I would like to know the differences between interpretevist and interactionist???
secondly..how social world is constructed according to interactionist..
is it through MEANING,SELF CONCEPT,NEGOTIATION,CATEGORIZATION???
the critics of interactionism are that as follows:
I) it has been criticised for its over emphasis upon the individual there is little conception of social structure.it concentrates too much on small scale aspect of social life.interactionism doesn not aquedately adress questions of social order and social change???
is it the critics???
pls help...am very confused..
thanks
Taskeen
Check these sites.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Interactionist
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Interpretivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionism
To understand the differences between interpretivism and interactionism, we need to look at both perspectives separately.
1. Interpretivism:
- Interpretivism, also known as social constructionism, focuses on understanding social phenomena by interpreting and understanding the meanings that individuals attach to them.
- It emphasizes that reality is socially constructed through shared interpretations and symbolic interactions.
- Interpretivists believe that knowledge about the social world is subjective and personal, based on individuals' own experiences and perspectives.
- They argue that social science should aim to uncover these personal meanings and interpretations, rather than seeking objective generalizations.
2. Interactionism:
- Interactionism, or symbolic interactionism, is a specific branch of interpretivism that focuses on how people interact through symbols (e.g., language, gestures) and how these interactions shape society.
- It emphasizes the importance of face-to-face interactions and the meanings individuals create in their everyday social interactions.
- Interactionists study how individuals interpret social situations, how they construct identities through interactions, and how these interactions contribute to social order and change.
Now, moving on to your second question about how the social world is constructed according to interactionism. Yes, according to interactionism, the construction of the social world involves several key elements:
1. Meaning: Interactionists argue that individuals attach meanings to symbols, gestures, and actions. These meanings shape how they interpret social situations and interact with others.
2. Self-concept: Interactionists focus on how individuals construct their sense of self through interactions with others. Our self-concept is shaped by how others respond to us and how we interpret their reactions.
3. Negotiation: Interactionists highlight the negotiation of meanings in social interactions. Individuals engage in ongoing negotiation processes to coordinate their actions and align their interpretations of situations.
4. Categorization: Interactionists study how individuals categorize others based on various social dimensions (e.g., race, gender, status). These categorizations influence how individuals interact and interpret social meanings.
Now, let's address your confusion regarding the critics of interactionism. Some common criticisms include:
1. Overemphasis on the individual: Critics argue that interactionism focuses too much on individual-level interactions and neglects broader social structures and systems. It is seen as lacking a comprehensive understanding of society as a whole.
2. Neglect of social structure: Interactionism is criticized for not adequately addressing questions of social order and social change. It often overlooks the impact of social institutions, power dynamics, and macro-level factors.
It's important to note that these criticisms do not negate the value and insights provided by interactionism. They simply highlight certain limitations or areas where interactionism may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the social world.
I hope this clarifies the differences between interpretivism and interactionism, as well as provides some insights into how the social world is constructed according to interactionism.