It's my understanding that "interactionism" is a relatively new term, perhaps fifty years old or so, and that it's essentially a way of considering human behaviour as the result of the dealings we have with others. It argues that a human being does not have a fixed identity that will transcend any particular situation, but rather that the situation itself will be the cause of the resulting behaviour. So, for example, if A is in one position and B in another, their behaviour would likely switch if their positions were to. It's a relatively simple concept, but an important one, because it encourages objective, two-sided thinking about any issue that contains the potential for conflict. And it's become one of the central tenets in many fields, including sociology and psychology.

I said that it's a new term, but it's not a new idea. I would argue in fact that an interactionist viewpoint is the best one from which to understand the intricacies of Shakespeare's characters, as it allows for the fact that they (unlike someone who has read the play) don't know what's going to happen next. And each event that they face, therefore, is not only a surprise in itself but is also a moment of self-discovery - as they learn about themselves from their own reactions. I'll be trying to make the case for this, with examples, over the next couple of posts.