[PDF] [PDF] An Introduction to the Sociological Perspective of Symbolic - CORE

[PDF] The Three Main Sociological Perspectives - Laulima

Symbolic interactionism emphasizes that human behavior is influenced by definitions and meanings that are created and maintained through symbolic interaction with others Sociologist W I Symbolic interactionism also suggests that our identity or sense of self is shaped by social interaction

[PDF] Sociological Perspectives

These three theoretical orientations are: Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Perspective To understand a theoretical orientation in any 

[PDF] Symbolic Interactionism in Sociology of Education Textbooks - ERIC

The interactionist perspective maintains that human beings engage in social action on the basis of meanings acquired from social sources, including their own  

[PDF] Society and Self: A Symbolic Interactionist Framework for - CORE

1 jan 1994 · of the sociological perspective in real world applications interactionist theory to practice, to show how interactionism and awareness of the

[PDF] An Introduction to the Sociological Perspective of Symbolic - CORE

Sociological Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism: Herbert Blumer's Perspective Revisited, Journal of Economics andSociology, Kagoshima University, 67: 

[PDF] 1 Introducing Social Psychology and Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism situates the authors within a partic- ular tradition of sociological theory and research The first task in developing a symbolic interactionist 

[PDF] interactionist perspective sociology example

[PDF] interactionist theorists sociology

[PDF] interactionist theory examples

[PDF] interactionist theory of language acquisition

[PDF] interactions 1 méthode de français pdf

[PDF] interactive application security testing open source tools

[PDF] interactive chi square calculator

[PDF] interactive louvre map

[PDF] interactive pdf javascript

[PDF] interactive rail map of germany

[PDF] interactive reader and study guide world history answers

[PDF] interactive teaching techniques

[PDF] interchange 5th edition pdf

[PDF] intercompany inventory transactions solutions

[PDF] intercompany profit elimination example

An Introduction to the Sociological

Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism :

Revised Edition

'˜ŽÒKUWABARA Tsukasa, YAMAGUCHI Kenichi journal or publication titleJournal of economics and sociology, Kagoshima

University

volume80 page range115-125

URLhttp://hdl.handle.net/10232/16983

Interactionism:RevisedEdition*1

TsukasaKuwabara*2

KenichiYamaguchi*3

I.Introduction

It is well known that the Chicago SchoolofSymbolicInteractionism(hereafterabbreviatedas "SI"),in which the works ofHerbertGeorge Blumer(1900-87)arerepresented,played an important role in the "ChicagoRenaissance."*4SI wascriticalto bothstructural-fiinctionalism,asestablishedby T.Parsonsand hisfollowers,andsociologicalpositivism,in whichG. A.Lundbergwas acentralfigure.Therefore,efforts ofSI werefocusedondevelopinganalternativesociologicalperspectiveorconceptualframeworkandanew andappropriateresearchmethodology.Si'semphasison theconceptualunderstandingof"Society as DynamicProcesses"hasbeeninfluentialin theJapanesesociologicalcommunity."SocietyasDynamic or as constantly in the processofchange. Thisarticleexaminestheconceptualstatusof"Society asDynamicProcesses"fromthestandpointofthe fundamentalprobleminsociology,namely,thatof therelationshipbetweentheindividualandsociety.More specifically,we haveattemptedtoanswerthefollowingthreequestions:

1) How does SI understandsocialization?

3) Whymusthumansocietybeunderstoodas"inprocessofchange"accordingtoSIanalysis?*7

Thethreequestionsmentionedaboveshouldbeansweredwith thefocuson acentralconceptofSI,

*'Thisarticleis therevisededitionofthe followingpaper:T.KuwabaraandK. Yamaguchi, 2007,AnIntroductionto the

andSociology,KagoshimaUniversity,67: 1-9[http://hdl.handle.net/10232/6924]. *3Full-timeLecturerat FukuyamaCity University.URL:http://gyo.tc/MvJ4 *4C.f. R. E. L.Faris,[1967]1970,ChicagoSociology'.1920-1932,TheUniversityofChicagoPress,vii-xii. *6This term was originallycoined as asociologicalterm by G.Simmel.

