Search

This special issue of the journal "Symbolic Interaction" focuses on theory and method in symbolic interactionism. Quality papers were received from several countries and they have provided theoretical commentary and technical information with which to solve methodological problems. In some cases, the authors of the papers were asked to reduce the length of their articles significantly so that eleven articles were included. These articles have been organized under various issues that are common to all social research but are of special interest to interactionists.

Since this society is oriented toward a specific theory, I thought I ought to say something about theories in general and our little theory in particular. Let me get that off of my chest. I am not overly fond of terms like "theory" and "theorist," both of which seem to suggest the importance of the person who claims the identity more than anything else. They are pompous terms. To the extent that we are thoughtful about what we are doing and how we are going about it, all sociologists are theorists and methodologists. But if that is all we are, then we are literally people of no substance. We have no substantial knowledge of or concern for the empirical world. The little theory we share is extraordinarily empirical. It is, as one of its most prominent practitioners called it, a "grounded theory" (Glaser and Strauss 1967). I confess that several years after receiving my degree I had no real sense of what symbolic interaction was and how it might differ from other theoretical orientations. Arnold Rose enlightened me on this when he asked me to submit a paper for a new collection he was editing (Rose 1962). I was pleased and flattered. Rose was a mentor of mine, and I had never before been asked to contribute to an edited volume. But I was unsure of what would be appropriate for a book about symbolic interaction. I screwed up my courage and asked Arnold: "Exactly what is symbolic interaction?" He shrugged off my ignorance, turned on his heels, and muttered over his shoulder, "It is what they do at Chicago." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the concerns in recent work on the sociology of emotions is the link between emotions and social bonding. A version of this issue has also been discussed in research on disasters, with the focus being on how the crisis leads to the cohesion essential to recovery and rebuilding. This paper provides an analysis of a Ike and its aftermath and shows how central emotions are to understanding the social psychology of the event. Most important here is the fact that, when identifying themselves as fire victims, those affected by the disaster assumed that they experienced the same profound emotions at the same time. This emotional simultaneity led Ike victims to emphasize their bonds to one another and heighten their boundaries with non victims. In turn, this led to their providing social support, comparative experiences, and practical assistance to each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Everett Hughes (1964). in his essay "'Good People and Dirty Work", implies that those who engage in dirty work may be defective in some way, a view that reflects society's perception of dirty workers. However. many of them perceive themselves to be good people doing dirty work. In this paper we examine the consequences of this disjunction between the audience's and the self's perception. We examine members of a dirty work occupation: bailbondsmen. Many of these individuals are found to be socially isolated. This isolation is the result of their belief that they have been unjustly accused of corrupt and corrupting behavior and their desire to be seen and accepted as respectable. Rejected by members of respectable society and rejecting association with like others who may tarot their attempts for respectability, they become socially isolated. Ironically, by proclaiming their innocence they, unlike their truly accused counterparts, find little social support or possibility of becoming integrated into respectable society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]