Postmodernism has been around for decades now, but it was not until the 1980s that social scientists in the United States started paying this intellectual current serious attention. Reasons for such a tardy and decidedly half-hearted reception are several. Postmodernists do not look kindly at the social sciences, accusing the latter of aiding the extant powers and furthering domination in society. They also question the philosophical foundations on which social scientists built their edifice-the very possibility of sound communication, objective reporting, valid generalizations, and theoretical knowledge. Characteristically, symbolic interactionists were among the first in the social science community to join issue with postmodernism (e.g., Farberman 1980,1991,1992; Denzin l986,1989,1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1991,1992; Clough l989,1992a, 1992b; Krug and Laurel 1989; Katovich and MacMurray 1991; Kotarba 1991; Manning 1991, 1993; Fontana and Preston 1 990; Fontana 1 991 ; Shalin 1 991 ; Young 1991 ; Fee 1992). Their somewhat marginal position in academia might have something to do with this. The issues that symbolic interactionism has highlighted since its inception and that assured its maverick status in American sociology bear some uncanny resemblance to the themes championed by postmodernist thinkers. Thus, interactionists have rejected the subject-object dualism, spectator's theory of knowledge, and correspondence theory of truth, opting instead for the subject-object relativity, participant observation, and perspectival approach to truth. The postmodernist critique of formal logic, positivism, and scientism also strikes a responsive cord with interactionist sociologists, as does
Read full abstract