ABSTRACT
Although the symbolic interactionist rejects the equilibrium implications of functional theory (in effect he makes the diametrically opposite assumption of inherent process or constant change), one of the points of convergence between symbolic interactionism and functionalism is illustrated in Professor Dalton’s article. The interactionist seeks to discover the symbolic meaning or interpretation which precedes the overt phase of the act, while the functionalist focuses upon the unintended and/or unanticipated consequences of the act. Since it is posited throughout this volume that actors do respond symbolically — that is, in terms of definitions of the situation — rather than to uniformly “objective” stimuli, their responses can frequently be expected to result in unintended consequences.
In the process of interaction, things are not always what they seem. True goals may be camouflaged behind display goals, unconscious goals may lurk behind conscious ones; actions may be intended — knowingly or unknowingly — to deceive. Evasions have their place in behavior, and may even manifest themselves 268 in behavior seemingly in pursuit of the goals which are being evaded.
Conflict groups, such as trade unions and management, may thus actually be engaged in cooperation at times. This cooperation has a purpose, of course, in terms of the true goals of both groups. Professor Dalton analyzes this phenomenon in the present essay, which may be regarded as a complement of Professor Freidson’s essay on the actual conflict manifesting itself in the interaction between two persons presumably seeking to cooperate.
