Erving Goffman’s Enduring Legacy in Social Interaction Studies

This chapter challenges and augments the received view of the history of symbolic interaction at the University of Chicago. The history of the discipline’s development at the University of Chicago between 1889 and 1935 is well-known, especially the work of George Herbert Mead and John Dewey, sometimes called “the Chicago school of sociology” or symbolic interaction. But the Hull-House school of sociology, led by Jane Addams, is largely unknown. In this chapter I explore her founding role in feminist symbolic interaction. Her perspective analyzes micro, meso, and macro levels of theory and practice. Feminist symbolic interaction is structural, political, rational, and emotional, and employs abstract and specific models for action. Addams led a wide network of people, including sociologists, her neighbors, and other citizens, who implemented and institutionalized their shared visions. Addams led many controversial social movements, including the international peace movement, recognized in 1931 by the Nobel Peace Prize. “Feminist symbolic interaction” expands the scope of symbolic interaction by being more action-oriented, more political, and more focused on a successful social change model than the traditional approach to this theory. In addition, many new sociologists are added to the lists of important historical figures.

Herbert Blumer was a key figure in what came to be identified as the Chicago School of Sociology. He invented the term ‘symbolic interactionism’ as a label for a theoretical approach that derived primarily from the work of John Dewey, George Herbert Mead and Charles Cooley. But his most influential work was methodological in character, and he is generally viewed today as a prominent critic of positivism, and of the growing dominance of quantitative method within US sociology. While this picture is broadly accurate, it neglects an important strand in his methodological thinking. He was committed to the goal of a science of social life, while at the same time he was uncertain whether such a science is possible. In his Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki’s The Polish Peasant, he identified a serious dilemma facing this project: the problem of how a scientific approach can be made compatible with the distinctive nature of human social life. In the first chapter of his most influential book, Symbolic Interactionism, he advocates a naturalistic approach to case study, and seems to treat this as avoiding the dilemma. However, there is evidence to suggest that, even towards the end of his life, he regarded the problem as still unresolved. In this article, I examine both sides of Blumer’s dilemma, and whether his attitude towards it changed. However, my interest here is not only historiographical. I evaluate Blumer’s arguments and show that his intellectual struggle with this issue remains relevant today, despite the shifts that have taken place in social science methodology and the philosophy of science since his death.

This article describes the story of pragmatism and its transformation into symbolic interactionism at Carnegie Mellon University and Aalto University. In both universities, design researchers were interested in user experience in interactive systems. John Dewey's pragmatism taught them to study how experience sometimes transforms into an experience and occasionally into stories. Herbert Blumer's interactionism had its roots in Chicago School sociology, and it developed in association with pragmatism. His interactionism gave these researchers tools to study Dewey's concepts empirically. We show in the article how this theoretical connection came about after 2000 and how it has shaped research programs in these two communities since then. We also discuss the relevance of pragmatism and interactionism in our current technological landscape, dominated by social media and artificial intelligence.

Social networking websites have had a major impact on the social life of this generation. Facebook in particular has become a universal component in the lives of many people, allowing them to create an online self which may or may not be consistent with their offline person. Recent research has found that self-presentation online is strategic and deliberate in order to create a favorable impression on social networking sites (DeAndrea & Walther, 2011). There also appears to be a link between certain personality traits such as conscientiousness and extraversion, and social media use with regard to self-presentation strategies. In the present study, extraversion and conscientiousness personality traits will be measured, and levels of comfort with using the internet will be assessed to determine how they are related to online self-presentation. Participants will be approximately 30-40 Facebook users over the age of 18, recruited via Facebook. Participants will be given a 12-item demographic survey, the 22-item Attitudes Toward Computer Usage Scale (Morris, 2009) to assess their levels of comfort with computers, and the 44-item Big Five Inventory (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008) in order to measure their personality type. Participants’ Facebook profile pages will be assessed in terms of online activity and aspects of self-presentation by four observers recruited and trained by the researcher. Although data collection and analysis will not be completed until March 2014, it is expected that extraverted personality types will be associated with greater Facebook use in order to communicate with others than conscientious personality types. It is also hypothesized that both extroverts and conscientious individuals will be less likely to express hidden self-aspects online than those who score lower on these traits.

