31

3
SymbolicInteractionism 1
Origins
Introduction
An il1llllt'diatc in tht, ('oIlsideraon of s)'l1lbolic ilHCrJeti olli slll is
of dcfinitioll , There j.. sorne eOllfllsioll in thc.: UM! () f tht> tl'flll h,
hoth ib adlll'rt'nts alld COI1lIllCIHat l)rS: 'sYll1 bo lic
l'alled 'interactionisrn' , o r evell (nt'o )Chicagn SdlOtll or rrJdiriol)
anel 'itrau.. 1 Q79J, t=or :>"me, tht' later
influelKl'd ",riters such as Ho'Vard Bt'cker and Er ving Goffrnan . But the,c
leaLl lI'> hack to E.c... Hughcs, ::Jnd thcn 1'hOl11.1 .. a nel Park, \Virh con-
cerns taccording t o One view) for ' field\\' ork, urball $ociology, anel defend-
the-underdog .. nciology' whieh a"nided 'l1111croStrul'tural .. in fa vor
of its Illicru ..copic int('I'acrionJI 011C' (h .. her and 1979: 45 7) . 1-or
others, intcraet ioni <; 1l1 refcrs to the specific It'g:ll.' y ..cc the
G, H. ,\ Ilcad <llld hb interpreter Ilerben Thu s, there seell1
to he 'at Icaq t\\'o interaetiolli sr tr<lditiuns' \Virh rather diffcn:nt, hut otrcn
confu..cd, intdlcctunl grnunding:. (Fis her and Str:lll SS 45S ). Hert'
'symbolic interactionb01 ' will be used prill1arily to refer til th!:' original work
of G. H. Mead (whilc r{'cogni,ing the (;ontrinution of other 'pragll1atist'
writers) and follower and interpreter, Herbert 1'his stJ':lnd of
thollght, \Vhen joined \Vith the wQrk of Chicagoan sociolugical writcrs
(Park, Tholl1as, Hughes and others) , constitutes the twin ' pill:us' of the
broader theorisation of ' interactioni sm' (ser Fisher <lnd 1979;
and Housky 2003). Thc contrinutjon of s)' Ulbolic interactionisrn
in this charter drawing frnm Mead, lies in an array of insightful conccpts,
indllding the sclf, th\: gel1eralisec! orher, and role anel lIseel for the
stlldy of micro social illteracrion.
This charter outlines rht' origins, ll1ain icleas and 'pcrspective' of s)'mholic
in the work of G. H. Mead, with particular attcnriOl1 to hi s
ideas on mind, self and society, and the aer and social interactjon. Mead's
'social will be placed in the conrext ()f his pr:lgll1atic philosophr as
also <1sSociated \Virh sueh \\'riters as Dewer and James.
Symbo/ic 11lteroL! ;0";5111 I .- (), igill;j
Origins
USlIally, the work of George Hernert Mead (I H63-1931) t<lken the
starting puint of sYl11bolic interactionisl11. Mead's wurk originates in two
nroad Cllrrents of thought, First, his pragmatist derives from the
ideas developed br a nUlllber of writers, indllding John Oewey, C. S, Peirce,
Chauncery \'j/right anel \X'illiam james, dllring the latter )'ears of the nineteenth
centllry. Here, in broaJ terl1lS, is the vi e", that intellectual effort is part of cul-
tural coml11unity - .1 processual view of the individual's knowledge in rebtion
to the me:lnings of - so that knowkJgl' hccomes a COI11J11on project.
Secondly, there is the current of evolutionary theory, which was so strong in the
hlll1lan sciences in the late ninetcenth and twemieth centuries, For
instal1ce, Mead took evolutiol1ary iJeas on the change Clf 'ipl'cil'S and applied
them to the hrought about hy social processes to hUJ11an life, The
allied to ,I praglllatic vie\\' which the 'to challel1gc
mcchanical of action anti the \\'orld and to reSl,ltC nf
autonol1lY, treedol11. ,1nd innm;lt i 011 in e\'ollltion:1ry a nd ra t1ll'r t11<11l
<1nd ter111.. , 1964: ",viii; DCSI110nJl' 1
1'he olltCOI11C a ' view that reason, or the wor/d to claim or
assume that the Jivision berween knnwer and known has neen bridged - nnt
jllst in the hllf11<ln hllt abo in the natur.ll sciences' lBenton and Craib
200 l: IP), \tead's pr<lgmatic regarding the place of re,lson bl him
away from those ",ho el11ph.lsise the 'non-rational' si de of human conduct, He
rcwnrkcd Darwin\ l1otion of 'in the Iight of hlll1l<ln conll11unicatiol1;
and binlogical e\'(Jlution emerges in the "pecies as sOl11cthing new and
different - a true el11ergcnr' (Strauss 1964: xviii), Ml,<ld was not 50 mllch con-
cerned with rhe detail of l1lechanisl11s bllt with the ;lttcmpt to
'sociali"e' evolurionary idens within .1 pragll1atic vir\\' uf action. ThllS, the gen-
eral idea<; on spt'cies changc fOllnd in Darwin were a ltcred to 1Illlkr!>tHnd how
<,oeial processes modified social forl11s ,
A central point in pragl11cltislll the l.onncl'tiOI1 between thought and :lction,
and its relation tu the forl11ation of scientific knowledge, A particular concem
",a" the nature of rese:lrch prauice of the scientific pracritioner - how was
social :intervention to rake place? Was a point in social evolutiol1 ""here
rhe application of knowledgc could lead to social improvell1enr? The pragma-
tist intention was to avoid the systemisation and outline of schel11as derived
from Social Darwinisl11 (especially Spencerian ideas) and aIso the empiricisll1 of
rolltinc fact-collecting and meaSlIreJ1lcnt. Instead, the pragl11atist approach
involvcd the understanding of adjustll1ent to changes in the p:lrticular situa-
tion, with the ca refll I t'onsidemtion nf problelll s, and seeking SOllltiol1s.
Thereby, aidcd b}' cOll1ll1lmication, change would occur gradua 11)' at the wider
sociaJlevel. There is a parallel here, for Mead, with the routine decisions made
by the business le<l der or adllJinistr:ltor. EX'pcrimcnral, incrementaI adjllstment
was en\lisagcd, fOllnded on a more Iasting, 'progressivc' approach than hasty
32
"Xto G .
..tIOU \ z...o-o) h-t.iZL.l
H-t:. ""-" P..U : ZR : ?a\ ll.C:h).(
MIcro Social Theory
!\
majorchanges restIg on littleevidcllce:
The sci.entist's attitude is th'lt ofaman iJl agoingCOllcern \Vhich requires at various
points reacljustments and recOllstructiollS. The success of the readjustments and
reconstruction5 is founcl in the triulllph over the difficult)" as cviclcl1ced by lhe fact
that lhe concem continues to operate. He finds bis tests in the pans of the wholc
which still operate. (Mcad 1964:48-9)
In Meac!'s view the minei anel social experience are involved in experimental
science. Within the tboughtofthe scientist engaged inexperimental anel other
scientific work anel in the operation ofthe minei generaJly, there is always
awarenessofthe existence ofselves anel mindsofthe cOl11l1lunity ofcolJeagues
and others. This is a differellt view from one that sees lhe coJlection of facts
anel formation of scientific ideas anel important theoretical systems separate
from a social contexto For Mead, in his "rbeNatmeofScientific Knowleelge',
rbeoreticalsystemsare elevelopingwithinsocial process in institutions- within
the activities ofscientists - aml :15 partofrhe problems they tr)' to understand
ratherthanas ac1ash ofsystems (Mead1964).Thereremainedsocnething ofa
social evolutionar)'modelinMead, the irnplicationsofwhich hal'enotalways
been fuH)' recognised - the pattem of succession of theoretical systems was
being replaccd itselE. As society, minei anel self altered, so eliel the contentanel
foem ofsocial ideas.Theprogress of any thoughtrcflected howsocialindivid-
uais considered themselves anel thesocial relationslJips they participateel in.
Mead's portrayaJ oJ socicty's social structure anel social organisation is
rather thin - there is a 'liberal pluralism' where c1ass relations are differenti-
ated ar, furtber, are merely orte of a number oftypes of relationsbips, sucb as
buyer anel seller, with some relations more important socialJy than others.
According to .Meacl,eacltrelationship is 'sociallyfunctional' anel eacb individ-
uai a'socialJyfllnctional' memberofagroup.In the'idealsociety'a'functional
differentiation' wouJd stilJ exist according to individual abilities and tasks.
However, rhrough greater social participation, old ieleological conflicts (and
the social disruption they produced) would be overcome. Mead believeel
tbat lhe future 'ideal societ)" could be approacheel by a combination of tbe
'economic' aspects ofsociety and the 'communaJ'features ofreligion:
Thoseabstractionscalllbe puttogetherin asinglecommunityofthedelllocratictype.
As democracy n.ow exists, there is not this development of communication 50 that
individuais can put thcmse]ve.\ into the attitudes ofthose whol1l they affeet.(Mead
1967: 328) I

t
In summary, within the workofMead there is a 'liberal pragmatist' view and
a rhread of debate with 'Social Darwinism' . As Mills (1970b) argues, Social
Darwinism and instinctivist psychoJogy posed a problem for a liberal view
since such aDl1l"oaches supponed tradtional forms of individualismo Instead,
I
Symbolic Illter</cCiollism J - Otigi/ls 33
pragmatists ' wantccl to give mind, rationality, a place in n,ltllreanel in the psy-
chology Df humanafLtirs; anel the}' wamed to see hlllllan nature as lllodifiable
through the reconstructionofthe social "envirolllllent", hence the il1lpottal1cc
they attached to cOlllrnunicaton and "mass educatioll" ,(M.ills 1970b: 42).
G0
What is 'SymbolicInteractionism'?
ex
\Vhile not underestimating the contribution of Dewcy, Jalllcs alld utbe!"
pragmatists to symbolic interactionism, Mead's work is usually seell as the
connecting link betwecn pragmatist philOspllyanel social psycholng)' alld
sociology. The connections were cemcnted by l'v'lead's stuclellt and follower,
Herbert Blumer, who was his leadng interpreter. For Blulller, the sl'lllbolic
interactionistapproachsees a 'humansociety'
as eo le en a fel inliviu .Such living is a process or ollgoil1g activiqr il1 which
lJ
partlClpants are eve oping lines of actioll in the nlllltitudinOlls sitl!;J tiolls they
encounter.They are .:aught up in avast processof ... in IIl;lkillg illclica-
tions to others ofwhat to do and intcrpretiJlg the intlicatiolls as lI1acle b)' others.
(Blumer 1969: 20)
Individuaisare'formed,sustained, weakened, lnel tra ns[oflllecl ill lheir interac-
tion wUhone as theyjoin togetherin di(ferentassociati Olls aml positions
(Blull1er 1969:21). AccordiJ1g to Meltzeret a!. (1975) (broadly llsing the tCrI"
'interactionism'), Dewey, l'v'leacl, CQoley anel Thomas gave prol11inence to thc
'gcoup'as composed of individuaissharingideas alul asaSOl1l"ceoF individu'lJ
interpretation and col1ditions of bchaviollr. [-lere was a COllCCI"ll for the
development of the personality and self, which incllldecl dlle attcntion to the
biological aspects ofindividual motivation in acting (Meltzer et aI. 1.975: 48).
Afurtherfactof is the use ofthe term 'symbolic behaviour'.Thisinvolved more
than language; it incllleled otherforms ofcimnllll lcation - 'it was (111)' witil
referencetocertainspecificaspects ofthe theory tbatlal1guage was elel'<ltecl to a
primar)' position in the symbolic element, e.g. Meacl 011 seLf-reflexivcncss'. The
symbolic interactionists developeel the idea ofsociety as ctlmposed by 'sh<1rcJ
its influenceonearlyresearc11WstliWLi?; h
as 'acruciallinkbetween the thesocial grollp' <lllel 'in the acloIJ-
tion of the method ofsympathetic introspcction' (Meltzcr et aI. 1.975: 50-1).
Thus, there are anUll1ber of related processes: the cOllstruction of lhe self, its
interrelation wirh the surrounding social setting - includi ng the 110tioll of
social negotiation in lhe productionofreality, and the l11utuaJ cOl1st rucriOll u[
meaning between social worlcls - and the oveLall cOllstructiol1 ofsociety as a
symboliccommuuity.
S)'lllbolic interactioojst 'sociologies' can be seen as combining three related
thcmes (Plummer 1991a: x-xi). First, 'that distinctly hUl1lan worlds are llot
34 Micro Social TIJeol'J'
,! \
cmly material anel objective bllt also il11l11ensdy symbolic'. Unlike uimals,
human beingsemploytheir 'elaboratesymbol-producingcapacitywhichenables
themtoprocluce al'listory, acultureanel very inrricatewebs ofcornlTlllllication'.
Althol.lgh we rotltinelycreale' "accounts" to explainouractions anel livcs', we
prodLlce 'sharcel meanings' whiclt 'are always o])en to anel further
adjustmcl1t'. Sccolld is theidea of'process': 'Lives,situati ons anel even
are adjllstiilg, emerging, beeoming.' Hence,
in tbis perspective, there is a'f0;]8 upon lhestrategies ofacquiring a scnse of
self, ofdevelopinga biography,ofadjusting to others'. Finally, rhere is afocus
011 'inreraction'- ratherrhallattention toselforsocictytbere is aconcern'with
the jint acts throllgh which lives are organized and societies assernbled' . In
short, as Plummer says, t!lere is 'behind ;;yrnbolic interactionist sociologies a
pervasivc imagery - of...!2'.11lboI, 1991a:
x-xi). Symbolic interactionism appears to have scveral characteristics: the
formation and ofmeanings; an emphasis on social process anel the
lllEerrelFlon between individual anel group; the social consrruCtion oT social
strLlcture ratber than as merely externalTy imposed; anel a declication to
'subjective' ar'naturalistic' methods ofresearch
For interactionists it is through interaction that mealllngs are
negot iated in defining the social worlcl. People act accordillg to the meanings
they have anel as formeel in the contining intcraction with others, wbich in
turninforllls newinteraclion.Itis, therefare,the researcher'stasktosruelysuch
processes and llleaning. In sumrnary, symbolic i.nteractioniSI11 constructs -
particularsense ofrationaJity, elerived frol11 lts pragmatlstroots:
Pragmarisll1 draws neirher explicitly 011 tbt: comtnOll-sense notion of means-end
rationality of Max Weber [lor on the more'rigorolls cOllceprion of rational c1lOicc
theory, buttalks lUoreaboutrhe diEferentrarionaliries thatexistin c1iffcrentsiruatiolls.
There are many differenl means-cnd chains, varying from situatioll to situation ...
lhe llleanings anel relatiolls C:In bc undersrood ill lhe context of pursuing practicaI
purposes ill the worId. (Benton and Craib 2001: 87- 8)
GeorgeRerbertMead- Ris Philosophyand
SocialPsychology
George I-lerbert lvleael was a colleague of Dewey's at N1ichigan nncl Chicago,
anel he studied uneler Rayce anel in Gennauy. Hc was familiar witil Cooley's
idea of Lhe looking-glass self. Mead was influenced by the experimental
psychologist Wilhelm Wunelt and a nUlllber of his ideas, although lllodificd,
. appearprominently in his wOI:k (Deegan 2001: xxvi-xxxi). Duringhis life his
influcnce was rhough studcnts taking courSl:S on SOci,ll psychology and phi-
losophy and through varioLis wrtings and articles in tlle fields ofrcform anel
edLlcalion (see Deegan 2001). Ee has had a wicle influcnce within sociology
Symbolic Interactionis1"1l l - Origins 35
I anel some areas ofsocial psycholog)'; particularlyfrol11 t11e 1960s ol1w,Hcls, he
was reael by sociologists in the Eields fdeviance anel stuclying stllaller
tional settings sceking to explore the formation and interchange afIllC:ll1illgS..,
c.g. the givillgandacceptanceof 'Iabels' in weltaie, edllcati ol1 Oi policing.Thc
\Vork ofGoffl1lan Oll the 'presenlarionofself' (see Chapter5) C<ln he seen as ,1
, funher 'instrumental' twist where individuais actively present thclllselves
!othersto 'manageimpressions'rathertltanhavingan self (13elltoll allll
jCraib2001: 87).
For Meacl, p1.hology is lhe discipline that 'studies the acrivity or
behavioroftheTlldividual as it les \Vithin thesocialprocess; the behaviurofan
. individualcan be unelerstoodonly in terms afthe behaviorofthewhulesocial
group ofwhich he is a mernber' (Mead 1967: 6). Mead was inlent to disjJcl
individualistic theories tl1<lt see an individual's experienceas priorand [Ol:lDing
socialprocesses. Instead,theexperiencinginclividu,ll(illl1lindand seiO he
. seen as within apre-existiJlgsociety alld partafsocial processes.
TheSelf, Mindalld Society
A central concem in lvlcad's work is to fino a midclle path, to replacc
longstaneling polarities by positing adynamicset of (elations - the individual
as in relation with others anel also relareel to the natural or biol agical. Thc
individual's aclion is shaped by anel, in tum, sbapes saciety while subjeetw
biological elcments of nature. In this way, Meacl sought to
avoiel theories lhat conccived the individual as determincd by internai or
externaIforces while ponraying rhe individual as creative anel an active soei,ll
participant. HePl!:!f-e_s . .paniculal empha,sis 011 the 'minei' anel 'reflexivir)". The I
minei is realisedin the prCCsSaspartof theexpericnce ofiudiviclu,ds as
he or she takes the attitude ofthe other (towarcls him or herself). There is all
adj115tlllent to the social process as the individual operates rcfl cxively'
anel thereby deve10lJs the minei (Meacll.967: 134).Individuaisare ahletu take!
the role ofotherswirhill action- to understand the viewofanother individual i
anel change tbeir actions in relation to how otbers ma)' responel. Individuais
have the ability to proell1ce anel respand to 'significams)'lllbols' in cOl11lllllni-
cation. Through reflection or inner cOl1versation rhought takcs place which
prepares for the act in.thc: social process involving others. In developing bis
own ideas on the self Meael was taking accoullt of, while criticis.ing, different
traelitions:
I' Mead tnade threetypes ofcriticisms of the previous rheories oI dlC seU: C1 )ci ther
theypresupposed the mind as antecedent1y existing to aCCOllllt formen tnlphell oll '.
ma (WulJdt); (2) or thcy fail eel tO account for speciiica ll y menta l phel\UnlCII 3
(Warson); and (3) rhe)' failed to isobre the mccllanism bywhich minei alld the self
appeared (James and Dewcy).(Nwrrindale 1961: 354)
37
r
.,It
](; Mic1'O Social TheOl)'
]V[cao's staning point was lhe clynamic social I?rocess containing social acts;
from this basis he attemptecl to oveJ'come the 'mentalismofthe introspection-
ists'and the limitatiol1s ofWatsonianbehaviourism(Martinelale 1961:354).In
silol.'t, lhe restriclive dualismof'mind' ano ph)'sical being - founel in previous
theoretical 'subjectivisJ11' and 'objectivism' - hacl to be ovcrcome. IndividuaLs
could perceive thcll1selves as objects anel , through sYl1lbolic cOll1l11l.lllication,
pIticJar!Y1i1gUag,coulelrespondtoanel anticipate Similarly, Mead
developed the ioea of 'attitudes' as both ' introsp-ective states anel the startin
poillt of the act' (Marcirrda:tel961: 355). S)Ill1boJic cOlTIlTlullication, particll-
lrly through v-ocal language,.was centrally importallt. \'(fhere a gesture pro-
duces the sarne idea in the giver and receiver theh a 'significant symbol' is
present. The individual is able to take the 'attitude of the other' in his or heI.'
gestures. This is a convel'sation of ficallt gestures, whicll is prepared for
'internally' and takes place extemaJlywith othersthroughthe operationofthe
'minei' in thought. ThllS, the 'mind' is formed within a social process in tbe
cOlTll11\.lllication ofgestllres as significalll symbols (Mead 1%7:47,50).
forMead, rhe selfhasadevelopment- it forms wirhill ofsocial
oThersrathertbaii:beinggiveu..a.thlrth. Howevcr,
in 'habitualaction', lifce in the intelligenceoflowerforms ofanimallife, there
is nota self, since no thinking is requiredas we merely adjust; it is notneces-
sary for it to be organiscd within the self. The bod), 'can be lhere anel
canoperate in a very intelligentfashion withoutthere being aselfillvolved in
the experience. The self has the characteristic that it is an object to itself'
(M.ead 1967: 136). There are t.wo stages in the self's fuH development. First,
the self is formed by the orgalllsations of ccrtain attitudes towards him
orherselfthrough takingpartin. socialacts,anel secondly, by lheorganisation
!
ofthegeneralsocial altitudesofthesocialgroup(argencralisedother) (Mead
\ 1967: 158):
the individual's self is constilured simply b}I OTganizatioll oflhe particular atti-
tudes of other individuals roward himseJf anel roward une anothcr in the spccific
social acts in wbi chhe participares wi thrhem... at lhe second stage .. .(the) ... self
is constituted not only by a11 organizalioJl of thcse particulnr individual attitudcs,
but also by an orgallization of the social attitudes of the gcneralized other or the
sucial group as awh.ole to which hebe.Jollgs.(lvlad 1967:158)
t.,,[ead's emphasisis Oll theselfas refJexive, as bothsl1bjcctanel object,anobject
basical\y different fram othu objects. IntelligcJ1t rational conduct. has to
involve the individual taking an'objective,non-affectiveattitude itself'-
to become an object (Mead 1967: 137- 8). He slates lhat of th
thil1king,reflectiveseUaresocial: theselfis 'cogniiive' can be
.fOlllld in the 'couversation of gestures' with oncself and others.
Hellce, Mead argues that the individual entcrs into experience ofself,'only in
50 far as he first becomes an object to himself just as other individuaIs are
S)'mbolic IlIteractionisl1l 1- Origins
objects to himorare in lus experience'.Individuaisbecornean objectto rhelll-
selves byspecifically tak!ng the altitudesofothersrowards lhelllselveslVithin a
shared contextand expf'ricnce (Mead 1967: 138).
A tcnsi.ol1 may he seCll in lvleacl's discllssion af the selr betwecll
Darwinistanel praglllati,tinfluences- apull between (biological) imlividuality
,
I
f
anorationalit)'. Forlvlills,Jylead altelllpts to ovcrcol1le this conceptllal tCllsiol1
between the 'J' ofa'liberal' individual and the 'mc' ofsociologised COllscicm:e
(Mills 1970b: 42, fll). Pur rather differcntly (anti sil11ply) , the self is puised
betwet!n all evolutionar)' notioJl ofthecre,ltive, open, but!lotClI-
'tiall)'conflictllal, individual and groupacriol1 anti an 'illstrumental rationality'
which attempts bothpraclical and progressive social ourcomes;
'Then: is nlimited l'csclIlblance here tothe il1SrrUlllcntalisl11 cspouscd by positivists,
w!lo have problems wi ththe statlls of 'thtoretical' cntities [hat C<l1l110t beSCCI1 ar
measurecl. Such COllccptS are secn as llseflll fictions which enablcllS to nchicve our
[lurpose and organize Ollrperceptiolls and knowledge. (l3enton and Cr"ih2001:86)
In Mead'sview, the individual has aseIfin rcl<Jtioll to the selvesofothergroup
members, rcflecting anel cxprcssing thcir broad outlook <1ncl behaviour. Even
so, he aIsorecognises th ,l tthe selfis norstaticarmerel y'singula r' butwe have
crealiveanel multipie seJves - according tosocialexperience andselti ng,:I dif-
ferent selE is apparent.
'I'and 'Me'
]al11Cs;sworkonthe seIfwas astartingpaimfor Me,ld's OWI'} c1iscussioll oftlte
'1' anel the 'Me'.ForMcad, the sdfhas twoidentifiable pansor phaseswith-
Ollt which theJe would L'e no 'novelty' in experience OI.' ' conscious l:<ltionality':
the 'I' is always sOlllelhing differenr fram what the itseJfcalls for.SOthere I,:
is dislinclion, if)'OU likc,between the T and the ' l11e '. The ' I' bnth \
out the me and rcsponds to It.Takcn togetber they constJtl1re npersonallt yas It
appears in socialexpericnce. (iv1ead 1967;178)
,
I
The selfis more than a mele organisation af social attitudes. The ' 1' respollds
10 the 'me' ofthe organised set of;tttitudes ofotheIs atthe salllc time the 'l11e'
'"
reflects the 'I'- in this way Mead seeks to show the dynamic l'elation between
the organic basis ofthe T ana the as in the 'me'.Thus, rhere isa recog-
jit,
nition of the'organc' 'side' of the self which is often underplayed by inter-
preters ' butis very much partofits dynamicorinternaiconversation.The ' f' is
'biologic', unpredictable, uncertain, creative and impulsivCi it exists and
..1'
respollds in the immediate 'speci ol!s present', 50 we <lrc onl y aware of ir in
'memory image' . Itis 'neveI' entirely calculable'j only aiter experience is the

. h
38 39
r
Micro Social Theory
I
.... I,
individual aware ofit SillCC its response i5 uncertain rather thail prcl11editated
(Mead 1967: 175-6):

Tlte '1' is a lll<llJi[estatioll of human natural necds; il, or lhe en.crgy behind ir, is
'deeplyembedded' in man'sIWlTlan biological natllre. That is why Mead caUs ir the

'biologic1' ... in astateoft,ensioo withsocial 'me.'... oneeminds and sclvesernerged,
the twOprocesses beca.mc interdepcndent. (ZcitJin 1973:228, 230).
, I
N[ead lIses the idea of 'impulse' rather lhan 'instinct' to aIJow for a 1110 11\
I
ynil ue'ncepfi-on self- shaping impulses andguiding
throughreflectionand towardsl:.f tl0l1E1 1, CO\lscous action,Tbus,hUl1lan beings
are not sifllply driven by instincts (e.g. for food, shelter, sex) - or merely
s.ocially formed according to the one-way attitudes of othecs. HUl11an action
involves social situations in whi ch individuaIs engagc in rdlectiol1j !le 'per-
ceives a definit e tension between individual, biological man anel civilization'
(Zeitlin 1973:23 0).Meadsays thar, the 'CQntellt ' afselfcan be collsidered as \
'sdfisb' (or the basis of 'seJfishness'), but its 'structure' is social. He adcls that 7
wben tl1ere is cOllflict due 1'0 different 'impulses' a resoluti OlJ is made by the
'[atinualside' of theself(JVlead 1967:230,[n).
J\rlead portrays the self as acting witll reference to others and imrneeliate
olJjects anel as relntegrating them in memoJ:)'. The activities ofotl1crs bring a
response in the individual, but there is also the other aspect of th.c 'me' - the
reflccLve sel f- thatis, evalLl<1ting anel conternplatingrespollses.
PIay and Game
' Rol e-ta!ng' is intimatclyinvo,lved in the formation of the self. Through play
the child can take on various roles, suchas parent, doctor or teacher, as expc..
riwcesin the creation oftheseU. Thechild interrelates withsignificantothers,
for instance,in the family; in ' playingar' there is the operationofan ima ina-
tive consciousness whichcan teJare for l erem lI1es o ,action. Meadargues
tlatagame di erscruciallyfrompIarin thatin the formcrthe'childl11ust havc
taken the attitude of other players engaged in the same activity. I-lere, he is
referring to the anitudes of the 'generaliscd other' of the Ol'ganised group,
wlchcontributes to theindividual's ' lInity' ofseJf. The 'team',anel its activit)'

as the generalised other, entersinto the experienceand thinkingof the variollS

members engagedin thesocialprocc.ss and inflllences orexercisescontrol over :
their behaviour. A result is th.e sharing of a C0I111110n set of social

