PRAGMATISM AND GRIEVING: INCORPORATING MEAD AND DEWEY TO UNDERSTAND THE GRIEVING OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL RETARDATION

Although the philosophy of pragmatism influenced American sociology, specifically that of symbolic interactionism, its use as a tool for explanation of everyday life has been underutilized throughout sociology. In this article, pragmatism, specifically the ideas of George Herbert Mead and John Dewey provide a framework for the understanding of grieving, specifically as it relates to people with mental retardation. Both Mead and Dewey's use and inclusion of physics into their philosophies proved paramount in their assertions regarding Cartesian or ontological dualism. They then demonstrated through the inclusion of quantum physics how to avoid positivism, thereby creating the necessary link of science with human perception and human action. Mead's use of the Theory of Relativity, as well as Sociality; and Dewey's incorporation of the Uncertainty Principle, and addressing the sum of possibilities, provides a context where the grieving process of people with mental retardation will be much more pronounced. People with mental retardation, by definition, through their neural networks have an inability to perceive existence in a manner that is functionally the same as the rest of the population. Their abilities influence how people with mental retardation relate to themselves or environment, thereby creating either fewer realities or systems from which to interact, or creating ones that are functionally dissimilar from the typical population, hence the label “mental retardation;” therefore, the loss of someone or something creates a greater hole or emptiness for people with mental retardation than the rest of society.     

An Underestimated Alternative: America and the Limits of “Critical Theory”

The main goal of this paper is to examine the intellectual and biographical reasons why the theorists of the Frankfurt school did not embrace pragmatism. This goal is pursued in four areas: (1) the epistemological area of the debate about subjective and objective “reason”—here the misleading character of Horkheimer's and Mar-cuse's writings on pragmatism is demonstrated; (2) the area of political theory—here the tension between the American democratic tradition and a quasi-Marxist functionalism is exposed; (3) the area of social psychology—here the inability of the Frankfurt school to incorporate symbolic interactionism becomes evident; (4) the elitist relationship to American mass culture. The paper ends with brief remarks on Habermas' ambivalent position between pragmatism and “Critical Theory” and with a perspective of transcending this ambivalence.     

Wiley’s Contribution to Symbolic Interactionist Theory

History of symbolic interactionism is reviewed from its pragmatist precursors (Peirce, Dewey), through the Idealist philosophical context of George Herbert Mead, to Blumer’s creation of a sociological interactionism. Wiley models interaction among parts of the self to account for both successes and failures of reflexive self-direction. Wiley thus provides a mechanism for agency or will, making these empirical topics via the study of internal dialogue.     

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

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 VS. ETHNOMETHODOLOGY*

Are ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism essentially the same? An examination of these perspectives suggests that each offers a unique contribution to sociological knowledge. Although both perspectives have been influenced by pragmatism, ethnomethodology shares affinity with James' philosophy while symbolic interactionism is allied with Dewey's and Mead's. Both perspectives emphasize meaning and constraints, but each offers critically different conceptualizations of them. Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology share a verstehen outlook, yet each perspective uses different methods to gain “understanding.” Hence, these perspectives differ philosophically, conceptually, and methodologically.     

Interactionism,Social Organization,and Social Processes: Looking Back and Moving Ahead

With its roots in American pragmatism, symbolic interactionism has created a distinctive perspective and produced numerous important contributions and now offers significant prospects for the future. In this article, I review my intellectual journey with this perspective over forty years. This journey was initiated within the American society, sociology, and symbolic interaction of circa 1960. I note many of the contributions made by interactionists since that time, with particular focus on those who have contributed to the study of social organization and social process. I offer an agenda for the future based on currently underdeveloped areas that have potential. These are inequality orders, institutional analysis, collective action across space and time, and the integration of temporal and spatial orders. The article concludes with calls for further efforts at cross‐perspective dialogues, more attention to feminist scholars, and an elaborated critical pragmatism.     

