Michael Hviid Jacobsen's Introduction to Critical and Cultural Interactionism (2019)

From Michael Hviid Jacobsen (Ed.) Critical and Cultural Interactionism. (2019). Routledge.

 Introduction

The coming of critical and cultural interactionisms

Michael Hviid Jacobsen

This book is an invitation to what is here termed ‘critical and cultural

­ interactionisms’. We shall in a bit more detail return to the purpose and con-

tent of this notion later. The book is a creative offspring from another volume I

had the privilege and pleasure of editing a few years ago titled The Interactionist

Imagination (Jacobsen 2017), which explored some of the many different roots

and variations of interactionist sociology. When completing that volume, I came

to consider the necessity of looking more detailed into some of the critical and

cultural dimensions of interactionism. Obviously, I was neither the first nor per-

haps even the most qualified to do so. However, it took me by surprise how many

interactionists in writing as well as in conversation used the notions of ‘critical’ or

‘cultural’ interactionism without really qualifying, clarifying or specifying what

was actually meant by the invocation of such wording.

For a long time, ‘interactionism’ has almost intuitively been seen as identical

to the notion of ‘symbolic interactionism’, and for many outside the ranks of inter-

actionist sociology, this may still be the case. This volume wants to rectify or at

least challenge this view by exploring some of the critical and cultural potentials

of interactionist sociology in a more general sense of the term. In many ways,

such a volume is long overdue, especially since the idea of critical and cultural

interactionism by now has long since lost its novelty and far predates my usage

of the notion here. Interactionism probably always was and certainly still is a

motley crew encompassing and embracing many different intellectual perspec-

tives, schools of thought, research programs, and theoretical and methodological

approaches. Moreover, interactionism, whether symbolic or otherwise, cannot be

solis sacerdotibus – only for the initiated. There is something inherently anti-

sectarian and anti-exclusionary in interactionism that prohibits it from turning

into a church only for the chosen few. Even though conferences are held, jour-

nals are published and books are written intended for an interactionist audience,

interactionism is not the property of any group of individuals or any organisation.

In principle, everybody can study interaction as it takes place in everyday life.

Simultaneously, it seems as if this fact in recent years has contributed to a certain

intellectual influx from the outside as well as a compartmentalisation within inter-

actionist sociology, to which we return, that by some is seen as a strength and a

welcome development and by others as a problem. In this Introduction, we shall2 Michael Hviid Jacobsen

look briefly at this ‘flaking’ and accompanying proliferation of different versions

of interactionism; we will deal with the notions of ‘critical interactionism’ and

‘cultural interactionism’; and also, however briefly, discuss the ‘politics’ of inter-

actionism, before at last describing what this book contains and aspires to achieve.

The implosion of interactionism

Until relatively recently it made some sense to claim that the mentioning of

‘interactionism’ to a large degree was almost synonymous with ‘symbolic inter-

actionism’. Although the notion of ‘symbolic interactionism’ dates as far back

as 1937 when it was first coined by Herbert Blumer, it was not until the 1960s

and 1970s that the perspective really started to gain ground as part of the wave

of so-called creative sociologies – encompassing phenomenology, existential-

ism, ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism (Morris 1977) – that swept

across particularly the American sociological landscape. Symbolic interactionism

was then seen as part of the opposition to the so-called orthodox consensus – the

conglomerate of positivism, behaviourism, structural functionalism and moderni-

sation theory – dominating the American sociological agenda during the post-

war period. However, symbolic interactionism was also described at times as the

‘loyal opposition’ that despite its alternative understanding of a host of core socio-

logical concepts, theories and methods did not really shake the foundation of the

status quo, and it would thus eventually disappear again (Mullins 1973). As we

know now, symbolic interactionism did not disappear, but rather seemed to gain

strength and potency over the following decades. Due to the general prolifera-

tion of theoretical inventions, novel perspectives and new hyphenated sociologi-

cal fields of research, today there are many other, more or less loyal or disloyal,

oppositions around (even though we may now seriously question the existence of

any ‘orthodox consensus’ or centre of gravity within sociology) that each in their

way voices their critique of what they regard as mainstream and convention, and

symbolic interactionism is thus now just one among many other voices (Maines

2003:5). Symbolic interactionism, or more broadly interactionism, has perhaps

in this process lost some of the mysterious allure that surrounded it in the early

heydays of creative sociology. Consequently, in its coming of age, interactionism

is now no longer the odd man out within sociology.

Moreover, it is increasingly difficult to talk about ‘interactionism’ in the singu-

lar as there are nowadays so many different strands, camps, stances, variants and

schools around. Obviously, ‘interactionism’ is the generic term for the study of

interaction (at times also called ‘social interaction’), but apparently today there is

nothing to be called ‘pure interactionism’ or what was once called a ‘simply inter-

actionist approach unadorned with adjectives or hyphens’ (McCall and Simmons

1978:11). Interactionism is now many different things at the same time. As Ken

Plummer once observed: ‘In the future … it will probably be better to talk of ‘inter-

actionist sociologies’, in the plural, and to acknowledge these diverse stances’

(Plummer cited in Reynolds and Herman-Kinney 2003:85). Well, the future, it

seems, is now. Since Plummer’s prophecy, interactionism has imploded and is 

now splintering into a mosaic consisting of a multitude of colourful yet internally

different pieces. In the early days (the ‘good old days’) of symbolic interactionism,

there was apparently no strong need to specify one’s interactionist sympathies. In

fact, many young adepts in interactionism did not even consider their own sym-

bolic interactionist approach to be something special. As Anselm L. Strauss thus

famously stated: ‘We didn’t think symbolic interaction was a perspective in sociol-

ogy; we thought it was sociology’ (Strauss cited in Gusfield 1995:ix). Today, as

mentioned, interactionism can be found in many different guises within sociology

and its neighbouring disciplines: Marxist interactionism, existential interaction-

ism, critical interactionism, interpretive interactionism, phenomenological interac-

tionism, cognitive interactionism, semiotic interactionism, cultural interactionism,

dramaturgical interactionism, structural interactionism, postmodern interaction-

ism, radical interactionism, neostructural interactionism, feminist interaction-

ism, poststructuralist interactionism, queer interactionism, pacifist interactionism,

intersectional interactionism, ecological interactionism and so on. The list of inter-

actionisms with a specifying prefix seems to be constantly growing. In fact, even

long before this development began to take shape, interactionism was bifurcated

between a ‘Chicago School’ and an ‘Iowa School’ (at times called a ‘non-posi-

tivist’ and a ‘positivist’ school) that each in their distinctive way – together with

ethnomethodologists and dramaturgists – interpreted and used the basic tenets of

symbolic interactionism as their defining trademark (see, e.g., Meltzer and Petras

1970; Petras and Meltzer 1973).

This development with the emergence of many new special branches of inter-

actionism does not, however, signal that ‘symbolic interactionism’ as the volcanic

epicentre of interactionist sociology itself has disappeared. In fact, it seems as

alive and kicking as ever before, not least because many of the towering problems

and challenges confronting contemporary society – such as the globalisation of

crime and terrorism, immigration and integration, changing sexual identities and

practices (and the rise and consequences of the #MeToo campaign), radicalisation

concerns among young people, perceptions of and reactions to climate change,

fake news and populist politics, and the like – not only call for but would greatly

benefit from an interactionist sensitivity and understanding (Atkinson and Housley

2003:175). However, the diffusion of interactionism does perhaps challenge the

comprehension that all types of interactionism necessarily have symbolic inter-

actionism as their most obvious or sole birthplace. As Thomas DeGloma, former

President of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (SSSI), stated on

the state of symbolic interactionism in a speech delivered at the Couch-Stone

conference in Lancaster in the summer of 2018:

Over the past decade, we have witnessed a renewed interest in symbolic inter-

actionism, and in pragmatist theory and methods more generally. Along with

this renewed interested, we have seen a remarkable diffusion of interactionism

into multiple areas of sociological research. This expansion of interest, coupled

with theoretical and methodological diffusion into different substantive areas,

has presented us with certain opportunities and challenges … Interactionism

is undeniably one of the most influential theoretical and empirical perspectives

in the field. Yet, I think we are also simultaneously seeing a bit of a liquidation

effect in our organisations (at least in the United States) – where the tenets of

symbolic interactionism have been so widely accepted as the cultural microso-

ciology of our day that those who engage in this work sometimes do not even

think of themselves as symbolic interactionists. This diffuse influence presents

a great challenge: how do we organize and acknowledge interactionists as an

intellectual community given the broad influence of our ideas across different

sub-groups and areas of research?

This diffusion and diversification (and to some undoubtedly also dilution) of

many different kinds of interactionism particularly over the past two decades has

perhaps exacerbated the challenge to interactionism as such an internally coher-

ent intellectual community. Another challenge may be the many attempts to mix

interactionism with outside influences. Today, one will often see interactionists

refer to or draw equally on a multitude of ‘external’ theoretical influences when

studying topics such as, for example, power (e.g., Michel Foucault), class and

inequality (e.g., Pierre Bourdieu) or gender (e.g., Judith Butler). One can be in

favour of such import or inculcation of external ideas, or one can be opposed to

it. It is evident, however, that interactionism in itself already contains important

and original core ideas about these topics – power (e.g., Dennis and Martin 2005;

Prus 1999), class and inequality (e.g., Fields, Copp and Kleinman 2006; Schwalbe

et al. 2000), or gender (e.g., Cahill 1980; Zimmermann and West 1987) – and that

some of them are in fact just as useful and analytically potent as those imported or

clipped from other theoretical schools. This is not to say that interactionists should

not read, draw on or learn from other theoretical perspectives, but sometimes we

seem to look elsewhere for that which we already have in our own possession.

‘Critical’ and ‘cultural’ interactionism

As a consequence of the aforementioned implosion of interactionism, today there

are multiple interactionisms around and many new ‘emerging voices’ (Sandstrom

and Fine 2003) that each in their way testify to the continued attraction and rel-

evance of interactionism. Some of them still rely on the ballast of classic and core

symbolic interactionist ideas, whereas others seem to share the ambition of shift-

ing the centre of theoretical and analytical gravity towards more critical, cultural,

structural or macro-oriented positions. The arrival of some of these new inven-

tions or syntheses is, as hinted at earlier, perhaps partly a result of what has been

regarded as a reluctance or inability of conventional symbolic interactionism to

deal adequately or systematically with topics of power, inequality, social struc-

ture, domination and macrosociological issues. Perhaps this perceived reluctance

or inability can be traced back to Blumer’s aversion towards the use of seemingly

abstract theoretical notions lacking empirical substantiation and his serious reser-

vations about ridiculously refined statistical analyses (Blumer 1969:26–27). For

example, Arlie R. Hochschild recalls from one of Blumer’s courses how he would 

pressure and tease the students with questions such as: ‘What is a social system?

What is a social class? It is like a wall? No? Why do you call it a structure? …

What is the unconscious? Can you see it? Touch it? What is it you know when

you know it is there?’ (Blumer cited in Hochschild 1987:ii). However, associating

interactionism merely with microsociology or social psychology (see, e.g., Carter

and Fuller 2015) or idiographic naturalistic inquiry for that matter has also meant

that its potential for providing a critical study of or commentary on structural

or cultural conditions of constraint for a long time has been largely overlooked,

which has been noted within as well as outside the ranks of interactionism (see,

e.g., Coser 1976; Gouldner 1970; Musolf 1992; Hall 2003). Hence many of the

‘emerging voices’ of more recent interactionist inventions have been preoccupied

with either upscaling, tilting or reframing the symbolic interactionist perspective

into more critical and cultural directions.

What, then, is meant by the epithets of ‘critical’ or ‘cultural’ interactionism as

invoked in the title of this book? It has once been suggested that it ‘is problematic

for interactionists to stake any claim to a domain called ‘critical interactionism’’

(Sandstrom, Martin and Fine 2001:226). This is indeed true as would a similar

claim stating that it has conventionally been problematic for interactionists to

stake a claim to a domain called ‘cultural interactionism’. Most of the time, we

almost instinctively do not connect interactionism with neither the critical nor the

cultural. Back in the 1970s, Michael A. Overington stated that he was ‘sad to say’

that ‘a critical vision, a reflection on the relation of what is to what could be … is

lacking in contemporary symbolic interactionism’ (Overington 1976:243, original

emphasis). Since then things have changed and different stances of critical inter-

actionism have now slowly started to emerge. For example, Wayne M. Mellinger

(2008) suggested that his own version of critical interactionism ‘seeks to offer

an alternative to seemingly procapitalist analyses of the present by focusing on

the everyday practices which constitute sites of oppression and domination’. By

trying to twist interactionism in a more critical direction, scholars have often thus

aspired to move beyond the merely descriptive level and to provide their analyses

with a sharper edge aimed at providing food not only for thought but also for

action and the development of alternatives. For example, it has been noted how

scholars have combined interactionist theory with critical theory to move

beyond merely describing social worlds to a critical approach of consider-

ing how activities can, and should, be organized to better meet the needs

of participants … [and how this] critical interactionist theory affords us an

understanding of how identities are not fixed.

(Pike and Weinstock 2013:126)

So despite its apparently long-lasting use, there is still an untapped potential for

working more systematically with developing a ‘critical interactionism’.

The longstanding reluctance surrounding the notion of the ‘critical’ has almost

been matched by a similar distancing to the ‘cultural’ within interactionist ranks –

perhaps seeking to steer clear of the functionalist preoccupation with culture,

perhaps wanting to avoid association with ‘cultural studies’ and ‘cultural theory’

traditions, or perhaps because ‘culture’ could be seen as one prominent example

of those ‘definitive concepts’ that Blumer (1969:140–153) so strongly warned

against. Even though ‘culture’ (or ‘subculture’ for that sake) by no means is a

no-go word in interactionist studies, it is often treated less lovingly and system-

atically as notions of ‘self’, ‘identity’, ‘role’, ‘interaction’, ‘situation’, ‘meaning’

and so on. As proposed by, for example, Norman K. Denzin (1992), James A.

Forte (2001), Paul R. Lichterman (2007) and others, there is however an impor-

tant and fruitful link between interactionism and cultural approaches. Although

‘cultural interactionism’ comes in many different shapes and forms, a common

feature seems to be the stress on culture as a living and changing aspect of human

and social life. The reason for this common ground is quite obvious: interaction is

on the one hand circumscribed and shaped by what McCall and Simmons (1966:

23–25) once called ‘cultural boundaries’, meaning all those preferred ‘whos’,

‘whats’, ‘whens’ and ‘wheres’ that are dictated by cultural factors (and learned

during socialisation), but on the other hand culture itself is also continuously

explored, shared, consumed, constituted, challenged, contested and changed by

interaction. Interaction and culture are therefore not two separate or opposed

domains; they are rather interwoven in the complex process of human meaning-

making in the world that is exactly one of the core concerns of interactionist soci-

ology. There are thus many good reasons to start considering and making use of

the critical and cultural strands of contemporary interactionism.

The ‘politics’ of interactionism

The question of the role of values, ideology, personal convictions and political

opinions in social research is almost as ancient as social research itself. It is also a

question that one needs to treat cautiously as there are many sore toes around just

waiting to be trodden on. Also within interactionist sociology, it remains a delicate

question, and when one is invoking notions of ‘critical’ and ‘cultural’ interaction-

ism, this almost inevitably begets the question of politics. As mentioned earlier,

interactionism is by many predominantly regarded as a microsociological per-

spective that is concerned with the in-depth study of face-to-face interaction and

identity-construction and meaning-making on the level of everyday life. Thus, the

question of politics (understood as the political system or ‘Politics’ with a capital P)

has often been seen at best as secondary to such mundane concerns and mostly

as irrelevant. As mentioned earlier, symbolic interactionism was once labelled

the ‘loyal opposition’ to the existing and dominant theoretical positions – a loyal

opposition that was perhaps a minor nuisance but posed no real threat to neither

the status quo within sociology nor to society at large. During the 1970s, there

was a certain discussion about the politics of symbolic interactionism (which at

certain intervals has resurfaced since), and the general opinion seemed to be that

interactionism (together with most other creative sociologies), despite its progres-

sive research agenda and its concern with micro-issues of power and deviance, on

the overall was a rather apolitical or conservative and even reactionary enterprise Introduction 7

(see, e.g., Gouldner 1970; McNall and Johnson 1975; Morris 1975). Today, this

seems to have changed. Attending interactionist conferences, reading interaction-

ist studies and listening to interactionists talk, one is rarely in doubt that political

indignation or moral sentiment are important motivation factors behind a lot of

interactionist research.

Do we then with this book, by opting for a critical and cultural interactionism,

open the floodgates for all sorts of political, ideological and value-laden outpour-

ings? This has certainly not been the purpose behind the production of this book.

