Symbolic

interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological

theory that develops from practical
considerations and alludes to people's
particular utilization of dialect to make
images and normal implications, for
deduction and correspondence with
others.[1] In other words, it is a frame of
reference to better understand how
individuals interact with one another to
create symbolic worlds, and in return,
how these worlds shape individual
behaviors.[2] It is a framework that helps
understand how society is preserved and
created through repeated interactions
between individuals. The interpretation
process that occurs between
interactions help create and recreate
meaning. It is the shared understanding
and interpretations of meaning that
affect the interaction between
individuals. Individuals act on the
premise of a shared understanding of
meaning within their social context. Thus,
interaction and behavior is framed
through the shared meaning that objects
and concepts have attached to them.

Symbolic interactionism comes from a

sociological perspective which
developed around the middle of the
twentieth century and that continues to
be influential in some areas of the
discipline. It is particularly important in
microsociology and social psychology. It
is derived from the American philosophy
of pragmatism and particularly from the
work of George Herbert Mead, as a
pragmatic method to interpret social
interactions.[3]
 History
George Herbert Mead

Symbolic interaction was conceived by

George Herbert Mead and Charles
Horton Cooley. Mead argued that
people's selves are social products, but
that these selves are also purposive and
creative, and believed that the true test
of any theory was that it was "useful in
solving complex social problems".[4]
Mead's influence was said to be so
powerful that sociologists regard him as
the one "true founder" of the symbolic
interactionism tradition. Although Mead
taught in a philosophy department, he is
best known by sociologists as the
teacher who trained a generation of the
best minds in their field. Strangely, he
never set forth his wide-ranging ideas in
a book or systematic treatise. After his
death in 1931, his students pulled
together class notes and conversations
with their mentor and published Mind,
Self and Society in his name.[4] It is a
common misconception that John
Dewey was the leader of this
sociological theory; according to The
Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism,
Mead was undoubtedly the individual
who "transformed the inner structure of
the theory, moving it to a higher level of
theoretical complexity".[5] Mind, Self and
Society is the book published by Mead's
students based on his lectures and
teaching, and the title of the book
highlights the core concept of social
interactionism. Mind refers to an
individual's ability to use symbols to
create meanings for the world around
the individual – individuals use language
and thought to accomplish this goal. Self
refers to an individual's ability to reflect
on the way that the individual is
perceived by others. Finally, society,
according to Mead, is where all of these
interactions are taking place. A general
description of Mead's compositions
portray how outside social structures,
classes, and power and abuse affect the
advancement of self, personality for
gatherings verifiably denied of the ability
to characterize themselves.[6]

Herbert Blumer

Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter

of Mead, coined the term and put
forward an influential summary: people
act a certain way towards things based
on the meaning those things already
have, and these meanings are derived
from social interaction and modified
through interpretation.[7] Blumer was a
social constructionist, and was
influenced by John Dewey; as such, this
theory is very phenomenologically-
based. Given that Blumer was the first to
use symbolic interaction as a term, he is
known as the founder of symbolic
interaction.[8] He believed that the "Most
human and humanizing activity that
people engage in is talking to each
other."[4] According to Blumer, human
groups are created by people and it is
only actions between them that define a
society.[9] He argued that with
interaction and through interaction
individuals are able to "produce common
symbols by approving, arranging, and
redefining them."[9] Having said that,
interaction is shaped by a mutual
exchange of interpretation, the ground of
socialization.[3]

Other theorists

Two other theorists who have influenced

symbolic interaction theory are Yrjö
Engeström and David Middleton.
Engeström and Middleton explained the
usefulness of symbolic interactionism in
the communication field in a variety of
work settings, including "courts of law,
health care, computer software design,
scientific laboratory, telephone sales,
control, repair, and maintenance of
advanced manufacturing systems".[10]
Other scholars credited for their
contribution to the theory are Thomas,
Park, James, Horton Cooley, Znaniecki,
Baldwin, Redfield, and Wirth.[9] Unlike
other social sciences, symbolic
interactionism emphasizes greatly on the
ideas of action instead of culture, class
and power. According to behaviorism,
Darwinism, pragmatism, as well as Max
Weber, action theory contributed
significantly to the formation of social
interactionism as a theoretical
perspective in communication studies.[3]
 Assumptions, premises,
and research methodology
Assumptions

