Abstract
In this chapter, we examine the intersection between Interactionism and Methodological Individualism (MI). In the first part of the chapter, we discuss the affinity between MI and Interactionism by outlining the connection existing between the two frameworks; in particular, we show the similarities between the theories of two major founders of MI—Max Weber and Georg Simmel—and Interactionism. In addition to these similarities, Interactionism and Methodological Individualism also share a common criticism; they both have been charged with being microsociological reductionists. We begin to address this major controversy affecting both MI and Interactionism, by outlining how it applies to Interactionism. In doing so, we present the perspective we call “Pragmatic Interactionism,” which expands the interactionist tradition by adding three core ideas. The three core ideas of this analytic approach are problem-solving activity; human agency as creative constraint; and multidimensional sociality. These core ideas respond to recent developments in interactionist theorizing, as well as the pursuit of a greater emphasis on Pragmatism in the larger discipline of sociology. In introducing each of these core ideas, we provide empirical illustrations for those interested in how to apply this approach. In sum, our chapter shows confluence and divergence between Interactionism and MI, and addresses a controversy that affects both Interactionism and MI.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The thought of G. H. Mead is the main foundational inspiration for this chapter, but it is not the only conceivable one. In later phases of theoretical development, we plan to incorporate in our framework the oeuvres of important classic pragmatists, who have been uneven sources for theoretical inspiration in interactionism, and even the work of other classic social theorists, such as Charles H. Cooley, whose relations to interactionism and pragmatism have been recently the object of scholarly interest (Brossard & Ruiz-Junco, 2020; Ruiz-Junco & Brossard, 2019).
- 2.
The core ideas guiding our perspective follow from our analysis of three traditions in interactionism: the New Iowa School, Anselm Strauss’ work on action, and the study of social organization. Here, we offer a brief and necessarily incomplete review of the main “take-aways” from these traditions. From the New Iowa School, we take a focus on social processes in context (Buban, 1986; Couch, 1989; Littrell, 1997; Miller & Hintz, 1997; Miller et al., 1975; Travisano, 1975). From Strauss’ Continual Permutations of Action (1993), we take that interactionism should be a theory of action/interaction (see also Strauss, 1991). From the social organization paradigm, we take the negotiated order concept, as well as this tradition’s focus on the mesodomain (Hall, 1987, 1995; Hall & McGinty, 1997, 2002; Maines, 1977, 1982), meta-power (Burns & Hall, 2013; Burns et al., 2013; Hall, 1997) and the need to highlight the processual nature of social action in organizational contexts (Hallett, 2010, Hallett & Ventresca, 2006).
- 3.
Discussing trajectory, work, embodiment, thought processes, symbolizing, representation(s), and social worlds, Strauss follows Chicago pragmatists in rejecting false dichotomies and advancing ideas that help us make sense of social life across levels of analysis. For a recent discussion of the Straussian framework, see Clarke (2021).
- 4.
The New Iowa School elaborates Mead’s concern with the temporality of human action that involves the coordination of implied and projected pasts and futures (Mead, 1932; Couch, 1989). In line with this, Steven Buban suggests, “… society in all its component parts is conceptualized not as a thing but as an intertwined set of events, an ongoing accomplishment of persons acting in concert” (1986, p. 35). Other scholars in this tradition identify the structure and temporality of social interaction and the conditions for the possibility of momentary or ongoing interaction (Miller & Hintz, 1997).
- 5.
References
Agassi, J. (1960). Methodological individualism. The British Journal of Sociology, 11, 244–270.
Baert, P. (2015). The existentialist moment: The rise of sartre as a public intellectual. Polity Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California.
Brossard, B., & Ruiz-Junco, N. (2020). On the shoulders of citers: Notes on the organization of intellectual deference. The Sociological Quarterly, 61, 567–587.
Buban, S. L. (1986). Studying social process: The Chicago and Iowa schools revisited. Studies in Symbolic Interaction (Suppl. 2) (Part A), 25–38.
Burns, T. R., & Hall, P. M. (Eds.). (2013). The meta-power paradigm: Impacts and transformations of agents, institutions, and social systems. Peter Lang.
Burns, T. R., Hall, P. M., & McGinty, P. J. W. (2013). Conceptualizing power and meta-power: Causalities, mechanisms, and constructions. In T. R. Burns & P. M. Hall (Eds.), The meta-power paradigm: Impacts and transformations of agents, institutions, and social systems (pp. 19–82). Peter Lang.
Clarke, A. (2021). Straussian negotiated order theory c.1960–present. In D. vom Lehn, N. Ruiz-Junco, & W. Gibson (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of interactionism (pp. 47–58). Routledge.
Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1309–1335.
Cooley, C. H. (1992 [1902]). Human Nature and the Social Order. Transaction.
Côté, J.-F. (2015). George Herbert Mead’s concept of society: A critical reconstruction. Paradigm.
Couch, C. J. (1989). Social processes and relationships: A formal approach. General Hall.
Fine, G. A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 61–87.
Fine, G. A. (2001). Gifted tongues: High school debate and adolescent culture. Princeton University Press.
Fine, G. A. (2007). Authors of the storm: Meteorologists and the culture of prediction. The University of Chicago Press.
Fine, G. A., & Tavory, I. (2019). Interactionism in the twenty‐first century: A letter on being‐in‐a‐meaningful‐world. Symbolic Interaction. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.430
Gross, N. (2018). Pragmatism and the study of large-scale social phenomena. Theory and Society, 47, 87–111.
Hall, P. M. (1987). Interactionism and the study of social organization. The Sociological Quarterly, 28, 1–22.
Hall, P. M. (1995). The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory: Beyond the microlevel. The Sociological Quarterly, 36, 397–415.
Hall, P. M. (1997). Meta-power, social organization, and the shaping of social action. Symbolic Interaction, 20, 397–418.
Hall, P. M. (2016). There is more to reality than meets the eye: Reaching out to grasp the hand. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, Seattle, WA.
Hall, P. M., & Spencer Hall, D. A. (1983). The Handshake as interaction. Semiotica, 45, 249–264.
Hall, P. M., & McGinty, P. J. W. (1997). Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing program from statute. The Sociological Quarterly, 38, 439–467.
Hall, P. M., & McGinty, P. J. W. (2002). Social organization across space and time: The policy process, mesodomain analysis, and breadth of perspective. In S. C. Chew & D. Knottnerus (Eds.), Structure, culture, and history: Recent issues in social theory (pp. 303–322). Rowman and Littlefield.
Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75, 52–74.
Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35(2), 213–236.
Hallett, T., Shulman, D., & Fine, G. A. (2009). Peopling Organizations: The promise of classic symbolic interactionism for an inhabited institutionalism. In P. S. Adler (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organization studies: Classical Foundations (pp. 486–509). Oxford University Press.
Hirsch, J. S., & Khan, S. (2020). Sexual citizens: A landmark study of sex, power, and assault on campus. W. W. Norton & Company.
Householdquotes.co.uk. (2022). Where does assembling IKEA furniture cause the most stress? Retrieved March, 24, 2022. https://householdquotes.co.uk/ikea-stress/
Huebner, D. R. (2014). Becoming Mead: The social process of academic knowledge. University of Chicago.
Irvine, L. (2021). Animal selfhood. In D. vom Lehn, N. Ruiz-Junco, & W. Gibson (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of interactionism. Routledge.
Izadi, E. (2015). Columbia student protesting campus rape carries mattress during graduation. Washington Post. Retrieved March 24, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/05/19/columbia-student-protesting-campus-rape-carries-mattress-during-commencement/
Joas, H. (1985). G.H. Mead: A contemporary re-examination of his thought. MIT Press.
Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and social theory. University of Chicago.
Joas, H. (1996). The creativity of action. University of Chicago.
Joas, H. (1997 [1985]). G. H. Mead: A contemporary re-examination of his thought. MIT Press.
Joas, H., & Huebner, D. R. (Eds.). (2016). The timeliness of George Herbert Mead. University of Chicago Press.
Kivisto, P., & Swatos, W. H. (1990). Weber and interpretive sociology in America. The Sociological Quarterly, 31, 149–163.
Lengermann, P. M. (1988). Robert E. Park and the theoretical content of Chicago sociology: 1920–1940. Sociological Inquiry, 58, 361–377.
Littrell, B. (1997). Carl Couch and pragmatism: Naturalism, temporality, and authority. Studies in Symbolic Interaction (Suppl. 3), 3–20.
Maines, D. R. (1977). Social organization and social structure in symbolic interactionist thought. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 235–259.
Maines, D. R. (1982). In search of mesostructure: Studies in negotiated order. Urban Life, 11, 267–279.
