What was more important to symbolic interactionism, interaction or the symbolic domain (i.e. language)?

What was more important to symbolic interactionism , interaction or the symbolic domain (i .e . language

Symbolic Interactionism has long been riddled with divisions and the most foundational of these are about methodology . It is more or less accepted that Symbolic Interactionism can be analyzed with reference to the Iowa and Chicago schools and this assists one in answering the question of which is more important , interaction or the symbolic domain The Chicago School tends to believe it 's methodologically and therefore fundamentally better to research with a special methodology in mind for

br symbolic interactionism , one which focuses on conduct or interaction The Iowa School wants a much broader methodology , one which stresses unity in all disciplines which are more or less symbolic domains (Reynolds Metzer , 1973 : 189 ) These two contestations will play out in this essay in to argue for both sides and ultimately to provide a synthesis that nevertheless does place a preference

What is Self as an Actor in Society

According to the Chicago school the self is created as Henry James aligned it , a product ' that is created through interaction with others (Longmore 1998 : 45 ) Based on this unit of conception , that is , interaction , a person can be many different persons and who they are depends on who they 're interacting with . If a person dresses up as a priest and conducts mass with people believing him , then , he is not just pretending to be a priest but as a person is a priest . The self...