A criticism of the symbolic-interaction approach is that it?

Answer 1

1. Symbolic interaction theory works very well for describing individual (microanalysis) in behaviors. It is not helpful in describing the behaviors of groups or entire family systems (macroanalysis).
2. Symbolic interaction does not allow for the prediction of an individuals behavior. It is difficult to predict how an individual will define or perceive a symbol or behavior. This information may be discovered by discussion with the individual.
3. Symbolic interaction theory is very effective in understanding behavior of individuals that are of the same culture of the investigator. However, there is criticism that a smybolspecific theory cannot be used cross-culturally. The meanings of symbols, behaviors, or roles may differ between cultures.
4. Some critics complain that SI is too broad to be useful. This criticism centers on the evaluation criterion of scope. SI covers too much ground, these critics assert, to fully explain specific meaning-making processes and communication behaviors. Related to this is the objection that the concepts that make up the theory are broadly drawn and rather vague. Additionally, due to this vagueness, SI is difficult to falsify. In response to this criticism, SI proponents explain that SI is not one unified theory; rather, it is a framework that can support many specific theories. In the more specific theories, like Role Theory, for example, the concepts are more clearly defined and are capable of falsification.
5. Mead's emphasis on the power of the actor to create reality. Critics observe that this ignores the extent to which people live in a world not of their own making. SI theorists regard a situation as real if the actors define it as real. But Erving Goffman (1974) comments that this notion, although true, ignores physical reality. For instance, if Roger and his parents agreed that he was an excellent engineer and that he was doing a wonderful job at his new firm, that would be reality for them. Yet, it would not acknowledge the fact that Roger's boss perceived his skills as inadequate and fired him. SI theorists counter by citing that they try to tread a middle ground between freedom of choice and external constraint. They recognize the validity of constraint, but they also emphasize the importance of shared meanings.
6. There are important concepts that SI ignores, such as emotions and self-esteem. Critics observe that SI does not explain the emotional dimension of human interaction. Further, critics note that SI discusses how we develop a self-concept, but it does not have much to say about how we evaluate ourselves. With reference to the lack of attention to the emotional aspects of human life, SI theorists respond that although Mead does not emphasize these aspects, the theory itself can accommodate emotions. In fact, some researchers have begun applying SI to emotions with success. For instance, James Forte, Anne Barrett, and Mary Campbell (1996) used a Symbolic Interaction perspective to examine grief. Their study examined the utility of a Social Interaction perspective in assessing and intervening in a bereavement group. The authors found that SI was a useful model. Regarding self-esteem, symbolic interactionists agree that it is not a focus of the theory. But they point out that this is not a flaw in the theory; it is simply beyond the bounds of what Mead chose to investigate.

Answer 2

calls attention to major social institutions