The theoretical tradition of symbolic interactionism is often criticized by more macro-oriented sociologists for its failure to consider and develop issues of power that go beyond the dynamics of interpersonal relations. During the decades of the 1960’s and 70’s critics such as (1970) and (1973) chastised symbolic interactionists and microoriented sociologists such as Goffman, as irrelevant, and naive when it came to the larger and more central concerns of sociology. The publication of (1980) Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version, can be read at least in part as a response to these criticisms. By merging key elements of role theory with a symbolic interactionist theory of self, Stryker was able to construct a conceptual framework more open to mainstream (i.e. macro) sociological concerns. While his theory does not explicitly focus on social forces of domination and control, (1980: 151) does stress that “there is nothing inherent in symbolic interactionism that necessitates either naivete with reference to, or denial of the facts of differentially distributed power.”