Most symbolic interactionists believe a

physical reality does indeed exist by an
individual's social definitions, and that
social definitions do develop in part or in
relation to something "real". People thus
do not respond to this reality directly, but
rather to the social understanding of
reality; i.e., they respond to this reality
indirectly through a kind of filter which
consists of individuals' different
perspectives. This means that humans
exist not in the physical space composed
of realities, but in the "world" composed
only of "objects".

Three assumptions frame symbolic

interactionism:[2]

1. Individuals construct meaning via

the communication process.
2. Self-concept is a motivation for
behavior.
3. A unique relationship exists
between the individual and society.

Having defined some of the underlying

assumptions of symbolic interactionism,
it is necessary to address the premises
that each assumption supports.
According to Blumer, there are three
premises that can be derived from the
assumptions above.[9]

Premises

Premise 1: "Humans act toward things

on the basis of the meanings they
ascribe to those things."

The first premise includes everything that

a human being may note in their world,
including physical objects, actions and
concepts. Essentially, individuals behave
towards objects and others based on the
personal meanings that the individual
has already given these items. Blumer
was trying to put emphasis on the
meaning behind individual behaviors,
specifically speaking, psychological and
sociological explanations for those
actions and behaviors.[9]

Premise 2: "The meaning of such things

is derived from, or arises out of, the
social interaction that one has with
others and the society."

The second premise explains the

meaning of such things is derived from,
or arises out of, the social interaction that
one has with other humans. Blumer,
following Mead, claimed people interact
with each other by interpreting or
defining each other's actions instead of
merely reacting to each other's actions.
Their "response" is not made directly to
the actions of one another but instead is
based on the meaning which they attach
to such actions. Thus, human interaction
is mediated by the use of symbols and
signification, by interpretation, or by
ascertaining the meaning of one
another's actions.[9] Meaning is either
taken for granted and pushed aside as
an unimportant element which need not
to be investigated, or it is regarded as a
mere neutral link or one of the causal
chains between the causes or factors
responsible for human behavior and this
behavior as the product of such
factors.[9]

Premise 3: "The Meanings are handled

in, and modified through, an
interpretative process used by the
person in dealing with the things he/she
encounters."

Symbolic interactionists describe

thinking as an inner conversation.[4]
Mead called this inner dialogue minding,
which is the delay in one's thought
process that happens when one thinks
about what they will do next. These
meanings are handled in, and modified
through, an interpretive process[11] used
by the person in dealing with the things
he encounters. We naturally talk to
ourselves in order to sort out the
meaning of a difficult situation. But first,
we need language. Before we can think,
we must be able to interact
symbolically.[4] The emphasis on
symbols, negotiated meaning, and social
construction of society brought attention
to the roles people play. Role-taking is a
key mechanism that permits people to
see another person's perspective to
understand what an action might mean
to another person. Role-taking is a part
of our lives at an early age, for instance,
playing house and pretending to be
someone else. There is an
improvisational quality to roles; however,
actors often take on a script that they
follow. Because of the uncertainty of
roles in social contexts, the burden of
role-making is on the person in the
situation. In this sense, we are proactive
participants in our environment.[12]

Research methodology
The majority of interactionist research
uses qualitative research methods, like
participant observation, to study aspects
of social interaction, and/or individuals'
selves. Participant observation allows
researchers to access symbols and
meanings, as in Howard S. Becker's Art
Worlds and Arlie Hochschild's The
Managed Heart.[13] They argue that
close contact and immersion in the
everyday activities of the participants is
necessary for understanding the
meaning of actions, defining situations
and the process that actors construct the
situation through their interaction.
Because of this close contact,
interactions cannot remain completely
liberated of value commitments. In most
cases, they make use of their values in
choosing what to study; however, they
seek to be objective in how they conduct
the research. Therefore, the symbolic-
interaction approach is a micro-level
orientation focusing on human
interaction in specific situations.

Five central ideas

There are five central ideas to symbolic
interactionism according to Joel M.
Charon, author of Symbolic
Interactionism An Introduction, An
Interpretation, An Integration:[14]

1. "The human being must be

understood as a social person. It is
the constant search for social
interaction that leads us to do what
we do. Instead of focusing on the
individual and his or her personality,
or on how the society or social
situation causes human behavior,
symbolic interactionism focuses on
the activities that take place
between actors. Interaction is the
basic unit of study. Individuals are
created through interaction; society
 too is created through social
interaction. What we do depends on
interaction with others earlier in our
lifetimes, and it depends on our
interaction right now. Social
interaction is central to what we do.
If we want to understand cause,
focus on social interaction.
2. The human being must be
understood as a thinking being.
Human action is not only interaction
among individuals but also
interaction within the individual. It is
not our ideas or attitudes or values
that are as important as the
constant active ongoing process of
 thinking. We are not simply
conditioned, we are not simply
beings who are influenced by those
around us, we are not simply
products of society. We are, to our
very core, thinking animals, always
conversing with ourselves as we
interact with others. If we want to
understand cause, focus on human
thinking.
3. Humans do not sense their
environment directly, instead,
humans define the situation they are
in. An environment may actually
exist, but it is our definition of it that
is important. Definition does not
 simply randomly happen; instead, it
results from ongoing social
interaction and thinking.
4. The cause of human action is the
result of what is occurring in our
present situation. Cause unfolds in
the present social interaction,
present thinking, and present
definition. It is not society's
encounters with us in our past, that
causes action nor is it our own past
experience that does. It is, instead,
social interaction, thinking, definition
of the situation that takes place in
the present. Our past enters into our
actions primarily because we think
 about it and apply it to the definition
of the present situation.
5. Human beings are described as
active beings in relation to their
environment. Words such as
conditioning, responding,
controlled, imprisoned, and formed
are not used to describe the human
being in symbolic interaction. In
contrast to other social-scientific
perspectives humans are not
thought of as being passive in
relation to their surroundings, but
actively involved in what they do."

Central interactionist
 themes
To Blumer's conceptual perspective, he
put them in three core principles: that
people act toward things, including each
other, on the basis of the meanings they
have for them; that these meanings are
derived through social interaction with
others; and that these meanings are
managed and transformed through an
interpretive process that people use to
make sense of and handle the objects
that constitute their social worlds.
Keeping Blumer's earlier work in mind
David A. Snow, professor of sociology at
the University of California, Irvine,
suggests four broader and even more
basic orienting principles: human
agency, interactive determination,
symbolization, and emergence. Snow
uses these four principles as the
thematic bases for identifying and
discussing contributions to the study of
social movements.

Human agency

Human agency emphasizes the active,

willful, goal-seeking character of human
actors. The emphasis on agency focuses
attention on those actions, events, and
moments in social life in which agentic
action is especially palpable.
 Interactive determination

Interactive determination specifies that

understanding of focal objects of
analysis, whether they are self-concepts,
identities, roles, practices, or even social
movements. Basically this means,
neither individual, society, self, or others
exist only in relation to each other and
therefore can be fully understood only in
terms of their interaction.

Symbolization

Symbolization highlights the processes

through which events and conditions,
artifacts, people, and other
environmental features that take on
particular meanings, becoming nearly
only objects of orientation. Human
behavior is partly contingent on what the
object of orientation symbolizes or
means.

Emergence

Emergence focuses on attention on the

processual and non-habituated side of
social life, focusing not only on
organization and texture of social life, but
also associated meaning and feelings.
The principal of emergence tells us not
only to possibility of new forms of social
life and system meaning but also to
transformations in existing forms of
social organization.[5]

New media
New media is a term used to define all
that is related to the internet and the
interplay between technology, images
and sound.[15] As studies of online
community proliferate, the concept of
online community has become a more
accepted social construct. Studies
encompassed discursive
communities;[16][17] identity;[18][19]
community as social reality;[20]
networking;[21] the public sphere;[22]
ease and anonymity in interactions.[23]
These studies show that online
community is an important social
construct in terms of its cultural,
structural, political and economic
character.

It has been demonstrated that people's

ideas about community are formed, in
part, through interactions both in online
forums and face-to-face. As a result,
people act in their communities
according to the meanings they derive
about their environment, whether online
or offline, from those interactions. This
perspective reveals that online
communication may very well take on
different meanings for different people
depending on information,
circumstance, relationships, power, and
other systems that make up communities
of practice. People enact community the
way it is conceived and the meaning of
community evolves as they come up
with new ways to utilize it. Given this
reality, scholars are continually
challenged to research and understand
how online communities are comprised,
how they function, and how they are
connected to offline social life.[24]
Symbolic interaction theory was
discussed in The Cyberself: The Self-ing
Project goes online, Symbolic Interaction
in the Digital Age. Laura Robinson
discusses how symbolic interaction
theory explains the way individuals
create a sense of self through their
interactions with others. However, she
believes advances in technology have
changed this. The article investigates the
manner in which individuals form their
online identity. She uses symbolic
interaction theory to examine the
formation of the cyber "I" and a digital
"generalized other". In the article,
Robinson suggests individuals form new
identities on the internet. She argues
these cyber identities are not necessarily
the way the individual would be
perceived offline.[25]

Criticisms
Symbolic interactionists are often
criticized for being overly impressionistic
in their research methods and somewhat
unsystematic in their theories. It is
argued that the theory is not one theory,
but rather, the framework for many
different theories. Additionally, some
theorists have a problem with symbolic
interaction theory due to its lack of
testability. These objections, combined
with the fairly narrow focus of
interactionist research on small-group
interactions and other social
psychological issues, have relegated the
interactionist camp to a minority position
among sociologists (albeit a fairly
substantial minority). Much of this
criticism arose during the 1970s in the
U.S. when quantitative approaches to
sociology were dominant. Perhaps the
best known of these is by Alvin
Gouldner.[26]

Framework and theories

Some critiques of symbolic
interactionism are based on the
assumption that it is a theory, and the
critiques apply the criteria for a "good"
theory to something that does not claim
to be a theory. Some critics find the
symbolic interactionist framework too
broad and general when they are
seeking specific theories. Symbolic
interactionism is a theoretical framework
rather than a theory[27][28] and can be
assessed on the basis of effective
conceptualizations. The theoretical
framework, as with any theoretical
framework, is vague when it comes to
analyzing empirical data or predicting
outcomes in social life. As a framework
rather than a theory, many scholars find
it difficult to use. Interactionism being a
framework rather than a theory makes it
impossible to test interactionism in the
manner that a specific theoretical claim
about the relationship between specific
variables in a given context allows.
Unlike the symbolic interactionist
framework, the many theories derived
from symbolic interactionism, such as
role theory and the versions of identity
theory developed by Sheldon
Stryker,[29][30] and Peter Burke and
colleagues,[31][32] clearly define
concepts and the relationships between
them in a given context, thus allowing for
the opportunity to develop and test
hypotheses. Further, especially among
Blumerian processual interactionists, a
great number of very useful
conceptualizations have been developed
and applied in a very wide range of
social contexts, types of populations,
types of behaviors, and cultures and
subcultures.

