Why is symbolic interactionism not a unitary approach?
2009 (English)In: Sveriges sociologförbundsårsmöte, 2009, 10- p.Conference paper (Refereed)
Beginning with the end of the 1980s, social psychology has come to be perceived as a science with three different "faces" or fractions that are growing ever further apart, namely, psychological social psychology, symbolic interactionism, and sociological social psychology. The current renaissance of pragmatism and the growing interest in the theoretical heritage of symbolic interactionism have created expectations that they may help uncover the key for integrating social-psychology as an interdisciplinary field. An examination of the theoretical foundation of symbolic interactionism as consisting of two different social psychologies - those of Cooley and Mead - comprises a good starting point for such an endeavor. The proposed paper investigates and compares Cooley's and Mead's notions of self in immediate relation to the two authors' differing notions of society. Viewing society, whether traditional or modern, as necessarily comprised of two mutually interwoven social realities, makes it possible to understand the relationship between Mead's and Cooley's models of self and also integrate them into a unitary symbolic interactionist perspective.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. 10- p.
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-99740OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-99740DiVA: diva2:208635