'sdf is real oIlly a

sYl11hol,

a l i l l g l l i s t l ~ Luncrpt', 50

we call a c ~ o u n t for wh:lt we, anti o t h e r ~ , do: it is 'an ideolog) of

e ar

da

)' life,

used to .mrinute

c a l l ~ a l i t y

and 1l1Oral re,p{lll,ihility

in

our

~ ( ) i e t y '

(Collins

1994: 75).

A devc10pment

Clf

the notion..; of 'frollt' ,1I1d 'hack' regions is the joca ()f

'frames' (and frame space) .

A c ~ o r d i n g

to Collim, Gofflllan oftas

sC\wallaycrs

(lf

a n a l y ~ j

of 'frames': the physical world - whcre comlllllnic


20/31

74

75

Ai

icro

S ),ll

Theo,.

anJ

I'l:rh,ll

~ t a t l

l l I l : n t ' th,1t pl:opl( c(lJltilllloll,l y

t ~ ,

J rnrn thl:

,ituatiu

n, ,h eth l:r

i l l t ~ n J l : J

(Ir

noT. T h l ~ l

,

He

thl: l'xtcrnal s i g n ~ 01 o rien t

nti ll ;111 .1

in\'oh'l:I11CIlt -

~ t a t l :

of

mind

;lnu J,ody IlOt

ord

i

na r

ily "Xillllinl'll wirh

rc: IW 1

thl'ir

~ o l ' i a l

t,rgJllil ,ltioll .

(Goffm,

whether PllhliL,

' ( , l 1 l i - p l l h l i ~ ,

or private, alltl

\\'hethn

III1Jl'I' the :

Ju"'pice,>

of

:1

n

..

oceasion or the

thttl'r c()n ..

tr.lllts

of

lIIercly a ruutin

ize

d ~ i a l setti ng'

((;()ffrnan 1 -

72: 1-2 i .

Hl' arglll'S thar

thc,>l'

ohj

t:

cti ve'i GIII he: taL'kkd thro ugh

''>lriou .. l'thnography'

to

'

iUl

'lIti fj the l . ' o u l 1 pattt'rn

..

and n.1tur'll scquelh.: es

()f

bd1a\ ior ( ) l ' ~ u r r i l l g \\'he

ll

t:vc r

pl'rSO

Il\ into une anothc

r II

nm cdia te

pn:scl1l.

: "

;JIIU

llIaking ' rhl'se

cvcn h .1

< lIh jC\.:r lIla

trt:

r in th eir uwn

ri

gln ' .

Hl' ~ t a r c s rh.1t he

io; aJvocn

ing a .. o l o g of o\.\:asion

scd

ro o

fa.r'

(G

offm

ion U f

app eJrance in 'vul gar exchange-tht'o rr

tt'J'Il1

S (Ze irlin I

214

). T bus, in di

vidllal ... hiue rheir intl'lItio lls allll inllcr

thc>ll

ghb

by

rhe use

of

a performancc fo r

au ,lLIJiel1cl', rhey ~ l ( k to impr c'is ions U

'l

ho\\' a '

frc>nt

', As Mcltze r

cr aI. (

19

7s

in

(,ottlllan and the Chicago

Sdwol

- rhat

r o l c ~

MC

collte-

xtuall y cna\.'tcJ,

rathe r rh,ln simply deterrnilling

of

indi\'idual beha\iollr. Bur in the fonner

's

di s

i O l l (li 'r oc dlstancc' (the diffen:nl'l' herwl't'1l r o l e ~ as gi\'cn anu a

> per

furmed) rbere seems to be a q rnicislll, with aetor s giving little

in

rh e wa y o t

l'll1otions

in

their ru

le a c r i v i t i ( ~

(Mclrzer ct

aI. 1975: 70 .

Orhers h.