Whether we want to use our social research for ideological or normative purpose

is, at the end of the day, a matter of personal taste and preference. May every-

one find and cultivate their own path within the realm of interactionism. In this

respect, however, my own personal as well as professional conviction is very

similar to that hinted at many years ago by Everett C. Hughes:

Some say that sociology is a normative science. If they mean that social

norms are one of its main objects of study, I agree. If they mean anything

else, I do not agree. Many branches of human learning have suffered from

taking norms too seriously. Departments of language in universities are often

so normative that they kill and pin up their delicate moth of poetry and stuff

their beasts of powerful living profess before letting students examine them.

(Hughes 1971/1984:xviii)

It is my conviction that we would be doing a great disservice to interactionism

(and to social science in general) if we – either openly or more subtly – conflate

it with or mistake it for our personal and political opinions. It is also my con-

viction that interactionism, at heart, is neither right wing nor left wing, neither

ideologically conservative nor liberal or socialist for that matter. The community

of interactionists comprises a broad range of positions, ideas, approaches, life-

styles and personal predilections, but although many interactionists undoubtedly

regard themselves as progressive and liberal-minded people (which is also why

they study the topics they do), this progressiveness – at the end of the day – can-

not be attributed to or explained by their interactionism or vice versa. So even

though we, me and my colleagues in this book, argue for the importance of a

critical and cultural interactionism, this does not necessarily entail the support for

a political agenda of interactionism. I am, however, aware that not all of us in this

volume agree on this topic. In my view, by allowing our interactionism to serve a

political purpose or normative cause, we run the risk that not only does our work

become tediously predictable but also inappropriately one-sided, and in neither

case would this be beneficial for promoting an understanding and recognition of

that which we claim to study.

To conclude here on perhaps a somewhat controversial note, it is my convic-

tion (or opinion if you want) that no scientific enterprise can claim to be political

without at the same time calling the very nature of what science is into question.

A science, a scientific sub-discipline or a scientific school of thought, can and

obviously should be critical – it can and indeed should investigate critical aspects

of society and even of science itself – but it cannot admit or pretend to be a politi-

cally driven endeavour and still retain the claim to be a science. If this was the

case, we would simply risk starting out with the answers and then be looking for

appropriate or interesting questions instead of the other way around. Hence our

finest ambition as interactionists (critical, cultural and otherwise) lies, I believe,

first and foremost in incessantly studying, searching, rummaging, dissecting,

investigating, questioning and understanding the wonderful world of interaction,

not in parading as protagonists or defenders of political agendas or ideological

stances. Others are obviously welcome (and not least destined) to disagree. I find

at least some support for my perspective in Erving Goffman’s famous last written

testimony before his death:

I’ve heard it said that we [the sociologists] should be glad to trade what we’ve

so far produced for a few really good conceptual distinctions and a cold beer.

But there’s nothing in the world we should trade for what we do have: the

bent to sustain in regard to all elements of social life a spirit of unfettered,

unsponsored inquiry, and the wisdom not to look elsewhere but ourselves and

our discipline for this mandate. That is our inheritance and that so far is what

we have to bequeath.

(Goffman 1983:17, italics added)

About this book

This book is about critical and cultural interactionism without patenting any of

these notions. Thus, no one can claim any monopoly over the notions of ‘critical

interactionism’ or ‘cultural interactionism’ (just as no one can rightfully insist that

there is only one real way of doing interactionist research). There are now simply

so many different varieties of interactionism around and they all contain different

understandings of what it is all about. Consequently, this book does not claim to

hold neither the first nor the last word about critical or cultural interactionism. It

does not provide an authoritative reading or rendition of what should and should

not be counted among critical or cultural versions of interactionism. Rather, the

book wants to qualify our discussions about what critical or cultural interaction-

ism might be by providing a series of different suggestions. This book will thus

give voice to some of those who have contemplated or practiced critical and cul-

tural aspects of interactionism in their own work.

The purpose of the book is to shed some light on different perspectives on interac-

tionism that each in their way may warrant the epithets of ‘critical’ or ‘cultural’ con-

tributions. In Chapter 1 by Greg Smith and Michael Hviid Jacobsen, we are invited

back to the work of Erving Goffman in order to reconsider some of the objections

to or ‘misgivings’ about his work for being micro-oriented, apolitical and thus non-

critical, the authors concluding that one will, in fact, find snippets for critical analy-

sis in Goffman’s ideas. Chapter 2 by Michael L. Schwalbe also concerns itself with

Goffman’s work and here the author uses Goffman’s ideas as a lever to develop what

is called a ‘neostructural interactionism’. In Chapter 3, Norman K. Denzin shows how 

a critical ‘interpretive interactionism’ to culture can be developed based on insights

from performative ideas, activism and agendas of social justice. Chapter 4 by Michael

Hviid Jacobsen and Søren Kristiansen revolves around the notion of ‘dramaturgical

interactionism’ and it shows how there is an often overlooked critical potential in dif-

ferent varieties of the dramaturgical perspective such as the ‘sociology of the absurd’

and ‘critical dramaturgy’. Patricia Burbank and Diane C. Martins in Chapter 5 discuss

how a ‘critical interactionism’ can be developed by bridging ideas from symbolic

interactionism and critical social theory, and how such a perspective can be applied

to studies of social problems. Chapter 6 by Mary Joe Deegan is concerned with trac-

ing the pacifist roots in the classic works of Jane Addams, John Dewey and George

Herbert Mead, and in this way, the chapter provides some ideas into the politics of

the early interactionist and pragmatist community in the United States. In Chapter 7,

Sherryl Kleinman and Emily R. Cabaniss deal with ‘feminist interactionism’ as a

fertile perspective to theorise and study topics such as heterosexism, racism and class

inequality. Chapter 8 by Michael Hviid Jacobsen and Caroline Joan S. Picart intro-

duces the perspective of ‘radical interactionism’ as developed by Lonnie H. Athens

and discusses whether its proposed ‘radical break’ with symbolic interactionism

calls for a reorientation of interactionist sociology. The topic of Chapter 9 by Lauren

Langman is the relationship between symbolic interactionism and the critical theory

of the Frankfurt School, and the author shows how our understanding of themes such

as subjectivity, domination and normativity could benefit from a more fruitful dia-

logue between the two theoretical positions. Chapter 10 by Adele E. Clarke unfolds

the perspective of ‘situational analysis’ as a critical ‘theory-methods package’ that can

be used in shedding light on and critically analysing a multitude of different social

phenomena by taking the situation as the unit of analysis. In Chapter 11, written by

Thaddeus Müller, the author discusses some of the many important but often over-

looked connecting points between cultural criminology and symbolic interactionism,

and he shows how topics such as transgression, marginalisation, resistance and the

media are obvious sites for making and developing such connections.

To conclude, despite its theoretical width and diversity, this book does far from

provide an exhaustive account of the many possible forms of critical and cultural

interactionism, but it takes us some of the way. It is therefore important to stress

that with this book, the last word has not been said about critical or cultural inter-

actionism; however, this may nevertheless be a good place to start out.

References

Atkinson, Paul and William Housley (2003): Interactionism. London: Sage Publications.

Blumer, Herbert (1969): Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cahill, Spencer E. (1980): ‘Directions for an Interactionist Study of Gender Development’.

Symbolic Interaction, 3 (1):123–138.

Carter, Michael J. and Celine Fuller (2015): ‘Symbolic Interactionism’. Sociopedia.isa.

Available online at: http://www.academia.edu/16545413/Symbolic_Interactionism.

Coser, Lewis A. (1976): ‘Sociological Theory from the Chicago Dominance to 1965’.

Annual Review of Sociology, 2:145–160.10 Michael Hviid Jacobsen

Dennis, Alex and Peter J. Martin (2005): ‘Symbolic Interactionism and the Concept of

Power’. British Journal of Sociology, 56 (2):191–213.

Denzin, Norman K. (1992): Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies. New York:

Blackwell.

Fields, Jessica, Martha Copp and Sherryl Kleinman (2006): ‘Symbolic Interactionism,

Inequality and Emotions’, in Jan E. Stets and Jonathan H. Turner (eds.): Handbook of

the Sociology of Emotions. New York: Springer, pp. 155–178.

Forte, James A. (2001): Theories for Practice – Symbolic Interactionist Translations. New

York: University Press of America.

Goffman, Erving (1983): ‘The Interaction Order’. American Sociological Review, 48 (1):1–17.

Gouldner, Alvin W. (1970): ‘Other Symptoms of the Crisis: Goffman’s Dramaturgy and

Other New Theories’, in The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. London: Heinemann,

pp. 378–390.

Gusfield, Joseph R. (1995): ‘Preface: A Second Chicago School?’, in Gary Alan Fine (ed.):

A Second Chicago School? – The Development of a Postwar American Sociology.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. vii–xvi.

Hall, Peter M. (2003): ‘Social Organization and Social Processes: Looking Back and

Moving Ahead’. Symbolic Interaction, 26 (1):33–55.

Hochschild, Arlie R. (1987): ‘Memorium for Herbert Blumer’. Berkeley Journal of

Sociology, 32:i–iii.

Hughes, Everett C. (1971/1984): The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Jacobsen, Michael Hviid (ed.) (2017): The Interactionist Imagination: Studying Meaning,

Situation and Micro-Social Order. London: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Lichterman, Paul R. (2007): ‘Invitation to Practical Cultural Sociology’, in Isaac Reed

and Jeffrey C. Alexander (eds.): Culture, Society and Democracy – The Interpretive

Approach. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, pp. 19–54.

Maines, David R. (2003): ‘Interactionism’s Place’. Symbolic Interaction, 26 (1):5–18.

McCall, George and Jerry L. Simmons (1978): Identities and Interactions (Revised

Edition). New York: Free Press.

McNall, Scott G. and James C. M. Johnson (1975): ‘The New Conservatives: Ethnomethodologists,

Phenomenologists and Symbolic Interactionists’. Critical Sociology,

5 (4):49–65.

Mellinger, Wayne M. (2008): ‘Critical Interactionism: The Microsociology of Domination’.

Available online at: http://criticalinteractionism.blogspot.dk/2008/08/critical-

interactionism-microsociology.html.

Meltzer, Bernard N. and John W. Petras (1970): ‘The Chicago and Iowa Schools of

Symbolic Interactionism’, in Tamotsu Shibutani (ed.): Human Nature and Collective

Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, pp. 3–17.

Morris, Monica B. (1975): ‘“Creative Sociology”: Conservative or Revolutionary?’.

American Sociologist, 10:168–178.

Morris, Monica B. (1977): An Excursion into Creative Sociologies. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Mullins, Nicholas (1973): Theory and Theory Groups in Contemporary American

Sociology. New York: Harper & Row.

Musolf, Gil R. (1992): ‘Structures, Institutions, Power and Ideology: New Directions

within Symbolic Interactionism’. Sociological Quarterly, 33 (2):171–189.

Overington, Michael A. (1976): ‘Policy Research and the Future: An Exemplar for a

Critical Symbolic Interactionism’. Sociological Focus, 9 (3):239–250. Introduction 11

Petras, John W. and Bernard N. Meltzer (1973): ‘Theoretical and Ideological Variations in

Contemporary Interactionism’. Catalyst, 7:1–8.

Pike, Elizabeth C. J. and Johnny Weinstock (2013): ‘Identity Politics in the Outdoor

Adventure Environment’, in Elizabeth C. J. Pike and Simon Beames (eds.): Outdoor

Adventure and Social Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 125–134.

Prus, Robert C. (1999): Beyond the Power Mystique: Power as an Intersubjective

Accomplishment. New York: State University of New York Press.

Reynolds, Larry T. and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney (eds.) (2003): Handbook of Symbolic

Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

Sandstrom, Kent L. and Gary Alan Fine (2003): ‘Triumphs, Emerging Voices and the

Future’, in Larry T. Reynolds and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney (eds.): Handbook of

Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira, pp. 1041–1058.

Sandstrom, Kent L., Daniel D. Martin and Gary Alan Fine (2001): ‘Symbolic Interactionism

at the End of the Century’, in George Ritzer and Barry Smart (eds.): Handbook of Social

Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 217–231.

Schwalbe, Michael L., Sandra Goodwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Shealy

Thompson and Michele Wolkomir (2000): ‘Generic Processes in the Reproduction of

Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis’. Social Forces, 79 (2):419–452.

Zimmermann, Don H. and Candace West (1987): ‘Doing Gender’. Gender & Society,

1 (2):125–151.