Symbolic interactionism

Michael J Carter and Celene Fuller California State University,

Northridge, USA

abstract Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theoretical perspective in

sociology that addresses the manner in which individuals create and maintain
society through face-to-face, repeated, meaningful inter- actions. This
article provides an overview of three theoretical traditions in symbolic
interactionism, focus- ing on the work of Herbert Blumer (the Chicago
School), Manford Kuhn (the Iowa School), and Sheldon Stryker (the Indiana
School). A brief summary of each figures general perspective on symbolic
interac- tionism is provided, followed by a discussion of the research
methodology that defines and distinguishes each. The article then reviews and
assesses the empirical research that has emerged from these traditions over
the past decades. It concludes with a discussion of future directions
symbolic interactionists should attend to in continuing to develop the field.
keywords microsociology social psychology symbolic interactionism

Introduction

Symbolic interactionism is a micro- processes that emerge during face-to-face

level theoretical framework and encounters in order to explain the opera-
perspective in sociology that addresses
how society is created and maintained
through repeat- ed interactions among
individuals. The perspective emerged in
the mid-twentieth century from a
variety of influences, including the
Scottish Moralist and American
Pragmatist philosophers its greatest
influ- ence being American philosopher
George Herbert Mead (1934) and his
theories about the relationship between
self and society. The emergence of
symbolic interactionism was a response
to the mainstream per- spectives on
society that dominated sociology at the
time (such as Talcott Parsonss
structural functional- ism). These
dominant, positivist approaches tended
to examine society from the top down,
focusing on the impact of macro-level
institutions and social struc- tures
and how they impose on and constrain
individ- uals. Departing from this
tradition, symbolic interactionism was
developed to understand the oper- ation
of society from the bottom up,
shifting the focus to micro-level
tion of society. For autonomous, and integral in creating
symbolic interactionists, their social world.
the pre- vailing Central to symbolic interactionist
structuralist perspectives thought is the idea that individuals
use language and significant symbols in
reified society as a their communication with others. Rather
constraining entity that than addressing how common social
institutions define and impact
ultimately defines an individuals, symbolic interaction- ists
individ- ual. Symbolic shift their attention to the
interpretation of sub- jective
interactionism moved away viewpoints and how individuals make
sense of their world from their unique
from such perspectives that perspective. Symbolic interactionists
(perhaps) provided over- are often less concerned with objective
structure than with subjective meaning
socialized views of the how repeat- ed, meaningful
individual to conceive the interactions among individuals come to
define the makeup of society.
individual as agentic, Summarized suc- cinctly, the basic
tenets of symbolic interactionism state
that: (1) individuals act based on the
meanings

Sociopedia.isa
2015 The Author(s)
2015 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of Sociopedia.isa)
Michael J Carter
interactionism, and Celene DOI:
Sociopedia.isa, Fuller, 2015, Symbolic
10.1177/205684601561

1
 Carter and Fuller Symbolic interactionism

objects have for them; (2) interaction behaviorism to sociology, even if some
occurs within a particular social and have seen his conception of symbolic
cultural context in which physical and interactionism more resembling WI
social objects (persons), as well as Thomass (1931) notion of the definition
situa- tions, must be defined or of the sit- uation than what is
categorized based on indi- vidual purely found in the work of Mead
meanings; (3) meanings emerge from (Collins, 1994). Blumer laid the
interactions with other individuals groundwork for a new theoretical paradigm
and with society; and (4) meanings are which in many ways challenged sociologys
continuously created and recre- ated accepted forms of epistemolo- gy and
through interpreting processes during methodology. Blumers brand of
interac- tion with others (Blumer, symbolic interactionism has been the most
1969). influential in soci- ology; most
In this article we examine past and interactionist scholarship is aligned
present theo- ry and research in to
symbolic interactionism. We first
discuss three theoretical approaches
within symbolic interactionism that
have defined the field. Next, we
review and assess the empirical
research that has emerged over the
past decades to show how the per-
spective has evolved. Lastly, we
discuss the future of symbolic
interactionism and identify key areas
that the next generation of scholars
should attend to in continuing to
refine and develop symbolic interac-
tionism as a leading sociological
perspective.

Overview of theoretical approaches

within symbolic interactionism
Theory and research in symbolic
interactionism has developed along three
main areas of emphasis, fol- lowing the
work of Herbert Blumer (the Chicago
School), Manford Kuhn (the Iowa School),
and Sheldon Stryker (the Indiana
School). Herbert Blumer coined the
term symbolic interactionism and was
the first to formulate Meads ideas
into a cohesive theory with specific
methodological impli- cations for study.
Kuhn and Stryker, while method-
ologically at odds with Blumer, share
much of the same theoretical orientation
as him, following Mead. Let us examine
these theoretical approaches in more
detail to understand how they together
make up our contemporary understanding
of interactionist thought.

The Chicago School

The main variant of symbolic
interactionism was developed by Herbert
Blumer (1969) at the University of
Chicago in the 1950s. Blumer brought
Meads philosophically-based social
 Carter and Fuller
some degree with his vision.
Blumer emphasized how the self
emerges from an interactive process of
joint action (Denzin, 1992). Blumer,
like Mead, saw individuals as engaged
in mind action: humans do not ponder
on themselves and their relationships
to others sometimes they constantly
are engaged in mindful action where
they manipulate symbols and negotiate
the meaning of situations (Mead, 1934).
Echoing Mead, Blumer believed that the
study of human behavior must begin with
human association, a notion that was
not common in the viewpoint of early
American sociol- ogy, which treated the
individual and society as dis- crete
entities (Meltzer and Petras, 1970).
Blumers symbolic interactionism
centers on processes actors use to
constantly create and recreate
experiences from one interaction to the
next. For Blumer, symbolic
interactionism was simply the
peculiar and distinctive character of
interaction as it takes place between
human beings (Blumer, 1962: 179). In
his view, social institutions exist
only as individuals interact; society
is not a structure but rather a
continuing process where agency and
inde- terminateness of action is
emphasized (Collins, 1994). Treating
society as structured, patterned, or
stable is a reification because
society, like individual actors
interactions and experiences with one
Symbolic interactionism
anoth- er, is constantly in flux.
Following Mead, Blumers symbolic
interactionism conceives social
institutions as social habits that
occur within specific situations that
are common to those involved in the
situation. For Blumer, meanings are
intersubjective and per- ceived, and
constantly reinterpreted among individ-
uals. There are no meanings inherent in
the people or objects which an actor
confronts actors rather place
meanings upon such entities which are
per- ceived as unique (House, 1977).
Behavior is simply an actors
idiosyncratic way of reacting to an
inter- pretation of a situation. It is
therefore not to be examined or
predicted from antecedent knowledge
about how actors generally respond to
given situa- tions. This is impossible
since each encounter is dif- ferent from
others (and therefore unique).
Understanding social behavior requires
an interpre- tive perspective that
examines how behavior is changing,
unpredictable, and unique to each and
every social encounter.
Blumers theoretical contention was
that human behavioral patterns must be
studied in forms of action, and that
human group life should be studied in
terms of what the participants do
together in units (Blumer, 1969;
Shibutani, 1988). Blumers orienta-
tion toward social phenomena centers
on the notion of independent action:
human society is distinctive because
of the capacity of each member to act
independently. Each person can
regulate their
2
contribution so that the entire group is intersubjective agreement among
able to achieve goals under diverse investigators, which is a necessary
circumstances. This viewpoint
understands the agents role in society condition for sci- entific inquiry to
as free and flexible; an individual have worth.
reacts on his or her own accord and
without structural influence. Blumer Blumers stance on social psychological
believed that any adequate explanation
of human social life must consider the method- ology is particularly dismissive
autonomous con- tributions of each of empirically driven research designs
participant (Shibutani, 1988). which employ the scientific method to
Blumers theoretical orientation
toward symbolic interactionism can be analyze loosely defined or standardized
summarized through three premises concepts. Blumer felt that empirically
(Blumer, 1969): (1) human beings act verifiable knowledge of social situations
toward things on the basis of the cannot be gleaned by using statisti- cal
meanings that the things have for techniques or hypothesis testing which
them; (2) the meaning of things is employ
derived from, or arises out of, the
social interaction that one has with
others; (3) meanings are handled in,
and modified through, an interpretive
process used by a person in dealing
with the things they encounter. While
these three premises remain for many
the core tenets of symbolic
interactionist thought, some have
noted a need for their expan- sion.
For example, Snow (2001) believes that
sym- bolic interactionism is better
conceived around four principles: the
principle of interactive
determination, the principle of
symbolization, the principle of emer-
gence, and the principle of human
agency. For Snow, these broader
principles connect a wider array of
work to symbolic interactionism,
helping scholars understand the
various tensions within the perspec-
tive (Snow, 2001: 375).
Since Mead never actually put his
perspective into writing and much of his
work was published posthumously, a
proscription for methodology with- in
his symbolic interactionist framework
was nonex- istent until Blumer set out
to develop an approach using Meads
ideas. Blumer was a staunch critic of
logical empiricism, and for him the idea
that science was the one and only true
vehicle for discovering truth was
inherently flawed. For Blumer, any
methodology for understanding social
behavior must get inside the individual
in order to see the world as the
individual perceives it. A sound
methodologist must take it as given that
patterns of behavior are not conducive
for scientific insight as are other
worldly phenomena because behavior takes
place on the basis of an actors own
particular meanings. Blumers
methodology emphasizes intimate
understanding rather than the
such established research methodology, understand the nature of behavior.
but rather by examining each social However, other sociologists writing in
setting i.e. each distinct the symbolic interactionist perspective
interaction among individuals saw the study of interac- tion as not
directly. Blumers more subjective limited to qualitative approaches.
methodology attempts to measure and Manford Kuhn (1964) and Sheldon Stryker
understand an actors experience (1980) are two such sociologists who
through sym- pathetic utilized positivist methods in their
introspection: the researcher studies of the relationship between the
takes the standpoint of the actor self and social structure.
whose behavior he or she is studying Stemming from his work in the mid-
and attempts to use the actors own twentieth century, Manford Kuhns
cate- gories in capturing the meanings positivism influenced a new
for the actor during social sociological tradition termed the Iowa
interactions. To summarize Blumers School of symbolic interactionism. Kuhn
method- ological approach, an sought to recon- cile Meads framework
understanding of social life requires with rigorous, scientific test- ing of
an understanding of the processes symbolic interactionist principles.
individu- als use to interpret Kuhn and the Iowa School emphasized
situations and experiences, and how process in interaction and viewed
they construct their actions among behavior as purposive, socially con-
other indi- viduals in society. structed, coordinated social acts
informed by preced- ing events in the
The Iowa and Indiana Schools context of projected acts that occur
While Blumers work has been seen as (Katovich et al., 2003: 122).
the most com- prehensive overview of The basic theoretical underpinning
Meads symbolic interaction- ist ideas, of Kuhn is summarized around four core
the methodological aspect of his themes (Katovich et al., 2003): the
perspective was what Blumer saw as the first is that social interaction can
most appropriate approach to test be examined through a cybernetic
Meads main tenets. Perhaps the perspective that emphasizes
absence of a methodological dictum in intentionality, temporality, and self-
Meads sym- bolic interactionist cor- rection. Second, scientists
approach is responsible for the should focus their atten- tion on
varieties of techniques that have been dyads, triads, and small groups as
proposed fol- lowing his work. these are the loci for most social
According to Blumer, qualitative behavior and interaction. Third, while
methods of study are the only way to social behavior can be studied in
study human behavior, by rigorously its
defining concepts and using them to

3
natural form (i.e. in naturally laboratory experiments) to attempt to
occurring settings) it should also be predict how individuals see themselves in
studied in a laboratory; incorporating situations, but did not focus solely on
both environments allows us to conceptions of the self. Despite
articulate behaviors and identify criticism of Kuhns techniques as
abstract laws for behavior which can be being deterministic or suc- cumbing to
universally applied to actors. And reductionism, the Iowa School following
fourth, social sci- entists must Kuhns work has contributed much
endeavor to create a more systematic to research addressing the problematic
and rigorous vocabulary to identify the nature of coordinated social action as
ontological nature of sociality (i.e. well as meanings as responses in
operationalize concepts in a much more interaction.
thorough manner than what had been Kuhns student and successor Carl
previously accepted by social Couch (1984; Couch et al., 1986)
psychologists). continued the symbolic interac- tionist
While Kuhn and those associated with tradition at Iowa, applying a more
the Iowa School follow a symbolic pragmatic approach to the study of
interactionist framework generally social phenomena and
consistent with Mead, their
methodologi- cal stance directly
contradicts that proposed by Blumer.
Rather than viewing quantitative
analyses of social interaction as
abstract empiricism, Kuhn asserted
that the use of quantitative methods
could provide systematic testing of
Meads theoretical prin- ciples. Kuhn
saw the study of the complexity of
social life and of selfhood as a
scientific endeavor requiring
sociological analysis. He believed
that social science was indeed
consistent with the quanti- tative
study of human behaviors and
conceptions of the self when properly
executed.
Rather than relying on subjective
survey respons- es to assess attitudes
toward the self, Kuhn developed the
Twenty Statements Test (TST).
Following Meads work on the emergence
of the self through interaction, Kuhns
TST is based on self-disclosure of
respondents in answering the question
Who Am I? on 20 numbered lines. Kuhn
believed that responses to this question
could provide a systematic study of an
individuals self-attitudes and
organization of identities as they
emerge from symbolic interaction with
others. By coding these responses, a
researcher may find both conventional
and idiosyncratic reflec- tions of
social statuses and identities.
Furthermore, since the test relies on
self-report, it serves as a useful tool
for discerning individual meanings
without pre- senting them as objective
facts. Kuhn and the Iowa School utilized
the TST among other quantitative
measures (including data collected from
using innovative experiments to 2008: 17). Stryker expanded symbolic
understand interac- tions among actors. interactionist ideas through
Couchs brand of interactionism operationalizing variables that Mead
attempted to understand presented as general assumptions and
individuals orientations toward one concepts by hypothesiz- ing and
another across time and space, improv- empirically testing relationships among
ing on the cross-sectional Meads concepts while incorporating
methodological approach that mostly elements of role theory.
defined Kuhns research (Herman- Stryker further expanded Meads
Kinney and Vershaeve, 2003). concept of role- taking in order to
Couchs role in extending symbolic demonstrate the structural aspect of
interactionist knowledge has led many interaction. Strykers work on roles
to differentiate the Iowa School as treats social roles as emerging from a
old and new, representing Kuhns reciprocal influence of net- works or
and Couchs respective influence patterns of relationships in
during those eras. interactions as they are shaped by
Sheldon Strykers work is similar to various levels of social structures.
Kuhns in its scope as well as in Stryker defines roles as
methods employed. As Blumer and Kuhn expectations which are attached to
are associated with the Chicago and [social] positions; or symbolic
Iowa Schools respectively, Stryker is a categories [that] serve to cue
sociologist from what is referred to as behavior (Stryker, 1980: 57).
the Indiana School of symbol- ic According to Stryker, expectations of
interactionist thought, representing roles vary across situations and
theory and research generated in the within the context of cultural or
mid to latter part of the twentieth social change. In taking the attitudes
century at the University of Indiana. of others in a situation, an
While Mead and Blumer emphasized the individual uses symbolic cues built
fluid nature of meanings and the self from prior experiences and normative
in interaction, Stryker emphasized expectations of status from social
that meanings and interactions led to positions to assess potential lines of
relatively stable patterns that create action. In this way, roles as they are
and uphold social structures. Stryker attached to positions may be analyzed
believed that sym- bolic interactionist as predictors of future behavior for
ideas could and should be tested using individuals in various social
both qualitative and quantitative categories. As with symbolic
methods. According to Stryker, Meads interactionism, Strykers struc- tural
work can be conceived of as a frame role theory views socialization as the
rather than a coherent theory process
with testable propositions (Stryker,

4
through which individuals learn interactionism cannot be exhaustive,
normative expecta- tions for actions as let us examine its substantive areas of
they relate to role relationships. By inquiry and a few empirical studies
building up from the person to the that have defined the field.
situation within the larger social
structure, Stryker showed the Classical symbolic interactionist research
reciprocity of the individual and Although some may not specifically
society. In every sit- uation, identify as a symbolic interactionist,
individuals identify themselves and clear traces of interactionist ideas
others in the context of social are apparent across sociology,
structure. Individuals then reflexively specifically in ethnomethodology
apply what they perceive to be (Garfinkel, 1967; Scott and Lyman,
others identifications of them that, 1968), dramaturgy (Goffman, 1959b),
over time, become internalized research on the family (Stryker, 1959),
expectations for behavior as part of the theories on
self. These internalized expectations,
when accepted and enacted by individuals
in various roles, become identities. In
emphasizing the impact social structure
has on how roles are played in
interaction, Strykers structural
approach to symbolic interactionism is
an attempt to bridge the gap between
micro- and macro-sociological and social
psychological theories. Strykers
structural symbolic approach therefore
pro- vides significant theoretical
insights to social roles in expanding
symbolic interactionist concepts.

Review and assessment of empirical

research within the symbolic
interactionist tradition
During the twentieth century, symbolic
interaction- ist research held a
prominent place within sociology
despite periods of backlash and
criticism for being unscientific,
apolitical, and too micro (Fine,
1993). Even though symbolic
interactionism is often criti- cized,
there is little denying that it has
been as pop- ular and influential over
the past half-century as any competing
sociological perspective; hundreds of
books, research articles, and
monographs written in its vein are
evidence of this. This abundance of
research has led multiple scholars to
note the diffi- culty in summarizing
advancements within the field. In
previous synopses of symbolic
interactionism, Hall (2003) and
Plummer (1996) both noted that any
attempt to summarize the field must be
by necessity partial and
selective. With the under- standing
that any article-length summary of the
research produced within symbolic
identity and social roles (Burke and Shott, 1979).
Stets, 2009; Heise, 2002; MacKinnon, One of the more famous examples of
1994; Stryker and Serpe, 1982), symbolic interactionist scholarship was
deviance (Becker, 1953), and provided by Glaser and Strauss (1964)
phenomen- ology (Schutz, 1962). in their examination of awareness
Beyond these subfields, com- mon contexts that influence social
areas of inquiry in symbolic interaction. These scholars noted how
interactionism include social social interactions vary by struc- ture,
problems (Best, 2003), cultural awareness of members, and tactics of
studies (Becker, 1982; Fine, 1996), maintain- ing awareness/unawareness. For
semiotics (Manning, 2003), narratives example, nurses in hospitals often must
(Reynolds and Herman-Kinney, 2003), interact with patients who are terminal
feminism (Deegan and Hill, 1987; but unaware of the severity of their
Thorne, 1993), neo-Marxism (Schwalbe, condi- tion. Glaser and Strausss
1986), and post- work showed how, in examples such as
modernism (Gergen, 1991; Lemert, 1997; this, the knowledge of a patients
Sandstrom and Fine, 2003). There have condition is controlled and kept from
been signif- icant developments in the patient. Here, the awareness of
other areas (Hall, 2003), including a impending death is construct- ed and
resurgence in studies on pragmatism avoided in order to maintain a
(Joas, 1993; Maines and patients positive outlook and
McCallion, 2007; psychological well-being.
Plummer, 1996; Saxton, 1993; Shalin, In other classic studies, Brooks
1986; Strauss, 1993), work on (1969) examined the relationship
collective behavior and social between the self and political ideol-
movements (Lofland, 1996; McPhail, ogy, revealing that how one identifies
1991; Morris and Mueller, 1992; Snow depends on their political orientation
et al., 1986; Stryker et al., 2000), (specifically, he examined how self-
further studies on deviance, mostly views correlate with right-wing or
focusing on labeling theory and left-wing ideologies). Strykers
social problems (Best, 1989; Conrad (1957) work on role-taking applied
and Schneider, 1980; Loseke, 1999), symbolic interactionist ideas to
research on temporality (Couch, understand why family members often
1984; have differing levels of commitment to
Flaherty, 1998; Maines et al., 1983; their family roles. Glaser (1956)
Strauss, 1993; Zerubavel, 1985), and showed how criminal behavior can best
the implementation of emo- tions and be under- stood using a social
affect into studies on symbolic psychological lens.
interaction (Hochschild, 1979, 2003 One of the most famous
[1983]; Scheff, 1979; interactionist studies

5
was provided by Becker (1953) in his generation of scholars to apply sym-
work on becoming a marihuana user, bolic interactionist theory in novel
where he showed how feeling high
when using marihuana is a social ways. Let us now examine the research
construction rather than a trajectories that followed or were
physiological, internal motivational
state caused by the drug. Becker influenced by the classical era in
revealed that in marihuana users, symbolic interactionist research.
feeling high requires both the
presence and recognition of the drugs
symptoms and recognition of the
drugs symptoms is constructed socially
through interac- tions with others.
Applied more broadly, Beckers study
shows how role behaviors are
socialized and acquired through
interactions with others. Beckers
marihuana study had a massive
influence, not only for symbolic
interactionists but on the field of
soci- ology, as it challenged and
widened the boundaries of what was
considered acceptable for rigorous
study. To this day, when students read
Becoming a mari- huana user they
realize how creative one can be as a
researcher; Becker was instrumental in
inspiring scholars to dare to examine
unique, taboo, and eso- teric
phenomena not studied by others.
Another seminal study was conducted
by Rosengren (1961), who examined the
nature of self- meanings in those who
are emotionally disturbed. Here, young
boys who were institutionalized were
studied to identify how self-meanings
change over time, specifically how
self-meanings shift based on how
individuals believe they are seen by
others. By examining an institutional
setting where the boys experienced
continuous, close contact with others,
Rosengren was able to study change in
self-meanings more rapidly than what
normally occurs in individ- uals. His
study was important in demonstrating
how Meads ideas could be applied in a
testable environ- ment and in revealing
how to conceive a research design
capable of measuring symbolic
interactionist concepts. Continuing
the theme of studying individ- uals in
an institutionalized setting, Daniels
(1972) revealed how psychiatric
diagnoses in the military are socially
constructed. Here he showed how
diagnoses of mental illness are
dependent not only on patients symptoms
in institutionalized settings, but
also by doctors awareness of the
consequences that a specif- ic
diagnostic label may have for the
patient.
The previously described studies by
Glaser and Strauss, Becker, Daniels, et
al. are revered today for their
innovative genius, and for providing a
founda- tion for how symbolic
interaction theory can be applied to
understand the contexts of everyday
life. Perhaps more than anything, these
classic studies inspired a future
Dramaturgical analysis with physical deformities, drug addicts,
One of the most important symbolic prosti- tutes) have difficulty in
interactionist theorists of the negotiating their environ- ment due to
classical era was Erving Goffman, others hesitation or refusal in
though some might hesitate to accepting them. Goffmans work also
classify his work as representing addressed how rituals influence social
purely an interactionist standpoint. interactions (Goffman, 1967), prop- er
Regardless, interactionist themes are etiquette for behaving in public places
found through- out Goffmans work: (Goffman, 1963a), and how actors use
symbols, shared meaning, iden- tity frames to interpret real- ity and
all are common elements in his organize experience (Goffman, 1974).
scholarship, which spanned multiple
decades and influenced a legion of Cultural studies and postmodernism Scholars
sociologists. To this day, Goffman have also applied symbolic
contin- ues to be one of the most interactionist thought to a variety of
inspirational and cited sociologists. sociological subfields. Many have
Goffmans seminal book The applied symbolic interactionism to
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life cultural studies (Becker and McCall,
(1959b) used the metaphor of a the- 1993; Carey, 1989; Diawara, 1996;
atrical performance as a framework to
describe how actors present themselves Giroux, 2001) and even postmod- ernism
to others, and how they attempt to
control others impressions to be (Maines, 1996). Norman K Denzins
seen positively. Here Goffman (1983, 1985, 1991, 1992, 2008) work
documented the myriad strategies actors
use in face-to-face interactions to provides a multifac- eted and inventive
manage impressions. Other work by application of interactionist theo- ry
Goffman (1959a, 1961) examined the
moral career of mental patients and to these fields, incorporating ideas
the impact of total institutions on from poststructural theory and focusing
indi- viduals. Here he studied how
individuals identities are altered on the politics of interpretation. For
indeed redefined when placed in example, Denzin has applied symbolic
insti- tutionalized settings, noting
the mechanisms by which peoples interactionist theory to better
self-definitional meanings change
when being removed from significant understand alcoholism, examining the
others and immersed in a psychiatric alcoholic self and the processes of an
hospital.
Goffmans (1963b) later work alcoholics recovery (Denzin, 1987,
on stigma addressed how those 1993). Others have also applied
with spoiled identities (e.g. those interactionist themes to cultural
studies and/or postmodernism,

6
specifically regarding semiotics and the policies as well as differential
narratives (Manning, 2003), qualitative effects and social relationships (Estes
research methodolo- gies (Denzin and and Edmonds, 1981: 77). Due to symbolic
Lincoln, 2005), sickness and health interactionist emphasis on meanings,
(Charmaz, 1991), and experiences in the the application of these concepts in
workplace (Fine, 1996). policy formulation and imple- mentation
ensures that experiences and meanings
Gender, status, and power of those in lower status groups are
Many have found symbolic viewed as significant as those in high
interactionism useful for status groups. The authors asserted
understanding the construction of that basic (or pure) research
gender and sexu- ality. West and should incorporate competing and
Zimmermans (1987) Doing gender set the dominant definitions of the situation
stage for social constructionist and a description of how these
research on gender and sexuality. The definitions are creat- ed and
concept of doing gender demonstrates maintained. These definitions include
the socially constructed nature of what is defined as the problem, the
mas- culinity and femininity as population defined as a
developing out of repeat- ed,
patterned interaction and
socialization processes. The authors
contend that gender emerges through
interaction, directly contradicting
the normative per- spective of gender
as an innate state of being or indi-
vidual quality. West and Zimmerman
additionally expanded on Goffmans
(1976) treatment of gender displays by
demonstrating the salience of gender
in interaction as a master status.
According to West and Zimmerman,
individuals are constantly assessed
for their gender performances in both
interactional and institutional
contexts; thus, doing gender
is unavoidable because sex category
membership is attached to the
allocation of power and resources
across various social institutions.
West and Zimmermans social
constructionist approach to gender
and sex hugely impacted sociology as
well as gender and feminist studies.
In other research, Estes and Edmonds
(1981) advocated for the use of
symbolic interactionist ideas in
policy research, suggesting that WI
Thomass def- inition of the situation
could be applied to under- stand power
relations, specifically to understand
why those in higher status positions
are more successful in defining
situations to assert dominance. These
scholars showed how interactionist
theory is fruitful for policy research
in (1) formulating policies through
negotiation in a structural context,
(2) implementing policies by
emphasizing multiple interpretations
of policy intent, and (3) influencing
meaning for those who are objects of
problem, and the formulation of the time compared to female physicians
policy to assuage the issue. who interrupted 32% of the time. While
Similarly, applied research using the there were only four female
sym- bolic interactionist framework physicians, results of the study
should focus on processes associated showed that their patients interrupted
with the policies and the result- ing as much or more than physicians. West,
social change or inhibition of social however, noted that the two encounters
change. Here, the symbolic with female patients and female physi-
interactionist emphasis on social cians had symmetrical interruptions.
actions and their consequences may Concluding the research, the author
inform researchers of key factors of asserted that male physicians
policy design and the experiences and interrupt more in order to assert
meanings actors attach to them. dominance over patients. West
In a similar vein, Candace West suggested this contradicts prior
(1984) observed 21 patientphysician research that found doctors to
interactions during doctor vis- its disproportionately interrupt patients
at a family practice in the southern without analyzing the sex of the
United States to assess status physician and patient. West concluded
implications of interactions. West by noting that research on these
uti- lized already existing recordings interactions should examine the
of patientphysician interactions and effect of gender as a master
transcribed and coded them for status that may trump other power
interruptions (defined as speaking relations such as physician status.
over the current speaker more than a Schilt (2006) followed Wests work in
syllable away from the transition to her study of transmens experiences
their turn at speaking) (West, 1984: at work post-transition. Combining
91). Following West and Zimmermans West and Zimmermans concept of
(1977, 1983) studies of doing gender, Connells (1995)
interruptions in cross-sex patriarchal divi- dend, and
interactions, West sought to explore Collinss (1991) outsider-within
power dynamics between male and con- cept, Schilts study
female physicians and their patients. demonstrated how gender and
While West and Zimmerman found that workplace inequality are reproduced
men talk more than women in cross- through narra- tives of transmen who saw
sex interactions and are more likely upward mobility, an increase of
to interrupt the other sex, the perceived competency, and other status
higher status of a medical authority privileges after transitioning to male.
led physicians to interrupt patients Other research has applied a symbolic
67% of the time. However, when interactionist framework to understand
looking at the sex of the physician, relationships among gender,
male physicians interrupted 68% of culture,