Social structure

Symbolic interactionism is often related

and connected with social structure. This
concept suggests that symbolic
interactionism is a construction of
people's social reality.[29] It also implies
that from a realistic point of view, the
interpretations that are being made will
not make much difference. When the
reality of a situation is defined, the
situation becomes a meaningful reality.
This includes methodological criticisms,
and critical sociological issues. A number
of symbolic interactionists have
addressed these topics, the best known
being Stryker's structural symbolic
interactionism[29][33] and the
formulations of interactionism heavily
influenced by this approach (sometimes
referred to as the "Indiana School" of
symbolic interactionism), including the
works of key scholars in sociology and
psychology using different methods and
theories applying a structural version of
interactionism that are represented in a
2003 collection edited by Burke et al.[34]
Another well-known structural variation
of symbolic interactionism that applies
quantitative methods is Manford H.
Kuhn's formulation which is often
referred to in sociological literature as
the "Iowa School". "Negotiated order
theory" also applies a structural
approach.[35]

Language
Language is viewed as the source of all
meaning.[12] Blumer illuminates several
key features about social interactionism.
Most people interpret things based on
assignment and purpose. The interaction
occurs once the meaning of something
has become identified. This concept of
meaning is what starts to construct the
framework of social reality. By aligning
social reality, Blumer suggests that
language is the meaning of interaction.
Communication, especially in the form of
symbolic interactionism is connected
with language. Language initiates all
forms of communication, verbal and
non-verbal. Blumer defines this source
of meaning as a connection that arises
out of the social interaction that people
have with each other.

Critical perspective

According to social theorist Patricia

Burbank, the concepts of synergistic and
diverging properties are what shape the
viewpoints of humans as social beings.
These two concepts are different in a
sense because of their views of human
freedom and their level of focus.
According to Burbank, actions are based
on the effects of situations that occur
during the process of social interaction.
Another important factor in meaningful
situations is the environment in which the
social interaction occurs. The
environment influences interaction,
which leads to a reference group and
connects with perspective, and then
concludes to a definition of the situation.
This illustrates the proper steps to define
a situation. An approval of the action
occurs once the situation is defined. An
interpretation is then made upon that
action, which may ultimately influence
the perspective, action, and definition.

Stryker emphasizes that the sociology

world at large is the most viable and
vibrant intellectual framework.[29] By
being made up of our thoughts and self-
belief, the social interactionism theory is
the purpose of all human interaction, and
is what causes society to exist. This fuels
criticisms of the symbolic interactionist
framework for failing to account for
social structure, as well as criticisms that
interactionist theories cannot be
assessed via quantitative methods, and
cannot be falsifiable or tested
empirically. Framework is important for
the symbolic interaction theory because
for in order for the social structure to
form, there are certain bonds of
communication that need to be
established to create the interaction.
Much of the symbolic interactionist
framework's basic tenets can be found
in a very wide range of sociological and
psychological work, without being
explicitly cited as interactionist, making
the influence of symbolic interactionism
difficult to recognize given this general
acceptance of its assumptions as
"common knowledge".

Society for the Study of

Symbolic Interaction
The Society for the Study of Symbolic
Interaction (SSSI)[7] is an international
professional organization for scholars,
who are interested in the study of
symbolic interaction. SSSI holds a
conference in conjunction with the
meeting of the American Sociological
Association and the Society for the Study
of Social Problems. This conference
typically occurs in August and sponsors
the Society for the Study of Symbolic
Interaction holds the Couch-Stone
Symposium each spring. The society
provides travel scholarships for student
members interested in attending the
annual conference.[36] At the annual
conference, the Society for the Study of
Symbolic Interaction sponsors yearly
awards in different categories of
symbolic interaction. Additionally, some
of the awards are open to student
members of the society. The Ellis-
Bochner Autoethnography and Personal
Narrative Research Award is given
annually by the Society for the Study of
Symbolic Interaction affiliate of the
National Communication Association for
the best article, essay, or book chapter in
autoethnography and personal narrative
research. The award is named after
renowned autoethnographers Carolyn
Ellis and Art Bochner. The society also
sponsors a quarterly journal, Symbolic
Interaction.[37] The organization also
releases a newsletter, SSSI Notes.[36]

Society for the Study of Symbolic

Interaction has also the European
branch.[38] It organizes each year the
conference that integrates European
symbolic interactionists.

