Interactionism in the Twenty‐First Century: A Letter on Being‐in‐a‐Meaningful‐World

Abstract

Half a century after its crystallization, interactionism faces new challenges. While elements of this theoretical tradition have percolated into the broader field of sociology, some of its most radical promises have been ignored. This essay provides a blueprint for how to approach interactionism today: not as a historical remnant, but as a living tradition with much to offer contemporary scholarship. Yet to do so, we argue, interactionism must develop some of its core tenets, offering more explicit links both to the sociology of culture, and to other areas in sociology. Focusing on our own experiences and writings, we point to ways in which the careful study of interaction can provide a font of ideas for the broader sociological discipline. We address the significance of affordances, situational webs, group commitment, embeddedness, and disruption, and show how such reorientation can help us better analyze oppression and privilege.

An Embattled Yet Enduring Influence: Introduction to a Special Issue on Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism

“…Both McLuhan and Price, in their own ways, are endeavoring to make symbolic interactionism relevant to the wider discipline by addressing “the core questions that noninteractionists care about” (Fine and Tavory 2019:459). So does Mathew Cousineau, in the final article, “A Blumerian Approach to Storytelling.” Narrative is topic that drew little attention from Blumer but has since become a significant focus of scholarly research.…”

Cognition in Situations

“…In synthesizing the contributions to the symbolic interactionist perspective with corrective challenges to Blumer's treatment of Mead's thought, Fine and Tavory (2019:458) recast the premises of symbolic interactionism as follows:

(1) “People act upon meanings while participating in distinctive communities that, in turn, depend on shared meaning,” (2) “Meanings depend on continuing and self‐reflexive interaction, as such interaction refracts actors' pasts, present, and anticipated futures,” and (3) “Situations are linked in patterned ways. They change or further ossify as participants recognize this patterning and the structures that support these meanings.”

Thus, in moving toward studies and theories of locally cognition, sociologists can tune into the ways cognition shapes social interaction in at least four ways: (1) how individuals think in and across the social groups they participate, (2) how conceptions of past, future and present selves shape the cognitive demands of one's activity, (3) how automatic and deliberate types of cognition are triggered within situations, and (4) how cognitive resources diminish or are regained across the situations one encounters in their daily rounds.…”

“…In this essay, I draw on the sociological epistemology espoused by Herbert Blumer (1969) in Symbolic Interactionism , Mead's (1938, 1959) conception of how the past and the future shape the present, as well as recent contributions to microsociological theory (Eliasoph and Lichterman 2003; Fine and Tavory 2019; Tavory 2018; Tavory and Eliasoph 2013) in order to propose strategies for operationalizing dual process models of cognition in situational contexts. I advance resonance and iterative reprocessing as indicators sociologists have to this end.…”

Character Problems as Collective Behavior

“…Commemorations invite us to turn our sociological eyes on ourselves and observe the hidden rhythms (Zerubavel 1981) of our discipline (Kuhn 1962). A half‐century after the publication of Symbolic Interactionism , “we might ask what is symbolic interactionism?” (Fine and Tavory 2019:458) and what might become of symbolic interactionism?…”

“…The three premises became “a defining mandate that consolidated the perspective” and the interactionist community (Fine and Tavory 2019:458), a boundary object for distinguishing insiders from outsiders. For the uninitiated, the premises were “the principal introduction to the perspective… identifying meaning and interpretation as the central, orienting concerns of symbolic interactionism” (Snow 2001:368).…”