IN THIS SECTION: 1.) BRIEF 2.) COMPREHENSIVE BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: The Nature Of Perspective Chapter 2: The Perspective of Social Science Chapter 3: Symbolic Interactionism as a Perspective Chapter 4: The Meaning of the Symbol Chapter 5: The Importance of the Symbols Chapter 6: The Nature Of The Self Chapter7: The Human Mind Chapter 8: Taking the Role of the Other Chapter 9: Human Action Chapter 10: Social Interaction Chapter 11: Society Chapter 12: Erving Goffman Chapter 13: Symbolic Interactionism COMPREHENSIVE TABLE OF CONTENTS: Chapter One: The Nature Of Perspective New Perspectives Mean New Realities Are All Perspectives Created Equal? Some Examples of Perspectives: Informal and Formal Perspectives Chapter Two: The Perspective of Social Science Five Ways of Knowing Science as a Perspective Social Science as a Perspective Sociology as a Perspective Psychology as a Perspective Commonalities and Differences between Sociology and Psychology The Perspective of Social Psychology in Psychology The Perspective of Social Psychology in Sociology Chapter Three: Symbolic Interactionism as a Perspective Introduction: Five Central Ideas General Historical Background of Symbolic Interactionism A Contrast with Other Perspectives: Warriner Shibutani: Reference Groups as Perspectives Attitudes versus Perspectives Chapter Four: The Meaning of the Symbol The Nature of Reality Objects as â Social Objectsâ The Meaning of Symbols Some Types of Symbols Language Non Symbolic Animals Chapter Five: The Importance of the Symbols Symbols and Social Reality Symbols and Human Social Life Symbols and the Individual The Importance of Symbols: A Summary Chapter Six: The Nature Of The Self Self as a Social Object Self as Social: Four Social Stages for Self-Development Selves as Ever-Changing Social Objects Self as Object Central Ideas about the Self The â Iâ and the â Meâ Chapter Seven: The Human Mind The Meaning of Mind: Symbolic Interaction toward Self Mind Action: Making Indications toward Self Mind Action: The Ability to Control Overt Action Mind Action: The Ability to Problem Solve Mind Action Is Part of All Social Interaction Chapter Eight: Taking the Role of the Other Imagination and Taking the Role of the Other Symbols, Self, Mind, And Taking the Role of the Other The Meaning of â Taking the Role of the Other Taking the Role of the Other: Significant Others, Generalized Other, And Others in the Situation The Importance of Taking the Role of the Other Chapter Nine: Human Action The â Stream Of Actionâ The Act Meadâ s Four Stages of the Act Locating the â Causeâ Of Human Action The Definition of the Situation Habitual Action The Role of the Past in Human Action The Role of the Future in Human Action Action and Motives Action and Emotions Human Action and Free Choice Chapter Ten: Social Interaction The Meaning of Social Interaction The General Importance Of Social Interaction Chapter Eleven: Society Two Views of Society Groups, Organizations, Social Worlds, and Societies That Is Symbolic, That Is Characterized By Cooperation, and That Develops Culture The Meaning of Society: A Summary The Individual Exists Within Many Societies The Active Human Being in Society Chapter Twelve: Erving Goffman Goffman and Symbolic Interactionism Drama in Interaction The Self of Social Interaction Rituals of Interaction The Environments of Social Interaction Chapter Thirteen: Symbolic Interactionism A Final Assessment Symbolic Interactionism and Human Freedom: A Review Symbolic Interactionism and Science Symbolic Interactionism: Some Representative Studies Symbolic Interactionism: Some Examples of Application References

<div><p class="Moment-Baslik-32">The Chicago School of Sociology has made important theoretical and methodological contributions to the field of ethnographic studies. The urban monographs of the early Chicago School and the theory of symbolic interactionism are the most recognised of these contributions. The focus of this study is on the following question: What does the Chicago School’s ethnographic legacy in general and in particular its theory of symbolic interactionism mean for the current digital ethnographic studies? Hence, this study (i) discusses the outlines of the literature of the Chicago ethnographic research; (ii) indicates the position of the theory of symbolic interactionism in the school’s tradition of ethnography; (iii) analyses how the theory of symbolic interactionism relates to the digital ethnographic studies. </p></div>

Although many sociologists have written about the development of the sociological perspective, known as “interactionism,” two relatively important questions for understanding its emergence remain scarcely examined. (1) Why did George Herbert Mead become known as its progenitor rather than Robert E. Park ? (2) Why did “radical interactionism,” which was inspired by Park, fail to appear on the sociological landscape until the first decade of the 21st century, almost a century after the appearance of the “symbolic interactionism” that Mead inspired? To oversimplify, Mead became anointed as the progenitor of interactionism instead of Park primarily because Herbert Blumer proved to be a far more effective champion of Mead’s thought than Everett Hughes proved to be of Park’s ideas in sociology. Blumer’s greater effectiveness in performing this role was primarily due to a stronger desire to carry the banner for a new sociological perspective, more personal charisma and verbal adroitness, and much closer connection to Chicago School of Sociology during its golden era than Hughes had. Thus, the delayed emergence of a radical interactionism based on Park’s work cannot be attributed solely to the failure of Park and his heir apparent, Hughes, to fully grasp the radical implications of Park’s work. Even if these implications of Park’s work had been crystal clear to Hughes, however, it is highly doubtful that he would have ever considered promoting a radical version of interactionism. His lack of lack of desire to carry the banner for a sociological perspective, absence of personal charisma and verbal adroitness, as well as his want of closer ties to the original Chicago school of sociology, not to mention tepid liberalism, would have made him a very unlikely figure in American sociology to play this historic role.

Social theory refers to ideas, arguments, hypotheses, thought-experiments, and explanatory speculations about how and why human societies—or elements or structures of such societies—come to be formed, change, and develop over time or disappear. Usually supported in research institutions as a core component of the discipline of sociology, social theory most commonly encompasses the range of explanatory concepts, analytical tools, and heuristic devices on which sociologists and social scientists draw in their efforts to interpret statistical or qualitative data about particular empirical social phenomena. Social theory in this relatively narrowly delimited sense is usually thought of as more or less synonymous with the term “sociological theory.” But many common understandings of the scope of the field also imply a wider range of reference than this. Social theory can name general sources of ideas about social phenomena relevant to other disciplines of the social sciences and humanities, such as anthropology, political science, economics, history, cultural and media studies, and gender studies. And social theory can also be thought of as incorporating normative concerns bearing on debates about desirable ends or values of social life—about how social life ideally “ought to be”—in ways that overlap closely with concerns in the fields of moral, political, and legal philosophy. As social theory in most of its central concerns names only a practice of systematic theoretical thinking relevant to particular substantive problems or questions in sociology and other social-science disciplines, some headings in this bibliographical survey of the field will be found to overlap thematically with other Oxford Bibliographies entries in sociology. For more detailed surveys of substantive areas in the Oxford Bibliographies listing with prominent theoretical components see especially: Comparative Historical Sociology, Chicago School of Sociology, World-Systems Analysis, Marxist Sociology, Feminist Theory, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Postmodernity, Symbolic Interactionism, and Michel Foucault. The emphasis of the survey that follows falls primarily on currents and schools of thought in Western social theory from the 18th century to the present day. Note, however, that this survey omits commentary of texts currently unavailable in English.

Interaction is one of the foundational sociological concepts. It is often discussed together with organization and society and thereby defined as the “microlevel” of sociological analysis. Unfortunately it sometimes is seen as less important for sociological research than the study of the “meso‐” (organization) and “macrolevel” (society) of analysis. Those developing grand sociological theories like Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann, maybe not unsurprisingly, therefore devoted more space and time to the development of theories of society while neglecting the development of theories and concepts of interaction. However, beginning with Georg Simmel's studies in Germany in the late nineteenth century sociology has produced a substantial and diverse body of theories and research with interaction at its center, including studies conducted by the Chicago School of Sociology, and symbolic interactionism and the Iowa School, the analyses of social occasions by Erving Goffman, studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis and more recently research subjecting social situations to multimodal analyses. These studies demonstrate that interaction is key to all forms of social relationship. They elaborate on the importance of our understanding of interaction for policy development as well as for the design and deployment of novel technologies in complex work settings.

