G. H. Mead, Socialism, and the Progressive Agenda

Home , George Herbert Mead, Reform movement

Sociology Faculty Publications Sociology

1-1988

Dmitri N. Shalin University of Nevada, Las Vegas, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/sociology_pubs

Part of the Politics and Social Change Commons, Social Psychology and Interaction Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons

Repository Citation Shalin, D. N. (1988). G. H. Mead, Socialism, and the Progressive Agenda. American Journal of Sociology, 93(4), 913-951. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/sociology_pubs/48

This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Article in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself.

This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. G. H. Mead, Socialism, and the Progressive Agendal

DmitriN. Shalin SouthernIllinois Universityat Carbondale

Mead is known today primarilyfor his originalphilosophy and -socialpsychology. Much less familiarto us is Mead the reformer,a man who sought to balance political engagementwith academic detachmentand who establishedhimself as an astutecritic of con- temporaryAmerican society. This paper examinesMead's political beliefs and his theoryof the reformprocess. Drawing on little- knownsources and archival materials,it demonstratesthat Mead sharedsocialism's humanitarian ends and that,following the domi- nantprogressive ideology of his time,he soughtto accomplishthese ends by constitutionalmeans. An argumentis made that Mead's ideologicalcommitments had profoundeffects on his substantive ideas, particularlyon the dialecticalpremises of social interactionism. The finalsection of the paper discussesthe legacy of Mead and the Progressivemovement.

The image of Mead many sociologystudents form in the years of their apprenticeshipis that of an armchairphilosopher, dispassionately dis- coursingon the nature of mind, self, and societyand largelyremoved fromthe practicalconcerns of the day. It is usuallylater that they learn thatMead was at the forefrontof the contemporarymovement for social reformand at some pointseriously contemplated a careeras professional reformer.The publicationsby Diner (1975, 1980), Deegan and Burger (1978), and, morerecently, Joas (1985) alertus to thisless knownfacet of Mead's life. The extentof Mead's involvementin the Progressivemove-

1 Thispaper is partof a projecton Progressivismand ChicagoSociology supported by a grantfrom the American Sociological Association's Committee on theProblems of theDiscipline. The secondsection of the paper was presentedat theannual meeting of theMidwest Sociological Society, Des Moines,1986. I wishto thankmy colleagues at SouthernIllinois University for the generous responses they gave me during the discus- sion of thispaper at the departmentalseminar; Norbert Wiley for directing me to Mead's earlypublications in theOberlin Review; Janet S. Belcove-Shalinfor her help in decipheringsome intractable passages from Mead's correspondence,as wellas for hersubstantive comments; and threeanonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism.Requests for reprints should be sentto DmitriN. Shalin,Department of Sociol- ogy,Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,Carbondale, Illinois 62901.

? 1988by The Universityof Chicago.All rightsreserved. 0002-9602/88/9304-0006$01.50

AJS Volume 93 Number4 (January1988): 913-51 913

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

mentand, moreimportant, the effect it had on his social theory,however, are stillfar from being fullyappraised. One reasonMead's politicalviews and engagementshave untilrecently escaped close scrutinyis that the relevantpublications (some unmen- tioned in any standardbibliography) appeared mostlyin limited-circu- lation magazines and local newspapers,while a portionof his political writings-notably on socialism and the human cost of industri- alization-were never publishedand are available only in manuscript form.2The impressionone draws fromthese writings,reinforced by Mead's private correspondence,is that of a man of radicallydemocratic convictions,keenly aware of social inequality,and deeply con- cernedwith the effectof the divisionof labor on the workingman. Like many other progressivesof his time, Mead was engaged in a lifelong polemic with socialists.He accepted withoutreservation their humanitarian ends but took issue with them on the question of means, fully embracingthe basic progressivisttenet that the historically unique frame- work of Americandemocracy provides the best available leverage for social reconstruction.Mead's life can be seen as an attemptto prove in boththeory and practicethat revolutionary objectives can be achievedby essentiallyconservative means. This paper examinesMead's politicalbeliefs and his theoryof social reform.It also arguesthat Mead's substantivethought, and particularly the dialecticalpremises of social interactionism,reflected his ideological commitments.An auxiliaryaim ofthis paper is to showthat, even though progressivethinkers might have failedto answerthe questionof how to effectradical social change by workingwithin the constitutionalframework of democracy,they deserve credit for placing this question on the politicalagenda and stressingthe public's role as an agentof social reconstruction. I begin with the sociohistoricalcontext of the Progressivemovement. Aftertracing Mead's path to Progressivism,I analyze his theoryof the reformprocess. Next, I explorethe relationshipsbetween his political beliefsand substantiveideas. And finally,I discuss the contributionof Mead and theprogressives to thetheory and practiceof American democracy.

THE SOCIOHISTORICAL CONTEXT OF PROGRESSIVISM We plownew fields, we opennew mines, we foundnew cities; we drive backthe Indian and exterminatethe buffalo; we girdlethe land with iron

2 One shouldalso bear in mindthat the articlesby Mead gatheredin a widelyused volumeedited by Reck (1964)sometimes appear there in an abridgedform and that typicallyleft out are thepolitically relevant sections.

914

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

roadsand lace theair withtelegraph wires; we add knowledgeto knowledge,and utilizeinvention after invention; we buildschools and endow colleges;yet it becomesno easierfor the masses of our people to makea living.On thecontrary, it becomesharder. The wealthyclass is becoming morewealthy; but the poor class is becomingmore dependent. The gulf betweenthe employed and theunemployed is growingwider; social con- trastsare becoming sharper; as liveriedcarriages appear, so arebarefooted children.

These words were writtenin 1879 by Henry George ([1879] 1926, pp. 390-91), the prophetof American reform, and are excerptedfrom his book Progressand Poverty.Serialized in the United States, translated intothe major European languages,and sellingsome two millioncopies in the next two decades, this book leftan indelibleimpression on the generationof progressivethinkers in America.In retrospect,the enthusiastic responsethe book elicitedfrom clergy, businessmen, academics, professionals,and philanthropistsseems all the morestartling in view of theauthor's expressed commitment to socialism:"The ideal ofsocialism is grand and noble; and it is, I am convinced, possible of realization" (George 1926, p. 319). That was writtenat a time when the spiritof laissez-fairereigned supreme and the principleof "the survival of the fittest"enjoyed the statusof unassailabletruth. The book's phenomenal success is testimonyto the sweepingchange in popular mood that the countryunderwent within two decades and thatmarked the transition to the Age of Reformin Americanpolitics (Aaron 1951, p. 67; Hofstadter 1955; Goldman 1956, p. 76; Resek 1967, p. xxi). The best indicatorof the new mood in the land was the change in mainstreamProtestantism. Toward the end of the 19thcentury, the pre- dominantlyindividualistic Evangelicalism of the pre-Civil War era noticeablyyielded to socially conscious and reform-orientedforms of Christianity.Throughout the country,evangelical establishments, such as Mead's alma mater,Oberlin College, were spreadingthe word that shaping man in the image of God meant not only purifyinghis soul throughthe gospel of Jesusbut also changingthe environmentthat cor- rupted his spiritand bred social ills. Henry King's Theologyand the Social Consciousness and John Commons's Social Reformand the Churchare just two examplesof the voluminousliterature of the 1890s thatspurred municipal reforms, the survey of immigrants, and theforma- tion of settlements,and thathelped to shape the idea of Christiansocial workas a practicalway ofimproving society (Smith 1957; Barnard 1969). The Christiansocialism of thisperiod was but a radicalexpression of the Social Gospel movementthat challengedthe Christianestablishment in thelast decade ofthe 19thcentury. Indeed, whenthe Rev. W. D. P. Bliss ([1890] 1970, p. 352-53) demanded"the ownership,or at least, the con-

915

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

trolof, cityrailways; the immediatecessation of givingaway or selling valuable street franchisesto private monopolists"and insisted that "Christiansocialists should teach by fact and not by sentiment;by fact about citygas works,not by meretalk about citybrotherhood," he simply was followingto the end the logic of new Evangelicalism. The reformersof the ProgressiveEra owed muchof their inspiration to thecritical ferment stirred by the Social Gospel. Their argumentsagainst old-schoolliberals, for whom government interference in the free-market economywas a crimeagainst nature,bore a particularlystrong resem- blance to the rhetoricof Christiansocialists. Along with the latter,the progressivescast aside still-potentsocial Darwinism and embraced George'sargument that, unless ways were foundto check the relentless drivetoward monopoly and the growingpolarization of wealthand poverty,America would soon finditself in the same sorrystate as the injus- tice-riddenregimes of the Old World. The most importantprogressive reforms-theestablishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the ConservationAct, the Federal ReserveAct, the food and druglaw, the federalworkmen's compensation program, the AdamsonAct mandating an eight-hourworking day on interstaterailroads, the electoralreforms, includingthe initiative,the referendum,the direct election of U.S. senators,and women's suffrage-demonstratethe extentof the break withthe old liberalismthat occurred in the ProgressiveEra. To be sure, the reformsin questionfell short of the social legislationadopted around the same timein Europe, notablyin England (Orloffand Skocpol 1984), but theywere precipitousenough to provokethe charges-from both the political Right and Left-that Progressivismis the firststep toward socialism. If the criticson the Right saw progressivereforms as a dangerous interferencewith naturalmarket forces, for the criticson the Left these were but half measures. For the very success of progressivereform, socialists charged, furnishedproof that state controldoes work, that equalizingopportunity is indeedthe government's business. That is what the socialistcritics of laissez-fairecapitalism had been sayingall along. The progressivereforms, according to them,were palliatives designed to stem the irreversiblemovement toward a social and industrialdemoc- racy,half-hearted attempts to refurbishthe capitalistsystem that needed to be revampedon a fundamentallynew-socialist-basis. The appeal of this argumentwas considerablyenhanced by moderationwithin the socialist movement.Emboldened by their electoralsuccesses and the growinginterest from respectable middle-class audiences, socialistsall overthe world were eager to assurethe public that they had "no intention of appealingto force,"that the time had come "to freeSocialism from the Marxian system,"which in the long run turnedout to be "more of a

916

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead hindrancethan a help" (Sombart[1909] 1968,pp. 225, 90). "I am opposed to anytactics which involve stealth, secrecy, intrigue, and necessitateacts of industrialviolence for their execution," declared Eugene Debbs (1912, p. 483), the pragmaticleader of the Socialistparty of America.No won- der that by 1912 he could claim the supportof fivedaily papers, 250 weeklies,50 mayors,and one congressmanand was pollingclose to a millionvotes in the presidentialelection-not sufficientfor the partyto become a mainstreamone but enoughto make opponentsworry (Pease 1962, p. 216; Fried 1970, pp. 377-90). There is a long-standingdebate about thecauses ofthe failure of socialism in America.According to one schoolof thought,socialism never had a chancein thiscountry because it is incompatiblewith the individualistic Americancreed. Othersargue thatsocialism did strikeroots in America and thatits effecton the politicalscene hereis vastlyunderestimated (for an overviewof thisdebate, see Laslett and Lipset 1974). There is also a thirdopinion, expressed most cogentlyby AlbertFried: "Socialismwas not an alien but an integralpart of the Americanpast. Here, in fact,lay the root of its 'failure,'of its inabilityto develop into an independent sturdymovement. In Europe, Socialism, with its radicallyegalitarian ethic,stood in militantopposition to, or at war with,established author- ity.... But the ideals of AmericanSocialism were embodied,implicitly at least, in the creationof America itself"(1970, p. 2). Althoughthis statementcannot be acceptedwithout serious qualifications, it does con- tain a kernelof truth, and it certainlyhelps us understandthe progressive thinkers'well-known ambivalence toward socialism (Goldman 1956, p. vii; McNaught 1974,p. 415). Indeed, WoodrowWilson was notsimply usingscare tacticswhen he remindedhis audience duringhis firstpresi- dentialcampaign, "I need not tellyou how manymen were flocking over to the standardof the Socialists,saying neither party any longerbears aloftan ancienttorch of liberty"([1912] 1962, p. 375). Nor did Theodore Rooseveltexaggerate much when he said, "I am well aware that every upholder of privilege,every hired agent or beneficiaryof the special interests,including many well-meaning parlor reformers, will denounce this[Progressive platform] as 'Socialism' "([1912] 1962, p. 318). HerbertCroly, the firsteditor of The New Republic and a staunch supporterof the Bull Moose party,was even bolderin his recognitionof theaffinity between the socialist and progressivistprograms: "The major- ity of good Americanswill doubtless considerthat the reconstructive policy,already indicated, is flagrantlysocialistic both in its methodand itsobjects; and ifany criticlikes to fastenthe stigma of socialism upon the foregoingconception of democracy,I am notconcerned with dodging the odiumof the term"(1909, p. 209). One can also detectthe unmistakable imprintof socialistideas in Jane Addams's resolutedenunciation of "the

917

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

overaccumulationat one end of societyand the destitutionat the other" and in her keen awarenessof the paradox of a "large and highlydeveloped factory[that] presents a sharp contrastbetween its socializedform and its individualisticaim" (1910, p. 126; 1902, p. 139). Socialismwas very much on the minds of the progressives.The latteroften sounded defensivein frontof theirsocialist opponents (e.g., Roosevelt1909), but theyalso sharedwith them humanitarian objectives. Progressive reforms reflectedtheir desire to socialize Americandemocracy, their "passion for the equalization of human joys and opportunities"(Addams 1910, p. 184). Much as theywished for the socialismof opportunity,however, progressiveswere leery of the socialism of property, endorsing it chieflyin such areas as municipalservices and public transportation.The massive nationalizationadvocated by orthodoxsocialists, according to progressives, was a falsesolution, for it would onlydampen the entrepreneurial spiritso essentialto Americanlife, undermineits basic freedoms,and eventuallystifle the opportunityit aimed to promote.The solutionto the problemwas reformnot revolution,a programof reconstructionthat would build on the strengthsof the Americandemocratic tradition yet would not hesitateto dispensewith the old institutionsthat stood in the way of socializingopportunity. To sum up, the progressiveagenda was shaped in the course of the polemicswith the proponentsof unrestrainedcapitalism and with the adherentsof socialistteaching. It also reflectedthe considerable influence of social Christianity.Progressivism represented an attemptto come to gripswith "some of the moreglaring failures of capitalism"(White 1957, p. 46). It was "plainlyinfluenced by socialism"(Goldman 1956, p. vii), which servedthe progressivesas both a negativeand positiveframe of reference.In substance, Progressivismrepresented "a dual agenda of economicremedies designed to minimizethe dangersfrom the extreme leftand right"(Hofstadter 1955, p. 236). This dual agenda called fora new outlook,a philosophyof a differentkind. It was to be bothconserva- tive and radical, pragmaticand principled,faithful to the nation'sdemo- cratic heritageyet criticalof its politicaland economicpractices. This dual agenda of AmericanProgressivism found expression in the lifeand work of GeorgeHerbert Mead.

THE MAKING OF A REFORMER: MEAD'S PATH FROM EVANGELICALISMTO PROGRESSIVISM Few Americanreformers on the path to Progressivismescaped the influenceof liberal Christiantheology, and Mead in this respectwas no exception.His father,Hiram Mead, a ministerin the Congregational churchand a prominenteducator, taught homiletics at OberlinTheolog-

918

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

ical Seminary.Mead's mother,Elizabeth StorrsBillings, was a strong- willed,dignified, very religious woman; for a numberof years, she served as presidentof Mount Holyoke College and latertaught at OberlinCol- lege. With a backgroundlike thisit was logical to expectthat Mead-a rathershy, serious, well-behaved boy-would take up the ministry. OberlinCollege, where Mead matriculatedin 1879,was a perfectplace to startsuch a career. Founded by clergyand renownedfor its pietyand abolitionistsentiments, Oberlin was a strongholdof thespirit of old New England Puritanism,which for decades filledits studentswith "a zeal for betteringthe lifeof mankindas the highestexpression of religiousduty" (Barnard 1969, p. 126). Yet just around the timewhen Mead was ready to entercollege, the winds of change began to blow throughAmerican institutionsof higherlearning. Darwin's theoryof evolution,reinforced by Germanhistorical criticism of the Bible, was winningnumerous con- vertsamong the public, makinga revisionof Christiandogma a necessity.The Social Gospel movementburst onto the scene, propelledby its proponents'ardent belief in the power of Christiansocial work to cure society'sills. About thistime, various reformschemes started attracting followersamong students and facultyin collegesand universitiesall over the country.Oberlin College was at the centerof the new currentsof theological,political, and social thought.In the 1880s and 1890s,it was the site of several conferencesin which the Rev. WashingtonGladden, Walter Rauschenbusch, Lyman Abbot, Richard T. Ely, Carroll D. Wright,and scores of otherliberal theologiansand reformersdebated topics rangingfrom Darwinism and Scripture,to intemperanceand crime,to immigrationand poverty.In lateryears, an arrayof progressive and socialistthinkers were invited to speak directlyto studentaudiences, includingsuch luminariesas RobertM. La Follette,Jane Addams, Lin- coln Steffens,Jack London, and JohnSpargo. Among the people most talkedabout at Oberlinduring this period was HenryGeorge. In 1887,he visitedthe campus and spoke on the issues of reformto an enthusiastic audience of facultyand students(Barnard 1969, p. 62). Mead's early correspondenceamply documentsthe depth of his religious feelings,the earnestcommitment to spreadingthe word of God inculcatedin him duringthe collegeyears. "I believe Christianityis the onlypower capable of grapplingwith evil as it existsnow," wroteMead to his collegefriend Henry Castle (MP April23 and March 16, 1884, bl, fl);3 "There can be no doubt of the efficacyof Christas a remedialagent

3 The letters"MP" stand here and elsewherein the textfor the GeorgeH. Mead papers,a collectionof lettersand manuscriptsby Mead in the Special Collections Departmentof the Joseph Regenstein Library, University of Chicago.The letters"b" and "f" followedby a numberindicate, respectively, box numberand foldernumber

919

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology and so I can speak ofhim as such.... The moralrealities of the world are powerfulenough to stimulateme and Christianitylays thestrongest hold upon me." There were also some indicationsthat Mead was affectedby the criticalcurrents of the day. These indicationsare not to be foundin thefour signed articles that Mead (1881, 1882a, 1882b, 1882c) published in the OberlinReview and thatdeal withconventional literary and philo- sophical subjects, but ratherin the unsignededitorials that he and his coeditor,Henry Castle, wroteduring their last year in college and that pointto theinfluence of liberal theology on Mead's thinking.4Noting with satisfactionthat "the religious craze againstevolutionary theories is dying out," the editorsurged a rapprochementbetween church dogma and the theoryof evolution (Editorial 1882). A longeditorial (1883) drew attention to the growingnumber of studentspassing up the ministryas a vocation because oftheir doubts about the veracityof churchdoctrine and insisted that"this doubt is, as an almostuniversal rule, honest doubt." At Ober- lin, Mead also acquired his politicalallegiance. As his letterto the editor of The Nation (Mead 1884) suggests,his politicalviews in the college yearsfollowed middle-class Republicanism, which was thenprevalent at Oberlinand which Mead was readyto defendagainst the attacksof its critics.Despite his laterambivalence about Rooseveltand admirationfor Wilson,Mead would remainloyal to theRepublican party throughout his life. Aftercollege, Mead confronteda difficultcareer choice. Two pos- sibilitiesappealed to him-Christian social work and teachingphiloso- phy. What he liked most about the formerwas the chance to work for people and somehowto make the worlda betterplace. The lattercareer attractedMead because of the secureacademic environmentand an opportunityto continuehis philosophicalspeculations, which he had grown increasinglyfond of in his last yearof college.There wereproblems with bothlines of work.A careerin Christianityrequired belief in God, which over theyears Mead founddifficult to sustain.To followthis path, wrote Mead in a letterto Henry Castle (MP March 16, 1884, bi, fl), "I shall wherea particulardocument is located.Mead's lettersto Castleare gatheredin box 1, folders1-4. Editorialchanges in thefollowing excerpts from Mead's lettersand manu- scriptsare limitedto typographicalerrors and punctuation.Two ofthe letters pertain- ing to Mead's interestsin socialismand reformhave been transcribedby theauthor and are publishedin theFall 1987issue of SymbolicInteraction (see Shalin1987). ' In his senioryear, Mead was electedan editorof theOberlin Review and charged withthe responsibility ofassisting Henry Castle, his close friend and felloweditor, in theeditorial department. Most of the editorials published during the academic year of 1882-83were probably written by Castle,but some,judged by theirstyle and other telltalesigns, were penned by Mead, and virtuallyall musthave had at leasthis tacit approval.

920

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

have to let personsunderstand that I have somebelief in Christianityand my prayingbe interpretedas a beliefin God, whereasI have no doubt that now the most reasonable systemof the universecan be formedto myselfwithout a God. But notwithstandingall thisI cannotgo out with theworld and notwork for men. The spiritof a ministeris strongwith me and I come fairlyby it." The alternativecareer had problemsof its own. "There is a greatdeal of good workthat needs to be done in popularizing metaphysicsamong common people," wroteMead in thesame letter,but thisoption did not appear to satisfyhis passionfor commitment: "I want to give myselfto thatwhich I can give mywhole self to. . . ." For several years, Mead remained troubled by this choice. Again and again, he would weigh the arguments,assess his chances,extol the virtuesof the Christianfaith, and thenconfess his inabilityto followsuit. "I need the strengthof religionin mywork," confided Mead to his friend(MP Febru- ary 23, 1884, bl, fl); "Nothing could meet the wants of mankindas Christianity,and whynot have a littledeception if need be? ... And yet as I look at it now, thereis hardlyany positionI would notrather occupy than that of a dogmatictheologian. I would ratherbe a school teacher than a JosephCook dabblingin metaphysics." No one knowshow longthis torturous quest would have continuedhad it not been forHenry Castle,5 who finallyconvinced Mead to join himin Cambridge,Massachusetts, where he had settledearlier to studylaw. Once his mind was made up, Mead threw himselfinto the study of philosophy.Of all possible specializationsavailable to him when he en- rolledin the Departmentof Philosophyat Harvard, he selectedthe one most peripheralto the discipline'straditional concerns-physiological psychology.The reasonfor this choice, according to Castle ([1889] 1902, p. 579), was Mead's beliefthat he had found "a harmlessterritory in which he [could] work quietlywithout drawing down upon himselfthe anathemaand excommunicationof all-potentEvangelicism." The spirit of a minister,however, was too strongin Mead, and it was not long beforethe need to serve people reasserteditself in him. In the fall of 1888, aftersuccessfully completing a year at Harvard,

Mead's difficultiesofthose years were financial as muchas intellectual.After college, Mead had to supporthimself and possiblyhis motherfirst by workingas a school- teacherand thenas a memberof a surveyteam of the WisconsinCentral Railroad Company.It doesappear that Henry Castle, the son of wealthy American missionaries in Hawaii, furnishedMead withsome financial assistance during the latter's studies at Harvardand laterin Germany.In 1891,Mead marriedCastle's sister, Helen, and eventuallyinherited, through her, part of the Castle family fortune. The influenceof HenryCastle on Mead's personaland intellectualgrowth was greatindeed, and one can onlyhope thatthe storyof thisbeautiful friendship, which ended in 1895with Castle'stragic death, will one day be told.

921

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

Mead won a scholarshipand wentto Germany,ostensibly to continuehis studiestoward a doctoraldegree. Yet his mindwould soon turnto politics, stimulatedby the burgeoningreform movement in Germany.The extentof governmentinvolvement in the issues of social security,the popularityof the Social Democraticparty, and particularlythe respect socialismcommanded in academic circlesdeeply impressed Mead, who foundthe situationin Germanyto be in sharp contrastto the one back home,where the idea ofstate involvement in labor-managementrelations was stillsuspect and the term"socialism" had a somewhatodious connotation.A fewmonths after settling in Germany,Mead experiencedsome- thingakin to conversion.His lettersof this period are brimmingwith enthusiasmfor social reformsand the prospectof transplantingthem to the States. He talks about "openingtoward everythingthat is uplifting and satisfyingin socialism"(MP August1890, bi, f3),urges Henry "to get a hold upon the socialisticliterature-and the positionof socialismhere in Europe" (MP October 21, 1890, bl, f3), and deplores in the most sweeping termsAmerican politics: "Americanpolitical life is horribly idealess.... Our governmentin ideas and methodsbelongs so to thepast. ... We had neverhad a nationallegislature in whichcorrupt motives in the most pecuniaryform could be more shamelesslyused than in the present"(MP October21 and 19, 1890, bl, f3).6 Somewherealong the way doubts about his career choice came to haunt Mead again. Invokinghis abiding need forcommitment, he declared a readinessto go into politics,at least on a trialbasis: "Life looks like such an insignificantaffair that two or threeor moreyears of utterly unsuccessfulwork would notseem to me in theslightest dampening, and the subjectivesatisfaction of actuallydoing what mynature asked forof infinitelymore importancethan anythingelse. . . . I mean that I am willingto go into a reformmovement which to myeyes may be a failure afterall; simplyfor the sake of the work"(MP October19, 1890,bI, f3). Soon a plan was formedin Mead's head, in whichhe envisionedhimself and his friend,Henry Castle, aftera thoroughstudy of the German scene, comingback to the States,securing control of a newspaper,and launch- ing a crusade forsocial reform: The immediatenecessity is thatwe shouldhave a clearconception of what formssocialism is takingin [the]life of European lands, especially of the

6 Mead's criticismof this period, and particularlyhis lamentations about the lack ofa "nationalfeeling" in America(MP October19, 1890,bl, f1), bearsa startlingresem- blance to the criticismof the Americanscene developedby the membersof the NationalistClub-a reformorganization established by the followers of Bellamy, the authorof the popular utopia, Looking Backward, which advocated the cause of social- ismin theUnited States.