7
identity, emotions, and personal identity, emotions, and behavior that
change (Schrock and Padavic, 2007; has established an extensive research
Schrock and Schwalbe, 2009; Vaccaro et program over the past half-cen- tury,
al., 2011). with new empirical studies being
published
Self and identity
Over the past decades many scholars
have applied an interactionist
framework to understand self and
identity processes, specifically in the
areas of role the- ory, affect control
theory, and identity theory. Ralph
Turners (Turner, 1956, 1990;
Turner and Killian, 1987) role theory
emphasized role-making, or the process
of creating and modifying definitions
of one- self and ones roles as the
orienting mechanism in interaction
(Turner, 1962). He emphasized the dual
nature of role relations, emphasizing
that role expec- tations must always
be understood in relation to the
counter-role in which they are
juxtaposed (e.g. one cannot understand
the motivations or meanings of being a
worker without understanding the
corre- sponding role of manager).
Turners role theory attempted to
capture not only the ways in which
individuals define role expectations
themselves, but also how role
expectations are embedded in the
social structure. His theory
highlighted that the self is as much a
sociological as psychological entity.
Turners role theory was a formalized
system, involv- ing a series of
axiomatic propositions that addressed
how roles emerge in individuals and
how they relate to society (Turner,
1968).
Other symbolic interactionist work
on self and identity is found in the
work of scholars aligned with affect
control theory, who have shown how
individ- uals reduce uncertainty about
their existence by developing a
working understanding of their social
worlds (Heise, 1999, 2002; MacKinnon,
1994; Robinson and Smith-Lovin, 2006).
Affect control theory allows one to
predict what individuals will do when
others violate expectations in social
situations, or specifically how
individuals act to restore identi-
ties when they have been discredited,
based on an individuals definition of
events and the emotional reaction
they have to such events. Research in
affect control theory has shown that
individuals construct events in order
to confirm fundamental meanings
regarding self and others, and how
individuals use emotions as indicators
for whether events are played out as
expected or not. When individuals
experience emotional outcomes in a
situation that are different from what
is expected in ones culture, a
deflection occurs, motivating the
individual to restore mean- ings of
self and situation back to the
cultural stan- dard. Affect control
theory is a cumulative theory of
every year (Rogers and Robinson, A second area within identity theory
2014; Rogers et al., 2014). examines roles and how identities
Those who work in identity theory operate to motivate behav- ior during
have also pro- duced an extensive interactions (McCall and Simmons,
program of research under the 1978). Role identity theory has
umbrella of symbolic interactionism remained more the- oretical than
(Burke and Stets, 2009; Serpe and empirical, as a cumulative research
Stryker, 2011). In identity theory, pro- gram is yet to emerge within this
Meads theories on the reflexivity of area. A third variant of identity
self and society are applied to theory examines identities, behav-
understand how identities motivate ior, and emotions as a process of
behavior and emotions in social cybernetic control (Burke, 1991).
situations. Research in this vein has Here, individuals identity meanings are
three main emphases that all focus on standards by which to compare the self
the structural nature of identities. to others in social situations.
One emphasis, stemming from the work Individuals have a main goal of
of Stryker et al., reveals how verifying identity meanings among
behavior is a function of how others in the environment in order to
committed and salient ones identities feel positive emotions. Recent
are in their overall identi- ty research in this area has shown
hierarchy (Brenner et al., 2014; how ones moral identity predicts
Merolla et al., 2012). Research in moral behavior (Carter, 2013; Stets
this area has examined how a salient and Carter, 2006, 2011, 2012), how
blood donor identity predicts the sta- tus mediates identity processes
frequency of giving blood (Callero (Stets and Harrod, 2004; Stets et al.,
and Piliavin, 1983), and how a salient 2008), and how various cognitive and
religious identity influences ones behavioral outcomes emerge for those
time spent praying and attending with a criminal identity (Asencio,
religious services (Stryker and 2013; Asencio and Burke, 2011).
Serpe, 1982). Some of the most recent
research in this area has applied Collective behavior and social
structural identity theory to movements Scholars have also applied
understand how hookup scenes serve as symbolic interactionist ideas to
opportunity structures to explore understand collective behavior and
same-sex attrac- tions, and for social movements. For example, Britt
women, to verify bisexual, lesbian, and Heises (2000) work has applied
or queer sexual identities (Rupp et identity theory to social move- ments
al., 2014). to understand how participants
construct clear categories of
oppressed versus oppressor, and

8
how a previously stigmatized identity understand social context and the
(causing nega- tive emotions) transforms environment. For example, Smith and
into an identity recog- nized by the Bugni (2006) proposed three ways in
movement (causing positive emotions). which symbolic interaction- ism and
Further, this work demonstrates how studies of the self may be useful for
members of movements construct architec- ture. First, symbolic
identities for themselves as vic- tims interactionism recognizes the mutual
of marginalization due to institutional influence of physical environments and
and structural processes rather than the development of the self. Second,
individual deficien- cies or flaws. symbolic interac- tionism allows
Beyond this, this work describes the researchers to study the symbolic
importance of the social processes of meanings of designed environments.
identity con- struction during both Third, symbol- ic interactionism
formal and informal interac- tions reveals the influence of designed
between members of the movement environments and buildings on our
including newsletters for prison actions and reflexivity (Smith and
inmates, college courses and campus Bugni, 2006: 124). Mead long
organizations, cultural commu- nities,
etc.
Verta Taylor (Taylor, 2000; Taylor
and Whittier, 1992) has also applied
interactionist theory to better
understand identity processes and
emotions in social movement
communities, collecting data from
vari- ous self-help and identity
movements such as post- partum
depression movements (Taylor, 1996),
movements of women convicted of
infanticide dur- ing postpartum
depression (Taylor and Leitz, 2010),
and queer movements and global
feminist political movements (Hurwitz
and Taylor, 2012). Taylor and
colleagues have combined affect
control theory, identity theory, and
social movement theory to bet- ter
understand various social movements in
society.
In more recent work that applies
Strykers identi- ty theory, Viterna
(2013) examined how micro- processes of
identities served as mobilizing factors
for women in El Salvador during times of
war. White (2010) applied a structural
identity framework to understand Irish
Republican activist movements and
observed that over time, members entered
and exit- ed roles (identity
transitions) that caused changes in the
salience of their role identities
(identity transfor- mation). Members of
various Irish Republican activist
movements consistently joined or created
factions, and over time many activists
left move- ments in favor of family and
other roles.

Social context and the environment

There also is research that applies
symbolic interac- tionist ideas to
ago posited that non-social objects
can constitute the generalized other
such that individuals may interact
with the environment and behave
reflexively despite the inability of
objects to respond. Furthermore,
William James classified the material
self as part of the empirical self,
which includes non-social objects and
places. Along with the social self
and the spiritu- al self, James
suggested that these objects
influence the development and
maintenance of the self. These
objects and designed environments
further influence how roles are
played and how status is created and
maintained, such as spatial
segregation by gender in office
settings. The authors further
suggested that symbolic
interactionist concepts can be
applied to better understand school
environments, retirement homes, and
sacred places that shape meaning and
interaction with the environment.
In other work, Robinson (2007)
applied symbol- ic interactionist
ideas to understand how the self is
constructed in online environments.
Discounting postmodernist assertions
that the online self is an attempt to
shed the offline identity, Robinson
cited research suggesting that role
players incorporate their offline
identities into their identities
online. The individual becomes immersed
in a new character, thus highlighting
the constraint of having one iden-
tity associated with a physical body
offline. Further, because many multi-
9
user domains require users to create an
identity (including a gender) before
play- ing, offline norms permeate online
identities. The bodies that players
engender in their games are high- ly
idealized versions of masculinity and
femininity. Thus offline norms are
reproduced in online envi- ronments,
far from being completely removed from
social structures and statuses of
everyday reality. Robinson also applied
the creation and maintenance of online
and offline identities to Meads I and
me concepts, where the I consists
of multiple online identities and
selves while the person maintains their
singular me. Robinson further
likened the emer- gence of the
cyberself as a product of interaction
through reflexivity to the same
socialization process that creates the
self offline. Finally, Robinson argued
for the efficacy of symbolic
interactionist and dra- maturgical
analyses of performances in chat rooms
and other online interactions, which
lack the usual sensory cues (e.g.
Goffmans expressions given off ), but
allow for other contextual clues as to
the authen- ticity of ones performance.
Given the technological advances in the
years since Robinsons article, more
empirical research on the cyberself in
the symbolic interactionist tradition
would likely lead to new findings
regarding interaction through digital
media. The studies described above
provide examples of symbolic
interactionist thought that have emerged
in
both the distant and recent past. Of
course, there are literally hundreds
of other symbolic interactionist
studies one could summarize in this
article. But those addressed here
provide a conception of the common
work in the discipline. Let us now
turn our attention to the future of
symbolic interactionism.
quali- tative research, while those
trained in the Kuhn/Stryker tradition
still tend to publish more quantitative
research. It might be more appropriate
to say that symbolic interactionism in
the past decade has been more defined
by novel research

