| Abstract: | Although it is generally known that symbolic interactionism is historically and philosophically linked to American pragmatism, relatively little attention has been given to assessing the separate influences of Peirce, James, Dewey, and Mead upon its development. This paper contends that there were two opposing branches of American pragmatism: (1) the social realism of Peirce's pragmatism, and (2) the social nominalism of James's pragmatism. The writings of Dewey and Mead reflect the influences of both of these branches. Dewey, however, was more closely aligned with James while Mead's work is more consistent with Peirce's principles. Blumerian symbolic interactionism is essentially a continuation of the nominalistic James/Dewey branch of American pragmatism, notwithstanding the popular notion that, among the classic American pragmatists, Mead was the principal precursor of symbolic interactionism. |
