Order and Change in Blumerian Sociology: Opportunities and Constraints

The symbolic interactionists’ focus on the spontaneous aspects of sociality has often been seen by critics as a failure of the perspective to comprehend structure. The article examines this issue through the prism of the problem of social change, that is, the problem of the relationship between order and the process of its transformation. The paper pursues two goals: to distinguish the interpretations of change within the framework of Blumerian sociology; to determine whether interpretations of change provide for the existence of mechanisms to contain them. In order to identify interpretations of change, the theoretical foundations of the symbolic interactionist perspective (self-interaction and non-/symbolic interaction), the Blumerian version of the collective behavior domain (elementary collective groupings of crowd, mass, and public), interactionist macrosociology (the idea of macroorganization as a network of joint actions, fashion theory, and the concept of industrialization as an agent of social change), epistemology (process of concept creation), and ontology (reality as a dialectic of persistence and change) are considered. It is argued that Blumerian sociology exhibits a symmetrical view of the relationship between order and change. Contrary to the cognitivist reading of SI, an important role in Blumerian sociology is played by the complementarity of symbol and affect as mechanisms for maintaining order and initiating change. Symbols and affects can mutually reinforce or block each other’s activity. In all cases, they can act as sources of change and order. The later development of a dialectical ontology of persistence and change captures Blumer’s desire to present the most general and fundamental view of the relationship between order and change. The confrontation of the forces of order and change takes the form of incessant mutual adjustments.

1. Blumer H. (2008a) Sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead. Social Sciences and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 11: Sociology, (1), pp. 118–137. (in Russ.)

2. BlumerH. (2008b) Social attitudes and non-symbolic interaction. SocialSciences and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 11:Sociology,(1), pp. 138–145. (in Russ.)

3. Blumer H. (2008c) Fashion: from class differentiation to collective selection. Social Sciences and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 11: Sociology, (2), pp. 132–154. (in Russ.)

4. Blumer H. (2017a) Methodological position of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interactionism. M.: Elementary Forms, pp. 37–117. (in Russ.)

5. Blumer H. (2017b) Society as Symbolic Interaction. Symbolic Interactionism. M.: Elementary Forms, pp. 141–157. (in Russ.)

6. Blumer H. (2017c) Science without concepts. Symbolic Interactionism, M.: Elementary Forms, pp. 241–259. (in Russ.)

7. Dewey D. (2003) Reconstruction in philosophy. Problems of Man. M.: Respublika. (in Russ.)

8. Coser L. A. (2000). The Functions of Social Conflict. Ideja-Press. (in Russ.)

9. Cooley C. H. (2017) The process of social change. Social and Humanitarian Sciences. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 11: Sociology, (3), pp. 123–141. (in Russ.)

10. Merton R. K. (1994) Manifest and latent functions. American sociological thought: texts. М.: Izd-vo MGU, pp. 379–448. (in Russ.)

11. Mead G. H. (2014) Philosophy of the Present. M.: Izd. dom VShJe. (in Russ.)

12. Mills C. W. (2013) The Professional Ideology of Social Pathologists. Sociological Journal, (1), pp. 10–35. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2013.1.361

13. Nikolaev V. G. (2008) Herbert Blumer’s Symbolic Interactionism (II): A Theoretical Perspective. Social Sciences and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 11: Sociology, (3), pp. 133–154. (in Russ.)

14. Park R. E. (2011) Human nature and collective behavior. Selected Essays: A collection of translations, M.: INION RAS, pp. 57–65. (in Russ.)

15. Prus R. (2017) Preface to the Russian edition. (Symbolic Interactionism). M.: Elementary Forms, pp. 7–29. (in Russ.)

16. Baldwin J. D. (1988) Habit, Emotion, and Self-Conscious Action. Sociological Perspectives, 31(1), pp. 35–57. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/1388950

17. Bales R. F. (1966) Comment on Herbert Blumer’s Paper. American Journal of Sociology, 71(5), pp. 545–547. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/224172

18. Blumer H. (1931) Science Without Concepts. American Journal of Sociology, 36(4), pp. 515–533. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/215473

19. Blumer H. (1936) Social Attitudes and Nonsymbolic Interaction. Journal of Educational Sociology, 9(9), pp. 515–523. https://doi.org/10.2307/2262360

20. Blumer H. (1946) Collective behavior. In A. M. Lee (Ed.), New Outline of the Principles of Sociology (2nd ed., pp. 165–222). Barnes & Noble.

21. Blumer H. (1964) Industrialization and the Traditional Order. Ekistics, 18(106), pp. 138–140.

22. Blumer H. (1966a) Reply. American Journal of Sociology, 71(5), pp. 547–548. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/224173

23. Blumer H. (1966b) Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead. American Journal of Sociology, 71(5), pp. 535–544.

24. Blumer H. (1969) Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection. Sociological Quarterly, 10(3), pp. 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1969.tb01292.x

25. Blumer H. (1980) Mead and Blumer: The Convergent Methodological Perspectives of Social Behaviorism and Symbolic Interactionism. American Sociological Review, 45(3), pp. 409–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095174

26. Blumer H. (1986) Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.

27. Blumer H. (1990) Industrialization as an Agent of Social Change: A Critical Analysis. Routledge.

28. Blumer H., & Miller D. L. (2004) On George Herbert Mead’s contribution to understanding human conduct. In T. J. Morrione (Ed.), George HerbertMead and human conduct (pp. 109–153). AltaMira Press.

29. Blumer H., Parsons T., & Turner J. H. (1975) Exchange on Turner, „Parsons as a Symbolic Interactionist”. Sociological Inquiry, 45(1), pp. 59–68. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1975.tb01214.x

30. Cooley C. H. (1897) The Process of Social Change. Political Science Quarterly, 12(1), pp. 63–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2140028

31. Coser L. A. (1956) The Functions of Social Conflict. Free Press.

32. Dewey J. (1920) Reconstruction in Philosophy. Henry Holt and Company.

33. Fine G. A., & Kleinman S. (1983) Network and Meaning: An Interactionist Approach to Structure. Symbolic Interaction, 6(1), pp. 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1983.6.1.97

34. Fine G. A., & Tavory I. (2019) Interactionism in the Twenty-First Century: A Letter on Being-in-a-Meaningful-World. Symbolic Interaction, 42(3), pp. 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.430

35. Hughes E. C. (1949) Social Change and Status Protest: An Essay on the Marginal Man. Phylon (1940–1956), 10(1), pp. 58–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/272218

36. Low J., & Bowden G. (2020) An Embattled Yet Enduring Influence: Introduction to a Special Issue on Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 43(4), pp. 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.519

37. Maines D.R. (1977) Social Organization and Social Structure in Symbolic Interactionist Thought. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, pp. 235–259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.03.080177.001315

38. Maines D. R. (1988) Myth, Text, and Interaction Complicity in the Neglect Of Blumer’s Macrosociology. Symbolic Interaction, 11(1), pp. 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1988.11.1.43

39. Mead G. H. (1932) The Philosophy of the Present (A. E. Murphy, Ed.). The Open Court Company.

40. Mead G. H. (1962) Mind, Self & Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (C. W. Morris, Ed.). University of Chicago Press.

41. Merton R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press.

42. Mills C. W. (1943) The Professional Ideology of Social Pathologists. American Journal of Sociology, 49(2), pp. 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1086/219350

43. Morrione T. J. (1998) Persistence and change: Fundamental elements in Herbert Blumer’s metatheoretical perspective. In L. Tomasi (Ed.), The Tradition of the Chicago School of Sociology (pp. 191–216). Ashgate.

44. Morrione T. J. (2021) Herbert Blumer, symbolic interactionism, and 21st-century sociology. In D. V. Lehn, N. Ruiz-Junco, & W. J. Gibson (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of interactionism. Routledge.

45. Musolf G. R. (Ed.) (2016) The Astructural Bias Charge: Myth or Reality? (Vol. 46). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0163-2396201646

46. Park R.E. (1904) Masse und Publikum: Eine Methodologische und Soziologische Untersuchung. Lack & Grunau.

47. Park R. E. (1926) The Concept of Position in Sociology. Papers and Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, pp. 1–14.

48. Park R. E. (1927) Human Nature and Collective Behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 32(5), pp. 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1086/214235

49. Park R. E. (1930) Collective behavior. In A. Johnson & E. R. A. Seligman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 631–633). MacMillan.

50. Park R. E. (1972) The Crowd and the Public and Other Essays (H. Elsner, JR., Ed.; C. Elsner, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

51. Reynolds J. M., & Reynolds L. T. (1973) Interactionism, complicity, and the astructural bias. Catalyst, 7 (Winter), pp. 76–85.

52. Thomson L., & Low J. (2021) Symbolic interactionism and the myth of astructural bias: A textual defense and illustrative advice. Canadian Journal of Soсiology, 46(2), pp. 97–120. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs29734

53. Turner J. H. (1974) Parsons as a Symbolic Interactionist: A Comparison of Action and Interaction Theory. Sociological Inquiry, 44(4), pp. 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1974.tb01162.x

54. Wood M., & Wardell M. L. (1983) G. H. Mead’s Social Behaviorism vs. The Astructural Bias of Symbolic Interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 6(1), pp. 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1983.6.1.85