This quantitative descriptive research explored the perspectives of 438 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) senior high school students in a 207 public and private secondary school in the province of Iloilo, Philippines in terms of their job choices to analyze and develop a new proposition on Howard Becker's Social Interaction Theory. The need for developing promising theoretical concepts of transition from the traditionally-developed paradigm model of career intervention to the new normal environment was substantiated by the researcher anchored on Becker's Social Interaction Theory used in this study. The theory provides a basis for understanding individual's behavior and viewpoints, where the researcher provides descriptions of processes of human interaction. However, results of the study challenged the theory of Howard Becker (2008) on his proposition: "People are constructors of their own actions and meanings. Individuals construct their own social realities and perspectives of their world using responses from the environment and different sociocultural relationships with which they interact. Symbolic interactionism or Social Interaction Theory provides opportunities for analyzing ways in which different socializing experiences affect an individual's life cycle" The argument focused on analyzing ways on which different socializing experiences affect an individual's life cycle as pointed out by Becker in his proposition. This new proposition: "Stereotyping on areas such as social status, gender differences, parent role and sibling ranks is a stimulus of normative social influence. The adopted pattern of thoughts based on past experiences directs people to behave consistently with group norms. Based on the perspectives of the students, this study pointed out that the Howard Beker's Social Interaction Theory on individual's construction of realities and perspectives is influenced by sociological stereotyping and normative social influence. The combination of the two ideas is being attributed as ways in which different socializing experiences affect an individual's life cycle which include his preferences.

The goal of this article is to look at the tension between professional identity and political identificationas experienced by journalists in the newsrooms of P??gina/12 and between 2011 and 2015, when the editorial lines of both newspapers were in tune with the national government???s policies. From an ethnographic perspective (Restrepo, 2016), this article addresses the tensions and intersections between journalists??? political identification and that of their media outlets. By analyzing this topic, we can appreciate what values the former identify as part of their professional practice. To do this, we returned to the contributions of labor sociology, specifically to those on symbolic interactionism (Abbott, 1993; Becker, 2006; Becker, 2009; Becker, Geer, Hughes, y Strauss, 1961; Becker y Strauss, 1956; Hughes, 2012 y Geer, 1972) and dramaturgical analysis (Goffman, 2006), in order to study two distinct moments in the process of identification. The first involves the hiring of young journalists and how their expectations, upon entering the world of journalism, are affected by the affinity between their own political identification and the editorial line of the newspaper they now work for. The second moment describes situations, in everyday content production inside the newsroom, in which journalists discuss their newspaper???s stance in relation to certain political events, leading to deviations from the editorial line. After studying these moments, we shall find, for example, that criterias for newsworthiness are not always starting points for journalistic work but are instead frequently called into question. Rather than using predefined parameters to analyze daily newsroom tasks, we shall reconstruct the norms and values of journalistic ethics by looking at the continuous self-reflection undertaken by journalists during their everyday work.

The paper aims to uncover the reasons why fashion appears in terms of collective selection in a movement towards individual style in the way people dress. Here, fashion is viewed in terms of collective fashion trends and personal style. Thus, it is the clothes, dressing habits, and garments that are observed in the research. The paper shows how the theory of symbolic interactionism can be used as an analytical tool to bring transparency to the movement from collective selection towards individual style in the fashion industry. This theoretical approach, which is connected to social interaction helps avoid the classical research trap of making statements through the study of cause and effect. The analysis is made based on examples of meanings created around the garment through an observation of the process from the initial meaning the person gives to as a symbol in social interaction, to the final stage when it becomes an individual style. There are four such phases that together create the final picture of why fashion is heading towards individual style. All these phases have different sources, and naturally provide different answers to the initial research question in this paper. Once the garment is turned into an individual style and, as customers seek more details in garments, there then occur a collapse of the “total look” towards hyper individuality.

