HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Emergence of Schools of Symbolic Interactionism

After the Second World War, two specific schools of Symbolic Interactionism emerged: the Chicago School at the University of Chicago and the Iowa School at the University of Iowa.

The Chicago School of Symbolic Interaction emerged from the teachings and research of Herbert Blumer and Everett C. Hughes who were trained by the founders of the "First Chicago School," men such as W.I. Thomas and Robert Park. Blumer, as mentioned earlier, generated much of the core theoretical concepts and ideas of symbolic interaction. Hughes combined the concepts and theories of Symbolic Interactionism with the methods of field research, specifically Park, who constantly urged researchers to "get their hands dirty in the real world" (http://home.earthlink.net). Hughes' major studies included exploration of an industrializing town in Quebec and investigation of race relations in American industry at the time. This "Second Chicago School" emphasized participant observation research and was more anthropological in attempting to understand individuals and groups by identifying and understanding their constructed meanings for the things that make up their social world. They did not emphasize uncovering generalizable patterns in human behavior, as the Iowa School did, because the Chicago School was focused on the subjective actor.

The Iowa School emerged under the guidance and direction of Manford Kuhn. He emphasized that empirical techniques could and should be used to investigate human interaction. The Iowa School became distinctive for operationalizing concepts in Symbolic Interaction concepts such as the self and reference group in a standardized way so that a hypothesis may be tested. Kuhn strove to use empirical methods to study human behavior so that he could generalize about human behavior (http://www.uiowa.edu).

Perhaps the most lasting contribution to Symbolic Interaction from the Iowa School was the development of a research tool called The Twenty Statements Test (TST). The TST assists sociologists in identifying self-designations that are due to the social roles we play, rather than who we believe we are. The test asks the question: "Who Am I?" The respondent fills out 20 blank spaces, answering this question. The responses are scored as being either external or internal in nature. To take the TST, please go to:
http://www.hum.utah.edu/communication/classes/fa02/1010-5/twentystatements.pdf

A comparison of the schools on key issues in Symbolic Interaction is as follows:

• The nature of the individual is subjective and unpredictable.

• The nature of interaction is based on interpretation and the creation of meaning for other actors' actions, which leads to individuals constructing, and/or reconstructing their own social roles.

• The nature of social organization is seen as a process of changing and negotiating statuses and roles.

• The most appropriate method for studying humans and society is exploratory in nature, relying upon participant observation and ethnographic methods to explore subjective human experience.

• The best form of sociological theorizing is explanatory and investigative in nature.

• The nature of the individual is generalizable and predictable.

• The nature of interaction is based on adherence to roles that others play. Individuals interpret and create meaning for such roles, but do not create the roles themselves.

• The nature of social organization is structured around stable, predictable, and controllable networks of statuses and roles.

• The most appropriate method for studying humans and society is empirical in nature, conducted through detached observation using deterministic methods to investigate generalizable patterns of human behavior.

• The best form of sociological theorizing is deductive, involving the prediction and controls of social phenomena.