See also
Constructivism (learning theory)
Coordinated management of meaning
Edward T. Hall
Erving Goffman
Extension transference
Generalized other
Georg Simmel
Labeling theory
Interactionism
Sandbox play therapy
Social action
Social interaction

References
1. Hall, Peter M. (2007). Symbolic
Interaction . Blackwell Encyclopedia
of Sociology.
doi:10.1002/9781405165518.wbeos
s310 . ISBN 9781405124331 – via
 Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Sociology.
2. West, Richard L.; Turner, Lynn H.
Introducing communication theory :
analysis and application (6th ed.).
New York, NY.
ISBN 9781259870323.
OCLC 967775008 .
3. Caglar, Sebnem; Alver, Fusun
(2015). "The Impact of Symbolic
Interactionism on Research Studies
about Communication Science" .
International Journal of Arts and
Sciences. 8: 479–484 – via
Proquest.
4. Griffin, Emory A.; Ledbetter,
Andrew; Sparks, Glenn Grayson
(2015). A first look at
communication theory (9th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
ISBN 9780073523927.
OCLC 875554087 .
5. Handbook of symbolic
interactionism. Reynolds, Larry T.,
Herman-Kinney, Nancy J., 1958-.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
2003. ISBN 978-0759100923.
OCLC 51059349 .
6. Brewster, Kiyona (August 2013).
"Beyond Classic Symbolic
 Interactionism: Towards A
Intersectional Reading Of George H.
Mead's Mind, Self, And Society".
Conference Papers -- American
Sociological Association: 1–20 – via
SocINDEX with Full Text.
7. Williams, Patrick; vom Lehn, Dirk.
"Society for the Study of Symbolic
Interaction" . sites.google.com.
8. Aksan, Nilgun; Kısac, Buket; Aydın,
Mufit; Demirbuken, Sumeyra
(2009-01-01). "Symbolic interaction
theory". Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences. World
Conference on Educational
 Sciences: New Trends and Issues in
Educational Sciences. 1 (1): 902–
904.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.160 .
9. Blumer, Herbert (1969). Symbolic
interactionism: perspective and
method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-
0138799243. OCLC 18071 .
10. Middleton, David; Engeström, Yrjö
(1998). Cognition and
communication at work (Paperback
ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-
0521645669. OCLC 41578004 .
11. This process occurs in the form of
interaction with oneself or taking
into account of taking into account.
See the following paper: Kuwabara
T., and K. Yamaguchi, 2013, An
Introduction to the Sociological
Perspective of Symbolic
Interactionism , The Joint Journal of
the National Universities in Kyushu,
Education and Humanities, 1(1), pp.
1-11.
12. Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in
ethnomethodology. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-
0745600055. OCLC 356659 .
13. "Symbolic Interactionism" .
www.encyclopedia.com.
International Encyclopedia of
Marriage and Family. Retrieved
2011-09-20.
14. Charon, Joel M. (2004). Symbolic
Interactionism An Introduction, An
Interpretation, An Integration.
Boston: Pearson. p. 31. ISBN 978-
0-13-605193-0.
15. Bailey Socha; Barbara Eber-
Schmid. "What is new media?" .
www.newmedia.org. Archived from
the original on 2 December 2012.
16. Reid, Elizabeth (February 1993).
"Electronic Chat: Social Issues on
Internet Relay Chat". Media
Information Australia. 67 (1st): 62–
70.
doi:10.1177/1329878x9306700108 .
ISSN 0312-9616 .
17. Howard, Tharon W. (September
1998). "A Rhetoric of Electronic
Communities". College Composition
and Communication. 50 (1): 126–
127. doi:10.2307/358367 .
ISSN 0010-096X . JSTOR 358367 .
18. Tapsall, Suellen (June 1997).
"Review & Booknote: Cultures of
 Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real
Histories, Living Bodies". Media
International Australia. 84 (1): 147–
148.
doi:10.1177/1329878x9708400136 .
ISSN 1324-5325 .
19. Kollock, Peter; Smith, Marc (17
December 1998). Communities in
Cyberspace (1 ed.). London:
Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203194959 .
ISBN 9780203194959.
20. Jones, Steven G. (2002). Virtual
culture : identity and
communication in cybersociety.
 London: Sage. pp. 102–32.
ISBN 9780761955269.
OCLC 1035430865 .
21. Wellman, Barry (September 1996).
An Electronic Group is Virtually a
Social Network . Toronto: Centre for
Urban and Community Studies,
University of Toronto.
22. Ess, Charles (1996). Philosophical
perspectives on computer-
mediated communication. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
pp. 197–230. ISBN 978-
0585042824. OCLC 42854737 .
23. Anthropologist Wows Personal
Democracy Forum. Whatever.
Shelley Dubois. Wired Magazine. 30
June 2009.
24. Fernback, Jan (February 2007).
"Beyond the diluted community
concept: a symbolic interactionist
perspective on online social
relations". New Media & Society. 9
(1): 49–69.
doi:10.1177/1461444807072417 .
ISSN 1461-4448 .
25. Robinson, Laura (February 2007).
"The cyberself: the self-ing project
goes online, symbolic interaction in
 the digital age". New Media &
Society. 9 (1): 93–110.
doi:10.1177/1461444807072216 .
ISSN 1461-4448 .
26. Gouldner, Alvin Ward (1971). The
coming crisis of western sociology.
London: Heinemann. ISBN 978-
0435821500. OCLC 16192914 .
27. see Stryker and Vryan (2006) for a
clear distinction between the two as
it pertains to interactionist-inspired
conceptualizations
28. Stryker, Sheldon; Vryan, Kevin D.
(January 2006). "The Symbolic
Interactionist Frame" . Handbook of
 Social Psychology. Handbooks of
Sociology and Social Research.
pp. 3–28. doi:10.1007/0-387-
36921-X_1 . ISBN 978-0-387-
32515-6. ISSN 1389-6903 .
Retrieved 2018-09-22.
29. Stryker, Sheldon (1968). "Identity
Salience and Role Performance:
The Relevance of Symbolic
Interaction Theory for Family
Research". Journal of Marriage and
Family. 30 (4): 558–564.
doi:10.2307/349494 .
JSTOR 349494 .
30. Stryker, Sheldon (January 1994).
"Identity Theory: Its Development,
Research Base, and Prospects" .
Studies in Symbolic Interaction. 16:
9–20 – via ResearchGate.
31. Burke, Peter J. (1980). "The Self:
Measurement Requirements from
an Interactionist Perspective".
Social Psychology Quarterly. 43 (1):
18–29. doi:10.2307/3033745 .
JSTOR 3033745 .
32. Burke, Peter J.; Reitzes, Donald C.
(1981). "The Link Between Identity
and Role Performance". Social
Psychology Quarterly. 44 (2): 83–
 92. doi:10.2307/3033704 .
JSTOR 3033704 .
33. Sheldon., Stryker (1980). Symbolic
interactionism : a social structural
version. Menlo Park, Calif.:
Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co.
ISBN 978-0805391541.
OCLC 5707030 .
34. Burke, Peter J. (2003). Advances in
Identity Theory and Research.
Owens, Timothy J., Serpe, Richard
T., Thoits, Peggy A. Boston, MA:
Springer US. ISBN 9781441991881.
OCLC 853269009 .
35. Day, Robert; Day, JoAnne V.
(January 1977). "A Review of the
Current State of Negotiated Order
Theory: an Appreciation and a
Critique". The Sociological
Quarterly. 18 (1): 126–142.
doi:10.1111/j.1533-
8525.1977.tb02165.x . ISSN 0038-
0253 .
36. "Society for the Study of Symbolic
Interaction" . Archived from the
original on June 7, 2007.
37. "Royal Roads University Research
Portal" . Archived from the original
on 22 June 2007.
 38. "The European Society for the Study
of Symbolic Interaction (EU SSSI)" .
www.eusssi2017.uni.lodz.pl.
Retrieved 2018-09-22.