*7Oneofthe authorshas consideredthis as thefundamentalproblemof"SI" since 1997. See the followingarticle:T.

Kuwabara,1997,Theconceptionofsociety inHerbertBlumer's SymbolicInteractionismReconsidered,Culture,60 (3-4):55-72 [http://hdl.handle.net/10232/6937].

*8See thefollowingarticlefor anexceptionalinstance:K.Uchida,1996,TheMicro-MacroProblem:AnInteractionist

Approach,WasedaStudies inHumanSciences,9 (1): 101-13. - 115 -

"self-interaction"or"interactionwithoneself."Thus, it can be said that efforts to solve the basicsociological

problem should focus on the conceptof"self-interaction."

II.ActionthroughSelf-interaction

In this section, we have attempted to answer the first question regarding the meaningof"socialization"

accordingto SI. In addition,it has clarifiedhow SIunderstandsthe "relationshipbetween the individualand

theworld"and"action."

In SI, "self-interaction" is defined as the process whereby an actor interacts withhimselfTherself,or as a

formofcommunication whereby the actor talks and responds tohimselfTherself.That is to say, self-

interaction is the internalized equivalent of social interaction with "others." Self-interaction is a form of

social interaction, which usually involves other people; in this case, however, it is carried out alone.

Fromthe perspectiveof SI,self-interactionissynonymouswiththe "process of interpretation,"whichhas two distinctsteps.First, the actor indicatesto himselfTherselfa set of "things" that carry personal meanings (the step of"indication");second,he/sheinterpretsthesemeaningsbyselecting,checking,suspending, regrouping,andtransformingthem in the light of both the situation in which he/she is placed and the directionofhis/heraction (the stepof"interpretation"). It has been argued thatSi'stheory of "self-interaction"does not differfrom"subjective nominalism," Manysociologists,suchas J. D.Lewis,*10havemadethiscriticismforsometime.TheargumentbyLewis isparticularlynoteworthy.The secondsectionof this articleincludesacounterargumenttohiscriticism. Given"self-interaction"as the central concept, "socialization" (according to SI) is the process whereby:*"

1) Anactorderives"schemesofdefinition"and"generalizedroles"from"groupsofothers"*12towhich

*91970'sand80'shave brought manycriticismstoward the SIperspective.Therefore,SI needed to reconsider and

re-developitsperspectiveandmethodinresponseto thecriticisms.Amongthosecriticisms,twoof themhavebecome

commonandpopularas thelabelscharacterizingSItheory.That is, on the onehand,SI has been seen as one of

self-interactionon social structures;iii) theorizingthe socialstructureitself;and iv) considerationof the approachfrom

the "standpointof theactor"inrelationshipto themacro-sociologicalversionofSi'sperspective.

*10J. D. Lewis, 1976, The Classic American Pragmatists as Forerunners to Symbolic Interactionism,TheSociological

Quarterly,17: 347-59.

*nH. G. Blumer,[1977]1992,CommentonLewis'"TheClassicAmericanPragmatistsasForerunnersto SymbolicInt eractionism,"P. Hamilton (ed.),George Herbert Mead Critical Assessments, vol. 2,Routledge, p. 154.

*12Inouropinion,"groups of others" can beconsideredto besynonymouswith "referencegroups as perspectives"in

Shibutani's famous article: T. Shibutani, 1955, Reference Groups as Perspectives,TheAmericanJournalofSociology,

60 (6):562-9 - Japanesetranslation(provisionalversion)by Kuwabaraetal.:http://hdl.handle.net/10232/12977--.

116-
AnIntroduction to the Sociological PerspectiveofSymbolicInteractionism:RevisedEdition he/she belongs.

2) The actor's interpretation or definition during social interactions in which he/she is participating is

guidedbythe two frameworksidentifiedin (1).

3)"Schemes

ofdefinition"serve to canalize the actor's social actions during social interactionswith

others, and "generalized roles" provide outlets for directing the actor's actionsinself-interactions.

