CHAPTER 6

Symbolic Interactionism and

Family Studies
R a l p h L a R o s s a a n d D o n a l d C. R e i t z e s

Introduction spite the changes in family studies and in the so-

cial sciences in general over the years, symbolic
Symbolic interactionism occupies a u n i q u e and interactionism continues to excite the imagi-
important position in family studies. The principal nation.
theoretical orientation of the 1920s and 1930s The second reason symbolic interactionism
( w h e n family studies was endeavoring to establish occupies an h o n o r e d place in family studies is that
itself as a science) and one of the most popular it also has a strong research tradition. Beginning
family perspectives today, symbolic interac- with Thomas and Znaniecki's ( 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 2 0 ) mon-
tionism probably has had more of an impact on umental work, T h e P o l i s h P e a s a n t i n E u r o p e a n d
the study of families than almost any other the- A m e r i c a , symbolic interactionists, for the most
oretical perspective (Hays, 1977; Howard, 1981 ). part, have made a genuine effort to ground their
Symbolic interactionism's h o n o r e d place in insights in the empirical world. Indeed, it is fas-
family studies is the result of two factors. First, the cinating to follow, over the course of almost 90
perspective has a strong conceptual heritage; from years, the divergent ways that symbolic interac-
the beginning, symbolic interactionist-oriented tionists have approached the study of social life
scholars have exhibited an interest i n - - e v e n a and family life, in particular. One of the few the-
love f o r - - " p l a y i n g with ideas." Whether symbolic oretical perspectives to rely consistently on both
interactionism draws theoretically minded stu- qualitative and quantitative research, symbolic in-
dents or w h e t h e r symbolic interactionism forces teractionism is as relevant, if not more relevant,
students to think theoretically is hard to say today because symbolic interactionists generally
(probably both). Whatever the case, w h e n one have recognized that while science may begin
remembers that science begins and ends with with ideas, it is research that is the hallmark of the
ideas, it is not m u c h of a mystery as to why, de- scientific way of knowing.

Ralph LaRossa a n d D o n a l d C. R e i t z e s 9 Department

of Sociology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia
30303.
Sourcebook o f Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual
Approach. Edited by P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa,
W.R. Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz. New York: Plenum Press,
New York, 1993.
Questions Asked
As the name suggests, "symbolic interaction-
ism" focuses on the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n s y m b o l s
(i.e., shared meanings) and i n t e r a c t i o n s (i.e., ver-
bal and nonverbal actions and communications).

135
136 PART III 9 FAMILYTHEORIES AND METHODS EMERGING DURING 1918-1929
It essentially is a frame of reference for under-
standing h o w humans, in concert with one an-
other, create symbolic worlds and how these
worlds, in turn, shape h u m a n behavior.
Symbolic interactionism's u n i q u e contribu-
tion to family studies is, first, the emphasis it gives
to the proposition that families are social groups
and, second, its assertion that individuals develop
both a c o n c e p t of self and their identities through
social interaction, enabling them to independent-
ly assess and assign value to their family activities
(Burgess, 1926; Handel, 1985).
Conceptualizing families as social groups and
as sets of interacting selves and identities leads
symbolic interactionist-oriented family specialists
to be interested in questions like: What is the pro-
cess by which family members arrive at a more
or less shared sense of the world (i.e., a symbolic
r e a l i t y - - a shared set of goals, values, beliefs, and
norms)? How do geography, race/ethnicity, class,
gender, age, and time relate to family groups? For
example, h o w do American families differ from
European families or African families; h o w do
lower-income families differ from upper-income
families; and how do family groups c h a n g e - - o r
avoid c h a n g i n g - - i n the wake of social upheaval?
What are the ways that family m e m b e r s communi-
cate intimacy? What significance do they attach to
intimate interactions? What are the roles or soci-
etal expectations for husbands and wives, fathers
and mothers, sons and daughters? And more im-
portantly from a symbolic interactionist point of
view, h o w are these roles constructed, learned,
and eventually played out? Why are some family
roles d e e m e d more important than others, and
h o w do individuals add their uniqueness to family
roles? How do family m e m b e r s infuse self-mean-
ings and purpose into family roles, and h o w does
this process influence their behavior? What are
the processes that explain both h o w parents so-
cialize children and h o w children socialize par-
ents? What is the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n socializa-
tion and self-concept? Finally, what are the
phenomenological processes underlying family
power? That is, what strategies and tactics do fami-
ly m e m b e r s use to construct familial realities and
negotiate role identities?
Origins and Sociocultural Milieu
Each generation of symbolic interactionists
revises and recasts the perspective in response to
the intellectual and social concerns of the day, as
well as in response to the contesting perspectives
of the times. Thus, the history of symbolic interac-
tionism is less like a "royal inheritance" and more
like a "long-lived auction house," where buyers
pick and choose among the diverse items for sale
(Fisher & Strauss, 19"78, p. 458). In this sense, our
task is to select from the rich auction house of
symbolic interactionism the major ideas that con-
tribute to our current understanding of the per-
spective and its application to family studies.
Symbolic interactionism has several intellec-
tual antecedents, including the eighteenth-century
Scottish moralists, Adam Ferguson, David Hume,
and Adam Smith; and the n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Ger-
man idealists, Johann Fichte, Friedrich yon Schell-
ing, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel By far,
however, the strongest influences were the turn-of-
the-century American pragmatists, Josiah Royce,
Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey.
Many of the early leaders in symbolic interac-
t i o n i s m - - m o s t notably, Charles Horton Cooley,
George Herbert Mead, and W. I. T h o m a s - - w e r e
trained in this tradition (Manis & Meltzer, 1978a;
Stryker, 1964).
The pragmatists made four major contribu-
tions to the foundation of symbolic interac-
tionism. First, they argued that the static, predeter-
mined, and inherently structured pictures of
reality, popular at the time, should be replaced
with a dynamic, emergent, historical world-in-the-
making view. Second, they made the case that so-
cial structure was an emergent process. Third,
they rejected both idealist attempts to root knowl-
edge in p e r c e p t i o n and materialist attempts to lo-
cate meaning solely in objects and insisted that
meanings emerge from the interaction b e t w e e n
subject and object. Finally, they exhibited an ideo-
logical c o m m i t m e n t to progress and to democrat-
ic values and saw science both as a methodology
for achieving advancement and as a model for
democratic organization (Shalin, 1986).
Whether philosophies b e c o m e popular gen-
erally depends on historical circumstance, o n
w h e t h e r sociocultural conditions provide fertile
ground for their growth. In the case of prag-
matism, conditions were ripe in the early part of
the twentieth c e n t u r y to foster its development.
The same may be said for the theoretical perspec-
tive spawned by pragmatism. In the opinions of
many intellectuals living at the time, both prag-
matism and symbolic interactionism were view-
points whose time had come (Rutkoff & Scott,
1986; Susman, 1984).