|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Trying to put a general description of interactionism, ie. what all these subperspectives have in common. Please feel free to help! JenLouise 06:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I added a referenced definition and I copy-edited the lead. However, I don't know the first thing about interactionism, so please read & correct & add references!
Wow! What an addition to the article - thanks so much! I've had made some minor changes to the content you've added, including:
- moving the introduction section back to the top. (On an article, there is usually a few paragraphs that appear before the first heading. This allows a lead-in before the table of contents.)
- temporarily removing the unfinished sections. I've copied them below. You can add them back in as you finish them. As this is an encyclopaedic article, we don't include draft stuff on the actual page. If you want to set some stuff out first, you can do it here on the talk page and then transfer to the actual article once its finished.
When you do finish those section I would suggest that we actually have the links to other theories last, after the interactionist thoery sections on family, etc. Also, we don't generally sign the article page with our User Name.
One last thing, you will need to provide sources for all of the material added. I put in some tags to show particular phrases that will need references. You can also add any general references into a Futher reading section at the bottom. Once again, thanks for the big effort you've made! JenLouise 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
===On crime and deviance===
Interactionism in philosophy of mind
In philosophy of mind, interactionism refers to a theory that claims that both mind and matter are ultimately real and distinct (neither being reducible to the other), and that each effects the other. It is distinct from monist theories such as materialism (only matter ultimately and independently exists; mind only exists in a dependent way upon matter) or idealism (only mind ultimately and independently exists; matter only exists in a dependent way upon mind); it is also distinct from dualist theories such as epiphenomenalism, occasionalism or pre-established harmony, in that unlike these it claims that mind and matter causually act on each other, unlike epiphenomenalism which believes in a unidirectional causation, and occasionalism and pre-established harmony which deny the reality of causation (yet explain in other ways the appearance thereof).
Now, this article is about some theory in the social sciences or sociology or something. Which has nothing much to do with interactionism in philosophy of mind. So we need two articles here, one on the philosophy of mind, one on this social theory. I am also not sure whether one should be the main article, or if this should just be a disambig pointing to the two. Personally, I would give the philosophy of mind concept the pride of place; but that might be just my own bias, in that I had never heard of the social theory before. --SJK (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are definitely biased, and need to do some readings out of your neuroscience bubble. :-) A google books search for this term doesn't return a single PoM book on the first page, only sociology books. .Tijfo098 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)