Thus, "interpretation/definition" is understoodasthe following process:(a) the acquisitionof"generalized

roles," (b) acquisitionof"schemesofdefinition," (c) scrutinyof"schemesofdefinition" through self- interaction, which is guidedby"generalized roles," and (d) perceptionofan environment using the new "schemes ofdefinition" resulting from the scrutiny in "step (c)." This social phenomenon isknownas "conferringofmeaning"accordingto SI. Theenvironment,asin (d), is calledthe "worldofreality,"orthe "worldthatisoutthere."*13 SI conceivesof"human beings" as existencessurroundedby an environment, which is composedofa varietyof"things."The "world"iscreatedbyhumanbeingsthroughmaking"objects"forthemselvesfrom the worldofrealityby meansof"conferringofmeaning."In SI, this actis synonymouswithperceptionas organizedby meansof"perspectives"(i.e.,"schemesofdefinition"and"generalizedroles").Therefore,an objectisconceivedasaportionoranaspectof theworldofreality,whichahumanbeinghascreatedvia his/herperspectives.SI dividesobjectsintothreecategories:"physicalobjects,""socialobjects,"and "abstractobjects."*14 asentitiesliving within theirrespectiveworlds of this kind.

Hence,SIproposesthat the"relationship

between the individual and the world" isestablishedby theinterpretationor definition (= "conferringof

meaning"or"perception")ofthe worldofrealityby humanbeings(individuals)viasuccessiveprocessesof self-interaction. However, SI has never considered"therelationship"referredabove to be "fixed" only by the one-sided interpretationof anindividual.Accordingto SI,theworldofrealityinterpretedby theindividualiscapable of"resisting"or"talkingback"tohis/herinterpretationordefinition;even theindividualcannotbe sureif

his/herinterpretationshave validity, he/she canjudge the validityofdefinitionsfrom this"resistance"or

"talkingback."*15If theinterpretationsprove to beinvalid,they are then modified. Thus, in SI, the "relationshipbetween theindividualand the world" must beunderstoodas therelationshipthat can be *13Blumer,[1977]1992,op.cit,pp. 154-5. *14H. G. Blumer, 1969,SymbolicInteractionism:PerspectiveandMethod,PrenticeHall,pp. 10-1.

*wAccordingto Blumer,"[there]is aworldofreality'out there'thatstandsoveragainsthumanbeings andthatis capable

ofresistingactionstowardit"and"[the]resistanceofthe worldtoperceptionsofit is the testofthe validityofthe

perceptions"(H. G. Blumer, [1980]1992,Mead andBlumer:TheConvergentMethodologicalPerspectivesofSocial Behaviorism and Symbolic Interactionism, Hamilton (ed.), op.cit,p. 165). - 117 - &m¥m&%80^ definitionby theindividualand talking back from the world ofreality.*16Hence, SImaintainsthat this relationshipmust not beconsideredto be fixedonlyby theone-sidedinterpretationof theindividual. Keeping the pointofthe "relationship between the individual and the world" inmind,we have tried to clarifySi'sconceptof"action"-an"individual act." Accordingto SI,firstandforemost,anactionisunderstoodasanactor's activityof"fitting"or "adjusting"

to the worldofreality. As a result, the relationship between the individual (the actor) and the world is

continually formed and re-formed in the wakeoftalking back from the worldofreality. SI conceptualizes

this process as a sequenceofunits consisting of: 1)"impulse,"2)"perception,"3)"manipulation,"4)

"consummation."*17This processis not, of course,terminatedafterjust one cycle;rather, it must be thought

of as a perpetual cycling of the four units, as in,1)"impulse(1),"-*2)"perception(I),"-+3) "manipulation(2),"-+8)"consummation(2),"»n)"impulse(n),"and so on.

III.Societyas aSeriesofJointActions

In thissection,^we haveattemptedtoanswerthesecondquestionregardinghow actorsareconstructing societies.

SI explains social interaction as a mutual presentationor an interconversionof actions by actors; such

interactionshave been classified into two categories:"symbolic interaction" and "non-symbolic interaction."

The former is mediatedbyself-interaction,but the latter is not. Accordingto Mead's terminology,symbolic

interactionis the equivalentof the"useof significantsymbols."Non-symbolicinteractionis the equivalent

of Mead's "conversation of gestures." However, greater precision inouranalysisofSI demonstrated the existence ofat least two typesofsymbolicinteraction,that are distinctly different from each other: symbolic

interactionin which significantsymbolsdo not yet exist but participantsin the interactionare trying to call

them into being, and symbolicinteractionmediatedby significantsymbolscalled into being by participants

during a preceding interaction (i.e.,"useof significant symbols"). The latter is called "a real formof

interaction."

In SI, "society" or "human society" is understoodas consistingof"a real formofinteractions." This type

of interactionis called "joint action" or "transaction," and it is equivalentto the "use ofsignificant symbols." Therefore, "human society" is conceptualized as a series ofjoint actions that are tightly or loosely

interlinked with each other "in a timeline and in space." As Blumer said, "Joint action not only represents a

*16See the following literaturefor the differenceofmeanings between the wordsof"continual" and"continuous*':A. L.

Strauss,1959[1997],Mirrors and Masks,Transaction Publishers, p. 27.

*17H. G. Blumer, 1993, L. H. Athens (ed.), Blumer's Advanced Course on Social Psychology,Studies in Symbolic

Interaction,14, pp. 188-91.

- 118 - An Introductionto the SociologicalPerspectiveofSymbolicInteractionism:Revised Edition horizontallinkage,so to speak,oftheactivitiesoftheparticipants,but alsoa verticallinkagewithprevious genericnatureofsociety."*19

Joint action is formed through symbolic interaction.That is,participantsor interactantsconstruct the real

formofinteraction through symbolic interaction. In SI, symbolic interaction is formulated as a presentation

of"gestures" and a response to the meaningsofthe gestures. The meaningsofthe gestures have three

components: they signify what an interactant to whom the gestures are directed is to do, what another

interactantwho is presentingthe gesturesplansto do, andthe formofjoint action that is to emerge from the

articulationofthe actsoftheinteractants.For example, "a robber's command tohis[/her]victimto put up his[/her]hands[=a kindofgestures]is (a) anindicationofwhatthe victim is todo;(b) anindicationof whattherobberplansto do,thatis, relievethe victim ofhis[/her]money;and(c) anindicationof thejoint havethe samemeaningsforbothinteractants~theonewhohaspresentedthegesturesandtheotherto whom theyhavebeenaddressed.Inthissituation,"significantsymbols"or"commondefinitions"aresharedby the interactants,indicatingthateachinteractantisapplyingthesamemeaningsto the"gestures,"through individual processesofself-interaction. Jointactioncantakeplaceonlywhensignificantsymbolsorcommondefinitionsexist amonginteractants. account"*2,~aformofself-interaction.This processwill enabletheinteractantsto graspor assume properly the"standpointof theother"andview "one's ownstandpointin theeyesof theother."SIproposesthata propergraspofthesetwo"standpoints"ispossibleonly ifinterpretationsordefinitionsaredirectedby interactantshavealreadyobtainedsuchperspectivesfrom"groupsofothers."Additionally,from the SI jointaction"*22bemaintained. •"Blumer, 1969, op.cit,p. 20. *19Blumer, 1969, op.cit,p. 70. *MBlumer, 1969, op.cit,p. 9. formulatedby Blumerhimselfin1953.Luhmanncoinedthisterminreferenceto Blumer'sfollowingstatement:"[In

socialinteractions][one]hasto catchthe otherasasubject,orin termsof his beingtheinitiatoranddirectorofhis

acts;thus oneis led to identifywhatthe personmeans,whatarehisintentionsandhow he may act.Eachpartyto the

interactiondoes this andthusnot only takes the other intoaccount,buttakeshiminto accountas one who, inturn,is

takinghimintoaccount*(Blumer,1969,op. cit., p. 109).Emphasisbyquoters. *nBlumer, 1969, op.cit,p. 71. - 119- *ft*£80*

IV.SocietyasDynamicProcesses

In this fourth section, we address the third problem: the natureofhuman society is oneofunpredictable

continualtransformation.

