Search

This article presents Peter M. Hall's response to Rosabeth Moss Kanter's comments toward his article "A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of Politics," published in the 1972 issue of "Sociological Inquiry." The author concludes that Kanter misunderstands his perspective by subsuming it under American liberalism. If there is anything that he is not, it is an American liberal, and if there is anything he is criticizing in American sociology, political sociology, and symbolic interaction, it is consensual, pluralistic, and liberal bias. Hall also does not deny the need to see the totality of the society, its interdependencies, feedbacks, and impacts, in short, society as a system. To settle misconceptions, Hall emphasized that his paper had a special focus and set limits as to its goals and coverage. It was not intended to be a complete analysis of politics nor a complete analysis of American politics.

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Soziologie is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Shifts in the structure of sentiments, taking place in two stages, underlie the emergence of existential sociology to its present significance, A challenge to Parsonian structuralfunctionalism initiated the first shift which was in turn followed by a period containing the development of the basis for a possible synthesis of existential sociology. This position is developed as are some of the characteristic features of an existential perspective on social life. Research based upon existential view and employing the concepts sentiments, body, self, situation, structure, massification and levelling, is presented. Some of the implications of these ideas are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author attempts to indicate some of the limits of Peter M. Hall's usage of symbolic interactionism, by looking at the issues which he does not address very well in his article, "A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of Politics." Two traditions in political sociology can be identified: the behavioral and the systemic. The behavioral approach considers the interactions and exchanges among political actors as they struggle for power and influence. The systemic approach, on the other hand, considers the system as a whole, the relation of system parts to one another, and how the overall system maintains itself or disintegrates over time and regulates conflict. The limits of symbolic interaction theory as a paradigm for political analysis can be understood, then, in contrast to a systems perspective. Meaning, that the level of analysis of symbolic interaction theory is micro-sociological because it deals with the behavior and interactions of elements of a system rather than considering the system as a whole.

The purpose of this article will be to outline a symbolic interactionist approach to the study of politics in the United States. In the course of this presentation, the basic assumptions and concepts of the interactionist perspective will be presented, culminating in a model of society as a negotiated order. This model in conjunction with definitions of power and politics will provide the basis for analyzing the processes of power. The article will focus on and emphasize two mechanisms of power, information flow control and symbolic mobilization of support, which have previously been unrecognized and unanalyzed. In the conclusion, the strengths and weaknesses of the approach will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]