Symbolic interactionism and the study of sexuality.

Sexual behavior, like all human behavior, is symbolic. Men and women use symbols and exist in a world of meaning created by those symbols. Sexual behavior is associated with a variety of activities, each with different meanings, including but not limited to having children, attaining physical pleasure, having fun, creating intimacy, achieving spirituality, and exerting power (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). The symbolic meanings associated with sexuality affect how we think about ourselves, how we relate to others, and how others think and relate to us. As Kimmel and Fracher (1992, p. 473) stated, "That we are sexual is determined by a biological imperative toward reproduction, but how we are sexual--where, when, how often, with whom, and why--has to do with cultural learning, with meanings transmitted in a cultural setting."

The meanings associated with sexuality are topics of research for symbolic interactionists. In this article, I explore the theoretical background of the symbolic interactionist perspective, including its historical emergence, basic assumptions, concepts, and explanations. Throughout the article, the empirical work on sexuality associated with this framework is examined. I conclude with a critique and an evaluation of the use of symbolic interaction in the study of sexuality.

Historical Emergence

Symbolic interactionism is what Nye and Berardo (1966) called a conceptual framework, rather than a specific theory. Meaning, self, identity, and their relationships to behavior have been the central concerns of the sociological framework known as symbolic interactionism since the writings of C. H. Cooley (1902), William James (1915), John Dewey (1922), W. I. Thomas (1931), and G. H. Mead (1934). As a theoretical framework that emphasizes the micro (face-to-face) interaction among individuals, symbolic interactionism has been most influential among American sociologists specializing in social psychology, and its primary unit of analysis is the individual.

Philosophical Roots of Symbolic Interactionism

According to Stryker (1981) and Meltzer, Petras, and Reynolds (1975), in their analyses of the historical development of symbolic interactionism, philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, including Smith (1723-1790), Hume (1711-1776), and Ferguson (1723-1816), viewed society as a network of interpersonal communications that connect people. By approaching human behavior from the standpoint of society rather than biology, these philosophers appreciated the mind as instrumental in human adaptation. Some of their concepts that influenced the development of symbolic interactionism include communication, sympathy, imitation, habit, and customs. Stryker (1981, p. 5) stated that "Hume--as well as Smith--saw in `sympathy' the principal through which humans develop their sense of membership in and benefits to be derived from society, and through which they come to be controlled by others." In other words, to be human, as we know it, requires group membership.

Other themes emphasized by the social philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment that influenced the development of symbolic interactionism include (a) an emphasis on empiricism, including the importance of observation and critical assessment of experience over religious revelation and philosophical speculation; (b) recognition of the importance of social change and social organization in the development of morals; (c) recognition of the material benefits created by industrialization, while acknowledging that social progress did not necessarily lead to individual happiness; and (d) acknowledgment of the need for a new conceptual paradigm, distinct from religion, to understand social change (Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner, 1994).

A second pivotal influence on symbolic interactionism was the philosophical perspective known as American pragmatism. Its influence can be seen in the social psychological works of Cooley (1902), James (1915), Dewey (1920, 1922), Thomas (1931), and Mead (1934). In general, pragmatists viewed the mind as an instrument for adaptation and treated mental processes as natural activities open to scientific investigation. Pragmatists also emphasized the relevance of nature, including, most important for our purposes, the social world, for the emergence of the individual (Stryker, 1981).

James (1915), for example, developed a conception of self as multifaceted and a product of interaction with others. James emphasized that the individual has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him or her. Dewey (1922) stressed the uniqueness of human beings in terms of their capacity for thinking and maintained that thinking arises in the process of humans adjusting to their environment. For Dewey, thinking included defining objects in one's world, outlining possible modes of conduct, imagining consequences of alternative conduct, sorting out and eliminating conduct that is unlikely to achieve desired results, and then selecting the conduct most likely to lead to the intended goals (Stryker, 1981).

Through Cooley's (1902) work, the concept of "sympathetic introspection" came to influence contemporary symbolic interactionism, particularly the Chicago School. Cooley emphasized the importance of subjective mental activity in social life. He viewed society as "a relationship among personal ideas" (1902, p. 84). In analyzing social behavior, Cooley argued that humans use sympathetic introspection empathically to imagine situations as others see them. For Cooley, the individual and society are two sides of the same coin; no individual exists apart from society, and there can be no self apart from others. To emphasize this latter connection, Cooley referred to the self as a "looking glass self." The looking glass self refers to our perception of how we appear to another person, our perception of that person's judgment of us, and some self-feeling that arises from these perceptions (e.g., pride, shame). This suggests, then, that the expectations of others are central to the development of self perceptions and reflected appraisals. Cooley (1909) also emphasized that the self is developed within the context of primary groups--small groups in which face-to-lace interaction is likely to occur. Primary groups are fundamental in forming the individual via reflected appraisals, and through these primary groups social expectations for behavior, including sexual behavior, are learned.

Although most of Cooley's work concerned the emergence of self in children, Thomas (1931) examined the social psychological processes associated with redefining the self Thomas emphasized the importance of the subjective as well as the objective facts of experience. In emphasizing the significance of subjective experience in human social life, he stated that

Preliminary to any self-determined

act of behavior there is always

a stage of examination and

deliberation which we may call the

definition of the situation. And actually

not only concrete acts are

dependent on the definition of the

situation, but gradually a whole

life-policy and the personality of

the individual him(her) self follow

from a series of such definitions.

(1931, p. 41)

Interestingly, perhaps the earliest sex research from a symbolic interactionist perspective was written by Thomas. Thomas' (1907) anthology, entitled Sex and Society: Studies in the Social Psychology of Sex, which is more anthropological than sociological, reflects perhaps a self-consciousness among Americans about studying sex in their own culture (Sagarin, 1978).

It is largely through Mead's (1934) works that the conceptual ideas just reviewed received systematic treatment and subsequently provided the framework for symbolic interactionism. A philosophy professor at the University of Chicago from 1893-1931, Mead called himself a "social behaviorist" to distinguish himself from what he viewed as the narrow behaviorism of psychology during the 1920s and 1930s, which was focused exclusively on the effect of external stimuli on individual behavior.

Like many scholars of his time, Mead incorporated evolutionary theory in his work. Mead (1934), however, distinguished between self and body. The self is reflexive, both a subject and an object, whereas the body is not. What makes humans distinct from other animals is the ability to communicate through significant symbols, particularly words, that are directed at others, but also ourselves. Symbols (i.e., words), for Mead (1934), are defined behaviorally.

This ability to respond to words allows individuals to have internal thoughts that also correspond with behavior. Mead referred to thoughts as "a conversation of gestures" carried out with oneself. Significant symbols, or words, come to mean the same thing to the person giving them as to the person receiving them, and they indicate the same future phases of activity for both the sender and receiver. Sharing symbols, or words, creates the self via the process of role taking. According to Mead, the ability to communicate not only gives rise to the self, but the existence of society is only possible because of communication. That is, to communicate, it is essential to see the world from the other person's point of view, to role take or to put oneself in the other's shoes, so to speak, and to see things, including oneself, from the other's perspective. Consequently, we can create, describe, transform, and evaluate ourselves just as we can describe and evaluate other people and other objects.

Contemporary Symbolic Interactionism

Although there is no complete agreement on how many contemporary variations of symbolic interactionism exist, two substantive as well as methodological orientations are the Situational or the Chicago School, which emphasizes the emergence and maintenance of the self in face-to-face interaction, and the Social Structural, Self Theory, or Iowa School, which typically examines the structural features of social groups and the consequences of role relationships for individuals. An additional approach that is compatible with symbolic interactionism, although many of its contributors are not symbolic interactionists by training, is the historical-biographical approach to the study of the self (Gecas & Burke, 1995). Because the historical-biographical approach is compatible with symbolic interactionism, but is not typically viewed as a symbolic interactionist orientation, its treatment in this article is brief and is focused on commonalities and differences between this approach and symbolic interactionism.

The situational approach. The Situational or Chicago School takes as its subject the process of social interaction in naturally occurring social situations. This approach emphasizes the fluid and contingent nature of the social order. Behavior is viewed as indeterminate, unpredictable, impulsive, and spontaneous. Scholars focus on how individuals define situations and thereby construct the realities in which they live. Contributors to this approach include Becker (1964), Blumer (1969), Cavan (1966), Denzin (1988), Goffman (1959, 1963, 1967), Stone (1962), and Strauss (1978).

This approach, particularly from the perspective of Blumer (1969), whose work provided the first attempt to categorize the basic assumptions of symbolic interactionism, is viewed as a corrective to the macro orientation of sociology, which downplays individual differences and emphasizes that individuals enact socially constructed roles (e.g., sex roles, family roles, work roles). In contrast, the situational approach emphasizes that individuals create and re-create roles from one situation to another, and each of us may do this differently. This is possible because individuals construct meaning, have selves, and relate to themselves and others in terms of shared meanings.

Blumer (1969), in particular, criticized sociologists for being more interested in group Actions and averages as opposed to individuals' realities. The Laumann et al. (1994) survey analysis of more than 3,000 adults' sexual lifestyles, including average number of sex partners and average monthly sexual frequency, exemplified this more quantitative approach in sociology. Blumer criticized survey research and quantitative techniques associated with the scientific method as being unrealistic because such techniques ignore the real situations in which people act. In contradistinction to averages, Blumer saw group action as the fitting together of individual lines of action that occur by role taking. To understand behavior, Blumer advocated the use of "sensitizing concepts," as opposed to empirically defined variables, to guide the direction of social research. Blumer examined society, not as a structure, but as a process, and he viewed reality as socially constructed. This approach, particularly in the late 1960s, when sociological sex research was gaining respectability in academic circles, provided a powerful and critical voice of opposition to the functionalist and conflict theories that dominated mainstream sociology.

The situational approach to sex research has contributed to our understanding of the interpersonal processes and personal strategies involved in identity formation and the processes involved in socialization in various sexual subcultures (e.g., Humphreys, 1970, 1972; Prus & Irini, 1980; Waskul, Douglass, & Edgley, 1997). The situational approach continues to be a popular approach to the study of sexual behavior.

The structural approach. The structural approach, also known as Self Theory or the Iowa School, was developed by Kuhn and his students (e.g., Kuhn & McPartland, 1954). This approach advocated survey methods, objective measures, and quantitative analyses (Meltzer et al., 1975). Kuhn emphasized structural as opposed to processual conceptions of self and society and viewed behavior not as emergent and nondeterministic, but as determined by antecedent variables having to do with aspects of the self as well as with historical, developmental, and social conditions (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954; Gecas & Burke, 1995). Contemporary contributors to the structural approach include Burke (1980), Demo (1992), Gecas (Gecas, 1982, 1989; Gecas & Burke, 1995; Gecas & Libby, 1976), Rosenberg (1979), Stryker (1980, 1981), and Turner (1962). Stryker (1980) and Gecas and Burke (1995), however, maintained the existence of a third, additional, independent school, the Indiana School, which includes Ralph Turner, George McCall, Eugene Weinstein, and Peter Burke. For the purposes of this article, the distinction is not germane, because both schools emphasize how location in the social structure is reflected in the structure of the self.

Similar to situational symbolic interactionists, structural symbolic interactionists emphasize that sexuality is a social construction. Individuals learn about sexual behaviors and how to interpret sexual behavior within a cultural context. The structural approach places greater emphasis on location in the social structure as the primary force influencing the social construction of reality, including conceptions and experiences of sexuality.

Compared with the view of situational symbolic interactionists, the greater emphasis on social structure as a determining force in one's life chances aligns structural symbolic interactionists more closely to mainstream sociology. For example, the quantitative approach of sociologists examining social class and sexual experiences is consistent with the approach taken by structural symbolic interactionists, but not necessarily by the situational symbolic interactionists. Gagnon and Simon's (1973, p. 103) scholarship exemplifies this emphasis on the filtering effects of social structure on sexual experience: "the availability of sexual partners, their ages, their incomes, their point in the economic process, their time commitments ... shape sexual careers far more than the minor influence of sexual desire." Similarly, sociologists have also emphasized that social class is an important determinant of sexual behavior. For example, compared with the lower and working classes, middle class women and men engage in sexual activities at a later age (Hogan & Kitagawa, 1985; Weinberg & Williams, 1980), are more likely to enjoy their first sexual experiences (Groat, Giordano, Pugh, Cernkovich, & Swinford, in press; Weinberg & Williams, 1980), and report more positive attitudes regarding masturbation (Laumann et al., 1994). In a similar vein, sociologists have reported that coital frequency is influenced by marital status, relationship duration, number of children, religious affiliation, education, income, fertility intentions, age, race, perceived health, time spent at work, and perceived relationship quality (Rao & DeMaris, 1995). Summarizing the primacy of one's location in the social structure on sexual experience, Laumann et al. (1994), using a national probability survey, showed that individuals are likely to have sex with people who share similar kinds of backgrounds9 including race, age, ethnicity, education, and income. Structural symbolic interactionists, in contrast to mainstream sociologists, would perhaps ask "Do differential experiences come to be reflected differently in the structure of the self?" Compared with situational symbolic interactionists, however, structural symbolic interactionists are less active in sex research.

Biographical-historical approach. A third approach to the study of the self, discussed by Gecas and Burke (1995) in a thorough review of the self and identity literature, is the biographical-historical approach. Gecas and Burke (p. 44) described the biographical-historical approach to self and identity as broadest in scope: "It brings in temporal considerations at the personal (as biography) and societal (as history) levels and is concerned with the larger cultural context within which selves are constructed." With respect to academic discipline, this approach is multidisciplinary as opposed to strictly social psychological. Emphasizing the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the study of sexuality, which exemplifies the sentiments of the biographical-historical approach, Seidman (1991) stated in his analysis of the development and current meanings of love, sex, and pleasure that

More and more scholars address

social themes that draw on conceptual

strategies, methodologies and

data from diverse disciplines ...

Ideally, a social narrative should

be deeply historical, attending to

the changes in the meaning and

form of the subject matter under

study and attentive to the historicity 

of the categories of social analysis.

Similar to situational symbolic interactionists, proponents of the biographical-historical approach tend to be anti-positivistic in their orientation. This is particularly true of the scholars who favor constructivism, text analyses, narrative analyses, or other interpretive methodologies. Much of this orientation is evident in cultural studies, gay studies, feminist scholarship, and ethnic studies and often is called post-modernism (Agger, 1991; Gecas & Burke, 1995). This theoretical orientation attempts to bridge the study of society, culture, and history, and with respect to the study of sex is exemplified by Foucault's (1978) examination of women's and homosexuals' resistance to differential treatment, Frank's (1991) sociological analysis of the body, and Waskul. and Douglass' (in press; Waskul et al., 1997) analyses of cybersex.

Use of Symbolic Interaction in Research

Although Blumer's (1969) perspective never dominated American sociology, it has been the dominant symbolic interaction perspective. Moreover, it has been the dominant symbolic interaction perspective with respect to sex research. This approach emphasizes that sexuality is a socially constructed reality, and this reality is not the same for everyone. For example, Humphreys' (1970) masterful analyses of park bathrooms as sites for impersonal homosexual contacts illustrated how the same context can be defined differently. For some patrons, the park bathroom is solely for sanitary elimination while visiting the park. For other patrons, who shared a different definition of the situation, the park bathroom was a context for covert homosexual gratification. Moreover, these two definitions alternated, even for the same individual, over a period of several minutes; yet the definitions did not typically conflict in their everyday operations. The dual purpose of the park bathroom was possible because individuals defined the situation differently.

A critical aspect of defining a situation is establishing or constructing the relevant identities of the interactants. Identity construction, situational symbolic interactionists suggest, can be problematic. It involves negotiation (Strauss, 1978), role taking as well as role making (Turner, 1962), altercasting (Weinstein & Deutschberger, 1963), account making (Harvey, Weber, & Orbach, 1990), and face work (Goffman, 1959).

Goffman's (1959, 1963, 1967) well-known development of this style of research described in considerable detail the staging operations involved in our presentations of self in everyday life, the outcomes of which are rarely certain, sometimes resulting in embarrassment and shame over "spoiled identities" and usually requiring elaborate rituals of deference and demeanor (Gecas & Burke, 1995; Goffman, 1967). Humphreys' (1970) description of the staging details involved in homosexual cruising for one-time bathroom sexual encounters, for example, emphasized how to avoid shame and embarrassment that would result from spoiled identities. These staging details included avoiding the exchange of biographical data, never backing down on "trade" agreements, and not kissing above the belt--because it may be too "queer" for the other interactant. Similarly, in examining the sociology of "coming out" and the homosexual liberation movement, Humphreys (1972) highlighted that computer-stored biographical data documenting dishonorable discharges from the military, because of homosexual encounters, pervasively limited individuals' self-presentations--because of the ever-present threat of a spoiled identity.

Goffman's concept of "face work" is especially relevant to negotiating sexual relationships. For example, with respect to sexual attraction to strangers, most individuals are unwilling to take a risk and deliberately convey their sexual aspirations. Individuals are unwilling to risk rejection and its potential for a spoiled identity. Similarly, Schwartz (1994) argued that in traditional gender relationships in which male sexual initiation rituals dominate, women are hestitant to ignore gender expectations and risk spoiling their identity as feminine. Instead, individuals will flirt. The purpose of flirting is to communicate sexual interest indirectly so that if the other person is not interested no one loses face. Cavan (1966) and Roebuck and Spray (1967) described casual conversations in bars as part of the required ritual to initiate "casual" sexual relationships without ever directly confronting the individuals' sexual aspirations. Cavan (1966, p. 162) suggested that the ambiguity and vagueness associated with bar sex talk is quite deliberate and an expected part of that social interaction: "Sex talk, as it is practiced in our society, with metaphor and innuendo, veiled hints and accepted formal rituals, remains an eminently social activity."

One attraction of the sexual uses of computer-networking technologies is the relative freedom from spoiled identities (Waskul et al., 1997). Cybersex allows individuals to exaggerate their physical appearance and sexual abilities but still engage in some formal rituals associated with flirting and sex talk. The participants in Waskul et al.'s (1997) study of individuals who engaged in cybersex, for example, emphasized the importance of a good story, filled with metaphor and innuendo, that seduced the reader to participate in the cybersex fantasies.

Other studies in the tradition of the situational symbolic interactionists that emphasize, particularly, how individuals define situations and negotiate identities include Roebuck and Spray's (1967) examination of the "pick up" scene in cocktail lounges. Using a variety of techniques, including participant observation, informal interviews, and informants, Roebuck and Spray (1967) examined the cocktail lounge as a context in which "casual" sexual affairs between high-status, married men and younger, single women could be negotiated while still maintaining the appearance of respectability. Prus and Irini's (1980) analysis of the relationships among hookers, johns, and hotel workers emphasized how individuals who are central (e.g., prostitutes, johns) and peripheral (e.g., hotel clerks, gamblers) to the sex trade negotiate their identities inside and outside sex work.

Although not typically identified as the work of a symbolic interactionist, Anderson's (1990) ethnographic work on sex con games between inner city youth also exemplified how the identities and behavior presented may seem irrational to those observing from the outside (e.g., middle class White Americans); however, such behavior is rational for those participants who share comparable definitions of the situation (e.g., inner city youth). Moreover, Weinstein and Deutschberger's (1963) concept of altercasting--casting some people in one role to cast oneself in a more desirable role--is evident in Anderson's analyses of sexual opportunities among ghetto teens. Anderson highlighted how, in pursuing his con game, the young man often uses a supporting cast of other women, at times playing one off against the other. Anderson (1990) also emphasized that poverty and a lack of traditional achievement avenues affects the way sexual relations develop. The male peer group helps to elaborate a system of norms that de-value love and long-term commitment but encourage a kind of game mentality--males attempt to "get over" not only on the females involved but in a social competition with other males. Similarly, Thompson's (1990, 1994, 1995) research on teenage girls' narratives about sex and romance emphasized the fear of being conned and dropped after first intercourse. It appears that the tactics and cool calculation of managing a sexual identity occupy much time for many adolescents. These broad portraits are useful starting points for understanding identity, class, gender, power, and sexuality.

Also examining identity strategies, Skipper and McCaghy (1978) used Goffman's (1963) concept of stigma to describe some female strippers' attitudes about their work and sex. They suggested that some strippers react to the stigma and negative stereotype of being a stripper by concealing their work from some people: "The perceived stigma associated with stripping is so strong with this group that they make every attempt to conceal their involvement in the occupation, even from family members" (p. 178). Henslin and Biggs (1978) took a situational symbolic interactionist approach to the vaginal examination by examining its desexualized context. The vagina, according to Henslin and Biggs (1978, p. 160), is a "sacred object ... Because of this, the medical profession has taken great pains to establish a routine and ritual that will ensure the continued sacredness of the vaginas of its female patients, one that will avoid even the imputation of taboo violation." In other words, "projecting and maintaining the definition of nonsexuality in the vaginal examination" denies the interactants the opportunity to attribute sexual meaning to a body part that in our culture is usually highly sexualized.

In contrast to situational symbolic interactionists' emphasis on how individuals define situations, much of the structural symbolic interactionists' sex research is focused on the relationship among sexual behavior, socialization, and self-concept development. In particular, the focus is often on adolescent self-concept development. Perhaps this emphasis is due to the fact that the adolescent years are the ones in which the self-concept emerges, evolves, and stabilizes: It "is the time of life when the self-concept is most malleable, and when social and developmental factors operate in the most interesting, and sometimes unexpected, ways" (Rosenberg, 1979, p. xii).

Structural symbolic interactionists who study adolescent sexuality are likely to address the transition to first sexual intercourse. They typically examine how social structural variables such as social class, race, and ethnicity affect community variables, including the influence of peers and family, which then affect self-conceptions, including sexual attitudes, and sexual behavior. Questions typically include how the transition to first sexual intercourse differs as a function of social and background variables. Antecedents include an array of demographic, community, familial, and attitudinal. influences, including gender (Laumann et al., 1994; Weis, 1983), biological influences (Carver & Udry, 1997; Udry, 1988), race (Weinberg & Williams, 1990), and social class (Gecas & Seff, 1990; Lauritsen, 1994; Weinberg & Williams, 1980).

Consistent with their focus on socialization and self-concept, structural symbolic interactionists examine in great detail sources of sexual socialization and variations in the ways that information is conveyed. This research is consistent with major sociological themes. Gagnon (1990; Simon & Gagnon, 1968) emphasized that, with people holding different meanings and values for terms as well as different terms for sexual phenomena, conveying information about sex is often problematic, particularly during adolescence. For example, information from adults is focused on responsibility (Simon & Gagnon, 1968), whereas particularly from same-sex, same-age peers, sex information is more explicit, although not always correct (Gecas & Seff, 1990; Giordano, 1995). Giordano (1995) also found, in an analysis of 7,000 high school yearbook messages, that opposite-sex relationships were imbued with a greater level of emotionality compared with same-sex peers.

The relationship between sexual communication and gender has also received research scrutiny by symbolic interactionists. Currently researchers predominately examine how female-gender role expectations emphasize and reinforce the importance of personal appearances and having romantic partners, but at the same time, society negatively evaluates women who seem too sexually liberated (Fine, 1988; Moffatt, 1989; Thompson, 1995; Thompson, Bachrach, Kaye, & Ventura, 1997). Social interactions for males, particularly with other males, stress toughness and independence; thus, males often see sexual relations as an additional arena in which to compete (DeKeseredy, 1990; Eder, Evans, & Parker, 1995; Fine, 1987).

Similar to structural symbolic interactionists, proponents of the biographical-historical approach examine how individuals conceive of themselves. Moreover, similar to the focus of situational and structural symbolic interactionists, a major focus of the biographical-historical approach is language. However, in contrast to symbolic interactionists' focus on spoken language and self-definitions, the biographical-historical approach is focused on text or narrative, out of which self-concepts are constructed and through which they are rationalized and maintained (e.g., Bateson, 1990; Gay, 1986). Biographies are studied as life stories that reflect the disposition, intent, or motivation of the individual telling the story. In The Tender Passion, for example, Gay (1986) described two middle class Victorian couples' conscious and unconscious passions and psychological defenses. This French historian, through a chronicle of the bourgeois experience, examined many concerns of the symbolic interactionists. Gay's (1986) approach illustrated how individuals make sense of their lives and give continuity and coherence to their sexual self. Highly influenced by psychoanalytic ideas, Victorian men had to contend with the complexity of the unconscious mind, including the sexual drive, the oedipal experience, sexual anxiety, and adaptive strategies. Similar to the approach of symbolic interactionists, Gay viewed the larger cultural context (i.e., Victorian society) as a major determinant of these personal accounts by its structuring of the experiences of self and providing the language for their expression, including psychoanalytic concepts such as infant sexual drive, oedipal experience, and anxiety.

D'Emilio and Freedman's (1988) history of sexuality in America also emphasized that sexuality is embedded in social structure and cultural forms that change over time. D'Emilio and Freedman (1988) described how, from colonial time until the nineteenth century, the purpose of sex in American society was reproduction. That is, the sexual script was one of procreation. A new sexual script emerged in the nineteenth century and has continued into the twentieth century; it emphasizes sex as significant for a couple's communication and feelings of intimacy. D'Emilio and Freedman emphasized that in the twentieth century, sex is not only or even primarily for reproduction but is a means of enhancing intimacy. Hence, all forms of sexual activity between consenting adults are acceptable. Moreover, in the 1970s an alternative cultural message emerged wherein sex became a legitimate means to individual pleasure, distinct from its role with respect to couple intimacy and procreation (D'Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Seidman, 1991).

From a symbolic interactionist perspective, what is important is that communication about sexual messages takes place within a cultural or social context that is continually changing. Sex surveys support this point. Oral sex, for example, was considered to be a perversion in the first half of this century, particularly because it did not have a procreative purpose. However, by the 1990s most American adults said they liked to give and receive oral sex (Laumann et al., 1994), emphasizing a greater emphasis on pleasure as opposed to procreation in the later twentieth century.

Gagnon and Parker's (1995) edited volume, aptly entitled Conceiving Sexuality: Approaches to Sex Research in a Postmodern World, highlighted many themes of this orientation, including the dubious nature of sexual science; the construction of sexuality specific to historical and social circumstances; the insidious nature of gender inequality and sexual oppression; the association among personal identities, sexual behavior, and research; and the relation between Western culture's and non-Western cultures' sexual categories.

The biographical-historical approach to sexuality is, in some respects, compatible with symbolic interactionism. All symbolic interactionists emphasize that men and women negotiate and are influenced by the sexual meanings that they learn from society. Similarly, the biographical-historical approach emphasizes that societal messages about sex have changed over time.

From a symbolic interactionist perspective, what is missing from the biographical-historical approach is the view of the individual as agentive or as a social force in his or her development. In contrast, Mason-Shrock's (1996) use of self-theory's concept of authenticity, to understand preoperative transsexuals' self-narratives, underscored the importance of human agency and its relationship to the group. As Mason-Shrock (1996, p. 176) noted, "Transsexuals face a peculiar difficulty because their bodies, as signifiers, belie the new gender identities they want to claim." One aspect of this research that imprints it with the uniqueness of symbolic interactionism is Mason-Shrock's claim that narrative forms are "transmitted and adjusted to fit the individual experience, in a group" (p. 178). In learning to tell different narratives about themselves, transsexuals learn to be different people within the context of a group. Moreover, the desire for a radical identity change motivates learning to tell new self-stories. This ability to tell new stories about the self occurs via the psychological processes of modeling, guiding, selective affirming, and tactful blindness. Similarly, Harvey, Orbuch, Chwalisz, and Garwood (1991) also emphasized account making, telling self-narratives, and confiding, as a means of coping with unwanted sexual experiences. In brief, and in contradistinction to the biographical-historical approach, contemporary symbolic interactionists are likely to emphasize that the individual perceives or experiences himself or herself as a causal agent in his or her environment. Some symbolic interactionists have borrowed terms such as self-efficacy (e.g., Gecas, 1989), as well as much theory describing agency or personal causation, from cognitive psychology. [For example, see Deci's (1975) theory of intrinsic motivation, deCharm's (1978) theory of personal causation, White's (1959) effectance theory, and Bandura's (1986) theory of social learning.]

Basic Assumptions Underlying Symbolic Interactionism

These research traditions reflect the basic assumptions underlying symbolic interactionists' understanding of human nature. One assumption emphasizes the group nature of human life. The early philosophers who influenced the development of symbolic interactionism, including Hume and Ferguson, emphasized that humans live in groups, and the interactions within the group mold the individual. Moreover, symbolic interactionists make several assumptions regarding the nature of the self. These include that the self can be seen as an object and that the meaning of all objects arises out of interaction and the way people act toward these objects. In other words, objects, including the self as an object, do not have innate meaning but must be defined and interpreted. Blumer (1969) succinctly summarized this idea when he stated that humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them; meanings always develop from social interaction; and meanings are modified through interpretation. Blumer argued that, although behavioral social scientists explain behavior as a function of external objects that act as stimuli, symbolic interactionists emphasize the mediating importance of the meaning of the stimuli. This meaning always arises from social interaction. Cooley (1902), for example, located meaning in the individual's perceptions (e.g., reflected appraisals), which arise within the context of a group setting. Similarly, for Mead (1934), meaning referred to shared interpretation that produces a common response for the sender and the receiver. For Thomas (1931), meaning derived from a shared definition of the situation.

In summarizing assumptions that all symbolic interactionists share, Manis and Meltzer (1978) included the following: the meaning component in human conduct; the social sources of humanness; society viewed as an ever-changing process as opposed to a static entity; the intentional, agentive component in human conduct; the constructive, emergent nature of human conduct; a dialectical, reflexive conception of mind; and the necessity of sympathetic introspection to understand reality from the perspective of another.

To these assumptions, LaRossa and Reitzes (1993) added four additional assumptions, all of which deal with the self-concept--an idea that is critically important to self-theorists but largely unimportant to situational symbolic interactionists. LaRossa and Reitzes (1993, p. 144) stated "that individuals are not born with a sense of self but develop self-concepts through interaction." In other words, the content of self-conceptions develops from interaction. Second, self-conceptions motivate behavior. Once an individual conceives of himself or herself in a certain way, he or she is powerfully motivated to live up to that self-conception. Third, individuals and small groups are influenced by larger cultural and societal processes. It is impossible to understand the individual outside of the context of the variables that structure his or her life. These may include gender, race, sexual orientation, and age. Fourth, individuals work out the details of social structure through social interaction in everyday situations. In other words, daily interactions including shared definitions of situations are always derived from location in society.

Major Concepts and Theoretical Explanations

Mead (1934) provided symbolic interactionism with its three main concepts: mind, self, and society. Mead argued that the, individual creates and transforms his or her self as well as society via the mind and the uniquely human ability to role take.

Symbolic interactionists' conception of humans as creators and transformers of their reality as applied to sexual behavior means that the physical sensations that constitute one component of the experience of sexuality are not merely interpreted by our symbolic systems into sexual sensation, but the sexual symbolism also creates sexual experience (Gecas & Libby, 1976). We not only respond in terms of our symbols, but the symbols give rise to experience and response via our definition of the situation. Moreover, Thomas (1931) held that definitions of the situation precede all behavior, and all behavior is dependent on how individuals define situations and themselves. This idea is summarized by a famous dictum in symbolic interactionism known as the Thomas dictum: "If individuals define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

In attempting to define situations, symbolic interactionists developed various conceptions of motivation. In Goffman's work, the primary motive of behavior is self-presentation, the organizing metaphor for social life is the theater, and the key concepts associated with the analysis of behavior include frames, staging--front versus back stage, plots, acting parts, rehearsals, taking roles, rituals, spoiled identities, doing face work, and presenting selves in front of various audiences. In fact, some scholars distinguish Goffman's approach from the situational approach and refer to his work, specifically, as the Dramaturgical School. [For further details on the debate regarding the nature of Goffman's theoretical perspective, see Gonos (1977).]

For the purposes of this article, what is important is not so much where we place Goffman's work as much as the acknowledgment of his importance for the development of many key concepts used in sex studies. The concept of script is one such example. Scripts refer to normative clusters that specify the parameters for lines of action in given social contexts. With regard to sexual behavior, sexual scripts specify how to behave sexually. Other important concepts used explicitly and implicitly, in sex research include language, self, self-concept, socialization, and identity.

Sexual Scripting

The concept of sexual scripting has been most fully developed in the writings of Gagnon (1990; Gagnon & Simon, 1973) and Simon and Gagnon (1968, p. 175, 1984, p. 175), who stated that all sexual behavior is scripted: "Without the proper elements of a script that defines the situation, names the actors, and plots the behavior, little is likely to happen." In recent writings, Gagnon (1990) viewed scripting as a theory in its own right. From my perspective, it seems reasonable to view scripting as deriving from the symbolic interactionist framework.

Gagnon and Simon emphasized that sexual scripting has a social as well as an intrapsychic dimension:

Our use of the term script with reference

to the sexual has two major

dimensions. One deals with the external,

the interpersonal--the

script as the organization of mutually

shared conventions that allows

two or more actors to

participate in a complex act involving

mutual dependence. The second

deals with the internal, the

intrapsychic, the motivational elements

that produce arousal or at

least a commitment to the activity.

(1973, p.20)

Most recently, Gagnon (1990) has also emphasized the cultural component of sexual scripting. Whether we focus on the interpersonal, the intrapsychic, or the cultural component, sexual scripting highlights the important symbolic interactionist assumption that to communicate sexually it is essential to see the world from the other person's point of view and to see things, including oneself, from the other's perspective. In fact, this is the process of role taking discussed by the early symbolic interactionists such as Mead (1934) and Cooley (1902). Sexual scripting depends on humans' ability to role take. Through role taking the individual is able to view himself or herself from the perspective of another. Consequently, we can describe and evaluate ourselves in sexual terms just as we can describe and evaluate other people and objects in sexual terms. Moreover, the inability to role take and understand the other's sexual script can lead to sexual misunderstandings and spoiled identities. Research on cybersex, for example, showed that in terms of sexual compatibility, an important component is a partner who shares the same sexual script (Cohen & Taylor, 1992). These scholars suggested that cybersex is an "activity enclave" in which persons try to find a safe place for identity work apart from routine, everyday activities, and finding others with comparable fantasies and sexual scripts facilitates this identity work. Moreover, the structural symbolic interactionists are likely to note that sexual scripts are located in broader meaning and value systems rooted to various institutions and processes in society, such as courtship, marriage, family, and religion (Gecas & Libby, 1976).

Language

Because language has such a prominent place in the conceptual scheme of symbolic interactionism, it is not surprising that a major focus of study has been the language describing sexual interaction and the learning of that language within the group context. Gecas and Libby (1976) noted that language is rarely neutral. Rather, language expresses attitudes as well as conveys meanings. The study of sexual language, therefore, can be viewed as the study of the sexual attitudes and values of those using the language (Gecas & Libby, 1976).

For example, Jelen and Wilcox (1992) examined whether attitudes toward AIDS are motivated by symbolic attitudes concerning homosexuality and gay rights. Jelen and Wilcox stated that "an important theme in the symbolic politics literature is that citizens often organize political information by conceptualizing politics in terms of highly visible social groups" (p. 738). Anti-gay attitudes are symbolic values. Eder et al. (1995) and Simon, Eder, and Evans (1992) noted how language among middle school children reflected their innocence, gender inequality, the negative labeling of female sexuality, and the primacy of norms of heterosexuality. In sum, because of differences in exposure and experiences in sexual relations by people occupying different positions in the social structure, we can expect the connotations associated with sexual terms to vary by gender, social class, and other social characteristics.

Self

Although little empirical sex research is done by the structural symbolic interactionists, many of their key concepts are germane to the study of sex. These include self, self-concept, identity, and socialization. Unlike the situational symbolic interactionists, structural symbolic interactionists have emphasized the operationalization of concepts and variables. However, there is much ambiguity in the use of many self terms.

Rosenberg (1979, p. 5) aptly stated that "in a scientific field generally undistinguished by the precision of its terminology, the `self' stands as a concept foremost in the ranks of confusion." With this caveat in mind, the concept of self refers to the cognitive process of self-awareness. Self-awareness, or reflexivity, refers to humans' ability to be both subjects and objects to themselves. Individuals actively play a role in their development by endeavoring to make sense of their physical and social environment. According to Gecas and Burke (1995, p. 42), "this `making sense' of the environment is an internal process in the form of thought. This consciousness of oneself frequently is considered the quintessential feature of the human condition." Moreover, this conception of self follows directly from the symbolic interactionists' assumptions, outlined by Blumer (1969), that humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them; meanings always come from social interaction; and meanings are modified through interpretation. Symbolic interactionists implicitly use the term self in their research; however, it is not, typically, empirically examined.