1\

t' argut'd thar thcrc is, in

faLt, il

strnng rIlorall'lelll enr, e.g. regard-

ing trLl,>r,

in (;offlllan\

\\'ork .1Ild thar

he

i, CO\lcl'rnl'd with th

e-

points where

se

f,

interactilln anel Illuraliry

IJIl

'lt.

SOll1e

l'I'irical wrirers

~ a y

rhat h

('

is

cUI1L'crn

eu

\Vith interes ting rrivia which may lead Iarer to more sl.'ientific

ill

Vt'stiga

ti

on; fo r

oth er5 primarily he dClllomtratcs

,1n

individuali

'i

tic

shnt

which ha s ultimarei}a

subjectivisr focus or, alternati\'t'ly, tbar his individual

is merdy


21/31

7

Micro Social Th( or)

anel

cultural a l l l l ' ~

hut

also

fmm

the

srandroirn 01"

the expressi\'l' lIt'eds

of

rhl'

hiologic individual we call a

human

bring' (Zcirlill 1973:

2US),

Some writers

Sl"e

Gnffman's identifiL:

;;"

oi oominatir)ll

alld power, ill'otitutions .lnd ~ ( J c i o - h i ~ t o r i c a / Col1texts:

(;ot'flllall

is

quire hrill

in

nr

Jr

dC

lll

omr-

rar

ing

t1

H1r

\\h:n ,lppe

nr

r

c)

l

I:

quit

e:

rr

i\ i

a nn

d

I I l 1 i m l n ~ r i l 1 g

l l ~ p c n of da y-

ro-d;l\' hcha\ iour

rum

nur

to

hc frau g

hr

w

irh

implica

t i ( J I I ~

ior inrlTanioll.

Ye

t m,

lJ1

}'

oi lhe

ht'

idenriiics h

:w t

more

lO

di)

\ 1 rh

rh

t'

n:proJlIcriol1 oi

i l 1 ~ r i t u r i ( ) l I r1UII

hc a

ckll

u

wlt Jgl:5.

(G

idd

c(lS1 /34-'\)

Giddem

fiml" it '

Il


22/31

78

79

Micro Social l heorv

opcration

of rules and

rule

making, and prodllctloJll n f mea

ll

ing, unforrunately

thc

analysis

and content

of

the social organisati lln a nd dfects of

structure

are

limited. The reason for mllch of the currellt in Goffman i . that hi..

notion

of

interaction

order

has the potcntial to

link

mino

and macro COlH:erns

and,

in

so doing, examine uifferentials

in

power and rclations

betwcen anel

within leveis.

But

his

discussion

of the productioll of "oeial

structure

(in

ritual),

though important

in

connecting

it

to

everyday

life,

lacks

slIfficicm

attention to

the

detcrminatinn of structllrc and strm:tllral differentiation .

Goffman,

as

Branaman

argllcs,

ha

s

contributed to micro

social them)" in a

Ilulllbcr of key JrcaS (Br;.1I1alllan 19lJ7

).

hrst. in hi'i analysis of Illan r ;l')pects of

the 'self-society relation'

and

the vic\\' of s

ei

f as a

'social pruduct

. Secondly.

'he exposcs thc

link

bctween po ,cr.

status. pcrform,lnce, and Thirdly, in

'oscillating'

bt'tween

threc I11ctaphors of ritual, game ,lnd drama he shows

thc 'the inhen:nt interplay hetween l11anipulation anu morality in

social

lifc'.

Finally, his idea of

frames

>how" their

'powerful

role in guiding

thc illtcrpreta

tion af cxperience, dctermining the Illt'aning of social cvellts, and ddining the

personal

iuentities

()f individuais'. While t h e ~ oftL'n deri e frol11 ' ocial


23/31

6

Phenomenology and

Ethnomethodolog

y

Introduction

'Phenoll1{,llological

~ ( ) L

a micro

~ n c i l l rheoq

'

tradiwm' dLTi\

'

in

g from

rhl' p h i I O \ ( ) p h ~

oi

Edlllund H u < ; ~ r l , \\'ork wa,> gn

:a tl

y 1l1OJifil'd

:1

nd

hrollghr imo ~ o c i o l o g ~ Ali

re

d Schur

z,

The

laner

illflucn

..:eJ rll

e

",nrk of

Harold C'lriinkl'l. \\'hnse resulring 'crhno'l1\:rhodolngy' cunrained funher

i n i l l l l I l \ . .

