although Stryker belongs to the symbolic interactional approach , his focus on power relations, class, gender, age, etc., and how these structural variables are related to the interactions relationships can be considered as a realistic handle of the relationship between action and social structure, maybe more clearly than Giddens and Bourdieu. Do you agree with this or reject, with justifications?
I studied with Stryker and his focus was always clearly on identity. I don't remember any discussions of power or class.
This may have been a long time ago.
Anyway he wrote in 1987 : the vision of society as simply a congeries of individual lines of action or even strands of interaction-about as far as some symbolic interactionists went in recognizing social structure is not adequate to meet the political criticism of symbolic interactionism, whether viewed as sociological or as "merely" social psychological framework.
He wrote also: No respectable sociology can avoid dealing in a very explicit way with the contexts of class relations, power, age structure, sex structure, etc., that taken together comprise the social environment of interpersonal relations, structures whose interrelationships among themselves constitute the heart of sociology, historically considered.
Stryker, Sheldon. 1987. "The Vitalization of Symbolic Interactionism". Social Psychology Quarterly. 50 (1): 83-94.
When I studied with him from 1977-1980, it was pure social psychology.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology