The main difficulties of using the Interactionist perspective
Most of the original work of the interactionist perspective focused attention on crime and deviance and subsequently, as this perspective lost much of its appeal in the late 1970's, it has come under increasing attack. Before analysing the specific criticisms that have been levelled at the interactionist ideas concerning crime deviance, it is it is essential to provide a thorough critique of the more general aspects of interactionism.The interactionist analysis of conventioal sociology was intended as a radical departure from positivistic notions inherent inprior social thought and to transcend these with a new sociology, an attempt to stay true to the phenomens by attempting to discover mens understanding of their world. The new micro sociology rejects the existence of objective facts that are studied independently by the scientific forces. To redress this situation, interactionism started from the point of asserting very strongly that man is aware of himselfand his situation; he is aware of possessing a consciousness and that the main methodological task of the school is to describe phenomenon as they appear to the individual consciousness.Probably themost common general criticism made of interactionism is that, although it does
redress the over-determination of positivism,it in turn goes too far, by concentrating too much upon the subjective being to the exclusion ofthe effects of social forces upon the individual. Interactionism is accused of lacking a sense of the history of social structure and of viewing individuals as living in a vaccum. As R.Lichtman has pointed out in a Marist critique of symbolic interactionism: "it is overly subjective, lacking an awareness of historical change, it abandons the sense of human beings in a struggle with an alien reality which they both master and to which they are subordinate". Although interactionism is adequate for explaining small group interaction, it cannot adequately explain large-scale social organisation and mans relationship with the economic base of society. Consequently, symbolic interactionism unable explain social change. Alvin Gouldner, in a fierce attack on Goffman's interactionism, charges that he is less concerned with social change than with how people make secondary adjustments to their social world; the fact that one's difinition of the situation is determined by a heirarchy of power in society is not considered. The American branch of symbolic interactionism, in particular, has come under intense atack. Gouldner feels that they are guilty of an ideological bias: it is a celebration of conservative values designed for those who have already made it inthe big game, those mem
Some common words found in the essay are:
Alvin Gouldner, , Edwin Lemert, Sociology Absurd, RLichtman Marist, Barry Smart, symbolic interactionism, crime deviance, social organisation, social world, deviant activity, social reaction, labelling theorists, social change, talk talk, effects social,
Approximate Word count = 956
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
