Symbolic Interactionism

A “Left-Meadian” Interpretation

Bibliographic Data

ID7103905
AuthorsGeorge Cronk (corresponding author), George Francis Cronk
Year1973
Volume2
Issue3
Pages313-333
Publication date1973-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueSocial Theory and Practice (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0037-802X • E-ISSN: 2154-123X
PublisherPhilosophy Documentation Center (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.5840/soctheorpract1973232
OpenAlexW2324821884
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited2

In their general disdain for American thought, and in their fascination with such Continental philosophies as Marxism and phenomenology, American radicals have failed to appreciate the critical import of the work of George Herbert Mead. Mead is one of the most creative and, at the same time, one of the most neglected of original American thinkers. It is true that his social philosophy is the foundation of the symbolic interactionist school of social psychology; and the critical implications of Meadian theory have received expression in the work of such writers as C. Wright Mills, Peter Berger, Hugh Duncan, Erving Goffman, and John Seeley. Several European social theorists have also begun to take Mead's writings seriously; e.g. the Swedish sociologist, Joachim Israel, has argued that symbolic interactionism and Marxism are complementary approaches to the problems of alienation and reification in modern society. But symbolic interactionism is, after all, a minority movement in American social theory. Orthodox functionalist theorists (e.g. Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton) have largely rejected symbolic interactionism as insufficiently deterministic; and radical theorists (e.g. Herbert Marcuse) have simply ignored the symbolic interactionist perspective

Applied philosophy · Epistemology · Interactionism · Social science · Sociology · Symbolic interactionism · Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOI