Ontology and Chicago Sociology: A New Approach to the History of Social Science

The Influence of Charles A. Ellwood on Herbert Blumer and Symbolic Interactionism

“…McPhail and Rexroat (1979) were critical of Blumer's methodology comparatively to Mead, suggesting little to no similarity between them. Subsequent dialogue can be found in literature from that time period, as many began questioning the validity of Lewis and Smith's claims (Batiuk, 1982;Blumer, 1977Blumer, , 1983Campbell, 1983;Denzin, 1984;Kuklick, 1984;Lewis, 1977Lewis, , 1985Lewis and Smith, 1983;Matthews, 1985;Rochberg-Halton, 1983 ' (1983: 131). Lewis and Smith (1983) found it interesting that Blumer would so strongly disavow a connection to Ellwood in his earlier writing only to later admit he was, in fact, trained by him.…”

“…Thus, where he did not ignore figures completely, as with Ellwood, he was able to determine the interpretation of them, influencing two generations of sociologists and their understanding of various Chicago philosophers and sociologists, notably Mead. In the 1950s Blumer's interpretation of Mead was queried (see Kuhn and McPartland, 1954), but it was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that his interpretation was critically called into question (see Batiuk, 1982;Blumer, 1977Blumer, , 1983Campbell, 1983;Denzin, 1984;Kuklick, 1984;Lewis, 1976Lewis, , 1977Lewis, , 1985Lewis and Smith, 1983;Matthews, 1985;McPhail and Rexroat, 1979;Rochberg-Halton, 1983). However, since that time, especially after Blumer's death in 1986, there have been few who have challenged Blumer's versions of Mead and the origins of symbolic interactionism.…”