George J. McCall

The Me and the Not-Me

Symbolic interactionists have long regarded identification of Self and Other as a key feature of social interaction (Blumer, 1962; Cooley, 1902; McCall & Simmons, 1978/1966; Mead, 1934). Establishment of one’s own identity to oneself is as important in interaction as to establis it for the other. One’s own identity in a situation is not absolutely given but is more or less problematic. (Foote, 1951, p. 18) For just such reasons, symbolic interactionists have similarly considered identity to be a key feature of the self. As Kuhn put it, “a person interiorizes his roles and statuses, and with these the expectations that significant others have of him” (Hickman & Kuhn, 1956, p. 242). Adding to this foundation a Cooley-esque emphasis on imagination, (1978/1966) proposed that “a role-identity is his imaginative view of himself as he likes to think of himself being and acting as an occupant” of a particular social position. These components remain central to the concept today, as (2001) stated that “identities are internalized role expectations” (p. 286) and that “self-meanings develop in the context of meanings of roles and counter roles” (p. 287).

Interactionist Perspectives in Social Psychology

The core tradition of symbolic interactionism is presented, including its key concepts, and the history of symbolic interactionism is reviewed, from its beginnings in the works of Adam Smith to those of Erving Goffman and beyond. The special theories and methodologies that comprise several of its leading variants (such as the process, structural, dramaturgical, and postmodern traditions) are considered. The chapter concludes with a consideration of future developments in symbolic interactionism.