Bernard Meltzer - Symbolic Interactionism (RLE Social Theory)

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS:
SOCIAL THEORY

Volume 83

Genesis, varieties and criticism

BERNARD N. MELTZER, JOHN W. PETRAS AND LARRY T. REYNOLDS

First published 1975

This edition first published in 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

1975 Bernard N. Meltzer, John W. Petras, Larry T. Reynolds

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced orutilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in anyinformation storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-415-72731-0 (Set)
eISBN: 978-1-315-76997-4 (Set)
ISBN: 978-1-138-78381-2 (Volume 83)

Publisher's Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

Bernard N. Meltzer
John W. Petras
Larry T. Reynolds

Genesis, varieties and
criticism

First published in 1975
by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd
39 Store Street, London WC1E7DD,
Broadway House, Newtown Road,
Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG91EN and
9 Park Street,

Boston, Mass. 02108, USA
Set in Linotype Juliana
and printed in Great Britain by
Lowe & Brydone Printers Limited, Thetford, Norfolk
Reprinted 1977
Copyright Bernard N. Meltzer, John W. Petras, Larry T. Reynolds
1975

No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form without permission from the
publisher, except for the quotation of brief
passages in criticism

ISBN 0 7100 8055 7 (c)
ISBN 0 7100 8056 5 (p)

In brief and broad summary, the perspective known as symbolic interactionism comprises the following basic ideas: The influence that stimuli have upon human behavior is shaped by the context of symbolic meanings within which human behavior occurs. These meanings emerge from the shared interaction of individuals in human society. Society itself is constructed out of the behavior of humans, who actively play a role in developing the social limits that will be placed upon their behavior. Thus, human behavior is not a unilinear unfolding toward a predetermined end, but an active constructing process whereby humans endeavor to make sense of their social and physical environments. This making sense process is internalized in the form of thought; for thinking is the intra-individual problem-solving process that is also characteristic of inter-individual interaction. In thinking, then, there occurs an interaction with oneself. In light of the foregoing, any complete understanding of human behavior must include an awareness of this covert dimension of activity, not simply the observation of overt behavior.

Our intention in writing this monograph has been to accomplish three objectives: (i) to answer the question, what is symbolic inter-actionism? (2) to describe the major varieties of the interactionist perspective; and (3) to present, and evaluate, criticisms of the pers- pective. In line with these objectives, the monograph is organized into three major sections.

In , we have stated the essential components of symbolic interactionism as a general perspective on human behavior and social life. Included is a consideration of the major ideas found in the basic writings of the perspectives leading figure, George Herbert Mead. While most sociological treatments of Meads theories of behavior have concentrated upon his psychology with little reference to his philosophy, we have included a discussion of the essential elements of his philosophical system. Furthermore, we have dealt with philosophical pragmatism in our discussion of the intellectual antecedents of symbolic interactionism. Finally, by looking at the relevance of the works of W. James, J. M. Baldwin, J. Dewey, C. H. Cooley, and W. I. Thomas, we have examined the genesis of interactionism in relation to the mainstream of sociological theory at the time it arose.

We believe that symbolic interactionism has too long been considered a relatively homogeneous, or monolithic, orientation. So, describes and analyzes what we conceive to be the diverse schools of thought within the perspective. These schools, or varieties, are shown to have differing historical and intellectual roots, which are situated in varying organizational settings. Our attention has been directed chiefly to the following schools : the Chicago and Iowa schools, the dramaturgical approach, and ethnomethodology. Accord-ingly, our analysis has taken the form of demonstrating the substantive and methodological differences among these schools and examining the context of the larger social and organizational forces which gave rise to them and continue to sustain them.

In , we have made a significant departure from other works concerned with symbolic interactionism as a general perspective on human and social behavior. We have incorporated in this chapter a comprehensive survey of criticisms of the perspective. In this application of reflexive sociology, we have treated the criticisms of both non-interactionists and interactionists. The criticisms comprehend both the conventional theoretical and methodological issues and, in addition, certain ideological issues.

We wish to acknowledge our indebtedness to the various mentors and colleagues who initiated and sustained our interest in the symbolic interactionist orientation: Herbert Blumer (University of Cali-forniaBerkeley) and Joseph Zygmunt (University of Connecticut), who introduced two of us to the perspective; Carl Couch (University of Iowa) and Robert Stewart (University of South Carolina), former colleagues at Central Michigan University, who familiarized two of us with the Iowa brand of interactionism, and Ted Vaughan (Uni-versity of Missouri), who stimulated the interest of one of us in a critical approach to interactionism.

B. N. M.

J. W. P.

L. T. R.

It is difficult to define what constitutes symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective in sociology. While many contemporary sociologists think of this perspective as a unitary approach, some variants have been identified (Kuhn, 1964; Vaughan and Reynolds, 1968; Tucker and Stoeckel, 1969; Meltzer and Petras, 1970; Overington, 1971; Reynolds and McCart, 1972; Petras and Meltzer, 1973). On the other hand, regardless of the varying ways in which symbolic interactionism has been interpreted, most of those identifying with the perspective trace its principal origins to the works of G. H. Mead (especially, 1934).