Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

G. H. Mead's Social Behaviorism vs. The Astructural Bias of Symbolic Interactionism

Michael Wood and Mark L. Wardell
Symbolic Interaction
Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring 1983), pp. 85-96
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction
DOI: 10.1525/si.1983.6.1.85
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.1983.6.1.85
Page Count: 12
  • Download ($42.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Item Type
Article
References
G. H. Mead's Social Behaviorism vs. The Astructural Bias of Symbolic Interactionism
Preview not available

Abstract

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.

Page Thumbnails