George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct

by Herbert Blumer, Thomas J. Morrione (Editor)

In this posthumous volume, renowned sociologist Herbert Blumer analyzes George Herbert MeadOs position in the study of human conduct. Engaged with MeadOs work for over half a century, Blumer explored MeadOs ideas for developing the theoretical and methodological position of symbolic interactionism, a term that Blumer would later introduce. Although Blumer focused on the sociological and social psychological implications of MeadOs pragmatism, his objective was to explore social processes embodied in and formed through social action. Envisioning individual and collective social action as ongoing accomplishments achieved through symbolic interaction, Blumer insisted on grounding scholarly knowledge about the human condition in the empirical world of peopleOs experiences. Organized and introduced by Thomas J. Morrione, a colleague and friend to whom Blumer entrusted his unpublished papers, the volume also includes BlumerOs correspondence with David L. Miller about Mead's theories and other related correspondence. For a greater understanding of both MeadOs philosophies and Blumer's, this volume will be essential reading for students and teachers of social theory and symbolic interactionism.

Genres: Sociology

218 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Herbert George Blumer was an American sociologist whose main scholarly interests were symbolic interactionism and methods of social research.Believing that individuals create social reality through collective and individual action, he was an avid interpreter and proponent of George Herbert Mead's social psychology, which he labeled symbolic interactionism. Blumer elaborated and developed this line of thought in a series of articles, many of which were brought together in the book Symbolic Interactionism. An ongoing theme throughout his work, he argued that the creation of social reality is a continuous process. Blumer was also a vociferous critic of positivistic methodological ideas in sociology.

Reviews

[Arda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Notes from midterm:

Blumer’s reading of Mead illustrates that communication cannot be limited to action and reaction / stimulus and response. There is certainly more happening in human interaction than the sending and delivery of information. What is perhaps most noteworthy in the comparison between the two viewpoints is with regards to the question of interpretation.

According to Blumer’s reading of Mead, there are two ways of communication by way of interaction. The first one, referred to as the “conversation of gestures,” does not require interpretation: it is a reflexive-based gesture that generates an instinctive reaction (like the types of reactions in the animal world that have a spontaneous nature.) Such a gesture holds within itself part of the pre-to-be-followed-act: it carries part of the upcoming action that is about to follow. There is a certain level of certainty in this type of “conversation of gestures” because such a gesture brings out with it an automatic stimulus by instinct and not by meaning – hence, no need for interpretation.

On the other hand, the other way of communication that Blumer demonstrates in his reading of Mead is the “symbolic interaction” by the use of “significant symbols.” This way of communication, unlike the “conversation of gestures” most certainly does require interpretation, (and it is a type of communication that animals would not be capable of having.) The response that would come out of this gesture is not immediate, not reflexive, and not confined to an instinct. Rather, it is dependent on the interpretation of the meaning of the gesture, and, consequently, on the response that would come out of that interpretation. There is no certainty in this type of communication about how things will go, because the process of response would go backward before going forward: There is no automatic release that goes forward in answer to the gesture, but rather, there is a going-backward move that almost like a rewind-button goes back to the gesture and considers the implications of what it might mean, and then consider what the different indications might be, and then consider what the forthcoming response might be before devising a reply.

Social interaction then, in Blumer’s reading of Mead, requires interpretation on a symbolic level. Much of human behavior will ultimately depend on how the receiver will interpret the message attained, and how to act upon it. Communication in this respect is dependent on the joint interpretation and role-taking.