638396

research-article2016
CSI0010.1177/0011392116638396Current SociologyCarter and Fuller

Article CS

Current Sociology

Symbols, meaning, and action:

1–31
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
The past, present, and future sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011392116638396
of symbolic interactionism csi.sagepub.com

Michael J Carter and Celene Fuller

California State University, Northridge, USA

Abstract
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical perspective in sociology that addresses the
manner in which society is created and maintained through face-to-face, repeated,
meaningful interactions among individuals. This article surveys past theory and
research in the interactionist tradition. It first provides an overview of three main
trajectories in symbolic interactionist thought, focusing on the work of Herbert
Blumer (the Chicago School), Manford Kuhn (the Iowa School), and Sheldon Stryker
(the Indiana School). A brief summary of each figure’s general perspective on symbolic
interactionism is given, followed by a discussion of the research methodology that
defines and distinguishes each. The article then reviews and assesses the empirical
research that has emerged from these trajectories over the past decades, beginning
with the classical studies of the mid-twentieth century and culminating in research
programs that have emerged in the contemporary era. Specifically, this article surveys
significant contributions to the symbolic interactionist literature in areas such as
dramaturgy, cultural studies, postmodernism, gender/status/power, self and identity,
collective behavior and social movements, and social context and the environment. It
concludes with a discussion of future directions symbolic interactionists should take
in continuing to develop the field.

Keywords
Interaction, microsociology, social psychology, symbolic interactionism, symbols

Corresponding author:
Michael J Carter, Sociology Department, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street,
Northridge, CA 91330-8318, USA.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

2 Current Sociology

Introduction
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theoretical framework and perspective in soci-
ology that addresses how society is created and maintained through repeated interactions
among individuals. The perspective emerged in the mid-twentieth century from a variety
of influences, including the Scottish Moralist and American Pragmatist philosophers –
its greatest influence being American philosopher George Herbert Mead (1934) and his
theories about the relationship between self and society. The emergence of symbolic
interactionism was a response to the mainstream perspectives on society that dominated
sociology at the time (such as Talcott Parsons’ structural functionalism). These domi-
nant, positivist approaches tended to examine society from the ‘top down,’ focusing on
the impact of macro-level institutions and social structures and how they impose on and
constrain individuals. Departing from this tradition, symbolic interactionism was devel-
oped to understand the operation of society from the ‘bottom up,’ shifting the focus to
micro-level processes that emerge during face-to-face encounters in order to explain the
operation of society. For symbolic interactionists, the prevailing structuralist perspec-
tives reified society as a constraining entity that ultimately defines an individual.
Symbolic interactionism moved away from such perspectives that (perhaps) provided
over-socialized views of the individual to conceive the individual as agentic, autono-
mous, and integral in creating their social world.
Central to symbolic interactionist thought is the idea that individuals use language and
significant symbols in their communication with others. Rather than addressing how com-
mon social institutions define and impact individuals, symbolic interactionists shift their
attention to the interpretation of subjective viewpoints and how individuals make sense of
their world from their unique perspective. Symbolic interactionists are often less concerned
with objective structure than with subjective meaning – how repeated, meaningful interac-
tions among individuals come to define the makeup of ‘society.’ Summarized succinctly,
the basic tenets of symbolic interactionism state that: (1) individuals act based on the mean-
ings objects have for them, (2) interaction occurs within a particular social and cultural
context in which physical and social objects (persons), as well as situations, must be
defined or categorized based on individual meanings, (3) meanings emerge from interac-
tions with other individuals and with society, and (4) meanings are continuously created
and recreated through interpreting processes during interaction with others (Blumer, 1969).
In this article we examine past and present theory and research in symbolic interac-
tionism. We first discuss three theoretical approaches within symbolic interactionism
that have defined the field. Next, we review and assess the empirical research that has
emerged over the past decades to show how the perspective has evolved. Lastly, we dis-
cuss the future of symbolic interactionism and identify key areas that the next generation
of scholars should attend to in continuing to refine and develop symbolic interactionism
as a leading sociological perspective.

Symbolic interactionism as theory and perspective: Three

approaches
Theory and research in symbolic interactionism has developed along three main areas of
emphasis, following the work of Herbert Blumer (the Chicago School), Manford Kuhn

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 3

(the Iowa School), and Sheldon Stryker (the Indiana School). Herbert Blumer coined the
term ‘symbolic interactionism’ and was the first to formulate Mead’s ideas into a cohe-
sive theory with specific methodological implications for study. Kuhn and Stryker, while
methodologically at odds with Blumer, share much of the same theoretical orientation as
Blumer, following Mead. Let us examine these theoretical approaches in more detail to
understand how they together make up our contemporary understanding of interactionist
thought.

The Chicago School

The main variant of symbolic interactionism was developed by Herbert Blumer (1969)
at the University of Chicago in the 1950s. Blumer brought Mead’s philosophically based
social behaviorism to sociology, even if some have seen his conception of symbolic
interactionism more resembling WI Thomas’s (1931) notion of the ‘definition of the situ-
ation’ than what is purely found in the work of Mead (Collins, 1994). Blumer laid the
groundwork for a new theoretical paradigm which in many ways challenged sociology’s
accepted forms of epistemology and methodology. Blumer’s brand of symbolic interac-
tionism has been the most influential in sociology; most interactionist scholarship is
aligned to some degree with his vision.
Blumer emphasized how the self emerges from an interactive process of joint action
(Denzin, 1992). Blumer, like Mead, saw individuals as engaged in ‘mind action’: humans
do not sometimes ponder themselves and their relationships to others – they constantly
are engaged in mindful action where they manipulate symbols and negotiate the meaning
of situations (Mead, 1934). Echoing Mead, Blumer believed that the study of human
behavior must begin with human association, a notion that was not common in the view-
point of early American sociology, which treated the individual and society as discrete
entities (Meltzer and Petras, 1970).
Blumer’s symbolic interactionism centers on processes actors use to constantly create
and recreate experiences from one interaction to the next. For Blumer, symbolic interac-
tionism was simply ‘the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes place
between human beings’ (Blumer, 1962: 179). In his view, social institutions exist only as
individuals interact; society is not a structure but rather a continuing process where
agency and indeterminateness of action is emphasized (Collins, 1994). Treating society
as structured, patterned, or stable is a reification because society, like individual actors’
interactions and experiences with one another, is constantly in flux. Following Mead,
Blumer’s symbolic interactionism conceives social institutions as ‘social habits’ that
occur within specific situations that are common to those involved in the situation. For
Blumer, meanings are intersubjective and perceived, and constantly reinterpreted among
individuals. There are no meanings inherent in the people or objects which an actor con-
fronts – actors rather place meanings upon such entities which are perceived as unique
(House, 1977). Behavior is simply an actor’s idiosyncratic way of reacting to an interpre-
tation of a situation. It is therefore not to be examined or predicted from antecedent
knowledge about how actors generally respond to given situations. This is impossible
since each encounter is different from others (and therefore unique). Understanding
social behavior requires an interpretive perspective that examines how behavior is chang-
ing, unpredictable, and unique to each and every social encounter.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

4 Current Sociology

Blumer’s theoretical contention was that human behavioral patterns must be studied
in forms of action, and that human group life should be studied in terms of what the
participants do together in units (Blumer, 1969; Shibutani, 1988). Blumer’s orientation
toward social phenomena centers on the notion of independent action: human society is
distinctive because of the capacity of each member to act independently. Each person can
regulate their contribution so that the entire group is able to achieve goals under diverse
circumstances. This viewpoint understands the agent’s role in society as free and flexi-
ble; an individual reacts on his or her own accord and without structural influence.
Blumer believed that any adequate explanation of human social life must consider the
autonomous contributions of each participant (Shibutani, 1988).
Blumer’s theoretical orientation toward symbolic interactionism can be summarized
through three premises (Blumer, 1969): (1) Human beings act toward things on the basis
of the meanings that the things have for them. (2) The meaning of things is derived from,
or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others. (3) Meanings are handled
in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by a person in dealing with the
things he or she encounters. While these three premises remain for many the core tenets
of symbolic interactionist thought, some have noted a need for their expansion. For
example, Snow (2001) believes that symbolic interactionism is better conceived around
four principles: the principle of interactive determination, the principle of symbolization,
the principle of emergence, and the principle of human agency. For Snow, these broader
principles connect a wider array of work to symbolic interactionism, helping scholars
understand the various tensions within the perspective (Snow, 2001: 375).
Since Mead never actually put his perspective into writing and his work was pub-
lished posthumously, a proscription for methodology within his symbolic interactionist
framework was nonexistent until Blumer set out to develop an approach using Mead’s
ideas. Blumer was a staunch critic of logical empiricism, and for him the idea that sci-
ence was the one and only true vehicle for discovering truth was inherently flawed. For
Blumer, any methodology for understanding social behavior must ‘get inside’ the indi-
vidual in order to see the world as the individual perceives it. A sound methodologist
must take it as given that patterns of behavior are not conducive for scientific insight as
are other worldly phenomena because behavior takes place on the basis of an actor’s own
particular meanings. Blumer’s methodology emphasizes intimate understanding rather
than the intersubjective agreement among investigators, which is a necessary condition
for scientific inquiry to have worth.
Blumer’s stance on social psychological methodology is particularly dismissive of
empirically driven research designs which employ the scientific method to loosely
defined or standardized concepts. Blumer felt that empirically verifiable knowledge of
social situations cannot be gleaned by using statistical techniques or hypothesis testing
which employ such established research methodology, but rather by examining each
social setting – i.e. each distinct interaction among individuals – directly. Blumer’s more
subjective methodology attempts to measure and understand an actor’s experience
through ‘sympathetic introspection’: the researcher takes the standpoint of the actor
whose behavior he or she is studying and attempts to use the actor’s own categories in
capturing the meanings for the actor during social interactions. To summarize Blumer’s
methodological approach, an understanding of social life requires an understanding of

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 5

the processes individuals use to interpret situations and experiences, and how they con-
struct their actions among other individuals in society.

The Iowa and Indiana Schools

While Blumer’s work has been seen as the most comprehensive overview of Mead’s
symbolic interactionist ideas, the methodological aspect of his perspective was what
Blumer saw as the most appropriate approach to test Mead’s main tenets. Perhaps the
absence of a methodological dictum in Mead’s symbolic interactionist approach is
responsible for the varieties of techniques that have been proposed following his work.
According to Blumer, qualitative methods of study are the only way to study human
behavior, by rigorously defining concepts and using them to understand the nature of
behavior. However, other sociologists writing in the symbolic interactionist perspective
saw the study of interaction as not limited to qualitative approaches. Manford Kuhn
(1964) and Sheldon Stryker (1980) are two such sociologists who utilized positivist
methods in their studies of the relationship between the self and social structure.
Stemming from his work in the mid-twentieth century, Manford Kuhn’s positivism
influenced a new sociological tradition termed the ‘Iowa School’ of symbolic interac-
tionism. Kuhn sought to reconcile Mead’s framework with rigorous, scientific testing of
symbolic interactionist principles. Kuhn and the Iowa School emphasized process in
interaction and viewed behavior as ‘purposive, socially constructed, coordinated social
acts informed by preceding events in the context of projected acts that occur’ (Katovich
et al., 2003: 122).
The basic theoretical underpinning of Kuhn is summarized around four core themes
(Katovich et al., 2003): the first is that social interaction can be examined through a
cybernetic perspective that emphasizes intentionality, temporality, and self-correction.
Second, scientists should focus their attention on dyads, triads, and small groups as these
are the loci for most social behavior and interaction. Third, while social behavior can be
studied in its natural form (i.e. in naturally occurring settings) it should also be studied in
a laboratory; incorporating both environments allows us to articulate behaviors and iden-
tify abstract laws for behavior which can be universally applied to actors. And fourth,
social scientists must endeavor to create a more systematic and rigorous vocabulary to
identify the ontological nature of sociality (i.e. operationalize concepts in a much more
thorough manner than what had been previously accepted by social psychologists).
While Kuhn and those associated with the Iowa School follow a symbolic interac-
tionist framework generally consistent with Mead, their methodological stance directly
contradicts that proposed by Blumer. Rather than viewing quantitative analyses of
social interaction as abstract empiricism, Kuhn asserted that the use of quantitative
methods could provide systematic testing of Mead’s theoretical principles. Kuhn saw
the study of the complexity of social life and of selfhood as a scientific endeavor requir-
ing sociological analysis. He believed that social science was indeed consistent with the
quantitative study of human behaviors and conceptions of the self when properly exe-
cuted. Rather than relying on subjective survey responses to assess attitudes toward the
self, Kuhn developed the ‘Twenty Statements Test’ (TST). Following Mead’s work on
the emergence of the self through interaction, Kuhn’s TST is based on self-disclosure of

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

6 Current Sociology

respondents in answering the question ‘Who Am I?’ on 20 numbered lines. Kuhn

believed that responses to this question could provide a systematic study of an individ-
ual’s self-attitudes and organization of identities as they emerge from symbolic interac-
tion with others. By coding these responses, a researcher may find both conventional
and idiosyncratic reflections of social statuses and identities. Furthermore, since the test
relies on self-report, it serves as a useful tool for discerning individual meanings with-
out presenting them as objective facts. Kuhn and the Iowa School utilized the TST
among other quantitative measures (including data collected from laboratory experi-
ments) to attempt to predict how individuals see themselves in situations, but did not
focus solely on conceptions of the self. Despite criticism of Kuhn’s techniques as being
deterministic or succumbing to reductionism, the Iowa School following Kuhn’s work
has contributed much to research addressing the problematic nature of coordinated
social action as well as meanings as responses in interaction.
Kuhn’s student and successor Carl Couch (1984; Couch et al., 1986) continued the
symbolic interactionist tradition at Iowa, applying a more pragmatic approach to the
study of social phenomena and using innovative experiments to understand interactions
among actors. Couch’s brand of interactionism attempted to understand individuals’ ori-
entations toward one another across time and space, improving on the cross-sectional
methodological approach that mostly defined Kuhn’s research (Herman-Kinney and
Vershaeve, 2003). Couch’s role in extending symbolic interactionist knowledge has led
many to differentiate the Iowa School as ‘old’ and ‘new,’ representing Kuhn’s and
Couch’s respective influence during those eras.
Sheldon Stryker’s work is similar to Kuhn’s in its scope as well as in methods
employed. As Blumer and Kuhn are associated with the Chicago and Iowa Schools
respectively, Stryker is a sociologist from what is referred to as the ‘Indiana School’ of
symbolic interactionist thought, representing theory and research generated in the mid to
latter part of the twentieth century at the University of Indiana. While Mead and Blumer
emphasized the fluid nature of meanings and the self in interaction, Stryker emphasized
that meanings and interactions led to relatively stable patterns that create and uphold
social structures. Like Kuhn, Stryker believed that symbolic interactionist ideas could
and should be tested using quantitative methods. According to Stryker, Mead’s work can
be conceived of as a ‘frame’ rather than a coherent theory with testable propositions
(Stryker, 2008: 17). Stryker expanded symbolic interactionist ideas through operational-
izing variables that Mead presented as general assumptions and concepts by hypothesiz-
ing and empirically testing relationships among Mead’s concepts while incorporating
elements of role theory.
Stryker further expanded Mead’s concept of role-taking in order to demonstrate the
structural aspect of interaction. Stryker’s work on roles treats social roles as emerging
from a reciprocal influence of networks or patterns of relationships in interactions as they
are shaped by various levels of social structures. Stryker defines roles as ‘expectations
which are attached to [social] positions,’ or ‘symbolic categories [that] serve to cue
behavior’ (Stryker, 1980: 57). According to Stryker, expectations of roles vary across
situations and within the context of cultural or social change. In taking the attitudes of
others in a situation, an individual uses ‘symbolic cues’ built from prior experiences and
normative expectations of status from social positions to assess potential lines of action.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 7

In this way, roles as they are attached to positions may be analyzed as predictors of future
behavior for individuals in various social categories.
As with symbolic interactionism, Stryker’s structural role theory views socialization
as the process through which individuals learn normative expectations for actions as they
relate to role relationships. By building up from the person to the situation within the
larger social structure, Stryker showed the reciprocity of the individual and society. In
every situation, individuals identify themselves and others in the context of social struc-
ture. Individuals then reflexively apply what they perceive to be others’ identifications of
them that, over time, become internalized expectations for behavior as part of the self.
These internalized expectations, when accepted and enacted by individuals in various
roles, become identities. In emphasizing the impact social structure has on how roles are
played in interaction, Stryker’s structural approach to symbolic interactionism is an
attempt to bridge the gap between micro- and macrosociological and social psychologi-
cal theories. Stryker’s structural symbolic approach therefore provides significant theo-
retical insights to social roles in expanding symbolic interactionist concepts.

Applications of interactionist theory: Empirical research

across the decades
During the twentieth century, symbolic interactionist research held a prominent place
within sociology despite periods of backlash and criticism for being unscientific, apoliti-
cal, and too micro (Fine, 1993). Even though symbolic interactionism is often criticized,
there is little denying that it has been as popular and influential over the past half-century
as any competing sociological perspective; hundreds of books, research articles, and
monographs written in its vein are evidence of this. This abundance of research has led
multiple scholars to note the difficulty in summarizing advancements within the field. In
previous synopses of symbolic interactionism, Hall (2003) and Plummer (1996) both
noted that any attempt to summarize the field must be – by necessity – partial and selec-
tive. With the understanding that any article-length summary of the research produced
within symbolic interactionism cannot be exhaustive, let us examine its substantive areas
of inquiry and a few empirical studies that have defined the field.

Classical symbolic interactionist research

Although some may not specifically identify as a symbolic interactionist, clear traces of
interactionist ideas are apparent across sociology, specifically in ethnomethodology
(Garfinkel, 1967; Scott and Lyman, 1968), dramaturgy (Goffman, 1959b), research on the
family (Stryker, 1959), theories on identity and social roles (Burke and Stets, 2009; Heise,
2002; MacKinnon, 1994; Stryker and Serpe, 1982), deviance (Becker, 1953), and phe-
nomenology (Schutz, 1962). Beyond these subfields, common areas of inquiry in sym-
bolic interactionism include social problems (Best, 2003), cultural studies (Becker, 1982;
Fine, 1996), semiotics (Manning, 2003), narratives (Reynolds and Herman-Kinney,
2003), feminism (Deegan and Hill, 1987; Thorne, 1993), neo-Marxism (Schwalbe, 1986),
and postmodernism (Gergen, 1991; Lemert, 1997; Sandstrom and Fine, 2003). There have
been significant developments in other areas (Hall, 2003), including a resurgence in

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

8 Current Sociology

studies on pragmatism (Joas, 1993; Maines and McCallion, 2000; Plummer, 1996; Saxton,
1993; Shalin, 1986; Strauss, 1993), work on collective behavior and social movements
(Lofland, 1996; McPhail, 1991; Morris and Mueller, 1992; Snow et al., 1986; Stryker
et al., 2000), further studies on deviance, mostly focusing on labeling theory and social
problems (Best, 1989; Conrad and Schneider, 1980; Loseke, 1999), research on temporal-
ity (Couch, 1984; Flaherty, 1998; Maines et al., 1983; Strauss, 1993; Zerubavel, 1985),
and the implementation of emotions and affect into studies on symbolic interaction
(Hochschild, 1979, 2003 [1983]; Scheff, 1979; Shott, 1979).
One of the more famous examples of symbolic interactionist scholarship was pro-
vided by Glaser and Strauss (1964) in their examination of awareness contexts that influ-
ence social interaction. These scholars noted how social interactions vary by structure,
awareness of members, and tactics of maintaining awareness/unawareness. For example,
nurses in hospitals often must interact with patients who are terminal but unaware of the
severity of their condition. Glaser and Strauss’s work showed how, in examples such as
this, the knowledge of a patient’s condition is controlled and kept from the patient. Here,
the awareness of impending death is constructed – and avoided – in order to maintain a
patient’s positive outlook and psychological well-being.
In other classic studies, Brooks (1969) examined the relationship between the self and
political ideology, revealing that how one identifies depends on one’s political orienta-
tion (specifically, he examined how self-views correlate with right-wing or left-wing
ideologies). Stryker’s (1957) work on role-taking applied symbolic interactionist ideas to
understand why family members often have differing levels of commitment to their fam-
ily roles. Glaser (1956) showed how criminal behavior can best be understood using a
social psychological lens.
One of the most famous interactionist studies was provided by Becker (1953) in his
work on becoming a marijuana user, where he showed how ‘feeling high’ when using
marijuana is a social construction rather than a physiological, internal motivational state
caused by the drug. Becker revealed that in marijuana users, feeling high requires both
the presence and recognition of the drug’s symptoms – and recognition of the drug’s
symptoms is constructed socially through interactions with others. Applied more broadly,
Becker’s study shows how role behaviors are socialized and acquired through interac-
tions with others. Becker’s marijuana study had a massive influence, not only for sym-
bolic interactionists but on the field of sociology, as it challenged and widened the
boundaries of what was considered acceptable for rigorous study. To this day, when stu-
dents read ‘Becoming a marijuana user’ they realize how creative one can be as a
researcher; Becker was instrumental in inspiring scholars to dare to examine unique,
taboo, and esoteric phenomena not studied by others.
Another seminal study was conducted by Rosengren (1961), who examined the nature
of self-meanings in those who are ‘emotionally disturbed.’ Here, young boys who were
institutionalized were studied to identify how self-meanings change over time, specifi-
cally how self-meanings shift based on how individuals believe they are seen by others.
By examining an institutional setting where the boys experienced continuous, close con-
tact with others, Rosengren was able to study change in self-meanings more rapidly than
what normally occurs in individuals. His study was important in demonstrating how
Mead’s ideas could be applied in a testable environment and in revealing how to

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 9

conceive a research design capable of measuring symbolic interactionist concepts.

Continuing the theme of studying individuals in an institutionalized setting, Daniels
(1972) revealed how psychiatric diagnoses in the military are socially constructed. Here
he showed how diagnoses of mental illness are dependent not only on patients’ symp-
toms in institutionalized settings, but also by doctors’ awareness of the consequences that
a specific diagnostic label may have for the patient.
The previously described studies by Glaser and Strauss, Becker, Daniels, et al. are
revered today for their innovative genius, and for providing a foundation for how sym-
bolic interaction theory can be applied to understand the contexts of everyday life.
Perhaps more than anything, these classic studies inspired a future generation of scholars
to apply symbolic interactionist theory in novel ways. Let us now examine the research
trajectories that followed – or were influenced by – the classical era in symbolic interac-
tionist research.

Dramaturgical analysis
One of the most important symbolic interactionist theorists of the classical era was
Erving Goffman, though some might hesitate to classify his work as representing
purely an interactionist standpoint. Regardless, interactionist themes are found
throughout Goffman’s work: symbols, shared meaning, identity – all are common ele-
ments in his scholarship, which spanned multiple decades and influenced a legion of
sociologists. To this day, Goffman continues to be one of the most inspirational and
cited sociologists.
Goffman’s seminal book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959b) used the
metaphor of a theatrical performance as a framework to describe how actors present
themselves to others, and how they attempt to control others’ impressions to be seen
positively. Here Goffman documented the myriad strategies actors use in face-to-face
interactions to manage impressions. Other work by Goffman (1959a, 1961) examined
the ‘moral career’ of mental patients and the impact of total institutions on individuals.
Here he studied how individuals’ identities are altered – indeed redefined – when placed
in institutionalized settings, noting the mechanisms by which people’s self-definitional
meanings change when being removed from significant others and immersed in a psychi-
atric hospital.
Goffman’s (1963b) later work on stigma addressed how those with ‘spoiled identities’
(e.g. those with physical deformities, drug addicts, prostitutes) have difficulty in negoti-
ating their environment due to others’ hesitation or refusal in accepting them. Goffman’s
work also addressed how rituals influence social interactions (Goffman, 1967), proper
etiquette for behaving in public places (Goffman, 1963a), and how actors use frames to
interpret reality and organize experience (Goffman, 1974).
Goffman’s brand of symbolic interactionism lives on through contemporary applica-
tions in a variety of research programs. For example, recent research by Myrick (2013)
observed individuals seeking to expunge their criminal record in order to better manage
self-impression. Myrick applied Goffman’s approach to stigma management by examin-
ing situations where individuals with spoiled identities attempt to advance a better self-
image through interactions with others. Applying Goffman’s ideas on ‘personal identity

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

10 Current Sociology

markers’ (Goffman, 1963b: 51–71), Myrick showed how criminals interpret and negoti-
ate the meanings of legal documents and the legal system to manage their spoiled
identity.
Donley and Jackson (2014) also drew on Goffman’s treatment of stigma in their study
of homeless men in Florida, USA. The authors interviewed 30 homeless men in gentrify-
ing urban areas and found that respondents were aware of their stigmatized identity and
actively tried to conceal it from domiciled individuals. Lacking the resources of domi-
ciled individuals to produce a desirable ‘personal front,’ many homeless respondents
reported using city services to conceal their homeless status.
In other research that applies Goffman’s approach, Lavin (2014) combined autoeth-
nography and interviews to explore the relationship between spatial organization and
drug use in strip clubs. The author spent several years performing in a topless bar, which
was selected for its ‘mixed use’ of performance and sex acts. Utilizing a grounded
approach, Lavin discovered that the spatial organization of the club combined with the
already stigmatized setting created situational contexts for illicit drug use. In order to
avoid further perceived stigmatization, strip club employees routinely used illicit drugs
in spaces deemed hidden from patrons’ view such as the dressing room or bathroom.
Consumption of other substances such as alcohol and to a lesser extent marijuana was
less likely to be concealed.
Lastly, some have applied Goffman’s (1974) concept of ‘framing’ to create a typology
of collective action in the United States. According to Goffman, frames organize inter-
pretations of everyday life and simplify objects, events, and actions by selectively high-
lighting specific phenomena. Ratliff and Hall (2014) emphasized the importance of
framing for combining individual cognitive schema with the cultural schema constructed
by activists of particular social movements. They showed how cultural schemas create
contexts for strategic social action, conceiving framing as a process through which col-
lective action occurs. In addition to framing, the authors applied Goffman’s dramaturgi-
cal approach to describe the performances that draw on existing meanings to frame
phenomena in a way consistent with the movement’s message.

Cultural studies and postmodernism

Scholars have also applied symbolic interactionist thought to a variety of sociological
subfields. Many have applied symbolic interactionism to cultural studies (Becker and
McCall, 1993; Carey, 1989; Diawara, 1996; Giroux, 2001) and even postmodernism
(Maines, 1996). Norman K Denzin’s (1983, 1985, 1991, 1992, 2008) work provides a
multifaceted and inventive application of interactionist theory to these fields, incorporat-
ing ideas from poststructural theory and focusing on the politics of interpretation. For
example, Denzin has applied symbolic interactionist theory to better understand alcohol-
ism, examining the alcoholic self and the processes of an alcoholic’s recovery (Denzin,
1987, 1993). Others have also applied interactionist themes to cultural studies and/or
postmodernism, specifically regarding semiotics and narratives (Manning, 2003), quali-
tative research methodologies (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005), sickness and health (Charmaz,
1991), and experiences in the workplace (Fine, 1996).
In more recent research that uses interactionist thought to understand culture, Calarco
(2014) applied tool kit theories of culture and symbolic interactionism to observations of

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 11

middle-class and working-class students in the classroom. Tool kit models often explain
educational inequalities. In the case of the ‘hidden’ or ‘unofficial’ curriculum, Calarco
observed class differences in students’ ability to adhere to unspecified expectations for
behavior. Aligned with previous research, middle-class students were found to better
meet behavioral expectations of teachers than working-class students. Calarco suggested
that middle-class students were more likely to have prior exposure to values and behav-
iors that comprise a hidden curriculum. While working-class parents often work in occu-
pations that require deference to authority, middle-class parents tend to work in
occupations that allow them more independence and freedom. Calarco argued that these
experiences create different systems of meaning based on status differences, such as
class and gender.
Other recent cultural studies research has applied symbolic interactionism to under-
stand social adaptation of newly immigrated students (Ukasoanya, 2014). By applying
symbolic interactionism as the framework through which to observe the interactions
between new immigrant students and school counselors, Ukasoanya suggested that
school counselors could guide new immigrant students through their integration into a
new culture. This cultural integration requires immigrant students knowing when to
adopt new cultural scripts and what aspects of their own culture to retain in order to suc-
ceed in the dominant host culture.
Miles (2014) addressed the study of cultural anchoring, or the process by which indi-
viduals incorporate less salient identities to their core identity. Symbolic interactionist
and identity theories describe the process through which identities are validated or inval-
idated by others in interaction. While individuals incorporate the appraisal of others in
their own self-conceptions, they also seek to maintain consistency in their identities and
behavior. Miles showed how cultural anchoring thus becomes more important in predict-
ing and describing behavior in various contexts as individuals receive feedback and
adjust their actions to better align with salient identities.
In other research on culture, Killoren and Deutsch (2014) conducted a path model
using data from a five-year longitudinal study of 1899 Latino youth to examine the rela-
tionship between risky sexual behavior and parenting processes. The authors sought to
understand what factors contributed to the high rate of sexually transmitted infections
and low rate of condom usage in Latino youth as compared to their peers. Additionally,
Killoren and Deutsch examined the effects of acculturation, nativity status, and gender
on Latino youth sexual behavior. The authors found that a high level of strictness by the
mother and the lesser strictness of the father in Time 1 led to less risky sexual behavior
in Time 2, and more monitoring by fathers at Time 2 was associated with less risky
behavior in Time 3. These associations were especially strong for girls as compared to
boys. Latino youth who were born in the US reported riskier behavior than their foreign-
born counterparts.

Gender, status, and power

Many have found symbolic interactionism useful for understanding the construction of
gender and sexuality. West and Zimmerman’s (1987) ‘Doing gender’ set the stage for
social constructionist research on gender and sexuality. The concept of ‘doing gender’
demonstrates the socially constructed nature of masculinity and femininity as developing

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

12 Current Sociology

out of repeated, patterned interaction and socialization processes. The authors contend
that gender emerges through interaction, directly contradicting the normative perspective
of gender as an innate state of being or individual quality. West and Zimmerman addi-
tionally expanded on Goffman’s (1976) treatment of gender displays by demonstrating
the salience of gender in interaction as a master status. According to West and Zimmerman,
individuals are constantly assessed for their gender performances in both interactional
and institutional contexts; thus, ‘doing gender’ is unavoidable because sex category
membership is attached to the allocation of power and resources across various social
institutions. West and Zimmerman’s social constructionist approach to gender and sex
hugely impacted sociology as well as gender and feminist studies.
In other research, Estes and Edmonds (1981) advocated for the use of symbolic inter-
actionist ideas in policy research, suggesting that WI Thomas’s ‘definition of the situa-
tion’ could be applied to understand power relations, specifically to understand why
those in higher status positions are more successful in defining situations to assert domi-
nance. These scholars showed how interactionist theory is fruitful for policy research in
(1) formulating policies through negotiation in a structural context, (2) implementing
policies by emphasizing multiple interpretations of policy intent, and (3) influencing
meaning for those who are objects of the policies as well as differential effects and social
relationships (Estes and Edmonds, 1981: 77). Due to symbolic interactionist emphasis on
meanings, the application of these concepts in policy formulation and implementation
ensures that experiences and meanings of those in lower status groups are viewed as
significant as those in high status groups. The authors asserted that basic (or ‘pure’)
research should incorporate competing and dominant definitions of the situation and a
description of how these definitions are created and maintained. These definitions
include what is defined as the problem, the population defined as a ‘problem,’ and the
formulation of policy to assuage the issue. Similarly, applied research using the symbolic
interactionist framework should focus on processes associated with the policies and the
resulting social change or inhibition of social change. Here, the symbolic interactionist
emphasis on social actions and their consequences may inform researchers of key factors
of policy design and the experiences and meanings actors attach to them.
In a similar vein, Candace West (1984) observed 21 patient–physician interactions
during doctor visits at a family practice in the southern United States to assess status
implications of interactions. West utilized already existing recordings of patient–physi-
cian interactions and transcribed and coded them for interruptions (defined as speaking
over the current speaker more than a syllable away from the transition to their turn at
speaking) (West, 1984: 91). Following West and Zimmerman’s (1977, 1983) studies of
interruptions in cross-sex interactions, West sought to explore power dynamics between
male and female physicians and their patients. While West and Zimmerman found that
men talk more than women in cross-sex interactions and are more likely to interrupt the
other sex, the higher status of a medical authority led physicians to interrupt patients
67% of the time. However, when looking at the sex of the physician, male physicians
interrupted 68% of the time compared to female physicians who interrupted 32% of the
time. While there were only four female physicians, results of the study showed that their
patients interrupted as much or more than physicians. West, however, noted that the two
encounters with female patients and female physicians had symmetrical interruptions.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 13

Concluding the research, the author asserted that male physicians interrupt more in order
to assert dominance over patients. West suggested this contradicts prior research that
found doctors to disproportionately interrupt patients without analyzing the sex of the
physician and patient. West concluded by noting that research on these interactions
should examine the effect of gender as a ‘master status’ that may trump other power rela-
tions such as physician status.
Schilt (2006) followed West’s work in her study of transmen’s experiences at work
post-transition. Combining West and Zimmerman’s concept of ‘doing gender,’ Connell’s
(1995) ‘patriarchal dividend,’ and Collins’s (1991) ‘outsider-within’ concepts, Schilt’s
study demonstrated how gender and workplace inequality are reproduced through narra-
tives of transmen who saw upward mobility, an increase of perceived competency, and
other status privileges after transitioning to male. Other research has applied a symbolic
interactionist framework to understand relationships among gender, culture, identity,
emotions, and personal change (Schrock and Padavic, 2007; Schrock and Schwalbe,
2009; Vaccaro et al., 2011).
In more recent research, Javaid (2015) applied a symbolic interactionist framework to
address the issue of male rape in the United Kingdom. Drawing specifically on Goffman
and Blumer, Javaid connected the concept of ‘defining the situation’ in interactions with
hegemonic masculinity, the dominant form of masculinity that is socially acceptable and
required of men. The author acknowledged the similarities between how men and women
cope with rape, but that men differ in that they engage in ‘masculine’ behaviors shaped
by hegemonic masculinity. Normative expectations for men include strength and power,
which contradicts the concept of the ‘victim’ narrative that is associated with weakness.
Applying the Thomas Theorem (situations defined as real are real in their consequences),
Javaid demonstrated how male victims of rape do not define their victimization as ‘real,’
and therefore do not see the consequences of their rape as being real.
Mariani et al. (2015) analyzed data from the Monitoring the Future Survey and the
National Survey of Political and Civic Engagement of Young People to examine the
impact that highly visible female role models such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and
Sarah Palin had on young women. The authors found that the election of Speaker Pelosi
and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton had a role model effect on young
women. However, the effect was largely among women who were Democratic and lib-
eral. Sarah Palin’s vice-presidential candidacy did not appear to have a role model effect
on young women. Rather, the perceived presence or absence of highly visible female role
models by young women seems to hinge on ‘political context and on the interactions
between gender, partisanship, and ideology among female political role models and con-
stituents’ (Mariani et al., 2015: 717).
Martin et al. (2015) observed the relationship between masculinity and status through
a year-long study of a live action role-playing group called ‘Dagorhir.’ While low status
male participants in this group referred to themselves as ‘nerds,’ through role-playing
these otherwise subordinated men were given opportunities to increase their status as a
group. However, women in the group remained relegated to subordinate positions.
Martin et al. also showed how role-playing interactions among male members involved
various performances of masculinity (labeled ‘epic glory’), played out though dramatic
death scenes.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

14 Current Sociology

Lastly, recent research by Whitley (2013) drew on Mead, Cooley, and Blumer to exam-
ine the role of ‘significant others’ – friends, family, partners, allies – throughout the transi-
tion of their transgender loved ones. Using observation and interviews, Whitley uncovered
relational identity themes of sexual orientation, social role, and religious identity that
significant others negotiated throughout the transition of their loved one. These identities
are constructed through interaction and reproduced through the process of ‘doing’ or per-
forming gender. Interactions between transgender persons and their loved ones require
changes in language and behavior, transforming former roles and identities.

Self and identity

Over the past decades many scholars have applied an interactionist framework to under-
stand self and identity processes, specifically in the areas of role theory, affect control
theory, and identity theory. Ralph Turner’s (Turner, 1956, 1990; Turner and Killian,
1987) role theory emphasized role-making, or the process of creating and modifying
definitions of oneself and one’s roles as the orienting mechanism in interaction (Turner,
1962). Turner stressed the dual nature of role relations, emphasizing that role expecta-
tions must always be understood in relation to the counter role in which they are juxta-
posed (e.g. one cannot understand the motivations or meanings of being a worker without
understanding the corresponding role of manager). Turner’s role theory attempted to
capture not only the ways in which individuals define role expectations themselves, but
also how role expectations are embedded in the social structure. His theory highlighted
that the self is as much a sociological as psychological entity. Turner’s role theory was a
formalized system, involving a series of axiomatic propositions that addressed how roles
emerge in individuals and how they relate to society (Turner, 1968).
Other symbolic interactionist work on self and identity is found in the work of schol-
ars aligned with affect control theory, who have shown how individuals reduce uncer-
tainty about their existence by developing a working understanding of their social worlds
(Heise, 1999, 2002; MacKinnon, 1994; Robinson and Smith-Lovin, 2006). Affect con-
trol theory allows one to predict what individuals will do when others violate expecta-
tions in social situations, or specifically how individuals act to restore identities when
they have been discredited, based on an individual’s definition of events and the emo-
tional reaction they have to such events. Research in affect control theory has shown that
individuals construct events in order to confirm fundamental meanings regarding self
and others, and how individuals use emotions as indicators for whether events are played
out as expected or not. When individuals experience emotional outcomes in a situation
that are different from what is expected in one’s culture, a ‘deflection’ occurs, motivating
the individual to restore meanings of self and situation back to the cultural standard.
Affect control theory is a cumulative theory of identity, emotions, and behavior that has
established an extensive research program over the past half century, with new empirical
studies being published every year (Rogers and Robinson, 2014; Rogers et al., 2014).
Those who work in identity theory have also produced an extensive program of
research under the umbrella of symbolic interactionism (Burke and Stets, 2009; Serpe
and Stryker, 2011). In identity theory, Mead’s theories on the reflexivity of self and soci-
ety are applied to understand how identities motivate behavior and emotions in social

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 15

situations. Research in this vein has three main emphases that all focus on the structural
nature of identities. One emphasis, stemming from the work of Stryker et al., reveals how
behavior is a function of how committed and salient one’s identities are in their overall
identity hierarchy (Brenner et al., 2014; Merolla et al., 2012). Research in this area has
examined how a salient blood donor identity predicts the frequency of giving blood
(Callero and Piliavin, 1983), and how a salient religious identity influences one’s time
spent praying and attending religious services (Stryker and Serpe, 1982). Some of the
most recent research in this area has applied structural identity theory to understand how
‘hookup scenes’ serve as opportunity structures to explore same-sex attractions, and for
women, to verify bisexual, lesbian, or queer sexual identities (Rupp et al., 2014).
A second area within identity theory examines roles and how identities operate to
motivate behavior during interactions (McCall and Simmons, 1978). ‘Role-identity the-
ory’ has remained more theoretical than empirical, as a cumulative research program is
yet to emerge within this area. A third variant of identity theory examines identities,
behavior, and emotions as a process of cybernetic control (Burke, 1991). Here, individu-
als’ identity meanings are standards by which to compare the self to others in social situ-
ations. Individuals have a main goal of verifying identity meanings among others in the
environment in order to feel positive emotions. Recent research in this area has shown
how one’s moral identity predicts moral behavior (Carter, 2013; Stets and Carter, 2006,
2011, 2012), how status mediates identity processes (Stets and Harrod, 2004; Stets et al.,
2008), and how various cognitive and behavioral outcomes emerge for those with a crim-
inal identity (Asencio, 2013; Asencio and Burke, 2011). Recent research by identity
theorists in the symbolic interactionist tradition has also examined identity processes in
stigmatized populations (Carter, 2015; Carter and Mireles, forthcoming).
Other recent research by Glass and Few-Demo (2013) applied symbolic interaction-
ism and Black feminist theory to explore the support groups of Black lesbian couples and
the effects interactions with family and friends had on the identities of lesbian partners.
The authors found that these couples used social expectations and symbols of families to
co-construct their identities. Although friends and members of the community – even
members of the LGBTQ community – did not validate Black lesbian couples’ identities,
the couples engaged in a self-validating process. This process was employed to keep the
relationship, and in some cases families with children, functioning smoothly. Occasionally
this meant limiting time with those who failed to validate Black lesbian identity.
Ueno and Gentile (2014) explored moral identity in friendships between gay, lesbian,
and bisexual (GLB) and straight college students. Through in-depth interviews, the
authors found that straight students constructed a moral identity through interactions and
friendships with GLB students. GLB students also claim moral worth through their abil-
ity to be accepted within the community as well as the larger society.
And finally, in recent identity research Heise (2013) constructed a computer model
based on his Affect Control Theory (ACT) which generated 1000 simulated interactions
across 500 virtual jurors. The theory suggests that individuals attempt to reduce tension
between affective meanings of situational identities and perceptions of recent events.
The model showed that simulated jurors behaved in ways similar to actual jurors observed
during deliberations. In the simulation, jurors who experienced tension exhibited certain
behaviors in an attempt to reduce tension. Behaviors in the model also mirrored status

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

16 Current Sociology

differences between men and women in actual jury deliberations, with men identifying
as jurors, and women identifying as female jurors.

Collective behavior and social movements

Scholars have also applied symbolic interactionist ideas to understand collective behav-
ior and social movements. For example, Britt and Heise (2000) examined stigmatized
identities and the role of emotions in social movements. They found that social move-
ments use emotional capital to mobilize participants into collective action, transforming
shame and negative emotions stemming from a stigmatized identity into pride, solidarity
with those of the same status, and other positive emotions related to the movement.
Verta Taylor (Taylor, 2000; Taylor and Whittier, 1992) has also applied interactionist
theory to better understand identity processes and emotions in social movement com-
munities, collecting data from various self-help and identity movements such as postpar-
tum depression movements (Taylor, 1996), movements of women convicted of infanticide
during postpartum depression (Taylor and Leitz, 2010), and queer movements and global
feminist political movements (Hurwitz and Taylor, 2012). Taylor and colleagues have
combined affect control theory, identity theory, and social movement theory to better
understand various social movements in society.
Britt and Heise’s (2000) work has applied identity theory to social movements to
understand how participants construct clear categories of oppressed versus oppressor,
and how a previously stigmatized identity (causing negative emotions) transforms into
an identity recognized by the movement (causing positive emotions). Further, this work
demonstrates how members of movements construct identities for themselves as victims
of marginalization due to institutional and structural processes rather than individual
deficiencies or flaws. Beyond this, the study describes the importance of the social pro-
cesses of identity construction during both formal and informal interactions between
members of the movement – including newsletters for prison inmates, college courses
and campus organizations, cultural communities, etc.
In more recent work that applies Stryker’s identity theory, Viterna (2013) examined
how micro-processes of identities served as mobilizing factors for women in El Salvador
during times of war. White (2010) applied a structural identity framework to understand
Irish Republican activist movements and observed that over time, members entered and
exited roles (identity transitions) that caused changes in the salience of their role identi-
ties (identity transformation). Members of various Irish Republican activist movements
consistently joined or created factions, and over time many activists left movements in
favor of family and other roles.
Other recent research has examined online abortion narratives in the context of dis-
course in the reproductive movement (Allen, 2014). In her qualitative analysis, Allen
discovered patterns in the construction of narratives surrounding social norms and gen-
der roles. According to Allen, pro-choice authors construct narratives around circum-
stantial norms such as young age, first-time pregnancy, and student status. In contrast,
pro-life authors construct narratives of atonement and intense regret.
Lengel and Newsom (2014) applied a symbolic interactionist framework to examine
the role of social media in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) uprisings follow-
ing the ‘Arab Spring.’ The authors drew on symbolic interactionist studies of critical

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 17

moments within social movements that are fueled by intense emotional occurrences.
These moments accumulated in the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in his pro-
test against government oppression. These events were brought to the world stage
through social media. Combining symbolic interactionism and a digital reflexivity
framework, the authors examined the interaction between government-controlled com-
munication structures and social media, and the activists who rework those media as an
act of resistance.
In more recent research, Shavit and Bailey (2015) combined symbolic interactionism
and the theories of Habermas and Mouffe to examine the interaction order in a general
assembly from the 2011 Occupy Movement. Drawing on Goffman’s concept of ‘face-
work,’ the authors described the ways in which interactants in the assembly maintained
respect and a mutual consensus in conversation. Patterns in interaction that reveal how
the individual views him or herself and others in a conversation represent the social
‘face’ and maintain the normative order of daily interactions. Goffman’s conceptualiza-
tion of ‘face-work’ involves both defensive and protective acts in which individuals
attempt to project a specific image of themselves, rather than engaging in rational or
sincere interaction. Shavit and Bailey suggest that these findings and future studies may
help ‘contextualize the study of democratic deliberation against the backdrop of the sym-
bolic human interaction order of which it is a part’ (Shavit and Bailey, 2015: 123).

Social context and the environment

There also is research that applies symbolic interactionist ideas to understand social con-
text and the environment. For example, Smith and Bugni (2006) proposed three ways in
which symbolic interactionism and studies of the self may be useful for architecture.
First, symbolic interactionism recognizes the mutual influence of physical environments
and the development of the self. Second, symbolic interactionism allows researchers to
study the symbolic meanings of designed environments. Third, symbolic interactionism
reveals the influence of designed environments and buildings on our actions and reflex-
ivity (Smith and Bugni, 2006: 124). Mead long ago posited that non-social objects can
constitute the generalized other such that individuals may interact with the environment
and behave reflexively despite the inability of objects to respond. Furthermore, William
James classified the material self as part of the empirical self, which includes non-social
objects and places. Along with the social self and the spiritual self, James suggested that
these objects influence the development and maintenance of the self. These objects and
designed environments further influence how roles are played and how status is created
and maintained, such as spatial segregation by gender in office settings. The authors
further suggested that symbolic interactionist concepts can be applied to better under-
stand school environments, retirement homes, and sacred places that shape meaning and
interaction with the environment.
In other work, Robinson (2007) applied symbolic interactionist ideas to understand
how the self is constructed in online environments. Discounting postmodernist asser-
tions that the online self is an attempt to shed the offline identity, Robinson cited
research suggesting that role-players incorporate their offline identities into their iden-
tities online. The individual becomes immersed in a new character, thus highlighting
the constraint of having one identity associated with a physical body offline. Further,

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

18 Current Sociology

because many multi-user domains require users to create an identity (including a gen-
der) before playing, offline norms permeate online identities. The bodies that players
engender in their games are highly idealized versions of masculinity and femininity.
Thus offline norms are reproduced in online environments, far from being completely
removed from social structures and statuses of everyday reality. Robinson also applied
the creation and maintenance of online and offline identities to Mead’s ‘I’ and ‘me’
concepts, where the ‘I’ consists of multiple online identities and selves while the per-
son maintains their singular ‘me.’ Robinson further likened the emergence of the
‘cyberself’ as a product of interaction through reflexivity to the same socialization
process that creates the self offline. Finally, Robinson argued for the efficacy of sym-
bolic interactionist and dramaturgical analyses of performances in chat rooms and
other online interactions, which lack the usual sensory cues (e.g. Goffman’s ‘expres-
sions given off’), but allow for other contextual clues as to the authenticity of one’s
performance. Given the technological advances in the years since Robinson’s article,
more empirical research on the cyberself in the symbolic interactionist tradition would
likely lead to new findings regarding interaction through digital media.
More recent research applying interactionist theory to context and environment is
provided by Husting (2015), who studied the breaching of normative order that occurs
among travelers who cross cultural and linguistic borders. These individuals experienced
what the author described as the ‘flayed’ self, a temporary identity characterized by dis-
comfort and self-consciousness. A main conclusion was that travelers engage in constant
emotion and identity work in order to escape the flayed self.
And finally, Måseide and Grøttland (2015) interviewed blind individuals to under-
stand the social, spatial, and situational context of interactions with sighted persons.
They found that blind persons routinely have to negotiate physical space in a variety of
environments with sighted persons. Blind and sighted persons construct their physical
environment differently, with blind individuals attempting to navigate social norms using
resources other than sight.

Other trends in symbolic interactionist research

Scholars across the disciplines continue to expand the application of symbolic interac-
tionism. For example, Braun (2014) has made a case for symbolic interactionism being
the main theoretical framework in which to understand the origin of public relations.
Braun sees public relations and symbolic interactionism as sharing key concepts such as
communication, adaptation, and shared meaning, and proposes that public relations is
the intentional participation in the social construction of meaning to achieve organiza-
tional or brand reputation goals. By positioning public relations within the theoretical
framework of symbolic interactionism, Braun sees public relations becoming more cohe-
sive, and working toward a more universal definition.
Others have used a symbolic interactionist framework to further understand how indi-
viduals find meaning during illness. For example, Belgrave and Charmaz (2015) use
Mead’s theories to understand factors that lead to a biographical disruption and loss of
self in those who are ill. And, current research by Austin and Huang (2015) examined
symbolic interactionism in gift exchanges, focusing on the new trend of giving gift cards

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 19

rather than specific items. Austin and Huang’s study focuses on the ambivalence con-
sumers feel when they both give and receive gift cards, given that the monetary value of
a gift card is an explicitly indicated amount, and that they are less personal than other
types of gifts. It is not difficult to see how influential symbolic interactionism continues
to be for social scientists, as scholars find novel ways to apply the perspective to a wide
array of social phenomena.
The studies described above provide examples of symbolic interactionist thought that
have emerged in both the distant and recent past. Of course, there are literally hundreds
of other symbolic interactionist studies one could summarize in this article. But those
addressed here provide a conception of the common work in the discipline. Let us now
turn our attention to the future of symbolic interactionism.

The future of symbolic interactionism

Over a decade ago Sandstrom and Fine (2003) offered a set of predictions regarding the
future of symbolic interactionism. The first prediction was that moving forward, sym-
bolic interactionism would succeed in maintaining its label, familiarity, and popularity
within sociology. A second prediction was that symbolic interactionism would become
more characterized by diversity in theoretical and methodological applications to topics
of interest, forcing the field to abandon old distinctions made by those in the Chicago and
Iowa/Indiana traditions. A third prediction was that symbolic interactionists would begin
to place a greater emphasis on the development of macro-level concepts and analysis
aimed at understanding relationships among large-scale societal entities. A final predic-
tion was that the continued triumphs of symbolic interactionism would likely lead to its
demise, as the concepts that once were unique to those in the discipline would inevitably
become more diffuse and integrated into mainstream sociology.
Looking back, it seems that some of Sandstrom and Fine’s predictions have been real-
ized, though not all of them. The first prediction is certainly documented: symbolic inter-
actionism continues to be a highly recognized subfield in sociology, and it continues to
serve as an organizing force, both thematically in academic journals and structurally with
its organizational entity, the Society for the Study for Symbolic Interactionism (SSSI).
There also is evidence supporting the second prediction, though one might question
whether interactionist scholarship is truly more diverse in theory and method than in the
past. It also seems extreme to claim that the distinctions between traditional (Chicago
School) and structural (Iowa and Indiana Schools) symbolic interactionism have dimin-
ished. Scholars might not state their orientations or alignment with one school as much
as in the past, but those trained in the Blumerian tradition still tend to publish more quali-
tative research, while those trained in the Kuhn/Stryker tradition still tend to publish
more quantitative research. It might be more appropriate to say that symbolic interaction-
ism in the past decade has been more defined by novel research topics and areas of
inquiry than by innovations in theory and method. There is evidence for this: recent
articles in the journal Symbolic Interaction feature studies on coffee breaks (Stroebaek,
2013), identity construction in World of Warcraft MMO role-playing gaming (Linderoth,
2012), and even the experience of those who belong to support groups aimed at coping
with inflammatory bowel disease (Thompson, 2013).

