ABSTRACT
In most interactional processes there is an exchange not only of verbal symbols, but also of natural signs and of other non-verbal signs which set the conditions for the interaction. Among the latter are the “appearances” of the interacting persons as they perceive each other. The “appearance” covers many things, including body size and shape, “reputation” and “image? clothing, stance, expression. In this chapter, Professor Stone takes Mead and other symbolic interactionists to task for neglecting this important dimension of interaction. Following the lead offered by Mead’s perspective, Stone to sought empirical evidence of the meaning of appearance in the responses that appearances mobilize. In pursuit of his critique, offers a thoughtful analysis of the role of “appearance” in interactions, and of its effect through the reflected image of others back on the self.
