DESIGN PICS INC/National Geographic Creative
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is concerned with the interaction of two or more people through the use of symbols (Quist-Adade 2018). Interaction is clear enough. We all engage in interaction with many others on a daily basis, whether it be face-to-face or more indirectly via cell phone, e-mail, or social media. But interaction could not take place without symbols: words, gestures, internet memes (Benaim 2018), and even objects that stand for things. Symbols allow the communication of meaning among a group of people.
Although we can interact with one another without words, such as through physical gestures like the shrug of a shoulder, in the vast majority of cases we need and use words to interact.
Symbolic interactionism has several basic principles:
Human beings have a great capacity for thought, which differentiates them from lower animals. That innate capacity for thought is greatly shaped by social interaction. It is during social interaction that people acquire the symbolic meanings that allow them to exercise their distinctive ability to think. Those symbolic meanings in turn allow people to act and interact in ways that lower animals cannot.
Symbolic meanings are not set in stone. People are able to modify them based on a given situation and their interpretation of it. The Christian cross, for example, is a symbol whose meaning can vary. Christians throughout the world define it in positive religious ways, but many in the Islamic world view it as a negative symbol. Muslims associate the cross with the medieval Crusades waged against their world by the Christian West.
People are able to modify symbolic meanings because of their unique ability to think. Symbolic interactionists frame thinking as people’s ability to interact with themselves. In that interaction with themselves, people are able to alter symbolic meanings. They are also able to examine various courses of action open to them in given situations, to assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of each, and then to choose among them.
It is the pattern of those choices of individual action and interaction that is the basis of groups, larger structures such as bureaucracies, and society as a whole. Most generally, in this theoretical perspective, symbolic interaction is the basis of everything else in the social world.
While symbolic interactionists deal primarily with interaction, they are also concerned with mental processes, such as mind and self, that are deeply implicated in those processes.
Ethnomethodology
Ethnomethodology is another inter/actionist theory, but it focuses on what people do rather than on what they think (Liu 2012). Ethnomethodologists study the ways in which people organize everyday life.
Ethnomethodologists regard people’s lives and social worlds as practical accomplishments that are really quite extraordinary. For example, one ethnomethodological study of coffee drinkers attempted to understand their participation in a subculture of coffee connoisseurship (Manzo 2010). Learning to enjoy coffee is something of an accomplishment itself; taking that enjoyment to the next level and becoming a connoisseur requires even more doing.
Their view of large-scale social structures differs from that of structural-functionalists, who tend to see people and their actions as being highly constrained by those structures. Ethnomethodologists argue that this view tells us very little about what really goes on within structures such as courtrooms, hospitals, and police departments. Rather than being constrained, people act within these structures and go about much of their business using common sense rather than official procedures.
The best-known example of an ethnomethodological approach relates to gender (O’Brien 2016; Stokoe 2006). Ethnomethodologists point out that people often erroneously think of gender as being biologically based. It is generally assumed that we do not have to do or say anything in order to be considered masculine or feminine; we are born that way. But, in fact, there are things we all do (e.g., the way we walk) and say (e.g., the tone of our voice) that allow us to accomplish being masculine or feminine. That is, being masculine or feminine is based on what people do on a regular basis. This is clearest in the case of those who are defined as being male or female at birth (based on biological characteristics) but then later do and say things that lead others to see them as belonging to the other gender (based on social characteristics).
Exchange Theory
Like ethnomethodologists, exchange theorists are not concerned with what goes on in people’s minds and how that affects behavior. Instead, they are interested in the behavior itself and the rewards and costs associated with it (Molm, Whithama, and Melameda 2012). The key figure in exchange theory, George Homans (1910–1989), argued that instead of studying large-scale structures, sociologists should study the “elementary forms of social life” (Homans 1961, 13).
Exchange theorists are particularly interested in social behavior that usually involves two or more people and a variety of tangible and intangible exchanges. For example, you can reward someone who does you a favor with a tangible gift or with more intangible words of praise. Those exchanges are not always rewarding; they also can be punitive. You could, for example, punish someone who wrongs you by slapping him or complaining about him to mutual acquaintances.
While exchange theory retains an interest in the elementary forms of social behavior, over the years it has grown more concerned with how those forms lead to more complex social situations. That is, individual exchanges can become stable over time and develop into persistent exchange relationships. One particular type of exchange relationship is “hooking up,” or forming sexual relationships that are also sometimes called “friends with benefits.” For example, because you and another person find your initial sexual interactions rewarding, you may develop a pattern of repeat interactions (also known as “hookups” or “booty calls”). Exchange relationships, including hookups, rarely develop in isolation from other exchange relationships. Sociologists study how hooking up is not an isolated occurrence—it happens within the context of college campuses, for example, where it has been normalized (Kuperberg and Padgett 2015).
Rational Choice Theory
In rational choice theory people are regarded as rational, but the focus is not on exchange, rewards, and costs. Rather, the focus is on people who have goals and intend to do certain things. To achieve their goals, people have a variety of means available to them and choose among the available means on a rational basis. They choose the means that are likely to best satisfy their needs and wants; in other words, they choose on the basis of “utility” (Kroneberg and Kalter 2012). In the case of hookups, for example, we can easily imagine a series of potential purposes for hooking up, such as engaging in sexual exploration, having fun, and doing something sexual without the risk of getting deeply involved emotionally or getting hurt.
Rational choice theorists understand that people do not always act rationally. They argue, however, that their predictions will generally hold despite these occasional deviations (Coleman 1990; Zafirovski 2013). The degree to which people act rationally is one of the many topics that can be, and has been, researched by sociologists. It is to the general topic of sociological research that we turn in the next section.
Researching the Social World
Sociology is a science of the social world, and research is absolutely central to such a science. All sociologists study others’ research, and most do research of their own. Sociologists may theorize, speculate, and even rely on their imaginations for answers to questions about society. However, they almost always do so on the basis of data or information derived from research. Put another way, sociologists practice empiricism,