#baction

                   Falling’s the closest I’ll ever get to flying --------------- --------------- So let                             m e                                  f a l l

Hey! I'm not too sure how they would ask a question since this is such a broad topic and it would be impossible to do all of them in 40 mins. The revision guide I have written by the chief examiner has a question 'Assess the usefulness of symbolic interactionism for our understanding of society' which seems quite likely because that's a fairly decent chunk of information itself so I'll do a plan for that one for you I hope that's okay! I'd basically start out with an intro saying it rejects the determinism of the modernist structural theories such as Functionalism and argues that we are not puppets shaped by the strings of society but we are the ones pulling the strings and creating the social world through action. Bring in the concept of free will, social meaning and the importance of subjectivity. First paragraph would be on Mead's arguments, discussing the idea of interpreting not just responding using the example of the dog and waving a fist to show that humans have to interpret before they know how to respond. This shows that society is based on meanings and is not just a structure 'out there' but depends on our views on it. For Mead, this comes from socialisation where we learn to see ourselves from the generalised other. Clash this with Marxism and say this notion of seeing ourselves/interpreting is false class consciousness instilled by capitslism to take our minds off of the oppression that occurs in the alienation of the workplace. Criticise further with the idea that it just takes meaning for granted. What if we interpreted things in a different way? Then bring in ethnomethodology as an evaluation to show that we can only interpet meaning due to reflexivity which allows us to have common sense knowledge of the world. After this, move back into the AO1 of SI, bring in labelling theory. Talk about how it uses the basic ideas of seeing yourself from another/action to describe how people's social lives are affected. Use the three main concepts. Definitions-defining something means it has consequences, for example defining a student as bad means you punish them more. The looking glass self-looking at the way someone acts to us and taking on board their reactions, so if we see someone act as though we are mentally ill, we will actually become mentally ill. Career-how the actions start off at one point and develop into greater stages, talk about being labelled as mentally ill, then being institutionalised, being stigmatised in society etc. Evaluate this by saying it is highly deterministic missing the main point of action theories-the freedom to act. In this sense it is no better than Functionalism even though it argues we are the product of other people's perceptions. Alongside this, logically counter it by saying it cannot explain the consistent patterns we see in behaviour, if it was all down to subjective reaction society would be chaos with no patterns at all. Link in from the deterministic criticism by arguing that other SI theories hold free will at the center such as Goffman's Dramaturgical Model. Goffman rejects the determinism of such theories and Functionalism arguing that we are actors, acting out scripts, changing roles, we be who we want to be and manage our impersinations by looking at reactions to carry out a convincing role of who we want to be. Evaluate this from a feminist point of view-women do not have the power to be who they want to be due to patriarchy. Evaluate it further-it is not a theory but a loose collection of terms used to describe people's actions, it doesn't explain society/behaviour. Then you'll need a brief bit on methods-prefer interepretivist, qualitative methods, like pp obs to see the world view of the participant-what role are they playing/what label has been attached to them? Advocate Verstehen. Clash to positivism which rejects this-looks to the structure of society through social institutions and advocates statistics to be used to understand this, SI methods are too subjective. If you have time another paragraph on structuration theory-combining the two by Giddens. It is not just us making structure but structure making us in a reciprocal way. We can repeat structures over time like keeping the rules of grammar but we also change them by making new words too showing action and structure work together. Basic conclusion about how SI is good for micro understanding of the world, lets us understand people subjectively and advocates free will but also too subjective, not truly a theory and still cannot escape determinism. Hope this helped!