The Roots of “Radical Interactionism”

Abstract

A plea has been made for replacing the perspective of “symbolic interactionism” with a new interactionist's perspective—“radical interactionism.” Unlike in symbolic interactionism, where Mead's and Blumer's ideas play the most prominent roles, in radical interactionism's, Park's ideas play a more prominent role than either Mead's or Blumer's ideas. On the one hand, according to Mead, the general principle behind the organization of human group life was once dominance, but it is now “sociality.” On the other hand, according to Park, this general principle is now and has always been dominance. Blumer takes a position much closer to Mead's than Park's arguing that the general principle underlying the organization of human group life is sociality. Under certain special conditions, however, it can become dominance. Although like radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism is rooted in pragmatism, unlike in radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism is still plagued with strains of utopian thought, among which the notion of sociality is the most virulent. Sociality may be the principle on which human group life is organized in heaven, but, down here on earth, it remains organized on the basis of domination. Thus, radical interactionism provides a much‐needed antidote to the idealistic overtones still found in symbolic interactionism.

Codes of Commitment to Crime and Resistance: Determining Social and Cultural Factors over the Behaviors of Italian Mafia Women

“…This change in social behaviors prompts us to revisit the power and dominance nexus through the social interactions of the Mafia women. Athens (2009) stressed the importance of embracing a realist approach rather than an idealist one in examining the power and dominance nexus in social interactions. Specifically, Athens (2010) argued that the domination of the social action is hard to predict because the construction of a social act may be formulated differently during or after the process of that social construction.…”

The ‘Semiotic Self’: From Peirce and Mead to Wiley and Singer

“…2 William James, Charles Horton Cooley, John Dewey, Jane Addams, and other Pragmatists of the era are frequently mentioned only as footnotes. They are not central to the "narrative" of the classical "progenitors" of SI and yet they are at least as important as Georg Simmel and less well known thinkers like Hugo Munsterberg (Athens 2009). …”

“…If mentioned at all he tends to be briefly noted for the theory of ecological succession. Taking Park seriously might result in a radical re-thinking of Symbolic Interactionism and the construction of a new research paradigm which Athens (2009) calls "Radical Interactionism." It requires a "radical hermeneutics" (Caputo 2000) to sort out how one should interpret the idea of a school of thought, and its boundaries.…”

“…Peirce is often left out of discussion altogether, even by sophisticated Symbolic Interactionists (e.g. Athens 2009). Peirce directly influenced William James (Menand 2001), but James is not usually considered a classical contributor to sociology.…”

Racial Habitus, Moral Conflict, and White Moral Hegemony Within Interracial Evangelical Organizations

“…Although the interactionist tradition has attended somewhat to the constituting role of structure(Maines 1977), some argue that this has been at most a subsidiary focus or that the perspective has given inadequate attention to the centrality of domination in group life(Athens 2009;Musolf 1992).…”