Search

The radical interactionist (RI) perspective is based on three root images: (1) collective act, (2) the self, and (3) social habitat. Considerable attention has already been devoted to all these root images, except for the self, which is still in need of exposition. During this exposition of the self, its basic operating components are not only explained, but also contrasted with those examined from a traditional symbolic interactionist (SI) perspective. It is concluded that the idea of the self as conceived from the newer perspective of RI surpasses the view of the self from the much older SI perspective; the RI conception of the self offers a more consistent and less confounding explanation of its basic operational components, phylogenesis, and ontogenesis. Unlike this SI view of the self, which operates on the principle of sociality, the RI view, which operates on the principle of domination, accomplishes this explanation without succumbing to romantic idealism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A major blind spot in the development of a radical interactionist's perspective is the lack of an explanation of societal change, whether it be revolutionary or only reformatory in scope. Robert Park began to develop a cyclical theory of societal change, but he was unable to finish it. Nevertheless, in our development of a theory of societal change from a radical interactionist's perspective, we were able to follow up and launch this project with the valuable clues that he left behind. First, we expanded the number of phases in his cycle from three to five, so that each type of social interaction that he and Burgess identified could be incorporated under one of the different phases. Second, the cycle was refined to operate on a contingent rather than a strictly deterministic model allowing the occurrence of a truncated cycle. Next, we filled-in various missing details needed for this cycle's on going operation, such as circular reaction, social contagion, and social unrest. Fourth, we drew on his distinction between "societies" and "communities" to demarcate clear-cut starting, mid- and end points of the expanded cycle. Fifth, we replaced his dated notion of dominance with the newer and more nuanced one of domination, as well as updated his conception of the dynamics of super-ordination by incorporating the role of power within it. By improving on Park's ideas in these different ways, it was demonstrated that unlike symbolic interactionism, radical interactionism squarely addresses societal change on both the micro- and macroscopic planes. Unlike functionalist and conflict theories of social change, it stresses cooperation as much as conflagration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three pernicious myths that have been perpetuated about Robert E. Park merit our present attention. These myths are important because they now foreclose almost any chance of him ever becoming recognized as the true progenitor of the interactionist school of thought or of latter-day sociologist from building on his work. The first myth, which lays the foundation for the other two, is that he was a social Darwinist. The second and third myths, which directly follow from the first one, are that Park concocted a racist and conservative sociology. An inquiry into his sociological works published over more than a quarter of a century, however, reveals that these myths are based more on fiction than fact. Although these myths are widely maintained among present-day sociologists, they appear to be driven more by prevailing ideology than supported by hard evidence (i.e. the full written record of what Park actually argued in his sociological publications). This confusion underscores the danger of advocacy research, an approach currently in vogue in the field of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When Park died, he left his theory of the human habitat not only incomplete, but in considerable disarray. Although few present-day scholars have demonstrated much interest in building on this critical body of Park’s work, which he based on dominance, it probably represents his most important contribution to American sociology. I argue that the key to systemizing his highly discursive account of the human habitat is to view it from an emergent social evolutionary perspective, which makes it possible to differentiate his notion of “community” from “society,” as well as explain how the two concepts can logically be viewed as both separate and unified entities. A community is not only a necessary stage in the social evolutionary process of producing a society, but it also provides the habitat needed for a society’s later emergence. Among other things, Park’s theory of the human habitat is also criticized for its failure to (1) distinguish dominance from domination, (2) identify the reciprocal relationship existing between power and domination, (3) accurately characterize the nature of the economic order operating in communities, and (4) demarcate a pre-lingual, lingual and literate communal stages that precedes in the social evolutionary process the possible development of a society. In passing, I also point out critical, but often overlooked aspects of Park’s theory of the human habitat that contradict popular characterizations of his work as being purblind to the operation of dominance and power, social Darwinist, conservative, sexist, and racist. Finally, I deduce the implications of his theory for the future emergence of a “world society.” [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although many sociologists have written about the development of the sociological perspective, known as 'interactionism,' two relatively important questions for understanding its emergence remain scarcely examined. (1) Why did George Herbert Mead become known as its progenitor rather than Robert E. Park ? (2) Why did 'radical interactionism,' which was inspired by Park, fail to appear on the sociological landscape until the first decade of the 21st century, almost a century after the appearance of the 'symbolic interactionism' that Mead inspired? To oversimplify, Mead became anointed as the progenitor of interactionism instead of Park primarily because Herbert Blumer proved to be a far more effective champion of Mead's thought than Everett Hughes proved to be of Park's ideas in sociology. Blumer's greater effectiveness in performing this role was primarily due to a stronger desire to carry the banner for a new sociological perspective, more personal charisma and verbal adroitness, and much closer connection to Chicago School of Sociology during its golden era than Hughes had. Thus, the delayed emergence of a radical interactionism based on Park's work cannot be attributed solely to the failure of Park and his heir apparent, Hughes, to fully grasp the radical implications of Park's work. Even if these implications of Park's work had been crystal clear to Hughes, however, it is highly doubtful that he would have ever considered promoting a radical version of interactionism. His lack of lack of desire to carry the banner for a sociological perspective, absence of personal charisma and verbal adroitness, as well as his want of closer ties to the original Chicago school of sociology, not to mention tepid liberalism, would have made him a very unlikely figure in American sociology to play this historic role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Robert Ezra Park and George Herbert Mead were both pragmatists, they became the progenitors of two alternative versions of interactionism. Mead developed his version on the basis of his principle of “sociality,” which subsequently became known as “symbolic interactionism.” Conversely, Park developed his opposing version later labeled “radical interactionism,” on the basis of the principle of “dominance.” To solve this mystery behind their development of divergent forms of interactionism, I examined their lives from a “socio-biographical” approach. This entailed my comparing the critical, formative social experiences that they had undergone from their early childhoods to the end of their academic careers. My comparisons uncovered some important similarities in their critical formative social experiences shedding light on why they became career-long pragmatists. Despite the significant overlaps found in their socio-biographies, however, crucial differences also surfaced that lead to their development of opposing forms of interactionism. The dissimilar critical formative social experiences that were found sprang from the starkly different paths that they followed toward becoming tenured, full professors at the University of Chicago. To oversimplify, Park followed a much more zigzagged, bumpier, and obstacle-ridden path than Mead to reach this destination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Violentization offers a unique explanation of violent crime for four reasons: (1) the theory explains the formation of violent criminal acts, the development of violent criminals, as well as the transformation and maintenance of the communities in which they evolve and later commit their crimes; (2) the theory identifies the stages through which violent encounters, socialization, and communal organization/disorganization unfold; (3) the theory treats violent criminals as active agents in their violent criminal acts; and (4) it is constructed from an insider’s viewpoint because the researcher has undergone similar experiences as the people whose actions his theory explains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a brief exposition and new interpretation of Robert Park's theory of conflict, it is subjected to critical examination. Since Park deduced his explanation of race relations from this more general theory and since his ideas about race relations and work for Booker T. Washington are intimately connected with his loss of favor in sociology, they are included as part of this examination. On the one hand, it is found that the characterizations of Park's ideas on race relations, especiallyhis famous notion of the "race-relations cycle," as inherently conservative and his work on behalf of Washington as thatof a "race-broker" are misguided. On the other hand, it is found that his general theory of conflict suffers from severalshortcomings, including that he failed to (a) distinguish dominance from power, (b) make dominance disputes his basic unitof analysis, and (c) identify the stages which conflicts or, more precisely, dominative disputes, unfold. Dispute these flaws, Park's analysis of conflict still provides an invaluable fund of ideas for advancing our understanding of social conflict, which should not be dismissed because of mischaracterizations of him and his views. Thus, in my opinion, social scientists wouldnow be well-advised to reexamine both Park's general model of conflict and his specific application of it to race relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because Mead entered the pantheon of classic sociological thinkers much later than Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, sociologists have unsurprisingly devoted much more critical attention to their ideas than his. Perhaps, nowhere is the lack of this attention on their part more glaring than in his explanation of social conflict. Mead views the emergence and resolution of conflict as taking place within the social act, in which either individuals or groups may be the acting units, and attitudes, roles, significant symbols, and attitudinal assumption operate as the common, key components. As far as the emergence of conflict is concerned, he accounts for it on the basis of insufficient differentiation of roles, non-meritorious allocation of roles, and adoption of self-centered attitudes on the part of the participants during their construction of a social act. As far as the resolution of conflict is concerned, he predictably explains it on the basis of their expansion of role differentiation, distribution of roles on basis of merit, and the adoption of other-centered attitudes. Despite that Mead's explanation of the resolution and emergence of conflict is relatively consistent and offers many profound insights, it suffers from several irresolvable problems. All these various problems can be traced back to his decision to rest his explanation on his much cherished principle of 'sociality,' rather than domination, and thereby, ultimately, his rejection of a radical interactionist's perspective. Thus, it is now long overdue for sociologists to consider the merits of a new, more radical interactionism as a replacement for his much older and more conventional counterpart, symbolic interactionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the nature and operation of human subordination from the perspective of a radical interactionism. According to "Webster's New World College Dictionary," 4th edition, the word subordinate means inferior to or placed below another in rank. Defining characteristics of domination in terms of social action are cited. Also mentioned are ideas of George Herbert Mead, Robert Park, and Herbert Blumer, whom radical interactionism is described.

Pop becomes entangled in an ever growing web of problems. His wife, Herikula, nags him to accompany her and their two daughters to the island of Samos for a long visit with her parents, although he cannot find anyone one to manage his café in his absence. Later at the cafe, a robber threatens Pop's life with a gun, which Herikula takes as omen from God that he should take his family to Samos before something else bad happens to him. After finally finding someone to manage his café Pop discovers while in Samos that the manager is embezzling the café's funds. Pop must cut his visit short to Samos to resolve yet another problem that he looks at from his characteristically philosophical perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Herbert Blumer sought to develop "naturalistic inquiry" to provide sociologists, especially those who subscribe to the perspective known as "symbolic interactionism," with an alternative methodology to positivism for them to use in their research. Since Blumer died before he could complete the job, an attempt is made to finish the work that he left undone on the method of naturalistic inquiry along the lines originally envisioned by him. Among other things, more details are provided to help researchers to carry out the two stages of naturalistic inquiry that he identified: "exploration" and "inspection." A third stage, confirmation, is also added to the method. Although Blumer described naturalistic inquiry only in theory, it is described here both in theory and actual practice, which is essential to make the method more understandable to others. In addition to providing a more complete statement of naturalistic inquiry, the ideas that he drew on to develop the method are revealed. Several myths surrounding the method and the grounded theories that can be potentially developed from using it are also exposed. Finally, the case is made that naturalistic inquiry occupies a relatively unique position in the social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A plea has been made for replacing the perspective of “symbolic interactionism” with a new interactionist's perspective—“radical interactionism.” Unlike in symbolic interactionism, where Mead's and Blumer's ideas play the most prominent roles, in radical interactionism's, Park's ideas play a more prominent role than either Mead's or Blumer's ideas. On the one hand, according to Mead, the general principle behind the organization of human group life was once dominance, but it is now “sociality.” On the other hand, according to Park, this general principle is now and has always been dominance. Blumer takes a position much closer to Mead's than Park's arguing that the general principle underlying the organization of human group life is sociality. Under certain special conditions, however, it can become dominance. Although like radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism is rooted in pragmatism, unlike in radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism is still plagued with strains of utopian thought, among which the notion of sociality is the most virulent. Sociality may be the principle on which human group life is organized in heaven, but, down here on earth, it remains organized on the basis of domination. Thus, radical interactionism provides a much-needed antidote to the idealistic overtones still found in symbolic interactionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When Nick visits the café of his brother-in-law, Lombros, they become embroiled in a heated discussion over who is and who is not genuinely Greek. Nick takes the position that to be a true Greek you must not only have been born and raised in Greece but also speak Greek perfectly. On the other hand, Lombros takes the position that being Greek depends only on how much you love Hellenic culture and thereby what is in your heart. The conversation then turns into the real reason for Nick's visit. He wants to arrange a marriage between their sister-in-law, Penelope, and Yiannos, an older Greek man who owns a thriving restaurant. Yiannos's demand for a virgin bride threatens to doom any possibility of his marrying Penelope, until Lombros's cook, Josephine, saves the day with a fool-proof plan for Penelope to pass the "test of the sheet." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pop, the Greek-immigrant owner of the Manchester Café, fires his counterman, ‘Pete the Greek’, for getting into too many altercations with customers. To appease some of his long-time patrons, Pop, then, decides to hire Linwood Lots, a local native, as Pete's replacement. Pete and Irene, Pop's daughter, get married and, later, have a son, Pop's first grandchild. After catching Linwood drinking wine filched from the café's wine stock, Pop fires Linwood and immediately rehires Pete. Pop's action ignites a bitter rivalry between Linwood and Pete that is charged with ethnic hatred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

George Herbert Mead argues that human society is comprised of six basic institutions—language, family, economics, religion, polity, and science. I do not believe that he can be criticized for making institutions the cornerstones of a society, but he can definitely be criticized for his explanation of how our basic institutions originate, how these institutions operate in society after their inception, and how they later change, modifying society in the process. The problem with Mead's explanation of these three critical matters is that he based them on his principle of “sociality” rather than on the principle of “domination.” If Mead's principle of sociality is replaced by the principle of domination and his notion of the “generalized other” is replaced by the notion of the “phantom community,” then most of these problems can be largely solved. Thus, in this paper, I will not only point out the key problems in Mead's theory of society, but I will also offer solutions to them based on the notions of domination and the “phantom community.” The end product is a “radical interactionism” that surpasses Mead's original interactionism in identifying the part that both domination and the composite “other” play in every known human society—big and small, and past and present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two tales about confrontations between Whites from different ethnic back- grounds that took place in Virginia during the twilight of the Jim Crow era are told here. In both tales, Pete Aegean, whose parents are Greek immigrants and who works as a counterman in a Greek-immigrant-owned café, gets into conflicts with the patrons who are White native Southerners. The conflicts turn violent after they trade ethnic slurs. Although Pete emerges as the victor, it creates a serious dilemma for him. On one hand, he maintains his pride and gains the begrudging respect of the White mill hands who patronize the café. On the other hand, Pop, the café's owner, fires Pete for placing his false sense of ethnic pride above their mutual economic interests. Pete's firing raises the question of what is the right and wrong way for immigrants and their offspring to win the respect and admiration of their host country's native inhabitants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While Pop works in the lot behind his café, Floyd Pumice, a romantic product salesman, drops in. Although Pop frowns on Pumice for selling his merchandise in the café, his counterman, "Pete the Greek," welcomes the opportunity to watch Pumice ply his trade on the café's patrons. Pumice, who adroitly tailors his sales pitch to his customers, closes sales with a long-married, middle-aged man with a wife of the same age, a young single man who is desperate for sexual relations with his steady girlfriend, and a young single man suffering from feelings of sexual inadequacy. When Pop unexpectedly enters the café, Pete the Greek and Pumice must find a quick and graceful way to get out of an awkward situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Romantic product salesmen sold what now are popularly known as "sex toys" but in their day were called "marital or sex aids." They plied their trade in the Bible Belt and served a primarily male clientele. By playing on their clientele's sexual ignorance and sexist attitudes, romantic product salesmen were able to sell merchandise that ironically, increased rather than decreased their customers' sexual frustration at outrageously inflated prices. With the spread of X-rated bookstores to the Bible Belt in the mid-1960s, this little-known and secretive occupation vanished from the American cultural landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the author's study of violent and nonviolent offenders and non-offenders' accounts, he drew two main conclusions about the interaction that takes place between the perpetrator and victim when violent crimes are committed. First, these crimes ale committed during violent encounters that encompass five stages: (1) role claiming, (2) role rejection, (3) role sparring, (4) role enforcement, and (5) role determination. Second, based on how many of these stages are completed, violent encounters can be divided into three subtypes: (1) engagements, (2) skirmishes, and (3) tiffs. Violent dominance encounters that go through all five stages constitute engagements, those that enter only four of the stages constitute skirmishes, and those that enter only three of the stages constitute tiffs. Thus, for any theory to provide a complete explanation of violent crimes, it must be able to account for not only violent engagements but also violent skirmishes and tiffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The single best word to describe the impact of George Herbert Mead's ideas on the intellectual world is "ironic." Although Mead was a philosopher, his ideas have been more influential in sociology than in philosophy. Despite Mead's belief that it is the job of sociologists to study society, it is his notion of the self rather than his notion of society that has received the most attention in this field. Mead himself is first and foremost responsible for this ironic state of affairs because his analysis of society is so obscure at points that it is hard for most sociologists to understand, However, Mead alone is not to blame, The two main expositors of his sociological thought since his death, Herbert Blumer and Hans Joas, added to the confusion by not making clear that Mead sees society as a "body of institutions." To correct theft distortions of Mead's notion of society, l provide an alternative exposition of that notion. I disclose how Mead addresses the three main problems that he believes must be resolved before society can be understood: (1) the operation of institutions in the daily lives of people; (2) the origination of early institutions, such as language, the family, the economy, religion, polity, and science; and (3) the change of these institutions after their inception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We owe a great debt to George Herbert Mead for, arguably, analyzing the 'social act' more profoundly than anyone else before or after him. While undeniably profound, his analysis, which rests on the principle of 'sociality', still suffers from four shortcomings that, to one degree or another, can be traced back to his downplaying the importance of dominance in social action. First, he cannot adequately account for the superordinate and subordinate roles that always arise during complex social action. Second, he can adequately account for the immediate impact of conflict on an unfolding social act, but not its ultimate origin in social action. Third, he makes people's temporal orientation a constant, when in actuality, it varies depending on the nature of the social act in which they are participating. Finally, Mead obscures some of the basic analytical components of the social act, which he otherwise identifies brilliantly. These four inherent problems in Mead's analysis of the social act are not only identified, but resolutions for each of them are also provided. It is ultimately concluded that Mead's principle of 'sociality' must be replaced by the principle of 'domination' because the latter principle better explains complex human social action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author tries to explain why the level of serious violent crime, in particular, rather than the level of street crime, in general, is a more severe problem in some communities rather than others. Author's arguments are based on various communal theories of violent crime. Researchers William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki, have developed a two-phase explanation of community change that accounts for crime: one is the phase of "social disorganization" and the other phase refers to the stage when the violation of norms becomes widespread that a community may enter phase of community change, that is "social reorganization." In contrast to this explanation, the theory of differential social organization makes "culture conflict" the culprit behind the street crime problem in a particular community. Unlike social disorganization, culture conflict does not refer to the degree to which a community's norms have eroded. The author proposes an alternative theory with a narrower scope based on the "social segregation thesis." According to this suggested theory, the kind of people who migrate into and subsequently rise to the top of a community's dominance order are responsible for the particular phase in the communal change process in which a community functions. This particular phase of the communal change process dictates, in turn, the severity of a community's violent crime problem.

The major shortcomings in the Meadian and Neo-Meadian views of the self are identified. An alternative view of the self as a soliloquy that avoids these particular shortcomings is presented. In this alternative view, an "us" or "phantom community" is seen as playing the premier part in our soliloquies. Thirteen principles that govern soliloquizing are explicated, including ones governing the nature and form of our soliloquies, the creation of our emotions, the hidden sources of our emotional sensitivities, the painting of our self portraitures, the origin and nature of our phantom communities, as well as governing our display of individuality and conformity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Goffman's theory of violent criminal behavior, which is based upon the complementary notions of "character contest" and "stake in conventional institutions," is relatively unique in that it makes problematic both the violent criminal act and actor. However, the explanation Goffman's work provides is inadequate for three major reasons. First, mutual consent among the conflicting parties to use violence to settle their dispute rarely occurs in violent criminal acts. Secondly, the meanings with which most violent criminal acts are imbued are different from that of a character contest. Finally, violent people cannot be distinguished from non-violent ones merely on the basis of whether or not they have a stake in conformity. Thus, a more accurate and adequate theory of violent criminal behavior which takes into account both the nature of the violent criminal act and actor is needed. The outlines of such a theory are briefly described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]