Future directions of symbolic

interactionism
Over a decade ago Sandstrom and Fine
(2003) offered a set of predictions
regarding the future of symbolic
interactionism. The first prediction
was that moving forward, symbolic
interactionism would succeed in
maintaining its label, familiarity,
and pop- ularity within sociology. A
second prediction was that symbolic
interactionism would become more
characterized by diversity in
theoretical and method- ological
applications to topics of interest,
forcing the field to abandon old
distinctions made by those in the
Chicago and Iowa/Indiana traditions. A
third prediction was that symbolic
interactionists would begin to place a
greater emphasis on the develop- ment
of macro-level concepts and analysis
aimed at understanding relationships
among large-scale socie- tal entities.
A final prediction was that the
continued triumphs of symbolic
interactionism would likely lead to
its demise, as the concepts that once
were unique to those in the discipline
would inevitably become more diffuse
and integrated into mainstream
sociology.
Looking back, it seems that some of
Sandstrom and Fines predictions have
been realized, though not all of them.
The first prediction is certainly
docu- mented: symbolic interactionism
continues to be a highly recognized
subfield in sociology, and it con-
tinues to serve as an organizing
force, both themati- cally in academic
journals and structurally with its
organizational entity, the Society for
the Study for Symbolic Interactionism
(SSSI). There also is evi- dence
supporting the second prediction,
though one might question whether
interactionist scholarship is truly
more diverse in theory and method than
in the past. It also seems extreme to
claim that the distinc- tions between
traditional (Chicago School) and
structural (Iowa and Indiana Schools)
symbolic interactionism have
diminished. Scholars might not state
their orientations or alignment with
one school as much as in the past, but
those trained in the Blumerian
tradition still tend to publish more
topics and areas of inquiry than by least not yet. Students of sociology
innovations in the- ory and method. still learn that symbol- ic
There is evidence for this: recent
articles in the journal Symbolic interactionism is a discrete
Interaction feature studies on coffee perspective/framework within sociology
breaks (Stroebaek, 2013), identity
construction in World of Warcraft MMO proper, and concepts such as Meads I
role playing gaming (Linderoth, 2012), and me and Cooleys (1902) looking
and even the experience of those who
belong to support groups aimed at cop- glass self are still largely
ing with inflammatory bowel disease
(Thompson, 2013). attributed to symbolic interactionism.
To this point, Sandstrom and Fines Symbolic interactionism continues to
third predic- tion is not evident to be a widely recognized subfield and
any significant degree. There have perspective within sociology.
been a few isolated studies that have Writing about the same time as
applied symbolic interactionist ideas Sandstrom and Fine, Hall (2003) cited
multiple areas of inquiry future
to greater levels of analysis (Dennis symbolic interactionists should
and Martin, 2005; Salvini, 2010), but address. The first regards interaction
orders, specifically the areas of race,
even in these studies the true level class, and gender. The second regards
of analysis seems to be rooted more institu- tional analysis, where symbolic
interactionists lend their perspective
in micro-level processes than and methodology to understand policy
directed at the macro realm. It seems creation at the meso-level to better
under- stand how behavior in
the most macro applications of organizational settings becomes
institutionalized through a process of
symbolic interactionist thought social construction over time (Estes
still address social movements and and Edmonds work described above
begins to answer this request). The
collective behavior (Goodwin and third topic regards turning attention
Jasper, 2004; Stryker, 2008), and toward better understanding collective
action across space and time. Addressing
that much remains to be done collective action seems more and more
regarding applying symbolic necessary as individuals actions in the
present world are more and more
interactionist thought to better directed toward future events and
understanding macro-level structures activities; much of the past work in
symbolic inter- actionism has examined
and large-scale aggregates. elements within a situation in
isolation while disregarding how
Regarding the final prediction, individuals with- in situations are
the demise of symbolic oriented toward future interactions
(Collinss [2004] work on interaction
interactionism has not occurred at ritual chains

10
 attempts to correct this problem), so sociology, and symbolic interactionists
considering space/time dimensional have much to learn from (and offer
factors that connect interac- tions
seems important. A fourth topic to) neuroscientists as these
follows the last, and regards
spatiotemporal orders (Friedland and
Boden, 1994) where interactionists
continue to observe how time and space
are constructed to shape conditions,
consciousness, and actions (Hall,
2003). Let us conclude by citing a few
areas beyond those mentioned by
Sandstrom, Fine, and Hall that future
interactionists should attend to. One
area of inquiry regards relationships
among the individual, technology, and
society. The past decade has witnessed
incredible advancements in
communication technol- ogy, such as
the emergence and ubiquity of social
media, the ever increasing reliance
and use of cell phones, and of course
the Internet. If there ever was a time
when technological innovations have
rede- fined the manner in which
interactions and shared meaning occur,
it is now. More and more, virtual
communication technologies are taking
the place of traditional, face-to-face
interactions. One can only wonder how
Herbert Blumer and Erving Goffman
would comment on modern means of
communica- tion! Technological
developments that assist in or take
the place of interactions must be a
focus for symbolic interaction moving
forward. And, of course, many scholars
across the past decade have addressed
technology and interaction beyond
Robinsons work described above
(Altheide, 2004; Brickell, 2012;
Fernback, 2007; Gottschalk, 2010;
Williams and Copes, 2005; Yurchisin et
al., 2005;
Zhao, 2005).
Neurosociology is another area in
sociology that symbolic
interactionists should turn their
attention to in future studies. Over
the past decade advance- ments in
neuroscience have caught the attention
of some sociologists who study micro-
level processes (Franks, 2010; Franks
and Turner, 2013; Shkurko, 2012). For
example, some have applied
neuroscience to understand basic
elements of interpersonal behav- ior
often addressed by symbolic
interactionists, specifically the
areas of social cognition and mind
(Franks, 2013; Hopcroft, 2013;
Humphreys and
Bedford, 2011; Maryanski, 2013; Shook,
2013). Others have applied neuroscience
to understand familiar sociological
processes, such as aggression (Bufkin
and Luttrell, 2005; Mehta et al., 2013;
Siever, 2008), self and identity
processes (Arzy et al., 2008; Gillihan
and Farah, 2005; Molnar-Szakacs
and Uddin, 2013; Niemeyer, 2013),
stereotyping and prejudice (Amodio and
Lieberman, 2009; Brauer and Er-rafiy,
2011; Nelson, 2013), and even
inequality (Davis, 2013).
Neurosociology promises to be one of
the cutting edge subfields in
fields continue to merge. meaning in producing the very structures
Lastly, we echo Sandstrom and Fines that both enable and constrain
point that symbolic interactionists individual behavior. The age-old
need to continue to turn attention sociolog- ical debate of micro versus
toward the macro realm. Fine (1993) has macro theories seems to end with the
been noting this need for decades, but synthesis of both as equally important
few are yet to seriously address how and inseparable units of analysis within
symbolic interactionists can help the disci- pline. While these theorists
understand the link between micro and have been relatively suc- cessful in
macro structures. Work on micro addressing the micro and macro, symbolic
macro connections in recent decades interactionists should turn their
can be seen in the work of Bourdieu attention and offer their own
(1977), Habermas (1984), and Giddens perspective to better understand the
(1984). The theories of these well- link between micro- and macro-social
known sociologists both implicitly and processes.
explicitly incorporate symbolic inter-
actionist concepts to understand
macro-level processes. Bourdieus work Conclusion
highlights the constraint of social
structures in defining individual In this essay we have discussed the
habitus, or dispositions, and how this three main theo- retical perspectives
produces subjective meanings as well in symbolic interactionism, sur- veyed
as objective consequences and life and assessed the empirical studies
chances. Habermas emphasizes the need that have emerged over the past
for commu- nicative action, or decades, and provided recom-
discourse based on mutual under- mendations for areas of inquiry to
standing and shared meaning in which future scholars of symbolic
influencing political change and in interactionism should attend. We have
creating a truly democratic society. contended that the symbolic
Giddens, following the symbolic interactionist framework, despite
interactionist emphasis on fragmentation and expansion throughout
communication, discusses the mutual the years, is a perspective with
reinforcement of society and the historical as well as contemporary
individual at the level of the significance for the field of
interaction in his structuration sociology. Rather than pointing to the
theory. These theorists successfully variety of theories and methodologies
bridge macro- and micro-sociological that have emerged since Meads work as
concepts in a way that demon- strates evidence of the demise of symbolic
the significance of interaction and interactionism, we posit that the
diversity of

11
sociological work in the symbolic This classic work provided the
inspiration for Blumer in his creation
interactionist tra- dition is evidence and development of symbolic
of its utility and well-deserved interactionism. Published posthumously,
Mind, Self, and Society is a collection of
endurance within the discipline. Meads notes and
Furthermore, future directions for
symbolic interactionist theories and
research are constantly emerging.
Because of this, we believe the future
of the perspective is bright.