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

20 Current Sociology

To this point, Sandstrom and Fine’s third prediction is not evident to a significant
degree. There have been a few isolated studies that have applied symbolic interactionist
ideas to greater levels of analysis (Dennis and Martin, 2005; Salvini, 2010), but even in
these studies the true level of analysis seems to be rooted more in micro-level processes
than directed at the macro realm. It seems the most macro applications of symbolic inter-
actionist thought still address social movements and collective behavior (Goodwin and
Jasper, 2004; Stryker, 2008), and that much remains to be done regarding applying sym-
bolic interactionist thought to better understanding macro-level structures and large-
scale aggregates.
Regarding the final prediction, the ‘demise’ of symbolic interactionism has not
occurred – at least not yet. Students of sociology still learn that symbolic interactionism
is a discrete perspective/framework within sociology proper, and concepts such as
Mead’s ‘I’ and ‘me’ and Cooley’s (1902) ‘looking glass self’ are still largely attributed to
symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism continues to be a widely recognized
subfield and perspective within sociology.
Writing about the same time as Sandstrom and Fine, Hall (2003) cited multiple areas
of inquiry future symbolic interactionists should address. The first regards interaction
orders, specifically the areas of race, class, and gender. The second regards institutional
analysis, where symbolic interactionists lend their perspective and methodology to
understand policy creation at the meso-level to better understand how behavior in
organizational settings becomes institutionalized through a process of social construc-
tion over time (Estes and Edmonds’s work described above begins to answer this
request). The third topic regards turning attention toward better understanding of collec-
tive action across space and time. Addressing collective action seems more and more
necessary as individuals’ actions in the present world are more and more directed toward
future events and activities; much of the past work in symbolic interactionism has
examined elements within a situation in isolation while disregarding how individuals
within situations are oriented toward future interactions (Collins’s [2004] work on
interaction ritual chains attempts to correct this problem), so considering space/time
dimensional factors that connect interactions seems important. A fourth topic follows
the last, and regards spatiotemporal orders (Friedland and Boden, 1994) where interac-
tionists continue to observe how time and space are constructed to shape conditions,
consciousness, and actions (Hall, 2003).
Let us conclude by citing a few areas beyond those mentioned by Sandstrom, Fine,
and Hall that future interactionists should attend to. One area of inquiry regards relation-
ships among the individual, technology, and society. The past decade has witnessed
incredible advancements in communication technology, such as the emergence and ubiq-
uity of social media, the ever increasing reliance and use of cell phones, and of course the
Internet. If there ever was a time when technological innovations have redefined the
manner in which interactions and shared meaning occur, it is now. More and more, vir-
tual communication technologies are taking the place of traditional, face-to-face interac-
tions. One can only wonder how Herbert Blumer and Erving Goffman would comment
on modern means of communication! Technological developments that assist in or take
the place of interactions must be a focus for symbolic interaction moving forward. And,
of course, many scholars across the past decade have addressed technology and

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 21

interaction beyond Robinson’s work described above (Altheide, 2004; Brickell, 2012;
Fernback, 2007; Gottschalk, 2010; Williams and Copes, 2005; Yurchisin et al., 2005;
Zhao, 2005).
Neurosociology is another area in sociology that symbolic interactionists should turn
their attention to in future studies. Over the past decade advancements in neuroscience
have caught the attention of some sociologists who study micro-level processes (Franks,
2010; Franks and Turner, 2013; Shkurko, 2012). For example, some have applied neuro-
science to understand basic elements of interpersonal behavior often addressed by sym-
bolic interactionists, specifically the areas of social cognition and mind (Franks, 2013;
Hopcroft, 2013; Humphreys and Bedford, 2011; Maryanski, 2013; Shook, 2013). Others
have applied neuroscience to understand familiar sociological processes, such as aggres-
sion (Bufkin and Luttrell, 2005; Mehta et al., 2013; Siever, 2008), self and identity pro-
cesses (Arzy et al., 2008; Gillihan and Farah, 2005; Molnar-Szakacs and Uddin, 2013;
Niemeyer, 2013), stereotyping and prejudice (Amodio and Lieberman, 2009; Brauer and
Er-rafiy, 2011; Nelson, 2013), and even inequality (Davis, 2013). Neurosociology prom-
ises to be one of the cutting edge subfields in sociology, and symbolic interactionists
have much to learn from (and offer to) neuroscientists as these fields continue to merge.
Lastly, we echo Sandstrom and Fine’s point that symbolic interactionists need to con-
tinue to turn attention toward the macro realm. Fine (1993) has been noting this need for
decades, but few are yet to seriously address how symbolic interactionists can help
understand the link between micro and macro structures. Work on micro–macro connec-
tions in recent decades can be seen in the work of Bourdieu (1977), Habermas (1984),
and Giddens (1984). The theories of these well-known sociologists both implicitly and
explicitly incorporate symbolic interactionist concepts to understand macro-level pro-
cesses. Bourdieu’s work highlights the constraint of social structures in defining indi-
vidual habitus, or dispositions, and how this produces subjective meanings as well as
objective consequences and life chances. Habermas emphasizes the need for communi-
cative action, or discourse based on mutual understanding and shared meaning in influ-
encing political change and in creating a truly democratic society. Giddens, following the
symbolic interactionist emphasis on communication, discusses the mutual reinforcement
of society and the individual at the level of interaction in his ‘structuration’ theory. These
theorists successfully bridge macro- and microsociological concepts in a way that dem-
onstrates the significance of interaction and meaning in producing the very structures
that both enable and constrain individual behavior. The age-old sociological debate of
micro versus macro theories seems to end with the synthesis of both as equally important
and inseparable units of analysis within the discipline. While these theorists have been
relatively successful in addressing the micro and macro, symbolic interactionists should
turn their attention and offer their own perspective to better understand the link between
micro and macro social processes.

Conclusion
In this article we have discussed the three main theoretical perspectives in symbolic
interactionism, surveyed and assessed the empirical studies that have emerged over the
past decades, and provided recommendations for areas of inquiry to which future

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

22 Current Sociology

scholars of symbolic interactionism should attend. We have contended that the symbolic
interactionist framework, despite fragmentation and expansion throughout the years, is a
perspective with historical as well as contemporary significance for the field of sociol-
ogy. Rather than pointing to the variety of theories and methodologies that have emerged
since Mead’s work as evidence of the demise of symbolic interactionism, we posit that
the diversity of sociological work in the symbolic interactionist tradition is evidence of
its utility and well-deserved endurance within the discipline. Furthermore, future direc-
tions for symbolic interactionist theories and research are constantly emerging. Because
of this, we believe the future of the perspective is bright.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

References
Allen M (2014) Narrative diversity and sympathetic abortion: What online storytelling reveals
about the prescribed norms of the mainstream movements. Symbolic Interaction 38(1):
42–63.
Altheide DL (2004) The control of narrative of the internet. Symbolic Interaction 27(2): 223–245.
Amodio DM and Lieberman MD (2009) Pictures in our heads: Contributions of fMRI to the study
of prejudice and stereotyping. In: Nelson TD (ed.) Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and
Discrimination. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 347–365.
Arzy S, Molnar-Szakacs I and Blanke O (2008) Self in time: Imagined self-location influences
neural activity related to mental time travel. The Journal of Neuroscience 28(25): 6502–6507.
Asencio EK (2013) Self-esteem, reflected appraisals, and self-views: Examining criminal and
worker identities. Social Psychology Quarterly 76(4): 291–313.
Asencio EK and Burke PJ (2011) Does incarceration change the criminal identity? A synthesis of
labeling and identity theory perspectives on identity change. Sociological Perspectives 54(2):
163–182.
Austin CG and Huang L (2015) Gift or gift card? Symbolic interactionism in gift exchange. In:
Dato-on MC (ed.) The Sustainable Global Marketplace. New York: Springer, p. 19.
Becker HS (1953) Becoming a marijuana user. American Journal of Sociology 59(3): 235–242.
Becker HS (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Becker HS and McCall MM (1993) Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies. Chicaco: University
of Chicago Press.
Belgrave LL and Charmaz K (2015) George Herbert Mead: Meanings and selves in illness. In:
Collyer F (ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Social Theory in Health, Illness, and Medicine.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107–123.
Best J (1989) Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Best J (2003) Social problems. In: Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook of
Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 981–996.
Blumer H (1962) Society as symbolic interaction. In: Rose AM (ed.) Human Behavior and Social
Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 179–192.
Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 23

Brauer M and Er-rafiy A (2011) Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimina-
tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47(5): 871–881.
Braun S (2014) Can we all agree? Building the case for symbolic interactionism as the theoretical
origins of public relations. Journal of Professional Communication 4(1): 49–70.
Brenner PS, Serpe RT and Stryker S (2014) The causal ordering of prominence and salience in
identity theory: An empirical examination. Social Psychology Quarterly 77(3): 231–252.
Brickell C (2012) Sexuality, power and the sociology of the internet. Current Sociology 60(1):
28–44.
Britt L and Heise D (2000) From shame to pride in identity politics. In: Stryker S, Owens TJ and
White RW (eds) Self, Identity, and Social Movements. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, pp. 252–270.
Brooks RS (1969) The self and political role: A symbolic interactionist approach to political ideol-
ogy. The Sociological Quarterly 10(1): 22–31.
Bufkin JL and Luttrell VR (2005) Neuroimaging studies of aggressive and violent behavior:
Current findings and implications for criminology and criminal justice. Trauma, Violence,
and Abuse 6(2): 176–191.
Burke PJ (1991) Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review 56(6):
836–849.
Burke PJ and Stets JE (2009) Identity Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Calarco JM (2014) The inconsistent curriculum: Cultural tool kits and student interpretations of
ambiguous expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2): 185–298.
Callero PL and Piliavin JA (1983) Developing a commitment to blood donation: The impact of
one’s first experience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43: 1200–1213.
Carey J (1989) Communication as Culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Carter MJ (2013) Advancing identity theory: Examining the relationship between activated identi-
ties and behavior in different social contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly 76(3): 203–223.
Carter MJ (2015) Deaf identity centrality: Measurement, influences, and outcomes. Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research 15(2): 146–172.
Carter MJ and Mireles DC (forthcoming) Deaf identity and depression. In: Stets JE and Serpe RT
(eds) New Directions in Identity Theory and Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Charmaz K (1991) Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Collins PH (1991) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of
Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Collins R (1994) The microinteractionist tradition. In: Collins R (ed.) Four Sociological Traditions.
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 242–289.
Collins R (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Connell RW (1995) Masculinities. Oakland: University of California Press.
Conrad P and Schneider J (1980) Deviance and Medicalization. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cooley CH (1902) The social self: On the meanings of ‘I’. Human Nature and the Social Order.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 136–141.
Couch C (1984) Constructing Civilizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Couch CJ, Saxton SL and Katovich MA (1986) The Iowa School. In: Couch CJ, Saxton SL and
Katovich MA (eds) Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Supplement 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Daniels AK (1972) The social construction of military psychiatric diagnoses. In: Manis JG and
Meltzer BN (eds) Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, 2nd edn. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, pp. 554–571.
Davis J (2013) Persistent inequality: A neurosociological perspective. In: Franks DD and Turner
JH (eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. 333–348.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

