Evaluate the contributions of Herbert Blumer to the symbolic interactionist school of thought (original) (raw)
Related papers
REPLY TO ULMER: Symbolic Interactionism or A Structural Alternative?
The Sociological Quarterly, 2001
In his critique of our 199Y article "Desensitizing Herbert Blumer's Work on Race Relations: Recent Applications of His Group Position Theory to the Study of Contemporary Race Prejudice," Jeffery Ulmer charges us with providing a "questionable" interpretation of Blumer's ideas on the grounds that we (I) neglect (or distort) Blumer's advocation for making abstract generalizations in the form of "definitive" concepts, and thus sabotage Blumer's empirical methodology as well as that of symbolic interactionism in general and (2) fail t o address a body of literature that deals with "repackaging" Blumer's ideas in such a way that "solves" the sorts of tensions we raise between Blumer's theory and quantitative research. Ulmer fears that our representation of Blumer and symbolic interactionism may result in a host o f "mythic facts" (a term borrowed from David Maines) that will undermine Blumer's contributions "to a viable and whole sciencc of the social, including race relations." Our aim in this response to Ulmer's commentary is threefold. First, we clarify how Blumer understood "empirical reality" and so-called "definitive" concepts. We believe that his understanding of these two considerations is inconsistent with how Ulmcr understands these ideas. Second, we make the point that, according to Blumer, efforts to develop "generalizable concepts" are useless unless these concepts are understood as emerging from within the processes of interpretation that make them socially relevant. In other words, the relevance of these concepts exists purely among people, and thus they must be understood as intersubjectively constituted. Implied by this condition is that generalizations are possible only if they reflect the myriad modes of interpretations that shape social life. Third, we conclude that although "repackaging" Blumer's ideas in an attempt to make them amenable to quantitative social science may represent a useful objective to many sociologists, the cost of this aim may be the conversion of Blumer's theory-and symbolic interactionism in general-into merely a more sensitive variant of functionalism.
The article, "Mead vs. Blumer. . ." (American Sociological Review, June, 1979), carries serious misrepresentations. The authors, Clark McPhail and Cynthia Rexroat, have given an erroneous picture of (a) Blumer's view of social reality, (b) Blumer's view of naturalistic study, (c) Mead's view of scientific method, and (d) Mead's view of social behavior. Their misrepresentations arise from an effort to reduce Mead's thought to a much narrower scheme of how human social behavior should be studied.
The Influence of Charles A. Ellwood on Herbert Blumer and Symbolic Interactionism
Journal of Classical Sociology, 2006
Most textbooks today reserve the history of sociology for names like Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Mead. This abbreviated version of the history of the discipline leaves the reader with only a rudimentary understanding of the evolution of sociology, yet at the same time it deviates from the basic premise of sociology, which suggests understanding the relationship of the individual to society and the history of both. We have McDonaldized the history of sociology and in the process erased many individuals who were paramount in its development. The following study addresses the influence of Charles Abram Ellwood on the development of sociology, specifically the development of Herbert Blumer and subsequently symbolic interactionism. There are four main areas where Ellwood's ideas can be found in Blumer's work as well as within symbolic interactionism: (1) interactionism; (2) methodology; (3) emotions; and (4) group behavior. It is advocated here that Ellwood should be included among the names of Dewey, Mead, Cooley and Thomas as a central figure in the development of both Blumer and symbolic interactionism.
Symbolic Interaction, 2020
The papers in this special issue celebrate and build on the insights Blumer provides in his pivotal book Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. In setting the context for these papers, we discuss the significance of Blumer's variant of interactionism, his contributions to the discipline of sociology, the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of his approach, and the way in which the papers in this issue carry forward his legacy.
VERHOEVEN, J. (1995) Methodological and Metascientific Problems in Symbolic Interactionism. A report on the opinions of third generation symbolic interactionists (2nd edition). Leuven: Departement Sociologie, 1995
This project is not an introduction, nor an inquiry into the relations of H. Blumer with G.H. Mead and the other pragmatists. I'll rather omit the first period of S.I. and study the connection between H. Blumer and his students. Blumer was stressing the main steps a researcher must take to meet the standards of a more critical approach than positivists were used to. His students were the first generation who tried to apply these principles. Blumer himself didn't publish a lot of empirical work (Verhoeven, 1984). He was the master to explain how research was to be done. His students applied in a certain way what he taught, although it will become clear that not all of them followed him very faithfully. Some of them even oppose to his ideas. So, this study deals with the relation between Blumer and his students and the conception of both about sociology and sociological research. I want to study to what extent there is a continuity in the work of Blumer and his students (or whether there is a gap between them). This also includes the question whether the younger generation of symbolic interactionists still refers to the influential figures as pointed out by Blumer. Blumer e.g. is very outspoken about it. But it is not certain that his students accept his standpoint. Has pragmatism really that influence on S.I. as is often contended by the analysts of S.I. (Meltzer, Petras, and Reynolds, 1975; Stryker, 1980)? This book can also be downloaded at https://perswww.kuleuven.be/\~u0003309/School/EducationAndTheory/Theorie/SymbolicInteractionism.pdf
Symbolic interactionism Article
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theoretical perspective in sociology that addresses the manner in which individuals create and maintain society through face-to-face, repeated, meaningful interactions. This article provides an overview of three theoretical traditions in symbolic interactionism, focusing on the work of Herbert Blumer (the Chicago School), Manford Kuhn (the Iowa School), and Sheldon Stryker (the Indiana School). A brief summary of each figure's general perspective on symbolic interactionism is provided, followed by a discussion of the research methodology that defines and distinguishes each. The article then reviews and assesses the empirical research that has emerged from these traditions over the past decades. It concludes with a discussion of future directions symbolic interactionists should attend to in continuing to develop the field. keywords microsociology ◆ social psychology ◆ symbolic interactionism