Rather than forcing behavior, architecture suggests possibilities, channels communication, and provides impressions of acceptable activities, networks, norms, and values to individuals Ankerl, The definition of deviance is relative and depends on the culture, time period, and situation. Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University. Coming from a research background in biology and archeology, Charlotte currently studies how digital and physical space shapes human beliefs, norms, and behaviors and how this can be used to create businesses with greater social impact.
Nickerson, C. Simply Psychology. Ankerl, G. Brooks, R. The self and political role: A symbolic interactionist approach to political ideology.
The Sociological Quarterly, 10 1 , Carter, M. Symbolic interactionism. Cooley, C. Looking-glass self. The production of reality: Essays and readings on social interaction, 6, Del Casino, V. In International encyclopedia of human geography pp.
Denzin, N. Kuhn, M. Major trends in symbolic interaction theory in the past twenty-five years. The Sociological Quarterly, 5 1 , Lawrence, D. The built environment and spatial form.
Annual review of anthropology, 19 1 , Mead GH. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. Meltzer, B. The Chicago and Iowa schools of symbolic interactionism. Human nature and collective behavior, Smith, R. Symbolic Interaction Theory and Architecture.
Symbolic Interaction, 29 2 , Stryker, S. Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: Theory and research example. In Personality, roles, and social behavior pp. Turner, R. Role taking: Process versus conformity. Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook, In exploring how pragmatist philosophers influenced the development of symbolic interactionist theory, Lewis and Smith challenge prevailing beliefs regarding the unity of pragmatist thought and the centrality of George Herbert Mead to Chicago sociology.
The authors emphasize the splits between the Peirce-Mead and James-Dewey clusters of pragmatist philosophy. They also stress that Mead was best characterized as a social behaviorist.
Maines, David. The faultline of consciousness: A view of interactionism. New York: Aldine. This book includes several empirical chapters that illustrate how interactionism applies to the study of narratives and to the analysis of race, gender, urban inequality, and social institutions.
McPhail, Clark, and Cynthia Rexroat. Mead vs. Blumer: The divergent methodological perspectives of social behaviorism and symbolic interactionism. American Sociological Review — They argue that Blumer misinterprets Mead by ignoring his emphasis on social behaviorism and positing a naturalistic perspective.
Symbolic interactionism at the end of the century. In The handbook of social theory. Edited by George Ritzer and Barry Smart, — In this wide-ranging overview, the authors emphasize the key contributions of interactionism, demonstrating how it has informed and extended core elements of sociological theory.
The authors also consider the new voices that have emerged within interactionism, such as feminism, conflict theory, and postmodernism, and the challenges these voices pose for the future of the perspective.
Shalin, Dmitri. Pragmatism and social interactionism. Shalin demonstrates the multiple effects that pragmatic philosophy had on the writings of George Herbert Mead and subsequently on the development of symbolic interactionist theory. Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login. Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions.
For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here. Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on the relationships among individuals within a society. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds.
Theorists Herman and Reynolds note that this perspective sees people as being active in shaping the social world rather than simply being acted upon. George Herbert Mead — is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism though he never published his work on it LaRossa and Reitzes If you love books, for example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned that books are good or important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school, or church; maybe your family had a special reading time each week, getting your library card was treated as a special event, or bedtime stories were associated with warmth and comfort.
Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions.
For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class difference, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message.
The focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman — to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis. Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.
Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have meanings which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the society. There is no absolute definition of deviance, and different societies have constructed different meanings for deviance, as well as associating different behaviors with deviance.
In the United States, turning the wallet in to local authorities would be considered the appropriate action, and to keep the wallet would be seen as deviant. In contrast, many Eastern societies would consider it much more appropriate to keep the wallet and search for the owner yourself; turning it over to someone else, even the authorities, would be considered deviant behavior. Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective.
Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction.
0コメント