Structure, Agency, and Social Reality in Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism: The Influence of Georg Simmel

Abstract

Mead no doubt had a manifest influence on Blumer's thinking, and Blumer's acknowledgment of his indebtedness to Mead is a central feature of Blumer's writing. While I do not presume to question the importance Blumer assigns to the role played by Mead in the development of Blumerian symbolic interactionism, I argue that the perspective also owes much to the insights of Georg Simmel. In particular, a Simmelian flavor is evident in how Blumer addresses the core sociological issues of the nature of social reality, the nature of the relationship between the individual and society, and the nature of social action.

Symbolic Interactionism in Canada: Shared Meaning and the Perpetuation of Ideas

“…There certainly are symbolic interactionists who present themselves as purists and behave in a dogmatic fashion, advocating a fundamental form of the perspective—as I discovered when I published on the Simmelian roots of Blumerian symbolic interactionism (Low ). So yes, symbolic interactionism can be conceptualized as a sect, at least in Coser's sense of the term.…”

“…Some argue that symbolic interactionism is a subjectivist approach while others assert it is interpretivist (Maines ). Even from the beginning there were both Meadian and Simmelian strains of symbolic interactionism (Low ) and going forward Blumerian, Hughesian, and Goffmanian variants of the perspective (Blumer ; Davis ; Jacobsen ), as well as the Iowa (Couch, Saxton, and Katovich ; Kuhn ) and Indiana (Stryker ) schools of symbolic interactionism. Further, Lonnie Athens (, ) has long championed something he calls radical interactionism, and Joel Best (:8, 11) has recently argued that Orrin Klapp was a “distinctive” scholarly voice often “overlooked” on the “periphery” of symbolic interactionism.…”

“…In addition, while Fine (:64) has argued that with the death of “Blumer in 1986” symbolic interactionism could no longer be said to have “vivid identity,” it is clear that the origins of symbolic interactionism are diverse and predate Blumer. People can discover and rediscover symbolic interactionism not only by reading the works of George Herbert Mead or Herbert Blumer but also through the scholarship of Everett C. Hughes and Georg Simmel, meaning that they can become familiar with symbolic interactionist insights in a variety of ways (Low ; Low and Bowden ). Reaching back even further, Robert Prus () has written extensively on the roots of symbolic interactionism in Ancient Greek philosophy.…”

“…One variant of symbolic interactionism arrived at McGill through the classical writings of Georg Simmel and George Herbert Mead. These were then passed on by Robert Park to Herbert Blumer and Everett C. Hughes, both members of the Chicago School of Sociology (Low ; Low and Bowden ).…”

Joint Actions, Stories and Symbolic Structures: A Contribution to Herbert Blumer’s Conceptual Framework

“…As shown below, this concept captures Blumer's particular image of social reality, and encapsulates many of the essential features of his brand of symbolic interactionism with its characteristic emphasis 'on the flow of interaction and interactive processes, looking at the way in which meanings develop and change' (Craib, 1984: 74-75). Despite its obvious centrality, however, this concept has hitherto received relatively little theoretical attention (Baugh, 1990;Forte, 2001;Halas, 2012;Harvey, 1987;Low, 2008;Lyman, 1984;Lyman andVidich, 1988, 2000;McPhail and Rexroat, 1979;Maines, 1988); and as its articulation falls short of specification in some important areas, many of its potentials remain unexploited.…”