and

U ' J l n ' l ' n ~

h cl'

L I ~ s l l 1 a n 1 174; AtrL'\\'C/l 197

41.

ir

c J e \

l'rhIlOll1erhodolog} rt'lincJ ih qrong .:ririquc of rradirional ",hile

iOClhing 011

r1ll' ' ~ h a r L ' d

kno\\"led

gl'" aliei ' a c u J l I l 1 t a h i l i l ~

of

a c r u r ~ ' in

g

iv

c

l1

lIariOIK /ts

s r r l ' S ~

011 rhl' . : o n r c x r u , l l i ~ ' H i o n

oi

kno\\'lcdgc

,

at

rhe

sallW

rilll

l

' retJillillg

SOl le

a l l < J I ~ ' t i l ' a l

independcncr for both .

Phcnorncnological Sociology - Origins:

Husserl and Schutz

The origills

oi

phcnolllcnology

in so

ciology la y

in rh

e i l o s p h ~

01'

E

Jmun

d

HlIsst'r1

(1859-19-'8)

t:d in a nUlllher (l I senses,

il1dudillg

rh

(ISl' 1'1' a ll1ethod ;1I1d kn()l\'led

gc in i l ~ lik

(ser

c

ns

c'

n o t i ( ) n ~ 01' i l 1 d

- their

r ~ l I h c l i \ 1I1llkr

swnd

in

g

() f

rh

e worl d arDuml rhem . Ordina individuais do nM qucsti on

OI'

,

1I1al

}'s tbat

\Vo

rld. rarhl'l'

ir

l ~ l k c n

for gralltecl, as ord

cn

'd

O

I'

facr

(lub

itle an;1h'si

s.

Hel

'c

,

Sdllltz , trcmpe> tu rcddine Husscrl\ idea of 'CPOC hL' or rhe ' hracket'ing' (>LIr () f

dlluhh re

l.IIl'l1 to tbily rc.tli ty

to

I ' X p ( ) ~ e rhc

~ t r l l c t u

nt " I l > i ( ) l l \\ h.tc


24/31

82

Micro Socol:ial wo rld,

Ir

is

shaped in

duee

ways: rhe reciprnciry of perspecrives, rhe ~ ( ) c i a l origin e;

of

knowledge,

and

rhc social

disrriburion of

kJlowleelge,

\X1har is

Illcam

l1

e[(:

is rhar rhere

is

a COllllllon knowledge

OI'

shared 'systell1 of relevallces of

what

is

decllled to b(' n,ltural or

a p p ~ o p r i . l t C

hy rhe group

m C l l l h e r ~

(\Vhile

\'ar)'ing berween groups) which h.IS an historical aspcLr passeei

down

to

'conremporaries'

, ThllS, whilc individual ly separahlc, w(' sha re laoguag c nnd

concepts rhar allow us ro go furthl'r rhal1 our o\\n per > nal wurlJ, \Ve can

interchange our sranelpoinrs

bm

can also rran sce nd ev

er

r dn)' lifc s)'mboli

call}', Fin'llly, rhe individual',;;

COllllllon-SC'D5e

knowk:dge

()

f

rhe

~ o l : i a l worlJ

is

due ro a soei'll disrrihurion, alrhough irs

particular

use

is

connecred ro a

sysrem of individual rclevallces,

tU

Phello11lellology md J::.tlJ1lo11lcthodo[ )gy

Schurz outlined rhree principies

or

' r o ~ r u l a r C ' s ' .IS ,I proll'dure

tor

,cientific

pracri.:e which srcnlllll'd from h i ~ a n a l y s i ~ of \'(iebt'f's

u


25/31

84

85

icro Social Theor\

\ : o n c i o u ~ n e it is not n:ally >ociology

at

,111 hm a d l O l o g i c a l fielJ or a

form

of philosorhr.