Symbolic interactionism is one of the few social psychology perspectives that recognizes the important role of physical artifacts, including consumer products, in social life. Consumer products are artifacts people can use to maintain the expressive order within social life – the order that is embedded within the shared meanings of a culture. As a formal theory of symbolic interactionism, affect control theory emphasizes culturally shared affective meaning, the impressions produced within social events, and identity processes that rely on those cultural meanings and social events. We contend that affect control theory provides a framework for understanding and researching how consumer products influence people's social experience and interaction. First, we specifically explore how affect control theory's concepts of affective meaning, identity modification, and impression management can be applied to understanding consumer products. Building on this foundation, we then consider how affect control theory might also contribute to three new research directions: social interaction with consumer products, affective design of consumer products, and the prosumer identity created from consumer products. Our conclusion is that affect control theory provides sociologists with a means of exploring the important and fascinating questions that emerge when we consider people's symbolic interaction with consumer products.

Initially, tourists visited the village where the group resided to witness the Kecak dance. However, the dance's popularity grew, and it became a feature in various events. Tourists could now enjoy Kecak performances at destinations like Uluwatu, Tanah Lot, Batubulan, and others, which provided dedicated spaces for these performances. The Kecak dance, born out of creative cultural expression, became a unique art form showcased specifically for tourists. The choreography in Kecak dance is divided into five parts. In this choreography, all elements in the Kecak performance interact, creating a message directed to the audience. In dramaturgical analysis, it's important to note that Kecak Dance focuses on the aspects of performing arts. It is a dance highly specific to Balinese culture with unique characteristics reflecting their identity and cultural heritage. In the analysis of the staging of Kecak Dance using Symbolic Interactionism Theory, it portrays human life from a Hindu perspective consisting of Suka (joy), Duka (sorrow), Lara (pain), and Pati (death). The characters in Ramayana represent the qualities of protagonists and antagonists, which then interact with each other, giving rise to new universal values, such as Loyalty. Understanding the message in Kecak dance can be enhanced by increasing the involvement of tour guides as providers of additional information to tourists. Additionally, providing brochures containing synopses of the Ramayana story or the plot of Kecak dance in foreign languages during the performance can help the audience understand the presentation more easily, allowing the art to be fully appreciated.

The article analyzes the socioecological structure of Kaunas city (one the centers of the Russian Empire’s provinces) in 1870–1914 based on the ideas for the analysis of the structure and development of modern cities proposed by the Chicago School of Sociology. The first part introduces Burgess’s “Concentric City Model”, which is considered to be the most representative theoretical tool for modern urban structure and development analysis. In the second part, this model is applied to the analysis of the Kaunas socioecological structure in 1870–1914. The conclusions give an answer in which stage of the modern urban structure and development Kaunas city was during the period under investigation. The novelty and relevance of the researchcan be seen: 1) in the first attempt to present the analysis of the structure and development of Kaunas city in 1870–1914 with the help of socio-ecological concepts; 2) in the contribution to the development of interdisciplinary dialogue between history and social sciences (namely, urban ecology theories); 3) in the continuation of the research on the socioecological structure of the major cities of Lithuania during the period of the Russian Empire. Keywords: modern city, Chicago School of Sociology, Burgess’s Ring-Theory of City Development, Kaunas city history. Summary The article analyzes the socioecological structure of Kaunas city (one of the centers of the Russian Empire’s provinces) in 1870–1914 based on the ideas for the analysis of the structure and development of modern cities proposed by the Chicago School of Sociology. The application of Burgess’s “Concentric City Model” made it possible to analyze the Kaunas socioecological structure in 1870–1914 and to answer the question: In what stage of modern urban structure and development was the Kaunas city during the period under investigation? The findings suggest a different arrangement of concentration zones in Kaunas in the period 1870–1914 compared to the Burgess model. The functions of Kaunas districts and the quality of their residential buildings, the contingent of the residents concentrating in them and the occupational layout ofthe population, income and the resulting differences allow us to state that the origin of concentric zones (or their segments) visible in Kaunas during the period in question is not a unique feature of Kaunas development/expansion. Instead, it shows that the process of the colonization of emerging social groups in the cities of the late industrialization in Lithuanian provinces was not completed, and modernization was late in Kaunas, as well as in Vilnius, compared to modern cities in the Western world (especially in the USA) in the period from the 2nd half of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th century.