 Though Goffman is often associated with the symbolic interaction school of sociological thought , he did not see himself as a representative of it , and so Fine and Manning conclude that he " does not easily fit within a specific school of sociological thought " . His ideas are also " difficult to reduce to a number of key themes " ; his work can be broadly described as developing " a comparative , qualitative sociology that aimed to produce generalizations about human behavior " . 
 Though Goffman is often associated with the symbolic interaction school of sociological thought , he did not see himself as <a href='None' title='1'><mark>a</mark></a><a href='negative_concord' title='2'><mark>representative</mark></a> of it , and so Fine and Manning conclude that he " <a href='uninflect' title='3'><mark>does</mark></a> not easily fit within a specific school of sociological thought " . His ideas are also " difficult to reduce to a number of key themes " ; his work can be broadly described as developing " a comparative , qualitative sociology <a href='null_relcl' title='4'><mark>that</mark></a>aimed to produce generalizations about human behavior " . 
Doe Goffman is often associated wid the symbolic interaction school of sociological thought , he did not see hisself as no representative of it , and so Fine and Manning conclude dat he " do not easily fit within a specific skoo of sociological thought " . His ideas are also " difficult to reduce to a number of key themes " ; his work can b broadly described as developing " a comparative , qualitative sociology aimed to produce generalizations about human behavior " .