It definitely sounds like symbolic interactionism to my (admittedly untrained) ear.
Which is good, because the structural functionalists and conflict theorists always seemed nuts, and I kind of thought of symbolic interactionism as the only sane branch of sociology.
Symbolic interactionists are actually studying the world around, and developing theories based on that. The other two branches have these grand, overreaching theories to which all of reality must bend, even to the breaking point if need be.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-14 08:00 pm (UTC)Which is good, because the structural functionalists and conflict theorists always seemed nuts, and I kind of thought of symbolic interactionism as the only sane branch of sociology.
Symbolic interactionists are actually studying the world around, and developing theories based on that. The other two branches have these grand, overreaching theories to which all of reality must bend, even to the breaking point if need be.