observations, and document analysis, I explore whether in the Dutch “lib-
eral” context the police officers act as moral entrepreneurs. I show that the
answer is not clear cut. In general, police officers act in a pragmatic way,
but their behavior also contains layers of morality that influence their rule
enforcing. For instance, the way they define the character and intentions of
the coffee shop managers is decisive in how they act toward them. Another
issue I discuss is that in contrast to Becker’s description of rule enforcers,
the policemen do not have to justify their existence and they do not have to
gain respect by coercion. This is explained by focusing on the situational
and societal context in which they operate. First, the monitoring takes
place several times a year and therefore has a routine character, which has
created a predictable situation for all parties involved. The second explana-
tion relates to the cultural, political, legal, and historical Dutch context, in
which (the selling of) cannabis has been criminalized in recent years.
Because of this transformation, police officers have gained more power and
their position is not challenged by cannabis sellers.
When reviewing the publications in this volume, it becomes clear that
European SSSI is thriving in diversity. There is a variety in research themes
and methods. What seems common in these papers is that a narrow defini-
tion of symbolic interaction, which strictly refers to important figures such
as Mead, Cooley, and Blumer, does not dominate. This observation coin-
cides more or less with the conferences which are held in North America,
such as the Couch Stone-symposium, the SSSI meeting in august and the
“Qualitatives” in Canada. Most North American academics might take this
observation for granted, but in the European context it is important to
state what might seem the obvious to others. In my interactions with social
scientists within and outside the European SSSI, I have realized that a nar-
row definition of S.I. still has a strong presence in European academia. In
itself this narrow definition is not problematic, but it becomes challenging
when it results in conflict and exclusion.
I’ll give an example from my own experience. During the preparation of
the SSSI-conference in Rotterdam I wanted to cooperate with the Dutch
Organization for Qualitatives Research (Kwalon), and asked if they were
interested in supporting me and if possible they were willing to co-organize
the conference. Their reply was disappointing. In their negative response
they made it clear that the theme S.I. was too narrow for a conference
according to them. In their email it became clear they had a constricted
definition of S.I. which mainly referred to Mead, Cooley, and Blumer.
They stated that this would not be appealing to them.
xvi VOLUME EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION