Understanding Everyday Life: Generic Social Processes and the Pursuit of Transcontextuality

Abstract

This paper joins earlier interactionist projects in advocating for an analytical attentiveness to generic social process (GSP). This dynamic form of theorizing is indebted to the thought of Herbert Blumer and the extended phenomenological and pragmatist traditions. Rather centrally, the study of GSPs draws upon the foundational concepts of duration, intersubjectivity, and the self. Such concepts have contributed to some of symbolic interactionism's most enduring, empirically grounded and theoretically robust work. Drawing on a series of ethnographic research projects, this paper offers a research agenda for engaging GSPs transcontextually. Specifically, I argue for extending the study of GSPs through the examination of management in everyday life, the creation of subcultural value, and the social construction of doubt.

Reframing “Dirty Work”: The Case of Homeless Shelter Workers

“…Indeed, sensitizing concepts like dirty work have tremendous value, much like other important sociological ideas, for use in broader, transcontextual comparisons (Grills 2020;Prus 1996). Take for example Goffman's (1959) theory of "impression management."…”

An Embattled Yet Enduring Influence: Introduction to a Special Issue on Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism

“…Scott Grills' article, “Understanding Everyday Life: Generic Social Processes and the Pursuit of Transcontextuality” moves away from Schwalbe's emphasis on method to a consideration of the theoretical implications of three aspects of social process: (1) duration, (2) the processual self, and (3) intersubjectivity and the problem of social reality. Grills uses these elements of social process to facilitate his aim of “pursuing transcontextuality” through the identification of generic social processes (Grills 2020). As Lofland (1976:31) notes, this involves “conceiving of a situation generically” and answering the question “of what abstract, sociologically conceived class of situation is this particular situation an instance?” The focus on generic social processes and transcontextuality is designed to deliver a more fulsome conceptualization of the social condition by providing a corrective to the “analytic interruptus” (Lofland 1970:34; McLuhan and Puddephatt 2019) which occurs in studies that stop with a description of the particular and fail to connect the findings with the larger dynamics of human group life.…”

“…In advocating this approach, Grills provides an overview of empirical studies that illustrate several generic sensitizing concepts and articulates useful methodological strategies designed to facilitate the development of such concepts. The core of the paper, however, is the identification and detailed description, through examples drawn from a variety of contexts, of three “under examined” generic social processes: (1) “doing management,” (2) “creating and sustaining subcultural value,” and (3) “processes of doubt and uncertainty” (Grills 2020). Grills argues that attending to generic social processes allows the researcher to “move beyond the particular of any subcultural setting and facilitate the examination of the transcontextual, transhistorical, and transsituational aspects of the human condition” (Grills 2020).…”

“…The core of the paper, however, is the identification and detailed description, through examples drawn from a variety of contexts, of three “under examined” generic social processes: (1) “doing management,” (2) “creating and sustaining subcultural value,” and (3) “processes of doubt and uncertainty” (Grills 2020). Grills argues that attending to generic social processes allows the researcher to “move beyond the particular of any subcultural setting and facilitate the examination of the transcontextual, transhistorical, and transsituational aspects of the human condition” (Grills 2020). Once put into practice, Grills' list of generic social processes then become sensitizing concepts for others who will test their fit for their analyses and discard them if they do not prove useful (Charmaz 2008).…”

“…In making this argument, McLuhan weaves together Blumer's treatment of social problems as collective behavior with threads drawn from two developments in interactionist theorizing: (1) the use of small group cultures as the hinge that connects microinteractional situations with macrostructural configurations (Fine 2014) and (2) the emphasis on temporal rhythms as a mechanism that embeds the interactional situation in a context with boundaries that extend backwards and forwards in time (Tavory 2018). This tapestry is part of a larger vision, sympathetic to Grills's (2020) call for more attention to generic social processes and contextuality, aimed at producing an analytic ethnography that treats character problems as a product of joint action that links individual dispositions to the moral order of communities. In doing so, McLuhan (2020) renders character in sociological terms and, thus, suggests ways that the analysis of that topic can be rescued from the stranglehold that psychology currently has on the concept.…”