Reply to Ulmer: Symbolic interactionism or a structural alternative?

In his critique of our 1999 article "Desensitizing Herbert Blumer's Work on Race Relations: Recent Applications of His Group Position Theory to the St udy of Contemporary Race Prejudice," Jeffery Ulmer charges us with providin g a "questionable" interpretation of blumer's ideas on the grounds that we (1) neglect (or distort) Plumer's advocation for making abstract generaliza tions in the form of "definitive" concepts, and thus sabotage Blumer's empi rical methodology as well as that of symbolic interactionism in general and (2) fail to address a body of literature that deals with "repackaging" Blu mer's ideas in such a way that "solves" the sorts of tensions we raise betw een Plumer's theory and quantitative research. Ulmer fears that our represe ntation of Blumer and symbolic interactionism may result in a host of "myth ic facts" (a term borrowed from David Maines) that will undermine Plumer's contributions "to a viable and whole science of the social, including race relations".