Monday, March 5, 2012
Sociology... or Fauxology, it's your call!
I guess Symbolic Interactionists just aren't cool enough now a days to be considered members of the Sociology club...
The big question is whether or not since they attempt to explain and understand human interaction, they aren't a study of society.
In my honest opinion, I believe that Symbolic Interactionism falls under the category of a more micro-sociologist study rather than a macro.
To me, I think of it as simply as studying an ant hill. Sociology, or for the sake of this example; 'Antstudyingology', is when you're examining an ant-hill to discover and create data on what that hill does, and the way it works. But without Symbolic Interactionism, or for the sake of this example; 'Microantstudyingology', you won't know what the ants do, or their specific roles in society. If you aren't able to tell the functions of the worker ants, apart from the builders, or the queen... no matter how much you know about their reproduction rates and rates of expansion, if all of the builders were to expire and the hill would stop its growth, you wouldn't be able to explain the phenomena.
That got very confusing, but what I'm trying to say, in simple terms, you can't expect to just make a cake without knowing what goes into it first.
I find it to be a pre-curser of sorts, wherein you can't have much depth or understanding of overall Macro-Sociology without first understanding the individual.