{"title":"The Functioning of the Self During the Interlinkage of Action: A Radical Interactionist Perspective","authors":"Lonnie Athens","doi":"10.1002/symb.672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present‐day state of our knowledge of the self as a soliloquy has not moved far beyond where the American pragmatists, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, left it almost a century ago. Since their writings underpin the view of the self that current followers of the perspective of symbolic interactionism have adopted, their work still remain relevant today. To advance the development of the self as a soliloquy significantly beyond the point that it currently stands, however, I propose an explanation from the radical interactionist's perspective to account for the self's operation during the interlinkage of the individual acts that results, in conflictive or cooperative social acts. The individual act is reconceived from this new viewpoint, as unfolding over four stages: (1) need, (2) design, (3) re‐design, and (4) ending. While analyzing the self's operation during each one of these stages, I take special pains to explain the indispensable part that domination plays in bringing about their interlinkage, without which social acts of either type could not be completed. I argue that radical interactionism offers a more nuanced and realistic conception of the self's functioning during the interlinking of individual acts than its older cousin, symbolic interactionism, because unlike the latter, which rests on the assumption of sociality, the former is based on the assumption of domination. Thus, radical interactionism can much better account for how the self operates during the interlinking of individual acts that end in both conflictive and cooperative social acts and not only one or the other.","PeriodicalId":47804,"journal":{"name":"Symbolic Interaction","volume":"16 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Symbolic Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.672","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The present‐day state of our knowledge of the self as a soliloquy has not moved far beyond where the American pragmatists, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, left it almost a century ago. Since their writings underpin the view of the self that current followers of the perspective of symbolic interactionism have adopted, their work still remain relevant today. To advance the development of the self as a soliloquy significantly beyond the point that it currently stands, however, I propose an explanation from the radical interactionist's perspective to account for the self's operation during the interlinkage of the individual acts that results, in conflictive or cooperative social acts. The individual act is reconceived from this new viewpoint, as unfolding over four stages: (1) need, (2) design, (3) re‐design, and (4) ending. While analyzing the self's operation during each one of these stages, I take special pains to explain the indispensable part that domination plays in bringing about their interlinkage, without which social acts of either type could not be completed. I argue that radical interactionism offers a more nuanced and realistic conception of the self's functioning during the interlinking of individual acts than its older cousin, symbolic interactionism, because unlike the latter, which rests on the assumption of sociality, the former is based on the assumption of domination. Thus, radical interactionism can much better account for how the self operates during the interlinking of individual acts that end in both conflictive and cooperative social acts and not only one or the other.
我们今天对自我的认识是一种独白,这与美国实用主义者约翰·杜威(John Dewey)和乔治·赫伯特·米德(George Herbert Mead)在近一个世纪前留下的印象相去不远。由于他们的作品支撑了象征互动主义的追随者所采用的自我观,他们的工作在今天仍然具有相关性。然而,为了将自我的发展作为一种独白显著地超越它目前所处的位置,我从激进互动主义者的角度提出了一种解释,以解释在导致冲突或合作的社会行为的个人行为的相互联系过程中自我的运作。从这个新的观点来看,个人行为可以分为四个阶段:(1)需要,(2)设计,(3)重新设计,(4)结束。在分析自我在每一个阶段中的运作时,我煞费苦心地解释了统治在导致它们相互联系中所起的不可或缺的作用,没有这种联系,任何一种类型的社会行为都不可能完成。我认为激进互动主义比它的前辈象征互动主义提供了一种更细致、更现实的概念,即在个体行为相互联系过程中自我的功能,因为与后者不同,前者建立在社会性假设的基础上,前者建立在统治假设的基础上。因此,激进互动主义可以更好地解释自我是如何在个人行为的相互联系中运作的,这些行为最终导致了冲突和合作的社会行为,而不仅仅是其中之一。
期刊介绍:
The Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction is a social science professional organization of scholars interested in qualitative, especially interactionist, research. The society organizes panels and sessions at annual conferences such as the American Sociological Association and Midwest Sociology Society Annual Meetings, and each Spring holds the Couch-Stone Symposium. As the main voice of the Symbolic Interactionist perspective, Symbolic Interaction brings you articles which showcase empirical research and theoretical development that resound throughout the fields of sociology, social psychology, communication, education, nursing, organizations, mass media, and others.