The Search for Meaning: Revisiting Herbert Blumer’s Interpretation of G.H. Mead

Abstract

Herbert Blumer's interpretation of George Herbert Mead's work has set the intellectual foundation for the symbolic interactionist tradition. However, the adequacy of this interpretation has been challenged, leading to a series of highly charged debates in the 1970s-80s. This article reflects back on these debates, and reconsiders the contrast between the Blumerian and Meadian epistemologies from a contemporary perspective. It is demonstrated that while Mead's work is able to adapt to and contribute to emerging challenges to dualism in contemporary interpretive theory, Blumer's root epistemological position fails in this regard, and creates an inconsistent framework for social reality.

Canadian Symbolic Interactionism on the Global Stage: A Comment on Helmes-Hayes’ and Milne’s, ‘The Institutionalization of Symbolic Interactionism in Canadian Sociology, 1922-1979’

“…As practitioners having experiences in the field for the last 15 or so years, it has certainly felt that way from time to time. Puddephatt recalls his critiques of Blumer's interpretations of Mead (Puddephatt 2009) being met with charges of incompetence, and worse, that he was an intellectual traitor, lumping his work into a supposed wider and worrying tradition of "Blumer-bashing." There has tended to be a "with us or against us," feel to interactionist circles, where total allegiance was expected.…”

Life experience and the value‐free foundations of Blumer's collective behavior theory

“…In fact, his adversarial nature “at times created the impression that he was an extremist and anti‐scientific, but also enabled him to adhere to his position in the face of formidable opposition” (Shibutani, 1988, p. 63). This is not to be trivialized; symbolic interactionism at its inception was an innovative approach to social research that, at least initially, conflicted with the more widely accepted quantitative approaches that dominated mainstream sociology at the time (Mullins, 1973; Puddephatt, 2009). As Best (2006) notes, Blumer's belief on “the logic of research was not shared by most other sociologists” (p. 8), which extended to his influential works on symbolic interactionism and collective behavior.…”

“…By examining the early life experiences of Herbert Blumer, we may draw important insight into his intellectual development as a scholar. While the existing literature on Blumer extensively addresses how George Herbert Mead (Athens, 2009; Puddephatt, 2009; Shibutani, 1988; Stryker, 1988) and Charles Ellwood (Loconto & Jones‐Pruiett, 2006) influenced the development of his theories, much less is known about how personal life experiences may have helped shape the direction of Blumer's intellectual and scholarly development. In particular, Blumer found himself immersed in controversy that nearly undercut his entire academic career at a very young age.…”

The Spirit of Blumer's Method as a Guide to Sociological Discovery

“…An enduring problem, however, is how to turn Blumer's “general imperatives,” as David Maines (1989:175) calls them, into research practice. As Howard Becker (1988:18–19), one of Blumer's students, put it: “You cannot really figure out how to conduct your research by following his precepts.” Others no less sympathetic to symbolic interactionism have further argued that Blumer's epistemology is not only impractical but contradictory (Best 2006; Puddephatt 2009), ambiguous (Hammersley 2010), and incomplete (Snow 2001). Fair though these criticisms might be, there is, I will argue, much of practical value to be found in Blumer's statement of method, if we look to its spirit rather than to its paucity of textbook‐style instructions or its philosophical imperfection 1…”