Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
The American Sociologist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Reynolds and Hermann-Kinney’s (2003) compilation for an excellent overview of the range of interactionist material that intersects with the sociology of knowledge, or at least, uses meaning as a central conceptual locus point for research and analysis.

  2. The reader is directed to Reynolds (1990) and Prus (1996) for overviews of the various criticisms and defenses to the symbolic interactionist paradigm over the years.

  3. For more detailed analyses of a parallel between the solipsistic pitfalls of Cartesian dualism at the psychological individual level, as well as at the sociological level of the human group in relation to nature, see Crossley (1996, 2001), Gardiner (1998), and Puddephatt (2005).

  4. See Woolgar and Pawluch’s (1985) paper on “ontological gerrymandering,” which discusses the difficulties associated with researcher’s capacity to make analytical claims from a strong constructionist position in the field of social problems. For a parallel discussion of the problems of “reflexivity” for radical constructionist paradigms in the sociology of science, see Collins and Yearley’s (1992) chapter on how analysts are often forced to play “epistemological chicken.”

  5. My primary use of the 1969 text as a representation of Blumer’s thought may be challenged here. However, this book represents Blumer’s statement on the field, as he saw it as important, and as it exists on countless numbers of scholars bookshelves, and in classrooms studying social psychology and qualitative research practices.

References

  • Athens, L. (2002). Domination: The blindspot in Mead’s analysis of the social Act. Journal of Classical Sociology, 2(1), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, M. (2003). Tattooed: The sociogenesis of a body art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R. (1966). Comment on Herbert Blumer’s paper. American Journal of Sociology, 71, 545–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (1999). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences, 10(2), 87–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. (1998). An invitation to environmental sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (2006). Blumer’s dilemma: The Critic as a tragic figure. The American Sociologist, 37(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1966). sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead. American Journal of Sociology, 71, 535–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1973). A note on symbolic interactionism. American Sociological Review, 38, 797–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (2004). George Herbert Mead and human conduct (edited by Thomas Morrione). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (translated by Richard Nice). UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (translated by Richard Nice). Stanford, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, J. H.-Y. (2004). Mead’s theory of emergence as a framework for multilevel sociological inquiry. Symbolic Interaction, 27(3), 405–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2001). Tacit knowledge, trust, and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture, pp. 301–326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, N. (1996). Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, N. (2001). The social body: Habit, identity, and desire. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N. (1978). The civilizing process: The history of manners. New York: Urizen Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G. A. (1991). On the macro foundations of micro-Sociology: Constraint and the exterior reality of structure. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 161–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G. A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 61–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G., & Kleinman, S. (1986). Interpreting the sociological classics: Can there be a “true” meaning of Mead? Symbolic Interaction, 9(1), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, M. (1998). The incomparable monster of solipsism: Bakhtin and Merleau-Ponty. In M. Bell & M. Gardiner (Eds.), Bakhtin and the human sciences: No last words. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, M. (2000). Critiques of everyday life. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenier, M. (1992). Review essay: Social order and the public philosophy: An Analysis and interpretation of the work of Herbert Blumer. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 17(4), 429–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (volume two). Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. (1973a). Symbolic interactionism as a pragmatic perspective: the bias of emergent theory. American Sociological Review, 38, 274–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. (1973b). Who will scrutinize the scrutinizers? American Sociological Review, 38, 798–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joas, H. (1985). G.H. Mead: A contemporary re-examination of his thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and social theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G. D., & Shifflett, P. A. (1981). George Herbert who? A critique of the objectivist reading of Mead. Symbolic Interaction, 4(2), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures: The cultures of knowledge societies. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1981). History of science and its rational reconstructions. In Hacking Ian (Ed.), Scientific revolutions, pp. 107–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to being the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. D., & Smith, R. L. (1980). American sociology and pragmatism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maines, D. (2001). The faultline of consciousness: A view of interactionism in sociology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhail, C., & Rexroat, C. (1979). Mead vs. Blumer: The divergent methodological perspectives of social behaviorism and symbolic interactionism. American Sociological Review, 44, 449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1917). Scientific method and individual thinker. In J. Dewey, et al. (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Essays in the pragmatic attitude, pp. 176–227. New York, NY: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1938). Philosophy of the act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (2001). Essays in social psychology (edited by Mary Jo Deegan). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception (translated by Colin Smith). UK: Routledge and Kegan-Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrione, T. J. (2004). Editor’s introduction. In Blumer Herbert (Ed.), George Herbert Mead and human conduct, pp. 1–11. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, N. (1973). Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. (1995). Sociology as if nature did not matter: An ecological critique. British Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 688–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. USA: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (1997). Epinomis. In J. Cooper (Ed.), Plato: complete works. Cambridge: Hackett.

  • Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research. Albany, NY: SUNY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puddephatt, A. J. (2005). Mead has never been modern: Using Meadian theory to extend the constructionist study of technology. Social Epistemology, 19(4), 357–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddephatt, A., & Prus, R. (2007). Causality, agency and reality: Plato and Aristotle meet George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer. Sociological Focus, 40(3), 265–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, L. (1990). Interactionism: Exposition and critique (2nd ed.). New York: General Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, L. (2003). Intellectual precursors. In L. Reynolds & N. Hermann-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism, pp. 39–58. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, L., & Hermann-Kinney, N. (eds.). (2003). Handbook of symbolic interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

  • Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Shapin, S., & Schaeffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston: Ginn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. (1994). The social theory of practices. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. (2000). On the origins of human emotions: A sociological inquiry into the evolution of human affect. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M., & Wardell, M. L. (1983). G.H. Mead’s social behaviorism vs. the A-structural bias of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 6(1), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1985). Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social problems explanations. Social Problems, 32(3), 214–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrong, D. (1962). The over-socialized conception of man in modern sociology. American Sociological Review, 26, 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitlin, I. (1973). Rethinking sociology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Neil McLaughlin, Peter Archibald, and Gary Cook for their comments and encouragement on previous drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, P7B 5E1

    Antony Puddephatt

Authors
  1. Antony Puddephatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antony Puddephatt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Puddephatt, A. The Search for Meaning: Revisiting Herbert Blumer’s Interpretation of G.H. Mead. Am Soc 40, 89–105 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-009-9067-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-009-9067-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation