# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that develops from practical considerations and alludes to particular effects of communication and interaction in people to make images and normal implications, for deduction and correspondence with others. According to Macionis, symbolic interactionism is "a framework for building theory that sees society as the product of everyday interactions of individuals". In other words, it is a frame of reference to better understand how individuals interact with one another to create symbolic worlds, and in return, how these worlds shape individual behaviors. It is a framework that helps understand how society is preserved and created through repeated interactions between individuals. The interpretation process that occurs between interactions helps create and recreate meaning. It is the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals. Individuals act on the premise of a shared understanding of meaning within their social context. Thus, interaction and behavior is framed through the shared meaning that objects and concepts have attached to them. From this view, people live in both natural and symbolic environments.

Symbolic interactionism comes from a sociological perspective which developed around the middle of the twentieth century and that continues to be influential in some areas of the discipline. It is particularly important in microsociology and social psychology. It is derived from the American philosophy of pragmatism and particularly from the work of George Herbert Mead, as a pragmatic method to interpret social interactions.

R. Collins views symbolic interactionism as studying the way the social world is created through interaction between individuals and their environment.

Symbolic interaction was conceived by George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley. Mead argued that people's selves are social products, but that these selves are also purposive and creative, and believed that the true test of any theory was that it was "useful in solving complex social problems". Mead's influence was said to be so powerful that sociologists regard him as the one "true founder" of the symbolic interactionism tradition.

Although Mead taught in a philosophy department, he is best known by sociologists as the teacher who trained a generation of the best minds in their field. Strangely, he never set forth his wide-ranging ideas in a book or systematic treatise. After his death in 1931, his students pulled together class notes and conversations with their mentor and published Mind, Self and Society in his name. It is a common misconception that John Dewey was the leader of this sociological theory; according to The Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, Mead was undoubtedly the individual who "transformed the inner structure of the theory, moving it to a higher level of theoretical complexity."

Mind, Self and Society is the book published by Mead's students based on his lectures and teaching, and the title of the book highlights the core concept of social interactionism. Mind refers to an individual's ability to use symbols to create meanings for the world around the individual - individuals use language and thought to accomplish this goal. Self refers to an individual's ability to reflect on the way that the individual is perceived by others. Finally, society, according to Mead, is where all of these interactions are taking place. A general description of Mead's compositions portray how outside social structures, classes, and power and abuse affect the advancement of self, personality for gatherings verifiably denied of the ability to characterize themselves.

Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term and put forward an influential summary: people act a certain way towards things based on the meaning those things already have, and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation. Blumer was a social constructionist, and was influenced by John Dewey; as such, this theory is very phenomenologically-based. Given that Blumer was the first to use symbolic interaction as a term, he is known as the founder of symbolic interaction. He believed that the "Most human and humanizing activity that people engage in is talking to each other." According to Blumer, human groups are created by people and it is only actions between them that define a society. He argued that with interaction and through interaction individuals are able to "produce common symbols by approving, arranging, and redefining them." Having said that, interaction is shaped by a mutual exchange of interpretation, the ground of socialization.

While having less influential work in the discipline, Charles Horton Cooley and William Isaac Thomas are considered to be influential representatives of the theory. Cooley's work on connecting society and the individuals influenced Mead's further workings. Cooley felt society and the individuals could only be understood in relationship to each other. Cooley's concept of the " looking-glass self," influenced Mead's theory of self and symbolic interactionism. W. I. Thomas is also known as a representative of symbolic interactionism. His main work was a theory of human motivation addressing interactions between individuals and the "social sources of behaviors." He attempted to "explain the proper methodological approach to social life; develop a theory of human motivation; spell out a working conception of adult socialization; and provide the correct perspective on deviance and disorganization." A majority of scholars agree with Thomas.

Two other theorists who have influenced symbolic interaction theory are Yrjö Engeström and David Middleton. Engeström and Middleton explained the usefulness of symbolic interactionism in the communication field in a variety of work settings, including "courts of law, health care, computer software design, scientific laboratory, telephone sales, control, repair, and maintenance of advanced manufacturing systems". Other scholars credited for their contribution to the theory are Thomas, Park, James, Horton Cooley, Znaniecki, Baldwin, Redfield, and Wirth. Unlike other social sciences, symbolic interactionism emphasizes greatly on the ideas of action instead of culture, class and power. According to behaviorism, Darwinism, pragmatism, as well as Max Weber, action theory contributed significantly to the formation of social interactionism as a theoretical perspective in communication studies.

Assumptions, premises, and research methodology

Most symbolic interactionists believe a physical reality does indeed exist by an individual's social definitions, and that social definitions do develop in part or in relation to something "real". People thus do not respond to this reality directly, but rather to the social understanding of reality; i.e., they respond to this reality indirectly through a kind of filter which consists of individuals' different perspectives. This means that humans exist not in the physical space composed of realities, but in the "world" composed only of "objects".

Three assumptions frame symbolic interactionism:

1. Individuals construct meaning via the communication process.

2. Self-concept is a motivation for behavior.

3. A unique relationship exists between the individual and society.

Having defined some of the underlying assumptions of symbolic interactionism, it is necessary to address the premises that each assumption supports. According to Blumer (19f,.69), there are three premises that can be derived from the assumptions above.

1) "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."

The first premise includes everything that a human being may note in their world, including physical objects, actions and concepts. Essentially, individuals behave towards objects and others based on the personal meanings that the individual has already given these items. Blumer was trying to put emphasis on the meaning behind individual behaviors, specifically speaking, psychological and sociological explanations for those actions and behaviors.

2) "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."

The second premise explains the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with other humans. Blumer, following Mead, claimed people interact with each other by interpreting or defining each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their "response" is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols and signification, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions. Meaning is either taken for granted and pushed aside as an unimportant element which need not to be investigated, or it is regarded as a mere neutral link or one of the causal chains between the causes or factors responsible for human behavior and this behavior as the product of such factors.

3) "The Meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she [sic] encounters."

Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation. Mead called this inner dialogue minding, which is the delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about what they will do next. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he or she encounters. We naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out the meaning of a difficult situation. But first, we need language. Before we can think, we must be able to interact symbolically. The emphasis on symbols, negotiated meaning, and social construction of society brought attention to the roles people play. Role-taking is a key mechanism that permits people to see another person's perspective to understand what an action might mean to another person. Role-taking is a part of our lives at an early age, for instance, playing house and pretending to be someone else. There is an improvisational quality to roles; however, actors often take on a script that they follow. Because of the uncertainty of roles in social contexts, the burden of role-making is on the person in the situation. In this sense, we are proactive participants in our environment.

