Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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, [38] [39] as well as Peter Burke and colleagues, [40] [41] clearly define concepts and the relationships between them in a given context, thus allowing for ...
[27] In symbolic interactionism, face-to-face interaction creates the social world. Individuals act on perceived meanings that appear to be self-constituting. [28] Group membership is one of the major determinations if individual interpretations of reality, which enables symbolic interactionism to explain crime, and thus terrorism. [20]
With symbolic interactionism, reality is seen as social, developed interaction with others. 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 relation to something “real.”
Symbolic interaction—often associated with interactionism, phenomenological sociology, dramaturgy (sociology), and interpretivism—is a sociological approach that places emphasis on subjective meanings and, usually through analysis, on the empirical unfolding of social processes.
Symbolic interactionism draws on the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and George Herbert Mead, as well as subcultural theory and conflict theory. [50] This school of thought focused on the relationship between state, media, and conservative-ruling elite and other less powerful groups.
In micro-sociology, interactionism is a theoretical perspective that sees social behavior as an interactive product of the individual and the situation. [1] In other words, it derives social processes (such as conflict, cooperation, identity formation) from social interaction, [2] whereby subjectively held meanings are integral to explaining or understanding social behavior.
The Chicago school is best known for its urban sociology and for the development of the symbolic interactionist approach, notably through the work of Herbert Blumer.It has focused on human behavior as shaped by social structures and physical environmental factors, rather than genetic and personal characteristics.
[35] It is also contested that symbolic interaction needs to adopt an agenda that takes race, class and gender into consideration more. Moreover, it is argued that the social constructionist perspective of Blumerian interactionism provides an "over-socialized" account of human life, and downplays and ignores our unconscious. [36]