Criticisms of S.I.

Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism

In Modern Sociological Theory, George Ritzer analyzes the criticisms many theorists have concerning Symbolic Interactionism:

1) The mainstream of Symbolic Interactionism has abandoned the practice of empirically based research techniques. The concepts of SI have not been developed into a formal, systematic theory. The scientific method which codes, classifies, and counts social phenomena has been neglected. Many social theorists have argued that, due to its subjective nature, the research product of Symbolic Interactionism has been allowed to remain untested.

2) Symbolic Interactionist research is often criticized for use of qualitative research methods. Many of the concepts that Symbolic Interactionism holds central, such as Mead's "I and Me," are too vague and abstract and often times contradictions can be found within Meadian Theory. Because of this, it is impossible to codify and operationalize these concepts and, again, they remain unable to be examined scientifically.

3) SI has been accused of downplaying or ignoring major social structural issues, overestimating the power of individuals to create personal realities. Many sociologists argue that it is necessary to look at social structure in order to understand the complexity of relations "through which the episodes of interaction are interconnected" (Ritzer, 1996: 225). Without such a focus, SI suffers from a lack of coherence.

4) Opposing the third criticism, another suggests that SI does not focus enough on the more micro-level psychological details such as needs, motives, emotions, and the unconscious. SI ignores the motives that lead the actor to engage in actions and the use of symbols and, therefore, it does not adequately account for unconscious processes. While the third criticism suggests that SI is not sociological enough, this criticism suggests that it is not psychological enough.


Back to Table of Contents
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism In Modern Sociological Theory, George Ritzer analyzes the criticisms many theorists have concerning Symbolic Interactionism: 1) The mainstream of Symbolic Interactionism has abandoned the practice of empirically based research techniques. The concepts of SI have not been developed into a formal, systematic theory. The scientific method which codes, classifies, and counts social phenomena has been neglected. Many social theorists have argued that, due to its subjective nature, the research product of Symbolic Interactionism has been allowed to remain untested. 2) Symbolic Interactionist research is often criticized for use of qualitative research methods. Many of the concepts that Symbolic Interactionism holds central, such as Mead's "I and Me," are too vague and abstract and often times contradictions can be found within Meadian Theory. Because of this, it is impossible to codify and operationalize these concepts and, again, they remain unable to be examined scientifically. 3) SI has been accused of downplaying or ignoring major social structural issues, overestimating the power of individuals to create personal realities. Many sociologists argue that it is necessary to look at social structure in order to understand the complexity of relations "through which the episodes of interaction are interconnected" (Ritzer, 1996: 225). Without such a focus, SI suffers from a lack of coherence. 4) Opposing the third criticism, another suggests that SI does not focus enough on the more micro-level psychological details such as needs, motives, emotions, and the unconscious. SI ignores the motives that lead the actor to engage in actions and the use of symbols and, therefore, it does not adequately account for unconscious processes. While the third criticism suggests that SI is not sociological enough, this criticism suggests that it is not psychological enough.