SI hasemphasizedthat human society as a seriesofjointactions must have a career or a history; itscareer

is generallyorderly,fixed,and repetitious,by virtue of its participants' common identification injointaction.

The overallcareermust,however,be viewedas "open to manypossibilitiesofuncertainty."*23

Why mustjoint action or societybe understoodas havingthe character of being open to many possibilities

ofuncertainty?Answering this question with the focus on the concept of "self-interaction," which, we (humansociety)arepracticallyandlogically,impossible.In otherwords,anykindof"commondefinition" cannot keep its given form continuously. In SI,a conditionin whicha certaincommondefinitionismaintainedimpliesa situationinwhicha certain significantsymbolismaintainedamonginteractants.Thissituationcanbedescribedas a statein whichan interactantsees a gesture that he/shepresentsidenticallyas it isbeingseen by those to whom it is

addressed.*24To maintain this state, the interactant who presents the gesture must interpret and define

properly,throughaprocessofself-interaction,the"twostandpoints"of the otherinteractantor "alterego" towhomthegestureisaddressed.Moreover,thevalidityofhis/herinterpretationordefinitionmust be continuouslymaintained.Butthis isimpossible,becauseof the natureof the "alter ego" or "other." As we haveseenin sectionII, SIinterpretsthe"worlds"that existfor humanbeingsas areas that consist ceptof"socialobject."Objectsare,as wehavesaid,a part of theworldofrealitythat is seenby the

individualfrom his/herperspectives.Therefore,it can be said that the object is, on one hand, apercept

createdby theindividual,and,on the otherhand,somethingthatcontinuesto existundeniablywithinthe world ofreality.How, then, is thenatureof the worldof realitygrasped?Asclarifiedin sectionII, SI validityor not. If theindividual'sinterpretationisfoundto beinvalid,thegiveninterpretationwill be modified.This means that SIunderstandsthatinterpretationalwayshas the possibilityof being formed and modifiedfrommomenttomoment.

From this framework, it follows that theindividual/actorcannot use the same interpretationor definition

of a given objectcontinuously.Therefore,becausethe "other" iscategorizedas an object and part of the +23Blumer, 1969,op.cit,p. 71.
**Blumer, 1993,op.cit,p. 179. - 120 - AnIntroductionto the Sociological PerspectiveofSymbolicInteractionism:RevisedEdition

worldofreality, it follows that the"other"interpreted by the actor hascontinuouspossibilitiesoftalking

back to theactor'sinterpretation or definition. Furthermore, it also follows that theactor/individualcannot

give the same interpretation or definition to the "other" with whom he/she is engaged in interactions/joint

actions.The"other" or "alterego" for theindividualexistsforeveras a "blackbox."*25That is, the individ

ual can never see the otherin theraw,i.e., inhis/hertruecolors.*26 In summary, in SI, it is impossible to sustain a particular form of any common definition forever.

Forever,for "the natureoftheother"(i.e., its blackboxness)does not allow an actor to continue to use the

sameinterpretation/definition,or to attribute a particular meaning through a process ofself-interaction,

permanently.The "other" hascontinuouspossibilitiesof talkingback to the actor, and the resultantneed of

the actor to change or modify any given interpretationor definition(i.e., meaning) persists endlessly. Hence,

any commondefinitionmust be re-formedeventually,and anyjoint action must be re-formed as well.

V.ResearchActas aKindofSymbolicInteraction

This section concerns the problemoffinding a suitable research methodology for examining the "standpointof the actor,"as the meansfortestingempiricallythe SI modelof society"SocietyasDynamic

Processes,"laid out in theprevioussections.

In sectionn,III, and IV, we described the SI modelofhuman society. First,"humansociety" has been conceptualizedas a systemofinterlinkedsocialinteractionsbyinteractants;in reality,humansocietyexists

only as "a real form ofinteractions"(i.e.,"transactions"or "jointactions").In SI, socialinteractionis the

fundamentalunitofsociety,anditexposessociety'sgeneric*27nature.Tounderstandsociety,we needonly to studythis "real form ofinteraction"(the initialhypothesisof SI for the studyofsociety).

The model of social interaction described in the previous sections can be summarized as interaction in

which interactants with the natureofblack boxnessfor other interactants perform"takinginto accountof takingintoaccount"as a formofself-interactioninorderto graspordefineproperlyboththe"standpointof theother"and"one's ownstandpointin the eyesof theother."Thussocialinteractionis a socialprocessin

+25This term wasoriginallycoinedas asociologicaltermbyLuhmann.Oneof the authorshas thoughtof his theoryas

adevelopedversionof SI since2008,in the wakeof cit.,p. 10;T.KuwabaraandS.Okuda,2008,ReferencesonSymbolicInteractionism:Vol.I,JournalofEconomicsand Sociology,KagoshimaUniversity,69[http://hdl.handle.net/10232/8117],p. 62.

**As J. M. Charon says, "[objects]may exist in physicalform,but for the human being they are seen not 'in theraw,'

but only through a perspectiveof somekind"(J. M. Charon, 1989,SymbolicInteractionism:anintroduction,an

interpretation,anintegration,3rdedition,Prentice Hall, p. 37). In SI, every object for all kinds of people which

includesothersmust be seen as a kindofhypotheses carved out psychologically or/and socially.

*rAs to the word "generic," the following article issuggestive:K.Uchida,2004, The"Width"of Knowledge/ the

"Depth" of Knowledge:A Sketch of H. Blumer's Discussionon the Genericnessof Concepts,SocietyandCulture,2:

1-14. 121-
which eachinteractantmust guess two things by"takingintoaccountoftaking intoaccount":"From what standpointareothersperceivingtheworld?"and "Howaremyperspectivesbeinggraspedbyothers?" Additionally,becauseofthe natureofblackboxnessthatcharacterizesallinteractantswith respectto each

other, they are forced necessarily into re-defining their situations (fellows); thus, their interactions or their

joint actions must change in form. These possibilities of"change" continueadinfinitum.

We discussed the conceptofsocial interactionearlierin this article.Theconceptshould be categorized as

a"sensitizingconcept" in termsofSi'smethodology.Therefore, itmustnot be taken as aself-evidenttruth

oraprioriassumption on which a grandtheory canbe built by a purely deductive approach.Instead, it must

be understoodas merely ahypothesis ortentative propositionwhose validity must be tested empirically. The

approachto empiricaltesting recommended by SI is asfollows:"One moves out from[a]concept to the

concretedistinctivenessof[an]instance[,] insteadofembracing the instance in the abstract frameworkofthe

concept."*28 SI haspromoted"naturalisticinquiry"asthe idealresearchmethod forthe socialsciences.This meansa inquiry is acontinualtesting and revisingoftheconceptswith respect to theinvestigator'ssubjectof researchthrough empiricalobservation.A logical question,therefore,is "How can the investigator know whether or not the given conceptsofthe subjectofresearcharevalid?"That is, how does SI envision the processoftesting andrevising?In SIterms,theprocessisconsideredto bepossibleby wayofthe "resisting"ortalking back*30,fromthe"empiricalworld"understudy,to theconceptsoftheinvestigator. What, then, is the methodological positionofthe investigatorwhen carryingout thenaturalisticinquiry with theconceptsofsocialinteraction(i.e., "rootimages"ofSI) laid out in sectionsII-IV?Theposition assumedisidenticalto theapproachfrom the"standpointoftheactor."The investigatormust engagein the same activity as thatofthe interactant described in SI theory.

This fifth section illustratesthe problems, and the points to be considered,when actually employing this

approach to research. The studyofsocietyfromthe"standpoint/positionoftheactor"requirestheinvestigatortotakeontherole ofthe actorunder study and see"his/herown world fromhis/herstandpoint."An "actor"refers to both an individualandagroup.Forclarity,SI oftenusestheterm"actingunit."*31Thus, onedeterminationto be made is whetherthe "group" can be properlyplacedwithin the categoryor conceptofthe "acting unit."

Whether the "actingunit" consists

ofanindividualora group,its activitiesmust be equallyunderstoodas *28Blumer, 1969,op.cit,p. 149. •"Blumer,[1977]1992,op.cit,p. 154. *30Oneofwhich is the "occurrenceofnegative cases."

