چکیده:
Clarifying some dark corners of the formation of social action through it, the school of symbolic interaction tried to draw a new approach contrary to the positivist approach. Emphasizing the central and important point that man is a thinking being and has a semantic system, unlike lower animals, this school tries to present the role of symbols and meanings in redefining the category of consciousness outside the framework of positivism. Therefore, the effort of this school in the framework of its diverse approaches to express the role of symbols and meanings in creating action and analyzing its angles has been done in this direction. One of the achievements of this school is that it was able to introduce rational approaches into sociological literature and direct researchers' attention to individuals and motivations of action. On the other hand, this school has numerous and fundamental weaknesses and breaches that seem to be rooted in the pragmatic and material foundations of this school.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Inspired by the philosophical views of thinkers such as Dilthey, Wittgenstein, Husserl, and James, the interpretive approach influenced many sociologists such as Max Weber, Peter Winch, Alfred Schutz, George Herbert Mead, Cooley, and Goffman, leading to the emergence of schools such as understanding (verstehen), phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism in sociology.
6. Rosenberg's Approach Although Maurice Rosenberg is not considered among the theorists belonging to the school of symbolic interactionism, according to George Ritzer, Rosenberg, who was heavily influenced by thinkers such as Mead and Cooley, has views and opinions about the concept of self that are compatible and aligned with the theory of symbolic interactionism.
In other words, symbolic interactionism is not empirical and objective; meaning an individual cannot convert its concepts into observable and researchable units, and since it is not observable and testable, a complete understanding of everyday behavior cannot be obtained, and in a sentence, some critics believe: symbolic interactionism is more social philosophy than a sociological theory (ibid.
This type of view manifests in the methodological foundations of the greats of the symbolic interactionist school, including Herbert Mead, Blumer, and Cooley; therefore, they state that meanings are neither inherent in objects nor mental, but are the result of social interaction; just as they believe that essentially the identity of each individual, or the "self," begins to grow through the processes of social interaction and becomes complete through that same path (Tanhaei, n.
(
, 
, 
)
