the construction of meaning and roles within families is under analysis, since symbolic interactionism is well based on the assumption that such features define behaviors of the main participants toward each other (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). Thereupon, integrationists seek to develop a line of particular features indicative of this or that family. It is all about the signs and symbols people share within their family, as having relation to possible conflicts thereafter. Notably, family is one of the main social institutions. It is vital for sociologists to have a clear idea on why domestic violence still happens, and what the ways toward its decrease are.
In this vein, most people think that violence is likely to be partly connected to the environmental factors and to the psychological conditions of the individuals. This simple assumption takes its grounds form another one stating that “the acquisition and generation of meaning is at the heart of human social interactions” (Chibucos, Leite, & Weis, 2005, p. 237). Needless to say, human being is a biosocial creature. Thus, the meaning of human behavior is in focus of symbolic interactionism so as to rectify the nature of violence within the family.
Thus, given that symbolic interactionism delves into the meaning of the behaviors within the family, one should bear it in mind that a scientific research on domestic violence should have some relation to what family members say about them (White & Klein, 2002). In its turn, this strategically significant approach would say more about the overall atmosphere within the family. Hence, scientists should be more accurate in identifying the core values and prospects amplified in a definite family. In this case the character of neighborhood and the conditions of living plays a special role.
Looking at the fact that interactionists spark their interest to the topic of domestic violence, their main suggestions to the problem presuppose a set of peculiarities. All of them