The sociology of symbolic interactionism

This paper reports secondary findings that emerged from a more general concern with social change. In attempting to make explicit the substantive arguments and implications of various theoretical approaches to the study of social change, we discovered a substantial area of disagreement among symbolic interactionists with regard to this topic. Inasmuch as symbolic interactionism is usually regarded as a unitary theoretical position,1 this considerable disjunction seemed to call for explanation in its own right. Both the historical development of interactionism and the nature of its principal intellectual sources suggest the pos sibility of important differences within this tradition. As Rose (1962:vii) has noted, symbolic interactionism has de veloped crescively with an idea here, a magnificent but partial formulation there, a little study here, a program of specialized studies there. And Mead's (1934) posthumously published writings are, as has been frequently noted, sus ceptible to various interpretations. To some extent, of course, such historical and stylistic features characterize other theoretical positions as well, but the indications are that the differences among interactionists may be as great as those between this and other theoretical perspectives. The purposes of this paper are, first, to report the extent and nature of the differences that divide symbolic interaction ists with respect to a topic of general concern?social change ; second, to note certain sociological factors associated with these divergences; and, finally, to explore theoretically the relationship between a particular theoretical stance and a constellation of sociological variables. A central contention of this paper is that differences among interactionists are as sociated with the kinds of relationships in which these sociologists are involved. A sociological perspective focusing upon the nature and types of relationships should be as useful in understanding sociological reasoning as it is in understanding any other type of reasoning.