'
throLlghorganisingtheattitudesofgroupllJemIJers into the pattemofattitudes
fi

.':.
of the generaIJsed other. ' I
Itis alsoonly by reflecti on andthinkingtllatavarietyofactionscan be con-
templatecl, future responses anticipated anel action taken. Tbr ough 'abstract'
thought the individual is abl e to take the attitude of the generalised other
I
\.-
Syml10lic Interacti onis111 1 - 0 1'igins
towanlshimarbel' self; whilstin 'collcrete thought' tistaken asexpresscd by
others towards him/hen;elf witll w.hol11 he ar she is involvecl in a particul "r
situatioll (Mead 1967:155-6).
Role
Role and
Society
For Nlead, there are similar situations and associated COlll1110n respoll ses,
which are COD1bideel toform thecommunityor institutions. FIe says ' the illSt-
tutions ofsociety are organizecl forms ofgrollp orsocial acti vt y- forllls 50
organizecl that the individual membel'S of society can aet acl equatel y dncl
socially by taking the <Jnitudes of others toward these activities' (Mead 1967:
261-2). 1.n the full clevelopmentofthe selfits;10tenoughfort11c illcl ivicl ual(O
40 lI-Jicro Social Theol"y
take the attiweies o others towards hil11/herself and to each other illto the indi-
vidual experience. The others' attitudes towards the organised society and dif-
fering social projects also l11ust be taken in. rt is through lhe operarion of the
generaliseJ other that the community contrais the behaviOlu' and tb.inking of
inclividualmembers of the cOl11l11unity (Meacll967: 155).
Mead's ideas on soci al structure are limited out he does describe twokinds
of ' socially fUllctional classes or subgroups' to which individuais belong. First,
there are 'concrete social classes or sllbgrollps' (e.g. political parties, clllbs, COI"-
poratiofls) wbich he regareis as 'functional social units' where individuais are
directly related to each other. Secondly, there are 'abstract social classes or sub-
groups' (e.g. debtors, Cf-editors) to which individuais are less clirectly connecteel
but which l11ay carry possibilities for 'enriching' social relations between ali the
members of the wbole, ullified society (Meael 1967: 157).
Case Study: Time
Mead's philosophical work has been relatively ignoredj it is his 'social
psycholagical'writings which have becn more apparent as within social psy-
chology anel sociology. J3ul his work, including his social psychologl', I would
arguc, C<ln only be flllly understooel by putting' it in this wider philosophical
contexto For example, a long neglecteel are a bas been Mead's work 011 time -
our concept.ions of lhe pasl, lhe preseat anel the fllt.ure. Recemly, lhcre has bcen
an increasing interest in time in sociologl' anel, in particular, Mead's work 011
the topic (see AJam 1990, 1995; Robcrts 2002: 82-4; Mead 1932, 1964:
328-41). Bis emphasis i5 ' t;!!1ct:.gent event': the past is not
recoverabre 'as it was', it is !lot a view of the past as recoverable, bLlt as a con-
tiuuolls construction through the present experience (see Adam 1990; Maines
et aI. 1983; Flaherty and Fine 2001). T hl1s, the past only influences as it is
rewritten anel seleted according to the prescnt, where the futl'lre is also coming
aboLlt. As Mead says: 'The assurances which we give to a remembcreei OCCl1r-
rence come from the structures with wlJi ch they accord' (Nleael 1929: 237).
Mead's theory of time conceived of the past llLHl the flltl1re as expansiolls out of the
prcsent, rather than the C0111111011 conceptiol1 of a seqllcl1ce pt'Oceeding fram the past,
to lhe presem, to the fnture. The reconstructiall af the past and the anticipatian
lhe fllture arise fram lhe same'1olilldation, the reality of lhe prescllt. The past, there-
fi-e, is not a fixed cOllditioll of a structured time' pcl'iad, bllt will \lar}' in accordance
wirh any particular prescnt. (Petras 1968: 12-13) .
I
In Meael's notion of time, even if we were able to collect ali the information
about a life or past evenl, lhe 'truth' would remain in the present. A later pres-
ent would remake it through its 'emergcnr nature' (Perras 1968: 13). As 'Aeiam
remarks, the 'reality' for Mead rests in the present: 'The present impliesa past
Symbolic 171teractiol1isl1! 1 - Origills 4J
and a futllre, but they are denied existence. Any reality that trallscelllls the
present, he argues, must exhibit itself in the prcsent' (Adalll, J990: :IH).
A ratllCr differenr, and gcnerally overlookcd, aspect of Mead's allalysis [)f thc
past is his insightful llnking of the changes in philosophical ieleas with lhe his-
tocal development of the self (see Martindale 1%1: 359). T-lis idcas (.Hl thc
seH carne at a time of increasing ps}'chological, alllhropologicaJ anel 'popular'
interest in the inncr workings of lhe individual personality. For Mead tllC self
was becoming more 'social' 01', to put it rather bctter, inc.reasingly abte tu talce
the role of the other and .1Ct towards lasting social bctterl1lcnt due to incre,lscd
social knowlcuge (see J\![;ncs ct aI. 11933). The clisCll.,sioll oI' time hils hecollle
3n ill1portant sub-arca in social lheory, with l\ilead's warle a key l-c(erwcc fOI'
an ul1cle.rstancling of how individuais pcrceive experiences of the past alld
presellt alld act accordillg to an anticipated future.
The Influencc of Mead's Work
Meacl's influence was reLltively lirniteel during his life to his students <lnd SOIIlC
colleaglles, suelI as John Dewey, at lhe Uni versity of Chicago. However, cllIe (o
the dominance of Chicago sociology anel the expansion of lhe disGiplinc thcsc
students sprcad Mead's conceplualisatioJ1 across the Unil:ecl States, thcl'eby
establishing his replltaton and influence. In 1894 i\ilead, at the age !)[ 3[, \V,I,
enlistecl to the of Phlosophy by Jol1n Dewcy; bllt 'sociolog;isls
were 500n learning socia l psychology [1"0111 hiln':
Mead's major ilTlpacl 011 sociologists ... began il1 the 1.920s whcl1 his adv;1ll ced
social psychology cOllrse uccame very E. Faris, ()f the
also taught social psychology, an amalgam of his o\'/n '1iews plus those or Dcwe)' "l1ll
},.:lead. Mead dicd in 1931, blll [-aris and I-lerbert BI11111Cr contillllecl the Mr:"d i:1il -
inspirecl tradition. (fisher and Strauss 1979: 459)
Blu1l1er, as Fisher anel Strauss point om, was also influenced by the Park-
Thomas tradiLon of sociology. Along with Everett Hughes, 131ul11eJ: p'lsscd
both the Meadian and Park-Thol11as Icgacy to an impressive range of sll.lclents.
These included Becker, Freidson, Klapp, Lincleslllith, Davis, GoffJnan, GlIsfielJ,
Rose, Stolle, Strauss alld Turner, who were to make major contributiolls to arcas
such as deviancy, race, urban studies, collective behaviour, occupati.olls and
.
social intcraction. They sprcad the interactionist legacy across the expallding
l1umber of departments of sociology in the Uniteel States, 50 much that it was ' 110
longer associated closel)' with Chicago itsclf' (Fisbcr anel Strauss 1979: 460).
A key to this p.roccss of c1isscl11ination was the \Vork of a number of slLlclcll ts,
such as Herbert Blumer, \Vllo useei i\lead's work to challenge cxistil1g fOl"lns of
abstract conceptualisatiol1 divorced Erom the Jives of individuais ancl lhe pre-
dominance of quantitative methods and behaviollr istlc accoullts of inuiviJu,d
4.1 42 Micro Social Theor)'

actiOI1. As Joas states, the 'rich sociological rescarch traelition' set bl' Blumer
anel otbers instcad 'emphasized the openness of social structures, the creativity
of social actors anel the nceel for interpretation of the data of social science'
(Joas 2003 : 96). While onll' palt of Mead's worle, at least untilll10re recently,
was L1sed in sociological tlIeQ{y, toda)' his ideas have been consiclerecl bl"C011-
fliet sociologists, feminist phcnomenolggists anel otbers, indicat-
ing thar he has gained a 'classic' status as a rderence paira for sociologisls of
many viewpoints (see ]oas 2003: 96-7). In a wieer context, given the inclllsion
of s)'mbolic interactionisl11 within interacrionisl11, anel the latter's petvasivc
presence, some llave cOllsidercd whether we are 'ali interactiollists now' in
sociology (Atkinsoll anel HOllsley 2003: 144-75). Such a view, obviousll', necds
to be considered with some caution accQrding to the depth of iofluence in the-
orisation and research practice. Ao immediate problem with ielentifying the
influence of Meaa in work is the actual Oleaning of
syrnbolic intcractionislIl. A symbolie interactionist approach to its own devel-
opmellt, as Plull1rner points out, would highlight its challging meaning, shift-
illg descriptions of tts origins, the debates about its development, anel so on
Plul11mer "1991 a, 1991 b) . Therc is also the issue of 'reacling' Mead since
much debate has also Oourished on the 'authenticity' of the accounts anel
developOlellt Clf his ideas by his interprcters slIeh as BlwlJer.
Another question is whether M.ead is the of 'symbolic intcraction-
iSlll' or more wideli 'interactionism', since there is the increasing reeognition
of the broader 'legacy' of praglllatislll - as an influence on both Meael anel later
writers. 50, for some, the work of Peircc, ]ames and Dewey anel others has to
be ta!cen into account. \Vithin 'interactionism' lhere is rhe additional legacy of
the Chicagoan sociology of 1'homas and Zoaniecki, Park aoel others - along-
siele anrhropological theorl' anel fieldwt'k methods (through Thomas), and
Simmel's 'formalism' (rhrough Park). A range of subsequetlt approaches
illcluding phenomenology, ethnomethoelology (and conversational analysis),
feminist rhougbt and varicties of cultural stuclics and postmodern ideas could
also be adeleel ro the diverse 'tradition' of interactionisl11 (see Plull1mer 1991b;
Dcmin 1992, 2001; Meltzer ct aI. 1975; Atkinson and Housley 2003).
Plurnmer, in atrempting to finei a cOlTImon thread in 'interactionism', eonclllded
tbat there is a certa in odd unit)' in its impatiellce with traelitional philosophical
polarities, fOF instance betwecn frecdom and constraint, or holding a scientific
approach while leaning towarels refonnism. Jnteractionisl1l, lnoaelly in origin,
was not bascd 50 much 011 an attempt to pursue abstract isslles but rarher on
a practical, contextual, 'progressive' approach to acting 'lived' expcrience
(see Plummer 1991a: xiv).
Returning to 'symbolic interactiollism', we can say that it is at base 'an
interpretatlve approach' whch has an undedying 'noton of instrumental
rationality' shaping rcseareh practice anel the view of the individual and socal
intervention or reform derived generally fIom the versions of pragmarism
fouud in Peirce, ]ames and Dewcy. While sllbsequcnt syrnboLic interact \onism
,
Symbu/ic Interactionism 1 - OTigins
has developed from these bases, it has "Iso changed in emphasis (for eX<llllple,
losing its irnrneeliare connection or debate \Virh evolutionary t1lUughr). [',ul ill
assessing its core assllll1ptions and decper ioflllcllce, these fOlllldaLons in prag-
l11atisrn and evolutionary tbought slwulcl bc maele visible. Ir is "Iso illlportanl
in assessing the influcnce of syrnbolic interactionislll to provide an histo rical
context. Por Meltzer et ai., writing in the 19705, its role in the forlllation ,1!Id
development o[ the idea of rhe 'group' and ir.> Cjuestioning of the 11Otioll llf
instncts as rnotivating behaviour in the discipline had largely bcen forgotten
(Meltzer et a!. 1975: 52). Rather, the foeus hael becn Oll rhe testing of the (011-
cepts af ,[hey adeled that a 'resurgcllcc of interest' ill lhe
theory had rakell plaee due to a rise in interest in 'sclf-psycholugy' anel 'iden-
tity', the rceent developmenr af role theory, anel the use of 'referellcc group' in
empirical research. But thel' argued that tlle revival ITIight be nIlJl -e dosely
a ttribntable to the devdorl11ellt of 'ethnomerhoelology anel dralllatLlI-gcal soci-
ology' (Meltzer et aI. 1975: 52). However, today - after " periocl whcn S)'Ill-
bolic interactionisrn seelllcc1 (at least for some) to be in decline - there appe<lI'S
to bc some rcvival in its tlleorisatiol1 and interests (sce Chapter 4),
Critique
There are a number of C0H11l1011 eriticislllS Df Meacl's 'social psyellOlogy ' . First,
lhe rather cliffereot emph,lses anel ioterpretatiolls of his work appea r to be Jue
to some diffielllty in understanding the meaning af his ideas, attrihutabk to a
lack of clarity in the elefinitions of key terms - and the rather piecellleal statc-
ments of his ideas. Secondly, because of the rather instrumelltal or cognitive
view of the illdividual :lnJ action thefe are certain imporrant gaps ill his tlis-.
cllssions . For example, as Me1t1.er et aI. point out there is ir1SLI (fici cnt ,l trelllioll
to the 'emorional anel uncollsciollS elelllellts in hUlllan COlleluct' (t1'1cltzcr cr I':"
J975: 84)'. Part of the clifJiculty in appraising lvleaJ an J liiSTe'gacy, of course,
is that his ideas \Vere !lot presenteei in a systematic way anti posthulI1oLlsl)' llUh-
lished from llotes. Also, the problems in 'rcacling' tvleacl 8re cOlllpollndcd by
the !leeel for extendecl Cll1pirical examples - anel some methodological sl<lte-
ments. Even though symholic interactionislD has led to a Illassivc "l11lJl Ullt of
research, in Meacl's OWIl writings there are 'no clei'r-cut prescriplions llf cithcr
general proccclures or specific techniques for enllancillg its reseal'chahility'
(Meltzer et aI. 1975: 84). A more general question has also been asked of
'symbolic interactionisrn' concerning whether it is a 'theory' with testable
perhaps a 'perspecti::!:-- a wa)' of lookng at the.
world according to ce.rrain icleas or aSSllmytioos. Yet, it can be said that, in
'rooting thought in COI1l111LlOicative interactoll and locating the self as an Cl11er-
I
gent in ongoing transactiolls between the person an.d the COmmlll1 ity, !vlead
I
prepared the ground for investigatiolls of the eoncre te sociological lil1ks
I, bctween social anel thought processes' (Coser 1977: 311) .
44
45
Micro Social Theol'J'
;..:-;
Conclusion
\X/hile thcre are difficulties in pinning dG\vn tbe exac!" or consistent meaning of
rnany of the central ideas in Mead's work, his contribution to micro social
theory has been very substantial. He was able to include lhe subjcctive under.:
standings of individuais action anel in
interconnect the individual anel society. For Joas, 'Mead's grasp of the unity of
inelivicluation anl sociali ition defines bis place in the history of
(Joas 2003: 96). In pan, his contributiol1 was an histo.rjcal one - of its time in
changing the assllrnptions of social theory - but bis micro social theorisation is
still rekvant and referred to since he was iuquiring into central issues within
social psychology and sociology. He provded a view of the indivdual self
within its SOCi,ll settng -- including time anel space, elements that have been
generally neglected (unl recently). As Mc1tzer et a!. state:
The prill1ary fU[Jction of Mead's philosophy was to providc a conlext within which
lhe nature of self was boLnded by time, as well as by space. Tlle role of the future,
iJl adclition to the past, W<lS recognized as <til il1lportaJlt variabJe in th.c l1lotivation Qf
behavior. With this idea, Mead added to the pragl1latic notioll thar motivationaJ cle-
mcnts are dependcnt upon societal as well as individual variables. The presence in
[WO systcms made men and womcn both detennincd and determincrs. (Meltzer et aI.
1975: 4:1-2)
Ir has been llnfortunate tbat the main tocus of attention onMead has been 011
the self anel its clevelopment within the micro situation, withollt consiclering
sufficiently its wider societal anel sociohistorical context and placing it within
his broacler social philosophy. Tbus, in Mead's dscussion, the seI f is not merel)!
'located' in the immec1iale micro social interacton; wltat has been rnllch less
observecl is how the conception 'reaches out' to other, macro societal anel his-
torical contexts. The sill1ple c1epicton of Mead's iclea of lhe self as a 'social
construction' has masked the (act that it can be llllclerstood ar the micro anel as
rela,ed to macIO leveIs.
Further Reading
Tbe iTlost cornmonly cired of Mead's books ill sociology are: OI! Social
Psychology (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964) andlvfilrd, anel
Sociel").' (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1967). Increasing attention is
1l0W paid to his olher, but l11uch less available, more philospphical
books: The Philosophy of lhe Present (La Sa!le, IL, Open Court, ;1932);
iVloveJ1le1tts o( Thollght in lhe Ninetee71th Century (Chicago, Unlversity of
Chicago Press, 1936) ; and The PhilosophJI of the Act (Chicago, Universiry
of Chicago Press, 1938). See also H. Joas, G. H. Mead: A COlltem/Jorary
Symbo{ic Interactionism 1 - Origi ns
Re-exal/lination oI His Thollght (Cambridge, Polit)', 1985); G. H. tvIcacl,
Essays in Social PSJ'cho/ogy, eel. M. l. Deegan (LondoD, Transactioll Book5 ,
2001) anel H. Blumer, George Herbert Alead and HUI11C11l Condllct, eel. anei
ntro. T. J. Morrione and T. Nlorrione (Walnut Crcele, CA, AltaMira, 20(3).
K. Plulluncr (ed.), SYll1bolic Il1teraclionism (2 vols., Londe1l1, Edwanl Elgar,
1991) provides key anicles \Vith excellent inlroductiolls to lhe fOLtrlclation aml
devr.lopmcnt or lhe approach. A further overview is pwvided by P. !tock, T/'e
Making of Symbolic Interactionis1I1 (l3asngstoke, Macmillan, (9 79).
47

Symbolic Il1teractionism 2
Developtnents
lntroduction
This chaptcr examines lhe :deve!opment alld diversity of symbolic intcr3ctionislll
with particular reference to the work of Herbert I31umer, its contributions in
cerlaill substanlive arcas, and methocls and methodological issues. In addition,
it notes lhe critiques of symbolic interactionism, and interactionism more
broadly, and the various recent developmcnts and reassessments of its origins.
Symbulic interactionism, while initially (particularly through I3111l11er's work)
very much grouneleel in the concepts of G. H. Mt!ad, has witnessed a series of
influences both from olher theoretical deve!opments in micro social theory as
well as a 'rediscovery' of the wider tradition of pragmatismo The criticisms of
symbolic intcractionisl11 have also hael al1 influence on its recent e1evelopment-
as it has turneel to discuss a number of overlookeel arcas and theoretical anel
metlJocloJogical difficulties. Its contribution to micro social lheorisation has
been very extensive, in particular on the c!iscussion of conlexts - the
meaniugs given to social situations, the 'settings' of social interaction (for
instance, deviancy anel social organisations), and the exploral"ion of the natllre
of social interaction itself.
The Development of Symbolic Interactionism
The issue of terminology again needs to be emphasised. To resta te (from
Chapter 3), 'illtcl:actionism' can bc consielered to be a wider bocly of theory
than "symbolic interactionism', inclucling some but HOt ali of the theory and
methocls unelertakcn during the 1920s and 19305 by Chicago sociplogists
(Atkinson and Housley 2003: 2). Thus, interactionislT1, following fisher anel
Strauss (1979), has within it parallel but related traditions clerivcd fro;I1 some
Chicago sociology and fram the 'symbolic intcJ:actionism' of G. H. Mead (anel
his Herbert B1umer). There lIas also been considerabJe debate
regarding whether thece is a unifying pragmatist inhcritance within anel
Symbolc 11lteractiollism 2 - Deve!oprnents
between these strands, centreel 011 the differences between J'vleacl, Dewey <1ml
other pragmatists anel the eliHerences between Park, Thom<1s and Mead, and SlJ
on. For instance, AtkinsOJl anel HOllsley (2003) argue that in lhe devc lo pmcnt
of Chicago sociology, it was Georg Simmel (rather than Meacl) who was p<lr-
ticularly important. In this view, it was not until after the Second \XIorld WaJ",
witll the emergence of a 'new' Chicago Scbool and the setting out of va rictics
of interaction, aCter BllIll1er'S writings, that tvlead beca me particuJarly
imponant within sociological study. In fact, Blull1er was influenced by both
Ivleaelian social psychology and Thomas anel Park's version of interactiollislI1
(Atkinson and HOllsley 2U03: 8). Thus, it seems, tbere are al1lple grollncls for
t confusioll over the term 'illteractionism'. As noted by Atkinson anel HOl.Isley, it
, lIas been seen more sprcifically as 'symboJic interactionisl11' inclueling a
Ilumber of key figures (e.g. Mead, Cooley and I31ul11er). It has been applied to
the micro sociological stlldy of social interacrion anel social eIJCOlll1ter<;, slIch as
I face-to-face interaction (Goffman). Finally, it lIas also been lIsed to describe
inclllele the tradition fl"Ol11 Chicago sociology which investigates urban lifc,
eleviancy anel deviant care('rs, and etllllographic stllely of \Vork and
(Becker and Hllghes) (Atkinson anel HOLlsley 2003: 37).
Herc we will talce a 'sim pie' pad1, as before, anel see two relatecl traclit iul1s -
symbolic interactionisl11 anel Chicago sociology - as cOl1stitutillg 'intcractiol1-
isrn', while noting the br()ader influence of IHagmatism anel the cOllllectiullS
with a range of other (oftm more recent) d1eoretical developOlents. Of cOllfse,
within tbese two 'traditions' it can be argueel that some writers are more
important than others, for example, perhaps regarding Becker and H ughes as
more infllle11lial today tban Park and 1'homa5. Otbers ma)' 'reinvent' lhe tl'a-
elitions lJy retllrning to their origins, for exalllple, a later focus in symbol ic
interactionism has been towards pragmatist writers such as \XIilliam Jal11es and
Charles Peirce. In part, as new theoretical anel substantive interew; emerge, 50
the work of the 'founders' is being re-examined and reappraised" This review
of fOlllJeling pragmatist writings has inclllded the work of tvIeacl,
his more philosophicaJ writings and slIbjects slIch as ' lime' (see Chaptcr 3;.
Herbert Blumer's Symbolic Interactionsm
'Symbolic interactionism' was a term coined by Herbert Bllllller (J 900-37) in
1937 (BllImer 1969: 1) . It was Blumer who \vas also mainly respollRible for
l11aking lvIead's ideas more available through his guieles to a 1l1l111ber of key
ideas in several anicles (see l3lumer 1966, 1969). BllImcr was a PhD stuelent at
Chicago anel, therdare, well acquainted with its stllely of urban liCe anel cul-
tural grollps. After some years Qf teaching t!lere hc 11l0ved to the Uni\!crs it y of
California in the early 1950s. mUll1er is a key b.ridge between Clt icago<1n s()ci-
ologicalurban stucl)' anel the social psychology of Mead. While 110t a pal"ticll-
larl)' prolific all chol' anel researcher, he dicl engage in tnuch empirical stud), al1t1
.. \ 1
48 J'vlicro Social Theol')/
..1
l11acle very importanttheoretical andmethodologicalcontributions,otherman
his workonMead,particularly011 rhe natureofcOl1ceptualisation andthecri-
tique oftraditional methodology. .
Blumer's work, as Mead's, can be placed in the pragmatist traelition of
Dewey, Jal es and others. For Blumer, 's to
particular ld distinctive_ eatures of between
human bei s. In mdUalsdonotreactaccordin to asim lestimulusbut ro-
VOlte an reconsl ef mealllng to o jecrs in tlleir social situation. A considera-
riono sym o ic interactionthus Il1VO ves le no IOn atIIldvIduals'kction i5
COl1struc andnota mere'release, thatindivTcIuals have selves alld can rfer
to themselvs,and thatgroup action is an outcomeofthe bringing together of
mclividuals' interpretatiol1s ofeachotheranel rhe graup. Blumer is a key figure
in dlC 'pragrnatictum'whichaclvocateel methoels focllsed on locatinganalysisin
everyclay experience of situalions (Plul11rner 1998: 89). Here, he wasfollowing
pragmatism's distaste for abstract theorisation and sterile 'dualistic' philo-
sophical.distinctions (e.g. subjet/object) and aelvocating a more practical
approach to the stLlely of grounded evenrs and experience. He arglled that
syl11bolic interacrionism formed lhe basis of a philosophy with a 'strong
humanislic cast' which was particularly appropriate for the understanding of
social experience through its central focus 011 rhe 'self' as itarises ill takingthe
roles of others (Blumer 1969: 21,fn).
Blllmer's article, 'What Is Wrong with Social Theory?' (1954),
obse!"ved thattraditionalsocialtheorywas divOl:ced from the empirical \Vorlel
(see Blumer1969).Itcoml11only developecl by referri;;g to "tSelTifby aneasy
borrowing of theorisation from other [ields. Ir related to the wodel by inter-
preting tr in its ownimage, Po..:.. Blllmer, theor)'i5 c1early
eqllate in guiding resem h anel does ilOt appear to benefit much from the
Illassive collection of 'facts' that arise fram el11pirical work, Faceel with these
problems, he says there are two possibilities. First, 'to dvclop precise and
fixed procedures thatwill yield astableaneldefinitive empirical content'.The
inrention'is to returnto thenaturalsocial worldwithc1efinitiveconceptsbaseei
011 precisel)' specified proceelures', and seconelly, to accept 'om concepts as
beingintril1sicallysensitizinganel !lotelefinitive' (Illumer1954:9).Ir i5 thissec-
onel response which is eloser to Blul11,er's OWI1 approach, since it 'seeks to
il11prove concepts by naturalistic research, rhat is by direcr study of oue natu-
raJ social wor/d, whereinempiricalinstances areaccepred in tbeir concreteand
distinctive form'. Rather 'guick staJ..ements o::. tecbnical instru-
t9 'clel2ends gl.!.jaithful..!el20rtoril
depiction ofthe instances and onanalytical probinginto their charaGter'.The
- ---:-r:--
success of the approach relies 'on natient, careful anel imaginative life stuely'
..J:..: .-..- _ I ""
anel has the 'virtueofremaining in elose anel continuingrelations\-virh rhe11at-
malsocial world' (Blumer 1954: 9-10).
Tbe core assumptions and methods oLguantirative research, such as the
survey, and dominant eypes of theorisation foul1d within s0cio!ogy--::--we.;e
Symbolic Interactionism 2 - Deve/ofJl1lellts 49
l
challenged by Blllmer, Such proceelll[es and conceptualisatioJl drew cOl1cepts
8wayfrompracricalCOl1lexts anel the meaninggiven by individuaIs to their set-
tiug, He clllls advocat ed rhat empirical study shonld begin witll the actiolls of
social groupsrather tllan a conceptiol1 ofindividuais as merely conforming to
therestraiIltofstructureSj in his view, individuais take partin inreractiol1 with
others according to cOJltinlling experiel1ce (Rlumer "969: 6), BllImer W8S
criticaI of rhe adherence to a certain: model of science - that ti I'a WIl frol11 tlle
natural sciences. In 'Sociological Analysis anel the "Variable'" (1956) he
argues that the effort 11ad beco towards the construction ofI<lW5 and rhe
ingofhypotheses(see BIlImer 1969).He argued that'variable<1nalysis', despite
its intent, does notlocate precise, fixed vartables which cover varyillgcircll lll-
stances. Its claims to be able to 'quantiIy' particular variables or 'llleaSlIre'
relationships can ar best be limitecl and more often lllisgllicled, sincc they are
baseei 011 a false notiol1 ofhowphellomenaare relared.
Blumer'swork, it coulel be has b.een..n1.Qle inEluential in sociology than \
itseemsbecausesomeof ls-;;:itical points have I l-Ie COIl1-
bined 1vleaclian cOllcepts. a broader pragl11aric approach to rcsear:ch, and the
, I emphasis work-:- a is c\earin Fisher<llld \ '
i
Strausss (1979) descnptlon of IlIreractJOnlSIll, Onc cntIcr.SIIl h:1s hcen tk1t hc
cOl1cenrrated more 011 the problems ofmethodology flnd theorisatioll than 011
actual rcsearch- he was devoted more to the intr:icate discussioll oftheIWtlrn: ()f
socialinteraction.However, it must bestateel thathe eI id undertake<1 broad range
ofresearchworkyet resistedasystemisationofbisapproacll R7).
'Blumer was respol1sible, as previollsly statecl, for turthering Ivlead's work in
some important articles, For example, in the well -knowl1 'Sociologiccll
Ill1plications of ofGeorge Herberrtvlead' (J966) he argLlcstltat ill
\ i contrastto110n-symbolic interactiOl1 ofanimais:
,
1
Mead's cOllcern was predominantly wirh symbolic illter<lctiol1. SYl11bolic inte(,H;t ioll
involves i/llerprelali07l, (Ir ascertainiog the meallingof the actions or: relmrks Df rhe
orherperson, and defini/ioll, orconveying indicatiom to allotberas tu how he is to
act ...Through this process the participants fit rheir own <lets to the ollgoing acts o[
I
one auotherand guide others in doingso. (Blul11er 1.969: 66)

I i
Blumer and Mead
It is ne.ceSS:H}' to place Blul11e[ in someilltellectualcolltext- fi[s r, a., 8 studcllt
l
" 1
,:
and interpreter of Mead anel also, seconelly, in terms of the relatiol1, witil his
." .
collcagnesandinfluenceonhis ownstudents,Blumer,anel hiscolleague Everett
"':1' :: Hughes, taught ahighly lalented group ofgraduarestudents duriJlg the 1940s
"
l
and early 1950s,inclueling Becker, Goffman, Strauss and TlIrllcr, 'Nilu were lO
make substantial cOlltriburions to symbolic interactionism al1d wicler inrerac-
tionis111, They disseminated t!te work of Park anel Mead and have becall le
i knowll as 'rheS,econd CbicagoSchool' (Sandstrom cr aI. 2003: 217-18).
":1'(
. r
.50 lvl/ero Social Theory Symbolic 11lteractionism 2 - Deuelo[J1I'zents 5 I.
,d' i
Blumer says that 'symbolie interaetion' rders to the 'peculiar anel distinetive (e.g. a party, a marriage ceremony, a debate ar shopping expeclition) consti-
character of interaction as it takes plaee': tutes the relationships which make the larger society. IndividuaIs anticipate the
joint actions they are about to take part in to shape rheir future aetiom witb
hllman interacti on is ruediated by the use af symlwls, by jnterpretatiol1. OC by ascer- otheIs in particular sitllatjons. Thcy may even decide not to go abead, OI' the
tain ing lhe meaning of one another's acrions. This mediation is equivalem to insert- situatioll may be new in that previolls meaning-s may not be a goocl gllide -
ing a process of interpretatiolJ between stimulus anel response in lhe case of hllman leaeling to additional intcrpretive anel coml1111nicative work to allow For
behavior. (BJllrner 1969: 79)
dle alignment between indivieluals.
In arguing that sociological concepts should be 'sensitising', nlurner was
He OLltlines three important aspecrs of sYll1bolic interacton. First: 'it is a form- saying that they should [ocus OrI the intricaeies of social interaction tlllln
ative proccss in its own right'; ir is not simply a 'neutral' arena in which wider attempting to use the technical coneepts of the traditional sciences. Thus, (1)i1-
social [aetars operare bul should be studied in itself. Secondly, the rcliance on cem shoulcl be with the stndy of the givcn social situation rathel' than lhe
s)'mbolic interactiOl1 makes human grollp life a developing process instead of a . imposition af abstraet theorising or the seeking of the rigidities of law -like reg-
mere issue OI' product of psychological or social slructure. Thirdly, Blumer i ularities, 'Stil1l111 us -response' varia bles and pr-e-givell pLOced lixes. Dlmner's
arglles that throllgh a concentration 011 symbolic interaction ir is possible to Iintention was to enable an openness of approach to gain clea r kl10wledge of
sllldy lhe whole range of hllman relationships, sllch as conflict, competition, Of social contexts rather than clepending 011 set techuiqlles anel proceclurcs. He
even a laek of regard for each other (Blumer 1969: 67). lays down variol1s principks to inform practiee ratlJer than a detailed I11cthod-
ological programme. For Blumer the search for regularities in the rclatiol1s
Blumcr sUI11111ajjses his as [olIows:
; between variables depeneis 011 a limiteel notion that alIe variable <Jlters the ll cxt.
: A 'stimulus-response' model af bebaviollr dDes not adequately aCcollllt f OI'
the first pl'emisc is th<1t hUlllan beings act toward things 00 the basis of the meanings
11Llman action in the social situation since indi viduais have interprctivc
lh30t lhe things havc for them .. . rhe seconel premise is that the rnenning of
ullderstandings, ereativity ill defining and shapillg their actiolls, alle! self-
things is deriveel from, ar alises out of, the social interaction that one has \Vitil
col1sciousness. The central aspect of Blulller's work is the indivi dual as
Onc'S fdlows. The third premise is that these 1l1canings are handled in, anel modjfjed
thlOugh, 3011 interpretive process l1sed by the person in dealing wirh the things bc active, creative being alld sQciety as encom assin lhe inter lretatiO Il S (I r ac tin)
el1counters. (Blumer 1969: 2) illdlvidll als. In his view, an)' met 10 ological appro<lclt lll11st inclucle the
sis 01 meaniilgful action and avoid any attempt to eleve/OI) ,tbstract thcmctical
structures 01' sophisticated mt'thodo logical procedllres divorced frlJl11 actllal
social situations (PlulTImcr 1998: 84-5).
Illumer, in olltlining cowemporaq' approacLtes to social psyehology (l;)37).
identified one view as emphasisirrg the active, plastic nature of the child anel
the 'importance of the 1I1lfOfmed impulse' (Blumer 1937; see Bl\llller 1 %9: 1l.
He says it is largely the vicw of a group of social ps)'chologists WllO could lw
tennecl 'symbolic interactionists' due to the importance thej' gave to COlllllJ0 11
symbols, eOrnmon understandings anel definition of tJJe situatiolls in th e grOllp
af individuais and t.he process of interaction. Here W,1S the illsertiu/l lJf
'meanillg' or intcrpretation inta social interactioll rathec thall a lll ocld that S<lW
a stimlllus as simply pfodllcing a concomitant respollse.
1
Critique af Bll1mer
i ,I:;" . "
Blllmer aclvoeated a 'naturalistic' app.oach to enab/e the stlld)< of illdividll<ll
action anel meanings attributed to rhe social si. tuation. T hl1s, actiull
within the gwup lVas to be unclerstood directly and 'sensitizing col1 ce prs' were
essential to cltis endeavour (BlLlmer 1969: 147). Tbe attracti oll of lvf ea cl was
52 MiGro Social Theory

his foeus on the interconnection betwecn individual and group which part
of a pragmatic attel11pt to ovcrcome the dualism between Sllbject and object.
Ilut Blllmer's rcading of Meacl is considercd by some critics to be oriented toa
far towards the individual creation of subjective meanings dissociated from
practiccs witbin structure (May 1996: 81).
While J3lumer points out that Mcad did not provide the methodological
detail of his approach, a similar poim could bc made against his own .form of
stlldy. In seeking to avoid 'reification' of human interaction it could be:said (at
lcast in his more theoreticaIsymbolic interactionist writings) that he 'flattens
out both "society" and the "individual" , (Zeitlin 1973: 216). The result, for
Zeitlin, is that Bll1mer's noti.on of societ loses 'stJJ!1Ure':"siuce jts COmp911ents
ha ve to De Immediate y and empirically observable as actl.Li; hence how, for
instante, (an socwTclasscs be said to exist if we cannot observe thcm acting?
Similarly, he appears to exc!ude motives and drives so he can retain al1 ldea or
a 's.df' referring to itself -- the result seems to be, ironically, an opening for a
'crude positivism or empiricisrn' iil which concepts cannot be utilised withol1t
a 'direct empirical referent' (Zeitlin 1973: 216-17). While Blumer did under-
take the stucly of a range of organisations and other work, his approach has
bee n criticisecl for its relative inattention to structure. However, one defcl1ce is
thar it 'neithcr ignores flor minimises the importance of wider social [orces,
power, history or the economic' - rather he is against 'granel theory in the
abstract' (PlulllJ11er 1998: 88). In Blumer's view the 'empirical worlel must for-
ever be the central point of concern' as 'the point of cleparture and the point of
return in the case of empirical science' (Elumer 1969: 22) .
finally, there has bcen a great eleal of debate on the degree of convergence
between Meael's ideas and Blumer's interpretation. One view is that Mcacl is a
real.ist' - that social reality can be studied as not simply a construction of the
minei, wbile BlUlTIer is nominalist - emphasising interpretation anel coml1111ni-
cati.on (Nlay 1996: 75). This debate centr.es OH how far Blulller has interpreted
Mead in a particular manner and a wicler eliscllssion of whether there are two
strands of pragmatism (see Lewis anel Smith J980; Denzin 1984). For instance,
Zeitlin argues that while langl1age is essential, !ater interplcetati.ons took one-
sided, non-dialectical view of Mead 'treating social anel socializa-
tion as if t:hese processes were Jlotbing more than symbolic communicatioll.
Society is dissolved into cliscourse' (Zeitlin 1973: 218).
Although Blumer wrote relatively litrle across his long career, he did publish
several seminal articles anel was inflllential through his teaching - a legacy
which beca me more 'formaliseel' as symbolic interactionism was developecl by
rhe founcling of associations, journals and textbooks in the area. says
that IHumer influenced a 'great many stuJics' 'frOI11 illness and cJying to
occupatiuns and classroom interaction; Erom social movements and collective
behaviour to the patter ning anel organisation of social problems; frorn crime
anel deviance to labour and industrial relations; frOl11 media studies to life his-
tory research; fr01l1 self theory to race relatiol1s' (P,tuOlmer 1998: 93). Blumer's
Symbolic Interacti01sl11 2 - Deve/opments .13.
general objective was to retain closeness to the subject of study; rather than be
impedcd by technical procedures, he was intcnt to elaborate va rious principIes
that should inform research and theorisatioll.
1
Varieties of Symbolc Interactiollism
A number of 'varieties' of symbolic interactionism !lave been identified whch
to some extent rdlecr differences surrol1l1ding the initial anel cOlltilluing
inilucnces and the broadcning of the body of tbeory anel research. A starting
point for some writers are the writings of James, Dewey, CooLey anel Mead,
with perhaps the addition of the pre-war work of Royce anel Balt!win
(see Denzin 1992). According to others, considering 'interactiollislll' gencrally,
lhe influence of Simmel's formalism sholJid be added, alongside the pragmatist
emphasis on n1eaning within groundecl activity (as opposee! to philosophical
abstraction), as in Robcrt Park's sociology. Simmel and Park shareel an
'emphasis 011 the elialectical union betwecn the observer, the process of' obser
vation and the phenomena observed' . Tbey also sharcd a 'fonnalisrn' with the
notion o( 'social forms' eltabling individllals anel groups to give a patterning to
social life; the identifica rion of such forms (e .g. 'conflict', 'colllpetition' i lJ
Park) 'permitted a leve! of abstraction and generalizati on which transccnt!cd
the particularities of anchorecl experience' (Rock 1991: 234). )'ct wide,.
SOllfces of influcllce on interactionism can be discernecl . For ex,'lllpl e, Plull1ll\cr
adcls that there 'is also a lllctatheorelical fo unclalion less cleady <1tl icnlated in
which hU1l1anism, IOmanlicism and a mild libertarianisl11 play important roles'
(Plul11mer 1991a: xv) .
Obviously, interactioni 'ilTI (and symbolic interactionisll1) have changed over
time anel incll.lde a wide range of individuais anel ideas. 'I-lisloricaIly' , ((lll!-
meBrators have descl"ibed a 'second generation' of interactionists folluwing
Park, Mcad and TllOmas, incll1ding J-Ierbert Blulllcl" and Everett Hllghes, with
a 'third' including HO\\ard Becker, Erving Goffm:l11, Barne)' Glaser, allel
Anselm 5trauss anel Barney Glaser, witil funher 'modification' by Denzill ,
Lofland, Lyman and otbers (May 1996: 68). AnotlJer variation was lhe clevel-
opment of the so-called 'Jowa 5chool', which attempted to show t!lar lhe cell-
trai notions of symbolic interactionism coulel be operationalised, <l pplied anel
verified within emprical rescarch rather than pllrsuiug ahstract philosophical
issues, for cxam[Yle, surrounding the nature of social beings.
Qualitative Research and 'Interactionism'
Bll1mer's three 'prcmises' provided a starting paim for sYl\lbulic intel"actiolli sm
anel for wider inleractiollisl11, but perhaps, as Sanelsu om et ai . (20lJ] ) point
out, there are other asslImptions which infonn its phil osophical Das is. Despire
I
5.1
[
Micro Social Theory 54
..! I
variationsanddebatesOll originsanddevelopments, they say, perhaps itis still
/POSSible to eluciclate some 'guicling premises' ofsymbolic interactionism: for
i nstance, human beings as 'unique' due to their use of 'symbols'; individuais
are'hull1anthroughthel rInteract ion' ;we are'consciousandself-reflexi ' nd
'purposlvc'inform1l1g om behavlOUfandactingWlt 111 social contexts;society
\
is composecl of symbolic interactions between individuais; and, finally, as
investigators, to understanel individuais' actions 'we need to use methods that
enableus lO discern themeaningstheyattributetol:hese acts' (Sandstrometat.
2003: 218-19). Sandstrom et aI. rightly point to major areas of growth in
'interactionists'work,sllch as the 'seifandidentity theorYi emotioJ1s and cmo-
Llon work; social coordination; social cOllstructionisl11; culwre and art, and
macro-analysis' (Sandstrom et at. 2003: 219). But, it seems here, again, we
have moved betwecn'symbolic inter;ctionism'anel 'interactionism'.
Thepragmatistinfiuence ofDewey andMeadalso broughtan antipathy to
the idea of'thepassiveobserver' in relation to kllowledge and to the'mislead-
illgseparation bctweenmind anel body, subjectanel object' (Rock 1991: 229).
Thepragmatists also drewon evolutionary theory to give whatthey regarded
as 'afirmer, less mctaphysical andmorescienrifictheoryofkllowledgc' as 'tbe
Olltcomeofaprocessofpurposivequestioningwhichcanrenderfeaturesaflhe
envolll11ent problematic, interrogate them, learn, anel return to the ellviron-
mentwith newquestions' (Rock 1991:229). Pragmatisl11:
gave apersistentstress to the dialectical and situatedcharacterofknowleelge ... It is
a person's illterests and ql1est for meaning that srabilize situations and give them
shape. COllverscly, situations will give order and clir:ection to interests: motives
and lIJlderstanelings f10w from the practical and symbolic organization of an
ellvicolll11Cnt. (Rock, 1991: 230)
In the wider traelition of 'interactionisrn', in which symbolic interactionism
anel Chicagoansociologyare related, anumberofl11ethods, suchas theJife bis-
tOI)' anel participant observation or ethnography, anel variely ofapproaches,
uneler the heading affieldwork, hal'e been piolleered (see Denzin and Lincoln
2000).Muchofinteractionistresearchhas focuseel 011 deviance, theworkplace
anel scbools and, more theoretically, 011 the self, self-identity and social inter-
action. But it has developed beyond its oginalareas; for some, 'ithas became
theharbingerofpost1l1odernsocialtheory'whilealsomakingacontributionto
'feminism', 'garac[ivist theory' and the 'politics ofrace' (Plull1l11er 1998: 95).
Insummary, Fisher anel Straussgive a [ist ofthe ' conccpts and ideas associ-
ated witil lhe tradition': '
Thomas's 'dcfillitioll ofthe situation,' 'rhe four wishes,' and the socialorganizatioll-
social disor.ganization scheme; Park's 'race-relaliolls Cl'c1e,' 'the marginal man,'
processes likeconflict, accommodatLon, and assimilation, anel the idea oftheforma-
tion of institutiolls through collective behavior and social movements; Mead's
Symbo{ic Jllteractionism 2- Deve{opl1lellts
'I
concepts of'significantotlJer,' 'generalizeel other,''role-taking,' anel the l-me phases
ofthe self; Hughcs's 'carcers,''dirtywork,' anel otherways 01 ]ookillgsociologically
at occupations, work, and professions; Blumcr's merhodological idea of'sensitizing
'., concepts';Gofiman's innumerableandinfluentialideas andcOllceptsabOllt interactionj
Stcauss and his associates'.... formlllations ofidentitYi Shiblltflni's abollt socialcon-
trol and 'reference group,' Beckec's abollt deviancy; anel Lilldcslllith's abol1t addic-
d tion. Edwill SuthcrlaIHI's theories ('differental association') of cl.'inlnality also
:..!
.1
belong to this tradition. (Fisher anJStrauss 1979:460)
'
"
i
Fisher anel Strauss argued in the late 1970s that 'some of the major problellls
thatstill plague the interactionisttraditlon derive'from the Tholllas- Park sicle
ofinteractioniSIl1' and thatsomeofthe criticismofs)'l11bolic interactonislll is
f aresultofhowinteractionistshave themselves "construeelIvLead" ,(Fisherand
I
Strauss 1979: 460). In their view, Thomas and Park tried to finei 'a Illode of
eXplaining and pi'omoting social change that woulel avoiel both the image of
lInimpeded individual actiOI1 and the idea of a totally constrainillg society' .
Broadly, in relation to sociological research and social illtervelitioll, I.hc intc[-
actionist endeavour restcd on finding the possible meallS of actiou leading to
lasting change in the face of rcstrailling forces. Change woulel be brollght
about by incrementaI,consistent action through greatersocial kl10wlcclgc and
reflection (Fisheranel Strauss 1979:463-4).
' I
It can be argued, following Fishcr ane! Strallss, that there are a llul.llber of
..ri
'problematic areas' of the Park and Thomas (and 'Meadian, as interpretecl
::1
by the sociologists') illteractionist legacy .- including progress, process (lhe
characteristics ofchangel,consent (active participation), limitatiolls 011 social
activity, power anel eqllity, anel lhe intellectual's (del1locra1:ic) role. They
conclude that these problems have 'comCl1011 features' reflecting a 'libcl'al-
: J
conservative bind'which stresses 'the virtues afbotb Jctive, creative illclividu-
alit)' anel ofsccure, stable association' (Fisher anel SUallSS 1979: 488), While
interactionislll bas, in fact, had a llumber of theoretical divergcnt trcnds, st!!

