G. H. Mead in the history of sociological ideas

Abstract

My aim is to discuss the history of the reception of George Herbert Mead's ideas in sociology. After discussing the methodological debate between presentism and historicism, I address the interpretations of those responsible for Mead's inclusion in the sociological canon: Herbert Blumer, Jürgen Habermas, and Hans Joas. In the concluding section, I assess these reconstructions of Mead's thought and suggest an alternative more consistent with my initial methodological remarks. In particular, I advocate a reconstruction of Mead's ideas that apprehends simultaneously its evolution over time and its thematic breadth. Such a historically minded reconstruction can be not only a useful corrective to possible anachronisms incurred by contemporary social theorists, but also a fruitful resource for their theory-building endeavors. Only then can meaningful and enriching dialogue with Mead begin.

“The Status of the Classics: A View from Today” (comment on Donald Levine, “The Variable Status of the Classics in Differing Narratives of the Sociological Tradition”)

“…There have been many recent, narrowly focused publications that attempt to explain the particular status of some classical author or authors. These likewise fit under Levine’s rubric of contextualism: Baehr (2013a) on Aron, Bortolini (2012) on Bellah, Camic (1992) on Parsons, Da Silva (2006; Da Silva and Vieira, 2011) on Mead, Nichols (2010) on Merton, Owens (2010) on Parsons, Parker (1997) on Weber and Durkheim). While their specific emphases and conclusions vary widely, collectively, they demonstrate that research into the status of the classics is alive and well as a branch of the sociology of knowledge.…”

The Construction of Mind, Self, and Society: The Social Process Behind G. H. Mead'S Social Psychology

“…In addition, early notes made by students from two of Mead's other courses in the history of philosophy and the philosophy of education have been recently published by Decker () and Biesta and Trohler (see Mead, ). Finally, considerable scholarship has analyzed the peculiar and selective appropriation of Mead's ideas within various disciplines, especially those ideas stemming from Mind, Self, and Society , as a way of questioning how Mead should be properly understood (Spreitzer and Reynolds, ; Lewis and Smith, ; Fine and Kleinman, ; Joas, ; Da Silva, ).…”

George Herbert Mead on Humans and Other Animals: Social Relations after Human-Animal Studies

“…3.1 On the one hand, Mead's anthropocentrism is central to the field-originary myth that has emerged within animal sociology. On the other hand, because this aspect of Mead's work is more nuanced than the myth currently allows, we suggest the development of animal sociology actually provides an opportunity to retrieve the more species inclusive elements that were lost when Mead's thought was truncated to serve as the founder of symbolic Interactionism (Da Silva 2006). It is our contention that much of the criticisms that have been directed at Mead have only been partially true, and reflect, among other things, the way Mead's work has been reconstructed as a founding classic of Symbolic Interaction (Da Silva 2006), beginning with Herbert Blumer's work in the years following Mead's death in 1931 (Blumer 1937).…”

“…On the other hand, because this aspect of Mead's work is more nuanced than the myth currently allows, we suggest the development of animal sociology actually provides an opportunity to retrieve the more species inclusive elements that were lost when Mead's thought was truncated to serve as the founder of symbolic Interactionism (Da Silva 2006). It is our contention that much of the criticisms that have been directed at Mead have only been partially true, and reflect, among other things, the way Mead's work has been reconstructed as a founding classic of Symbolic Interaction (Da Silva 2006), beginning with Herbert Blumer's work in the years following Mead's death in 1931 (Blumer 1937). In the same way that Blumer's productive misreading (Bloom 1973) of Mead has been important for the construction of a school of thought called ‘Symbolic Interactionism’, so too have the criticisms developed by animal sociology of this symbolic interactionist Mead been a productive misreading.…”