SIGN,SYMBOL, AND METALANGUAGE: AGAINST THE INTEGRATION OF SEMIOTICS AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Dean MacCannell's proposal for a “rapprochement” between symbolic interaction-ism and semiotics, in which the “generality” of symbolic interactionism's conception the sign is “raised” to that of semiotics, is examined. By turning exclusively to Saussurian semiotics, MacCannell does not adequately reflect the distinction between “natural” and “arbitrary” representation in Peirce's semiosis that is the most fruitful link with Mead's symbolic interactionism. Consequently, MacCannell's argument at the level of terminology is flawed. Rather than merging, the perspectives might benefit from a radical rethinking of representation. This would involve preserving the distinction between the “natural” and “arbitrary,” while at the same time recognizing that in mass society “arbitrary” representation has become a kind of “second-order” (Barthes) indexical metalanguage of membership within which symbolic interaction may occur. As Baudrillard claims, “commutation of signs” has replaced “interaction of symbols,” yet strains against an unfulfilled symbolic demand. Efforts should be directed at generating a theory of representation capable of addressing the tension that produces this symbolic demand.     

Editor's Choice: An Interview with Hans Joas

The interview explores multiple aspects of social theory, most of them directly related to Joas's theory and others to symbolic interactionism and Goffman. The first part delves into Joas's theory in three respects. First, a clarifying note on a common misunderstanding about his book The Creativity of Action. Second, a clarification on the scope of his theoretical endeavor, and third, a look into his coming books to have a better grasp of the course that his theory is taking. The second part is dedicated to symbolic interactionism and Goffman. Firstly, Joas's opinion about the theoretical relationship between symbolic interactionism and macrosociology is emphasized, secondly, his opinion about the pertinence of locating Goffman within symbolic interactionism is stated, and thirdly, a brief commentary about the relationship between Joas's theory and Goffman's is introduced.     

SCIENTOLOGY “ETHICS”: DEVIANCE,IDENTITY AND SOCIAL CONTROL IN A CULT-LIKE SOCIAL WORLD

Qualitative research at the macrosocial level can be facilitated by examining the more fully articulated social worlds existing within advanced societies. Based on the author's field research, Scientology's structure, culture, and comparability to American capitalist society are discussed and “Ethics,” its institution of social control, is shown to involve a paradigm in which conduct flows from social identity and deviance is defined in terms of a progression of stages of identity loss through reference group confusion. A hypothetical case shows how each stage is treated through specific intervention formula designed to reverse the process. “Ethics” is shown to closely parallel symbolic interactionist theories of deviance. Its differences from symbolic interactionism are ascribed to the inherent contradiction between the individualistic and system-centered orientations permeating American capitalist society.     

TOWARD A MEADIAN CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ROLE*

A conceptualization of role that transcends traditional structural and interactionist conceptualizations is developed. Following Mead, a role is said to be both a social object and a perspective; thus allowing for both universal and personal features. Implications for structural symbolic interactionism, various conceptualizations of structure, and empirical research are discussed.     

Inequality and the Self: Exploring Connections from an Interactionist Perspective

Symbolic interactionism provides a major contribution to understanding inequality by illuminating the various manifestations and contexts of inequality at the micro, everyday level of social life. Drawing on a spectrum of symbolic interactionist theory and research, we examine the range of symbolic and interactional manifestations of social inequality, the consequences of being the object of patterned interactional affronts, and the strategies people use to negotiate interactional stigmatization in everyday life. We argue that symbolic interaction's unique contribution to understanding inequality results from two of the perspective's central features. First, symbolic interactionism emphasizes the necessity of investigating social life in situated social interaction. Second, it highlights social actors' capacities to interpret and construct lines of action rather than respond directly to the stimuli they encounter. Symbolic interactionist research and theory thus contribute to a more complex understanding of social stratification than that provided by perspectives focused exclusively on macroscopic structural factors.     

Mead’s Analysis of Social Conflict: A Radical Interactionist’s Critique

Because Mead entered the pantheon of classic sociological thinkers much later than Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, sociologists have unsurprisingly devoted much more critical attention to their ideas than his. Perhaps, nowhere is the lack of this attention on their part more glaring than in his explanation of social conflict. Mead views the emergence and resolution of conflict as taking place within the social act, in which either individuals or groups may be the acting units, and attitudes, roles, significant symbols, and attitudinal assumption operate as the common, key components. As far as the emergence of conflict is concerned, he accounts for it on the basis of insufficient differentiation of roles, non-meritorious allocation of roles, and adoption of self-centered attitudes on the part of the participants during their construction of a social act. As far as the resolution of conflict is concerned, he predictably explains it on the basis of their expansion of role differentiation, distribution of roles on basis of merit, and the adoption of other-centered attitudes. Despite that Mead’s explanation of the resolution and emergence of conflict is relatively consistent and offers many profound insights, it suffers from several irresolvable problems. All these various problems can be traced back to his decision to rest his explanation on his much cherished principle of “sociality,” rather than domination, and thereby, ultimately, his rejection of a radical interactionist’s perspective. Thus, it is now long overdue for sociologists to consider the merits of a new, more radical interactionism as a replacement for his much older and more conventional counterpart, symbolic interactionism.     

The Jamesian theory of action

By emphasizing the emotional basis of action and the orientation of action to the future, the theory of action in William James challenges and provides an alternative to accounts of action which emphasize cognition and norms. This paper provides a statement of the Jamesian theory of action, which has been neglected in sociology. The Jamesian critique of the approach to social action in symbolic interactionism and in Parsons's voluntaristic theory of action is also indicated in the paper. Other aspects of the Jamesian theory of action of interest to sociological concern treated in the paper are the non-constructionist account of emotion developed by James, and his reconceptualization of rationality as continuous with rather than opposed to emotion.     

Communication,Modernity, and Democracy in Habermas and Dewey

The political culture of the Federal Republic [of Germany] would be worse today if it had not adopted impulses from American political culture during the first postwar decades. The Federal Republic opened itself for the first time to the West without reservations: we adopted the political theory of the Enlightenment, we grasped the pluralism which, first carried by religious sects, molded the political mentality, and we became acquainted with the radical democratic spirit of the American pragmatism of Peirce, Mead, and Dewey. (Jiirgen Habermas 1985a, p. 93)     

Extending the Symbolic Interactionist Theory of Interaction Processes: A Conceptual Outline

This article outlines the elements of a more robust symbolic interactionist theory of interpersonal processes. I argue that George Herbert Mead's conceptualization of interaction processes can be extended to explain not only micro‐level social processes but also key elements of meso‐ and macro‐level dynamics. By expanding Mead's and more recent symbolic interactionist theorizing, and incorporating key ideas from other theoretical traditions outside symbolic interactionism proper, it becomes possible to develop a theory of interaction that fills in important conceptual gaps in theories on the dynamics of micro‐, meso‐, and macro‐level social phenomena.     

A Quiet Catharsis of Comprehension: A Poetic for Paul

Paul Rock is a leading UK interactionist, author of The Making of Symbolic Interactionism and a number of ethnographies on the UK criminal justice system. He was professor of sociology at the London School of Economics until his retirement in July 2008. At his retirement, Ken Plummer presented the following poem to him. The words are largely those of Paul himself, along with a few of his older intellectual companions (meaning mainly Dewey, James, and Mead). Thus this poetic is Paul's words reconstructed and reflected back to him.     

Symbolic interaction and classical greek scholarship: Conceptual foundations,historical continuities,and transcontextual relevancies

Although symbolic interaction (Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1969) generally is envisioned as a unique twentieth century product of a democratic society, the roots of this approach to the study of human group life run much deeper. Thus, as a sociological extension of American pragmatist philosophy, the conceptual foundations of what has become known as symbolic interaction can be traced back to classic Greek scholarship (ca. 700-300BCE) as, relatedly, can interactionist methodology (i.e., ethnographic inquiry) and the interactionist quest to articulate basic conceptual features of human association. Further, whereas symbolic interaction is typically viewed as a highly situated or localized approach to the study of human group life, interactionism offers extended potential for transhistorical and transcultural comparative analysis. As well, although much overlooked by those in the social sciences, the classical Greek literature (along with various other interim sources) provides an exceptionally vital set of resources for scholars studying human group life in more sustained comparative-analytic terms. By resisting the temptation to assume that newer is better, we may in the process of examining our own intellectual heritage, arrive at a more adequate, pragmatist informed social science with which to approach the future. I would like to thank Hans Bakker, Lorraine Prus, Jason West, and Beert Verstraete for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I also very much appreciate Larry Nichols' insightful editorial assistance.     

Social Behaviorism on Emotions: Mead and Modern Behaviorism Compared*

This paper presents George Herbert Mead's work on emotions from the perspective of social behaviorism and compares it with the modem behavioral analysis of emotions. The two positions are strikingly similar. The main difference between modern behaviorism and Mead's social behaviorism is that contemporary behaviorists have access to a larger empirical data base and more refined theoretical models than Mead had. The modern behavioral analysis of emotions confirms most of Mead's basic observations and expands upon them. Empirically oriented symbolic interactionists who identify with Mead's social behaviorism can benefit by drawing upon the extensive behavioral research and theories developed in the decades since Mead worked. In fact, there is an enormous potential for developing productive research and theory at the interface between Mead's social behaviorism and modem behaviorism in the study of emotions and most other social psychological topics.     

Mind,Self, and Human-Animal Joint Action

Abstract

Because Herbert Blumer maintained that symbolic interactionism was useful in examining all realms of social behavior, and advocated what Martin Hammersley refers to as “critical commonsensism,” this paper focuses on one of the most common contemporary social relationships—that between people and companion animals. I first examine the basis for Blumer's (like Mead before him and many interactionist scholars today) exclusion of nonhuman animals from consideration as “authentic” social actors. Primarily employing the recent work of interactionists Eugene Myers, Leslie Irvine, Janet and Steven Alger, and Clinton Sanders, this paper advocates the reasonableness of regarding nonhuman animals as “minded,” in that mind, as Gubrium emphasizes, is a social construction that arises out of interaction. Similarly, I maintain that animals possess an admittedly rudimentary “self.” Here I focus special attention on Irvine's discussion of those “self experiences” that are independent of language and arise out of interaction. Finally, I discuss “joint action” as a key element of people's relationships with companion animals as both the animal and human attempt to assume the perspective of the other, devise related plans of action and definitions of object, and fit together their particular (ideally, shared) goals and collective actions. I stress the ways in which analytic attention to human-animal relationships may expand and enrich the understanding of issues of central sociological interest.     

David R. Maines: Embedding Symbolic Interactionism at the Heart of Sociology

David R. Maines was a key founder of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, and a champion of symbolic interactionist sociology. Maines fought against characterizations of symbolic interactionism as astructural and “subjectivist.” He was adamant that symbolic interactionism offered vital perspectives on the study of social structure and organization, and that it was compatible with a variety of research methods. He played a vital role in developing narrative sociology and bringing narrative scholarship from communication studies to sociological audiences. In this retrospective on his life and career, I detail what Maines saw as the five central features of symbolic interactionism: (1) interpretation and meaning, (2) communication, (3) temporality and process, (4) agency, and (5) dialectical thinking. I then examine four interrelated themes of Maines' sociological contributions: (1) temporality, (2) debunking myths about interactionism, (3) mesostructure, and (4) narrative sociology. A video abstract is available at https://youtu.be/YodjvXbo51Q .