24 Current Sociology

Deegan MJ and Hill MR (1987) Women and Symbolic Interaction. Boston: Allyn and Unwin.
Dennis A and Martin PJ (2005) Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power. The British
Journal of Sociology 56(2): 191–213.
Denzin NK (1983) A note on emotionality, self, and interaction. American Journal of Sociology
89(2): 402–409.
Denzin NK (1985) Signifying acts: Structure and meaning in everyday life. American Journal of
Sociology 91(2): 432–434.
Denzin NK (1987) The Alcoholic Self. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Denzin NK (1991) Images of Postmodern Society: Social Theory and Contemporary Cinema.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Denzin NK (1992) Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies: The Politics of Interpretation.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Denzin NK (1993) Women with alcoholic husbands: Ambivalence and the trap of codependency.
American Journal of Sociology 98(4): 952–954.
Denzin NK (2008) Searching for Yellowstone: Race, Gender, Family and Memory in the
Postmodern West. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diawara M (1996) Black studies, cultural studies: Performance acts. In: Storey J (ed.) What is
Cultural Studies? A Reader. London: Arnold, pp. 300–306.
Donley A and Jackson E (2014) Blending in: The presentation of self among homeless men in a
gentrifying environment. Theory in Action 7(1): 46–64.
Estes CL and Edmonds BC (1981) Symbolic interaction and social policy analysis. Symbolic
Interaction 4(1): 75–86.
Fernback J (2007) Beyond the diluted community concept: A symbolic interactionist perspective
on online social relations. New Media and Society 9(1): 49–69.
Fine GA (1993) The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic
interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology 19: 61–87.
Fine GA (1996) Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Flaherty M (1998) A Watched Pot: How We Experience Time. New York: New York University
Press.
Franks DD (2010) Neurosociology: The Nexus between Neuroscience and Social Psychology.
New York: Springer.
Franks DD (2013) Why we need neurosociology as well as social neuroscience: Or – why role-tak-
ing and theory of mind are different concepts. In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) Handbook
of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. 27–32.
Franks DD and Turner JH (2013) Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer.
Friedland R and Boden D (1994) Nowhere: Space, Time and Modernity. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gergen K (1991) The Saturated Self. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Gillihan SJ and Farah MJ (2005) Is self special? A critical review of evidence from experimental
psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Cognitive Neuroscience 131(1): 76–97.
Giroux H (2001) Cultural studies as performative politics. Cultural Studies-Critical Methodologies
1(1): 5–23.
Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1964) Awareness contexts and social interaction. American Sociological
Review 29(5): 669–679.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 25

Glaser D (1956) Criminality theories and behavioral images. American Journal of Sociology
61(5): 433–444.
Glass VQ and Few-Demo AL (2013) Complexities of informal social support arrangements for
black lesbian couples. Family Relations 62(5): 714–726.
Goffman E (1959a) The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of
Interpersonal Processes 22: 123–142.
Goffman E (1959b) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman E (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates.
New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman E (1963a) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings.
New York: Free Press.
Goffman E (1963b) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Goffman E (1967) Interaction Ritual. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York:
Harper and Row.
Goffman E (1976) Gender display. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication 3(2):
65–68.
Goodwin J and Jasper JM (2004) Rethinking Social Movements: Structure, Meaning, and Emotion.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Gottschalk S (2010) The presentation of avatars in second life: Self and interaction in social virtual
spaces. Symbolic Interaction 33(4): 501–525.
Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall PM (2003) Interactionism, social organization, and social processes: Looking back and mov-
ing ahead. Symbolic Interaction 26(1): 33–55.
Heise DR (1999) Controlling affective experience interpersonally. Social Psychology Quarterly
62(1): 4–16.
Heise DR (2002) Understanding social interaction with affect control theory. In: Berger J and
Zelditch M (eds) New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 17–40.
Heise DR (2013) Modeling interactions in small groups. Social Psychology Quarterly 76(1):
52–72.
Herman-Kinney NJ and Vershaeve JM (2003) Methods of symbolic interactionism. In: Reynolds
LT and Herman-Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press, pp. 213–252.
Hochschild AR (1979) Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of
Sociology 85(3): 551–575.
Hochschild AR (2003 [1983]) The Managed Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hopcroft RL (2013) Neurosociology and theory of mind (TOM). In: Franks DD and Turner JH
(eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. 231–241.
House JS (1977) The three faces of social psychology. Sociometry 40(2): 161–177.
Humphreys GW and Bedford J (2011) The relations between joint action and theory of mind: A
neuropsychological analysis. Experimental Brain Research 211(3–4): 357–369.
Hurwitz HM and Taylor V (2012) Women’s cultures and social movements in global contexts.
Sociology Compass 6(10): 808–822.
Husting G (2015) The flayed and exquisite self of travelers: Managing face and emotions in
strange places. Symbolic Interaction 38(2): 213–234.
Javaid A (2015) The dark side of men: The nature of masculinity and its uneasy relationship with
male rape. Journal of Men’s Studies 23(3): 271–292.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

26 Current Sociology

Joas H (1993) Pragmatism and Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katovich MA, Miller DE and Stewart RL (2003) The Iowa School. In: Reynolds LT and Herman-
Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press,
pp. 119–139.
Killoren SE and Deutsch AR (2014) A longitudinal examination of parenting processes and Latino
youth’s risky sexual behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43(12): 1982–1993.
Kuhn MH (1964) Major trends in symbolic interaction theory in the past twenty-five years. The
Sociological Quarterly 5(1): 61–84.
Lavin MF (2014) If you want it, you can get it right here: Space and drug use in strip clubs.
Humanity and Society 38(2): 132–157.
Lemert C (1997) Postmodernism is Not What You Think. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lengel L and Newsom VA (2014) Mutable selves and digital reflexivities: Social media for social
change in the Middle East and North Africa. Symbolic Interaction and New Social Media 43:
85–119.
Linderoth J (2012) The effort of being in a fictional world: Upkeyings and laminated frames in
MMORPGs. Symbolic Interaction 35(4): 474–492.
Lofland J (1996) Social Movement Organizations: Guide to Research on Insurgent Realities. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Loseke D (1999) Thinking about Social Problems: An Introduction to Constructivist Perspectives.
New York: Adine de Gruyter.
McCall GJ and Simmons JL (1978) Identities and Interactions: An Examination of Human
Associations in Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press.
MacKinnon NJ (1994) Symbolic Interactionism as Affect Control. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
McPhail C (1991) The Myth of the Madding Crowd. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Maines D (1996) On postmodernism, pragmatism, and plasterers: Some interactionist thoughts
and queries. Symbolic Interaction 19(4): 323–340.
Maines D and McCallion M (2000) The liturgical social movement in the Vatican II Catholic
Church. In: Dobkowski M and Walliman I (eds) Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and
Social Change. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 125–149.
Maines DR, Sugrue NM and Katovich MA (1983) The sociological import of G. H. Mead’s theory
of the past. American Sociological Review 48(2): 161–173.
Manning PK (2003) Semiotics, pragmatism, and narratives. In: Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney
NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp.
1021–1039.
Mariani M, Marshall BW and Mathews-Schulz AL (2015) See Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and
Sarah Palin run? Party, ideology, and the influence of female role models on young women.
Political Research Quarterly 68(4): 716–731.
Martin JS, Vaccaro CA, Heckert DA et al. (2015) Epic glory and manhood acts in fantasy role-
playing: Dagorhir as a case study. The Journal of Men’s Studies 23(3): 293–314.
Maryanski AM (2013) The secret of the hominin mind: An evolutionary story. In: Franks DD and
Turner JH (eds) Handbook of Neuroscience. New York: Springer, pp. 257–287.
Måseide P and Grøttland H (2015) Enacting blind spaces and spatialities: A sociological study of
blindness related to space, environment and interaction. Symbolic Interaction 38(4): 594–610.
Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Mehta PH, Goetz SM and Carré JM (2013) Genetic, hormonal, and neural underpinnings of human
aggressive behavior. In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New
York: Springer, pp. 47–65.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 27

Meltzer BN and Petras JW (1970) The Chicago and Iowa Schools of symbolic interactionsim. In:
Shibutani T (ed.) Human Nature and Collective Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books, pp. 3–17.
Merolla DM, Serpe RT, Stryker S et al. (2012) Structural precursors to identity processess: The
role of proximate social structures. Social Psychology Quarterly 75(2): 149–172.
Miles A (2014) Addressing the problem of cultural anchoring: An identity-based model of culture
in action. Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2): 210–227.
Molnar-Szakacs I and Uddin LQ (2013) The emergent self: How distributed neural networks sup-
port self-representation. In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) Handbook of Neurosociology.
New York: Springer, pp. 167–182.
Morris A and Mueller C (1992) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Myrick A (2013) Facing your criminal record: Expungement and the collateral problem of wrong-
fully represented self. Law and Society Review 47(1): 73–104.
Nelson TD (2013) The neurobiology of stereotyping and prejudice. In: Franks DD and Turner JH
(eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. 349–358.
Niemeyer RE (2013) What are the neurological foundations of identities and identity-related
processes? In: Franks DD and Turner JH (eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New York:
Springer, pp. 149–165.
Plummer K (1996) Symbolic interactionism in the twentieth century: The rise of empirical social
theory. In: Turner B (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell,
pp. 223–251.
Ratliff TN and Hall LL (2014) Practicing the art of dissent: Toward a typology of protest activity
in the United States. Humanity and Society 38(3): 268–294.
Reynolds LT and Herman-Kinney NJ (2003) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Robinson DT and Smith-Lovin L (2006) Affect control theory. In: Burke PJ (ed.) Contemporary
Social Psychological Theories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 137–164.
Robinson L (2007) The cyberself: The selfing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the
digital age. New Media and Society 9(1): 93–110.
Rogers KB and Robinson DT (2014) Measuring affect and emotions. In: Stets JE and Turner JH
(eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, Vol. II. New York: Springer, pp. 283–303.
Rogers KB, Schroder T and von Scheve C (2014) Dissecting the sociality of emotion: A multilevel
approach. Emotion Review 6(2): 124–133.
Rosengren WR (1961) The self in the emotionally disturbed. American Journal of Sociology
66(5): 454–462.
Rupp LJ, Taylor V, Regev-Messalem S et al. (2014) Queer women in the hookup scene: Beyond
the closet? Gender and Society 28(2): 212–235.
Salvini A (2010) Symbolic interactionism and social network analysis: An uncertain encounter.
Symbolic Interaction 33(3): 364–388.
Sandstrom KL and Fine GA (2003) Triumphs, emerging voices, and the future. In: Reynolds LT
and Herman-Kinney NJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Press, pp. 1041–1057.
Saxton S (1993) Sociologist as citizen-scholar: A symbolic interactionist alternative to normal
sociology. In: Vaughan T, Sjoberg G and Reynolds L (eds) A Critique of Contemporary
American Sociology. Dix Hills, NJ: General Hall, pp. 232–250.
Scheff TJ (1979) Catharsis in Healing, Ritual, and Drama. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schilt K (2006) Just one of the guys? How transmen make gender visible at work. Gender and
Society 20(4): 465–490.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

28 Current Sociology

Schrock D and Padavic I (2007) Negotiating hegemonic masculinity in a batterer intervention

program. Gender and Society 21(5): 625–649.
Schrock D and Schwalbe M (2009) Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of
Sociology 35: 277–295.
Schutz A (1962) Collected Papers, Vol. 1: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus
Nijoff.
Schwalbe ML (1986) The Psychosocial Consequences of Natural and Alienated Labor. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Scott MB and Lyman S (1968) Accounts. American Sociological Review 33(1): 46–62.
Serpe RT and Stryker S (2011) The symbolic interactionist perspective and identity theory. In:
Schwartz S, Luyckx K and Vignoles V (eds) Handbook of Identity Theory and Research.
London: Springer, pp. 225–248.
Shalin DN (1986) Pragmatism and social interactionism. American Sociological Review 51(1):
9–29.
Shavit N and Bailey BH (2015) Between the procedural and the substantial: Democratic delib-
eration and the interaction order in ‘Occupy Middletown General Assembly’. Symbolic
Interaction 38(1): 103–126.
Shibutani T (1988) Herbert Blumer’s contributions to twentieth-century sociology. Symbolic
Interaction 11(1): 23–31.
Shkurko A (2012) Role behavior: A neurosociological perspective. Social Science Information
51(3): 338–363.
Shook JR (2013) Social cognition and the problem of other minds. In: Franks DD and Turner JH
(eds) Handbook of Neurosociology. New York: Springer, pp. 33–46.
Shott S (1979) Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis. American Journal of
Sociology 84(6): 1317–1334.
Siever LJ (2008) Neurobiology of aggression and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry
165(4): 429–442.
Smith RW and Bugni V (2006) Symbolic interaction theory and architecture. Symbolic Interaction
29(2): 123–155.
Snow DA (2001) Extending and broadening Blumer’s conceptualization of symbolic interaction-
ism. Symbolic Interaction 24(3): 367–377.
Snow DA, Rochford EB Jr, Worden SK et al. (1986) Frame alignment processes, micromobiliza-
tion, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51(4): 464–481.
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2006) The moral identity: A principle level identity. In: McClelland K and
Fararo TJ (eds) Purpose, Meaning, and Action: Control Systems Theories in Sociology. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 293–316.
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2011) The moral self: Applying identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly 74(2): 192–215.
Stets JE and Carter MJ (2012) A theory of the self for the sociology of morality. American
Sociological Review 77(1): 120–140.
Stets JE and Harrod MM (2004) Verification across multiple identities: The role of status. Social
Psychology Quarterly 67(2): 155–171.
Stets JE, Carter MJ, Harrod MM et al. (2008) The moral identity, status, moral emotions, and the
normative order. In: Robinson DT and Clay-Warner J (eds) Social Structure and Emotion.
San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 227–251.
Strauss AL (1993) Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Stroebaek PS (2013) Let’s have a cup of coffee! Coffee and coping communities at work. Symbolic
Interaction 36(4): 381–397.
Stryker S (1957) Role-taking accuracy and adjustment. Sociometry 20(4): 286–296.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 29

Stryker S (1959) Symbolic interaction as an approach to family research. Marriage and Family
Living 21(2): 111–119.
Stryker S (1980) Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin
Cummings.
Stryker S (2008) From Mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annual Review
of Sociology 34: 15–31.
Stryker S and Serpe RT (1982) Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: A theory and
research example. In: Ickes W and Knowles ES (eds) Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior.
New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 199–218.
Stryker S, Owens TJ and White RW (eds) (2000) Self, Identity, and Social Movements. Social
Movements, Protest, and Contention, Vol. 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Taylor V (1996) Rock-a-by-Baby: Feminism, Self-Help, and Postpartum Depression. New York:
Routledge.
Taylor V (2000) Emotions and identity in women’s self-help movements. In: Stryker S, Owens
TJ and White RW (eds) Self, Identity, and Social Movements. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Taylor V and Leitz L (2010) From infanticide to activism: Emotions and identity in self-help move-
ments. In: Banaszak-Holl JC, Levitsky SR and Zald MN (eds) Social Movements and the
Transformation of American Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 266–283.
Taylor V and Whittier NE (1992) Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian
feminist mobilization. In: Aldon DM and Mueller CM (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement
Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 104–129.
Thomas WI (1931) The definition of the situation. The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, pp. 41–50.
Thompson AI (2013) ‘Sometimes, I think I might say too much’: Dark secrets and the performance
of inflammatory bowel disease. Symbolic Interaction 36(1): 21–39.
Thorne B (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Turner RH (1956) Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behavior. American Journal
of Sociology 61: 316–328.
Turner RH (1962) Role-taking: Process versus conformity. In: Rose A (ed.) Human Behavior and
Social Process: An Interactionist Approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Turner RH (1968) Social roles: Sociological aspects. International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences. New York: Macmillan, pp. 552–556.
Turner RH (1990) Role change. Annual Review of Sociology 16: 87–110.
Turner RH and Killian LM (1987) Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ueno K and Gentile H (2014) Moral identity in friendships between gay, lesbian, and bisexual
students and straight students in college. Symbolic Interaction 38(1): 83–102.
Ukasoanya G (2014) Social adaptation of new immigrant students: Cultural scripts, roles, and
symbolic interactionism. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 36(2):
150–161.
Vaccaro C, Schrock D and McCabe J (2011) Managing emotional manhood: Fighting and foster-
ing fear in mixed martial arts. Social Psychology Quarterly 74(4): 414–437.
Viterna J (2013) Women in War: The Micro-Processes of Mobilization in El Salvador. New York:
Oxford University Press.
West C (1984) When the doctor is a ‘lady’: Power, status and gender in physician–patient encoun-
ters. Symbolic Interaction 7(1): 87–106.
West C and Zimmerman DH (1977) Women’s place in everyday talk: Reflection in parent–child
interaction. Social Problems 24(5): 521–529.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

30 Current Sociology

West C and Zimmerman DH (1983) Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex con-
versations between unacquainted persons. In: Thorne B, Kramarae C and Henley N (eds)
Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 86–111.
West C and Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing gender. In: Fenstermaker S and West C (eds) Doing
Gender, Doing Difference. New York: Routledge, pp. 3–24.
White RW (2010) Structural identity theory and the post-recruitment activism of Irish Republicans:
Persistence, disengagement, splits, and dissidents in social movement organizations. Social
Problems 57(3): 341–370.
Whitley CT (2013) Trans-kin undoing and redoing gender: Negotiating relational identity among
friends and family of transgender persons. Sociological Perspectives 56(4): 597–621.
Williams JP and Copes H (2005) ‘How edge are you?’ Constructing authentic identities and sub-
cultural boundaries in a straightedge internet forum. Symbolic Interaction 28(1): 67–89.
Yurchisin J, Watchravesringkan K and McCabe DB (2005) An exploration of identity re-creation
in the context of internet dating. Social Behavior and Personality 33(8): 735–750.
Zerubavel E (1985) The Seven Day Circle: The History and Meaning of the Week. New York: The
Free Press.
Zhao S (2005) The digital self: Through the looking glass of telecopresent others. Symbolic
Interaction 28(3): 387–405.

Author biographies
Michael J Carter is Associate Professor of Sociology at California State University, Northridge.
His main research interests are in social psychology, specifically the areas of self and identity. His
research has appeared in a variety of academic journals, including Social Psychology Quarterly
and American Sociological Review.
Celene Fuller is adjunct lecturer of sociology at California State University, Northridge. Her main
research interests are in gender and sexuality, social psychology, and social inequality. Her current
research examines the stigma of bisexuality within the LGBT+ movement and within larger
society.

Résumé
L’interactionnisme symbolique est un cadre théorique sociologique qui envisage la créa-
tion et le maintien de la société comme le résultat des interactions personnelles, répé-
tées et significatives entre les individus. Dans cet article, nous examinons les théories et
les travaux de recherche de la tradition interactionniste. Nous donnons d’abord une
vue d’ensemble des trois principaux courants de l’interactionnisme symbolique en met-
tant l’accent sur le travail de Herbert Blumer (école de Chicago), de Manford Kuhn
(école de l’Iowa) et de Sheldon Stryker (école de l’Indiana). Nous donnons un aperçu
des perspectives générales de chacun de ses représentants, suivi par une discussion sur
les méthodologies de recherche qui les définissent et les distinguent. Nous passons en
revue et examinons les travaux empiriques liés à ces trois courants théoriques en com-
mençant par les études classiques publiées à partir du milieu du XXe siècle et en termi-
nant par les travaux de recherche parus aujourd’hui. Nous privilégions les contributions
importantes de l’interactionnisme symbolique dans des domaines tels que la composi-
tion dramatique, les études culturelles, le postmodernisme, le genre/statut/pouvoir, le
soi et l’identité, les comportements collectifs, les mouvements sociaux, le contexte

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016

Carter and Fuller 31

social et l’environnement. Finalement, nous analysons les orientations de recherche des

interactionnistes symboliques susceptibles de développer ce champ de la recherche.

Mots-clés
Interactionnisme symbolique, symboles, interaction, psychologie sociale,
microsociologie

Resumen
El interaccionismo simbólico es una perspectiva teórica en sociología que se ocupa de
la manera en que la sociedad se crea y se mantiene a través de interacciones cara a cara,
repetidas y significativas entre los individuos. En este artículo examinamos el pasado de
la teoría y la investigación en la tradición interaccionista. En primer lugar, ofrecemos una
visión general de tres trayectorias principales del pensamiento del interaccionismo sim-
bólico, centrándonos en la obra de Herbert Blumer (escuela de Chicago), Manford
Kuhn (escuela de Iowa) y Sheldon Stryker (escuela de Indiana). Proporcionamos un
breve resumen de la perspectiva general de cada una de las figuras del interaccionismo
simbólico, seguido de una discusión de la metodología de investigación que define y
distingue a cada uno. A continuación, examinaremos y evaluaremos la investigación
empírica que ha surgido de estas trayectorias en las últimas décadas, a partir de los
estudios clásicos de mediados del siglo XX y que culmina en los programas de investi-
gación que han surgido contemporáneamente. Específicamente, examinamos contribu-
ciones significativas a la literatura interaccionista simbólica en áreas tales como la dram-
aturgia, los estudios culturales, el postmodernismo, género/ status/ poder, self e
identidad, la conducta colectiva y los movimientos sociales, y el contexto social y el
medio ambiente. Concluimos con una discusión de las direcciones futuras que interac-
cionistas simbólicos deben atender para seguir desarrollando el campo.

Palabras clave
Interaccionismo simbólico, símbolos, interacción, psicología social, microsociología

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at Purdue University on April 9, 2016