blumer was one of the founding fathers of symbolic interactionism that coined the term.
blumer was one of the founding fathers of symbolic interactionism that coined the term.
who is one of the founding fathers of symbolic interactionism that coined the term?
blumer
some critiques of symbolic interactionism are based on the assumption that it is a theory, and the critiques apply the criteria for a "good" theory to something that does not claim to be a theory. some critics find the symbolic interactionist framework too broad and general when they are seeking specific theories. symbolic interactionism is a theoretical "framework" rather than a theory and can be assessed on the basis of effective conceptualizations. the theoretical framework, as with any theoretical framework, is vague when it comes to analyzing empirical data or predicting outcomes in social life. as a framework rather than a theory, many scholars find it difficult to use. interactionism being a framework rather than a theory makes it impossible to test interactionism in the manner that a specific theoretical claim about the relationship between specific variables in a given context allows. unlike the symbolic interactionist framework, the many theories derived from symbolic interactionism, such as role theory and the versions of identity theory developed by sheldon stryker, and peter burke and colleagues, clearly define concepts and the relationships between them in a given context, thus allowing for the opportunity to develop and test hypotheses. further, especially among blumerian processual interactionists, a great number of very useful conceptualizations have been developed and applied in a very wide range of social contexts, types of populations, types of behaviors, and cultures and subcultures.
symbolic interactionism
symbolic interactionism is often related and connected with social structure. this concept suggests that symbolic interactionism is a construction of people's social reality. it also implies that from a realistic point of view, the interpretations that are being made will not make much difference. when the reality of a situation is defined, the situation becomes a meaningful reality. this includes methodological criticisms, and critical sociological issues. a number of symbolic interactionists have addressed these topics, the best known being stryker's structural symbolic interactionism and the formulations of interactionism heavily influenced by this approach (sometimes referred to as the "indiana school" of symbolic interactionism), including the works of key scholars in sociology and psychology using different methods and theories applying a structural version of interactionism that are represented in a 2003 collection edited by burke "et al". another well-known structural variation of symbolic interactionism that applies quantitative methods is manford h. kuhn's formulation which is often referred to in sociological literature as the "iowa school". "negotiated order theory" also applies a structural approach.
symbolic interactionism