Search results

The passing of David Maines has left a void in the field of Symbolic Interactionism. His contributions to developing narrative sociology remain part of the foundation of the perspective, but his empirical contributions and theoretical insights were at least as important in advancing Interactionist thought on scientific principles. His teaching and mentoring of others stimulated interest in Interactionism and his career-long dedication to helping others as an Interactionist apostle were factors in encouraging students and peers to launch their own successful careers in academia and elsewhere. My intent here is to trace his career and provide examples of how his legacy both influenced the profession and provided the basis for defining Interactionism as the powerful approach it has become today.

This chapter honors the opportunity I have had to learn with David Maines over the past 35 years. I connect my research on communication and disability, specifically among individuals who are blind and visually impaired, to Maines' discussion of narratives incorporating Rawlins' exploration of similarity and difference. I discuss narratives of disability as difference using three examples: A short story written by H. G. Wells; the American with Disabilities Act; and interviews conducted with elite blind goalball athletes. I conclude with 10 lessons learned about disability and difference including that the goal of my research is to help us all perceive disability as a difference that matters, but not as a difference that disables.

David Maines established himself as one of the premier symbolic interactionists who did not attach himself to any particular interactionist school of thought. In creating an extensive and intensive legacy via his publications, Maines looked into issues that other interactionists, bound to particular schools of thought, either took for granted or neglected to examine. In so doing, Maines resembled Simmel's Stranger not only as one who fits into a community but also as one who remains distant from the community. One of the key areas of investigation that defined Maines' work and that separated him from other interactionists pertained to his interest in social structure and specifically, how people become structurally situated as social-structural interactors. This chapter examines, in detail, Maines' interest in getting structurally situated and uses a television series, Dopesick, to discuss the relationships between institutional actors as a way to substantiate Maines' theoretical interest in social structure and the activities involved in the process of getting structurally situated.

David R. Maines was a founder of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, a fierce defender and practitioner of interactionist sociology, and cross-disciplinary pioneer, bridging sociology and communication research in the study of narrative. He invariably gathered collaborative circles of colleagues and students around him wherever his intellectual travels took him. Here, I recall the collaborative circle that formed with him at its center at Penn State in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was a time of both personal and professional turmoil for David, and also prolific scholarly achievement. I then introduce other contributions to this volume that feature others' remembrances and appreciations of David's life and work.

This chapter discusses the impacts of David Maines's scholarship in communication research. The utilities of Maines's scholarship in communication research were first identified in a 1997 session in the annual convention of National Communication Association (NCA) by many leading scholars. This chapter documents the applications of Maines's scholarship in communication research in recent years when communication researchers utilized concepts and arguments constructed by Maines to investigate narratives in relations to Donald Trump's presidential election as well as the COVID-19 pendemic.

This remembrance discusses the intellectual climate and circumstances under which David Maines came to the Metro Detroit area in the early 1990s. It discusses his impact on graduate students at Wayne State University and how he met the historian Linda Benson whom he would marry. It chronicles his arrival to the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan in 1997, which provided him a well-deserved academic home after his long 25-year journey in academia. Maines was tenured there in 1998, promoted to full professor in 1999 and chaired the department from 2000–2006.

This letter to David R. Maines celebrates our friendship over the last 35 years. I read his voice in emails, handwritten letters, and recollected phone conversations to display the meaningful exchanges of our scholarly friendship. I thank Dave for teaching me how to retire from the academy and grow older with purpose and grace. Highlighting his expert mentoring of my book Friendship Matters (1992), I recall how his suggested revisions for the chapters on aging anticipated a poignant array of our own experiences as friends in our later years. Finally, I appreciate his cultivated interests in drawing, writing poetry, and playing guitar, and thank him for encouraging my music. I am grateful for his dedication to esthetic endeavors, which warmly shaped our friendship during our later years.

The purpose of this conceptual chapter is to analyze the current state of the astructural bias in symbolic interactionism as it relates to three inter-related processes over time: (1) the formalization of critiques of symbolic interactionism as ahistorical, astructural, and acritical perspectives; (2) an ahistorical understanding of early expressions of the disjuncture between symbolic interactionism and more widely accepted forms of sociological theorizing; and (3) persistent and widespread inattentiveness to past and present evidence-based arguments that address the argument regarding symbolic interactionism as an astructural, ahistorical, and acritical sociological perspective. The argument frames the historical development of the astructural bias concept in an historically and socially conditioned way, from its emergence through its rejection and ultimately including conclusions about contemporary state of the astructural bias as evidenced in the symbolic interactionist literatures of the last couple of decades. The analysis and argument concludes that the contemporary result of these intertwined historical and social conditioning processes is that the astructural bias myth has been made real in practice, and that the reification of the myth of an astructural bias has had the ruinous effect of virtually eradicating a vital tradition in the interactionist perspective which extends back to the earliest formulations of the perspective. As a result, a handful of suggestions that serve to aid in reclaiming the unorthodox structuralism of symbolic interactionism and the related interactionist study of social organization are provided in the conclusion.