You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
G. H. Mead's Social Behaviorism vs. The Astructural Bias of Symbolic Interactionism
Michael Wood and Mark L. Wardell
Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring 1983), pp. 85-96
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.19220.127.116.11
Page Count: 12
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Behaviorism, Interactionism, Social organization, Gestures, Social interaction, Social structures, Humans, Language, Philosophical psychology, Philosophical object
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
Symbolic inleractionism has been criticized for having an astructural bias. This paper presents a response to that criticism by examining the ontological stance contained in Mead's social behaviorism and contrasting it with the ontological stance of symbolic interactionism's chief architect, Herbert Blumer. Mead's social behaviorism is shown to be a nondualist philosophy of conduct based solidly on conceptions of the human community and of individual conduct as organized on the basis of social acts–a view not shared by Blumer.
Symbolic Interaction © 1983 Wiley