Self-concept

In contrast to self, according to the structural symbolic interactionists, self-concept refers to all products or consequences of self-awareness (Gecas & Burke, 1995, p. 42). A definition widely cited by self-theorists describes the self-concept as all of the individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself or herself as an object (Rosenberg, 1979). The self-concept is composed of various identities, self-evaluations, attitudes, beliefs, values, and motives. In brief, our self-concepts refer to how we conceive of ourselves. Sociologists and, more specifically, self-theorists typically study the self-concept as opposed to the self. Because the study of self-concepts has not generally included sexuality, what is missing from the literature are conceptualizations and measures of the sexual self-concept from a symbolic interactionist perspective.

Socialization

Another important concept for sex research is socialization. Socialization refers to the processes of social interaction by which individuals selectively acquire the skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, motives, norms, beliefs, and language of the group of which they are or will become members. In acquiring these characteristics, the individual's unique self is shaped and created. Socialization not only enables individuals to adapt to all different kinds of societies and cultures, but it is the way in which societies transmit sexual culture intergenerationally. Sexual socialization, from the perspective of structural symbolic interactionists, deals with how individual sexuality changes from infancy to old age and how society can be reproduced with each succeeding generation.

The outcome of sexual socialization is the development of identities and self-evaluations in the context of intimate and reciprocal interaction. Not surprisingly, learning to be sexual is a research topic for psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists, and each group emphasizes different aspects of socialization. Symbolic interactionists, or more specifically, structural symbolic interactionists, emphasize the development of self-concepts, identities, and self-evaluations.

Identity

To symbolic interactionists, identity refers to who or what one is, to the various meanings attached to oneself by self and others (Stryker, 1980). Identities can refer both to self-characterizations that individuals make in terms of the structural features of group memberships, such as various social roles, memberships, and categories (Stryker, 1980), and to the various character traits an individual displays and others attribute to an actor on the basis of his or her conduct or behavior (Alexander & Wiley, 1981; Goffman, 1959, 1963). For example, Prus and Irini (1980), in their ethnographic examination of the transient hotel community, distinguished the identities of hookers, tricks, strippers, bartenders, cocktail waitresses, bouncers, desk clerks, bar patrons, and hustlers. Moreover, identities are always interrelated (e.g., hookers cannot hook without tricks). Prus and Irini stated that

Although the progression is by no

means automatic, as hookers,

staff, and patrons spend longer periods

of time in this setting, they

tend to become increasingly caught

up in the underlife of the hotel

community: for all its roughness

and lack of respectability, it becomes

a regular workplace, and a

home. While the hotel community

does not necessarily exclude other

activities or places, persons remaining

in this setting over time

are likely to find that it becomes an

increasingly central element of

their identities. (p. 4)

Summary

Because there are various schools or orientations to symbolic interactionism, it is likely that different theoretical explanations might be offered to explain/describe the same behavior. In other words, proponents of different orientations are searching for answers to different questions. Situational symbolic interactionists, for example, are typically interested in how individuals create situations and define themselves. Structural symbolic interactionists explain behavior in terms of the role assignment associated with one's location in the social structure.

There is some disagreement between the two schools with regard to major concepts and theoretical explanations of behavior. Situational symbolic interactionists emphasize the unpredictable, indeterminate dimension of the self. For situational symbolic interactionists, this indeterminacy is the fundamental source of innovation in society (Manis & Meltzer, 1978). Structural symbolic interactionists tend to ignore this emergent, creative, unpredictable dimension of self.

Perhaps this disagreement regarding how best to describe and explain behavior is most evident with respect to methodology. Structural symbolic interactionists use the array of methodology advocated by most social scientists (e.g., surveys, field studies, laboratory studies, computer simulations). In contrast, the situational approach, which emphasizes the emergent and changing nature of the situation, has favored, almost exclusively, observational or field studies, preferably participant observation. The best way to know what is occurring in natural settings, suggest situational symbolic interactionists, is to be part of the action, or at least to observe it at close range (Gecas & Burke, 1995). In an essay on qualitative research, Story (1993) listed several advantages of participant observation, particularly with respect to doing research on social nudism. Some of these advantages include having a better understanding of the topics that need research, access to existing literature that may be unavailable to non-participants, access to other participants who might not talk with non-participants, the perspective necessary to be able to examine the meaning of the data within the context of the specific group culture, as well as an additional incentive to persevere through the mundane aspects of research. In a similar vein, Williams (1993) emphasized in his essay on being gay and doing research on homosexuality in non-Western cultures that personal involvement with a topic or an issue may help a researcher better understand the issues facing participants. This difference in choice of methodology flows directly from differing perspectives on how best to describe and explain behavior.

Assessment of the Level and Quality of Research

Symbolic interactionist research provides excellent descriptions of sex subcultures. Most contemporary researchers on these topics draw their theoretical inspiration from Cooley (1902), Mead (1934), Goffman (1959), and Blumer (1969). Sex subcultures seem to be a perennial topic of research for situational symbolic interactionists, as evidenced by the fact that much of this work was written in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and has continued into the 1990s. The earlier research examined bar behavior, gay cruising, sex work among hookers, flirting, pick UPS , and bargaining for sex opportunities. The more recent research deals specifically with the self within a sexual subculture. That is, rather than just describing a scene from a sexual subculture (e.g., covert bathroom sex), there seems to be a shift toward describing the self within the context of a particular scene. For example, Mason-Schrock (1996) examined how pre-operative transsexuals described themselves, both to transsexuals and non-transsexuals; Waskul et al. (in press) described the world of cybersex and how individuals created fantasy sexual identities; and Eder et al. (1995) described the development of heterosexual identities via the gossiping, teasing, and confiding that occurred between boys and girls in the middle school cafeteria.

Among the structural symbolic interactionists, a perennial research topic is the relationship between social location and sexual behavior. Research questions tend to focus on average number of partners, age of partners, sexual debut, and sexual likes and dislikes. The study of sex, from a structural symbolic interactionist perspective, is also characterized by the emergence of lines of inquiry that integrate symbolic interactionists' ideas with mainstream sociological ideas. Specifically, the structural symbolic interactionist emphasis on self-concept and the motivational influence of the self-concept has been incorporated into sociology.

Just as the structural symbolic interactionists are not adverse to borrowing terms and concepts, mainstream sociologists who examine adolescent sexuality and fertility, for example, use concepts borrowed from symbolic interactionism. This should continue to be a fruitful endeavor for both symbolic interactionists and sociologists. For instance, earlier sociologists who studied adolescent sexuality often ignored the social relationship and its meanings to the participants; instead, scholars focused on an outcome such as sexual debut, sexual orientation, contraceptive practices, and pregnancy (see reviews by Thomson et al., 1977, and Thornton, Arnado, Marsiglio, Sugland, & Waite, 1997, that highlighted the need for more research on the social relationship and its meanings to the participants). More recently, sociological researchers have examined the influence of partners in decisions about sexual activity, contraceptive practices, and pregnancy outcomes (e.g., Marsiglio, 1993; Marsiglio & Menaghan, 1990). Scholars are now emphasizing the dyadic nature and shared understandings associated with sexual activities. For example, Carver and Udry (1997), both demographers who study sexuality, have examined reciprocity in the identification of adolescent romantic partners, underscoring the importance of how two individuals define a romantic relationship. This idea of how individuals come to define a situation mutually and interactionally is part of the symbolic interactionist approach and has provided new and interesting insights to sociological studies of sexuality. Similarly, researchers who have examined the meaning of relationships have found, for example, that girls who felt "closer" to their boyfriends were less likely to perceive abortion as the resolution to a pregnancy (Brazzell & Acock, 1988). Moreover, girls who perceived affection or love from their sex partners were more effective in their contraceptive practices (e.g., Adler & Hendrick, 1991; Inazu, 1987; Milan & Kilmann, 1987; Whitley, 1990).

Critique and Evaluation of Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism has stimulated a fair amount of sex research. Unfortunately, much of this research suffers from flaws that are inherent in the symbolic interactionist framework. Stryker (1980) summarized five basic criticisms of symbolic interactionism:

1. Key concepts are confused and imprecise and do not lend themselves to sound theory.

2. Symbolic interactionism concepts are difficult if not impossible to operationalize. Thus few testable propositions can be formulated, and scientific explanation is rejected in favor of intuitive insight or understanding.

3. By emphasizing reflexive thought, symbolic interactionists underplay the importance of emotions and the unconscious in social life.

4. The emphasis on actors' definitions, the immediate situation of action, and the emergent character of organized behavior deny or minimize the facts of social structure and the importance of large-scale features of society and leave the perspective incapable of dealing adequately with those large-scale features.

5. The neglect of social structure constitutes an ideological bias.

Stryker (1980) was quick to note that many of these criticisms apply to particular statements by symbolic interactionists. Additionally, some criticisms are more appropriate for one school of symbolic interactionism but not for the other school. For example, the situational symbolic interactionists ignore social structure, but structural symbolic interactionists are more likely to emphasize social structure. Moreover, there is nothing in the framework that requires conceptual vagueness or imprecision, nor the rejection of scientific explanation. Burke (1980) similarly suggested that, in the research process, definitions of concepts are initially arbitrary (although based on theoretical properties) and develop precision as researchers expand their understanding of the process being examined.

Overwhelmingly, symbolic interactionists, particularly situational symbolic interactionists, are criticized most often for examining the trees so closely that they fail to show us what the forest looks like. This lack of a connection to the larger picture, including power differences and the role of social institutions, has left symbolic interactionism, in general, and its proponents' approach to sex research, more specifically, open to a landslide of criticism. By directing attention to the concrete details of human life as seen through the eyes of the individuals experiencing it, symbolic interactionists fail to connect the individuals with their location in the social structure. Typical indicators of location in the social structure, such as gender, age, race, education, sexual orientation, and ethnicity, are often downplayed in symbolic interactionists' approach to sex research.

I agree with both Stryker and Burke that many criticisms of symbolic interactionism are not inherent in the perspective but stem from the relatively new application of symbolic interactionism to social issues. This, I believe, is the case with respect to symbolic interactionists' neglect of power. The failure of symbolic interactionists to study power dimensions does not mean that pertinent concepts are unavailable. Weston and Rofel (1984) examined the power to define the situation, as well as the power to define the meaning of personal relationships, and expectations for sexual identity in their examination of sexuality, sexual identity, and class conflict. They emphasized the importance of the lesbian identity as a historical construct affecting social relations in lesbian institutions. Their study, based on in-depth interviews with strikers who worked at a lesbian auto repair shop in a metropolitan area with a sizable lesbian community, helped them examine class conflict. Conflict between class relations stemmed from the hierarchical division of labor in which the two lesbian owners maintained the power to define the conditions under which the lesbian workers would work. These authors examined how power affects individuals' ability to define a situation, including what is considered personal and what is considered part of a work relationship. Because workers were lesbian, the owners assumed that the bonds of trust among sisters would prevail over any dissension that could arise because of class conflict. The owners, however, were wrong; shared sexual identity did not negate the importance of power differences.

Symbolic interactionism may also be evaluated along the following lines: testability, internal consistency, parsimony, adequacy of explanation, and ability to predict behavior. With respect to testability, structural symbolic interactionism meets this criterion more than situational symbolic interactionism. Structural symbolic interactionists more carefully state concepts and hypotheses and use statistical analyses. However, situational symbolic interactionists would not view the lack of testability as a weakness, because it is not a major aim of their orientation. Situational symbolic interactionists are more concerned with understanding specific instances of behavior than the generation and testing of hypotheses.

Similarly, it is easier to demonstrate internal consistency from the structural perspective than from the situational perspective, because the relationships are more clearly outlined. However, the lack of internal consistency is not very surprising, as symbolic interactionism has been described as a framework for guiding research rather than as a thoroughly formulated theory (Nye & Berado, 1966; Stryker, 1980).

Both the structural and the situational approaches to understanding behavior provide parsimonious explanation. With a small number of concepts, both schools of symbolic interactionism attempt to explain a wide range of behavior. With respect to the adequacy of explanation, symbolic interactionism provides an adequate level of explanation of behavior. More specifically, by focusing on the relationship between society and the individual, it highlights the social construction of behavior. With respect to predictive usefulness, those associated with the situational approach are not interested in prediction. These scholars do not believe that it is possible to predict behavior because of the impulsive and unpredictable nature of the self. The structural approach, potentially, is useful for prediction as it generates hypotheses and tests them.

One advantage to the symbolic interactionist approach for sex research that is overlooked if we simply assess its adequacy in terms of predictability and parsimony is that symbolic interactionism tends to be devoid of moral judging. This part of the philosophical heritage of the Scottish Enlightenment played a crucial part in defining symbolic interactionism. The emphasis of these early philosophers, which continues to be evident in the contemporary symbolic interactionist approaches to research, is the importance of observation and critical assessment of experience over religious revelation and philosophical speculation, as well as recognition of the importance of social change and social organization in the development of morals. These points, in fact, were noted by DeCecco and Shively (1984), who commented on the utility of examining sexual identity from a symbolic interactionist perspective because of its focus on socially constructed meanings as opposed to the unacknowledged moral judgments of some theoretical perspectives.

Similarly, the recognition of the importance of social change and social organization in the development of morals by symbolic interactionists assists in keeping this approach from getting involved in various political agendas. As Scales (1983, p. 47) noted, "there have always been forces at work trying to define sexual standards, always a conflict over what are appropriate social controls on people's behavior, always a debate over what `morality' a society serves." These include sex education, abortion rights, sexual rights, and family-planning services. Symbolic interactionists, I believe, implicitly understand the social construction of these agendas.

References

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. S. (1994). The Penguin dictionary of sociology (3rd ed.). New York: Penguin.

Adler, N., & Hendrick, S. (1991). Relationships between contraceptive behavior and love attitudes, sex attitudes, and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 302-308.

Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, post-structuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105-131.

Alexander, C., & Wiley, M. (1981). Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry, 34, 65-82.

Anderson, E. C. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bateson, M. C. (1990). Composing a life. New York: Penguin.

Becker, H. S. (1964). Personal change in adult life. Sociometry, 27, 40-53.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brazzell, J., & Acock, A. (1988). Influence of attitudes, significant others, and aspirations on how adolescents intend to resolve a premarital pregnancy. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 413-425.

Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement implications from a symbolic interactionist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 18-29.

Carver, K., & Udry, J. (1997). Reciprocity in the identification of adolescent romantic partners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC.

Cavan, S. (1966). Liquor license: An ethnography of bar behavior. Chicago: Aldine.

Cohen, S., & Taylor, L. (1992). Escape attempts: The theory and practice of resistance in everyday life. New York: Routledge.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

De Cecco, J. R, & Shively, M. G. (1984). From sexual identity to sex relationships: A contextual shift. Marriage and Family Review, 10, 1-26.

deCharms, R. (1978). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

DeKeseredy, W, (1990). Woman abuse in dating relationships: The contribution of male peer support. Sociological Inquiry, 60, 236-243.

D'Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. B. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Demo, D. H. (1992). The self-concept over time: Research issues and directions. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 303-326.

Denzin, N. K. (1988). Act, language, and self in symbolic interactionist thought. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 9, 51-80.

Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York: Henry Holt.

Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: Henry Holt.