*3'C.f. D. R. Maines and T. J. Morrione, 1990, On the Breadth and RelevanceofBlumer'sPerspective: Introduction to

his AnalysisofIndustrialization,H. G. Blumer, Maines and Morrione(ed.),Industrializationas an AgentofSocial

Change,Aldine,xv-xvi.

- 122 - AnIntroduction to the Sociological PerspectiveofSymbolicInteractionism:RevisedEdition

the productsofits own interpretive processes. The assertionofSI is that even in cases where the "acting

unit" representsa group, one must adopt theapproachfrom the "standpointoftheactor"and "take the role oftheactingunit."However,theanalysisby one of theauthors*32made it clearthat SI did not explain persuasivelyandsystematicallyhowitwaspossiblefortheinvestigatortotaketheroleof anentiregroup.*33

The analysisabove indicatesthat only an individual canbe included in the categoryof"acting unit" for the

approachfromthe"standpointof theactor."*34 Another question to be investigated is, "Can we take the roleofthe acting unitin theraw?" to be engagedin the"takingintoaccountoftakingintoaccount"(a formofself-interaction)tograspthe "standpoint ofthe other" and "one's ownstandpointin the eyesofthe other."Further,eachofthe two

interactantshas the natureofblack boxnessfor the other. Thus,whenan investigator attempts tostudysocial

interactionfromthe standpointofanactor/interactant,the investigatormust take into accountthe assumption

that the interactantscan never know the real identityofeach other;the investigator must build the research

method or methodology to be compatible with thisassumption.As a result, as Glaser and Strauss said, "delimitinganawarenesscontext[orthedegreeofmutualunderstanding]requiresalwaysthatthe sociologist ascertainindependentlytheawarenessofeachinteractant.The safest method is to obtaindata,through

observation or interview, from each interactant onhis[/her]own stateofawareness. To accept the wordof

It must also be borne in mind that an "investigator" who studies social interaction becomes oneofthe actorsor actingunitson the samelevel as the twointeractantsstudied.Therefore,an actofstudyingor a "researchact"*36by the investigatormust alsobeunderstoodasoneoftheinterpretiveprocesses,andit must berecognizedthattheinteractionbetweentheinvestigatorandtheinvestigatedis, equally,in the categoryof "symbolicinteraction."Even fortheinvestigator,thetwointeractantswhoserolesareunderstudyalsohave thecharacterofblackboxness.Forthis reason,althoughtheresearchactinvolves taking the standpointofthe actor,it never means takingdirectlythestandpointin theraw.Thestandpointofthe actoras taken by an

*32C.f. T.Kuwabara,2012,TheMethodologicalPositionofBlumer's SymbolicInteractionism,JournalofEconomicsand

Sociology,KagoshimaUniversity,79: 19-32[http://hdl.handle.net/10232/14999].

*33C.f. T. Kuwabaraand A.Kihara,2010, The potentialofBlumer's SymbolicInteractionism,Journalofthe Doctorate

Studies in Social Sciences,7:237-49[http://hdl.handle.net/10232/8983].

*34AccordingtoMamoruFunatsu,however,Blumer'stheoryon"socialproblems"basedon SI hasapotentialformaking

significantcontributionstodevelopingamacrotheoryofSI. Seefollowingtwoarticles:M.Funatsu,1990,Interpreta

tiveApproachtoSocialProblems,TheStudyofSociology,55:155-74;H. G. Blumer,1971,SocialProblemsas

Collective Behavior,SocialProblems,18:298-306-Japanesetranslationby us: http://hdl.handle.net/10232/6922-.

*35B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss,[1964]1970, Awareness Contexts and Social Interaction, G. P. Stone and H. A.

Farberman(ed.),Social Psychology throughSymbolicInteraction,Xerox College Publishing, p. 338.

*36N. K. Denzin, 1970,The MethodologiesofSymbolicInteraction:A CriticalReviewofResearchTechniques, Stone and

Farberman (ed.), op. cit., pp. 447-65.