922

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

organismsof municipallife-how citiessweep theirstreets, manage their gas works and streetcars, theirTurnvereins, their homes of prostitution, theirpoor, their minor criminals, their police, etc., etc., thatone maycome withideas to the Americanwork. Now Henryyou mustcome and at least get such a share in thesesubjects and hold of the social politicalliterature thatyou can go righton when we are back. I mustteach at firstfor I must earnmoney, but I shan'tkeep it long.I wantmore active life.... My vague plan now is thatI go to the universityof Minnesota as a teacher-and you to Minneapolisas lawyerand thatwe finallyget control of theMinneapolis Tribune. This is of coursehazy but Minneapolishas verylarge attractions for this work-it is young, not sunk into the meshes of any traditional machine,and yetbeyond the boom period. But thisis entirelysuperfluous castlebuilding but to go to some citywe mustand to go to workand failif need be, but work in any case and work satisfactorily.[MP August 1890, bl, f3] What is particularlyimpressive in Mead's thinkingof thoseyears is his clear understandingthat the cityis bound to play a special role in future reforms.City Hall, insistedMead in a mannerreminiscent of Christian socialists,is thetrue locus ofthe reform movement, and citypolitics is the place where the reconstructionof America should start:"We must get into politicsof course-city politicsabove all things,because therewe can beginto workat once in whatevercity we settle,because citypolitics need men morethan any otherbranch, and chieflybecause, accordingto myopinion, the immediateapplication of principlesof corporatelife-of socialism in America must start fromthe city.... If we can purifythere, we can throughout,if we could not there,we could not anywhere.If we can give Americaninstitutions the new blood of the social ideal, it can come in onlyat thisunit of our politicallife and fromthis starting point it will naturallyspread" (MP October21 and 19, 1890, bl, f3). Unlike Mead, Castle was a man of more practicalbent. He shared manyof Mead's ideals and was stronglyaffected by the reform currents in Germany,where he traveledextensively,7 yet he thoughtMead's plans of goinginto politics and reformingAmerica via cityhall somewhatutopian and did not hesitateto impressthis on Mead. WithoutCastle's financial backingand his editorialskills, Mead had to put his plans on the back burner.Meanwhile, his life took a decidedlynew turn.In 1891, Mead was appointedan instructorat the Universityof Michigan, where he met his futurecolleague and friend,John Dewey. An academic of no small

7 "The importanceof social democracy here is tremendous,but not in theleast alarm- ing,"wrote Castle ([1894] 1902, p. 784)to hisparents while on a tripto Germany."It simplystands as a protestagainst the existing conditions, not merely on theireconom- ical butalso on theirpolitical side. The leadersare men of brains and education,whose influenceis on the side of the generaldemocratic movement after all, and as such usefuland necessary."

923

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology renowneven in those days, Dewey sharedMead's passion forsocial democracyand philosophicaldisquisition. As earlyas 1888, Dewey ([1888] 1969,p. 246) speculatedabout the"tendency of democracy toward socialism, if not communism"and claimedthat "there is no need to beat about thebush in sayingthat democracy is notin realitywhat it is in nameuntil it is industrial,as well as civil and political. . . a democracyof wealth is a necessity."The two pursuitsthat Mead was tryingto reconcilewere unitedin the lifeof this remarkableman. Indeed, Dewey was the fore- mostexample of an Americanacademic successfullycombining research and politicalengagement, and, as such, he was bound to become a role model forMead. Not muchis knownabout Mead's stayat Ann Arbor.He stillseems to have harboredsome hopes fordirect political engagement, as indicated, forinstance, by his enthusiasticresponse to theidea of a socialistweekly, which Dewey, Mead, and Park were contemplatingfor a while (MP February28, 1892, bl, f3; see also Raushenbush1979, pp. 18-21; Joas 1985, p. 21). What is clear is thatDewey and Mead formeda friendship that each of them would later claim was his most preciouspossession. WhenDewey was offeredthe chairmanship at theUniversity of Chicago, he made his acceptance contingenton the appointmentof Mead (who never completedhis doctoralthesis) as an assistantprofessor in his department.It was at the Universityof Chicago that Mead's career as a reformerbegan to flourish.In the yearsfollowing his move to Chicago, Mead joined theCity Club, an organizationof reform-minded professionals and businessmen,of which he became presidentin 1918. Mead workedin close associationwith such people as GrahamTaylor and Jane Addams, and formore than a decade he servedas treasurerof the Uni- versityof Chicago settlement.8Along with Dewey, Mead was keenly interestedin reformof the Chicago school systemand at some point headed the Chicago Educational Associationand the Vocational Guid- ance League. He was vice-presidentof the Immigrants Protective League of Chicago. On several occasions, he served as a memberof the strike settlementcommittees. By 1910,Mead was generallyrecognized as one of the leaders of the Progressivemovement in the cityof Chicago. The firstexpressly political publicationsof Mead-a review of Le Bon's Psychologyof Socialism and an article"The WorkingHypothesis

8 GrahamTaylor, a socialworker with long experience in theChicago reform movement,wrote to Mead's sonon thedeath of his father, "More than he orany of us know the social settlementand cityclub movementsowed much to his enlistmentand guidance"(MP Taylorto HenryMead, September26, 1931,bla, f7).

924

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead in Social Reform"-testifyto Mead's continued preoccupationwith socialism.In his words, "Socialism,in one formor another,lies back of the thoughtdirecting and inspiringreform" (Mead 1899a, p. 367). But one can also detecta new criticalnote in Mead's treatmentof socialism, or rathera "doctrinaire"and "utopian"version of it, to whichMead juxta- poses the"pragmatic" and "opportunist"approach of progressivereformers. Indicative in this respectis Mead's review of Le Bon's book. He agrees with the authorthat socialistteaching has a tendencyto become dogmaticinsofar as it lays claim to a priorivalidity. He also renouncesall versionsof socialism that sanction violent means, and he expressesskepti- cism about Marx's economicanalysis, which he findsat odds withmod- ern economic and political realities. Nevertheless,he resolutelyparts company with Le Bon and other criticsof socialism who confuseits doctrinaireform with its humanisticcontent. The programmaticand apocalypticaspects of socialistteaching may be obsolete,Mead argues, but its quest forjustice is not; this quest is now taken over by social democratswho have denouncedrevolutionary violence and turnedinto reformers:"The socialistsare becomingopportunists. They are losing confidencein any delineationof the futureconditions of society-any 'vision givenon the mount.' . . . Socialisticthinking may be differentin France and England, but it is the same greatforce and cannotbe studied in the camp of the programmistalone. It is comingto represent,not a theory,but standpointand attitude.... We have, in general,given up beingprogrammists and becomeopportunists. We do notbuild any more Utopias, but we do controlour immediateconduct by the assurancethat we have the properpoint of attack,and thatwe are losingnothing in the process. We are gettinga strongergrip on the methodof social reform everyyear, and are becomingproportionately careless about our abilityto predictthe detailedresult" (Mead 1899b, pp. 405-6, 409). Mead's politicalbeliefs at this point,and specificallyhis emphasison pragmatismand opportunism,are reminiscentof Eduard Bernstein's brandof social democracy,with its motto,"The movementis everything, the goal is nothing."That is to say, Mead is cognizantof socialism's historicalimport and sympatheticto its humanitarianobjectives: "Social- ismpresented at least forsome decades thegoal thatsociety must contem- plate, whetherit will or not [be] a democraticsociety in whichthe means of social expressionsand satisfactionsare placed at the disposal of the membersof the whole community"(MP b2 addenda, f27). Nonetheless, Mead growsincreasingly skeptical about socialistmeans. He continuesto stresssocialism's historical importance but mostlyin thepast tense,view- ing it as a movementthat shook the world from its dogmaticslumber but thathad now outlivedits usefulness,at least in the UnitedStates. By the

925

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

early 1900s,Mead fullyidentified himself with the Progressivecreed, to whichhe remainedfaithful the restof his life.9 It would not be appropriateto speak about Mead's movementaway fromsocialism, for there is notenough evidence to assertthat he everwas a card-carryingSocialist to beginwith. The questionthat one may pose is, Whydid Mead notembrace more openly socialist premises? Part of the answerto thisquery, I believe,can be gleanedfrom the statusof politi- callyengaged scholarship in thisperiod. The marriageof scholarship and advocacy in Americanacademia at the timewas far frompeaceful and harmonious(Furner 1975). The professor'sright to speak on controversial issueswas acknowledged,albeit within clear limits.An outrightendorse- ment of socialism was prettymuch out of the question.10 Instructors willingto take a politicalstance had to make sure thattheir views bore the imprimaturof scienceand dovetailedwith the Americandemocratic creed. Bemis, Ross, and some otherinstructors who losttheir jobs in the late 19thcentury because oftheir political engagements did, in one way or another,overstep the boundaries of what mostin academia thenthought were the standardsof objectivityand disinterestedness.Others, such as Richard T. Ely, Charles Zueblin, and ThorsteinVeblen, had to go throughendless explanationsand humiliatingdenials concerningtheir allegedprosocialist sentiments. " Still,quite a fewacademics with various degreesof commitmentto the ideals of social democracy,such as Selig- man, Commons,Bird, and Dewey, founda formulathat seemingly rec- onciledscholarship and advocacy. The commondenominator that united theseotherwise disparate characters was an unswervingcommitment to reform,combined with a vigorousrenunciation of violenceas the means

I In a letterto his daughter-in-law,Mead, (MP March10, 1919,bl, f16) refersto his dutyas presidentof the City Club to nominatea fewof its members as candidatesfor its leadingpositions: "Now I will spendhours on thephone securing the consent of five-well balancedbetween the radicals and conservatives-whichmeans two reds, twoblues and one Menshevik."Somehow, one getsthe impression that Mead's sym- pathieswere, at thistime,with the Mensheviks, i.e., withthe moderate social demo- cratscommitted to democracy,reform, and therule of law. 10Even in theheyday of Progressivism,teaching socialism in collegeswas seen as a disloyalact. Here is a statementon the subjectadopted in 1914 by the state of WisconsinRepublican Convention: "We favorthe principle of Lehrfreiheit. The truth mustand shall be taught.However, Socialism is not a demonstratedtruth and we regardit as destructiveof every principle of government that is dearto theAmerican peopleand themind of thestudent should be keptfree from its misleading theories" (quotedin Mead 1915,p. 351). '1 One ofMead's lettersto hiswife contains an interestingreference to Veblen: "Had a pleasantcall upon Veblen,who is painedbecause the Socialist Review says his doc- trineis goodsocialism" (MP May 13, 1901,bl, f5).Veblen was no socialist,to be sure, buthis precarious position at theUniversity of Chicago must have made him sensitive to such suggestions.

926

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

of social reconstruction.That, of course, was the basic creed of Pro- gressivism,which had just startedcoming into its own. It is this rising currentin Americanpolitics that providedlegitimation for the incipient fusionof scholarshipand advocacy and thathelped to securea nichefor all thosewho soughtto partakein thereform of American society without jeopardizingtheir academic positions.Mead's politicalviews, or at any rate his public stance,showed thathe understoodthe limitsof the possible foran academic in the ProgressiveEra. Still, we need to bear in mind that Mead's high regardfor socialism remainedunchanged throughout his life.He greetedwith enthusiasm the democraticFebruary Revolution in Russia (Mead 1917d), and he sup- portedthe programof the BritishLabour party(Mead 1918). "What has been said [aboutsocialism]," wrote Mead in a characteristicpassage, "has been said witha profoundrealization of the past and futureimport of its economicgospel, even ifit has been a gospelonly according to Marx" (MP b3 addenda, f7). Mead's highestpraise, however,was reservednot for socialistsbut for people like Jane Addams and R. F. Hoxie, radical democratsthoroughly committed to the strugglefor the rightsof the underprivileged(Mead 1907, 1916-17). What attractedMead to these people was that,without wrapping themselves in the revolutionaryflag, theywere searchingfor ways of realizingthe revolutionaryideals that inspiredsocialist criticsof society. This quest for peaceful revolution providesa key to Mead's own theoryof the reformprocess. To sum up, Mead's intellectualand politicalgrowth was markedfrom the beginningby the tensionbetween his evangelicaldesire to servepeo- ple and his predilectionfor an academiccareer. This tensionwas resolved when the emergingmovement for social reformlegitimized the fusionof scholarshipand advocacyin theacademic setting. Along with some other social scientistsof his day, Mead was influencedby socialism,or rathera social democraticversion of it thatrenounced all formsof revolutionary violenceand endorsedstrictly democratic and politicalmeans of effecting social change. Afterestablishing himself in academia, Mead embraced theProgressivist creed, yet even thenhe did notcease to see thehistorical importanceof socialism or to acknowledgehis debtto it. By theend ofthe 19thcentury, Mead emergedas a "radicallydemocratic intellectual" (Joas 1985, p. 10), a reformerdeeply involved in progressivecauses, and a buddingacademic searchingfor a theoreticalrationale for a far-reaching yetpeaceful reconstruction of Americansociety.

INSTITUTIONALIZING REVOLUTION: MEAD'S THEORY OF THE REFORM PROCESS Progressivereformers differed among themselveson the etiologyof cur- rentproblems, the ultimateobjectives of reform,and the best strategies

927

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology forsocial reconstruction,but theyall agreedthat the gap betweendemo- cratic ideals and American realityhad grown intolerablywide. The foundingfathers envisioned the United States as a communityof civil- minded and well-informedcitizens consciouslyshaping their destiny underthe protection of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. The reality, with its predominanceof poorlyeducated workersand illiterateimmi- grants,made a mockeryof thisJeffersonian ideal of populardemocracy. Like all progressives,Mead was very much aware of "the chasm that separatesthe theoryand practiceof our democracy,"yet he wentfarther than most in delineating"the tragedyof industrialsociety" with its "routineand drudgeryof countlessuninterested hands" and "the blind productionof goods, cut offfrom all the interpretationand inspirationof theircommon enjoyment" ([1923] 1964, p. 263, [1925-26] 1964,pp. 295- 96). The plightof workerscaught in the meshesof the modernfactory systemattracted his special attention. The IndustrialRevolution, according to Mead, makes the worker's participationin thedemocratic process problematic, because it minimizes his educationalneeds, cheapenshis labor, and dehumanizeshis life.The modernworker is in some sense worse than his medieval counterpart, whose skills, slowly acquired and hard to replace, "made of him an admirablemember of the older community.... It is themachine that has taken possessionof the trades, has displaced the artisan,and has sub- stitutedfor the artisan,who makes an entirearticle, a groupof laborers who tendthe machine.The effectof thisupon thetraining of thelaborer has been most deplorable.The more the machineaccomplishes the less theworkman is called upon to use his brain,the less skillhe is called upon to acquire.... The man who tendsone ofthese machines becomes a part ofthe machine, and whenthe machine is thrownaway theman is thrown away, for he has fittedhimself into the machine until he has become nothingbut a cog" (1908-9a, pp. 370-71; 1908,p. 20). The machineis a productof the social forcesover whichno individualhas control,yet its devastatingeffects have been multipliedby the callous attitudeof its owners:"Thus the machineis a social productfor which no individual can claim completeresponsibility. Its economicefficiency is as dependent on thepresence of the laborer and themarket for its products as mechani- cal structureis dependentupon the inventor,and its exploitationupon the capitalist.But the group moralityunder which the communitysuf- fers,recognizes no responsibilityof theexploiter to thelaborer, but leaves himfree to exhaustand even maimthe operator, as ifthe community had placed a sword in his hand withwhich to subjugate"(1907, p. 127). The situationis furtherexacerbated by thecurrent educational system, whichperpetuates the divisionbetween the two kindsof skills-one for laborersand theother for higher orders of society. An investmentinto the

928

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead futureworker's education beyond what is necessaryto fulfillhis role as a laboreris considereda luxury,and so he rarelymoves beyond elementary school and is oftencompelled to startwork even earlier.The wealth of culturalgoods thatbelongs to everyonein the communityremains closed to him: "Culturedclasses in some sense have an access to this wealth, whichis denied to masses in the community.... We are encouraginga class distinctionwhich mustbe destructiveof Americandemocracy if it persists.. ." ([1930] 1964,p. 403; 1908-9b, p. 157). Bad as theposition of theAmerican-born worker is, it is worsefor the immigrant. He is brought to the UnitedStates as a sourceof cheap labor and, lackingEnglish and education,becomes easy preyfor employers. The latter,Mead concluded fromhis manyencounters with Chicago businessmen,"had absolutelyno feelingof responsibilityto the immigrant,or the sense of debt which Chicago owes to the immigrant.... He [theimmigrant] comes ignorant and helplessbefore the systemof exploitationwhich enwraps him before he leaves theold countryand may last fortwo generationsafter he enters our gates. Our governmenthas nothingto offerhim by way of protection but the doctrineof the abstracthuman rightsof man, a vote he cannot intelligentlyexercise, and the police to hold him in his place" (1909, pp. 222-23; 1907, p. 123). WhateverAmerican democracy has to offerthe well-to-do,Mead concludes,falls far short of its promise when it comesto themillions of working-class people effectivelyexcluded from meaningful participationin the lifeof the community.If modernAmerica is to fulfill thedemocratic aspirations of its foundingfathers, it has to "eliminatethe evilsto whicheconomic inferiority exposes great masses of man," it has to provideequal access to culturalgoods forall membersof the community, and it mustimbue the laborer'swork with meaning: "In the bill of rights whicha modernman may draw up and presentto the societywhich has producedand controlshim, should appear the rightto work both with intelligentcomprehension of what he does, and with interest.For the latterone mustsee theproduct as a whole . . ." (1908-9a, pp. 381, 378). Many of the above themes,as one can readilysee, run parallelto the familiarsocialist critique of capitalistsociety. The likenessis particularly strikingif we thinkabout the youngMarx's philippicsagainst the effects of the division of labor on the workingman. Indeed, both Marx and Mead deplored the dehumanizingconsequences of the factorysystem, bothsought to restorethe producer's sense of theproduct as a whole,and both resisteda wholesale renunciationof modernityand investedmuch hope in the futureof science and technology.Beyond these parallels, however,one findsdifferences that set Marx's socialismsharply apart fromMead's progressivism.For Marx, thereal culpritis capitalism,with its private ownershipof the means of production,inherently unstable economy,and thatperennial scourge-alienated labor. Capitalismmust

929

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology be abolished,if necessary by revolutionaryforce, and, ifthe dictatorship of the proletariatmeans curtailingindividual freedoms, that is no great loss, since the civil libertiesguaranteed by bourgeoissociety are a sham anyhow. When the considerationsof justice and equality collide with thoseof freedomand democracy,the former are to be givenhigher prior- ity in Marx's system.Not so in Mead's book. Democracygets the top billingthere. To be sure,justice is importantfor Mead, as it is forany progressive-it is a vital conditionof genuinedemocracy-yet, if pur- sued forits own sake, radical equalityis bound to impingeon civil liberties and underminedemocratic institutions. Justice must be pursuedas far,and onlyas far,as necessaryfor securing for every member of society an opportunityto participatein the democraticprocess. This last point needs furtherelaboration. Underlyingthe Progressive movement was therealization that econom- icallyunregulated and sociallyunconstrained democracy flourishing under laissez-fairecapitalism creates an underclassthat is, de jure, freeyet, de facto,excluded from meaningful participation in the democraticprocess. The United States, a countrythat prideditself on its commitment to democracy,was willing to tolerateutterly degrading human conditions,including the most shamefulexploitation of woman and child labor. In the name of freedomof contract,freedom of trade,and so on, employerswere able to impose on workersthe termsof contractthey wishedto, even when thismeant paying starvation wages. Clearly,pro- gressivesconcluded, civil rightsalone could not guarantee personal dignityand ensure the realizationof human potentialto which every memberof societyis entitled.A measure of economicwell-being and educationalopportunity is imperativefor a democraticsociety. This is what Mead had in mindwhen he declaredthat "abstract human rights" offerlittle protectionto immigrantworkers, and what Dewey meant when he said that"actual and concreteliberty of opportunityand action is dependentupon equalizationof the politicaland economicconditions underwhich individuals are alone freeinfact, not in somemetaphysical way" (1946, p. 116). This progressivestance had far-reachingimplica- tions. It implied that "povertyis a resultof a faultyorganization of society,and theorganization of society can be changed"(MP b2 addenda, f26). It led to the conclusionthat "community has a rightto exertcontrol over corporation"(MP b7, f8). And, by bringingto light"singular evils whichhave resultedfrom corporate property" (MP b7, f8), it hastenedthe end of laissez-fairecapitalism in the United States. As one could imagine,this attack on 19th-centurycapitalism met stiff resistancefrom die-hard defendersof the old ways, who decried the progressiveprogram as an unconstitutionalabridgment of democratic liberties.Yet most progressivesstood firmand did not waver in their

930

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

convictionthat society's interferencein the market process is both justifiableand necessary,that is, insofaras this interferencemakes de- mocracymore equitable and to the extentthat it leaves the core of civil libertiesintact. The last pointis particularlyimportant, for it underscores the fact that progressiveshad more faithin bourgeoisdemocracy than Marxistsdid. They thoughtthat civil liberties,constitutionally guaranteed and when necessaryexpanded, could providea firmfoundation for social reconstruction.Radical and revolutionaryas this reconstruction mightbe, it had to be carriedout by constitutionalmeans, and itssuccess had to be judged by the degree to which democraticvalues were pre- served. There is a phrase thatcrops up in Mead's writings-institutionalizing of revolution.Says Mead: "Revolutionsmight be carriedout by methods which would be strictlyconstitutional and legal"; "Governmentby the will of thepeople meansthat orderly revolution is a partof the institution of governmentitself"; "When you set up a constitutionand one of the articlesin it is thatthe constitutionmay be changed,then you have, in a certainsense, incorporated the very process of revolution into the order of society"([1915] 1964, pp. 150-51; MP b3 addenda, f29; 1936, p. 361). These statements,so emblematicof Mead's politicalthought, illuminate the widely held progressivistbelief that radical change can be accom- plished,without recourse to violence,by legitimateconstitutional means. Revolutionis not in itselfa bad thing,according to Mead; it is "a sum- maryreconstruction" that takes place when"a wholepopulation is able to assume, fora time,the largeror moreuniversal attitude" (MP Mead to IreneTufts Mead, September16, 1916,bla, f13). As such,it representsa constructiveforce that must be harnessedby progressivelegislation and directedby enlightenedpublic opinion.This peacefuldemocratic revolution naturallypresupposes that the democraticmachinery is alreadyin place, as, forinstance, in theUnited States. The democraticalternative is verymuch in doubt wherebourgeois democracy has not yetbeen established,which, Mead pointedout, was the case in mostof Europe at the time. The appeal of socialism is strongestprecisely in those countries wherethe strugglefor bourgeois democracy is stillgoing on: "Socialism abroad has been the outcomeof popular struggleagainst governments which have been in the hands of privilegedclasses. . . . It has been democracy'sfighting formation when opposed to a modernfeudalism" (Mead 1917d). Once democraticinstitutions are secured,socialism has done its job and mustmerge with other reform currents. And what about capitalism?It certainlymust be transformedbut not necessarilyinto socialism. The futuresocial order will be a radically democraticsociety that encourages personal initiative, equalizes opportunityin everysphere of life,and makes social reconstructionan ongoing