Eder, D., Evans, C., & Parker, P. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Elliott, D., & Morse, B. (1989). Delinquency and drug use as risk factors in teenage sexual activity. Youth and Society, 2, 32-60.

Fine, G. (1987). With the boys: Little league baseball and preadolescent culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 29-53.

Foucault, M. (1078). The history of sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Pantheon.

Frank, A. (1991). For a sociology of the body: An analytical review. In M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth, & B. Turner (Eds.), The body: Social process and cultural theory (pp. 42-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The implicit and explicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 1-43.

Gagnon, J. H., & Parker, R. G. (1995). Conceiving sexuality. New York: Routledge.

Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.

Gay, P. (1986). The tender passion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33.

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291-316.

Gecas, V., & Burke, P. J. (1995). Self and identity. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 41-67). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gecas, V, & Libby, R. (1976). Sexual behavior as symbolic interaction. The Journal of Sex Research, 12, 33-49.

Gecas, V, & Seff, M. A. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 941-958.

Giordano, P. (1995). The wider circle of friends in adolescence. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 661-697.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday.

Gonos, G. (1977). "Situation" vs. "frame": The "interactionist" and the "structuralist" analysis of everyday life. American Sociological Review, 42, 854-867.

Groat, H., Giordano, P., Pugh, M., Cernkovich, S., & Swinford, S. (in press). Young adult parents' attitudes toward children. Journal of Marriage and the Family.

Harvey, J. H., Orbuch, T. L., Chwalisz, K. D., & Garwood, G. (1991). Coping with sexual assault: The roles of account-making and confiding. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4(4), 515-531.

Harvey, J. H., Weber, A. L., & Orbuch, T. L. (1990). Interpersonal accounts: A social psychological perspective. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Henslin, J. M., & Biggs, M. A. (1978). Dramaturgical desexualization: The sociology of the vaginal examination. In J. M.

Henslin & E. Sagarin (Eds.), The sociology of sex (pp. 141-170). New York: Schocken Books.

Hogan, D., & Kitagawa, E. (1985). The impact of social status, family structure, and neighborhood on the fertility of Black adolescents. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 825-855.

Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade. Chicago: Aldine.

Humphreys, L. (1972). Out of the closet: The sociology of homosexual liberation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Inazu, J. (1987). Partner involvement and contraceptive efficacy in premarital sexual relationships. Population and Environment, 9, 225-237.

James, W. (1915). Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.

Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (1992). Symbolic and instrumental values as predictors of AIDS policy attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 737-749.

Kimmel, M. S., & Fracher. J. (1992). Hard issues and soft spots: Counseling men about sexuality. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men's lives (pp. 473). New York: Macmillan.

Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. In J. G. Manis & B. N. Meltzer (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology (pp. 120-133). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 135-166). New Yord: Plenum.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lauritsen, J. (1994). Explaining race and gender differences in adolescent sexual behavior. Social Forces, 72, 859-884.

Manis, J. G., & Meltzer, B. M. (1978). Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Marsiglio, W. (1993). Adolescent males' orientation toward paternity and contraception. Family Planning Perspectives, 25, 22-32.

Marsiglio, W., & Menaghan, E. (1990). Pregnancy resolution and family formation: Understanding gender differences in adolescent's preferences and beliefs. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 313-333.

Mason-Schrock, D. (1996). Transsexuals' narrative construction of the `true self.' Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(3), 176-192.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meltzer, B. N., Petras, J. W, & Reynolds, L. T. (1975). Symbolic interactionism: Genesis, varieties and criticism. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Milan, R., & Kilmann, P. (1987). Interpersonal factors in premarital contraception. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 289-321.

Moffatt, M. (1989). Coming of age in New Jersey: College and American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Nye, F. I., & Berardo, F. M. (1966). Emerging conceptual frameworks in family analysis. New York: Macmillan.

Prus, R., & Irini, S. (1980). Hookers, rounders, and desk clerks. Toronto: Gage.

Rao, K., & DeMaris, A. (1995). Coital frequency among married and cohabiting couples in the United States. Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 135-150.

Roebuck, J., & Spray, S. L. (1967). The cocktail lounge: A study of heterosexual relations in a public organization. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 358-395.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Sagarin, E. (1978). Sex research and sociology: Retrospective and prospective. In J. M. Henslin & E. Sagarin (Eds.), The sociology of sex (p. 255). New York: Schocken Books.

Scales, P. (1983). Human sexuality and the family. New York: Haworth.

Schwartz, P. (1994). Love between equals. New York: Free Press.

Seidman, S. (1991). Romantic longings. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.

Simon, R., Eder, D., & Evans, C. (1992). The development of feeling norms underlying romantic love among adolescent females. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 29-46.

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1968). Sex talk--public and private. A Review of General Semantics, 25, 173-191.

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 53-60.

Skipper, J. K., & McCaghy, C. H. (1978). Teasing, flashing, and visual sex: Stripping for a living. In J. M. Henslin & E. Sagarin (Eds.), The sociology of sex (pp. 171-193). New York: Schocken Books.

Stone, G. P. (1962). Appearance and the self In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 93-94). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Story, M. D. (1993). Personal and professional perspectives on social nudism: Should you be personally involved in your research. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 111-114.

Strauss, A. L. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

Stryker, S. (1981). Symbolic interactionism: Themes and variations. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 3-29). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Thomas, W. I. (1907). Sex and society: The social psychology of sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thomas, W. I. (1931). The unadjusted girl. Boston: Little, Brown.

Thompson, S. (1990). Putting a big thing into a little hole: Teenage girls' accounts of sexual initiation. The Journal of Sex Research, 27, 341-361.

Thompson, S. (1994). Teenage girls' narratives about sex. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Sexuality across the life course (pp. 209-232). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thompson, S. (1995). Going all the way: Teenage girls' tales of sex, romance, and pregnancy. New York: Hill and Wang.

Thomson, E., Bachrach, C., Kaye, K., & Ventura, S. (1997). Male fertility in relation to union formation and dissolution. Report prepared for the Working Group on Male Fertility and Family Formation.

Thornton, A., Arnado, D., Marsiglio, B., Sugland, B., & Waite, L. (1997). Data and research needs concerning union formation and dissolution. Paper presented at NICHD Workshop, Washington, DC.

Turner, R. H. (1962). Role-taking: Process versus conformity. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 20-41). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Udry, J. (1988). Biological predispositions and social control in adolescent sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 52, 841-855.

Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (in press). Cyberself. The dynamics of self in online chat. The Information Society: An International Journal.

Waskul, D., Douglass, M., & Edgley, C. (1997). Cybersex: Virtual sex and the performance of the disembodied body. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Sociological Association, New Orleans, LA.

Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. J. (1980). Sexual embourgeoisment? Social class and sexual activity: 1938-1970. American Sociological Review, 45, 33-48.

Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. J. (1990). Black sexuality: A test of two theories. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 197-218.

Weinstein, E. A., & Deutschberger, P. (1963). Some dimensions of altercasting. Sociometry, 26, 454-466.

Weis, D. L. (1983). Affective reactions of women to their initial experience of coitus. The Journal of Sex Research, 19, 209-237.

Weston, K. M., & Rofel, L. B. (1984). Sexuality, class, and conflict in a lesbian workplace. Signs, 9, 623-646.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Whitley, Jr., B. (1991). College student contraceptive use: A multivariate analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 27, 305-313.

Williams, W. L. (1993). Being gay and doing research on homosexuality in nonwestern cultures. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 115-120.

Manuscript accepted July 3, 1997

Address correspondence to Monica A. Longmore, Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403. Phone: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. E-mail: [e-mail].