Editing Symbolic interactionism (section)

==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 [[Conceptual framework|''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 research|quantitative]] approaches to sociology were dominant, and perhaps the best known of these is by [[Alvin Ward Gouldner|Alvin Gouldner]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gouldner|first=Alvin Ward|title=The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology|publisher=Heinemann|year=1971|isbn=978-0435821500|location=London|oclc=16192914}}</ref>

===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{{efn|see: Stryker and Vryan (2006) for a clear distinction between the two as it pertains to [[Interactionism|interactionist]]-inspired conceptualizations.}}<ref>{{cite book|title=Handbook of Social Psychology|last1=Stryker|first1=Sheldon|last2=Vryan|first2=Kevin D.|date=January 2006|isbn=978-0-387-32515-6|pages=3–28|chapter=The Symbolic Interactionist Frame|doi=10.1007/0-387-36921-X_1|issn=1389-6903|access-date=2018-09-22|chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227124775|series=Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research}}</ref> 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]],<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last=Stryker|first=Sheldon|date=1968|title=Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research|journal=Journal of Marriage and Family|volume=30|issue=4|pages=558–64|doi=10.2307/349494|jstor=349494}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stryker|first=Sheldon|date=January 1994|title=Identity theory: Its development, research base, and prospects|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285539542|journal=Studies in Symbolic Interaction|volume=16|pages=9–20|via=ResearchGate}}</ref> as well as Peter Burke and colleagues,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Burke|first=Peter J.|date=1980|title=The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective|journal=Social Psychology Quarterly|volume=43|issue=1|pages=18–29|doi=10.2307/3033745|jstor=3033745}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Burke|first1=Peter J.|last2=Reitzes|first2=Donald C.|date=1981|title=The link between identity and role performance|journal=Social Psychology Quarterly|volume=44|issue=2|pages=83–92|doi=10.2307/3033704|jstor=3033704|s2cid=16041737}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6" /> 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<ref name=":6" /><ref>Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. ''Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version''. Menlo Park, Calif.: [[Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co.]] {{ISBN|9780805391541}}. [[OCLC]] [https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5707030 5707030].</ref> 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 [[Structuralism|structural]] version of interactionism that are represented in a 2003 collection edited by Burke ''et al''.<ref>Burke, Peter, Timothy J. Owens, Richard T. Serpe, and Peggy A. Thoits. 2003. ''Advances in Identity Theory and Research''. Boston: [[Springer Publishing|Springer]]. {{ISBN|9781441991881}}. [[OCLC]]&nbsp;[https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/853269009 853269009].</ref> 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|Negotiated order theory]] also applies a structural approach.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Day|first1=Robert|last2=Day|first2=JoAnne V.|date=January 1977|title=A review of the current state of negotiated order theory: An appreciation and a critique|journal=The Sociological Quarterly|language=en|volume=18|issue=1|pages=126–42|doi=10.1111/j.1533-8525.1977.tb02165.x|issn=0038-0253}}</ref>

==== Language ====
Language is viewed as the source of all meaning.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lundgren |first=David C. |date=May 2004 |title=Social Feedback and Self-Appraisals: Current Status of the Mead-Cooley Hypothesis |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.2004.27.2.267 |journal=Symbolic Interaction |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=267–286 |doi=10.1525/si.2004.27.2.267 |issn=0195-6086|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

==== 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.<ref name=":6" /> 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|quantitative methods]], and cannot be [[Falsifiability|falsifiable]] or tested [[Empiricism|empirically]]. Framework is important for the symbolic interaction theory because 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."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stryker |first=Sheldon |date=2008-08-01 |title=From Mead to a Structural Symbolic Interactionism and Beyond |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134649 |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |language=en |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=15–31 |doi=10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134649 |issn=0360-0572}}</ref>

Another problem with this model is two-fold, in that it 1) does not take into account human emotions very much, implying that symbolic interaction is not completely psychological; and 2) is interested in social structure to a limited extent, implying that symbolic interaction is not completely sociological. These incompetencies frame meaning as something that occurs naturally within an interaction under a certain condition, rather than taking into account the basic social context in which interaction is positioned. From this view, meaning has no source and does not perceive a social reality beyond what humans create with their own interpretations.<ref>Aksan, Nilgun, Buket Kisac, Mufit Aydin, and Sumeyra Demirbuken. 2009. "Symbolic Interaction Theory." ''Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences'' 1(1): 902–4. [[doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.160]].</ref>

Another criticism of symbolic interactionism is more so on the scholars themselves. They are noted to not take interest in the history of this sociological approach. This has the ability to produce shallow understanding and can make the subject "hard to teach" based on the lack of organization in its teachings to relate with other theories or studies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Dingwall|first=Robert|date=2001|title=Notes toward an intellectual history of symbolic interaction|journal=Symbolic Interaction|volume=24|issue=2|pages=237–42|doi=10.1525/si.2001.24.2.237|jstor=10.1525/si.2001.24.2.237}}</ref>

=== Limitations ===
Some symbolic interactionists like Goffman had pointed out the obvious defects of the pioneering Mead concept upon which the contemporary symbolic interactionism is built, it has influenced the modern symbolic interactionism to be more conducive to conceiving "social-psychological concerns rather than sociological concerns".<ref name=":04"/> For instance, during analyzing symbolic interactionism, the participants' emotional fluctuations that are inexorably entailed are often ignored because they are too sophisticated and volatile to measure.<ref name=":04" /> When the participants are being selected to participate in certain activities that are not part of their normal daily routine, it will inevitably disrupt the participants psychologically, causing spontaneous thoughts to flow that are very likely to make the participants veer away from their normal behaviors. These psychological changes could result in the participants' emotional fluctuations that manifest themselves in the participants' reactions; therefore, manufacturing biases that will the previously mentioned biases. This critique unveiled the lack of scrutiny on participants' internal subjective processing of their environment which initiates the reasoning and negotiating faculties, which the contemporary symbolic interactionism also reflects.<ref name=":04" /> Henceforth, prejudice is not a purely psychological phenomenon, instead it can be interpreted from a symbolic interactionism standpoint,<ref name=":04" /> taking individuals' construction of the social reality into account.