Maines, D. R. (1989). Repackaging Blumer: The myth of Herbert Blumer’s astructural bias. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 10, 383–413.
Maines, D. R. (2001). The faultline of consciousness: A view of interactionism in sociology. Aldine de Gruyter.
McGinty, P. J. W. (2014). Divided and drifting: Interactionism and the neglect of social organizational analyses in organization studies. Symbolic Interaction, 37, 155–186.
McGinty, P. J. W. (2016). The astructural bias in symbolic interactionism. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 46, 19–56.
McGinty, P. J. W. (2017). Pragmatic interactionism: Organizing attention to the power of and possibilities for a 21st century interactionism. Paper presented as the Peter M. Hall Lecture at the Annual Meetings of the Midwest Sociological Society, Milwaukee, WI.
McPhail, C., & Rexroat, C. (1979). Mead vs. Blumer: The divergent methodological perspectives of social behaviorism and symbolic interactionism. American Sociological Review, 44, 449–467.
Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present. Prometheus Books.
Mead, G. H. (2015 [1934]). Mind, self, and society: The definitive edition (C. W. Morris, Ed., Annotated by D. R. Huebner and Hans Joas). University of Chicago Press.
Miller, D. E., Hintz, R. A., & Couch, C. J. (1975). The elements and structure of openings. The Sociological Quarterly, 16, 479–499.
Miller, D. E., & Hintz, R. A. (1997). The structure of social interaction. Studies in Symbolic Interaction (Suppl. 3), 87–107.
Rochberg-Halton, E. (1986). Meaning and modernity: Social theory in the pragmatic attitude. University of Chicago.
Rochberg-Halton, E. (1987). Why pragmatism now? Sociological Theory, 5, 194–200.
Rose, A. M. (1962). Human behavior and social processes. Houghton Mifflin.
Ruiz-Junco, N. (2016). The persistence of the power deficit? Advancing power premises in contemporary interactionist theory. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 46, 145–165.
Ruiz-Junco, N. (2017). Advancing the sociology of empathy: A proposal. Symbolic Interaction, 40, 414–435.
Ruiz-Junco, N., & Brossard, B. (2019). Updating Charles H. Cooley: Contemporary perspectives on a sociological classic. Routledge.
Segre, S. (2014). A note on Max Weber’s reception on the part of symbolic interactionism, and its theoretical consequences. The American Sociologist, 45, 474–482.
Shalin, D. (1986). Pragmatism and social interactionism. American Sociological Review, 51(1), 9–29.
Simmel, G. (1950 [1908]). The sociology of Georg Simmel. The Free Press.
Snow, D. A. (2001). Extending and broadening Blumer’s conceptualization of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 24(3), 367–377.
Strauss, A. L. (1991). Creating sociological awareness: Collective images and symbolic representations. Transaction.
Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. Aldine de Gruyter.
Travisano, R. V. (1975). Comments on ‘A research paradigm for symbolic interaction.’ In C. J. Couch & R. A. Hintz (Eds.), Constructing social life (pp. 263–271). Stipes.
vom Lehn, D., Ruiz-Junco, N., & Gibson, W. (2021). Introduction. The Routledge international handbook of interactionism (pp. 3–21). Routledge.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Volume 1. University of California Press.
Wrong, D. H. (1961). The oversocialized conception of man in modern sociology. American Sociological Review, 26, 183–193.
Zerubavel, E. (1985). Hidden rhythms: Schedules and calendars in social life. University of California Press.
Zerubavel, E. (2007). Generally speaking: The logic and mechanics of social pattern analysis. Sociological Forum, 22, 131–145.
Zerubavel, E. (2009). Social mindscapes: An invitation to cognitive sociology. Harvard University Press.
Zerubavel, E. (2018). Taken for granted: The remarkable power of the unremarkable. Princeton University Press.
Zerubavel, E. (2021). Generally speaking: An invitation to concept-driven sociology. Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
We thank the careful and thoughtful feedback provided by the editors, Nathalie Bulle and Francesco Di Iorio, and by Ran Keren, on an earlier version of this work. We especially appreciate the thoughts and insights on Pragmatic Interactionism that the late Peter Hall shared with us.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ruiz-Junco, N., Morrison, D.R., McGinty, P.J.W. (2023). Interactionism and Methodological Individualism: Affinities and Critical Issues. In: Bulle, N., Di Iorio, F. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Methodological Individualism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41508-1_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41508-1_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41507-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41508-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)