39.Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2015).

Symbolic interactionism. Sociopedia.
doi:10.1177/205684601561

40.Handberg, Charlotte, et al. “Revisiting

Symbolic Interactionism as a Theoretical
Framework Beyond the Grounded
Theory Tradition.” Qualitative Health
Research, vol. 25, no. 8, Aug. 2015, pp.
1023–1032,
doi:10.1177/1049732314554231.

Sources
Blumer, Herbert. "A note on symbolic
Interactionism". American Sociological
Review. Vol. 38, No. 6. 1973.
Burbank, Patricia. "Symbolic
Interactionism and critical perspective:
divergent or synergistic"? Nursing
Philosophy. Web. 3 Jan. 2010.
Prus, Robert. 1996. Symbolic
Interaction and Ethnographic
Research: Intersubjectivity and the
Study of Human Lived Experience.
Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Stryker, Sheldon. "The vitalization of
symbolic Interactionism". Social
Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 50, pg. 83.
Web. 1 Nov. 1999.

Further reading
Atkinson, P. A. and Housley, W. (2003)
Interactionism, London, Sage.
Altheide. David L. (2013) "Terrorism
and the national security university:
public order redux" 40th Anniversary
of Studies in Symbolic Interaction,
Emerald.
Blumer, Herbert (1962). "Society as
Symbolic Interaction". In Arnold M.
Rose (ed.). Human Behavior and
Social Process: An Interactionist
Approach. Houghton-Mifflin.
Reprinted in Blumer (1969).
Blumer, Herbert. (1971). Social
Problems as Collective Behavior=2006
(translated in Japanese), Journal of
Economics and Sociology
Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic
Interactionism; Perspective and
Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1969. Print.
Brissett, Edgley. (1974) ."Life as
theater". Chicago.
Johnson, John J. (2013), "The
Contributions of the California
Sociologies to the Diversity and
Development of Symbolic Interaction"
40th Anniversary of Studies in
Symbolic Interaction, Emerald.
Jeon, Yun‐Hee. (2004) "The
Application of Grounded Theory and
Symbolic Interactionism.
"Scandinavian Journal of Caring
Sciences, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 249-256
Lehn, Dirk vom, and Will Gibson.
(2011) "Interaction and Symbolic
Interactionism." Symbolic Interaction.
Society for the Study of Symbolic
Interaction. Print.
Liamputtong, Pranee & Ezzy, Douglas.
(2005). Qualitative Research Methods.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Milliken, P. J., and Rita Schreiber.
(2012). "Examining the Nexus between
Grounded Theory and Symbolic
Interactionism." International Journal
of Qualitative Methods, vol. 11, no. 5,
2012, pp. 684–696   
Manning, Philip, and David R. Maines.
(2003). "Editorial Introduction: Theory
and Method in Symbolic
Interactionism." Symbolic Interaction,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 497–500, ProQuest
Central; Research Library; Sociological
Abstracts
Plummer, Ken. "A World in the Making:
Symbolic Interactionism in the
Twentieth Century." (n.d.): n. pag.
Print.
Plummer, Kenneth. (1975). Sexual
stigma: An interactionist account.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rock, P. (1979) The Making of
Symbolic Interactionism, London,
Macmillan.
Schneider Christopher J., and Trottier
Daniel. (2013) "Social Media and the
2011 Vancouver Riot" 40th Anniversary
of Studies in Symbolic Interaction,
Emerald.
Vannini, P. (2009).
Nonrepresentational theory and
symbolic interactionism: Shared
perspectives and missed
articulations. Symbolic
Interaction, 32(3), 282-286.

External links
Society for the Study of Symbolic
Interaction (SSSI) website
 Blog of the Society for the Study of
Symbolic Interaction
6th European Society for the Study of
Symbolic Interaction conference 2015
Symbolic Interaction journal at Wiley
Online
Blog of the Journal Symbolic
Interaction

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Symbolic_interactionism&oldid=914076999"

Last edited 13 days ago by El C

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless
otherwise noted.