123-
e»***"so* investigatorcan only be the "reconstructionofconstructions."*37 How, then, can theinvestigatorrelativize this"reconstructionofconstructions"and test itsvalidity?The obvious answer to this question derived from SI theory, that theinvestigatorcan do this in the light oftalking

back from an empirical world, is unsatisfactory. It is too incomplete for practical use insociologicalresearch.

Oneofthe major issues for future work is the development of testing standards to verifyempiricallythe

SI conceptionof social interactionor its modelof society,namely,"Society as DynamicProcesses."*38

VI.Summary*39

The mainpurposeofthis study was to examine the theoryofSI from thefollowingviewpoints: a) How does SI explain the conceptofsocialization, i.e., the process in whichhominidsbecomehuman beings? b) How does SIexplaintheconcept ofVergesellschaftung,i.e., the process ormechanismthroughwhich peopleconstructhuman society? c) Why is humansocietyto beconsideredto be a changeableprocess? Aftercarefulexamination,thefollowingfindingswere made: i) SI regardssocializationas the process in which the twoframeworksorperspectives(schemesof definition andgeneralizedroles) that have been acquired by an actor throughinteractionswith groups ofothers guidehis/herinterpretations/definitions,

ii) In SI theory, society is seen to be possible only when eachofthe actors ininteractionscanproperly

grasp the twostandpoints(thatofthe other andone'sownstandpointin the eyesofthe other) by doing a kindofself-interaction(i.e., taking into accountoftaking intoaccount), iii)Becauseofthe natureofothers (black boxness), all the actorsinteractingwith others are seen to be

necessarily forced to revise their interpretations/definitionscontinually. For this reason, society must be

regardedas achangeableprocess. Finally, we have tried to review critically the research methodofSI (i.e., theapproachfrom the

*37N.Tokugawa,2001,The"IndividualandCollaborativeCharacter"of NarrativeActions,T.Kitamuraetal.(ed),The

RenaissanceofHuman Beings in21stCentury,Hassakusha, p. 129. *38One of theauthorshasattemptedthistasks:K.Yamaguchi,2008,TowardanEmpiricalStudyof "the Mannerof

Conviviality,"TheStudyofSociology,83: 133-55;Yamaguchiand H. Lee, 2009, The Strategy of an "Intimate" Public

Sphere: A Case Study on "Dialogue" as a Social Connectionbetween Zainichi-Koreansand Japanese,Proceedings

of

1stNext-GenerationGlobalWorkshop,Kyoto UniversityGCOEProgram,pp. 107-14;Yamaguchi, 2010, A Case Study

on the Communication Mode between Zainichi-Koreans and Japanese,Proceedingsof2nd Next-GenerationGlobal

Workshop,KyotoUniversityGCOE Program, pp. 129-37.

Edition[http://hdl.handle.net/10232/!1867], pp. 1-2. In addition, this section is the10theditionofa seriesofsummaries

ofthe doctoral dissertation by T. Kuwabara: http://gyo.tc/MU3M 124-
An Introductionto the SociologicalPerspectiveofSymbolicInteractionism:Revised Edition "standpointoftheactor")on thebasisofthe conceptionofsocietythathasbeen clarifiedin this article. Ourreview provides evidence for the twoadditionalpoints listed below: iv) In doingtheapproachfromthe"standpointoftheactor,"only anindividualcanbe includedintothe categoryofthe acting unit. v) Thestandpointofthe actorperceivedbyresearchersmust never be seen as thestandpointin theraw but has to be seen as a kindofreconstructionofconstructionscreatedbyresearchers. We finallyhave confirmedthat testing this conceptionofsociety (i, ii, and iii noted above) empiri cally, based on the points iv and v, would (andmust) be oneofourimportant tasks in future.

Acknowledgements

We aredeeply indebted to many people fortheir assistancein the writingofthis article.Special thanks go

toMakotoKuwabara(ProfessorEmeritusatTokyoUniversity)*40andSteve Cother(AssociateProfessorat KagoshimaUniversity)*41fortheiradvice andmany helpfulsuggestions. 125-
quotesdbs_dbs17.pdfusesText_23