Editing Symbolic interactionism (section)

==== 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>