G. H. Mead in the history of sociological ideas
β Scribed by Filipe Carreira da Silva
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2006
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 136 KB
- Volume
- 42
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0022-5061
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Abstract
My aim is to discuss the history of the reception of George Herbert Mead's ideas in sociology. After discussing the methodological debate between presentism and historicism, I address the interpretations of those responsible for Mead's inclusion in the sociological canon: Herbert Blumer, JΓΌrgen Habermas, and Hans Joas. In the concluding section, I assess these reconstructions of Mead's thought and suggest an alternative more consistent with my initial methodological remarks. In particular, I advocate a reconstruction of Mead's ideas that apprehends simultaneously its evolution over time and its thematic breadth. Such a historically minded reconstruction can be not only a useful corrective to possible anachronisms incurred by contemporary social theorists, but also a fruitful resource for their theoryβbuilding endeavors. Only then can meaningful and enriching dialogue with Mead begin. Β© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
This paper reviews recent interpretive trends among historians of anthropology and sociology, examining both introductory texts and scholarly studies. It focuses on works published over the last ten years, and stresses that there has been no resolution of the long-standing conflict between "presenti
## Abstract This analysis assesses the factors underlying Charles Horton Cooley's place in the sociological canon as they relate to George Herbert Mead's puzzling diatribeβechoed in secondary accountsβagainst Cooley's social psychology and view of the self published scarcely a year after his death.
The process of biographical research, from selecting a subject to writing the finished biography, is described and illustrated with references to the biography of Theodore N. Beckman, a member of the marketing faculty for over 50 years at The Ohio State University. Other methodological issues and so
s appraisal of William Thomas and Florian Znaniecki's Polish Peasant study and the panel discussion of Blumer's critique, sponsored by the Social Science Research Council in 1938, occasioned a discussion of the value of personal documents in social research which is indicative of the controversy sur