The Decline and Re-Emergence of S.I.

The Decline and Re-emergence of
Symbolic Interactionism

The Decline

Sheldon Stryker, a prominent sociologist doing research that would fall under the heading of symbolic interactionism, describes this "decline" as a period from the early 1960's to the mid 1970's in which the influence of symbolic interactionism greatly subsided. There were people at that time who believed the framework of symbolic interactionism had run its course and had lost its vitality. There was a declining ability, at the time, for the framework to attract the best talent entering the field. The research product coming out of the field was declining as well. In addition to this, many began to question symbolic interaction's research approach and application (Stryker 1987).

The core criticisms of symbolic interaction are partly to blame for the supposed decline in symbolic interactionist thought in the 1960's. These criticisms, however, came from many different areas. Psychologists felt the work of symbolic interactionists lacked rigor and systematic procedures to gather evidence in a way that could be replicated. Ethnomethodologists (see ethnomethodology) also critiqued symbolic interactionist work. This is significant because these researchers did work and held interests and visions about sociology that could have made them participants in similar work done by symbolic interactionists. They criticized Blumerian symbolic interactionism, regarding it as a gloss-over of simple human interaction that stated and researched the obvious. They also criticized the subjectivity of symbolic interactionist research and had a problem with symbolic interactionists departing from the detached observer role to take a closer, more involved position with research subjects. The other major critique came largely from the political left, who, at the time, began emphasizing Marxist ideas on power, social class, and social structure. The political left argued that symbolic interactionism neglected social structure and its effects and that, because of this, symbolic interactionism perpetuated the ideology defending the stratification and inequality rooted in the American political and economic structures (Stryker 1987).

Because these criticisms are valid (in that the qualitative nature of the methods often used in symbolic interactionist research are all criticized in the same manner by the more quantitative, empirical methodologists), they led to problems within the field among the interactionists themselves. Their energy turned inward in the form of arguments over who was or was not true to Mead, over whether or not one could or could not use statistical data and forms of analysis and truly call themselves symbolic interactionists, and over the appropriate use and value of both qualitative and quantitative methods of research.

The Re-emergence

As these arguments began to resolve themselves, or at least subside, symbolic interactionists began to expand the research that had previously been done. The framework has become very methodologically diverse, now including experimental and statistical analysis, secondary analysis of survey data, theoretical literary debates, conversational analysis inspired by ethnomethodology, and policy-relevant applied sociology.

So, while symbolic interactionists have broadened their research scope and interests and have, in a sense, learned lessons from their critics, these critics have become much more open to symbolic interactionist thought and have learned lessons from them as well. There was quite a variety of empirical and theoretical work in the years surrounding this "re-emergence" that is derived, at least in part, from symbolic interactionism. The best example of this work comes directly from former critics - the psychological branch of social psychology (Stryker 1987). Social psychology handbooks, such as The Handbook of Social Psychology (1985) and Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1983), devoted chapters to the influence of symbolic interactionism. Likely, part of the reason for this is what is known as the "crisis in social psychology," which occurred due to the increasing awareness of the criticisms from non-experimental researchers on the limitations of experimental methodology. Similar crises were occurring in many social science communities, influenced both by the emergence of post-modernist theory, which believes there is no one, real truth to be discovered, and by continuing quantitative/qualitative debates. Qualitative methodologists argued that there is no research that is entirely objective, but that each researcher or observer comes into a research or observational setting with preconceived notions and expectations and can, therefore, never be as truly objective as they claim to be. Psychologists were forced to look outside of psychology, often to sociology, to deal with this crisis. Others began focusing on other research topics and cognitive research became a prominent area within psychology. Cognitive research focuses on thought processes and often utilizes symbolic interactionist concepts such as the Self.

Since these events, symbolic interactionists have also incorporated new ideas and models into the framework. Examples of these are shown in the following section on Contemporary Thinkers and Topics in Symbolic Interactionism and include taking symbolic interactionism into the areas of sexuality, deviance, criminology, gender, emotion, cultural studies, social constructionism, identity development, and postmodern thought.


Back to Table of Contents
The Decline and Re-emergence of Symbolic Interactionism The Decline Sheldon Stryker, a prominent sociologist doing research that would fall under the heading of symbolic interactionism, describes this "decline" as a period from the early 1960's to the mid 1970's in which the influence of symbolic interactionism greatly subsided. There were people at that time who believed the framework of symbolic interactionism had run its course and had lost its vitality. There was a declining ability, at the time, for the framework to attract the best talent entering the field. The research product coming out of the field was declining as well. In addition to this, many began to question symbolic interaction's research approach and application (Stryker 1987). The core criticisms of symbolic interaction are partly to blame for the supposed decline in symbolic interactionist thought in the 1960's. These criticisms, however, came from many different areas. Psychologists felt the work of symbolic interactionists lacked rigor and systematic procedures to gather evidence in a way that could be replicated. Ethnomethodologists (see ethnomethodology) also critiqued symbolic interactionist work. This is significant because these researchers did work and held interests and visions about sociology that could have made them participants in similar work done by symbolic interactionists. They criticized Blumerian symbolic interactionism, regarding it as a gloss-over of simple human interaction that stated and researched the obvious. They also criticized the subjectivity of symbolic interactionist research and had a problem with symbolic interactionists departing from the detached observer role to take a closer, more involved position with research subjects. The other major critique came largely from the political left, who, at the time, began emphasizing Marxist ideas on power, social class, and social structure. The political left argued that symbolic interactionism neglected social structure and its effects and that, because of this, symbolic interactionism perpetuated the ideology defending the stratification and inequality rooted in the American political and economic structures (Stryker 1987). Because these criticisms are valid (in that the qualitative nature of the methods often used in symbolic interactionist research are all criticized in the same manner by the more quantitative, empirical methodologists), they led to problems within the field among the interactionists themselves. Their energy turned inward in the form of arguments over who was or was not true to Mead, over whether or not one could or could not use statistical data and forms of analysis and truly call themselves symbolic interactionists, and over the appropriate use and value of both qualitative and quantitative methods of research. The Re-emergence As these arguments began to resolve themselves, or at least subside, symbolic interactionists began to expand the research that had previously been done. The framework has become very methodologically diverse, now including experimental and statistical analysis, secondary analysis of survey data, theoretical literary debates, conversational analysis inspired by ethnomethodology, and policy-relevant applied sociology. So, while symbolic interactionists have broadened their research scope and interests and have, in a sense, learned lessons from their critics, these critics have become much more open to symbolic interactionist thought and have learned lessons from them as well. There was quite a variety of empirical and theoretical work in the years surrounding this "re-emergence" that is derived, at least in part, from symbolic interactionism. The best example of this work comes directly from former critics - the psychological branch of social psychology (Stryker 1987). Social psychology handbooks, such as The Handbook of Social Psychology (1985) and Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1983), devoted chapters to the influence of symbolic interactionism. Likely, part of the reason for this is what is known as the "crisis in social psychology," which occurred due to the increasing awareness of the criticisms from non-experimental researchers on the limitations of experimental methodology. Similar crises were occurring in many social science communities, influenced both by the emergence of post-modernist theory, which believes there is no one, real truth to be discovered, and by continuing quantitative/qualitative debates. Qualitative methodologists argued that there is no research that is entirely objective, but that each researcher or observer comes into a research or observational setting with preconceived notions and expectations and can, therefore, never be as truly objective as they claim to be. Psychologists were forced to look outside of psychology, often to sociology, to deal with this crisis. Others began focusing on other research topics and cognitive research became a prominent area within psychology. Cognitive research focuses on thought processes and often utilizes symbolic interactionist concepts such as the Self. Since these events, symbolic interactionists have also incorporated new ideas and models into the framework. Examples of these are shown in the following section on Contemporary Thinkers and Topics in Symbolic Interactionism and include taking symbolic interactionism into the areas of sexuality, deviance, criminology, gender, emotion, cultural studies, social constructionism, identity development, and postmodern thought.