since these concerns .Ul' i.,.,ufficic

ntlr

attached to the

l'mpirical realitie '.

of

social hfe,

In r e s p o n ~ e it

l',tn hc argul"J that ,;oL'iological

stllJies and methodological practice h,1\'C \'ery mllch hCllditl'd from this strand

(lf thollght - and social thcory itsclf ha'i gailll'J

twm i t ~

attclltion to \ : x ~ 1 C ' r i

cnce'

anJ

other the l1cs (e,g, time)

(C

Jt:finition'i

of

"ocial situatiolls'; anJ fllrther,

'C0I111l101l-SenSl'

helief" I l l a ~ not only he f a l ~ t : hut incorrigihk withill their o\\'n

terl11'i ' (1..1"111l'quent

[l',>c

areh \\'ork lwing '111,lil1l\ proW

il

l11manC

and (at c.ht hy the I sh

uw iJl

g 'Iitrle dl'\'L'lopmt'nt or ;lppli.:ation'

of

the

l11ethod,

It hoth 'abstrac t \ the a \ ' world' and 'idl'ali,t'" it

~ i n e

nothi 1g

i,

gar 1l'1'cd ;.1

h0l

1

t how the indi\ idual', da il y li\'ing is fOl'lued

in

rebtiol1 to th e

imtitutiollal ,

lnJ

e t ; l l c O n t e b }

u ~ i n g

con of relat

io

ns \Vitll

hi

s fellow

I11t'n'

(Zcitlin 1973: 182),

Hil1d

cs -:. ( 1') 72) ques tion ed whedll' r c h u t z i a l

'>cie

l1 l'e Sd n Cl' .l nJ

arglleJ

it

"'

J,

a

L'

o mplcx

product

oI'

hi

) hUl1lani

>

l11

. a th

eor

ctical idco

fo

g)

affirl11ing in irs ' rcs ults' it

'>

O\\' n

Il

cces:,a ry and u

ll

qllcsti oncd prCl1ise: thar ' the

"'orld of

nbjccrivt mind' can he red uccd to the

hcha\

iollr of indi

\'

iJ ua ls' ,

Ir al so:

lead ., f() a

r

lC'n

ry

of

sc

ic

nc

c in

wh

ich th ..: drtrm in

lll

g

e1

eme

nr

rh ..: ;

Hr

irude of rhL

'CiL'nri

.,t

..

, Sc h

ll

rl

..

, p

rl'

5Cnr,

:1

\ ,cil'

ll

cifi' ;] hUn1:1n i

,r

ic loo

na

l ,,:il'llL'e ,\nd hi'

lU r}/

",hich are norhi ng bu, kind" oI'

rur

y- tl lIi ng, T h ~ c n ~ t oF OI' hUln

aJl

is lll a

\\'orld in wh,ch rhne Lan no SC

il'I

KC ot h i ~ t ( ) r y ;]nd n ( ) r.:lr ional pol

ic

ie" d c s ~

I

J 2:

I )

\Xfhi le

SChll

t'Z\ approach to the in\'cstigation of c\ l' r}'da y fife was

rathn

undcar,

Ga rfinkel an d oth ers r

oo

k up wo rk

t 'Q

co

mtruct

a critique

uf

rradi

tion:11 socinlogical t h c f ) r i

:1nd

ro

for m ,f I alrernati vc mcthodological

Phe1zomellology l l ld E t l m o m e t h ) d o / o ~ y

hasis fur suh'itantivc research \Vork bllt,

in

general,

Schurz\ l ~ g ' l q ' S

el

' I1lS

to

hl th,1t

"f

diffll'l' imp'lct. e lallol'l1C'd no idl'lltifiahle seho,,1

of thought. and

he

garhlTcd amund

hilll

nn c ear-

(lI h.lnd

of disciplines,

Yct

his

wmk ).\l'rs citcd

timc

;1I1d ti111 (' ;l,;.ln ;h

", ,

'ial rhemi,r\

grappiL ancw

with

the

~ t u h -

horn quc stion uf \Vhat it Illcans

to

sharc a wnrld whik li\ ing a lifc rhat 110 on c dse

can

h;l\'l'

