SI developed as a separate strain of theory exclusively in the U.S., and as far I know it has no connection to any form of phenomenology.

I agree with David. If you are looking for a connection with a philosophical current, I believe that Pragmatism would be most appropriate.

I think you might find interesting links with Gadamer's hermeneutic phenomenology - the notion of one's perspective and way of interpreting the world is spatiotemporally located within one's social, cultural and political milieu.

All strands of modern phenomenology stem from Husserl's work, so I think you can just go as far back as him. You might want to outline some of the differences that spring from his work e.g. descriptive vs interpretive, because in research, these are the differences that will influence your approach.

Thank you for your thoughts. I have been mainly referring Burrell and Morgan (2013) and though they acknowledge Mead to have been a pragmatist, they also highlight what was stated by Maurice Natanson (1973) : "Maurice Natanson in a very clear and coherent analysis of Mead's work, argues that the categorisation of Mead as a 'social behaviourist' misrepresents his position, and that his theory of social reality is of a more open-ended and developmental character. He argues that Mind, Self and Society, The Philosophy of the Present (1932b) and the The Philosophy of the Act (1938) signify three implicit directions in Mead's overall position, and that the fundamental themes explored 'bear amazing resemblance to the problems of phenomenological philosophising in the the tradition of Edmund Husserl" (p.76).

Accordingly, having been interpreted in different ways by different people, Burrell and Morgan identify two parallel but conflicting strains of interactionist thought, namely, behavioural interactionism (in context of a functionalist paradigm) and phenomenological interactionism (in context of an interpretive paradigm) that provide the basis for Mead's work.

Furthermore from the Iowa and Chicago approaches to SI, it is said that many of the interactionist ideas characterise Chicago sociology.

Burrell and Morgan state "the difference between these two modes of theorising and research are so fundamental that it is definitely misleading to regard symbolic interactionism as a coherent school of thought" (p.79)

Here, Burrell and Morgan state that in phenomenological SI, social reality comprises little more than a complex set of typifications which may be intersubjectively shared. It is this recognition, where Alfred Schutz refers to (inter-subjectivity and typifications) in his phenomenological sociology that made me think SI belongs in the 'existential phenomenology' strand.

Symbolic Interactionism originated with Mead (although the name itself was invented by his student, Herbet Blumer). So there is no "second strand" of Symbolic Interactionism that originates outside Mead's work. As for the Iowa school, it was started by a different set of "grand-students" of Mead who died in 1931. It has never been all that prominent, so most people think of Symbolic Interactionism as largely the version that was developed by Blumer, and is probably best known through the so-called "second Chicago school" of the 1950s and afterwards (e.g., Howard Becker, Anselm Strauss, and Gary Alan Fine, etc.).

Mead was very much an pragmatist, although the label of behaviorist is usually more associated with his colleague, John Dewey. Be careful, however, not to associate this kind of behaviorism with the very different version in psychology. In Dewey's case, most of his work was oriented to emphasizing the role of human experience (and behavior) in philosophy, as opposed to more abstract versions of philosophy based on traditional ideas of epistemology.

As for anything called "phenomenological SI," that is purely someone else's invention from outside the mainstream of SI.

I think it's a mistake to believe that any theory stands alone, is unrelated to seemingly contradictory theories, or is set in stone forever. Any theory worth its salt should be robust enough to be open to question, reinterpretation, and expansion, particularly through embodied experience and practice. One should be wary about using a single lens with which to view the world. Apart from the limited view it presents, there is a danger of making every other view 'wrong'. Thinking behind mainstream thought is what good research is about.

I agree that is good to think more broadly than narrowly. So, if someone wants to create a new, phenomenological version of Symbolic Interactionism, that would be interesting. But claiming that there was any historical connection between phenomenology and the version of SI developed by Mead and his students is just plain wrong.

Thank you so much. Yes I understand that there is no historical connection between the two. Can I get your opinion on where you think SI belongs in a paradigm? As per Burrell and Morgan's framework for e.g., I believe it can be positioned under interpretive sociology (Subjective dimension / sociology of regulation).

The Embodies Self Reflexivity by Michael Pagis synthesis of Merleau Ponty and Mead on line PDF American Sociological Association; it might be what you are looking for. Merleau Ponty & Mead a great match. Let me know what you do with it. I am big on both authors

Sorry about the delay and thanks for your thoughts. Since I am trying to explore how identity forms due to conflicting social values, I believe embodied self reflexivity would not be appropriate to use. But, as a Buddhist, it was indeed interesting to read the article recommended and see it linked to Mead's 'I'/identity. Thank you.

You could certainly connect symbolic interactionism with other interpersonal theories such as the work of Lorna Benjamin, and intersubjective psychologies such as Stolorow and Atwood. If you place the emphasis on the inner world and its symbolization there are other connections as well. You might ask how phenomenologists thought about symbolic space, the illusory world, etc.