Additional symbolic interactionism view on LRT

REJOINDERS

552

AND COMMENTARY

Interest in Recreational Activities and Certain Environmental, Educational, and Personality Adjustment Factors of College Freshmen Men. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. Blumer, H. 1969 Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Callero, P. L. 1986 Toward a Meadian Conceptualization of Role. The Sociological Quarterly 27(3):343-358. Mead, G. H. 1934 Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Scott, F. L. 1957 A Study of the Origin of Recreation Activities of Male Students at San Diego State College. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. US Department of Interior. 1979 The Third National Outdoor Recreation Plan. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. Received Accepted

24 March 1988 9 April 1988

Additional

Symbolic

Interactionism

View on LRT

University

Craig Colton of Missouri, USA

Primary objectives for writing “Leisure, Recreation, Tourism: A Symbolic Interactionism View” (Annals 14:345-360, 1987) were to develop awareness and provoke thought and consideration of this social-psychological framework to better understand these forms of human action. The review and observations made by Graham Brown indicate movement in this direction. Unfortunately, one journal article, or even many, cannot pretend to provide the information, detail, and thought needed to answer all questions. In theory development and application, dialogue is needed to question and clarify. Therefore, the article itself, Brown’s commentary, this response, and other writings like Samdahl(1988) all become part of an on-going process. Blumer (1969) described symbolic interactionism (SI) as a general framework for the analysis of society. Stryker (1980) discussed the theory’s general applicability and pointed out that “A continuing theme in Simmel, Cooley, and especially Mead is that social structure creates social persons who (re)create social structure who ad infinitum”(Stryker 1980:53). Individuals, society, and social structure are interrelated. SI can provide a social-psychological framework for examining human behavior. For example, in his sociology textbook Human Interaction, Vernon (1965: V) used “symbolic interactionist theory as the orienting framework into which a body of sociological knowledge is integrated.” From this point of view, he discussed culture, norms, roles and role playing, definitions of situations, socialization, motivation, social systems, social change, and other sociological concepts: all useful in understanding leisure, recreation, and tourism (LRT). LRT activities are parts of human endeavor and, therefore, should be considered within the context or framework of other human behavior. Under-

REJOINDERS

AND COMMENTARY

553

standing LRT related behavior can only be achieved through the application of social-psychological theory such as SI and with a holistic approach. Therefore, I applaud the holistic view professed by Brown. I do recommend additional reading for researchers in LRT and readers of this work from books such as Vernon (1965); Social Psycholo~ Through Symbolic In&action (Stone and Farberman 1970); Social Psychology: The Theory and Application of Symbolic Interactionism (Lauer and Handel 1983); and Symbolic Interactionism: A Structural Version (Stryker 1980). Review of these writings can provide additional ideas for interpreting research findings and understanding behavior in LRT. I heartily acknowledge the contribution of George Herbert Mead to the historical roots and development of symbolic interactionism and appreciate Brown’s mention of him. If one reviews current literature like Symbolic Intiraction (the Journal of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction), eight annual (almost) volumes of Studies in Symbolic Interaction, edited by Denzin (1978 through 1987) and literature cited in Colton (1987), Mead’s contribution is repeatedly mentioned. For example, Mead and the Chicago tradition of Sociology are discussed by Fisher and Strauss (1979a, 197913) in Volume 2 of Symbolic Interaction. Writings in other volumes have frequent references to his work. Because of this frequent reference in the literature, no exploration was made of historical roots in my article. Other historical contributors were also purposely neglected, including Charles Horton Cooley and William I. Thomas. Interested readers might look at sources cited in the original article, journals dedicated to SI and collections of articles such as those by Manis and Meltzer (1972). In proposing SI as a theoretical framework for interpreting research findings and writings in LRT, my article made numerous citations to provide a wide group of examples, where SI might be useful. Space limitations discouraged the use of copious detail for any one citation or in-depth reviews of SI theoretical explanations. More details and explanations might have better demonstrated the association between the SI paradigm and the research examples, which in turn may have lowered some of Brown’s expressed discomfort with “rarely demonstrated” association. For the Annals article, the research and writings of other authors became data, often with details lacking. In research analysis, one critical axiom is “Do not extrapolate too far beyond available data.” Therefore, the described research often could not be tied to the SI framework as tightly as I, and evidently Brown, would have liked. Hopefully, this concern did not cause him to miss the point that many authors in LRT do not relate their findings to any theoretiGalfrarrzwork at all.

Consequently, it is not unexpected that many of the authors cited do not mention social processes or as Brown strongly states “many of the references to research findings in LRT denied a role for social processes.” Brown in his next sentence uses the Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan to establish his point, while he ignores the implicit existence of social processes to even arrive at this plan. The quote cited from the plan, “recreation has come to be viewed . . ” is evidence in itself of the existence of social process. Defining must have occurred through social process and interaction to reach the described view. Neither Scott (1957) nor Bartholomew (1953) provide details about social processes, but SI framework does include social processes during family socialization and should be at least implicitly tied to these two studies. Just because social processes are not mentioned by a researcher does not deny a role for these processes. Additional theoretical explanation may be needed. For certain, more work is needed using SI during soci$ization and in other LRT settings. Brown’s suggestions on areas of LRT particularly suited to a symbolic interactionist perspective help encourage the theory development and application process mentioned earlier. His comments should be reviewed and related to concepts, citations, and other SI and LRT literature.

554

REJOINDERS

AND COMMENTARY

Awareness will continue to grow, when LRT research is examined in the context of SI using the previously recommended sociology books and other relevant sources. SI can become more useful as a framework for examining

LRT, as readers of LRT literature become more familiar with SI concepts and are better able to apply them. The cited examples of studies in which the SI framework might have been useful provide opportunities for study, reflection, and possibly additional extrapolation by readers. SI could be particularly useful in examining the definitional, situational, subjective, and often symbolic nature of LRT and the social processes involved in meaning development, roles and meanings in LRT situations, images in travel and destination choice, social learning through socialization, and norms in LRT. Dialogue and interest in SI and LRT will continue and more researchers will become aware to this theoretical perspective. Perhaps in the future, to roughly paraphrase Vernon (1965), Symbolic Interactionism theory may be used as an orienting social-psychological framework into which a body of knowledge about LRT integrated. 0 0

will be

REFERENCES Bartholomew, W. M.

1953 An Investigation of the Relationship Between the Range and Intensity of Interest in Recreational Activities and Certain Environmental, Educational, and Personality Adjustment Factors of College Freshman Men. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. Blumer, H. 1969 Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Denzin, N. K. 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 Studies in Symbolic Interaction (Volumes 1-8). Greenwich, CT JAI Press. Fisher, B. M., and A. L. Strauss 1979a George Herbert Mead and the Chicago Tradition of Sociology (Part One). Symbolic Interaction 2(1):9-26. 1979b George Herbert Mead and the Chicago Tradition of Sociology (Part Two). Symbolic Interaction 2(2):9-20. Lauer, R. H., and W. H. Handel 1983 Social Psychology: The Theory and Application of Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Manis, J. G., and B. N. Meltzer 1972 Symbolic Interaction: Reader in Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Samdahl, D. M. 1988 A Symbolic Interactionist Model of Leisure: Theory and Empirical Support. Leisure Sciences 10(1):27-39. Scott, F. L. 1957 A Study of the Origin of Recreation Activities of Male Students at San Diego State College. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Stone, G. P., and H. A. Farberman 1970 Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interactionism. Waltham, MA: GinnBlaisdell. Stryker, S. 1980 Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Vernon, G. M. 1965 Human Interactionism: An Introduction to Sociology New York: Ronald Press. Submitted 30 July 1988 Accepted 11 August 1988