, (Rogers

20()() :

3X(, )

Case

Study: P

L Bcrgcr

and

T LuckmanI (1971 )

The Social C01Zstruction of Realit y: A T, eatise

il

the

ociology

of

Kllowledge

Herger and

l.uCkl11allll wnc

intl'llt til

forl1l

,1

,o(l

tht'ory

t h ~ u

shO\ve d the

( ) C i ~ 1 1 comtnlctiol1

of

the ~ o c i a l worlel through rh e l11eanings and objcct ives

pl'opk ha

\ ' l '

in i lter,h:tion, A th e centre nf rlwi r hook

Th(

So cial Cc stm tio l

()( a / i t y 1:1-::'1 i i, the idl'a ot ,ocil'ry ;h hoth a ~ l I h j il

l1d

ohject ivc::

phenornenon ,

[n

gi\'ing thi

. empha

'i f

t)

l e C I J l U ~

in

\\'hic

lr

indi viJual intention was

s l110thcred hy the detcrl11inatiO1 of social f o r c e ~ ,

In

their \'ic\\' the indi\'iJual

is

a ~ T e , 1 t i \ being \\'ith :11

Ica

st

~ u r n

c1oin: - ;1 \'ollllltari


26/31

86

Micro Soei,,/ Th( ory

Bergcr and Luckmann's approal:h

i l l 1 p r

111 dcaling with the 'subjc.:

tivc rcality' cxpcrielKed by individuais whilc rarhl'r W ,lk on social interactiol1,

Conversei)', thcir view

of

s(Kiety

itirurions

and

societ)',

The

'inclusi\'e' nature

of

their enrer

prisc has

led to

rhe ohservarion rhar any

'C's ...

enrial phellomellologicll cOlllponenr'

S C C I l l ~

to

Jis,lppcar allJ rhe resulr is nor so difft'rent from ParsoJls's structural

funcrionalisr

conCL'fns

wirh moral

.:olkcri\e

illtcgrarioJl and

r1lt

il1lportance

of

socia I ..,nioJl for social c o h c ~ i o n (1.355111a n 197

4:13U-1 ). T

here

is

a Iack of

dcrail

OJl

orgalsarioJlal .:nnrcxr." and thc cffor t

to

pla.:c a 'micro ... c i o l o

Clf knowlcdgC"

(frolll

Ioichutz)

wirhin

,1 widL'f

~ o c i e t a l

cClllcC'prion

'rcl11ains ar

rhe levei of gcnera I a ~ c r r i o m a bour the diab:rica I" rela ri oll.,h ir her\\'cen

suciery as "ohjecti\'e"

and ,,, ,

"'UbjCl'tiIT

rcalit('

, (La"''illlan 1974:

131 i,

TIll'

formulatiCln. for

1 . 3 5 ~ m a n ,

rc/ies

in

parr

on

Schurz,

anJ

has cerraill

b a i ~

aS"'OlImprion"

Fir

... r.

frolll their

...

ram:c rhar rhc 'paral11ounr rl' rurher than \\ ith rh e interesr in acror ... ' (a nd grou p)

meanil1g$ SlIth, Therc arc

abo f f t . : r c n c c ~ in

intcrprctivc

~ t y l c \

w

it

h cth

Il omcrhodology hcing

mur

e

; t ~ ' c h n i c a l

and precise' whilc symbolic inrCradi ()n

i:'

J11

bc c ( J n ~ i d L f l c l

to

bc

'111

()f'l' imprc

...... iu ni

..tic

and

" Ioosc" '

in

]ppr

oach

(ClIff et aI.