(according to PluI1lmer) it is said to retain a shared 'lIatur,llisric _. humanst ic'
approach that regards much abstract philosophical debate as decidrdly
, I
, unhelpful for the studyofdailycontexts andexperiences: 'Itis a full}' d,llccti-
cal theorywheresubjectandobject,creativityanel restraint,patremanel chaos,
;I
,
structure and Illeaning, knowledge anel actiOIl are ceaseless/y enH::rgc!ltly
intertwi,ned' (Plummer1991a:xv).
1\' J;
,CaseStudy: DeviancyTheoryandCareers
Durillg the 1960s inter:1ctionism underwent a ver)' rapid theore(ical
methodological dcve!opment. Olle majorarea of focus was thestuel y ofcrime
and 'deviance'. Yariousn<1mes \Vere useel (often inte.rclwllgeably) ror stucly-
inclllding devianc)' theory, social reaction theory, I;lbelling theor)', soci,,1
5
Erving Goffrnan
Introduction
TheworkotErvingGoffman hasproduct'dvariousresponses within sociolog) .
He rccogni<;ed h,l\'ing<l particlIlarapproachto often ass()( i,lted
by wirh intcracrionism. alrhollgh ir \Vould he mure
accuratt' to place hi'i \\'ork wirhin gCllcr,ll inrcral.'tiol1i"m. \\fhik: hi" U<;t' of a
'dran1<ltllrgic<ll' on lirc i,., usual/y cClIllI11t'nred upon, ht' also
emplo}'s othcr met'lphoric'll de\'iccs (ritualandgamt') which togerher produ('(.'
a sophi"ticart'd vir\\' of self, inrcracti on and and havc Illuch
later micro 'iocial thcory specifically, his ' mi cro
approach on inter.1ction and se/f ha<; atrracted rcnewed atrention due to th('
'structural'aspcct<; ofhi s work,and morespecifical/ r hi c; identification ofthe
'interaction order', Ir this 'intcractiol1 order ' which variOllS writers have
taken.1S buth asa disrincrivcarca ofsrudy'on itsown'as wel! .1S rhe basis for
lInderstandingtheintcrpenetration ofthe'micro'and'macro'- or, verysi rnpl}',
selfandsociety re!ariolls.
ThcOriginsofGoffrnan'sWork
Erving Goffman ( 1922-82) was bom in Canada and became a student at the
University of Toronto. He did docroral fieldwork research in the Shetland
Islands and also studied psychiatric hospitais. He was invired to join thesuci-
olugy department atBerkele}' by BllImerand later /lloved tothe University of
Penns)'lvania. His work as a sociolngist is lInusual in several wa)'s; for
insrance, he dot's notquite fit an)' particular'5chooJ ' orapproachalthollgh his
work is oftcn "ci:n as doscst to (and sometimes placec/ wirhin) symho/ic inter-
actioni511l. Goffman is al so a 'popular'authorand hi s rnany bookssell in their
thollsands. His originalit)' hasbecll regarJcd with a cerrainsuspi ciol1 hy sOme
othersociologists,whohavequestioned the basis ()fhi sideclssi nct' hedrawson
a varied r,lIlge ofdisciplines, observatiol1s and readil1g matter to suppon his
analyses. Goffrnancould pcrhapshcst bc unclersrooc! as3 11 inrl'rpreterorsocial
criric on e\Tryday life with Concerns with theself, fa ce-lo-face interactionand
social ordl'r (Sf'f' Br;ln:1m;l1l )001, 107-1\ . Hi." fi[st flublication in the earll
63
Erl'illg Goffmall
.19505 was followed by a continuulls stream of com:cpru,tI work and 'empiri-
cal' His Illost publicly known works are The Presel/taticl/I ofSelf in
Et.eryday tife (1971 " As)'//lIIIS (196S) and Stign", ( 1963). He could he
described a sociologist concerned with the ordinary, dail)' which
we rOlltincly rake partin hut which hl' shows ancw, llsing llnusllal anglcs and
stimlllating insights and observations. In this way, the parricipation in daily
life, mcrely rakcn for granred by tIS, is reveah:J to he the skilled way in which
routinesareen<lcred and kno",leJgeapplicJ. While his work in rhis regard has
some similarities ",ith crhnomcthodology and he shares COllcerns fOllnd
in symbolic intC'factionisl11 (e.g. \Vith rhe <,e/f .lnd social intcracrion), he cannot
he simply placed in cirhercategory. An importantcontrihutionto microsocial
thcorisation is the diffcrcntiatioll am! made ber\\'ecn 'interaction
order' and rhe 'institutiollal ordcr'- hence interc,;r tu variou,> writcrs (e.g.
Giddells, Laydenconcerncd ",irh the relation.
A key Jiftcrellce hetween (;offlll<ln anti -;Y\11bolic illlcractionislll is in the
treatmenr ot - Gntfrnan i ... (onccrned \Vith rhe interrelariol1
betwt'en rhe of rhe inreracriol1 ordcr <lJld 'i()ci;t! He
attcmpts to .woid -;tructural dcrenninism hy arguing that culrure does !lOt
refleCf <;trllcrure, ratherthat"tructttrc"are in\'olvcd in "e/ecringtrom a range "
cultural phenomcna. Onrhe ()rher hand,Goffmanshare... a 'cognitive-rational'
conccption ofrhe indi\'idllal \\'irh sYl11holJc iIlteractioni"trhcory. ilS responding
to and raking the ofothcrs in But it secllls that in
Goffman's \'ie\\, the individual takes a further stcp as more ' knowing' anti
'maniplllatin:", llsingactingskills()f prescntatlClll to influent eothers.
Adifficlllt )' in descrihingGoffman'swork is tharitappear')ru lack s}'Stern-
atie theorisat iof) or a c/cal' general QatCl1lcnl. Thi" !ta:. led hilll to bc Ji s-
missed as a seriolls sociologi5t. But otten his work is seel1 in a ratbe r
superficial manner. 110Iding a cynical \'iew ()f individuais prc",cnting them-
5c1ves favourabl y to obtain a desirable olltcomc. In short, hc is tOgive
interesting in<;ights into life bllt a more literar)' nr 'pop'
treatmentofsocial interaction. Also, in his foclIs on the 'trivialiries' ()f SOCi<. ll
life he is chargcd with paying linle attention to testing his ideas. \Xfhile his
work is rich in termsofconceprualisarionrherc is a lack ofc1ariry, in partduc
to theshiftin his notions.andhis 'evidence" 'icelllS to V:.lry hetweenanecdote,
literar}' works, 'lnthropology, ('rhology. magazines and othcr assortt"d
sources, Yet his ideas ha\'e undergolle a recem re-evaluarion. His focus 00
face-tn-facesocial inreractionand the interactionorderW.1S heen raken upby
Giddem and others. Hc i, no\\' oftcn considcred a major socological thco-
rist. prirnarily because of his anc.ll1pt to link interaction wirh a notion of
strllcture. It can atso hc sLlid he set himsel fa most difficult anJ crucial
task - ro rnakc sense of the jUOlble of daily expcriences in which we Jive ,
whilc the rcader of t he <;ocial importance of inconsc-
quenti.::\ activirics. Since hi s work appears ullsvstematic, whil e .lIso being
cxtensivc and conceptually shifting ovcr time, v:uious attemprs hav!" been
64 65
Micro Sodal Theory
madt, to fiml its key - usuaIJy self, in!i.'ral:tiulI, social order anu
the general metaphor of drama are iuenrified,
Goffman's work can be said to fools on the 'illll'r;l...rion order' - the situa-
tions of wherc allJ JIlutual ubserv:l-
tion take place. Individuais in this vie\\' may appear manipulati\'l', hut can also
he seen rather a<, cllgaging in social activitic!> that im'oh'c colllnlunic:1tion and
impression in a self-con<,cious mutllal interaction. Ir is this interactional ordcr
which Goffman\ l11ethodolngical approach attempts to render apparent,
Goffl11an in The I'rcscntati(JIl of Sell in El'eryda)' Lilc (1971 I, that the
'dramaturgical' pcr<;pective offered 'may constitllt<.' a fifth to he
adued to the' pI)litical, anu cultural pcrspectivcs', It is
foclIsed on the tedlJliqucs anu problcms of impre.ssiol1 l11anagel11cnt anu the
idenrity anJ interrelatiollships of 'performance t<:am,' (Gofflllan
1971 a: 2,33), have poinrt'd nut that C;offman's <1<."tor is no mere
cynical individual advamagl' ()ver other,; rathcr, in bct taking part in
action \\'hich has a moral hasis, Gofflllan, thL'n, is intl'rl'sted in the natllrc o
in facc-to-face intlTaction; a concC'rn deri"cd frolll Ihtrklwim\ cl'ntral
issuc of thL' moral honu' Iwt"'L'l'n the inuividual and socicty. :"Junlerou<; IIther
havl' al.,o hel'n trau:u from thl' praglll.lti-;r or inrn'1Ctioni,r rradition
nf .IalllC." Blumer,HlIghes, \1c,ld .1nd Tholl1<15; on the sclf;
Schutz's in understanding experience; "cnneth Hurke':.
of thl' 'rhl'toric' or 'grallllllar' of moti"e'!; approach to
forms; a hroad reading of literar)' fiction and and mag-
azines; anrhropological to de\ ia 11 L'} and work <,tudics, Thi:. ecll'cric
range of Sources \\Ias used for a central purpose, as Goffman sa)'s in otroduc-
ing StrateKic Illter,lctirJII ( 1970) :
ultimate ... t to dc'vclop the stuJ> of face-to-fa.:c intcrad ion ,1 natuJ':llly
hOllnJed, ;lll'llyti.:ally coh('rcnt ficld - ,1 ,uh are,1 nf soei"l ogr, To Jo (lnc 1l1U$!
COI1ll' to \Vith the fact that the central in tht: arca :1 re amblguoll<;, anJ
the horJ('ring nurkl'J (lff hadly, (Gofflllan 1970: i,x)
Thcre is Illuch difficult}' in summanslIlg Goffman's work, leading some
authors to I:'lllphasisl' one aspect, I:'.g. 'dramaturgy', rather than another, But,
more satisfactorily, following Branaman it is possible to idcnrif)' falir organizo
ing ideas in Coffman's career (Branaman ]997: xlv). First, 'the productic)I) of
rhe self' - induding the 'self - societ}' relation' and the 'self as sucial product',
Secundl)', 'the confincd sdf' whcrl' he link5 status, powcr, performance lnJ
self, C.g. as shown in Asylun1s ( 1968), Relatiolls in Pllvlic ( 197 1) and St(f!;ma
(1963). Thirdly, 'the naturc of social life' - where Br.1Il.1Il1an argucs that
Goffman\ moves between the metaphors <A drama, ritual and game,
Thesc draw attenrion to both the manipulativt' llnd the moral aspccts of social
Iife, induding the attachment (c,g, tO l11aintain fa eI::) tO thl' moral and ritual
urders. Finally, 'frames and the organization of cxperiencl" or identlty - 'frames'
Gol/num
arl' givell '"me autullomy at the interactiollal le"eI hUIII ,:lnd
social strllctllrc which they may SlIpport IH wcaken, hl1t somt: SOCi:ll cxpcri-
enccs an morl' framcd than other<; - '5lh:h tht: social oi gl'llder
(Hranaman 1997: xlv-xlvii).
Drama
Coffman's '.vork is very abundam in cOllceptllal insights, ana logy and nrher
dl'vicl"; f(lr cxalllplc, he givl''i OI1l' KClll1l,th Burke\ work 011 pl'l' -
forl11.lI1ct' (e.g, Gnfim<ln 197 1 a: 35), More ,pccifically, it i" c1cM that rhere a re
thrl'c centr.ll Illcraphor<; to be fOllnd - ritual (ordcr .1nd l11oralit}' ), ga ll1e
(manipulatiol1 and and dr.llll<l llJ':J7: Ixiiilxi,, ). Fo r
in<,uncC', Coffman say., his c;rudy Sl/'atl'gic Il/te/'tlctilll1 (1970) 'deals with t he
calcubti\'c, gamc- likl' a"pl'l:b of Illuwal - ",hat will he called slral c8/
c
illtcrdctitJlI' ((;Dffnwll 1970: xl, LlCh l11et,lphor givc" a "Illll('\vhat differcnr
to hi, work, altllOlIgh it i:. p,)."ihk' to tlll' threl' a' cOIIIIl'dl'd in n givcn
,\, WC' h.1\'c nOled, ' drama' i" thc IIlcraphor 1ll0"t with
Cioffm,lIl - lift: (if) n theatre - .lnd hi, n'ork i." Oftl'll calkd 'dralll.nurgy' Q I'
an inten:st in how inJiviJu'll s ' Illanagc or gi\'c a 'performance' t(
othn." In nrdinarv life COlltCXtb thl' individual 'prl'!>l'nt!>' thl'lllsch-cs to nrhcr
and tries to contrai the il11prcs!>lon that gain of him ur her in acting in
their pre"ence ((;offlllan I Y7 1 <1: Prdacc).
A" nn a stagl', individuais gi\' c a pl'l'forlllance (Io"er, gardl'ncr, p,)li t i-
ciJn) according to a 'script' which can hc l'uitl'd and ueli\'ered to portra y- a pa r-
ricular self-illlage thl' }' to he \\'hik recogni'iing that an
may havc certain expectatiOll5 uf th_c acror, Thc or 'tcam' oi acrors 'per-
form ' thei!' u,ing the and it, proP'i, Thl' \' a re 011 stagl' in a 'front
region' - or backstage in ' back region< lIn"een hy the audicnce as the actors
perfOJ'lll their rourincs. The audicncc is gin'n performancc thar prodllce'i a n
illlagc throllgh and ,tratcgy OI' ' imprcssion m<lnagCJllcnt', tu allay cmbar-
rassmcnt, but it also ha:> ro gra!'op the actors' deliverv of thcir performance, Thc
ac(()r ma)' seek to show a seelllingly 'esscl1ti.ll' !>clf to othcrs rathl'r rh.UI certain
other while he or she also re.l!iscs that a particular part may havt: to be
given to diffcrent grollpS who Illay respond in diffcrenr ways to the performance.
In the srage setting the actar is jlldged accarding to the appropriateness a nd
aecepDhil itv of the givCJl, TCaIllW()rk is also involvcd in giving an
to others (e.g. of profes.-; iQnal (ornpctencc, honcst y " nel trus t);
thc acror front of S[ogc depcnds on a varicty of others in complering rhe per-
formance, 50, .1 grcar ueal dcpC'nd:, 0 11 thl' cOlllhination of work wirh othcrs
e.g. as in legal, medicai, comlllercial, educational and othcr setrings). Variolls
reaSoll$ may inform <111 <letor's specifi c perfortluncC', and wbilc thl' audil'llce
may be sccptical it has to comply with the I1lcaning5 that are heing cOl1vcyed
while actors, by a Ilulllber of means, attelllpt tOlllainrain an control.
66 Micro Soci,l! Thenry
Of course, in the performance or encountl'r t ll e ,1Clors may nO( realise
completelr their while the)' l11ight others; also a cynicislll
can be mixeJ \Vith hdicf in \Vhat heing perfOnlll' <..I , i\ performance is <1 suh-
tle and prccarious thing, which may be disrupted, and hCllce a..:tors employ
defcllsivr :Hld pwtrctiv-l' practice.., to t1h' (or ddinition
of the situation for thc audicn..:e or 'front') gi\Tn bv hilll/hcr and collcagues,
Again, \Ve (';111 SCl' on the intcrplay nf both 1ll,1IlipulatilJIl
anu moralil)' in so..:ial p-crforl1wntt: (Br.lIralll<1n ] Ixi v), The notion /)f
drama the ' cx prc.ss i\'C" fcaturl'.., of intcr;Ktion rarhcr than it" instru-
Illental a..,peLts, Gofflll<1n', l'lllphasis is on lhe ' pl'rformance' in action rather
than a prcceding (lr rcalisatinn 01 ,111 em!.
Importam Ill cthoc!ologil,ll :trv rai..,eJ hl'rl' III rebtiun to Gotfman\,
aprroach to knO\\'ledge and unJl'ntanding, i,e, the 'aJvoc<1c)' nf
a.., til(' prderrl'd sourCe of ha..,ic .... neiological
knll\'vleJge' anel the ' use of Ill t: taphor for the de\ eloplllent of rheoretiealunder-
s-r,lIlJ ing' 1995: 157) , A llulllbcr ()f poillt 'l Uln bc lwtl'd in til
' mcrllfl d' , Fir.., t, according to Willi<1ms, Gofflll<1 11 's powers nf ohsl"r-
\'ati llll were sh.u p, as ..,lwwll in hi!) ' traditional ethllof\rnphic
of "/lci al (e,g, ho <; pltal wrmb and til e \herl ,lIld St:nllldly, IH?
lI<; ed hi s nat uralis tic ob!:>er vat iol1s' to compil e cxalllplcs () f n partic-
ubr (e.g. in radio hroadca:. tsJ. Fi na lly, his
'secondary at iun,' wert: baseei on au impressive arra:' of fictional
anel fadual 3cti u Il in nUllll' rCl us setti ngs (<; uch as deteui\'C' anJ sp:" fictiol1 ),
()ffl11:ln nut a Jl1L" re collenor ll f 'fncrs', bllt a hoarc\cr ()f lhe
quential' lk,ta ll () f eyt' ryda y life tor a purposc. !\<; \Xli 11 ialll:- in Gn fflllan 's
Illcthodol ogy ' h" l1e\ CJ' produced t radi tional cthnograpilil' ell' scri ptinn ... aimcd
ar cb,cripri ve fiddiry in their reportage of tile full dl'tail of li fe in thl' setting
under StuJ y', R,lt'her, ' he prod uceJ (oi b :ti ons, "::1 tl'guri sa tiolls anel inrcrprl'ra-
tion s "f a la rge r,lnge of recurrent cvC' nts and Sl'quences in socialli fe' (\Xfilliam
157) , Wl' elll Sl' C a SiOll11elian fnrlTlali slll ur the c1a ,;, ific<lti()!1 of "ocial
pht'1l0llln<l akin tO botanic and biological Illethod a S opposed to granel theo-
ri sati on or rcady absrrac ti on, Like writ ers Suth as Giddens (I %7b) anti Collills
( 1994), Wilballl!:> that there is a brO,lder import in Go.ffmtln's writ.-
ings in the use of general meraphors, First, tO use l1letaphor in a literal sense, to
understand " setting (Iife as theatrc or galllc), anel secondl y, tO find the lilllita-
tions oJ each meraphor in a reflexive manncr as a sociological tl.lol:
By rhkilJ g ' wh;1t is ir a bout ga mcs th,1t makes them real aS ga rncs', "nd 'what is the
na turl' o t as a social his investigariolls llft givrll :11'1 additi<>na l
rdlexivc ru rD .. , la ntlJ ca ll bc rrofitabl y [cad as an cxtenJcJ lflcthodnlogical sel
r
-
COlT1 l1l E' nra r )', (Wi ll iams 1998: 158 )
Goffman wa s inflllenced by E, C, HlIghes an<..l W, L Warncr at Chicago and,
tilrnugh thClll, the ideas of l\ih.:ad_ Durkheim and Si mlll(:1. FroJ11 thcsc SOurce,
67
Err ' /flg Gotl
ill

lII
he gained " \' il'W of human bcha\'iour .,,, 're,llity-culI.strUCli llg'. 'tbe
of ccrl'lllony and ritllal in hUll1an soei'll J.lId the urilaty of a
'formal' mil'ntatiulI thar ovcrloob in a for mli \' cr-
sal (Mclrzer ('( aI. 1
4
7): (,XI, GOfflll:1ll'S shares
with the Chicag
o
,lIl tr;lllililln :1 chalkngt' to tile as<,ulllption th:lt
gin: strLlctllral forcl''' dcrermine the mie.., th,lf illdi\'iJuolb per h.FIll , ln-.tl:'ld (he
n
\:alcllbtin' ,1Ilel 'iiru,ltion ,,1 b('h,l\'ior (lf <lC((lrS' is "tre .... anel PO"I -
tions, and are silllpl y t111' trallll:Wllrks wit hi n wbich hlllllan interadiol1
occurs' (\!Icltzer er aI. 1975: 70j .
ThcSclf
Til/! Prcscntao/l /)( Selr in l:. l1l'i'}'day Li(e (1 '1 7 1) i" C)nc of Coffman 's must
influenrial bnok." Ar its hcart Ia es lhe IJea Df the o( rh,, indl -
\'idual \\' hich, he " of twn \(>r)' difkrcm typl' <' of '..,i gn acri\'it ( - in rt'rms
of the expn;s,i()U ' givcrl' (e.)1. , \'aliel I11hols/in for mnr ioll l ;lIld 'givcn oJf' (prc-
BUl , he add.. , t1n: J iHt'fel1ct' ha<; llnl\' 'in itia l val idity' since ' misinfor-
m<ltio ll ' ':::In bl.! j!, lven hmh f()nn ., (lf (, CllllIll Unici-lloll, ut ilising
'Jl'el'it' or 'tcignng' tCffnu ll 1<) 7 Ja: 14 1, Indi \' iJ udl s' acti\'ities when in. the
'illllllediatl' prl',Sl!nCC uf (lt hers' has a narurl' nl llc;t
ac(cpt these: acti\' ities rhroug,h fai tb, gi ving a rct urn whosc 'rrue va luc' will
only hc latt: r lGoftman 1') 7 1(1 : 14) , Usuall y, tile vari Ol\ 5 definitiol1S o f
thl' "iru:ni l) 1l ;,JrC eompatihk - a kind of ' con.., emu!> ' when indi\'idllab give their
fcd ings hone<; t! \' and ar;ree wirh llf - indi\ idllals are cxpectL:d to
'SlIppre<; <;' dcepcr fCl' li ngs anJ u vie\>\ whit.h ir is fcll will finJ ' le m-
porar il y Gofflll3n S,WS the ' ll1ai nl C!lam:e () f thi s 5urFace of agrce-
ll1l'Ilt, thi s vellcer llf t;,cili mrl'J by each part icipam ( on.:c-:ding hi <;
O\Vn \Vants bt hi nd statClllentS whic:h vnl ll es lO which t'\'l'I')'one presl' nr
fl'el s obligcel tu give lip ser\' ice' {Goff l11 J n 197 10: 20-1 j, Individuais, whclI
relating ((! ca n ha.. l' \"ari()lI s Ill otl ves in controlling
Gofflll<1n ic; interested in the 'C01111l10n rechniques' thar individuai s (and
'teallls ' ) use to Illaint aill illlpn::ssiom a nd solll t' of the
assocl<1t ed \Vith the cmploymem of t!lese te..:hlliqll es' (GotJltlan I 97 1a: 26). In
Thc Prc:sl? //tdti /J1/ o(Se/f" in I: uc/'vdoy Li/C, hl' de fines a Illlmbcr of the key tcrms
in his work, for exalllple:
(t hat is, intcraction) tisl the rL' ciprocal influt' IKc ot indivicluals
UpOI'1 (l 11 , ' nnq t hcr \ aCtiollS whcll ill Im\:' 31lurher's imIHl.!di atc ph)'sical prl'''L'IH:C " ,
A 'pt tnr mc1l1ce' Iis I a li t he acrivir\ of a gil/en pan ici pa m 011 a givt' n oc.:n"illl1
r
wh ic h l>t"r\'t'S tO infl u&IKe in <I n}' \ViI)- OI1\' rh e othcr participants ",
t\ regipn l.sl un)' rhat is bounded to by harril'rl> to pcrccptiol1,
Regi()ns .. ' in the degrcc tO which the) ,1[C ho unded 'lIld a-:cording to the Illcdi'l (lf
CIJ fI1 l1lu rlo.:ation in which thl' h'Hricr.. til nccur, (Gofiman 197 1.1: 26-7, Hl91
68 69 Micro SoaITh('o/"\,
Goffman says that for an pcrforlllanct ';lIllllllllnly tht' cxtt:f1( of
..:o-operation rtqllired ....,ill he concealt'd and Sl',:rt'q IIll1inraineti, A perform-
an..:c 'team' he Iikens to a se..:ret ,,:o'opnate to maintain ;1
specific 'definition of the situation'. As team ml'mhl'r5, he ,ay." \\'e ali carry
'sol11ething oi the sWt'ct guilt nf cOl1spirators'. Here. wc can scc the il1fluence of
Silllmcl 011 the of sc'uecy and seUl't so..:ieties (sce Sillll11d 1906; Ritzer
and Goodman 2004: 175-H I). Performance,> in the front region can he
regarded as an to meet ..:ertain moral and instrUl11cmal requirel11cllt s OI"
standard in the activity - in per"ol1al fmm, '111.1I1I1er' or 'de..:orlll11' (polite-
ness, appcaran..:c) \\'ill he importam, in til(' ' hack regiol1, a pLKC'
",here the gi\'Cn in the performancc is L'oIHradictcd ",
a nllmher of a..:tivities rakc plaL'C, inclllding: rhc ... toragc oi L'quipl11ellt and co!> -
rUllle, the u"c ()f "pri\'ate" :lJ1d rhl' cheing anti adjustllll'Jlt of rhe
"per<;on:t1 fronr" , (C;offman 197 1;1: 114-15).
The cxisrcn..:c of fronr and ha..:k r('giol1s repcared in in, titutiono;
<;ocicry: ,,> ol11e regional <;eparariom art' upheld, whik are
weak or rhc fronr region ero,k'J , In h i ... dis.:u"ioJl of ' pe[',onal front' :1l1d
enration' llf (Jofilllan is ior an individual".., L'oll.>..:iOlI'o aL'lion anti
rhe expre" ion of in a wa r rhat accounts of the indi-
viduai cannor. Thll S, individuais Illay gi\'e on(' of J nUlllher of elemcnb uI'
in a parricubr umrext to an audicncC' rhrough rhe mana/-:clll cllt af
Abo, rarhel' than Illerely auing ollr prescril1L'd role... ,lCcording to
rhe reqllirelllcnts ser (t('acher, social worker, Illother, farher, etc ), rhe indi\'iJual
consci Oll sly an illlprc<; si oll of in ,1 manner rhat io; intended to
display COmpetence and other expccred
There are vari Oll S t)' pes of ' communicarion of ch a f<h ': rer, in a,
outlined in The Presenttltiol7 ()f Se/f in Eucryday U re ( 197 1), tha! lIl ay he
diffcrellt from rhe onc gi vcn to aO audicncC'. The 'rrearmem of rhe ab"ent '
where tht' rC:lITI :l ssesses rhe performance and ma}' dcrogn tc (or prai se1 rhc
audience, while ' staging l:1lk ' refers to the di scussinn of prohlcl11s of sraging the
perforl11ance - s uch talk 1110ral(' ior the Ilcxt sraging, ' Te<llll collu-
sion' includcs signs by a performcr to rhe team, ",hich ma)' con\'C'}' a definiti on
of rhe siru:ltion diiferenr frum rhe one bcing /-:iven to rhe audi cnce, e.g, a
reqllesr ior ass istancc. 'realigning acrions' is ",here Illake
c1ear rheir chafing againsr rcstricti ons, by innuendo, significam pauses nr
jokes, bur withom jeopa rdising rhe smooth continuiry of the performance anel
..:onnecrion herween rhe teJm and the audiellce. Wherc r\\'o are in volved
rht' 'uffi..:ial cOll sensus' of co-opcrati on ma }' also have such 'uJloffi..:ial ":OI1lIllU -
nicarion' (Goffman 197 " a: 1(;6-)) 7), ThcsL' rrpes nf ream cOllll11unicari on
again show the f.r ont-back "tage model. Goffman concludes rhat rhe forlll S of
COllll11l1l1icari on of characrcr sho\\' rhat a re;ll1l pcrforl11:l n..: l' is not a spollta-
neOU5 response tO a situnri on that takcs ali its energi es of ,IIJ its mcmhers,
neither is ir rhcir onl}' social realir y. Instcad, 1llL'lIl bcrs C:ll1 SL'paratL' rhel11 -
selvc5 from the performance and imagine or out other realities
f:rl' j,l,f' Goffn1<1ll
(Goffman 197 1<1: 202), Here it seems that the notlons of fronr anti hack regon
are extt'nded to make a deeper poinr regarding realr>' - lllultipk -
and experience (cf, Cohell and Taylor 1978).
rerurn.; to the 'prescnration of in Stig/llLl ( 19(;3) - in terlllS ()f
physical deformity; characrer. e.g, addicr, patiem; and grollp, e.g. religion, and
in Stmtegic fI,tcr.,ctioll (1970). whL'rc ir is a,,,ociared \Vith 'expression games '
(piar. moves). Again, a view of individual acrion as involving 'pre,<.enrarion',
i.e, de.:eit, reappears. Here, we secl11 to mo\'e from the discllssio!1 of face-to-
face interacrion as sLlch, to lifc a" a 1J111rky world of douhle-dealing.
spying and slIspicioll where there is 'no ohviollSly innoccnt expression' (Zeitlill
1973: 213- 14). Thi s tendencr l'an already bt' in.T/Je P"cSCllt"timl of Scll
in El'cryda)' /.ife ( 197 1) where ' ha(ksrage' l:ollusioJ1 is conrrastcd 'fronr-stage'
'impression lllaJ1agemenr' in a 'dctinition of rhe ,iruation' for th e
audience ,
Wh ik C; n ttllla n exa111 i i ma nagclll cnr hy inel i vid lla hi, idea
of rhe s('1f i5 more a puhlic than:1 privale fL'alit )' - a produ.:rilln or in<; ti-
rution (Collin, 1994: 73) , Thu... , hl' \\'<1" nor imcrested in 'hum:ln
fecling, illtcnrion, U1h.'oJ1<;ciou',' , Whilc it i ... incorrL'ct ro ... hc
igJ1orl'd rhcir il11portann', ' rheir to he rrtated as "'"inu.ll " ,
as a\ail,lhle for use rather lhan llnavoid,lhly ll"'L'J' ",irhin p('r... onal his tori es
and ' lhe fral11e\\'ork of normati\'(' undcrstandil1/-: ' 19n: 154-S) . In
fact , var io us :lCCOllllt'-i of the self ..:al1 he founJ in C;offlll<1n\ \\'ork, Williarn<,
(1998 ), for finds thrce differing The iirst \w"illn i... fOllnd
in Th c PrcsCllt.1ti()1l uf Sei! in Fl 'cryd./)' l ,ire iGoffm<ln 197 1a ) and
such ' Whl'f'e rhe Actioll ls' ' 011 racc" \Vork ' in fl/ter.lctitlll Ritll,t!
(Goffman 1972 ;, Here the st'lf has t"'o parts - 'character' anel 'perforlller' -
which hrollght toj4l,ther rhe ,c1f a... ,1 'pnformcd (hara.:rcr ' . ThL'
concem is for the 'or!!-ani 5ation .lnel management of the ( or characters
by tll C - ,1 vie", ol1\'iOll\ly L'omp,llible wirh the
idea of life as drama 1.55 ), A <; cUJnd fOllnd in
AsylulIls ( I %X) anel StigllILI ( 19 63) , whcrl' rhe self nor onl y ;1 reslIlt of ' its
possessor"5 illtera..:riom ",irh llrhers, hllr also Ia rt'sulr I of rhL:
arrallgel11enr s rhat are evolveJ in 311 orga11i sation for its l11elllbers', .In thi s
vicw, the self is portraycd as ,1l1 OllrCOIlll' of and see1l1S deter-
mined by sucial circumstan..: c, bur is re1l1pered br rhe way 'individuai s resist,
transgress and conresr of the1l1scl\'es cl11beddt'd enacred
through sl1ch arrangemenrs'. The rhird version is a ' flex ible
notioll of self a social process' rarht'r than as :1 phenol11t'non partly hidden
behind events. Thus, the sdf is more rhan a colll'L'tioll of givC'n roles; ir is
al1 'forlllula ' thar ( reates a 111cans of the relatioll
bet\\'cen dcsires and rhe expectations (lf spL'..:ifil' A final aspecr is the
self ,15 ' emhodied' within intcractinn as we draw on our physical capabilitit' s
as a r.lther than a constrainr (cf. Gemicr Aduertisem cnts, 1979 )
(Willia:ns 1998: 155-61.
70
Micro Soeidl T/Jeorv
Another way of seeing Goffman's trcatlllem of th..: ""If, as Br,lIlJman (1997
argues, is according to t\\'o contrasting (perhaps incolllpatible) definitions,
first, the sei f is a 'dualistic' ide;1 . It a social product r,llher thall ha\'ing a 'per-
sonal core', whilc also there is an 'unsocialized compollenr to the self' whi ch
Illa)' lead the individual to oeh;]\'e in cOlltra\'l'lltioll of (Branalllan 1997:
xlvii). Secondly, thl. individual not ,:omplctdr formed br !'()Ciel)' bur does
engage in stratl.'gic actiolls in a social sctting to create impressions to ;ln audi-
em:e (Iike a drama). But l,'\'(:n so, the individual\ images of the are subjcn
to the dcfinitinn<; credited from the roles and statuses of the social mder
(Branamall 1997: xlvii). Goffman, in fact , r('cogni s(' s h(' uses ' a dIJuhlc ddini -
tion of self', For inst<1llce, in disul !:>s ing 'The Ritual of the Se!f' , he
regards thl.'
as an irnagc pieced together fro rn the ill1pl icJrio m uf the fuI! tl()\\ IIf
l.'Wnt, in .11\ lIndl'ftJ klllg; anJ ,cl f (1<; ,I kind " f pl arer in J ril ua l who eopes
honorahly or dl pl ol11Jtl cnll y or with rhe
eomingl'lleic" (lf rl1l' ,ituari nn. doubk: Ill and.!te " ill\'tl l\l:d, (( ,oill11 '1I1 197' 2: 31;
Wl' Br.lI1'lI11,ln 1')') 7: xl\'li i)
It appcars, for GoffnlJ ll. that \Vhnr C, illlportant b n(J t ",har a per$on ' rea ll y i,,' ,
but the sense to orhcrs in illtl' racti on of the kind of pcr<; on be hind
the role <h:cording to differcllt In ",ul11 mary, a<; 13ranamnll ;u gllCS,
Goffman's vie\\'s on the self are to he fo und in hi s di sCllssioll s of drama, ritual
and ga ll1(', in which thl.: sdf is ' perfo rmed', or rhc iocu,> of social ritual or part
of 'strategy' making (Bralwnan 1997: Ixii i). These Goffrnani an noti ons of the
self are rcgarded, hy som(', as <1 n advJnce QI1 Mcad\ com:epti on of the For
in'itance, Branaman the former as ' Ie!'.s l nd ' more raJical',
since 'Goffmal idea is rhar the sclf does nm mercl)' arise in social expcricncc,
but it is a /Jrudl/c( of the 50ciaJ scem: nr a dr,lI11atic dfect of pt'rformancC' s in
sociallife' (Branaman 2001: 96),
Interaction Order
At its most rudimentar)' the 'interacti on order' i!. th,1t arca where 't\\' o or more
individuais are in one another's response presence'. Ir is a vital part of
Goffman's work sioce ir alludes to the interrdatiQn hetwcen the workings
of social encounrers and their rdation \Vith wider social stJ ucrurings. Whie
he is attempting to show the specific features of fac e-lO-face inrcr.JCti on anel
the part thcr pla y in social ordering hc also is aware (as in Framc Ana/ysis,
1974) of the pre-'fral11ing' of social situations b)' society. Even 50, he has
heen accuseJ of pa}'ing inslIffici ent attenri on to the social issut' s of
power. Hi s main iml.'lltion i5 to establi sh the illtcractioll order as an independ -
em arena for stlld)' while recogni sill g its re!a tioll \Virh ' institutional order'
71
Er/J;I1i; Goffmem
(selo' Branaman 1997: Ixxxi), Indeed, the forma rnay the latta, .,ince
individuai s are part of various organisational and non-organi 5;]tiondl settings.
Per<;onal encountcrs in the insritution ...:an ha\'(: a bcaring on the intcracri on
order, anJ the dail)' encounters in organisations include the of pco-
pie and rhc reproduction (inclLlding poso;ihlc weakcning) of social stnlcturings
such .lS social c1ass (see Branalll an 1997 Ixxxi-ii ), R,lther than ont order 'detl.'f-
mining' til(> other, it would seem that the rdation bct",een the 'inter,lctiolla I
order' ,lnd the 'in stitutional ordcr' dq1t'ncling llpOI1 the .,llbst<1l1tive
instance. Again, rhere are irnrlications hcre for an lInclcr'itancling of the self.
Ll\'der
.. , .
For (;olt' IIlJn, tht' illtl-ral"liol1 ordlT protl'd' ihelf frolll rhl' \,l i thmt
in\'ol\l'd ny moral ubliga riOlI' 1111 rilem to ,Idhl'l'e to Ihl' grounJ rul e, oi rhe
inrer;)n ioll , Ho\\'c\'er, the intn'l...:rion ordn itself pw\ide, ,1 prort' ni\'e Illcrnbrane for
rll\.: ...c inrerJeti OIl :l nd ril e self (l rc hy fl alurl' fragilc, li l\: indIviduai
newr completl' ly , eCu rc in an enCOUIHn, 1994: l 7.1 l
Thu5, for Cofflllall there i ... ' lwt!:>O 1l111ch ;1 l'Cal agreclllcnt a 5 (O ",hat c'I( ist'> but
r,lthcr a rea l :1'> to c1ail11'> ((}nccrning wh ::tt ",ill be
tClI1rorar ilv honourec! ' and 'the de ... irahility uf ;woiJing an 0Pl'll c()n fl ict of
definitions f)f the - OI' a ' \\'orking L'('lhClhll'" {Gofflllan 1971 a: 1 1 l ,
Co-presencc
For Ciddens, Gofflll an is :l signifi cant sociological thinker, who ' developed a
systell1.ltic approJch tO tbe stllll\' of hllman li fe' and whosc have suf-
fered from <1 1l11111ber ()f fGiddens 1987b: 109-10). Hc is an
important <1I1aly... t of day-to-day il1t\.'I'adi()n - abm'l' ali, of interactiol1 in
of pbysical ' cQ-prescncc' rather than small groups:
His work tht' rcforc dw distin..:ti olJ bl'rw('(' n and st' ctlll da rr group
and othec well cntrenched in the sO<.: i"logicalliterature. Fnr une
thing, Ill <l ll}' snwll grollp!' (Ior ex::tmple, lhe falllily OI' grollps) endme O\le r
time, Gottrnan is not reall )' illten:sted in the rnechanislll s of such endur::tnce.
Mort'oVl'f, eo-prDcnr ca n bl' quirc I.uge, in f ltl" of thc.nrc clLIJ i-
ences or crowds .. . GoffmO:lI1 's COIl..:ern is therdor,' wirh ' situ<1 ted s\' stel1l s' ,
(Giddell s 191) 7h: 115-1 6)
'Encounters' ma)' be either focL1 sed - where indi\'idual s direct1}' communi catc -
or UllfOClIscd - where there is an of (.lrher ... in the samc situari o n,
such as in the Iecture hall, in a park, shop, or on a train,
In inter;1cti Oll in cVl'r}' da y li fe w ( ' take Illll ch for granted according to cc rta in
rules \\'hich all ow fo r conrinuiry although, in Goffman, thi s is not ;1 conception
of rhe proclllui on of social order as mIe fo\l owing. Instead , social or der impli es
72
73
Micro SocialThcor}'
co-operation through routinr 'repairing' in through apologies,
and forms aslIpportive interchange using l:ollabor'lllon ,lIld trust. Goffman '5
interest is not only with ritual, g,lme and drama in rdJlifJfl to physical space in
in his later writings he is concerned wi rll noth verbal and nOIl-
verbal interaction, forms of talk and the houy (t ,otlman 1979, 1981).
Gofflllan shows the great intricacy of the fratures of social interaction in every-
day life, including the display and l1Ianner of the hod)' in commllnicHion, anti
the importance of space and time (see Giddens 19870: ] 20).
Ritual - Regions and Frames
The dcpth and complcxity in Goffman's work in part from the inflll-
ence of Durkheirn's notion of <;ocial rcality - more at core
idea of moral reality (e.g. Uemelltar)' Forms ()l Religi()/ts l.i{e, 1954) hee
Collin" 1994: 74-5) . Thi, influcnce can he for exalllpk, in Goffl1lan\
11lteractim/ Ritu,ll (1972, anti fr,l11/e A/hll)'sis ( I lJ74 ). GOfflll,lI1\ ",ork Ca n
be descrihed as a stlldy of the taken-for-grantcd ritual" ill everyday life in
analysing <;ocial flality. (I 944) in (;oHlllan\ work, rit-
ualistic hehaviour has a nllmber of levei,,; in face-to-face prcsencc, i.c. the
mlltual awareness of two pcoplt, the sharing :lntl intensification of an ell1() -
tional mood, and the interactions invol"cd as shaping fllture feclings, thought
and behaviour. Even conversation has a ritual anu <,haring of Ill()od - a 'sym-
bolic world' or 'a little social with its O\V1l and bundarics
(Collills 1994: 72). Con\'crsatioll is and alsu part of a broader
frame that WL' Jo Ilot recognise, cOllception of society
one that is covered in rituais. It is here that (;offrnan differs from a 'radical '
syrnbolic Vil'W that the is simply proulIced hy interactinn or
exchange of Illeanings as slIch. Instead, as Collins points out, there is a 'region-
ali5ation' of the self (e.g. frollt .1J1d hack regions - as in rooms in the homc)
which beeus upon the nature of f>Ocial relatiomhips. The greater the intimacy
in personal re1ations the more the)' take place hackstagc (e.g. between hus-
band and wife). Thus, rather than being private, the sclf is .15 Jl1uch a 'public
reality' drawn from the social constructions of people ,1djusting tO caeh othcI"
in social interaction - our sel"cs are ritually cnacted ,lS each defers to each
other to uphold demeanour (Collins 1994: 73). For CoJlins, Goffman is
arguing that there is a 'cuh of the sclf' (d. Ourkheim on the 'cult of thc
individual') in moJern socicty:
If rhc self is rhl' cenrral si1cn:d objccr of modern ir is correspondingly Ul1rt' al.
The in Goffmi1n is 11m somerhing rhat indhidll.ll s negoriarc our of social intcl' -
acrions: ir is, rarhcr, rhc an:herYP'llmlldern rnyrh. Wc are (1)/111'e/le.l to have an indi-
viduaI seli, nor hecallsc we acrllally ha ve une bm bec:llI se social inreracrion reqllires
us to acr if Wt' Jo. (Collins 1994: 74-5)
En'illg Gotlmm/
At base, Collins says the 'sdf is real oIlly a sYl11hol, a Luncrpt', 50
we call for wh:lt we, anti do: it is 'an ideolog) of e"ar
da
)' life,
used to .mrinute and 1l1Oral re,p{lll,ihility in our (Collins
1994: 75).
A devc10pment Clf the notion..; of 'frollt' ,1I1d 'hack' regions is the joca ()f
'frames' (and frame space) . to Collim, Gofflllan oftas sC\wallaycrs
(lf of 'frames': the physical world - whcre comlllllnic<uioll j" placed;
thc ecology - whac ",c sharc ali of each orher; and the insri-
tlItional frame - that takes placc wthin the nther t\\'o. Whilc communication
call OCl"ur in \",Hiou<' ill different plao:'s (C./!., chlJrch, con-
vers:ltion), and may he 'informar, it canllot avoid rhe 'institutional model'
IlJl)4: IX). Thc L'xpcrirnL'L' ()f individual, for Goffm<ln, he sa y."
is saturatco \Vith the applicatioll of anel trame
In the ,tlIdy of illtcractioll, Goffm'11l ,tre" Oll the 'L'xpreo;sivc' (convcr -
bouily di'po<,ition, c1Clthing, ,1IId facialloob, etc) aloll!!,,,iue thc 'in'.tru-
ment,ll' of ritual and the .'ol1f .1S gin'fl through interaction hctween
in intL'raction. Ritu'll, thL'Il, h,h two 'l'PL'ct ... in thi" kintl Clf analy-
.. is, both routin<;cd .1110 exprcs<,i\c tCuff et aI. 1990: 161-2) , Finall)', again, it
can bc argllJ:d, th.H in everyd:ly lifL' 'deccitflll' .1I1d ' moral ' bL'ha\'iour :I re nm
<,imply ppo'L'd in Goffman's :lnalyse' of life accorJing to th \;:
lllet,lphor, ot rirll.IL ga me alltl drama:
fLI ,r and tan :Ire more anti hillding fC;ULlr(,o; of ,oeial intt'racti on rhan
I' rhe , ynu:allllanij:'lIl,uioll (l i Thu, p('op1c rolltintly ,horl' up or ' [cpal r'
rhe moral fahri c oi inrcracrioll , talr in whar thcy and do, Cnjpg-
ing in ' fl' l1Icdial :Jlld hl:lping tlrhl'l''l to ,>;)1'(' bce, li b
a galllc whilh ma\' he on occas. ioll turned to onc's mVIl advant:l )!,l', it is a gamc imo
which wc arl, ;] 1I rhrll,r anti III whidl ("lIoboratioll i, cS'lntial. 191:) 7h: 113
Case Study: E. Goffman (1972) 11lteractionRitual:
EssaysonFace-to-FaceBehaviou1'
\Xhi1e Gofflllan utilises the Illetapllors of Jrama and gallle, ritual is the more
central conccptualiscltinn of social life and how social order i" upheld
(Branalllan 2001: 97). lntcractioll Ritual ( 1972) by sayng
that thrrc is no 'adequate name' for the study of facc-to-face interaction and
th.H its ',lna'l)'tic'll are rather unc1ear - howevL'r, 'a brief timc span
is in\'oh-cd, a limited extensioo in space, and a restrictiun to those cwnts lhat
Illll"t gn on tn cllmpletion oncc they Ila ve begun'. He adds rhat there 'is a dose
meshing witil tlle ritual properries (}f persons with the egcentric forl115 of
territoriality' (Goffman 1972: 1). He defines the 'subject rnatter' as follows:
Ir is rhnr c1ass of evenrs whid1 occlIrs dllring co-presence and by virrllc o f (0-
The ulrim.ue heh3\'iorll l marcrhlls are the gc-srureo; , posirionings,
74
75
Ai icro S(),ll Theo,."
anJ I'l:rh,ll th,1t pl:opl( c(lJltilllloll,l y J rnrn thl: ,ituatiun, ",hethl: r
(Ir noT. ,He thl: l'xtcrnal 01 o rientnti"ll ;111.1 in\'oh'l:I11CIlt -
of mind ;lnu J,ody IlOt ordinarily "Xillllinl'll wirh rc:'IW( 1 lU thl' ir t,rgJllil,ltioll .
(Goffm<ln 1972: I )
Gnffrnan gi"c, two l11ain objcLti"t's. hrst, 'to Je... nihl the natural units of
intcr,Ktioll' are frol11 'lIltim,1tc heh.wioural
as and glam:es m vcrhal st.HlJllCIltS. These (<In r,lIIge frolll the ' fkf ting
facial move an indi"iJual lIlakc' to "lff.rirs slll'h;1., \\'l'l'k -Iong cCnlfercncE' ... ' .
'to 1I1ll'C)\'l'l' thl' l1orlll:1tin' mUl'r prl' \l ai ling within ,Ind hl't \\'el'n the\e
units, that is, the beh<1\'ioral mder fOllnd in ali peopleJ pla(e,>, whether PllhliL,
or private, alltl \\'hethn III1Jl'I' the :Ju"'pice,> of :1 n ..
oceasion or the thttl'r c()n ... tr.lllts of lIIercly a ruutin ized setti ng'
((;()ffrnan 1'-) 72: 1-2 i . Hl' arglll' S thar thc,>l' ohj t:cti ve'i GIII he: taL'kkd through
''>lriou ... l'thnography' to ' iUl' lIti fj the pattt'rn.. and n.1tur'll scquelh.:es
()f bd1a\ ior \\'hell t:vcr pl'rSOIl\ into une anothcr\ II nmcdiate
pn:scl1l.:l" ;JIIU llIaking ' rhl'se cvcnh .1 <' lIhjC\.: r lIla trt: r in their uwn ri gln' .
Hl' rh.1t he io; aJvocning a ... of o\.\:asion<;' in \\ hich ';ol'ial mgan-
i... the 'l'cntral themc' or ' rhe: ul-Ill ingling Clf prr, olh anu the tem rorar}
interactional rhar (ali ari>e rherefro l1l '. Hi s inrerest, then, is in rhe
'normativl'l y srahilized strllcture', hm nl!VCrtllflcss a
ing' dUl' to lea\ ing <Iml arri\' ing (Gottman 1971: 1- 2).
IlltcractieJ1l Ritllal ( 19
7
2) prnvidc ... a numher ( ) f 3rt';'15 of ' On
hKe-\X'ork' how the indi vid ual Llpholds rbeir o\\'o 'facc' anel rhat ()
orhers. 'The N'ature ot Dcterence and Dcm(' anor' outlille<; hll W Illutual
gi\'l'11 <lI1d image i, forl11E'd anti rtLJ }' ('d tu ()thc:r
and Social Organization ' examines h(m si tuari ons ll1ay ull dermill l' an acror's
0\\'11 portrayal of ' Alienation from Intcracrioll ' he)\\' the new l' mar
conrradicr rhl' il11perari ve in to give fuc usC' J att enri on to <I parti c-
ular indiviuual, e.g. due to di srracrion froll1 orhers. ' .\/Ic nral Syll'lprollls and
PlIblic Order' expl ores how particular bchavi our ma }' brt'ak the social guide-
lines eOIH:erning dl'l11eano\JJ' and deeorllm. Finallv, ' Where the Acri on Is'
gamhling rerms t() cX.lmine how ,Ktors in ri sky
In rhe opcning '011 Face- Work" Goffman defines ' face' as ' :111 imagc
of sei f dclineatec.J in rerms of approvcd .Hrribute5 - albeit :1 11 image oth-
ers may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his prufession OI
religioll hy making a good showing for hirn self' (GnHl\lln 1972: 5), (;()fflllan
argues rhar l'\'eryune cxists in a ' world of social ilJ\'ulving him
cirher in f<Ice-ro-facc' OI' rncdi clted contact wirh other parti cipal1ts' . The indi -
vidual aets ollt a 'linC" or ' partem of vl'rbal or nonvcrb:d .lcrs through which
the indi\'idual t'v,lluatcs him selflhersclf and others, and the illll' ressioll also
gi\'en hy othcrs of himself/hersclf (Goffman 1972: 5). Goffman ourlinl's a
nUlllber of kinds of hasic 'face-work ' - rhe 3\'() idance onJ correcr ivt' processes,
how poinh can hc ma de hy rhe 'aggressivc' use Df ElCc-work. the 'choicc of
Erl'iug Goffmllll
apprupriare facc-work' ,1Ild also, 'cooperatiol1 in facc-work'. 011 lhe l.uter, for
exalllpl e, Goffman says, when: 'a Illinor mishap lll omcntarily revealing
a person ill wrollg f.t ct' OI' ol\t of face , the orhl'r" are ottCII morc willing and
ablc to aet hlind to the discrepanl'y rhan is the rhrt'atened pcrSUll himsel f'
(Gofflllan 1972: 2(, ). In the scction 'The Naturl' of rhe Ritual Oruer', Gnffl11ln
adds rhar rhe ritual ordcr appe.Hs ro hc organisl'd 011 ali b.1si ...
50 dwt rhe im!i\'iclual and sociery are in an arrangemcnt rhar is casic'ir hut
is nm without ih uangcr'o (C;Clfflll,ll1 IY72: 'SUIlll' "itllations acts
and per'ool1s \ViII have to he a"oided; othcrs, Ics<, threatening, nlllst nor he
prc!>scd roo fa.r' (Goffm<1n 1972: 43).
The individual 'aujllst" to his OI' hcr pbee in sociC'ty through rational isatioll s
.1ml orher dc\'icl ... , and the ' tactflll' help ()f the ... llrrounding grol.lp, thar a li
can gain tht'ir enu, . \ 'Ieanwhik, the individual is put llnda rhe ' informal <;oci.l l
COlltrol,,', \Vhil.'h ,hcl\\ his or her p!ac(', hut in r(' tmn the indi\'idllal deg ree
of ' di'lTction ' te) makc it his OI' her o"'u o\\'n. So, accoruing to Goffl1l<1n, tO
prorect thi, pmitiou rhe- indi\' idll al docs n()t h.lVe to make great effun s, beco me
a fully \ :() ll1l1lined' group 1llt:ll1ber, C)I' Wlll petl' h,HU, hm ' unir hc GHl'.ful ahour
the he himself in a positi on to wirncss' (Go (tl11an
ILJ 72:43I ,
Critique
uffman ha:. bel'n criril.' i...ed for .lU cllIphaslc; ou the decci tt'u l or
exploitati\'t' aspccts ot individuais' inreracti nn - the anempt to ' con' and dis-
credit ' couplcd \\'irh rhe fea r Df - ,llId the 011 C'x pres!> ion U f
appeJrance in ' vul gar exchange-tht' orr tt'J'Il1S' (Zeirlin I 214). Tbus, indi-
vidllal ... hiue rheir intl'lIti oll s allll inllcr thc>ll ghb by rhe use of a performancc fo r
au ,lLIJiel1cl', rhey to imprc'isions UI' 'l ho\\' a ' frc>nt ', As Mcltze r
cr aI. ( 197<\ I poinr uut, rh('r(' is ll111ch that s('elll s ro he sharl'd em rhe I1Jtur e o f
ro!t>s in (,ottlllan and the Chicago Sdwol - rhat MC collte-xtuall y cna\.'tcJ,
rather rh,ln simply deterrnilling of indi\' idual beha\iollr. Bur in the fonner's di s-
(li 'ro!c dlstancc' (the diffen:nl'l' herwl't' 1l as gi\' cn anu a!:> per-
furmed) rbere seems to be a q rnicislll, with aetor s giving little in rhe wa y o t
l'll1otions in their rule (Mclrzer ct aI. 1975: 70).
Orhers h.1\ t' argut'd thar thcrc is, in faLt, il strnng rIlorall'lelllenr, e.g. regard-
ing trLl,>r, in (;offlllan\ \\'ork .1Ild thar he i, CO\lcl'rnl'd with the- points where se!f,
interactilln anel Illuraliry IJIl'lt. SOll1e l'I'irical wrirers rhat h(' is cUI1L'crneu
\Vith interesting rrivia which may lead Iarer to more sl.'ientific ill Vt'stigati on; fo r
other5 primarily he dClllomtratcs ,1n individuali 'itic shnt which has ultimarei}' a
subj ecti visr focus or, alternati\'t'ly, tbar his individual is merdy <I 'social produc-
tion' and ignores thl' 'biologieal individual'. for (' \<1l11pll', Ze-irlin argues thar
GQffma
n
does lIot 'consider seriollsly the .::onstraining and oppressive charaetcr
of soei .li roks and relationships, not only from the standpoint of cerrain ethical
7
76
Micro Social Th('or)'
anel cultural hut also fmm the srandroirn 01" the expressi\'l' lIt'eds of rhl'
hiologic individual we call a human bring' (Zcirlill 1973: 2US),
Some writers Sl"e Gnffman's identifiL:<ltioll oi tll\' illtcraL:tioll ordef ;\'; .1 dis -
tinL:tive <lH..l for study as of m,ljor importallce for <l illtcllt 011 ime-
grating macro and Illicro features oi ,md life (Layder 1994;
GiJdc'm J ,)87h), Howl'vl'r, thcTe Me hcl'l' rcgarding the degrl'(' of
separation of this domain irolll the order (as a uHlpling') or
wicln socio-historical factors (I.ayder J 994: J 78_ J SO, 2 J 71, To say thal the
naturl' of interactional-institurional linkage on the el11pirical context
insuiiiellt as a statelllellt, AI;o, retllrning to the ' ,e!f', ir Ulle/car how
the illtC'ranion nrdcr relates lO tlll' li\'es of indi\'idllJls and groups which 'Iive'
through it he pro\'ides difting accoullts (l',g, ritual, g;lflle ll lld drallla
(Williams 1998: 161). 1t cou/d hl' argul'd th.][ (;ofilllan i" at IC,I',I, gi\'illg a
counter\\'eight to (SOIl1C) and functionali,t theori"ts who
the strUL:tural forrllation oI' illdi\'idua/ ,lnion .1Ild suhjectivity. BUI it can hc COIl-
c111dl'J that (,offlllan's attcntioll tu the of illteractioll has rather
overlooked the (lf - tllt' fullcr anal)'!'>!;;" oi oominatir)ll
alld power, ill'otitutions .lnd Col1texts:
(;ot'flllall is quire hrill innr Jr dClll omr-raring t1H1r \\h:n ,lppenr rc) !lI: quite: rr i\ ia! nnd
of da y- ro-d;l\' hcha\ iour rum nur to hc fraughr wirh implica-
ior inrlTanioll. Yet m,lJ1 }' oi lhe ht' idenriiics h:wt! more lO di) \ 1 rh rht'
n:proJlIcriol1 oi r1UII hc ackll uwlt'Jgl:5. (Giddc(lS 1 /34-'\ )
Giddem fiml" it '<.;trikillg' thar (;offrna n\ of illtcraClin n seC iJl S rath er
'flat' \Vith the exalllples nt" activitil's given rhe Slllle 'signifiGlnce' _ a f:let , hc
..ays, that is reJatl'd to l he a trempt to define' the 'imeractinn ordc:r' :lS n di<:ti nc-
tive arca of StuJy (Giddcm 1987h: 133 ). Indicating a diffcrence in social orders
wOllld at Icast gi\'c SOllle pos"ihle idc:! of th(' Icvels Or of ;o,ocial
lifc, rather than leaving socit:t.y as a <; Ill ooth platcau, as illund, it is often
alleged, in those who wi sh tu aVll id e,g. GidJcns's slructllratioll,
f'ollcalllt's 'discour::.c', a nd '1,.11:<11 practiL:l' S' (Layder
1994: 219), Williallls is 'Iure persuaded' h)' Goffman 's OWIl orientation I)f
'Ioos
e
coupling' as guiding rcsearch, Goffnlln, hc says, was of
grand theoriSJtioll and recognised the 'arhitra.riness' of concept forlllation
(WiJliallls 1995: 162), Agail1, the ioeus uf (;offlll<ln Was 011 the intilllacil'-'o {)f
daily social illtcractiull and, as Williar1l5 says, his work has bcen taken up by
'convcrs:ltional analysis' or 'the analysis oi t .l /k in intchlction' in di scoursC'
analysis anti othc:r wrk 1995: 160 ).
For Meltzer et aI. ('1975) Goffman 're/icd llpon sympathetic intrus pl'ction' a
a 'Illcthod of obscrvation' and a litl'rary, st yli stic approtl ch, 1-/(0 L: <1 n bc criticised
on thcorctical, methodological and ide%gical grou nds:
110 l'xplicit tht'ory, hllr a plallsihle aliei ()f ,odcrcncc; lirtle
inrercst in schemt's, bur IllclsterfuI .ln'll)'sis; virtual/y no
Erl'illg GOff/1/dll
al:l:lIl1llllated evidcllce, bur illul11illaring and
fe\\' forllllllations ()f empirically testahle propmitiolls, hut innulller<lblt,
pwn)< UiVl' 111 'lddirioll, we finJ clll illSllificiclu,:y (lf l(ualific,uillm .llld
resc[vatiolls, thar thc limit, oi gelleralizatioll alT 110( inJic,ucd, L\lelr7\'r cr aI.
197..5: 70-1)
While the symholic interactiolli5t 'predecessors' of Gofflll<lll Dewc}',
,1Ild Tholll<ls) did nOI giVl' 'c'xtensi\'l' comidc:ration to impressioll lIl:ln -
agemenr, insinceritr, hypocris}', or inamhentic
(JOftIl1JIl\ social ;lCWr, like i\lachia\'t:/Ii\ prinu:, exrernall\'. Hc ill a
J ;lily rOllnd oi lllanag\'Ill\'IIt, pr("l'nring hims\'1f til aJ\ .lIlrage whcn ht'
.,hle, rescuillg whar he call from a had ,llO\\'. (I)corr ,lIld l.ym<1n in \okltzer cr ,lI .
1975: 71 I
It coulJ hc <Irgul'd that (;oftlllan's on ritual - <;t"hility, and Illaintc>
Il<Incc - providcs ,olllcthng ()f ;. C!lIlse)'\'atin' vic\\' of ulll/cr-cJl1phil,i::oing
di,ruptioll, changt' or flexihiliry, .md conflict in ,oC.11 inter:lcrion while ;l<,slIlllin
L'()nforrnity hl'rWl'l'n social ilhtitutions. 111 .,ddition, it IX' 'ouggl'::,tnl Ihat h!!>
'dramaturgy' rd/ects (and Alllcrican ) cxpericnces, of
work in hrge organisations, whme helcfs are 1I1ldCrlllilled, and
lacking in ahilin' to change their siwation, attt'lllpt to resolvl' their problrrns
thrnllgh tlll' Illanagerncnt oi appcarancc<, L\leltl.cr ct 1975: 741.
Fin<llly, C;iddelJ\ ( ll)S7bi argucs, \\'<]" rl'luctLlnt to
rqllestioll5 on the \'arious l1loti\'ation oi aL'tors in his disClls.,ion of the sclf whil e
th.H the pcrsoll plays differing )'o!t., in Illall}' social ,ituaticlIls
(Giddclls 19S7b: 13::lL Gidclens also raises the important issue cli social changl
,lIlel the of COffJll;lI1\ \\'ork to .,ignificLlm in imtitu -
tom and the lItilit)' of tllC stud\ of CO-pfl'Sl'nCe to Llllllerstanding of the deep,
dralllatiL: OI' violcnt shifts \\'hich ,1ffcL:t elaily .,oeial Although
(jofflll:ln stlldics the CirClIl11SlanCes of the illteraL:tioll orJer 'he does not exam-
ine how shifting institution.al alignments UlnJition, and are cOJlditioned by,
of the settings in which lfe is lived' (Giddens 1987 b:
139 ). Giddens adds tllat Goffman could be lIsed, ne\'erthclcss, in hclping to
examine thcsc il1lportallt area5, i.c. of rcproJlIuion acrnss
extended spam of tilllt' and space' (Giddclls 138) .
Conclusion
Goffm3n outlines a notion ()f the indi vidual self anti an account of social
interauioD rllar contrasts shnrply with strl.lctlIralist thcori es, thar tend to vie\\'
actioll as responding to rhe ill1peratives of the social systelll ('Ir socict y, Though
thl're <;OIllC of differcntials in power, to inforlll,ltion, the
78
79
Micro Social l'heorv
opcration of rules and rule making, and prodllctloJll nf meall ing, unforrunately
thc analysis and content of the social organisati lln a nd dfects of structure are
limited. The reason for mllch of the currellt in Goffman i!. that hi ..
notion of interaction order has the potcntial to link mino and macro COlH:erns
and, in so doing, examine uifferentials in power and rclations betwcen anel
within leveis. But his discussion of the productioll of "oeial structure (in ritual),
though important in connecting it to everyday life, lacks slIfficicm attention to
the detcrminatinn of structllrc and strm:tllral differentiation.
Goffman, as Branaman argllcs, has contributed to micro social them)" in a
Ilulllbcr of key JrcaS (Br;.1I1alllan 19lJ7). hrst. in hi'i analysis of Illan r ;l')pects of
the 'self-society relation' and the vic\\' of sei f as a 'social pruduct" . Secondly.
'he exposcs thc link bctween po",cr. status. pcrform,lnce, and Thirdly, in
'oscillating' bt'tween threc I11ctaphors of ritual, game ,lnd drama he shows
thc 'the inhen:nt interplay hetween l11anipulation anu morality in social lifc'.
Finally, his idea of frames !>how" their 'powerful role in guiding thc illtcrpreta-
tion af cxperience, dctermining the Illt'aning of social cvellts, and ddining the
personal iuentities ()f individuais'. While oftL'n deri"e frol11 '"ocial <.trllc-
ture and social organization, he al 50 thinks that siruationally hased imerpn:ti\"C
pattcrm c<\n al"tively inflllrncc <;trllctural arrangL'mcnt'" (13r:.1I1<1man 1<.)97:
lxxxii. The illlport<1nct' of Goffm_ln to micro social theory is in re<;i<;t-
ing a theorisation reduced to c1i scuss'inn of individuais and thL'ir intL' ractions as
if were di\"orced frol1l a wider social aren,1. His vir\\ of the soetal COI1-
text can be seel1 3S inadequate, but he has a notion that social interaction can he
studied 'in itself as well a<, conl1ected to the broauer ' social' realll1.
Goffman can, perhaps, be seen as a 'rramitional figure' - a successor ro Park
and Hughes and a 'hridge het\\'cell gCl1erarions of Chicago 'iociology anel some
of the varieJ cOllcerns of contemporary He also 'transitional ' in
terms of sociology \Vith connrctions to the \\'ork of C;iddcno.;,
Habermas anu Bourdieu (fine anel M.anning 2000: 465-6). hnally, historiGll1y
Goffman's work can also be placed within a range of cultural critiques of
American society of the 1950s and c3r1y 1960s (e.g. Riesm<1n. Packard, and
Boorstin), cOTIl.wned tha t social relations were incrcasingly influenceJ by
'appearance' r;tther than ' comem' (Lemerr 199
7
: xxxi i).
Further Reading
Essclltial r('aJing for Goffman\ idea of the self is hi s The I'n:sl.'llfation o( Self
i/1 El'cryday tife (Harmonds\\'orth, Penguin, 197 1), whilt' (lne of his other
most popularly kno\\'n hooks is A sylllms (H,lrmoncls \\'unh, PL'nguin, 1968 ).
These t\\'o bonks are key starting poims for understanding his work. Fo r
Goffmall's importam discussiof1s of hi s ideas on ritual and game see
b/tcractiol/ Ritu.ll: ESSLl)'S 011 Face-to-Face Behm'iOllr (I- brmondsworth.
Pengllin, 1972) and Strm;gic IlIteractirm (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1970).
ETLlillg Goffm,m
There is a \Vide range of readers anel commcntarie.. 011 Golfl1l<l11\ \Vork .
C. l.emert and A. Branaman (eds.), TIJe Gnffman Readcr IOxforu, Blackwell ,
llJ97) is uscful dlle to the owrvie\Vs provided hy tllL'
editore;. Concise and very useful introduction.. to Goffman 3re: A. Bran<\l1lan,
'Erving Goffman'. in A. Elliott and B. S. Turner (cJs.), l'rofi/es ill Crmtemporary
Social Thcory (London, Sage, 2001) and R. William5, 'Erving C;offm<ln', in
R. Stone'i (eel .) , Key SO(o/ogica/ Thillkas (\hs ing-swke, Palgraw t-..facmillan,
19':18 ). A major colllpendium G. A. Fine anJ G. W. H. Smith (cus.), b"l'i/lg
(;olfmdll (4 vol s., l.ondon, Sage. 200 I\. Comment,lries that review and assess his
work arl': T. Rurn.. , Frt'illg Gollmtm (l.ondon, 1992): J. Dittoll (ed .) ,
The Vi ell! {/"IIIII G()17ill.m (l.ondon, :'vlacmillan, 1980); P. Dre'" and A. \Xfootton
(ed".), Ln'illg Gol/illdll : FX!J/nrillg t!Jc Illfer.l((ir)// Ordcr (Cal11hridg-c, Polit)',
1988); P. Manning, uillK (;olfiIlLm L1I/d Modem .\ocin/ogy (CambriJge, Poli ty,
1992 ) anti C . \'/. H. Smith (ed. ), Col/,w/ ,m.-l SOd/ Org.mi:::ati
r
)// : Stlldies of t i
Socio/ugica/ Lrg,IL'Y (l.O\1t1oll, RoutlcdgL'. I':J')lJ j.
6
Phenomenologyand
Ethnomethodolog
y
Introduction
'Phenoll1{,llological a micro rheoq ' tradiwm'dLTi\'ing from
rhl' oi Edlllund \\'ork wa,> gn:atly 1l1OJifil'd :1 nd
hrollghr imo Alired Schurz, The laner illflucn..: eJ rll e ",nrk of
Harold C'lriinkl'l. \\'hnse resulring 'crhno'l1\:rhodolngy' cunrained funher
and hcl' 1'174; AtrL'\\'C/l 19741. ir
l'rhIlOll1erhodolog} rt'lincJ ih qrong .:ririquc of rradirional ",hil e
iOClhing 011 r1ll' kno\\"ledgl'" aliei of in givcl1
lIariOIK /ts 011 rhl' oikno\\'lcdgc <l nd rhe separarion of
brollghr eliiiiculri C'<, and hm ir ru ir
as ha\'ing COI1lpari \Vith widcr<,rnrcturaIthcory(f' .g.Pa 's strul'-
rllral Rather ditierl'ntly, fkrgcr ;Ind LlIckmunn\ widt'/ y di <, -
oikno",IeJge' hOlh a phenol11c
n
ological intl uencc
;1I1d SOIl1C rraditiol1aI sociologic' al l..'Onl'l'l'l15 derivl'd irolll \\lt'!x:r, .Vlarx anJ
DlIrkheilll. TIll'ir \'ery influelHial lL'L'OUIll uI' a:o. both a \lIbjecri\c' anti
objcl..' rjvt" realirrattelllpted to S('ethe ill\crrelation ofmicrol nd IlHCro levcl!>,
atrhe sallW rilll
l
' retJillillg SOl!le independcncr for both.
Phcnorncnological Sociology- Origins:
Husserl and Schutz
The origills oiphcnolllcnology in sociology layin rhe 01' EJmund
HlIsst'r1 (1859-19-'8) <lnd thc nfAlireel Schll tz
soughr to lar bare the ('haracrer C) feXflericnce, frec from rhe oi
scicnceorother His ohjccrivc wa sto invest igate the broad fl'arurcs() f
rhe suhjcerive \'icwoircaliryrarherrhanourl incitsllbjective fra tures.HlIsser/ \
mcthodcan hc sUllll11arised as follows:
TIll' phellolllennlogk"ll method COn<;i st5in the ( Ir e>.p('ril'llc'c disl'rimin:l[('
within ir \"arioIlS prClf'errie,. Ir . 111 cn' lltll .ll rt'l.lul,tion otexpl'riencl' to
PhemJ11zello[ogy .md Rl
pun:c'on'Ciomnl'ssandirsl'orrclares. Themethouas,umcsrhatl'Vl' n 'cxptrien(',' has
,'SSCIKC' "c'cc"ihlc ro intuiri"c 'lpl'rchcn,ioll, ultimare Clhje,'riH: was rhe
Clt purc cOIl,,:iou'llc'" ,llld ir, (orrl:l,lIi\c rl' ,llm ()f cldl' ril" hcing
IcssencesfmmingpllH' cClnscloll,ne"I. To ;trri\"c atthis.ir i,nc('cssar\'rharrht' \\'orlJ
ofohjcc't, ;111.1 rht, '1' a, .1 hC' 'plll ,l',id," or'hr;1ch'rcd' for
tlll' of g;linillg ,111 inrllltin' \'i,jllll or' rh,' I'UI'l' 'plterl' oI' tr'lI1SCl' lllknt<l1
slIhjc:('ri\'in'. (.\brrindal e 1%1:22:-;'('c" II,,) \,\ 'olff \9-:'9: 500: l'iI'Cl'\'il' \9r O: 71-3 )
Alired Schurz la\\' ,1I1d social 'ocicncc" ar rhe of Vienn;J.
Fo/lowing r1w ri"e oI' N,17islIl hl' hridlyin Pari ..1)t'lon.:L'llligraring to rh
United Srate,> in Sehurz \\'as influl'nced by Ikrg<;on. Weher and larer
CII11l' imo conLlcl \\'ith \\'ork. Hc adartcd ;1I1d intro-
dUl'cd rhelll imo <,ociological (heorv. SChlHZ\ pmition hegan \Virh rhL' cxall1i -
oflhe oI' rhinking anel rhl' \' iew rhar th!' pmiri\'i.,ric
tradirioll 111 ",ei;ll had l10r begun \Virh rhe oirhe oisocia l
realiry (..l'l' Schllrl 19
7
21. In rhi" rq!,anl. he wa.. col1ccrIlcd wirh que.. tion<; l)f
urrhc inrerprl'tarioll otaction 11\'indi \,idllakf\ il11por-
,rarring roinl of \\'ork i, hi" critiquc of \X'd1l'r\ \'L'r'oiol1 ofinrcr-
preri\c..ociQI( )gy a., cil'nu' ,\\'hich;1!Il'lIIph .111 inll'fpreri\c
<'()I..'ial atriol! <;1) thata l.Hl sa lt'xplanatiol! t an he prodllced of direction and
A pmblelll in W'eht: r':, U!>L' of lhe norion () f unJtT-
sr'lnding. or Vcrstehl!l1, that, For Schurz, it u'>t:d in a nUlllher (l Isenses,
il1dudillg rh(ISl' 1'1' a ll1ethod ;1I1d kn()l\'ledgc in lik(ser <;chulz Il)72: 15;
1':) 72: x\'ii ). In Sdlllrz\vicl\', expericl1cc thcir ..
a Ill c;1f1 inf!flll rc,llit yand thc' scicnrific role (I f in\'(:',rigarm to
make .:IL-ar how lhe are givell til aL:lic)l1. The Jificulry in \Xfeher'
rh,Jt hedid 11m rhe ba"ic ..uc oihol\' have
ali cxpcril'nCl' ()f n.: aliry - not their ()WIl
lIndcr)randing hllt oncwhich ishddinC0l11111011 wir horhers (sccSchnrz 1972:
ch. 1 ,. The mkcn-for-f!; rCl nred ut rhe wor/d result frolll imt!r-
slIbjecrive agreemenr; lInl ess rhest: are parrnf<;tlld\' thenrhev maywdlhecol11t'
uncrilicallr of rhinking, is<I n is lIc ar rhe Ilfsocial
<;c icncc knowl edgc; for thc intrie<Jci t's 01' meaning) ;:tn J
C(ll1lll1on-"ense concC'pts shollld he rhell1<;el\'c; studicd hy

In enrerpri se, rherefore. Schlltz markedly frnll1
appr() ;1Ch, oi' br,1l'kl'ting' nut rhL' life-w()r1 d he is c()nL:crncd with th
an ual ()f l11 eaning or inrersubject iviry, In SI) doing. he adv<1nces
\X/eher's nf ; lIbjecti vc mcani ng Llrther hy invcstigarill !!, rhc
'cornrnon-l>cnsc' 01' - their 1I1llkrswnding () f
rheworldarDuml rhem.Ordina individuaisdonMqucsti onOI' ,1I1al}'s tbat
\Vorld. rarhl'l' ir for gralltecl, asordcn'dOI' facr (l ubitle an;1h'sis. Hel'c,
Sdllltz,!trcmpe> tu rcddineHusscrl\idea of'CPOChL;'orrhe 'hracket'ing' (>LIr () f
dlluhh rel.IIl'l1 to tbily rc.tli ty to rhc nt \\ h.tc
82
Micro Soc<ll Them)'
had been bnll:keted out becomcs the prime fo\.'u" fnr rhe phenumenologil:al
approach to society, In Sehlltz, epoch i<; used t n illuicllt' huw we in our Il.Hl1-
ral attitlldc suspend dOllbt that the worlJ ma) h, nu .re differcnt than ir Sl'ems,
For Schlltz the conceprs prodl1ced and in sllci J I s\. ience are of the 'second
degrcc' bur, e\'en SO, are l:onn('l:ted to the <1l:tions and meanings
(r.g, typitications) that are of a fir!>r order, Social <.;cientisrs llIusr
rel,1I(' rhese r\\'o IcH'ls; otherwi"e, formal ';I:ic' nrific knowledge will han' no rd-
erencc in rhe rakl'n-for-granred worlJ of individuais, In ,horr,
'in neglel:ring the producrive processe,; which mcmhcrs use ro 'HI<;tain realiry,
<,ol:iologisrs .Kl'Cpt rhe caregoric<" languagc anJ pcr.. pcuive of lIIem-
hers, nal11e1r rhat <,ociery i-; already <1l:colllpli.shed, They I:an rhercfore nner
under<,rand ho\\' ir heUJllle.. 'lCuIlllpli .. hl'd' (Attc\\'C'11 1974: IlJ 7), In,rcad, fllr
)churz, by br'll' kering rhe so\.'ial ,>ciclltisr I:Jn invesrigare rhc of
rhe fir .. t order ro render rhem according ro SE' ullld-ordC'!' .,o.II -<,.entifie under-
.,randing 200.3: 24,h
OI' COur"l', a pfCJhlelll herc i ... rhar rhe "ll:i:tI is nlw a participam in
the .,oeial world thar to he explained, The ... oluriol1' to thi., rhar
rhe -;\.'icnti.,r IIp rhe attirude of .1 JJl orien -
rarioJl rhar ailllt'd ar m"kil1g clear what tlw orclil1an pcr<;o n r:lkes with()Ul
l.jue.,rioJl iJl rhe ,ocial wnrld, Thu". thl' .,oeial <'ci('ntisr (:oll.scioll!) l> on
his or her ()\\'11 life .. itll.uioJl, hr.Kkers Ollr rhec; e influence" .1\1l1 adopr.. lhe posi-
rion of rhe 't:li"intere,rcd oh.,cr\'cr' in 'lllr srucly,
Schurz offer .. the idca of 'rypification,' a .. part ()f rhe ' narur.ll ,ltlitude' t
Jescribe ho", Wl' uJlder,;rand rhe experieJl(c (lI' rhe worl d ,
Llch aU,juircs ,I '.,wck oI' kno",ledge' I:olllposed of perL'C' prions :tllcl
hdiefs whidl guiele our al:rioll' ilnd viC'w<, 01\ life anJ are ,ubj t' ct to n(' w
expl'riellces, Thes(' "er" oI' knowlc-dgc .1I'e rclared to cOllllllunicari (m witb
orher indi\'iduals and with I1l'\\' , ,illlil.H e\'cnt,; our knowlcdgc
is drawn frolll the L'xpericnce .. oI' ou!' colltt'lllporaries anel our
A:orcling to Sl:hlltz our UIIIII11()Il-<,el1<'L' kl\o'Vlnlge of rh e \\'orld i'i ;J
of consrruct .. nf 'rypicaliry' in whidl 'typicll' cnds a re mer in 'rYPICal'
Conllnon-sense knowledgc in silllple rC!'I11 .. is rhe acrors ' "y<;r C' 111 of CU Il -
srrucrs rh!'ough whid, g"iJl a vision of the rypicality o f rhe !>ol:ial wo rld,
Ir is shaped in duee ways: rhe reciprnciry of perspecrives, rhe origine;
of knowledge, and rhc social disrriburion of kJlowleelge, \X1har is Illcam l1e[(:
is rhar rhere is a COllllllon knowledge OI' shared 'systell1 of relevallces ' of
what is decllled to b(' n,ltural or hy rhe group (\Vhile
\'ar)'ing berween groups) which h.IS an historical aspcL' r passeei down to
'conremporaries' , ThllS, whilc individually separahlc, w(' sha re laoguagc nnd
concepts rhar allow us ro go furthl'r rhal1 our o\\n per!> nal wurlJ, \Ve can
interchange our sranelpoinrs bm can also rranscend everr dn)' lifc s)'mboli-
call}', Fin'llly, rhe individual',;; COllllllon-SC'D5e knowk:dge () f rhe worlJ
is due ro a soei'll disrrihurion, alrhough irs particular use is connecred ro a
sysrem of individual rclevallces,
tU
Phello11lellology .md J::.tlJ1lo11lcthodo[' )gy
Schurz outlined rhree principies or .IS ,I proll'dure tor ,cientific
pracri.:e which srcnlllll'd from of \'(iebt'f's u<,(' (lf Vl'rstehen, hrsr,
'rhe po'tlIlate of i, l'OIll'ernnl wirh rhe \.'Iariry of rhe logic
of rheoreril:al cOllstrucriolls, Sccondly, the 'postubrC' nf sllhjecrive inrcrprer;l-
rion' i, wirh scienri,r<, hl\' ing han:' tlH' <,ubjel:rin: meaning' for rhe
actions of indi\'iduab in rh" \1lodcls or rhcy <,tlIdy, Thirdly, 'rhe
of .ldcquJl:y' relares to rhe m:ed for Iwr",een theoreticall:OIhtructs
anJ rhose foulld in I:llIllIllOI1-WnSl' l'xperiencee; ("l'e IlJ74: 12':1-30;
Zeitlil1 197) : 1;-':0-1 :, Sl:hllrz (anel \X'ebt'r) wc-re l10r c"lIing for a rncrhod IIf suh-
jel:ri\T ulldl'l',r,lnding rh.lt revenlcd ,illlply inner (.1' br a5 is po,;,ihl c)
uI' rhe individual. II1,rL',ld, rhe il11mediare attclllpr was to explore rhe mea nings
gi vell for bd' <lvi ollr rhe individual rJrher thall rhar of rhcir (or
rhe 1Il\l'srigating dcrached scit'llti st),
"chuti' ;lllow<, for tIIanv diffcrenr ,o..:i al !lJ' dcr' or 'llIu lriplc Thcrc
the rC':ll ity of cvcrydav lifl' tlnd orher MICh a'l <; cienr ific
l' llnccprua li,atioll, and fa nta<; icc; or drcam, - a<; well a... rhe pa<;r a' ., dill1emiol1
of lhe ., oci al w()rld, (Jem' rall ), indi VI duai" on t he workillg pr,tcticoliti e
of lifc - (Iur ' natural ,mitLI dc' i'i to at tcrnpr ro ch.lnge or shapc rhe worl d
acc( m lill p. to Ol!r ir i'i our 'pClLlI\lOllllt rL'al it) " \Vl' Llpph J ... pcn 'i o f
rhe <;ocial world, whi ch help wward<; rhe achieH'lT\ cnr of our (Zcitli n
1973: 1-1), I\n ,l'pCe! uf Sc hurz') wl)rk i:-; rhe outlilli ng (agai n
in re<;pon<,(' ro \X!ebc!' ) of rhe morl Ves f()r action, He givt', r\\'o maio!' type5:
'in-order-to ll111ti ves' , I)r the in rt'nr ioll' informlllg acrion .1 fmure (J ur-
come, ,ll1d 'bcCJlI SC moti ve!>', or rhl' rl',' <;OIl <; ",e giH' (for action) followl llf,
larer rdlecrion nr a<; kl\' ing actcd , Through rhe provi<;lon
()f !TIori\TCS rlJ acrion,> Lllldcrwkt' ll b} or her<; , :1 nJ ou r"dve), \\ C ,]I'e a blc to tLl kc
parr in 'ihareel acr i()ll wr llI ap oU[ , sharc and comlllllnicJrc acrinns (Scburz
1972: X6-9l),
churz's ide<1s bL' Cl!1l e prnmi ne nr 111 lhe 19tlb and IlJ7tb \Virh rhl' l.:ll1ergenc:e
of micro In parti(lJl :lr, ir ha d .1 influence on rhe of rhe
'erhnomerhodnlogy' ot Harold Garfinhol ..ll1d associared rhe \Vor k of
Berger and LlIckmann 011 the ' c;o,i,llcon<;rl'lll'rion' realiry <l ml, more hrnadl y, in
rhe socinlogy of tk\' i,II1L: C' , e,)!., Ru ( 1973 ), 1\]at.::a ( 1969) , For I.,chlltz\
can he secn as bridge ber\Vcell WE'herian and other discus:;ions on
Ol'ial "cicnce in Ge rmany and the rraditioll in All1cJ' c.I, Thc fll ClI S
of social scicnce 011 rhe eX<ll11inari un of subjectivE' experiente had a tontcmpo ,
rary .lppeal ill ()ci:1 1theor)' .Inel {incei in with an critiqlle (lf exi,ring
ll1erhodological pracrice,
Critique
Therc havc bcen a llulllbcr of Clll lllon criricls ms of Sclwtz's ideas or 'phcll om,
t: 1l(\lojl;ic:11 One l'ha rge i, thm ir on ' xpcrieIlLT' OI'
84
85
Micro Social Theor\'
it is not n:ally !>ociology at ,111 hm a fielJ or a
form of philosorhr. since these concerns .Ul' i.,., ufficic ntlr attached to the
l'mpirical realitie!'. of social hfe, In it l',tn hc argul"J that ,;oL'iological
stllJies and methodological practice h,1\'C \'ery mllch hCllditl'd from this strand
(lf thollght - and social thcory itsclf ha'i gailll'J twm attclltion to
cnce' anJ other the!l1cs (e,g, time) (<;ce Fcrgllsoll 2U()3: 243 ),
The postulates of 'iubjective interprl'tatioll and ldequacy in Schllt/,'s pro-
gra Illme for fic proced tire ha \'C' bcen q lll' ''tioned, it is
argllcd. will ha\'e 'a lillliteJ ,ignifiC:lI1ce if their rt:!.lllt'\ are unahlt, to
llloJify or COI'rl'ct COI1lIl1OJH'l"Il'>C Jt:finition'i of "ocial situatiolls'; anJ fllrther,
'C0I111l101l-SenSl' helief" not only he hut incorrigihk withill their o\\'n
terl11'i ' (1..1"111<111 1474: l.a'''ll1an add ... Ihat the imerrelatioll hl't\\"C' C' n "flei-
ologieal thcori,atiol1 anJ COll1mon "ellse i, olltlinl'd - a tcn.,ioll
that in Some huer phenol11C'nological <,ociology where rhe OlltCO!l1C
to he ,1 \1l"LTipti\'C ami -theOl'l'tieal ..,taneL", :\n a"ociatl'd is
that is 'cfln,trained .1 con<;emllal ,1I1d ,tatie il11agl' of ,oL'ial rclatiol1!>'
\\'hich militate, again,t JI1 lInJl'r't,lI1ding "f ,hifh in the \ :OI1l'l'nt (Jf COl11l11on-
sensc knowll'dge', Further, it 'conceptual innll\atiom' in ,ociolog)
and ll1 in\'L',tigatiol1 of rheir ' po,sihll' l11utllal intnrd.uion, with the ",tock of
COl11nHHH,ense knowledgc " ' (1.<1 <; <; 111;.111 1974: 130), ha\'e '1l so pointcd
to iJe;)s al1d 'lIh!>l'quent [l',>careh \\'ork lwing ' 111,lil1l\ proWil l11manC'
and (at !c.ht hy t he I shuwiJlg 'Iitrle dl'\'L'lopmt'nt or ;lppli.:ati on' of
the l11ethod, It hoth ' abstract!\ the world' and 'idl'ali,t'" it nothi l1g
i, gar!1l'1'cd ;.1 h0l
1
t how the indi\ idual', dail y li\'ing is fOl'lued in rebtiol1 to the
imtitutiollal ,lnJ 'b}' con<; i... tcl1tl y 011 rcLni vcly unpro!)-
ICl11atic (Zl'itlin 1'-) 73: 182), Zeirlin l'Oncl uck, : ' l he re;ll prubkrn
with Schutz'<; <;c herne is thar it pro\'idc<; lI <; w!th nu independem ll1eall Sof a......c<;<; -
ing the \'alidit )' uf EverYl11al1 \ abOli r lIi, existc"tial L'OIlJ iti oll ' ;.1 l1 d hi<;
interprl'tati on!> of relations \Vitll his fellow I11t'n' (Zcitlin 1973: 182),
Hil1dcs-:. ( 1') 72) questioned whedll' r '>cie l1 l'e Sd n Cl' .l nJ
arglleJ it "'J, a L' ompl cx product oI' hi !) hUl1lani l> l11 . a theorct ical idcofog)
affirl11ing in irs ' rcsults' it'> O\\' n Il cces:,a ry and ull qllcsti oncd prCll1i se: thar ' the
"'orld of nbjccrivt mind' can he red uccd to the hcha\ iollr of indi \' iJ uals' ,
Ir al so:
lead., f() a r!lC'nry of scicncc in wh ic h th..: drt rminlllg e1emenr rh..: ;Hrirude of rhL'
'CiL'nri ., t .. , Schll rl .. , prl' 5Cnr, :1 \ ,cil' ll cifi' ;] hUn1:1n i,ric loonal ,,: il'llL'e ,\ nd hi' lUr}/
",hich are norhi ng bu, kind" oI' rury- tl' lIi ng, oF OI' hUlnaJl islll a
\\' orld in wh,ch rhne L'an no SCil'IKC ot ;]nd n() r.:lrional pol icie"
I 'J 72: I )
\Xfhi le SChll t'Z\ approach to the in\' csti gati on of c\ l' r}' da y fife was rathn
undcar, Ga rfi nkel and others rook up work t'Q comtruct a critique uf rradi -
tion:11 socinlogical :1nd ro for m ,!fI alrernati vc mcthodological
Phe1zomellology Lllld
hasis fur suh'itantivc research \Vork bllt, in general,
Schurz\ Sel' I1lS to hl! th,1t "f diffll'l' imp'lct. He lallol'l1C'd no idl'lltifiahle seho,,1
of thought. and he garhlTcd amund hilll nn c!ear-(lI! h.lnd of disciplines, Yct hi s
wmk ).\l'rs citcd timc ;1I1d ti111 (' ;l,l!;.ln ;h ",,'ial rhemi,r\ grappiL' ancw with the
horn qucstion uf \Vhat it Illcans to sharc a wnrld whik li\ ing a lifc rhat 110 onc dse
can h;l\'l' , (Rogers 20()(): 3X(, )
Case Study: P. L. Bcrgcr and T. LuckmanI! (1971 )
The Social C01Zstruction of Reality: A T,'eatise il1 the
Sociology of Kllowledge
Herger and l.uCkl11allll wnc intl'llt til forl1l ,1 ,o(l tht'ory shO\ved the
comtnlctiol1 of the worlel through rhe l11eanings and objcct ives
pl'opk ha \'l' i n i Ilter,h:tion, A t the centre nf rlwi r hook Th(' Social Cc IIIstmctiol1
()( 1':1-::'1 i i, the idl'a ot ,ocil'ry ; h hoth a il l1d ohjectivc::
phenornenon, [n gi\'ing thi .. empha'i f<; \\-erl' <1ttempting to correct the
tfunction,lli.,t anti '\!Jrxl,>t) in \\'hi clr indi viJual intention was
sl110thcred hy the detcrl11inati OI1 of social In their \'ic\\' the indi\'iJual is
a being \\'ith :11 Icast c!1oin: - ;1 \'ollllltari<;tic, \'i<; iol1
of individuais social li fe is o(fcred, in contrast to rhe iJca of the con-
<;traincd '1I1d dl'tenlll11i,ti c aCl'()lllHS ()( J('ri\'ed trol11 man y
tradition ;11 approaches, Such a \'ic\\' to prm-iJe a \ie\\' of
SOCi'll rcalities' which "hows' social life as produced ,1I1d reproJuccd in II1dl -
\'idllal inrcractiol1 ' (St:idman 20t)4: HI),
;lnd LUl:kmann eira\\' 011 Husserl and Schutz in dl,tailing a series af
idea .. cOl1cC' r!1ed with l1lultipk n:alitic" and 'Yl11h()lic Ull11nIUnic;l-
tion to alio\\' .111 understa nding of the SlI bj ccti \'e, Ullcerta i 11 , sh i ftillg siele af
social lifc. and at the ,>ame til11e detail the risl' anti contil1uit)' ()f ... ocial institu-
tions, To a c;xtent the book, as inJicated hy its suhtitl e. al!.o cOl1cerned
\Vith the role of knowledge or rather the knowlcdgc indi\'idual s ha\' c of thei r
social workl. Through SOCi ;11 intcracti()n social in<,titutio!lS arise U\'l'r time, such
as tamil }'. work anel other organi satiol1s, The procc!;s of ' ohjectiv<ltion ' estab-
li:-.hes or cu ... tol1lS thwugh the I11c.lm of mies. langllagc anel
sYl1lbol s, Finall)', by the indi\'iJull these 'externai' aspects
of soci al lifr imo COI1'Ciothl1l"S and thq' beco me p.lI'r () f iJentity formatiol1 ,
The resul r 15 a complcx thl'orcticallllix, which includes 'traditi onal' sociologi-
cal <; lI ch ri S Wchcr, ]\'Iarx a nJ Durkheim. hut also j\r!c;ld, Sartre .1Ild a
wide range of other writers, Thesc sourccs are uscd 1'0 info rm a di scll s-
sion, 011 the une side, of as 'objecti vc rC' ;:dit y' - as constr:lnillg a nd
wh ile, 011 the othc'r. of indi\'idllal 5 sccking to e::. rabli sh hUl11an rnea ning
<1nd order 'in the face of an awarcl1CSS of the ultimate Jll caningfessness o f
cxi<;tencc' (<;cidl1l<1n 2004: 82),
86
Micro Soei,,/ Th('ory
Bergcr and Luckmann's approal:h 111 dcaling with the 'subjc.:-
tivc rcality' cxpcrielKed by individuais whilc rarhl'r Wt,lk on social interactiol1,
Conversei)', thcir view of s(Kiety i<; 1111 ti", <1l:l:l1111ulatioJ1 and distri-
hurioJl of knowledge aJld yet il deticient OJ1 the structuraJ
of material inel/ualities ,Ind social strarifi,:arioJl , Thc outcomc is borh a
rathcr re ... tricti\'(.: notion of rhe individual as a "oally intef(ll:rivc being and a
limired vil'W ()f iJl,>tirurions and societ)', The 'inclusi\'e' nature of their enrer-
prisc has led to rhe ohservarion rhar any 'C's...enrial phellomellologicll cOlllponenr'
to Jis,lppcar allJ rhe resulr is nor so difft'rent from ParsoJls's structural
funcrionalisr conCL'fns wirh moral .:olkcri\e illtcgrarioJl and r1lt' il1lportance of
socia I i ... ,nioJl for social (1.355111a n 1974:13U-1 ). T here is a Iack of
dcrail OJl orgalsarioJlal .:nnrcxr." and thc cffort to pla.:c a 'micro ...
Clf knowlcdgC" (frolll Ioichutz) wirhin ,1 widL'f cClllcC'prion 'rcl11ains ar
rhe levei of gcnera I a a bour the "diab:rica I" rela ri oll.,h ir her\\'cen
suciery as "ohjecti\'e" and ,,,", "'UbjCl'tiIT rcalit(' , (La"''illlan 1974: 131 i, TIll'
formulatiCln. for rc/ies in parr on Schurz, anJ has cerraill
aS"'OlImprion" Fir... r. frolll their ... ram:c rhar rhc 'paral11ounr rl'<llity' i ... thl'
ot c\'crYlby lifc, thcy SCL'm to argllc thar rhe 'ohjccti\'ity' nf insritmiom and
social interaction norhing l110re than the operation ()f rakcll -for-granteJ dc:f-
iniriom ()f rcality' , )L'col1dly, thar thc:re i.. a 'prL'c.1riou ... ncs... ' of social reaht
which i" onl}' mer hy rhe of an instirurion:d ordLT protccting ... ocictl
from 'chao... '. Thirdly. 'face-lO-bce int(Tal'rion i ... t;lkcn a... rhe paraJigm case
for ali fonm of intcraction and social rebtiOJl$', Th" general outcome is a
imagc Clf social changc rhlt "'CCIlI S to [,c a process of "cxI"tential
leaps" and mass cOI1\Tr"ions' Il.a ...sman 1974: '131 I. At rhe lerei of objcl:ti\'a-
tiClIl, where the '('xtcrnali ... ed prudllL'r" of human aLti\'ity attain rlll' ckHactcr ()
ohjectil'ity' - and are rhen, ' imernalizcd' h}' the illdividual lBerger and
Luckmann 1971: 78) - there are furrher iss ucs, ror (lJlC criLiL', rhc whole
perspccri\'c 'is ahqracr anJ ahi!.toricll' (Lichtlllan I 87), However.
Berger and Luckmann's approach did mark ;tn attempr to hring rogL'ther c1as-
sical sociological approachcs wirh phcJlolllcnology and other micro
the degree of l:ritique which it produced wa.. a l11ark of the interesr 111 Irs
impressi I'e endea vou r to li nk micro ,lnd s(lCiologica I
Ethnomethodology - Origins
The nmion of 'cthnol1lcthodology' arosC' frOIl1 the research of Harold
Garfinkel ( 19) 7-) and the work o(number of subsequent researchers, Usuall }'
discussed alongside Garfinkel is the work o( Sacks (1992), Cicourel ( 1968,
1973), anJ J'ollner (l98 7), His influences indllded HusserJ , Schllrz, Parsons
and 'ordinarr Ianguage' philosophy in his investigarion of cvcrycby nctivitics
and the problelTl of !',()cial order ,md irs 'solutions' . Thcrc are pa rallels wirh
Goffman's emphasis 011 l:oJl1l1lullication, 'ho\\' things rake in action and
Phellomell%g)' mld
R7
the 'inrera.:rion order'. In his early of jurors, Garfinh,l di ...(ll'crcJ that
the)' exhihitcd a 'mcthodology' in rclatiol1 to rhe e\'idencc in \:ourt anti
drew upon rheir al'ailablc 'COI11J1lCln-'ien<,c kno",ledge', Hc ... taH.:... : 'I rhc
term "cthnoJl1ethodology" to reter to rhe ill\'t'stigation Clf the rational propcr-
tie" of inJexical cxprc., ... iom .1I1d orher practiG11 ol,tiolh as (ontingelll ongoing
accomplishJ1lents of organized artflll pranice... (lf el'eryd,l)' Iife' (Garfinkel
1994: (2).
rhere seC'111 to hc .,OJ11C 5imilaritie" bet\\'L'('n ethnul11cthodology anel
<;ymbolic intcractioni",J1l in rhat thcy ... harl' a gelleral 'mino' orielltatioll rowardo:;
"'l11all-.,cale ... iruation" and, dllriJlg rhc 196th, Clffcred .:ritiqlll'O; oI' traditional
theory and methodological ("CC Denzin 1970; \1cltzer
et aI. ) l)'15 1, Thefl' ,ome sharing of intcre'-t in "'U.:!1 ao; dl'l'iallc)' and
bcha\'iour which the complexity Clf c\'eryday life anJ an
illtcrest in r1w n.1tllrc 01 themi c;:tt iol1 and forll1,uioJl. in ... illl,ltt'll mcan-
i ng ... , ,I nd in 'mean ingf ui acrioJl ' , Thne IVa ... J ,>ome COmJ1lCln in flul:ncc from
... ociology a... inrcractioni ... m ,lnd intcractiol1i"l1l
bcgan drilwing 011 ri r,Hlgc oi approachel" For imta nce, cthnolTlcr!tCldolol,a),
explainecl rhar J'<1rher than bcing 'cultural dope ... individual" were to he "een
' knowledgcabk: acrnr', TraJiriunJ I ,lpproachcc; \\'l'fC charged with crc-
ating ' passi\'e produccrs of actions' to prc-gi,'en ,wailablc geJleral
struCfllml or culrural l11odds. At , il11 pk... t, tht.: differcncc herwccn
anJ inter<lLriunislll li\:'<; in former 's .:oncern with 3(t iv-
whiL'h r('ndl'r Illeaning'> rurher than \\ ith rhe interesr in acror... ' (a nd grou p)
meanil1g$ SlIth, Therc arc abo in intcrprctivc wit h cth-
Il omcrhodology hcing mure and precise' whil c symbolic inrCradi () n-
i:' J11 bc to bc '111()f'l' imprc...... iuni ... tic and " Ioosc" ' in ]pproach
(ClIff et aI. 192), Last!y, wherea<, <; rmholi( inreracrioni slll , ,lnd inrcrm:-
Il1()f'C gcncrall )', touk itl. placc in<>itk socioh)g.ical thL'or)' and prauic,
cthnrlll1erhodolugy has sought tn have a Jerached position,
;arfinkcl'c; l'lTlpiriC'al rCI,carch and -:on':-l'ptualisarioll inflllCJ1ced a bruad
range o f others to imestigatc Jaily life in organi ..ations and other There
<Ire t\\'O ma in sourcec; of inflllence on Garfi nkrJ\ \\'ork: <;chutz's phl'l1oJllcJ1U-
logiull writings an.! ,liso Ta Icott Parson'i 's of the 'problcm order'
or hol\' society (or ,1 social system) is pmsihle whilc thc \'oluntarism in 'locial
life el'idcnt HL'riragc ILJfH: dl .... 1-21: hul\' cOllld indi\'idual... he (00-
ceived as having choices whilc at the sallle time recognising the social strllC-
rural forcc8 [hat impingc ()n the ,1diol1s in whidl individuai s t.lke part? 111
sunpl c rCf l115, the cxplanation oHered by Parsons was to con.:C'il'L' of a norma-
tive ordcr - individunl s ar(' cClJ1ll1lim.:d to (()nforl1lity by the limitarioll of
cho icc and a sha red belicf in rhe so-:ietal 11 of'lns , Thus, he r!te part
pl3yed b)' culrure, socialisation, the tamil )' ::1I1d the formarion of the personality,
hc erhJ1( )JT1erhodological .:hargc Jll,lde thar Pan()lls and mam' orher socjn-
logical havc made a fundamental ('Hur in <l(cepting ;he ' coll1l1lon-
rather than raking bcing rhc ver)' for
88
Micro Social -rhefJr)'
Su(h appro,Khes \'t'en:d a\\'ay from indi\ ldll:.d ,U1J group) pra(ri(e and
Spct-ific sirll<1rions and gaH.' ,Krion a r<lrionalit)' frulIl nutc; ide -Iw rhe rheorist,
Thu" nhllomerhodology opposcd (onvcmion,d 'in tilat thcy leave
unt'xamined the ways in which ,>tatu." role, norrn. t'tt: , art' pt'rccived h)' I11CI11-
heT' to ht, appropriatl' to ,I gi"t'll TraJirional 'iglHlrl' tlll'
hlt:r rhar a nlt'l1Ihl'r ha .. to illtcrlJ/'ct a gin.'1l and rhe gi\'\:n nOrlll S
(if lhe}' cxisti, and rhcll lllakt'.1 dt'li-;ion to which norms, ('tl'., "fi r" the ,ilU-
atioll' (Altt'",ell 1974: 2(7),
A, a gl..lduatc of Garfinkd inflllelKcd hy attt'll1 pr to
lllHlt-rsralld the t:har;Jt: tcr of ,1t:tiol1 llllt \\',lIltl'd to t:hallcllge hi,
nppro'lch ,Ind ckpicting the nature of life anel to LJlll' S-
liO!l the basi" of 'iociologicll theori "atioll fllrtlwr, l-fi" niliLJut' of W :l<,
influcnt:cd hy Schurz's dpproa(h ro ,(h:i,,1 and \:nlllnltm-<;l'll,(' knfJ\'1 I-
cdge', Imtead of a vie\\', ",hidl 't,lrted wirh the general "I)( ial orc!t:r or 'W,tt' l11
alld nOlioll" of equil ihrilllll, l'IJntilluitr, rcgula riry, and ll orm.Jli\,c
)dlllrz\ hegall \Virh life OI' (lf tl1l' a.:ting indi\ idual ,
a\ ir \\It:re fl'lllll Ix, low radll'r lhJn (rom ahmc, Il e hl' ld up the Par,oll iall
thar actors ' mu., t PO"'t' '' ' ,harcd and rhe ... to
, qcial o rJcr J., n:<,ting on \" Iu !.:' s For "cruliny, L'" ti st..lrring pnim for
ilwc!>tiga rl oll. H(' ser 011r .1 prugranllllc of empirit:al rC<;C:.Hc b J' fn ll n",s:
\rl Il1tfcflllltcJ) largc Ut)Ill.,in ,;I <l l' pn)pn.ltc: '\:rrlng) t;,'an hc IUGltcu 11 onl' 1I \\:' J <;t:arch
tha t ali)' ocms/on IIh.uwcucr hc t Xilllllllt' d r<lr the fC.l rurc thar ' choicc' among
,) f ()f fac n... ,l'\ , oI' ohwc: ri \ of ' j f C;XpI311;Hi"n. o( ClIlllIn u-
n, ili n c/ctlOll S iS;J projCl'l uI' th: rions. (Ga rfi nkel 61))
So, inlju l') sh{)uld bc conducted imo organi zctl, practit:c!:J" whether
cll gagC'd in by la)' OI' rrofcs<;ioll OI impnrwll rJ y, ,> uch invcsri gation
\Vould illdude the practicc of , ocil, logy i rsl'l f.
Mcrnbers' Mcthods
Tu ill VCMig..ltc rhe 't:onullon-scllse knowil.'dgc' OI' vf actor:, eth -
nO
l1l
crhodology de\'cloped an ill1pressivc array of conceprs, Ethnolll crhodol ng;ca l
wrjrings a rt' 'rcp!cr(' wirh words SuelI as proccdllres, prac-
rices, erC. which this mudei rhar hec(J ll1Cs an lInderl )' ing
Df ali erhlwmcrhodnlogist, ' (Attt'\\'clI 1974: 203) , The !>tn rting
poilll for (;arfinkd in his Studies ill f.tIJl/omethudo!ogy ( 1967) rhe studv ot
h(l w 'memhcrs' acri\'iri cs indude 'merhods' whi ch infor l1l proc ti e:!1
at:rions and cornmoll-scnse kn owledgc, T hi s Icd to some irn l11cd iu re criti-
Ci SlllS. ErhnOlllcthodolo!!v:
h('came totall y lI \Vo lved i n the q Ue$tlon: how is inft' r actio!l clone: anJ \\ h"lI>
Cl: rnl'd In li kl' : wh)' ir 000(' . h(m i!'l bem!'; dOI1l.: in
l'hellomellofog)' Lmd EtlmometIJudofog)' 89
idt'''', l'tC, ancl how "I:d pOWl' I 1I1f1,hfl how
gcrs dom:, (Attc\\'cll 1974: 1H1i
Arrewcll (1974) argues rhat for Garfinkcl 'making seme Ollt of a sitllation, and
gi\'ing ordinary lallguagc of rhar "cme, ,HC' i!l('xrrit:ahly CClll !ll'(red , , It
is a (;offll1anian 'as actors allllOllJlt:e to O!lC a110thcr thc siruarioll as
thcy sec it, $0 the mc,lning (lf rhe siruation t:1(',H, ('ont:rctc, a11e1 ,harcd'.
;\ 'Iargl' part of crhnolllt'rhodology hewllles rhe ,rudy of ho\\' huild
of social actinn, whi!c doing thar ;]t:rioll' (A ttewell 1974: 1fl2). The
l'mpha si, 11m O!l(' oI individual illtcntioll ill ill.'tion"hllr rathrr rhe foi -
lo\\'ing 101' llnt) of mi es (of acrionl within ,1 siw<lrion anel the de,cription of rhe
r,ltio!lahtic!l lor lllcrhod of ill .Ktioll, Crarfink cl
explaim:
That pr;lCtical aC' tinll5 arl' I'rt.hll'lll,lti c in IH)t <; 0 far ,n:ll: hll\" rht' y are
prllhll'lll 'lri l'31: h,, \\' [I) m;,kl' tht'1l1 :lccc'"i hll' !(I ,tlldy: what Wl' k,trll ,Ib"ut
thClll - thC' l' ar..: propll'>l'd t;",k,. (C .Jr finkcl 1994: fJH )
Thu" cthllolllerhodolo!:"T 'lllt:lllhe n,,' lllcthod,' - rheir rC <l!:Jnn-
ing in gi\'ing accounts or the parrinda r contexr.
a rfillkcl eX:l l1lJll cd <'l1ch aCli\'iry as thc (on..rru(rioll of \llicidc by
ali all illtl';traron of et h.noll1erh odologica l worl.: . Through a 'c!OCll -
Illl'lltary Ill (' rh (") d' rnelllhl'rs "ekcr of scrr ing to f<Jl'lllula tt a rarional
,KUlllllt :
<... :lrfinkcl\ 15 ba,cJ ()n dl t' idL' :l d Hlt COlllllloll-<;ense reasl lling lI1e/ lmdi-
(, d, !ha l IS, h,l ' cO o n 1hl' ITllI \ t hc and sharl'd, ut hc rwi.,l'
anur, \\ullld nOt bc ahlt: ro rCJ,OIl tr)\\J rd., thl' .,amc cOIlt.:lu" iom., 11l1dcrst;ll1d 0 111.'
anorhl' r ,111l1 aer in a co-l1 rd illa tcd fa shioll. (Herit.1gl' )
In St/ldics ill r- tIJllrJl/letl}()dn!flgy ( ) % 7) (;"rfinkcl the norion of
'indexit:aliry' or Hc is rekrrillg rCl ethnolllctllOdology the
examinarioll of rhe rariClnal prnpcrties of 'indexic11 expressions' and nther
pra(rit:al ,Ktil)llS as Clf rht' act:omplishllll'lll' of 'organised artflll prut:r ccs'
wirhinevcryday lift' , OI' ,l(('OUIltS ;He ver)' nlllth tied ro the natllre o t
rh situarion , By he arglll.'ll th.,r ,ocial is nu,lI }
' situated' - as ulldcr.s r"ndablc tO givell co!ltcxt. Tllerc is ,111 inUlle-
diar<: prublem herc ir intem ction GlD only be llllders(Ooc! or mnelr desnibcd
'i ndcxica ll y' ,1S linkcJ tn context, Sucll a vie w to prl'\'cllt an lInder-
sranding of rh(' cnnrinuiry of mcanings from comext to contexto \V/e C<l ll argue
rhar do ar say thar thc)' c<ln giVL' acco unts anel aer ;]t:cording r
their (lImpar,Hi\'e knowledge of different sitllariuns; the" transfcr lnd
ml'aning- hcr\\'ccn senings ,mu therehy, o\'cr time (scc Att'l'\\'l'1I 1974: 1H5 ),
90
Micru Social Thenry
AccountabiJity
Aparr frulll attcntion ro rult', glliding JnJ <1 ... ill\ .Jh c"in lIndtT"randing acriol1,
<l norhcr central idea in C;arfinkcl \ wriring rhe ('onct'pt ()f 'accounrahiliry',
Ir is lI'ied in t\\lO wa y'i:
fir.,r, ;1<; a for intelliglok, In lI'age an ;\t'l'OlIlllabll' ;ln ion :111 inrdli gi-
hl c nn ion and unc \\'hidl wc can thCrtfore n,lI11e. or or, more gell cralh-, 'givc
;1 n aCCOllnt of , The 'econd is rh (; more lIsuallTll)ral in wh ich II't' .. peak Clf
hcing ';h:cI)ulltahl t: 101' rhl' ir acrion ,' _(I kriragl' I'!l) g: I HOJ
Through accoulltabilit y Illelllber., are l10r C/nl}, inl'oJveJ in pracric'a l reasC/n ing
in a ... iruation hut al<;o in holding each othn to <lCCou nt, Herirage ask. : ' t he
quc.,tiofl 110 W whar ,lrl' rhe,c rufe ., like, 110\\1 dI) ther wo rk, wha r
nrL' tlleir prupcrri es, how t' xrt'mil't are t hey?' IL) 9s : I XO) , Of rcl e-
"nnce Ill're i, Cr arfinkel\ l1 oti o l1 of the \11)Culllcntary metllod oi
frnlTl whicll tlle inJiviJual ohtJi lh an palrcm t r( )11l thl' ac:rual
a ppearanc('" Th(, f.. no",ft.dgC' a hour tll e social world is liSt ei ti) m<l kc o r
'whnt we in tcrm, of ' wha r WL' knl'w' (Hcri tagt IIn):
BUf, GJ rFin ke l ,HJ dl: d, ,111 l'I l'01eIH !Ir LIf<.. ul.1 rir) In !Ir finillg
"ppc..lr.Jnct' s fI ):t pJ rtl'm '" rhi, L, c(l llr llwa ll r lI;, ed in CI'CJT lI'aking mnmcnr
ro m3kc , enst' of tht' \\'orlJ: 1\1: r eco!;:ll i n ' dog' , (10 <; rIl H!:I1,
bun:.II IL'ra ti..: rco rJ r\!, .lil d 'i ll trO\l: rrl'd r <! 0rk" rh i, Oll' thnd, .\I o!.t 01 rll e time,
Ill' re, "lr, nf rhl' Ill l'rhod ;Ire 'oi" rhar \\(o du Ilnr lloti C'e h')\\1 Wl' lhe h.:t .:k-
grOUlitl kl10wlnlgc ro rt'cogni ll' Hur \-\rI.' hccomc Jwarc ,)f Iht.' I\'h(;n
'\l' ar,' iJccd \Vlrh .1mblguoUl' 19';1:-/: I
1\5 Garfin kel a l1l ' .,neia l he SE'CIl J,
Ali ' Iogical' onu ' 01l'r)WJulogi ....d' r ropcrtie, ot :1l[lon, cver: ft'3rure ot an anil-ir)'.,
senSl', f(l niciey, ohjccrJvltl', :1 ccou nr;lhilirv, t'OI1Ulll1n'll il) is ro hc rrl':1 rl'l1 a, a C<) IHI Il -
genr nf I) rgn niznl COOl l1101l pra([II:C, ' " Anj M: tring or!!<i n-
ize, ih ,lLriviries to ma kc ir, propert ies 8 11 organi led erll' in.l nlTIenr of pr:1crical
'lcriviries drrccr:1 hl c, cOllll tabl.:, rcrorrabl c, rt:II -a., rory-.lholl rabk,
- il1 , 11 0ft, tJCCII I/II !tIIJ /c, (,orfink cJ 1994: 70
ConventionaJ Sociology
Etllnofl1cthodol og
y
ha" c1a imed that it is ;1n a pproach tbar 'does not ;1ppro-
primeI>, fit within tll e cOnl' enriol1;11 soci olagica l c<1 tcgories of eirhur rheor)'
OI' Illethod' , It is n() t bem on Illaki ng 'dis( ()ueries ' hu r ra rher rhe ' rcL<l/'cry
()f \Vh,lr is a lrcady known' , conducring affairs co mpctC' nrl y ro <1chien,' clarifica-
tion il1 tht' rdar;onship hetwcl'n anti no,lI> tical COIlCents
PhellomellOlog)' ,md J-:tlmumethudoh)g).'
(Sharrock 2003: 258), A 'bclSic proposition' of 15 that the
inl'olved in of organi<;ed e\'eryday 'Ht' rhe ,al11e a..
the actor\ rcndering them ',ll'countable' 1974: 132-3 ), The rcsult
of thi" view is that all accOLlllt is linked to the org;mised conrext of its u<,e, Ir i,
hcld that the notioll of 'indexicalit y' within L'till1onll'thodology i\ against
the approaeh to acts or kll0WlrdgC'; the accoLlllts that Il1clllhers h,]\"e
ot their "ettings are to he u.,ed in the of t111' setting,
An importam herc i\ tllat phen0111Cn<1 are part of the reflex -
ive <1eCoullts of actof', wllifL' al,o part of the Illcthod> use,
pracri.:c, thcrefore, i" Illcn:h' tlle ,allle as n:f1cxin'
practicc - hoth lay anel prnfes"ion.1l., '1ll;lh, u<;e of or a,<,(II11e refll'xi"itv a<;
a hasic co"dition tor tlll' plT.,i,tt'nct' of cOlh.: crted action' ,lIld [O he tI l
ethnollll,thodological :; tudy, HO\\'l'I'cr. if the ' Inust attclllpt to treat
tlll' rational oi pranic.ll tlctl viri t>., as hei ng 'antllropo!<)gica ll y
..;trangc' thcr" a 'dangt'r ot infinitc rcgre<; , ' sincC' (in t here
i... ' "O concept ot contcxr-ill -gener:11 .. , li, e, f() r acrur., l, but L' very of ' \ :0[1
tcxt" wirllout cxccption is c!osl'ntiall y index ical ' 1')74: 131-4),
In tbe cnd, thl'rc .,cC' ms (in the \-iE'1I' () f little scparat i<lO
hetwcl'n iologic<l I ex pia na anJ de.,cri pti lll1S, The ai 111
"oeiologiGll appt'ars to bc a ' literal descripti on' of it, slIhject matter -
' <1 n e.,;,cmiJI part uf a dC$niprion i, a de...cription of tlle t har
Jctop; ha\e oi their own actions' , whil e hoth .,ociologi"t anel 'iuhject mal" mi e
th" "ame ' n<1turallangunge' 1974: 134 1,
Difierem:cs Gln be secll betwt:t:n ethnomcthudologicJI wrirl'rs - induding
.,OIl1l' \\'110 rcjcct tile tlTlll \tllnollletlloJo!<)gy ' itseli - \Vith regard to thl'ir rda-
\\' ith and praaicL' and the c';tem sociology CUl he
' reforll1ed ', The ha :,iI.: I"iel\' i" rh.lt the <' oLi al ... expl'ct tu gcnerali sc from
in.,t.lI1ccs, T hi, ca n oJlly hl, achievl'J, for G,lrfinkcl. ii till.'}' ignore thc
irrCV()c.lblc index ic<11 properti e.s of ;lccount" ,1I1d rlle connecti on \Vi til
thl' conte xt, But , we C.li'1 :',lY, SlTIll., a sl'\'ercl y lilllited cl'l' n oi th C'
tings themseh-cs - pt'rhaps, clt hase, merl'l )' ,In ,lttelllpt to col/ ate. in an accuratE"
l11alllll'f, tlle r,ltionaliti('s by If a ,ignificanr i,, <,uc o n-
cerning hOlv ,\ stud y of situated (indcxical ) accounts and uetioJl 111 be
rl' ga rdrel as ' ,eicmi fie', or to some l'Xtcnt ' H' rifi 'l blt" , Erhnolllcthodol ogists ru n
the ri sk uf heing slIbj eet to their uwn critiquc of eon vL' nri o ll ,11 sociolllg)' as
merely al10tll cr ' accoullt ',
In fact , there are vurious wu)' s i.n which have approach ed
the problcl11 (l f indexicalit y OI' the link betwecn 1llcaningful clccounrs and con-
text, T hc!o(' have includcd cxa mining thc feature..'i of bnguage <lI1d how t he
socia l wurld is providt'd through language use; tll e study of cognitil' ('
(e,g, rnemorr) to gain -.,ocial sci cnce lTlateri'll (scc Cicourel 1973);
:md by nrguing that knowledge itSl'lf il1l'olv('s heY() lld the sit u:1 -
tion, Another wck, br ethl1oll1cthodolog-i"ts, is to deuv the rclev<lnee of the
c:arrl' out without Illaki,;\; chilll., the of
92 Micro Soei,,1 TIJ(!or)'
an.llysi<; - aml on the contem of whal I" he ing ,>.IiJ. Or the}' can
argl1C that rhere is somerhing that is l:ro... o;iruational and 'invariant' in
time anJ setting and examine the or orJ(I'., 1'unversation r.1thl:r rhan
it, content. The latter appears to LUllr rJJil:t rhe commitmtnr to
indexicality Df rhe situatcdness of knowledge \\ hilc al ... o risking rhe tradition'll
'posiri\'istic' ir sOl1ghr to fl'plaCt' ('ice t\m:wcll 1974: 2()()).
One large boJy ()f work associatcd \Vith cthnolllethoJology is cOI1\"\:r<;a-
tional analysis with \\'ritl:r'i 'illCh .1S (11.)1.)2). ThL' intL'lltion of
partipants not rhe ohjecr of bur an analysi!> of rheir transcribeJ
spccch, for cx'lmple, thc 'c1tegorization that ll'it to under-
stand rheir ... ctting. In thi<; way the fc,HUI"l''' ot the "itu;1tion are ol11ittcd in
fa\'ollf of how use' the filie... of bnguagc. Thu" the rd('rL'IKe i, to
the \'iral, ge1lCT.11 .,rrucrure<, of lallguagl:, which .11"1.', for Lx'1mpk, applied in
particular ,Kcordillg to the occasioll, proJucing <;pecifiL' rc.,ult., \'ia
sis of the t,lpeJ tL1Ilo,Cripr.... :\ pnim in cOI1\'cr.,;uional .lllaly.,i ... i, tlll" nccd
to Jistinguish hetween 'rL'sourcc' and 'topic' in the ... rudy of conH' r,ation,
Again, mirroring the pre\ious critiqllc of cOIl\'elltional ...ociology the :HgullleIH
i... th.lI through thr u.,r oi bllguagr ... t, arL' u<,ing mcl11hcr.... catt');orie, -
wh;1t take a... a 1"l"Ollrce ,hollld al,o b(' takcn ;lS their topic. OrlC
LjUL'IlL'L' of the dr\'rll)pllll'lIt oI' rhe furthn ... uf the
phenolllenologiL'al OI' thL' conccptiol1 ()f the expcrit'l1cc ()f indi viduais -
their l11otin:., intentiol15 \\'irhin ., itll;1tiO!lS, .\ 'Iuch ot \\'ork appear
'csoteril:' as an cu ea fC)r clJ l11l11itted "JherCllt5 \Vith cOl1cerns that
are beco 111 ing fCl1ced off frolll the <' ocic)lngicn I intere.,t i n em hod irei, IIltC'rani 11 "
indi\ iJuab within social si tu3tiom,
Ethnomethodology and 'Misconceptions'?
Some ethnomethodologists hJve hCCIl LJuit e st' nsiri\'c to critLjues of thei r work
and ha\'t' allcged a misrt' ading ()f the nJtllre of their study whik hciJ1t; vt' ry
rcsistant to pcrcei\'ed attt'mprs (e.g, Giddens) to incorporate it within cOllven-
tional or Illore specificallr in <'(>cial .lction theor y, Sharroc k :\ rgues
that ethllolllethoJology is not a particu lnr lllethoeloJogy, ncithcr does ir aspire
to thcory, rather it attcmpts to sho\\! parts ()f sociallife we 'ovcrlook' in theo-
risation (Sharrock 200J: EthnolllcthoJnlogy i., hcld to he vcr)' differellt
frolll con\'E'ntional $ociology \Vith a specific recognitinn that snciologiqs and
lay both use ()f what i<; taking
pl;1CC in thei r sncial situations, It, concern is \Vith the \' a ril't)' and tracillg of
're'1soning' OI' 'sociol ogical rca<;oning'; sincc ordina n ' of <;ocictv Ctn
bt, ,15 jllst .1$ Illllch L'llgaged in s;Ki ologica l rea so'nins as professionnl' soci-
ologists, thtre should he no privileging Qf the !.aner (Sharrnck 2003: 251-2),
There are twn ill1lllediate herL'; first, why .,IHlllld ,1Il}'OIlC cllgage in the
pr.1ctice of .,nciology at ali (in dt'partments where ethnomethodologi sts
(H
PhClwmc1Jvl
o
g)' ,mel Ft IJl/ol/letlu,d()1c I,!,!)'
;He conlll1ollly 10catc(\l? (11 .. ddition, i ... cthnumethll dolugic, d wllrk
itself just .lnother pr.lctice of reasoning in dcscribing thc rcasoning of others?
In cbimillg to Iw or 'ollhidcn: tu ,"ociolol!,ic"l work, are the)' Ilot
rea lly scckilll!, :>ollle pri\'ikged )!I"itillll whidl then i ... open to tllt:ir 0\\'11 cri-
tique? Sharrock .ldmih that therc i, COlltilluity het\\'el'1l ,ocological
.llld etlll1ol1letlHld'llogy dm' to the I,mcr\ cCl1tr.11 COlh':l'f1l \\'idl
social ordn (Sharro 2003: 252 ), BlIt r;1ther th;lll thL' soci'll sy<,tclll 1ll00intain -
ing ,m:ial ordt'r \'i Ll illtegr,nioll, he S<lY" no\\' tlw \.'l11ph'li>i, i:-. OI! the 'produc-
ti on of the local orJer', Thc prob\elll i5 o;.d to be resolved in practice
th rough lhe ord.erlilltS5 ()f cver )' da y acti\'ities; the ,pralt ical I
reasollillg of indi\'id ual s tlle of the setting OI' the ' sdf-
organi ... ing' oi the c;crting, \Xlhi\e Sh.Hrock mainmi n ... th.H the problcm nf ord(' r
i.. not re ... oh'ahk through socllllol!,inll :lIJd !n(;ChOLI hllt in prKtlCC 11 )'
actor" _ uoc" sec l11 r(l be "OI1l L' urift hcrc b:1ck tO one of
cthnollletlllldoI D)!;} 's mI no., - functiun3l i ... 1lI ()n ... oci,,1 intcgr:lt ion
(..cc ] 974: 141 ),
Critique
Th" respon .. C! of sot:ioltltW te) cthnnml:thudolog) ha:. \'3 ricd from pU7.Zlcmenr
and eX"asperatiu
n
to ourrigh r SWll C lu'\Vt: rccogni "tJ critique o
mJ [ttr ia! c; and pracrice, al tllOugh (Iltell \Vith the quali fi..:ano
n
thar
sociol ugy h.1" bccll more rc fl cxi \'(; QI1 r\w n:Hrt: of its \\' ork than erh-
nOJ1lcthndo\(Jg}' recog,n lseJ , (.riti ci "'llli h:l\"l' tt: \1ded to fal i imo a 1111mbe r of
catcgor ic!; :
EtlJ// o/ll c.> t!Jdd!l )g)' dl!(l !s with l he /I/('(lILSl'q /lC!ntinl c7sfJects oI' dai! )' !I re, T he
t'u 15 rha[ the producr i')n of ,1 loe,ll i... n funda -
mcntal SUl:ial ,tct iviry allowing for t ht:: colltlnuiry ui I:x r n so, t he
L'mpha<.i<; no tlle local produc(( JI1 of the nrdcr' lcaJs til the criti cisl'11
that at ha"" it has a conc;c rvati ve <, oci cta l view Iacking in an undl'l'!:<tandi np, ()
intcracrion, e.g. proce>ses of $ncial ch<lngc, and the origill s anel
COIlSt' qucllces of nnd conflict,
Etlll/f,ll/l ctlwdu/(J&')' h"s iglw/'cd social st/'llctll/'C, dO/llillC1fiol1 alui m,Jt{! -
ri,/I illeqll<lliti es - ,,/l ei is not cC)l1ccmc:d lI'itl.> lhe prcss illg s(),ll iss/lcs ('(1 /1 -
(rollti/lg sociL'ty tIS ,J lchnl e, Olle tO thi s charge i$ that 'lIch
cOIl<;idcrat lf) I1 S nre.: nor part of ir:, remit , that i.. , to inve<;tigatt' 'prJctical
reasoni ng' _ ju:.t 3' , in a simil ar way, !>Qciologic.al havc dif-
fercm cOIl<; idcra tiuns, Such is said tO rd lect a hia:,' .
r\nCJther res po n."l' h.1 ... hcen that cthnomcthodolngi:,tS, in fac r, h(11.'1,; ca rricc.l
nut intf? J1sive stll dit'S of instituti onal sl'tt ing!> wd fa re a nd t be polict:)
which clluld ht lIS,'J to il1\cstiga re rhe li l1 kagc!> b,' fWCC' 1l pratticnllT3<;cJIling
and soci::t1 to spall the 'll1il:rO-l11acro di\' ide' (Rit7.LT a ml Goodman
2004:
94
Micro Social Theory
r:tlmulllet!Jodo/ugy /;,1S igllured some oI" its as/(: Ilrillp/l!s. For instance,
rhere io;; rhe chorge- pJrticlllar/y aimed ar the con\yrS,Hional annlysis ofrhe
srructural propcrries of langllagc - rhar the phellomenologicol concern wirh
rlle Illoti\'es or cxpcrience of actiOJl has hcen neglected. The 'judgelllemaI
dope'as lhe ll10JcI oftheacror, which it sOllghrtorcplacc h)' a knowkJgcahlc
aetm, is said to reappear within an ell1pirieist and behaviourisrie approach
Ritzcr and (;oodll1an 2004: 3(6). :\ cnrain .1lso in
which the is forgoul"n: inrcracti()n is Illerc 'tum taking' in conversation,
without or inrention, clllhodiment, ano thc contcxh of time and
phll.:e. Ironieally, givL"n ih original intcntio!h, ethllolJlethodology _ at I('a,t
\Vith to eOI1\'('rsational analYsi" - it (.ln h(' argunl.
anti 'l'lllpiricist' hy hl'ing cOflccrned with rhe rl'chl1ic,11
ill\esrigarioll of rhe trameript. It mO\'("_s <1\\'ay frolJl the phl'noll1enolugical
kgacyof anoC'xpcricllCL', anel rderl'ncctoCO/ltcxt al1d
(Ma}' 19%:';)7).
Ft!J//
r
l11/rthodolo
gy
is il1 <I III ctl}()dIJI(Jgiw l dilelllll1,/, llI'idl is ,liso !(-wlld il/
hetw't'1I Ireatil/g cu,/} sil/h7tiol/ ,IS ulliqul', ullly w/dcrstLl//t/Ll/JIc
with refacll cc Ir) thc l
J
ril cticl reas()lIillg ill that sdting, ,7I1d thc cstahlis/mt(' f1 t
n/ illllari<11t1 (eatures (c. g. /Jerc-e/il l/al, tugrrilil'l' procedl/rcs) u( s()t:i,llli(e. Ven-
<;impl y, ir is caughr hcr\Vcen a relarivi sric anel a approach tO COIll-
rnon-<;C'n... e undnsranding anel the social prodllL'ri()n pfthL' I()C.1I ordc-r.
Wherl' its foclIs i5on illvariallr fc,,1tllres these are clcarly to bc found in
social contC'oi rs, whethcr the cl a;, ..,roorn, hcaur) saloll or rhe police qarion.
Hm, in orientari on rht di 5tincr i\'cnc<;s()fparti cularc()ntexts IS seen
as the backdrop for invarianr of rather thal1 rhe ()f
in broadc'r social thc()ry Jl1d importalll social and
prohlelll s (seI: Attewell 1974: 2(8 ).
FtlJ/7
o
l11ethndulogy IJds lost ils 'origi1/al radital rc/7exiL'ity' . .) OI11 l' eth-
11()l11cthodol()gisr,(c. g.Pol/nn)alleged thatethnoll1erhudologyhad forgc.)(tC'n
rhe net'd ro bc'sclf-analyrical'and havca 'crIticaiedgt" (Ritzer;.1I1d GOoJIJl;)n
2004: 397). Thc charge here thar the Ilorion thar 'ali social activiry is
accolllplished, including the activitics ofethnomcthodologisrs' , kssened
ascrhllOlllethodol ogisb have;oined the Qfsociol()gyand someof
th('ir ideas have bccol11e commonplace in thedis cipline(Ritzerand Goodman
2004:.397).
Fthl/ol11cthndolog)' ,mel the status ol lhe rese,lrcher. Crirics point Ollt (fol-
lo\\'ingrhe a bove)thatcrhnonwthuJologyitselfasan acco/llplishl'd, organi..ed
al:ri\'it y involving COIllf'llOn-Sell se, praerical reasoning must demonstrare how
ir" O\\'n aC\;:Ollnts are formed - both in rdatiot1 to cthnomethodologi st<;' own
Sitllariol1s and in n:lation f O la}' and professional sociolugical pral:tices .
Orherwise, ethnomethndological rcsearchers, by not til a radical
reflexivity in relarioll to Col1text, will 'appearto bclievc themsch'cs capable of
floaringfreely across languagcgames wirhoLlt being fett(:fcd b)' rhcconsrrainrs
ofrhcir OW/I' 1996:94-5).
Phellomell%g)' <md Etlmomethod%gy 95
Conclusion
Anllmberofsharedfcaturescan be idenrificd in phcnomenologie<11 sociologyfrum
Schutz through to erhnomethoc!ology 1974; Attewell 1974). F()r
(1974) thercis a 'pervasj\'e infllll'IKc'ofPar'mnianrhL'ory in phe-
nomenological sociology. But it also in 'inreracrional fundamentalism' -
as sharcd knowledgc and accounr.lbiliry to a .,itll.ltion .lppear llnabJc
to CO/1llcct to \Vider 'intcractional parrerns' and social srructural contexrs.
"dJ, thar the phc/1ol11l'/1ologicll i/1 i., to "1/11\!
cxtcnt comparible with ,>rrucrural-funcrional rhl'ory, ullahle to
olltlinc t1w variclll" typc., of intcractio/1. Fina11)', whell ethnolllethodolllgi.s t,
go funhcr tha/1 'rL'Chnical, social or of isolated
"life-\\'orlcb" " thcy I11ccr thc 'rradirion.11 prohlclm of analysi..
wherher t1lL'y are aw.He I)f ir or /1ot' (1""ln,ll1 1'.174: 1421.As Crh/10IllL'lhodol-
ogy from a critique i/1ro a in own right, it too had t
gr'1pple with rhar ohjl'crivc social worltl' I A!tl.'Wcll 1'1/4: 171.) ).
The reccption to Garfinhl\' idca<; \VerL' \'er)' Illixcd. Howe\'l'f, of
rhe approach .1rguc that cth/1l1l11cth()dological l onccpruali<; arion ha... t'nte:: red
rhe discipline:
"In' l the()rI(!s rha r makc to ;1\ h,ll:kWOlllld ulldefSWndll1l:\s ,
'laktl1-for-gTJlltcd kllowledgc, pradical rea!>olling, practi ccs, product ion
allll rl'prndllnion of ill:,> titlHiol1 s hen r l he o t Garfinkch
iHl'rit.lgL' 1998: 1)) 7)
FurthcT, Heriragc dairns rhat erhnollll'th()dology h,lS hccn influcntial in
stuJyingarcas\\'heretraditioll<ll snciological ill\'Cstigarion h<lS heen lackillg,such
as sl.' icncl' (andl'ol11puling), la\\'anel rhcan.., he <1fe 'ali ()f'ooci-
er)' wbose membec5 cio use specific "ulerhodnlogies" todotheir\\'ork'; in partic-
ubr, eO/1\'C'rs.ltional is 'no\\' OllC of the prc-cmincnt ways of ,rudying
social interaerionandlanguageuse in the world' (Herirage 1995: ISS). Thus, for
microsocial them)', bwughr.mention to h.lCkgrollnd knowl -
edgesanti'accountability'ofacrors.mel a ncces<,ary detailed focus ontheanalysis
ofconversation (despire its more rarefied technical de\"eloprnenrs). In Bcrgerand
I.ucknunn\ (1971) distinctivc phcnoll1c/lologieJI approach the acculllulation
and distribution of knowlcdges and processes allowed for an t'xplicit
attempttClI:On/lect theL"xpnicncc()f socieryas asubjecrivcandohjecrivc' reali ty'
(although onc open tocriticisl1l from .1 macro structuralist vicwpnim), 1\ lastillg
pah'lps,ofphcnol1lcllologicalsociology,part.icnlarlyethno/llethodol ogy-
for a microsocial rheory approdch ('1I1d sociologic11 workasa ",hole)- isthatit
poinred srronglyto theuncertaint-ies of5ocinlogical material ano practice:
ir isrhis >:aution anourthestatusaf sociul ogi cal datawhich,afrer(lI! the f1 ag- waving
anel lrlllllpcr-nlowinghasdied down,will stand ,15 thecrhnomerh"dolngi srs' cOlltri-
buho"to f Cidlo"" 4U4\ -
96
Micro Social Theor'V
FurtherReading
Schurz's key be fOllnd in A. SdlLltZ, 0" I''' t' ' WII/t'I1UI(}gy ,md Social
Rel'lti(J/ls, ed. H. Wagner University of Pres5, 1970), A. Schutz.
C()/Iccted P,llJers I (The Hague .\L1rtillus '\iijhuff, 1 and A. Sdllltz. T"c:
P!JCl1ulI/c/lIJ/uKY ()l the Suei.1I Wor/d (1.ondon, Ilcinenl<1nn, 1972). A lIseful.
introuuction ro his work is M. Rllgcrs, 'Alfred Schlltl.'. in \t. Rirzcr
kd.), rhc HI./ck/{'ell C()I/1/1,IIl/()/1 tu M.l;ur Social rhcurist:; (Oxford,
Blackwell, 2(02).
h'L'Jlrial reading for rlll' Ilrigin and h;l,i, of LtllIIlllllethodolllgy i, H. Garfinkcl ,
.';tltd/es il/ hlJ//()/IIeth{)dIJ/ogy (Engk'wood CliHs. j\;J, Prl'ntice-Hall, 1967).
Cood inrrodul'rion, ro Carfinkcl\ \\'()rk ;lreJ. C. Ilerir;lgc. 'EthIlOIl1C'rhodolog}',
in A. (,iddcn, anJ ./. Turner (ed,. ). S()cial T"c(Jrv Tod'l)' (Sranforu, CA,
Stanforu Uni\'l'rsity ,lIld J. Herirage, 'I-LHoltl Garfillkd', in
R. StllnL's kd.i. Key Sucr'olugictll Thillkcrs (Basillgstoh, Palgra ve .\faclllilLrn,
1995 l. whilc a IllUrL' exremi\,t' rrearmenr is /. Hnir'lge. C'lI/llIkel <l l1d
EtlJ/llIIl/et!JlJdo/llgy !l..unhridgc, Polir)', 1 ')841. A good introduction ti
Illore gencrallr W. Sharrol'k ,lTId R . .f. Andersoll, Th!'
FtlJ/l()/I/ethIJdol()gists Elli, Hor\\'(")od, IlJS(, ;. For furthcr di,cLJ !> -
'cc D. Botlcll and D. H. Zirnmerrl1<ln T:tll.: ,mel !)ocial Strtlcture:
Sludies in Ftf,I1IJ/II
e
tllOd(r/ogy ilnel C;UIl/lersCl t;()// :\/1<1I)'5i5 Il;l llhridgc, P()lit v,
IYlJ I); D. BeJl5ol1 anti J A. Hughes. T"c Pe/"51)e(ti/l(' ui Ltlmu/IIctIJodu/lJgy
(Lonuo!], l.onglll<ln, 19:--:3 );.f. Coulter (ed.i, FtlJ//()/lletlJlldol()gical SocilJl( /gy
iAldcr,hol, hlward 1.lgnr, 1
9
91)); :llld ( . (td. ), P/;C'/(J/I/C'I/ol()gic,11
Sut"i()logy (1\icw Yrrrk, \X' iley, J Y73 l.
For Oll L'ull\lCr,Jlir)n anJ ren<;olling: for tlw work of .);]ck" D. !luwrrlltlTl,
II.muy S./cl.:s iCulllhridge, Polity. 199H); H. SaL"ks, Lectures 0/1 c,JIl!Jersati o/l
(Oxforu, Blackwell, 1'-)92); for fllrther more detailnl C. Bu!to!] anti
J. R. L L('c teds.l. 7,tlk .md SIJci,l! ()rg,lIli:;atiIJ// (C1lTedoll, Mulrilingllal
"Iatters, IYS7l; P. Dre\\' and J. Heriragc (cUS. I. Talk at \V()rk Cllllhridge,
Carnhridge PrL'ss, 1992); 1\-1. PollllC'r, MWld<l1l1: Re,/snn (Calllbridgc,
Cambriuge lJnin:rsirr Prc-ss, 198 7); and R. Tllrner (ed.), F.tlmumctlwdolog :
y
Sclectcd RC<ldillgs (H,1rm()llds"'orrh, Pt'ngllin, 1974).
SubjectiveExperience,
Feminism and Sociology
Introduction
In chaprer rhe femini sr cOlHrihutioll to the exa minarioll of rhe relatlomhips
lX'rw('('1l r1wor y and cx pcriL'llce ollrlinccl. I )itfen:1H ("min i"t pcr-
are ,:md, mure particnla rly, associated wirh fe minist
Illcrlwd!> - cxpnicncJ.::' anJ ' rhe pcr,onal', reflexi\ iry, gemkr - are (JV;: ITicwcd
and aSl,essed.
th cnr)', in ;J LTiriqllc of exi,ring for a
neglecr of rhe dimension of gender, broughr a funuamenwl "hift in
Ingical rheorisarIon. Ir proposed thar rhe het\VL'cn micro anu macfI1
rheorerical (Ollccrns pre\'entcd an uf IH 1\\- the daily expl'ri -
enC(' of WOInl'n rebrC'd to \"ariollS contexrs (fn mily, work, and leisurel. hminl st
",rireI" \\'erc h 'c.' n tO argUto rh,H the \Vider ,rrudllrL'!> ()f gender inrlju,diry \Vere
als() felr anel livcd ar rhe levei of daily life anel experienl'e. micro sirua-
rions .:Ire an importam ,itt for rlH: rc:produL"tioll of ,rnIL"tmes alld mhol ic
meanings of dominnncc: anel power and the social disrrihurioll of opportuniriC'_
anel rcsourcl's. Again, a general fcarurl' of fclllinisr writing, also importam for
micro sociology, is rhe qUC'5rion of and voile' (c.g. \\-ho the sir
uario!l, anJ rhar ddinirion cllnfirlllcd ) in cveryday practict' - and whosl'
are hy 11licro anJ Illacro .urangl'JllCnh. Implil'arC'd
here LS the gendering of social rebrions, anJ acccs's to rcsources and spaCt.
Finally, klllinist writing ha, r,liscd Jlll'rhodological qllcstiollS
concerning how sociological k.nowledgc is prod lIced, relations bctwccIl rhe
.lIlel th ose \VI\I) are rhe narure of socinlogical wririll)!.,
nf cross-di sciplinary <lnJ rhcory, and problcll1s rclareel w rhe
naturc of expericntl' <lnd the cldiniriol1 of social carcgoriC's, inclllding ' WOlllan'.
AlIlhe5l: have ,1 direr t hearing nn mi cro social and theory.
Feruinisr writing is shaptc1 b)' a number erf fundamental qucstions: ' Alld
what aVll/t 1l'()/IICn? \'(1")' is 1l'(J1l1eIlS sitll atiull as it is? l--/()//J ,.-eJII /1'(' change
m/{i im/lrm'(' the /l'orld?' .11ld '\Vlhlt a/nJlI/ ditlcr('llces amOllg ll'ul/l en?'
(l. cnp.:rlll,lnIl <lnd Nlcbruggc-Brantley 201l4: 479). In l'xploring rhe pllsition of