The majority of interactionist research uses qualitative research methods, like participant observation, to study aspects of social interaction, and/or individuals' selves. Participant observation allows researchers to access symbols and meanings, as in Howard Becker's Art Worlds and Arlie Hochschild's The Managed Heart. They argue that close contact and immersion in the everyday activities of the participants is necessary for understanding the meaning of actions, defining situations and the process that actors construct the situation through their interaction. Because of this close contact, interactions cannot remain completely liberated of value commitments. In most cases, they make use of their values in choosing what to study; however, they seek to be objective in how they conduct the research. Therefore, the symbolic-interaction approach is a micro-level orientation focusing on human interaction in specific situations.

There are five central ideas to symbolic interactionism according to Joel M. Charon (2004):

1. "The human being must be understood as a social person. It is the constant search for social interaction that leads us to do what we do. Instead of focusing on the individual and his or her personality, or on how the society or social situation causes human behavior, symbolic interactionism focuses on the activities that take place between actors. Interaction is the basic unit of study. Individuals are created through interaction; society too is created through social interaction. What we do depends on interaction with others earlier in our lifetimes, and it depends on our interaction right now. Social interaction is central to what we do. If we want to understand cause, focus on social interaction.

2. The human being must be understood as a thinking being. Human action is not only interaction among individuals but also interaction within the individual. It is not our ideas or attitudes or values that are as important as the constant active ongoing process of thinking. We are not simply conditioned, we are not simply beings who are influenced by those around us, we are not simply products of society. We are, to our very core, thinking animals, always conversing with ourselves as we interact with others. If we want to understand cause, focus on human thinking.

3. Humans do not sense their environment directly; instead, humans define the situation they are in. An environment may actually exist, but it is our definition of it that is important. Definition does not simply randomly happen; instead, it results from ongoing social interaction and thinking.

4. The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present situation. Cause unfolds in the present social interaction, present thinking, and present definition. It is not society's encounters with us in our past that causes action, nor is it our own past experience that does. It is, instead, social interaction, thinking, definition of the situation that takes place in the present. Our past enters into our actions primarily because we think about it and apply it to the definition of the present situation.

5. Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment. Words such as conditioning, responding, controlled, imprisoned, and formed are not used to describe the human being in symbolic interaction. In contrast to other social-scientific perspectives humans are not thought of as being passive in relation to their surroundings, but actively involved in what they do."

To Blumer's conceptual perspective, he put them in three core propositions: that people act toward things, including each other, on the basis of the meanings they have for them; that these meanings are derived through social interaction with others; and that these meanings are managed and transformed through an interpretive process that people use to make sense of and handle the objects that constitute their social worlds. This perspective can also be described as three core principles- Meaning, Language and Thinking- in which social constructs are formed. The principle of meaning is the center of human behavior. Language provides meaning by providing means to symbols. These symbols differentiate social relations of humans from that of animals. By humans giving meaning to symbols, they can express these things with language. In turn, symbols form the basis of communication. Symbols become imperative components for the formation of any kind of communicative act. Thinking then changes the interpretation of individuals as it pertains to symbols.

Keeping Blumer's earlier work in mind David A. Snow, professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine, suggests four broader and even more basic orienting principles: human agency, interactive determination, symbolization, and emergence. Snow uses these four principles as the thematic bases for identifying and discussing contributions to the study of social movements.

1. Human agency: emphasizes the active, willful, goal-seeking character of human actors. The emphasis on agency focuses attention on those actions, events, and moments in social life in which agentic action is especially palpable.

2. Interactive determination: specifies that understanding of focal objects of analysis, whether they are self-concepts, identities, roles, practices, or even social movements. Basically this means, neither individual, society, self, or others exist only in relation to each other and therefore can be fully understood only in terms of their interaction.

3. Symbolization: highlights the processes through which events and conditions, artifacts, people, and other environmental features that take on particular meanings, becoming nearly only objects of orientation. Human behavior is partly contingent on what the object of orientation symbolizes or means.

4. Emergence: focuses on attention on the processual and non-habituated side of social life, focusing not only on organization and texture of social life, but also associated meaning and feelings. The principle of emergence points us not only to the possibility of new forms of social life and system meaning but also to transformations in existing forms of social organization.

Symbolic interaction can be used to explain one's identity in terms of roles being "ideas and principles on 'what to do' in a given situation," as noted by Hewitt. Symbolic Interactionist identity presents in 3 categories- situated, personal and social. Situated identity refers to the ability to view themselves as others do. This is often a snapshot view in that it is short, but can be very impactful. From this experience, one wishes to differentiate themselves from others and the personal identity comes to exist. This view is when one wishes to make themselves known for who they truly are, not the view of others. From the personal identity taking place, comes the social identity where connections and likeness are made with individuals sharing similar identities or identity traits.

This viewpoint of symbolic interactionism can be applied to the use of social networking sites and how one's identity is presented on those sites. With social networking sites, one can boast (or post) their identity through their newsfeed. The personal identity presents itself in the need for individuals to post milestones that one has achieved, in efforts to differentiate themselves. The social identity presents itself when individuals "tag" others in their posts, pictures, etc. Situated identities may be present in the need to defend something on social media or arguments that occur in comments, where one feels it necessary to "prove" themselves.

Coming from the viewpoint that we learn, or at least desire, how to expect other people's reactions/responses to things, Bruce Link and his colleagues studied how expectations of the reactions of others can affect the mental illness stigma. The participants of the study were individuals with psychosis who answered questions relating to discrimination, stigma, and rejection. The goal of the study was to determine whether others' expectations affect the participants' internalized stigmas, anticipated rejection, concerns with staying in, and other. Results found that high levels of internalized stigma were only present in the minority, however, anticipation of rejection, stigma consciousness, perceived devaluation discrimination and concerns with staying in were found to be more prevalent in participants. These perceptions were correlated with the outcomes of withdrawal, self-esteem and isolation from relatives. The study found that anticipation of rejection played the largest role in internalized stigmas.

Symbolic interactionists are often criticized for being overly impressionistic in their research methods and somewhat unsystematic in their theories. It is argued that the theory is not one theory, but rather, the framework for many different theories. Additionally, some theorists have a problem with symbolic interaction theory due to its lack of testability. These objections, combined with the fairly narrow focus of interactionist research on small-group interactions and other social psychological issues, have relegated the interactionist camp to a minority position among sociologists (albeit a fairly substantial minority). Much of this criticism arose during the 1970s in the U.S. when quantitative approaches to sociology were dominant, and perhaps the best known of these is by Alvin Gouldner.

Some critiques of symbolic interactionism are based on the assumption that it is a theory, and the critiques apply the criteria for a "good" theory to something that does not claim to be a theory. Some critics find the symbolic interactionist framework too broad and general when they are seeking specific theories. Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical framework rather than a theory and can be assessed on the basis of effective conceptualizations. The theoretical framework, as with any theoretical framework, is vague when it comes to analyzing empirical data or predicting outcomes in social life. As a framework rather than a theory, many scholars find it difficult to use. Interactionism being a framework rather than a theory makes it impossible to test interactionism in the manner that a specific theoretical claim about the relationship between specific variables in a given context allows. Unlike the symbolic interactionist framework, the many theories derived from symbolic interactionism, such as role theory and the versions of identity theory developed by Sheldon Stryker, as well as Peter Burke and colleagues, clearly define concepts and the relationships between them in a given context, thus allowing for the opportunity to develop and test hypotheses. Further, especially among Blumerian processual interactionists, a great number of very useful conceptualizations have been developed and applied in a very wide range of social contexts, types of populations, types of behaviors, and cultures and subcultures.

Symbolic interactionism is often related and connected with social structure. This concept suggests that symbolic interactionism is a construction of people's social reality. It also implies that from a realistic point of view, the interpretations that are being made will not make much difference. When the reality of a situation is defined, the situation becomes a meaningful reality. This includes methodological criticisms, and critical sociological issues. A number of symbolic interactionists have addressed these topics, the best known being Stryker's structural symbolic interactionism and the formulations of interactionism heavily influenced by this approach (sometimes referred to as the "Indiana School" of symbolic interactionism), including the works of key scholars in sociology and psychology using different methods and theories applying a structural version of interactionism that are represented in a 2003 collection edited by Burke et al. Another well-known structural variation of symbolic interactionism that applies quantitative methods is Manford H. Kuhn's formulation which is often referred to in sociological literature as the "Iowa School." Negotiated order theory also applies a structural approach.

Language is viewed as the source of all meaning. Blumer illuminates several key features about social interactionism. Most people interpret things based on assignment and purpose. The interaction occurs once the meaning of something has become identified. This concept of meaning is what starts to construct the framework of social reality. By aligning social reality, Blumer suggests that language is the meaning of interaction. Communication, especially in the form of symbolic interactionism is connected with language. Language initiates all forms of communication, verbal and non-verbal. Blumer defines this source of meaning as a connection that arises out of the social interaction that people have with each other.

Critical perspective

According to social theorist Patricia Burbank, the concepts of synergistic and diverging properties are what shape the viewpoints of humans as social beings. These two concepts are different in a sense because of their views of human freedom and their level of focus. According to Burbank, actions are based on the effects of situations that occur during the process of social interaction. Another important factor in meaningful situations is the environment in which the social interaction occurs. The environment influences interaction, which leads to a reference group and connects with perspective, and then concludes to a definition of the situation. This illustrates the proper steps to define a situation. An approval of the action occurs once the situation is defined. An interpretation is then made upon that action, which may ultimately influence the perspective, action, and definition.

Stryker emphasizes that the sociology world at large is the most viable and vibrant intellectual framework. By being made up of our thoughts and self-belief, the social interactionism theory is the purpose of all human interaction, and is what causes society to exist. This fuels criticisms of the symbolic interactionist framework for failing to account for social structure, as well as criticisms that interactionist theories cannot be assessed via quantitative methods, and cannot be falsifiable or tested empirically. Framework is important for the symbolic interaction theory because in order for the social structure to form, there are certain bonds of communication that need to be established to create the interaction. Much of the symbolic interactionist framework's basic tenets can be found in a very wide range of sociological and psychological work, without being explicitly cited as interactionist, making the influence of symbolic interactionism difficult to recognize given this general acceptance of its assumptions as "common knowledge."

Another problem with this model is two-fold, in that it 1) does not take into account human emotions very much, implying that symbolic interaction is not completely psychological; and 2) is interested in social structure to a limited extent, implying that symbolic interaction is not completely sociological. These incompetencies frame meaning as something that occurs naturally within an interaction under a certain condition, rather than taking into account the basic social context in which interaction is positioned. From this view, meaning has no source and does not perceive a social reality beyond what humans create with their own interpretations.

Another criticism of symbolic interactionism is more so on the scholars themselves. They are noted to not take interest in the history of this sociological approach. This has the ability to produce shallow understanding and can make the subject "hard to teach" based on the lack of organization in its teachings to relate with other theories or studies.

The Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (SSSI) is an international professional organization for scholars, who are interested in the study of symbolic interaction. SSSI holds a conference in conjunction with the meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA) and the Society for the Study of Social Problems. This conference typically occurs in August and sponsors the SSSI holds the Couch-Stone Symposium each spring. The Society provides travel scholarships for student members interested in attending the annual conference. At the annual conference, the SSSI sponsors yearly awards in different categories of symbolic interaction. Additionally, some of the awards are open to student members of the society. The Ellis-Bochner Autoethnography and Personal Narrative Research Award is given annually by the SSSI affiliate of the National Communication Association for the best article, essay, or book chapter in autoethnography and personal narrative research. The award is named after renowned autoethnographers Carolyn Ellis and Art Bochner. The society also sponsors a quarterly journal, Symbolic Interaction, and releases a newsletter, SSSI Notes.

SSSI also has a European branch, which organizes an annual conference that integrates European symbolic interactionists.

1. ^ Hall, Peter M. (2007). "Symbolic Interaction". Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. doi:10.1002/9781405165518.wbeoss310. ISBN 9781405124331.[dead link ]

2. ^ Caglar, Sebnem; Alver, Fusun (2015). "The impact of symbolic interactionism on research studies about communication science". International Journal of Arts and Sciences. 8: 479-84. ProQuest 1768593872.

3. ^ "Symbolic interactionist perspective on linking privacy and identity in social networking sites". Conference Papers- International Communication Association: 1-27. 2012.

4. ^

5. Reynolds, Larry T., and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney. 1958(2003). Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press. ISBN 978-0759100923. OCLC 51059349.

6. ^ Brewster, Kiyona (August 2013). "Beyond classic symbolic interactionism: Towards a intersectional reading of George H. Mead's 'Mind, Self, and Society'". American Sociological Association. Conference Papers: 1-20 - via SocINDEX with Full Text.

7. ^ Williams, Patrick; vom Lehn, Dirk. "Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction".

8. ^ Aksan, Nilgun; Kısac, Buket; Aydın, Mufit; Demirbuken, Sumeyra (2009-01-01). "Symbolic interaction theory". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. World Conference on Educational Sciences: New Trends and Issues in Educational Sciences. 1 (1): 902-904. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.160.

9. ^ Blumer, Herbert (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0138799243. OCLC 18071.

10. ^ "Major Theorists of Symbolic Interactionism: Charles Horton Cooley". University of Colorado.[dead link ]

11. ^ Meltzer, B.N.; Petras, J.W.; and Reynolds, L.T. (1975). Symbolic interactionism: genesis, varieties and criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 9780759100923.

12. ^ Reynolds, Larry T. (1993). Interactionism: exposition and critique. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall. ISBN 9780759100923.

13. ^ Reynolds, L.; Herman-Kinney, N. (2003). Handbook of symbolic interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 65-67. ISBN 9780759100923.

14. ^

15. Kuwabara T., and K. Yamaguchi. 2013. "An Introduction to the Sociological Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism." ^ The Joint Journal of the National Universities in Kyushu, Education and Humanities 1(1):1-11.

16. ^ "Symbolic Interactionism". www.encyclopedia.com. International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family.

17. ^ Charon, Joel M. (2004). Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. Boston: Pearson. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-13-605193-0.

18. ^ Nelson, Lindsey D. (1998). "Herbert Blumer's symbolic interactionism". University of Colorado Boulder.[dead link ]

19. ^ "Symbolic interactionist perspective on linking privacy and identity in social networking sites". International Communication Association. Conference Papers: 1-27. 2012.

20. ^ Hewitt, J. P. (2007). Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

21. Link, Bruce, Jennifer Wells, Jo Phelan, Lawrence Yang. 2015. "Understanding the importance of 'symbolic interaction stigma': How expectations about the reactions of others adds to the burden of mental illness stigma." ^ Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 38(2):117-24. doi:10.1037/prj0000142.

22. ^

23. ^ Stryker, Sheldon; Vryan, Kevin D. (January 2006). "The Symbolic Interactionist Frame". Handbook of Social Psychology. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. pp. 3-28. doi:10.1007/0-387-36921-X_1. ISBN 978-0-387-32515-6. ISSN 1389-6903.

24. ^

25. ^ Stryker, Sheldon (January 1994). "Identity theory: Its development, research base, and prospects". Studies in Symbolic Interaction. 16: 9-20 - via ResearchGate.

26. ^

27. ^ Burke, Peter J.; Reitzes, Donald C. (1981). "The link between identity and role performance". Social Psychology Quarterly. 44 (2): 83-92. doi:10.2307/3033704. JSTOR 3033704. S2CID 16041737.

28. Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. ^ Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co. ISBN 9780805391541. OCLC 5707030.

29. Burke, Peter, Timothy J. Owens, Richard T. Serpe, and Peggy A. Thoits. 2003. ^ Advances in Identity Theory and Research. Boston: Springer. ISBN 9781441991881. OCLC 853269009.

30. ^

31. Aksan, Nilgun, Buket Kisac, Mufit Aydin, and Sumeyra Demirbuken. 2009. "Symbolic Interaction Theory." ^ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 1(1): 902-4. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.160.

32. ^

33. ^ "About SSSI". Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction. 2020.

34. "Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction". Archived from the original on June 7, 2007.

35. ^ "Royal Roads University Research Portal". Archived from the original on 25 June 2007.

36. ^ "The European Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (EU SSSI)". www.eusssi2017.uni.lodz.pl.

Blumer, Herbert. 1973. "A note on symbolic interactionism." American Sociological Review 38(6).

Burbank, Patricia. 3 Jan 2010. "Symbolic Interactionism and Critical Perspective: Divergent or Synergistic?." Nursing Philosophy.

Prus, Robert. 1996. Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research: Intersubjectivity and the Study of Human Lived Experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Stryker, Sheldon. 1999. "The vitalization of symbolic interactionism." Social Psychology Quarterly 50:83. Web.

Atkinson, Paul, and William Housley. 2003. Interactionism. London: SAGE. (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/interactionism/book208816)

Altheide. David L. 2013 "Terrorism and the national security university: Public order redux." 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Emerald.

Blumer, Herbert. 1962. "Society as Symbolic Interaction." In Human Behavior and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach, edited by Arnold M. Rose. Houghton-Mifflin. (Reprinted in Blumer, 1969).

Blumer, Herbert. 1971. "Social Problems as Collective Behavior." Journal of Economics and Sociology.

Brissett, Edgley. .1974. Life as Theater. Chicago.

Carter, Michael J., and Celine Fuller. 2015. "Symbolic Interactionism." Sociopedia. DOI: 10.1177/205684601561.

Handberg, Charlotte, Sally Thorne, Julie Midtgaard, Claus Vinther Nielsen, and Kirsten Lomborg. 2015. "Revisiting symbolic interactionism as a theoretical framework beyond the grounded theory tradition." Qualitative Health Research 25(8):1023-32. DOI:10.1177/1049732314554231.

Johnson, John J. 2013. "The contributions of the California Sociologies to the diversity and development of symbolic interaction" 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction. Emerald.

Jeon, Yun‐Hee. 2004. "The Application of Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism." Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 18(3):249-56

Lehn, Dirk vom, and Will Gibson. 2011. "Interaction and Symbolic Interactionism." In Symbolic Interaction. Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction.

Liamputtong, Pranee, and Douglas Ezzy. 2005. Qualitative Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Milliken, P. J., and Rita Schreiber. 2012. "Examining the nexus between grounded theory and symbolic interactionism." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 11(5):684-96.

Manning, Philip, and David R. Maines. 2003. "Editorial Introduction: Theory and Method in Symbolic Interactionism." Symbolic Interaction 26(4):497-500. ProQuest Central; Research Library; Sociological Abstracts.

Plummer, Ken. n.d. A World in the Making: Symbolic Interactionism in the Twentieth Century. Print.

Plummer, Kenneth. 1975. Sexual Stigma: An Interactionist Account. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Robinson, Laura. 2007. The cyberself: The self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age doi:10.1177/1461444807072216.

Rock, Paul Elliott. 1979. The Making of Symbolic Interactionism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. (https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781349040841)

Schneider Christopher J., and Daniel Trottier. 2013. "Social media and the 2011 Vancouver riot" 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction. Emerald.

Vannini, Phillip. 2011. "Nonrepresentational theory and symbolic interactionism: Shared perspectives and missed articulations." Symbolic Interaction 32(3): 282-6. DOI:10.1525/si.2009.32.3.282.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that develops from practical considerations and alludes to particular effects of communication and interaction in people to make images and normal implications, for deduction and correspondence with others. According to Macionis, symbolic interactionism is "a framework for building theory that sees society as the product of everyday interactions of individuals".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Phrenology (from Ancient Greek φρήν (phrēn), meaning 'mind', and λόγος, meaning 'knowledge') is a pseudoscience which involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits. It is based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules. Although both of those ideas have a basis in reality, phrenology extrapolated beyond empirical knowledge in a way that departed from science. The central phrenological notion that measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits is discredited by empirical research. Developed by German physician Franz Joseph Gall in 1796, the discipline was influential in the 19th century, especially from about 1810 until 1840. The principal British centre for phrenology was Edinburgh, where the Edinburgh Phrenological Society was established in 1820.

Phrenology is today recognized as pseudoscience. The methodological rigor of phrenology was doubtful even for the standards of its time, since many authors already regarded phrenology as pseudoscience in the 19th century. Phrenological thinking was influential in the psychiatry and psychology of the 19th century. Gall's assumption that character, thoughts, and emotions are located in specific areas of the brain is considered an important historical advance toward neuropsychology.

Phrenologists believe that the human mind has a set of various mental faculties, each one represented in a different area of the brain. For example, the faculty of "philoprogenitiveness", from the Greek for "love of offspring", was located centrally at the back of the head (see illustration of the chart from Webster's Academic Dictionary).

These areas were said to be proportional to a person's propensities. The importance of an organ was derived from relative size compared to other organs. It was believed that the cranial skull-like a glove on the hand-accommodates to the different sizes of these areas of the brain, so that a person's capacity for a given personality trait could be determined simply by measuring the area of the skull that overlies the corresponding area of the brain.

Phrenology, which focuses on personality and character, is distinct from craniometry, which is the study of skull size, weight and shape, and physiognomy, the study of facial features.

Phrenology is a process that involves observing and/or feeling the skull to determine an individual's psychological attributes. Franz Joseph Gall believed that the brain was made up of 27 individual organs that determined personality, the first 19 of these 'organs' he believed to exist in other animal species. Phrenologists would run their fingertips and palms over the skulls of their patients to feel for enlargements or indentations. The phrenologist would often take measurements with a tape measure of the overall head size and more rarely employ a craniometer, a special version of a caliper. In general, instruments to measure sizes of cranium continued to be used after the mainstream phrenology had ended. The phrenologists put emphasis on using drawings of individuals with particular traits, to determine the character of the person and thus many phrenology books show pictures of subjects. From absolute and relative sizes of the skull the phrenologist would assess the character and temperament of the patient.

Gall's list of the "brain organs" was specific. An enlarged organ meant that the patient used that particular " organ" extensively. The number - and more detailed meanings - of organs were added later by other phrenologists. The 27 areas varied in function, from sense of color, to religiosity, to being combative or destructive. Each of the 27 "brain organs" was located under a specific area of the skull. As a phrenologist felt the skull, he would use his knowledge of the shapes of heads and organ positions to determine the overall natural strengths and weaknesses of an individual. Phrenologists believed the head revealed natural tendencies but not absolute limitations or strengths of character. The first phrenological chart gave the names of the organs described by Gall; it was a single sheet, and sold for a cent. Later charts were more expansive.

Among the first to identify the brain as the major controlling center for the body were Hippocrates and his followers, inaugurating a major change in thinking from Egyptian, biblical and early Greek views, which based bodily primacy of control on the heart. This belief was supported by the Greek physician Galen, who concluded that mental activity occurred in the brain rather than the heart, contending that the brain, a cold, moist organ formed of sperm, was the seat of the animal soul-one of three "souls" found in the body, each associated with a principal organ.

The Swiss pastor Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741-1801) introduced the idea that physiognomy related to the specific character traits of individuals, rather than general types, in his Physiognomische Fragmente, published between 1775 and 1778. His work was translated into English and published in 1832 as The Pocket Lavater, or, The Science of Physiognomy. He believed that thoughts of the mind and passions of the soul were connected with an individual's external frame.

Of the forehead, When the forehead is perfectly perpendicular, from the hair to the eyebrows, it denotes an utter deficiency of understanding. (p. 24)

In 1796 the German physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828) began lecturing on organology: the isolation of mental faculties and later cranioscopy which involved reading the skull's shape as it pertained to the individual. It was Gall's collaborator Johann Gaspar Spurzheim who would popularize the term "phrenology".

In 1809 Gall began writing his principal work, The Anatomy and Physiology of the Nervous System in General, and of the Brain in Particular, with Observations upon the possibility of ascertaining the several Intellectual and Moral Dispositions of Man and Animal, by the configuration of their Heads. It was not published until 1819. In the introduction to this main work, Gall makes the following statement in regard to his doctrinal principles, which comprise the intellectual basis of phrenology:

The Brain is the organ of the mind

The brain is not a homogenous unity, but an aggregate of mental organs with specific functions

The cerebral organs are topographically localized

Other things being equal, the relative size of any particular mental organ is indicative of the power or strength of that organ

Since the skull ossifies over the brain during infant development, external craniological means could be used to diagnose the internal states of the mental characters

Through careful observation and extensive experimentation, Gall believed he had established a relationship between aspects of character, called faculties, with precise organs in the brain.

Johann Spurzheim was Gall's most important collaborator. He worked as Gall's anatomist until 1813 when for unknown reasons they had a permanent falling out. Publishing under his own name Spurzheim successfully disseminated phrenology throughout the United Kingdom during his lecture tours through 1814 and 1815 and the United States in 1832 where he would eventually die.

Gall was more concerned with creating a physical science, so it was through Spurzheim that phrenology was first spread throughout Europe and America. Phrenology, while not universally accepted, was hardly a fringe phenomenon of the era. George Combe would become the chief promoter of phrenology throughout the English-speaking world after he viewed a brain dissection by Spurzheim, convincing him of phrenology's merits.

The popularization of phrenology in the middle and working classes was due in part to the idea that scientific knowledge was important and an indication of sophistication and modernity. Cheap and plentiful pamphlets, as well as the growing popularity of scientific lectures as entertainment, also helped spread phrenology to the masses. Combe created a system of philosophy of the human mind that became popular with the masses because of its simplified principles and wide range of social applications that were in harmony with the liberal Victorian world view. George Combe's book On the Constitution of Man and its Relationship to External Objects sold over 200,000 copies through nine editions. Combe also devoted a large portion of his book to reconciling religion and phrenology, which had long been a sticking point. Another reason for its popularity was that phrenology balanced between free will and determinism. A person's inherent faculties were clear, and no faculty was viewed as evil, though the abuse of a faculty was. Phrenology allowed for self-improvement and upward mobility, while providing fodder for attacks on aristocratic privilege. Phrenology also had wide appeal because of its being a reformist philosophy not a radical one. Phrenology was not limited to the common people, and both Queen Victoria and Prince Albert invited George Combe to read the heads of their children.

The American brothers Lorenzo Niles Fowler (1811-1896) and Orson Squire Fowler (1809-1887) were leading phrenologists of their time. Orson, together with associates Samuel Robert Wells and Nelson Sizer, ran the phrenological business and publishing house Fowlers & Wells in New York City. Meanwhile, Lorenzo spent much of his life in England where he initiated the famous phrenological publishing house, L.N Fowler & Co., and gained considerable fame with his phrenology head (a china head showing the phrenological faculties), which has become a symbol of the discipline. Orson Fowler was known for his octagonal house.

Phrenology came about at a time when scientific procedures and standards for acceptable evidence were still being codified. In the context of Victorian society, phrenology was a respectable scientific theory. The Phrenological Society of Edinburgh founded by George and Andrew Combe was an example of the credibility of phrenology at the time, and included a number of extremely influential social reformers and intellectuals, including the publisher Robert Chambers, the astronomer John Pringle Nichol, the evolutionary environmentalist Hewett Cottrell Watson, and asylum reformer William A.F. Browne. In 1826, out of the 120 members of the Edinburgh society an estimated one third were from a medical background. By the 1840s there were more than 28 phrenological societies in London with over 1000 members. Another important scholar was Luigi Ferrarese, the leading Italian phrenologist. He advocated that governments should embrace phrenology as a scientific means of conquering many social ills, and his Memorie Riguardanti La Dottrina Frenologica (1836), is considered "one of the fundamental 19th century works in the field".

Traditionally the mind had been studied through introspection. Phrenology provided an attractive, biological alternative that attempted to unite all mental phenomena using consistent biological terminology. Gall's approach prepared the way for studying the mind that would lead to the downfall of his own theories. Phrenology contributed to development of physical anthropology, forensic medicine, knowledge of the nervous system and brain anatomy as well as contributing to applied psychology.

John Elliotson was a brilliant but erratic heart specialist who became a phrenologist in the 1840s. He was also a mesmerist and combined the two into something he called phrenomesmerism or phrenomagnatism. Changing behaviour through mesmerism eventually won out in Elliotson's hospital, putting phrenology in a subordinate role. Others amalgamated phrenology and mesmerism as well, such as the practical phrenologists Collyer and Joseph R. Buchanan. The benefits of combining mesmerism and phrenology was that the trance the patient was placed in was supposed to allow for the manipulation of his/her penchants and qualities. For example, if the organ of self-esteem was touched, the subject would take on a haughty expression.

Phrenology was mostly discredited as a scientific theory by the 1840s. This was due only in part to a growing amount of evidence against phrenology. Phrenologists had never been able to agree on the most basic mental organ numbers, going from 27 to over 40, and had difficulty locating the mental organs. Phrenologists relied on cranioscopic readings of the skull to find organ locations. Jean Pierre Flourens' experiments on the brains of pigeons indicated that the loss of parts of the brain either caused no loss of function, or the loss of a completely different function than what had been attributed to it by phrenology. Flourens' experiment, while not perfect, seemed to indicate that Gall's supposed organs were imaginary. Scientists had also become disillusioned with phrenology since its exploitation with the middle and working classes by entrepreneurs. The popularization had resulted in the simplification of phrenology and mixing in it of principles of physiognomy, which had from the start been rejected by Gall as an indicator of personality. Phrenology from its inception was tainted by accusations of promoting materialism and atheism, and being destructive of morality. These were all factors which led to the downfall of phrenology. Recent studies, using modern day technology like Magnetic Resonance Imaging have further disproven phrenology claims.

During the early 20th century, a revival of interest in phrenology occurred, partly because of studies of evolution, criminology and anthropology (as pursued by Cesare Lombroso). The most famous British phrenologist of the 20th century was the London psychiatrist Bernard Hollander (1864-1934). His main works, The Mental Function of the Brain (1901) and Scientific Phrenology (1902), are an appraisal of Gall's teachings. Hollander introduced a quantitative approach to the phrenological diagnosis, defining a method for measuring the skull, and comparing the measurements with statistical averages.

In Belgium, Paul Bouts (1900-1999) began studying phrenology from a pedagogical background, using the phrenological analysis to define an individual pedagogy. Combining phrenology with typology and graphology, he coined a global approach known as psychognomy.

Bouts, a Roman Catholic priest, became the main promoter of renewed 20th-century interest in phrenology and psychognomy in Belgium. He was also active in Brazil and Canada, where he founded institutes for characterology. His works Psychognomie and Les Grandioses Destinées individuelle et humaine dans la lumière de la Caractérologie et de l'Evolution cérébro-cranienne are considered standard works in the field. In the latter work, which examines the subject of paleoanthropology, Bouts developed a teleological and orthogenetical view on a perfecting evolution, from the paleo-encephalical skull shapes of prehistoric man, which he considered still prevalent in criminals and savages, towards a higher form of mankind, thus perpetuating phrenology's problematic racializing of the human frame. Bouts died on March 7, 1999. His work has been continued by the Dutch foundation PPP ( Per Pulchritudinem in Pulchritudine), operated by Anette Müller, one of Bouts' students.

During the 1930s Belgian colonial authorities in Rwanda used phrenology to explain the so-called superiority of Tutsis over Hutus.

Europeans looking for a scientific basis for their racism found phrenology attractive as justification for European superiority over other "lesser" races. By comparing skulls of different ethnic groups it supposedly allowed for ranking of races from least to most evolved. Broussais, a disciple of Gall, proclaimed that the Caucasians were the "most beautiful" while peoples like the Australian Aboriginal and Maori would never become civilized since they had no cerebral organ for producing great artists. Few phrenologists argued against the emancipation of the slaves. Instead they argued that through education and interbreeding the lesser peoples could improve. Another argument was that the natural inequality of people could be used to situate them in the most appropriate place in society. Gender stereotyping was also common with phrenology. Women whose heads were generally larger in the back with lower foreheads were thought to have underdeveloped organs necessary for success in the arts and sciences while having larger mental organs relating to the care of children and religion. While phrenologists did not contend the existence of talented women, this minority did not provide justification for citizenship or participation in politics.

One of the considered practical applications of phrenology was education. Due to the nature of phrenology people were naturally considered unequal, as very few people would have a naturally perfect balance between organs. Thus education would play an important role in creating a balance through rigorous exercise of beneficial organs while repressing baser ones. One of the best examples of this is Félix Voisin who for approximately ten years ran a reform school in Issy for the express purpose of correction of the mind of children who had suffered some hardship. Voisin focused on four categories of children for his reform school:

Slow learners

Spoiled, neglected, or harshly treated children

Willful, disorderly children

Children at high risk of inheriting mental disorders

Phrenology was one of the first to bring about the idea of rehabilitation of criminals instead of vindictive punishments that would not stop criminals, only with the reorganizing a disorganized brain would bring about change. Voisin believed along with others the accuracy of phrenology in diagnosing criminal tendencies. Diagnosis could point to the type of offender, the insane, an idiot or brute, and by knowing this an appropriate course of action could be taken. A strict system of reward and punishment, hard work and religious instruction, was thought to be able to correct those who had been abandoned and neglected with little education and moral ground works. Those who were considered mentally challenged could be put to work and housed collectively while only criminals of intellect and vicious intent needed to be confined and isolated. Phrenology also advocated variable prison sentences, the idea being that those who were only defective in education and lacking in morals would soon be released while those who were mentally deficient could be watched and the truly abhorrent criminals would never be released. For other patients phrenology could help redirect impulses, one homicidal individual became a butcher to control his impulses, while another became a military chaplain so he could witness killings. Phrenology also provided reformist arguments for the lunatic asylums of the Victorian era. John Conolly, a physician interested in psychological aspects of disease, used phrenology on his patients in an attempt to use it as a diagnostic tool. While the success of this approach is debatable, Conolly, through phrenology, introduced a more humane way of dealing with the mentally ill.

In psychiatry, phrenology was proposed as a viable model in order to reform the disciplinary field. The South Italian psychiatrist Biagio Miraglia proposed a new classification of mental illness based on brain functions as they were described by Gall. In Biagio Gioacchino Miraglia's view, madness is consequent to dysfunctions of the cerebral organs: "The organs of the brain that may become ill in isolation or in complex get their activities infected through energy, or depression, or inertia or deficiency. So the madness can take the appearance of these three characteristic forms; i.e. for enhanced activity, or for depressed activity, or for inertia or deficiency of brain activities".

In the Victorian era, phrenology as a psychology was taken seriously and permeated the literature and novels of the day. Many prominent public figures. such as the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher (a college classmate and initial partner of Orson Fowler) promoted phrenology actively as a source of psychological insight and self-knowledge. Especially in Britain and the US, people visited phrenologists to have their heads analysed. After such an examination, clients received a written delineation of their character or a standardized chart with their score, combined with advice on how to improve themselves. People also consulted phrenologists for advice in matters such as hiring personnel or finding suitable marriage partners. As such, phrenology as a brain science waned but developed into the popular psychology of the 19th century.

Phrenology was introduced at a time when the old theological and philosophical understanding of the mind was being questioned and no longer seemed adequate in a society that was experiencing rapid social and demographic changes. Phrenology became one of the most popular movements of the Victorian Era. In part phrenology's success was due to George Combe tailoring phrenology for the middle class. Combe's book On the Constitution of Man and its Relationship to External Objects was one of the most popular of the time, selling over two hundred thousand copies in a ten-year period. Phrenology's success was also due in part because it was introduced at a time when scientific lectures were becoming a form of middle-class entertainment, exposing a large demographic of people to phrenological ideas who would not have heard them otherwise. As a result of the changing of the times, along with new avenues for exposure and its multifaceted appeal, phrenology flourished in popular culture although it was discredited as scientific theory by 1840.

While still not a fringe movement, there was not popular widespread support of phrenology in France. This was not only due to strong opposition of phrenology by French scholars but also once again accusations of promoting atheism, materialism and radical religious views. Politics in France also played a role in preventing rapid spread of phrenology. In Britain phrenology had provided another tool to be used for situating demographic changes, the difference was there was less fear of revolutionary upheaval in Britain compared with France. Given that most French supporters of phrenology were liberal, left-wing or socialist, it was an objective of the social elite of France who held a restrained vision of social change that phrenology remain on the fringes. Another objection was that phrenology seemed to provide a built in excuse for criminal behaviour, since in its original form it was essentially deterministic in nature.

Phrenology arrived in Ireland in 1815, through Spurzheim. While Ireland largely mirrored British trends, with scientific lectures and demonstrations becoming a popular pastime of the age, by 1815 phrenology had already been ridiculed in some circles priming the audiences to its skeptical claims. Because of this the general public valued it more for its comic relief than anything else, however it did find an audience in the rational dissenters who found it an attractive alternative to explain human motivations without the attached superstitions of religion. The supporters of phrenology in Ireland were relegated to scientific subcultures because the Irish scholars neglected marginal movements like phrenology, denying it scientific support in Ireland. In 1830 George Combe came to Ireland, his self-promotion barely winning out against his lack of medical expertise, still only drew lukewarm crowds. This was due to not only the Vatican's decree that phrenology was subversive of religion and morality but also that based on phrenology the "Irish Catholics were sui generis a flawed and degenerate breed". Because of the lack of scientific support, along with religious and prejudicial reasons phrenology never found a wide audience in Ireland.

Through the teachings of Gall and Spurzheim, phrenological teachings spread, and by 1834 when Combe came to lecture in the United States, phrenology had become a widespread popular movement. Sensing commercial possibilities men like the Fowlers became phrenologists and sought additional ways to bring phrenology to the masses. Though a popular movement, the intellectual elite of the United States found phrenology attractive because it provided a biological explanation of mental processes based on observation, yet it was not accepted uncritically. Some intellectuals accepted organology while questioning cranioscopy. Gradually the popular success of phrenology undermined its scientific merits in the United States and elsewhere, along with its materialistic underpinnings, fostering radical religious views. There was increasing evidence to refute phrenological claims, and by the 1840s it had largely lost its credibility. In the United States, especially in the South, phrenology faced an additional obstacle in the antislavery movement. While phrenologists usually claimed the superiority of the European race, they were often sympathetic to liberal causes including the antislavery movement; this sowed skepticism about phrenology among those who were pro-slavery. The rise and surge in popularity in mesmerism, phrenomesmerism, also had a hand in the loss of interest in phrenology among intellectuals and the general public.

From Combe:

Propensities do not form ideas; they solely produce propensities common to animals and man.

Adhesiveness

Alimentiveness

Amativeness

Acquisitiveness

Causality

Cautiousness

Combativeness

Concentrativeness

Constructiveness

Destructiveness

Ideality

Love of life

Philoprogenitiveness

Secretiveness

Lower sentiments

These are common to man and animal.

Cautiousness

Love of approbation

Self-esteem

Truthfulness

Superior sentiments

These produce emotion or feeling lacking in animals.

These are to know the external world and physical qualities

These produce ideas of relation or reflect. They minister to the direction and gratification of all the other powers:

Several literary critics have noted the influence of phrenology (and physiognomy) in Edgar Allan Poe's fiction.

The character of Calvin Candie (portrayed by Leonardo di Caprio) claims to be a practitioner of phrenology in the movie Django Unchained.

In The Simpsons season 7 episode 8 episode titled "Mother Simpson", Mr. Burns uses phrenology to accuse Mona Simpson of being a career criminal. Mr. Smithers says "phrenology was dismissed as quackery 160 years ago."

Character Carl Taylor (Charlie Sheen), in the movie Men at Work, claims to be a phrenologist in order to draw the attention of a girl he is interested in.[citation needed ]

The character of U.S. Army Major Doctor Augustus Bendix from AMC's western Hell on Wheels is an avid practitioner of phrenology.

Phrenology (2002) by The Roots was named so after group member Black Thought saw an article in a scientific journal and the group "appropriated the term, not only for its political irony ..."

In Terry Prachett's , he introduces the fictional practice of "retro-phrenology", where bumps are added to the head in order to alter the personality.

The Duke (of Bridgewater) claims to be "The celebrated Dr. Armand de Montalban, of Paris" that would "lecture on the Science of Phrenology" in Chapter 20 of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Donald Duck consults a phrenologist for advice on what occupation he is best suited for in William Van Horn's "Bumps" which had its first American publication in Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #650 (Nov. 2004).

Gravity Falls features a character whose shaved head is tattooed like a phrenology bust.

Among his many unscientific practices, Doctor Krieger on Archer uses phrenology as the basis for his claim that another scientist is a murderer.

Combe, George (1851). A System of Phrenology. Boston: Benjamin B. Mussey and Company.

Leaney, Enda (2006). "Phrenology in Nineteenth-Century Ireland". New Hibernia Review / Iris Éireannach Nua. 10 (3): 24-42. doi:10.1353/nhr.2006.0058. JSTOR 20558078.

Lyons, Sherrie L. (2009). Species, Serpents, Spirits, and Skulls: Science at the Margins in the Victorian Age. Victorian Studies. 53. Albany: New York Press. pp. 141-143. doi:10.2979/victorianstudies.53.1.141. ISBN 978-1438427973. JSTOR 10.2979/victorianstudies.53.1.141.

McCandless, Peter (1992). "Mesmerism and Phrenology in Antebellum Charleston: "Enough of the Marvellous"". The Journal of Southern History. 58 (2): 199-230. doi:10.2307/2210860. JSTOR 2210860.

McGrew, Roderick E. (1985). Encyclopedia of Medical History. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. ISBN 9780070450875.

Staum, Martin S. (2003). Labeling People: French Scholars on Society, Race and Empire, 1815-1848. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 978-0773525801.

Phrenology North American Review 1833 p. 59

Manual of Phrenology Open Content Alliance eBook Collection, Manual of phrenology: being an analytical summary of the system of Doctor Gall, on the faculties of man and the functions of the brain : translated from the 4th French ed

New illustrated self-instructor in phrenology and physiology Open Content Alliance eBook Collection, Fowler, O. S. (Orson Squire) (1809-1887); Fowler, L. N. (Lorenzo Niles) (1811-1896)

The History of Phrenology on the Web by John van Wyhe, PhD.

Phrenology: an Overview includes The History of Phrenology by John van Wyhe, PhD.

Examples of phrenological tools can be seen in The Museum of Questionable Medical Devices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S..

Joseph Vimont: Traité de phrénologie humaine et comparée. (Paris, 1832-1835). Selected pages scanned from the original work. Historical Anatomies on the Web. US National Library of Medicine.

Jean-Claude Vimont: Phrénologie à Rouen, les moulages du musée Flaubert d'histoire de la médecine

Phrenology: History of a Classic Pseudoscience - by Steven Novella MD

The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Phrenology (from Ancient Greek φρήν (phrēn), meaning 'mind', and λόγος, meaning 'knowledge') is a pseudoscience which involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits. It is based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules.

# data[].attributes.body
is something i had heard about probably in my undergrad, i think around the same time as i heard about symbolic interactionism, which talks about the staying power of labels , ones designated i believe . i was reintroduced to phrenology by jstor, which very much knocked the fine hold i had on my ontological upbringing.  the reason for my loosing trust in what is is, notwithstanding prior experiences, and knowledge of other indigenous ontologies, is that within jstor appearing like an add was a game of do these keywords describe the artile i was yet to read. i played and one of the last words was phrenology, which i recognized but couldn't quite remember  so clicked for more info. the info the gave rocked me because it was a little window into wikipedia!  something my degrees have said read but don't quote,! and here is an academic database referencing wiki as reference.

it must have been those friendly beings who put that before my eyes because it is a theory about the shapes of heads affecting mood, which i understand as being muscular . mental people like me just need a fucken good massage. i know i do. and i do. and I've had some success and im not finished untangling my neck, but i'm very very close and have noticed a reduction in my anxiety , something 5 years with a psychologist did nothing at all to alleviate because i was always already in a fight or flight state.