1 9 ~ O :

192 ), Last y, wherea


27/31

Micro Social -rhe fJr)'

Su(h appro,Khes \'t'en:d a\\'ay from t u a l

indi\

ldll

:.

d

U1J

group)

pra(ri(e and

Spct-ific sirll


28/31

90

Micru Social Th enry

ccountabiJity

Aparr frulll attcntion ro

rult

', glliding JnJ

b

fW CC' 1l pratticn llT

3


30/31

r:tlmulllet Jodo/ugy /;,1S igllured some

oI"

its as/(: Ilrillp/l s. For instance,

rhere

io;;

rhe chorge - pJrticlllar/y aimed ar the con\yrS,Hional annlysis of rhe

srructural propcrries

of

langllagc - rhar the phellomenologicol concern wirh

rlle Illoti\'

es or

cxpcrience

of

actiOJl has hcen neglected. The 'judgelllemaI

dope'

as lhe ll10JcI of the acror, which it sOllghr

to

rcplacc h)' a

knowkJgcahlc

aetm, is said to reappear within an ell1pirieist

and

behaviourisrie approach

Ritzcr and (;oodll1an 2004 : 3(6). :\ cnrain s t r u c t u r a l i ~ I 1 1 ' .1lso a r i , c ~ in

which the

~ e l f

is

forgoul"n: inrcracti()n

is

Illerc

'tum

taking'

in

conversation,

without

I l l o t i v e ~ or inrention, clllhodiment,

ano

thc contcxh of time and

phll.:e. Ironieally, givL"n ih original intcntio!h, ethllolJlethodology _ at I('a,t

\Vith r q ~ a r d

to

eOI1\

'('rsational analYsi" - h e c o l l l e ~ , it (.ln

h(' argunl.

i ( n t i ~ r i l anti 'l'lllpiricist'

hy

hl'ing

e ~ p ( c i n l l r

cOflccrned with rhe rl'chl1ic,11

ill\esrigarioll of rhe trameript. It

mO\'("

_ rrucrural-funcrional rhl'ory, ~ 1 I 1 d s e m ~ ullahle to

olltlinc t1w variclll" typc., of intcractio/1. Fina 11)', whell ethnolllethodolllgi

.s

t,

go

funhcr

tha/1 'rL'Chnical, social

or

s o c i o - l i n g u i ~ t i c J e ~ c r i p r i ( ) n of isolated

"life-\\'orlcb" " thcy I11ccr thc 'rradirion.11 prohlclm of ~ o c i ( ) l o g i c a l anal ys i

..

wherher t1lL'y are aw.He I)f ir or

/1ot'

(1""ln,ll1 1

'.174:

1421 .

As

Crh/10IllL'lhodol

ogy ' p r o g r C ' s e d from a critique i/1ro

a

~ ( J c i o l o g y in i t ~ own right, it too had t

gr'1pple with rhar c l u ~ i \ { ' l y ohjl'crivc social worltl

I

A!tl.'Wcll

1 1/4:

171 .

The reccption

to

Garfinhl\'

idca


31/31

Further Reading

Schurz's key

i d e ~ h ~ < 1 n

be

fOllnd in A. SdlLltZ,

0 I ' ' ' t' 'WII/t'I1UI(}gy

,md

Social

Rel'lti(J/ls,

ed. H. Wagner

( C h i ~ a g o ,

University

of h i ~ 3 ~ o

Pr

es5

, 1970), A. Schutz.

C()/Iccted P,llJers I (The Hague .\L1rtillus '\iijhuff, 1 7 1 ) and A. Sdllltz. T"c:

P JCl1ulI/c/lIJ/uKY ()l the Suei.1I Wor/d (1.ondon, Ilcinenl

Documents

texto TG TAS Brian Roberts_MicroSocialTheory.pdf