What do you think?
Rate this book
Interactionism
′Atkinson and Housley have produced a book that is a very competent, interesting and useful addition to other work in the field. Its distinctive contribution for me, lies in the exploration of the relationship between, and developments within interactionist sociologies′ - Sociology What is symbolic interactionism? This refreshing and authoritative book provides readers · A guide to the essential thinking, research and concepts in interactionism · A demonstration of the use of the interactionist approach · An explaination of why the interactionist influence has not been fully acknowledged in Britain. The authors argue that few sociologists in Britain have identified themselves with symbolic interactionism, even though many have engaged with interactionist ideas in their research and methodological work. We are all interactionists now, in the sense that many of the key ideas of interactionism have become part of the mainstream of sociological thought. Currently fashionable approaches to sociology display a kind of collective amnesia. A good deal of today′s ideas that are presented as ′novel′ or ′innovative′ only appear so because earlier contributions - interactionism among them - are not explicitly acknowledged.
224 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2003
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 7, 2019
While the authors intermittently offer interesting insights, the book was generally disappointing in its objectives. It seems to represent an impassioned defense of interactionism as a field of social science in its own right and an attempt to distinguish it from the merely methodological, but the imprudence of such a task is repeatedly emphasized by the concessions the authors themselves uncritically make throughout the text. Over and over again, critiques of "interactionism" are introduced, hardly addressed, but implicitly rejected or ignored. The authors seem to take a stubbornly "centrist" position in regards to the tensions between structuralist and individualist approaches in sociology, trying to reconcile theories wherever there is friction. While this is occasionally possible, as a rule this is a foolish endeavor, and it subscribes to the ultimately postmodernist idea that the truth is located at some equidistant position between two poles.
This is underscored by the fact that the authors are at great pains to really identify what interactionism actually is. At no point in the text was it easy to identify a point at which the authors gave a comprehensive outline of what interactionism fundamentally entails and how it distinguishes itself from other theories or approaches. Mostly, it seems as if the authors have tried to ascribe to interactionism a wide range of approaches and theories that are a stretch at best, and the authors themselves make explicit note of this. Despite their best efforts, the reader is left with the understanding that interactionism encompasses a range of methodological tools that are used and informed by in a wide scope of sociological directions, but little more.
As for form: the text was poorly organized, with no clear overview of the different "strains" within the theory that the authors claim are numerous (and constitute the chief reasoning for this "centrist" position). The text was often repetitive and not by any means an enjoyable read. Much of it was hampered by needlessly pedantic writing, using arcane and obscure diction where synonyms would hardly have changed the meaning. While several chapters began with a clear structure, they often devolved into navel-gazing reviews of mundane research and literature that made the text denser without benefitting the quality of its content.
While concrete theories and definitions are offered to the reader as a potentially rich reference resource, they were often scattered and offered as more or less side-notes to a discussion that appeared to have no interest to the general sociologist. More specifically, most chapters were organized as a meta-analysis of British sociology that reads more like a history book than a sociological reference material.
The book is somewhat redeemed by occasionally self-aware insights and the inclusion of basic introductions to certain theories, but is hampered by its commitment to a noncomittal position on sociological tendencies.
This is underscored by the fact that the authors are at great pains to really identify what interactionism actually is. At no point in the text was it easy to identify a point at which the authors gave a comprehensive outline of what interactionism fundamentally entails and how it distinguishes itself from other theories or approaches. Mostly, it seems as if the authors have tried to ascribe to interactionism a wide range of approaches and theories that are a stretch at best, and the authors themselves make explicit note of this. Despite their best efforts, the reader is left with the understanding that interactionism encompasses a range of methodological tools that are used and informed by in a wide scope of sociological directions, but little more.
As for form: the text was poorly organized, with no clear overview of the different "strains" within the theory that the authors claim are numerous (and constitute the chief reasoning for this "centrist" position). The text was often repetitive and not by any means an enjoyable read. Much of it was hampered by needlessly pedantic writing, using arcane and obscure diction where synonyms would hardly have changed the meaning. While several chapters began with a clear structure, they often devolved into navel-gazing reviews of mundane research and literature that made the text denser without benefitting the quality of its content.
While concrete theories and definitions are offered to the reader as a potentially rich reference resource, they were often scattered and offered as more or less side-notes to a discussion that appeared to have no interest to the general sociologist. More specifically, most chapters were organized as a meta-analysis of British sociology that reads more like a history book than a sociological reference material.
The book is somewhat redeemed by occasionally self-aware insights and the inclusion of basic introductions to certain theories, but is hampered by its commitment to a noncomittal position on sociological tendencies.
Displaying 1 of 1 review