The Institutionalization of Symbolic Interactionism in Canadian Sociology, 1922-1979: Success at What Cost?

Abstract

This essay examines the growth of symbolic interactionism (SI) as a specialization in English-language Canadian sociology, 1922–1979. We do not focus on theoretical and/or methodological developments. Rather, we document three empirical indicators of the institutionalization of SI: faculty members hired, research published, and SI-receptive programs established. We find that Canadian sociologists institutionalized SI in two phases. From 1922 to 1959, SI institutionalized slowly. There were few SI “core” faculty and scarcely more “SI-accommodative” faculty. Little SI-based literature was published. McGill had Canada’s only SI-friendly program. After 1960, SI grew rapidly and, by 1979, was well institutionalized: over ninety SI and SI-accommodative faculty had been hired, SI literature (journal articles, textbooks) was commonplace. Many sociology departments offered an SI-accommodative program. Sometime in the 1980s, classical SI began to “de-institutionalize.” Ironically, as SI’s footprint grew and influence spread, it appeared to become less discernable, less coherent and less viable as a distinct and unified approach.

Symbolic Interactionism in Canada: Shared Meaning and the Perpetuation of Ideas

“…In their recent paper in the Canadian Journal of Sociology , “The Institutionalization of Symbolic Interactionism in Canadian Sociology,” Helmes‐Hayes and Milne () focus on the utility of the concept of institutionalization in explaining the continued scholarly use of theoretical perspectives such as symbolic interactionism. They look specifically at academic hires, symbolic interactionist friendly academic programs, and scholarly publishing in the area of symbolic interactionism as indicators of the institutional robustness of the perspective.…”

“…Helmes‐Hayes and Milne's () research begins with the use of symbolic interactionist theory in the first Canadian department of sociology established in Montreal at McGill University by Carl Dawson in 1922. This was followed shortly after by the appointment of Everett C. Hughes.…”

“…Both Dawson and Hughes were steeped in symbolic interactionism at the University of Chicago and after planted the seeds of the perspective in the Canadian academy. The data Helmes‐Hayes and Milne () analyzed covers the specific period between the years 1960–1979. However, they also go beyond this time period to discuss what they identify as the peak of popularity of symbolic interactionism in Canada during the 1970s and early 1980s.…”

“…Through archival research and interviews, they found that between 1960 and 1979 there were 30 self‐identified symbolic interactionists appointed to tenure track positions at Canadian Universities. When they add to their tally what they refer to as “SI‐accommodative” faculty appointments, the number rises to 96 (Helmes‐Hayes and Milne :146). They go on to conclude that there has been a decrease in the use of symbolic interactionism by Canadian sociologists going forward through the 1990s and 2000s.…”

“…In this paper I discuss differing theoretical explanations of the status of symbolic interactionist theory in Canada. In particular, I address Helmes‐Hayes and Milne's () institutional perspective on the relative standing of this theoretical tradition in Canada, as well as Neil McLaughlin's () emphasis on scientific intellectual movements and Coserian intellectual sects, in explaining the emergence of symbolic interactionism in Canada and charting its future. In doing so I critique the claims that the perspective is on the verge of disappearing, consumed by the popularity of its interpretivist assumptions on the one hand and overwhelmed by a rising tide of postmodernist and feminist theory on the other.…”