Annotated further reading

Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism:
Perspective and Method. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
In this seminal work, Blumer delineates
symbolic interactionism as a distinct
sociological framework. In developing
the ideas of GH Mead into a set of basic
propositions, Blumers text is perhaps
the definitive source on interactionist
theory and method. This work inspired a
legion of scholars in the years to come
after its publication, and it remains
an often-cited work across sociology.
Denzin NK (1992) Symbolic Interactionism and
Cultural Studies: The Politics of
Interpretation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
In this book Denzin charts the history
of symbolic interactionism, spanning a
century of social thought beginning
with American pragmatism and ending
with postmodern and poststructuralist
thought of the latter twentieth
century. Denzin uses a cultural,
interpretive lens and applies symbolic
interactionism to understand various
topics, including history, politics,
and feminism.
Fine GA (1993) The sad demise, mysterious
disappearance, and glorious triumph of
symbolic interactionism. Annual Review
of Sociology 19: 6187.
In this now classic essay, Fine
discusses changes that occurred within
symbolic interactionism in the latter
part of the twentieth century. The
mainstreaming of symbolic
interactionist thought is discussed,
and how the intellectual community of
interactionists weakened over the years
due to the diversity of interests
within the field. Fine cites four
occurrences that led to this weakening,
including fragmentation, expansion,
incorporation, and adoption. Fine also
describes the role of symbolic
interactionism in three debates within
sociology, the micro/macro debate, the
structure/agency debate, and the social
realist/interpretivist debate. The
article ends with a summary of
empirical arenas in which interactions
have made contributions (social
coordination theory, sociology of
emotions, social constructionism, self
and identity theory, macro-
interactionism, and policy-relevant
research).
Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self, and Society from
the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 lectures that together lay the
groundwork for his brand of social
behaviorism. Here Meads classic
concepts are presented, including
taking the role of the other, the self
as a dichotomoy of the I and the me,
and the play, game, and generalized
other stages of development. It is
required reading for any student of
sociological social psychology.
Shott S (1976) Society, self, and mind in
moral philosophy: The Scottish
Moralists as precursors of symbolic
interactionism. Journal of the History
of the Behavioral Sciences 12(1): 3946.
Shott provides a concise summary of the
influence of Scottish Moralist thought on
symbolic interactionism. She reveals how
GH Meads conception of the self as an
internal dialogue between the I and the
me and the notion of the generalized
other were foreshadowed by Adam Smith
and others in the Scottish Moralist
tradition. In addition, symbolic
interactionist treatment of emotions,
communication, political structures, and
sympathy is compared and contrasted to
the Scottish Moralists.
Stryker S (1980) Symbolic
Interactionism: A Social Structural
Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin
Cummings.
In this book Stryker provides the
framework for what has come to be known
as structural symbolic interactionism.
Diverging from Blumers notion that
society is constantly changing and in
flux, Stryker develops a symbolic
interactionist framework that
emphasizes the patterns and stable
social structures that influence
individuals in society. Now a classic
12
and seminal text in its own right,
Strykers Symbolic Interactionism has
influenced a wide variety of
contemporary research programs in
sociology, including identity theory and
affect control theory.
References
Altheide DL (2004) The control of narrative
of the internet. Symbolic Interaction
27(2): 22345.
Amodio DM and Lieberman MD (2009) Pictures
in our
heads: Contributions of fMRI to the
study of prejudice and stereotyping.
In: Nelson TD (ed.) Handbook of
Prejudice, Stereotyping and
Discrimination. New York: Psychology
Press, pp. 34765.
Arzy S, Molnar-Szakacs I and Blanke O (2008)
Self in time: Imagined self-location
influences neural activity related to
mental time travel. The Journal of
Neuroscience 28(25): 65027.
Asencio EK (2013) Self-esteem, reflected
appraisals, and self-views: Examining
criminal and worker identities. Social
Psychology Quarterly 76(4): 291313.
Asencio EK and Burke PJ (2011) Does
incarceration
change the criminal identity? A
synthesis of labeling and identity
theory perspectives on identity change.
Sociological Perspectives 54(2): 16382.
Becker HS (1953) Becoming a marijuana user.
American Journal of Sociology 59(3): 235
42.
Becker HS (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Becker HS and McCall MM (1993) Symbolic
Interaction and Cultural Studies.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Best J (1989) Images of Issues: Typifying
Contemporary Social Problems. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Best J (2003) Social problems. In:
Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney NJ (eds)
Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp.
98196.
Blumer H (1962) Society as symbolic
interaction. In: Rose AM (ed.) Human
Behavior and Social Processes. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., pp. 17992.
Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism:
Perspective and Method. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of
Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brauer M and Er-rafiy A (2011) Increasing
perceived variability reduces prejudice
and discrimination. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 47(5):
87181.
Brenner PS, Serpe RT and Stryker S (2014)
The causal ordering of prominence and
salience in identity theory: An
empirical examination. Social
Psychology Quarterly 77(3): 23152.
Brickell C (2012) Sexuality, power and the
sociology of the internet. Current
Sociology 60(1): 2844.
Britt L and Heise D (2000) From shame to
pride in
identity politics. In: Stryker S, Owens
TJ and White RW (eds) Self, Identity, and
Social Movements.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, pp.
25270.
Brooks RS (1969) The self and political
role: A symbolic interactionist
approach to political ideology. The
Sociological Quarterly 10(1): 2231.
Bufkin JL and Luttrell VR (2005)
Neuroimaging studies of aggressive and
violent behavior: Current findings and
implications for criminology and criminal
justice. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse
6(2): 17691.
Burke PJ (1991) Identity processes and
social stress.
American Sociological Review 56(6): 836
49.
Burke PJ and Stets JE (2009) Identity
Theory. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Callero PL and Piliavin JA (1983) Developing
a commitment to blood donation: The
impact of ones first experience. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 15(1): 1200
13.
Carey J (1989) Communication as
Culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Carter MJ (2013) Advancing identity theory:
Examining the relationship between
activated identities and behavior in
different social contexts. Social
Psychology Quarterly 76(3): 20323.
Charmaz K (1991) Good Days, Bad Days:
The Self in Chronic Illness and Time.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Collins PH (1991) Black Feminist Thought:
Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. New York:
Routledge.
Collins R (1994) The microinteractionist
tradition. In:
13
Collins R (ed.) Four Sociological
Traditions. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 24289.
Collins R (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Connell RW (1995) Masculinities. Oakland:
University of California Press.
Conrad P and Schneider J (1980) Deviance
and Medicalization. St Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cooley CH (1902) The social self: On the
meanings of I. Human Nature and the
Social Order. New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, pp. 13641.
Couch C (1984) Constructing Civilizations.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Couch CJ, Saxton SL and Katovich MA (1986)
The Iowa School. In: Couch CJ, Saxton
SL and Katovich MA (eds) Studies in
Symbolic Interaction, Supplement
2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Daniels AK (1972) The social construction of
military psychiatric diagnoses. In: Manis
JG and Meltzer BN (eds) Symbolic
Interaction: A Reader in Social
Psychology, 2nd edn. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, p.
55471.
Davis J (2013) Persistent inequality: A
neurosociological perspective. In: Franks
DD and Turner JH (eds) Handbook of
Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp.
33348.
Deegan MJ and Hill MR (1987) Women and
Symbolic Interaction. Boston: Allen and
Unwin.
Dennis A and Martin PJ (2005) Symbolic
interactionism and the concept of power.
The British Journal of Sociology 56(2): 191
213.
Denzin NK (1983) A note on emotionality,
self, and interaction. American
Journal of Sociology 89(2): 4029.
Denzin NK (1985) Signifying acts:
Structure and meaning in everyday
life. American Journal of Sociology
91(2): 4324.
Denzin NK (1987) The Alcoholic Self.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Denzin NK (1991) Images of Postmodern
Society: Social Theory and
Contemporary Cinema. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Denzin NK (1992) Symbolic Interactionism and
Cultural Studies: The Politics of
Interpretation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Denzin NK (1993) Women with alcoholic
husbands: Ambivalence and the trap of
codependency. American Journal of Sociology
98(4): 9524.
Denzin NK (2008) Searching for Yellowstone:
Race,
Gender, Family and Memory in the
Postmodern West.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2005) The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd
edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diawara M (1996) Black studies, cultural
studies: Performance acts. In: Storey J
(ed.) What is Cultural Studies? A Reader.
London: Arnold, pp. 3006.
Estes CL and Edmonds BC (1981) Symbolic
interaction and social policy analysis.
Symbolic Interaction 4(1): 7586.
Fernback J (2007) Beyond the diluted
community
 concept: A symbolic interactionist
perspective on online social relations.
New Media and Society 9(1): 4969.
Fine GA (1993) The sad demise, mysterious
disappearance, and glorious triumph of
symbolic interactionism. Annual Review
of Sociology 19: 6187.
Fine GA (1996) Kitchens: The Culture of
Restaurant Work.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Flaherty M (1998) A Watched Pot: How
We Experience Time. New York: New
York University Press.
Franks DD (2010) Neurosociology: The Nexus
between Neuroscience and Social
Psychology. New York: Springer.
Franks DD (2013) Why we need neurosociology
as well as social neuroscience: Or
why role-taking and theory of mind are
different concepts. In: Franks DD and
Turner JH (eds) Handbook of
Neurosociology.
New York: Springer, pp. 2732.
Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) (2013)
Handbook of Neurosociology. New York:
Springer.
Friedland R and Boden D (1994) Nowhere:
Space, Time and Modernity. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in
Ethnomethodology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gergen K (1991) The Saturated Self. New
York: Basic Books.
Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of
Society: Outline of the Theory of
Structuration. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Gillihan SJ and Farah MJ (2005) Is self
special? A critical review of evidence
from experimental psychology and
cognitive neuroscience. Cognitive
Neuroscience 131(1): 7697.
Giroux H (2001) Cultural studies as
performative politics. Cultural Studies
Critical Methodologies 1(1): 523.
Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1964) Awareness
contexts and social interaction.
American Sociological Review 29(5):
66979.
Glaser D (1956) Criminality theories and
behavioral images. American Journal of
Sociology 61(5): 43344.
Goffman E (1959a) The moral career of the
mental
patient. Asylums: Essays on the
Social Situation of Mental Patients
and Other Inmates. New York: Anchor
Books.
Goffman E (1959b) The Presentation of Self
in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman E (1961) Asylums: Essays on the
Social Situation of Mental Patients and
Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman E (1963a) Behavior in Public Places:
Notes on the Social Organization of
Gatherings. New York: Free Press.
Goffman E (1963b) Stigma: Notes on the
Management of Spoiled Identity.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman E (1967) Interaction Ritual.
Chicago: Aldine. Goffman E (1974) Frame
Analysis: An Essay on the
Organization of Experience. New York:
Harper and Row.
Goffman E (1976) Gender display. Studies in
the
14
Anthropology of Visual Communication 3:
658. Goodwin J and Jasper JM (2004)
Rethinking Social
Movements: Structure, Meaning, and
Emotion.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Gottschalk S (2010) The presentation of
avatars in second life: Self and
interaction in social virtual spaces.
Symbolic Interaction 33(4): 50125.
Habermas J (1984) The Theory of
Communicative Action.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall PM (2003) Interactionism, social
organization, and social processes:
Looking back and moving ahead.
Symbolic Interaction 26(1): 3355.
Heise DR (1999) Controlling affective
experience interpersonally. Social
Psychology Quarterly 62(1): 416.
Heise DR (2002) Understanding social
interaction with affect control theory.
In: Berger J and Zelditch M Jr (eds) New
Directions in Contemporary Sociological
Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield, pp. 1740.
Herman-Kinney NJ and Vershaeve JM (2003)
Methods of symbolic interactionism.
In: Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney NJ
(eds) Handbook of Symbolic
Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press, pp. 21352.
Hochschild AR (1979) Emotion work, feeling
rules, and social structure. American
Journal of Sociology 85(3): 55175.
Hochschild AR (2003 [1983]) The Managed
Heart.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hopcroft RL (2013) Neurosociology and theory
of mind (TOM). In: Franks DD and Turner
JH (eds) Handbook of Neurosociology.
New York: Springer, pp. 23141.
House JS (1977) The three faces of social
psychology.
Sociometry 40(2): 16177.
Humphreys GW and Bedford J (2011) The
relations between joint action and
theory of mind: A neuropsychological
analysis. Experimental Brain Research
211(34): 35769.
Hurwitz HM and Taylor V (2012) Womens
cultures and social movements in global
contexts. Sociology Compass 6(10): 808
22.
Joas H (1993) Pragmatism and Social
Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Katovich MA, Miller DE and Stewart RL
(2003) The Iowa School. In: Reynolds
LT and Herman-Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook
of Symbolic Interactionism.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp.
11939.
Kuhn MH (1964) Major trends in symbolic
interaction theory in the past twenty-
five years. The Sociological Quarterly
5(1): 6184.
Lemert C (1997) Postmodernism is Not What
You Think.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Linderoth J (2012) The effort of being in
a fictional world: Upkeyings and
laminated frames in MMORPGS. Symbolic
Interaction 35(4): 47492.
Lofland J (1996) Social Movement
Organizations: Guide to Research on
Insurgent Realities. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Loseke D (1999) Thinking about Social
Problems: An Introduction to
Constructivist Perspectives. New York:
 Aldine de Gruyter.
McCall GJ and Simmons JL (1978) Identities
and Interactions: An Examination of Human
Associations in Everyday Life. New York:
The Free Press.
MacKinnon NJ (1994) Symbolic
Interactionism as Affect Control. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
McPhail C (1991) The Myth of the Madding
Crowd. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Maines D (1996) On postmodernism,
pragmatism, and plasterers: Some
interactionist thoughts and queries.
Symbolic Interaction 19(4): 32340.
Maines D and McCallion M (2007)
Transforming
Catholicism: Liturgical Change in the
Vatican II Catholic Church. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Maines DR, Sugrue NM and Katovich MA (1983)
The sociological import of G. H. Meads
theory of the past. American Sociological
Review 48(2): 16173.
Manning PK (2003) Semiotics, pragmatism,
and
narratives. In: Reynolds LT and Herman-
Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic
Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press, pp. 102139.
Maryanski AM (2013) The secret of the
hominin mind: An evolutionary story. In:
Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) Handbook
of Neuroscience. New York: Springer, pp.
25787.
Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self, and Society from
the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mehta PH, Goetz SM and Carr JM (2013)
Genetic, hormonal, and neural
underpinnings of human aggressive
behavior. In: Franks DD and Turner JH
(eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New
York: Springer, pp. 4765.
Meltzer BN and Petras JW (1970) The
Chicago and Iowa Schools of symbolic
interactionsim. In: Shibutani T (ed.)
Human Nature and Collective Behavior.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books,
pp. 317.
Merolla DM, Serpe RT, Stryker S et al.
(2012) Structural precursors to identity
processess: The role of proximate social
structures. Social Psychology Quarterly
75(2): 14972.
Molnar-Szakacs I and Uddin LQ (2013) The
emergent self: How distributed neural
networks support self- representation.
In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds)
Handbook of Neurosociology. New York:
Springer, pp. 16782.
Morris A and Mueller C (1992) Frontiers in
Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Nelson TD (2013) The neurobiology of
stereotyping and prejudice. In: Franks DD
and Turner JH (eds) Handbook of
Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp.
34958.
Niemeyer RE (2013) What are the
neurological foundations of identities
and identity-related processes? In:
Franks DD and Turner JH (eds)
Handbook of Neurosociology. New York:
Springer, pp. 14965.
Plummer K (1996) Symbolic interactionism
in the twentieth century: The rise of
empirical social theory.
15
In: Turner B (ed.) The Blackwell
Companion to Social Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell, pp. 22351.
Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney NJ (2003)
Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Robinson DT and Smith-Lovin L (2006) Affect
control theory. In: Burke PJ (ed.)
Contemporary Social Psychological
Theories. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, pp. 13764.
Robinson L (2007) The cyberself: The
selfing project goes online, symbolic
interaction in the digital age. New
Media and Society 9(1): 93110.
Rogers KB and Robinson DT (2014) Measuring
affect
and emotions. In: Stets JE and Turner
JH (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of
Emotions, Vol. II. New York: Springer,
pp. 283303.
Rogers KB, Schroder T and von Scheve C
(2014) Dissecting the sociality of
emotion: A multi-level approach. Emotion
Review 6(2): 12433.
Rosengren WR (1961) The self in the
emotionally
disturbed. American Journal of
Sociology 6(5): 45462.
Rupp LJ, Taylor V, Regev-Messalem S et
al. (2014) Queer women in the hookup
scene: Beyond the closet? Gender and
Society 28(2): 21235.
Salvini A (2010) Symbolic interactionism
and social
network analysis: An uncertain encounter.
Symbolic Interaction 33(3): 36488.
Sandstrom KL and Fine GA (2003) Triumphs,
emerging voices, and the future. In:
Reynolds LT and Herman- Kinney NJ (eds)
Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism.
Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 104157.
Saxton S (1993) Sociologist as citizen-
scholar: A symbolic interactionist
alternative to normal sociology. In:
Vaughan T, Sjoberg G and Reynolds L (eds)
A Critique of Contemporary American
Sociology. Dix Hills, NJ: General Hall,
pp. 23250.
Scheff TJ (1979) Catharsis in Healing,
Ritual, and Drama. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Schilt K (2006) Just one of the guys? How
transmen make gender visible at work.
Gender and Society 20(4): 46590.
Schrock D and Padavic I (2007) Negotiating
hegemonic masculinity in a batterer
intervention program.
Gender and Society 25(5): 62549.
Schrock D and Schwalbe M (2009) Men,
masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual
Review of Sociology 35: 27795.
Schutz A (1962) Collected Papers, Vol. 1:
The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague:
Martinus Nijoff.
Schwalbe ML (1986) The Psychosocial
Consequences of Natural and Alienated
Labor. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Scott MB and Lyman S (1968) Accounts.
American Sociological Review 33(1):
4662.
Serpe RT and Stryker S (2011) The
symbolic interactionist perspective and
identity theory. In: Schwartz S, Luyckx
K and Vignoles V (eds) Handbook of
Identity Theory and Research. London:
Springer, pp. 22548.
Shalin DN (1986) Pragmatism and social
interactionism.
American Sociological Review 51(1): 929.
Shibutani T (1988) Herbert Blumers
contributions to twentieth-century
sociology. Symbolic Interaction 11(1):
2331.
Shkurko A (2012) Role behavior: A
neurosociological perspective. Social
Science Information 51(3): 33863.
Shook JR (2013) Social cognition and the
problem of
other minds. In: Franks DD and Turner JH
(eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New
York: Springer, pp. 3346.
Shott S (1979) Emotion and social life: A
symbolic interactionist analysis.
American Journal of Sociology 84(6):
131734.
Siever LJ (2008) Neurobiology of
aggression and violence. American
Journal of Psychiatry 165(4): 42942.
Smith RW and Bugni V (2006) Symbolic
interaction theory and architecture.
Symbolic Interaction 29(2): 12355.
Snow DA (2001) Extending and broadening
Blumers conceptualization of symbolic
interactionism.
Symbolic Interaction 24(3): 36777.
Snow DA, Rochford EB Jr, Worden SK et al.
(1986) Frame alignment processes,
micromobilization, and movement
participation. American Sociological
Review 51(4): 46481.
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2006) The moral
identity: A principle level identity. In:
McClelland K and Fararo TJ (eds)
Purpose, Meaning, and Action: Control
Systems Theories in Sociology. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 293316.
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2011) The moral
self: Applying identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly 74(2): 192215.
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2012) A theory of
the self for the sociology of morality.
American Sociological Review 77(1):
12040.
Stets JE and Harrod MM (2004) Verification
across multiple identities: The role of
status. Social Psychology Quarterly 67(2):
15571.
Stets JE, Carter MJ, Harrod MM et al.
(2008) The moral identity, status,
moral emotions, and the normative order.
In: Robinson DT and Clay-Warner J (eds)
Social Structure and Emotion. San Diego,
CA: Elsevier, pp. 22751.
Strauss AL (1993) Continual Permutations of
Action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Stroebaek PS (2013) Lets have a cup of
coffee! Coffee and coping communities at
work. Symbolic Interaction 36(4): 381
97.
Stryker S (1957) Role-taking accuracy and
adjustment.
Sociometry 27(4): 28696.
Stryker S (1959) Symbolic interaction as an
approach to family research. Marriage
and Family Living 21(2): 11119.
Stryker S (1980) Symbolic
Interactionism: A Social Structural
Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin
Cummings.
Stryker S (2008) From Mead to a structural
symbolic interactionism and beyond.
Annual Review of Sociology 34: 1531.
Stryker S and Serpe RT (1982) Commitment,
identity
16
salience, and role behavior: A theory
and research example. In: Ickes W and
Knowles ES (eds) Personality, Roles,
and Social Behavior. New York:
Springer-Verlag, pp. 199218.
Stryker S, Owens TJ and White RW
(2000) Self, Identity, and Social
Movements. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Taylor V (1996) Rock-a-By-Baby: Feminism,
Self-Help, and Postpartum Depression. New
York: Routledge.
Taylor V (2000) Emotions and identity in
womens self- help movements. In: Stryker
S, Owens TJ and White RW (eds) Self,
Identity, and Social Movements.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Taylor V and Leitz L (2010) From
infanticide to activism: Emotions and
identity in self-help movements. In:
Banaszak-Holl JC, Levitsky SR and Zald
MN (eds) Social Movements and the
Transformation of American Health Care.
New York: Oxford University Press, pp.
26683.
Taylor V and Whittier NE (1992) Collective
identity in social movement
communities: Lesbian feminist
mobilization. In: Aldon DM and Mueller
CM (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement
Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, pp. 10429.
Thomas WI (1931) The definition of the
situation. The Unadjusted Girl. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company, pp. 4150.
Thompson AI (2013) Sometimes, I think I
might say too much: Dark secrets and
the performance of inflammatory bowel
disease. Symbolic Interaction 36(1):
2139.
Thorne B (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys
in School.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Turner RH (1956) Role-taking, role
standpoint, and reference-group
behavior. American Journal of
Sociology 61(4): 31628.
Turner RH (1962) Role-taking: Process
versus conformity. In: Rose A (ed.)
Human Behavior and Social Process: An
Interactionist Approach. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Turner RH (1968) Social roles: Sociological
aspects.
International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences. New York: Macmillan, pp. 5526.
Turner RH (1990) Role change. Annual
Review of Sociology 16: 87110.
Turner RH and Killian LM (1987) Collective
Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vaccaro C, Schrock D and McCabe J (2011)
Managing emotional manhood: Fighting and
fostering fear in mixed martial arts.
Social Psychology Quarterly 74(4): 41437.
Viterna J (2013) Women in War: The
Micro-Processes of Mobilization in El
Salvador. New York: Oxford University
Press.
West C (1984) When the doctor is a lady:
Power, status and gender in physician
patient encounters. Symbolic Interaction
7(1): 87106.
West C and Zimmerman DH (1977) Womens
place in everyday talk: Reflection in
parentchild interaction. Social
Problems 27(5): 5219.
West C and Zimmerman DH (1983) Small
insults: A
 study of interruptions in cross-sex
conversations between unacquainted
persons. In: Thorne B, Kramarae C and
Henley N (eds) Language, Gender, and
Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp.
86111.
West C and Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing
gender. In: Fenstermaker S and West C
(eds) Doing Gender, Doing Difference.
New York: Routledge, pp. 324.
White RW (2010) Structural identity theory
and the post-recruitment activism of
Irish Republicans: Persistence,
disengagement, splits, and dissidents
in social movement organizations.
Social Problems 57(3): 34170.
Williams JP and Copes H (2005) How edge are
you? Constructing authentic identities and
subcultural boundaries in a straightedge
internet forum. Symbolic Interaction
28(1): 6789.
Yurchisin J, Watchravesringkan K and
McCabe DB (2005) An exploration of
identity re-creation in the
context of internet dating. Social
Behavior and Personality 33(8): 73550.
Zerubavel E (1985) The Seven Day Circle:
The History and Meaning of the Week.
New York: Free Press.
Zhao S (2005) The digital self: Through
the looking glass of telecopresent
others. Symbolic Interaction 28(3):
387405.
Michael J Carter is Assistant Professor of Sociology at California State
University, Northridge. His main research interests are in social
psychology, specifically the areas of self and identity. Recent
publications include Advancing identity theory: Examining the
relationship between activated identities and behavior in different
social contexts in Social Psychology Quarterly, and A theory of the self
for the sociology of morality (with Jan E Stets) in American Sociological
Review. [email: michael.carter@csun.edu]
Celene Fuller is adjunct lecturer of sociology at California State
University, Northridge. Her main research interests are in gender and
sexuality, social psychology, and social inequality. Her current research
examines the stigma of bisexuality within the LGBT+ movement and within
larger society.

rsum Linteractionnisme symbolique est une perspective thorique de la

microsociologie qui tudie le comportement des personnes en socit et les
processus dynamiques dinteraction. Cet article nous donne un aperu de trois
traditions thoriques de linteractionnisme symbolique et se concentre sur les
travaux dHerbert Blumer (lcole de Chicago), Manford Kuhn (lcole de lIowa)
et Sheldon Stryker (l- cole de lIndiana). Un bref rsum de la perspective
globale de chaque figure dans linteractionnisme sym- bolique est effectue,
suivie dune discussion de la mthodologie de recherche qui dfinit et
distingue chaque thorie. Nous faisons galement une analyse pour valuer la
recherche empirique qui a merg de ces traditions thoriques au cours des
dernires dcennies. Nous concluons par une discussion sur les ori- entations
futures que doivent suivre les interactionnistes symbolique, afin de continuer
dvelopper ce domaine.
mots-cls interactionnisme symbolique microsociologie la psychologie sociale

resumen El interaccionismo simblico es una perspectiva terica a nivel micro

en sociologa que estu- dia la manera en la que los individuos crean y mantienen
una sociedad a travs de repetidas interacciones cara a cara y llenas de
significado. En este artculo ofrecemos una perspectiva general de las tres
tradi- ciones tericas en el interaccionismo simblico, enfocndonos en el
trabajo de Herbert Blumer (escuela de Chicago), Manford Kuhn (escuela de Iowa),
y Sheldon Stryker (escuela de Indiana). Se ofrece un breve resumen sobre la
perspectiva general del interaccionismo simblico en cada una de estas figuras,
seguido de un debate sobre la metodologa investigadora que define y distingue a
cada uno de ellos. A contin- uacin se analiza y se evala la investigacin
emprica que ha surgido de estas tradiciones a lo largo de las ltimas dcadas.
Concluimos con un debate sobre las direcciones futuras a las que los
interaccionistas simblicos deben prestar atencin para continuar el desarrollo
de este campo.
palabras clave interaccionismo simblico microsociologa psicologa social

17