931

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

concern.If capitalismis a thesis,then socialism is morein the natureof an antithesis-not a synthesis,as socialistswould have it. If such a synthesisis possible at all, it is likelyto be providedby progressivism. Here is how Mead laid out thisidea in his courseon thelogic of the social sciencesthat he gave at the apex of the ProgressiveEra in the academic year 1911-12, as jotted down by one of his students:"Take case of Socialismvs. Individualism.Individualism owns capital, and Socialism asks that communityshall own property-here[is] a clash. Solutionin- volves say this form:individual initiative,individual control must be preservedand on the otherhand public controlmust be preservedto protectthe individual. How [can we] deal practicallywith this? Any number of schemes now appearing-interstatecommerce, control of wages, controlof conditionsof labor, pensions,old age, out of work, sickness [benefits].These statementsare presentsolutions so that the clash is done away with"(MP b8, f8). It would be a mistake to inferfrom this that Mead conceived the institutionalizingof revolutionas a legalisticaffair, some sortof never- endinglegislative process supervisedby politiciansand professionalreformers.The legislativemeasures introduced by theprogressive adminis- trationswere unquestionablyvaluable, and Mead was veryenthusiastic about them (particularlyabout the platformof the Wilson administra- tion),12 yet these legislative initiatives, he thought,were not in themselves sufficientto bringabout a radical democracy,nor did theygo to theheart of the reformmovement. The ongoingreconstruction, as Mead envisioned it, was a multifacetedprocess designedto furtherthe common interestsof all groupsand individualmembers of society and requiredthe mobilizationof public opinion,persistent attention of the press,coopera- tionof labor and businessorganizations, reorganization of the school, and directparticipation of membersof the scientificcommunity. It was an articleof faithwith Mead, and a startingpoint in his theory of thereform process, that underneath the conflicting interests of groups, classes, and nations lies a public good, waitingto be discoveredand realized."The real assumptionof democracy inside the society of a nation and withinthe society of different nations," wrote Mead in an articlefrom his little-knownseries of essays on democracyand war, "is thatthere is always to be discovereda commonsocial interestin whichcan be founda solutionof social strifes.... Democraticadvance, therefore,has always been in the directionof breakingdown the social barriersand vested

12 In 1916,Mead wroteto his daughter-in-law, Irene Tufts Mead: "It is goodthat there is likelyto be a popularmajority for Wilson as well as themajority of theElectoral College,though I wishit had beenlarger, that is I wishthat the country had swung furtherin the directionof progressivism. . ." (MP November 12, 1916, bl, f3j.

932

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

interestswhich have keptmen from finding the common denominators of conflictinginterests" (1917d; see also 1917a, 1917b, 1917c, 1917e). Mead did not specifywhat thepublic good is or how it is to be determined.Nor was he readyto identifyit with majorityvote.13 Yet he was convinced that some notionof public good must be a guidingforce in the reform movement,and he vested the responsibilityfor its articulationin the generalpublic. No government,elected body of representatives,or group of professionalreformers in a democraticsociety could successfullycom- pleteits task withoutordinary citizens, organized into voluntary associa- tions."The whole workof legislation," asserted Mead (1899a, p. 368), "is not onlydependent upon public sentiment,at least in democraticcoun- tries,but it is findingconstantly fuller expressions in otherchannels of publicity.... If onlyit becomespossible to focuspublic sentimentupon an issue in the delicate organismof the moderncommunity, it is as effectiveas if the mandate came fromlegislative halls, and frequently moreso." The public,as Mead, followingDewey, understoodit, is a body of citizenry,well informed,conscious of its interests,and readyto take the problemsof societyas theirown. This body is distinguishedby its members'willingness to considerthe interestsof all groupsand individuals fromthe standpointof what is good forthe communityas a whole. The successof the reformprocess ultimately depends on how thoroughly thepublic is mobilizedand how long it can sustaininterest in thecritical issues of the day. A vitalrole in mobilizingpublic opinion belongs to thepress, which has the powerto focusattention on theills of societyand to keep themin the news until a consensusis reached regardingways of dealing with the problem:"The newspaper,in its variousforms of journal and magazine, is effectingchanges that are assumed to be those which followgovern- mentalaction" (1899a, p. 368). So far,however, the overall performance ofthe press had been less thansatisfactory. One seriousproblem, according to Mead, was that "our newspapersrepresent frequently, or gener- ally,political parties, instead of bringing together the common interests of all of us-that theyrepresent only single parts" (1912, p. 215). Another scourge,especially characteristic of the progressivepress, was its perva- sive "sensationalism[which] is the expressionof a fundamentalsocial conflictwhich the communityfeels but is not willingto come to terms with"(MP b4 addenda, f1). To fulfillits mission, the press would have to overcomeits partisanbias and serve as a unifyingforce. Mead had similaradvice forthe leaders of labor and businessorganiza-

13 In one place, Mead refersto "a real democracyin whichthe theoretical political poweris notsimply in thehands of a votingmajority, but in whichthe community life expressesthe interests of all . . ." (MP b2 addenda,f27).

933

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

tions.He gave his fullsupport to labor unions,whose combative spirit "is amplyexplained by the simpleAmerican demand forwhat one has con- fessedlyearned, and theAmerican determination to fight,if necessary, to get one's fairrights" (1907-8, p. 133). He urged businessleaders to do theirshare in improvingthe conditionsof labor and to get directlyin- volved in the issues of minimumwage, workinghours, workmen's compensation,and so on. Yet, he did not hesitateto chastiseboth labor and capitalwhen he thoughtthat intransigence on eitherside preventeda fair resolutionof labor-managementdisputes (see MP Mead to Irene Tufts Mead, July16 and 20, 1919, bl, f17; see also Diner 1980, pp. 148-51). The solutionto labor strifethat Mead personallyfavored was arbitration, to be conductedwith expertmediators and underthe eye of the public. The importantthing was to keep searchingfor common ground, which, Mead was convinced,could always be found if only businessmenas- sumedtheir full responsibility as membersof the community and workers aimed at "immediatelypossible achievements,with a vivid sense of the presentreality of the means used and theirnecessary parity with the methodsof the employers.Gradually the sense of communityof interest betweenboth arises, and with it growinginterest in the actual struggle and a feelingof intensemeaning that does not have to be projectedinto the futureto get reality"(1899b, p. 411). Schools have a vital part to play in humanizingAmerican society. Progressiveeducation, mandatory and freefor all children,could at least partiallyoffset "social restrictionswhich limitthe developmentof chil- drenof poorerclasses," and it could aid theprogressive cause by bringing culturalgoods to the poor and thereby"freeing . . . cultureof its class connotation"(1964, pp. 405-6). Progressiveeducation could also help to counteractthe negativeeffects of the divisionof labor by furnishingthe workerwith knowledgeof the industrialprocess as a whole. That, in turn,would requirethe eliminationof the two-tiersystem of education that gives liberal education to some and industrialtraining to others. "Industrialtraining in thiscentury should aim to give to the laborernot onlyprofessional efficiency but the meaningof his vocation,its historical import,and some comprehensionof his positionin the democraticsociety.... Out of thiswill arise an interestin thewhole product which may lay the foundationfor that intelligence which can in some measureresist thenarrowing influence of the specialized labor in thefactory.... Ameri- can industrialeducation must be a liberaleducation" (1908-9b, p. 157; 1908-9c, p. 213). And last, but not least, the success of reformdepends on tappingthe vast resourcesof science. The traditionalreliance on charityand philan- thropyis no longeradequate to thetask in hand. A pathto contemporary reformis a "path fromimpulsive charity to social reconstruction";to be

934

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

successful,it has to lead "not onlyto effortsof ameliorationbut also to judgmentsof value and plans forsocial reforms"(1964, p. 399). Members ofthe academic communitycan make a largecontribution to chartingthe reformprogram and formulatingthe means of social reconstruction.This is not simplybecause universityprofessors possess specialized knowledge but also because theycombine scientifically trained intelligence with the knowledgeof the problemsof the communityat large. "The universityis not an officeof expertsto whichthe problemsof the communityare sent to be solved; it is a part of the comunitywithin which the community problemsappear as its own" (1915, p. 351). What sets scientificintelli- genceapart and makes its contributionto the reformprocess so signally importantis its impartialcharacter, its "disinterestednessin existing structures,social and intellectual,and willingnessto continuallyrecon- structthese substituting for them other structures at any pointand to any extent"(MP b3 addenda, f16). A scientificallytrained mind can rise above conflictingvalues and find a solutionthat reconcilesdisparate claimsin thebest interests of thecommunity as a whole. In thesearch for a solutionto the problem,scientific intelligence is likelyto be guidednot by a ready-madeblueprint of a futuresociety, "a vision given on the mount,"but by the sense of the possible,a realisticaccount of available means,and a habitof dealingmethodically and rationallywith the problem at hand. This habit of impartialitydoes not mean that progressive scholarshave no interestin theoutcome, no values of theirown; theyare afterall on the side of progress,and so, when theirjob is done, the old social order will be replaced with a new one that is more universal, rational,and humane: "The rationalsolution of the conflicts,however, calls forthe reconstructionof both habitsand values, and thisinvolves transcendingthe order of the community. A hypotheticallydifferent order suggestsitself and becomesthe end in conduct.... It is a social orderthat includesany rationalbeing who is or may be implicatedin the situation with which thoughtdeals. It sets up an ideal world, not of substantive thingsbut of propermethod" (1964, p. 404). In summary,Mead's theoryof the reform process stems from his belief, widelyshared by theprogressive reformers of his time,that a terriblegap separatescontemporary American society from the Jeffersonianideal of populardemocracy, that capitalism and democracyare currentlyworking at cross purposes,and that,unless a way is foundto humanizelaissez- fairecapitalism, the futureof democracyin Americawill be imperiled. One road to a morehumane and equitablesociety lies in theinstitutionali- zation of revolution-the termby which Mead meant that radical re- formscan be carriedout withinthe constitutionalframework of democracy and that social reconstructionmust be an ongoingconcern rather than an all-out,one-time effort to set up a perfectsociety. Mead refused

935

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

to spell out the exact natureof the futuresocial orderaside fromgeneral statementsthat it should be based on public good, take account of the interestsof all social groups, and broaden the scope of economicand social opportunityfor disadvantagedmembers of the community.He focused,instead, on methodsand means of social reconstruction,the most salient of which are the mobilizationof the generalpublic, con- tinuedattention of the press,arbitration of labor-managementdisputes, thefusion of academic and vocationaleducation, and theparticipation of membersof theacademic community.There was no gap betweenMead's rhetoricand practicalaction. Whetherhe was marchingwith Jane Ad- dams on thestreets of Chicago in supportof women'ssuffrage, surveying the homesof immigrantsfrom eastern Europe, writingeditorials on the disputebetween the Board of Education and theChicago Teachers'Fed- eration,giving public support to thebeleaguered reformers at theUniver- sity of Wisconsin,or servingon the citizens'committee investigating labor grievancesin the Chicago garmentworkers' strike-he was doing exactlywhat he thoughta memberof the public shoulddo to staypoliti- cally engagedand to furtherthe cause of reform.The interplaybetween Mead's politicalbeliefs and his otherintellectual pursuits was greatindeed, and it comes intoclear reliefin his philosophicaland social theory.

SOCIALIZING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE: MEAD'S THEORY OF THE SOCIAL PROCESS The parallels betweenpragmatist and progressivistthought have been frequentlynoted (White 1957; Featherstone1972; Levine 1969; Cremin 1969; Shalin 1986a), yet theirimplications have not been fullyspelled out. My argumentin the presentsection is that thereis a far-reaching electiveaffinity between Progressivism and pragmatism,particularly the social pragmatismof Dewey and Mead. Indeed, the pragmatistvision of the world-in-the-making-theworld that is perenniallyindeterminate, continuouslyemergent, and wonderfullymalleable-is a metaphysics tailor-madefor the age of reform.The traditionalworld of rationalist thought,the world of naturallaw and order,left little room for conscious effortsto make it more rational and humane. In contrast,the world confrontingpragmatists was cryingout forreform; it had to be trans- formed,and notjust by theimpersonal forces of evolutionbut by human intelligence.The latter,according to pragmatistphilosophers, was not a mirrorfaithfully reflecting natural laws but an active forcecapable of transformingmatter according to a logic of its own. Nowhere is the transformative,constitutive power of reason more evidentor urgently needed than in the social domain: "In the physical world we regard ourselvesas standingin some degreeoutside the forces at work,and thus

936

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

avoid the difficultyof harmonizingthe feelingof human initiativewith the recognitionof serieswhich are necessarilydetermined. In societywe are the forcesthat are beinginvestigated, and if we advance beyondthe meredescription of the phenomenaof the social worldto the attemptat reform,we seem to involvethe possibilityof changingwhat at the same time we assume to be necessarilyfixed" (Mead 1899a, pp. 370-71). It seems logical, therefore,that, to make room for reform,pragmatists would postulatea measureof indeterminacy,that theywould proclaim that"uncertainty does not belongsimply to the values, it belongsto the factsas well" (MP b8, f1), thatthey would urgethat "the individual and environment-the situation-mutually determineeach other" (Mead [1908] 1964,p. 86). If one wereto assertthe possibility of reform,one had to decrythe moralitythat pictured the existingorder of thingsas inher- entlyrational and to replace it with a new ethics,according to which "moral advance consistsnot in adaptingindividual natures to the fixed realitiesof a moraluniverse, but in constantlyreconstructing and recreat- ing theworld as theindividuals evolve" (Mead [1908] 1964,p. 90). These philosophicaltenets found theirexpression in the pragmatism-inspired (interactionist)theory of society. In one of the posthumouslypublished volumes of Mead's works appears a tellingpassage in which he formulatesthe centralproblem of modernsociety: "How can you presentorder and structurein societyand bringabout the changesthat need to take place, are takingplace? How can you bringthose changes about in orderlyfashion and yet preserve order?To bringabout changeis seeminglyto destroythe given order, and yetsociety does and mustchange. That is theproblem, to incorporatethe methodsof change into the orderof societyitself" (1936, pp. 361-62). This questionis paradigmaticto theconception of sociology as thescience of social reconstructionor the scienceof social controlthat gained wide currencyamong American sociologists in theProgressive Era (Faris 1967; Fisherand Strauss1978; Janowitz 1978; Shalin 1986a). It was commonly held at thetime that sociology dealt withthe problems of society undergo- ing social transformation,that the "process of reconstructing social condi- tionsis the processwith which the social sciencesdeal" (MP b7, f8). It was also widelyassumed that sociologycould aid in effortsto minimize themore disruptive consequences of social change.Indicative of the communityof assumptions underlying sociological thinking of this period was the conceptof social control.This was morethan a technicalterm; it can also be seen as a theoreticalexpression of progressiveideology. How can we exerciseintelligent control over social processes?was the burning questionof the ProgressiveEra, and it was in responseto thisquery that sociologistscame up with an ingenuousanswer: Intelligent control over humansociety requires social controlover humanintelligence. What this

937

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

meantwas thatthe fortunesof societydid not have to be decided on the barricadesand in the flamesof revolutions,for the real battlewas for people's minds. To influencethe directionin which societygrows, one had to reformor, what is the same, to informthe consciousnessesof its members.That is to say, the answerto the modernpredicament was not coercionand violencebut social control.This answer,along withother preceptsof social interactionism,was consistentwith the political climate ofthe age of reform.Once again, Mead's writingsoffer us insightinto the interplaybetween ideological beliefsand substantivetheorizing in the ProgressiveEra. As we have seen before,Mead fullyacknowledged the socialists' role in exposingcapitalism's seedier sides and raisingthe workers'awareness of theneed to fightfor their rights. There was one more,and notso obvious, thingfor which Mead was readyto creditsocialism-its role in striking down the thenprevalent concept of man as an asocial being.In addition to exposing the economic institutionsof laissez-fairecapitalism, the socialistcritique exposed its ideologicalfallacies, including the utilitarian idea of mindas biologicalendowment and of actionas an instrumentfor maximizingpersonal pleasure. Socialistthinkers resolutely rejected this utilitarianview, substitutingfor it the idea of the inescapablysocial natureof man: "But theessence of man is no abstractioninherent in each separateindividual. In its realityit is the ensemble(aggregate) of social relations"(Marx [1846] 1963, p. 198). Now Mead was not familiarwith all the sociologicallyrelevant works of Marx, certainlynot with the writings of the youngMarx, which appeared in printfor the firsttime after Mead's death,yet he had an acute senseof socialism's sociological import. Socialist teachingis ultimatelyconcerned with socializingman's action and thought,argued Mead: "Its realitylies in theessentially social charac- terof all conduct,and the gospel,according to socialism,is the recogni- tion that all self-seekinghas and must have a social end, if it belongs inside a social organism.What societyis strugglingto accomplishis to bringthis social side of our conductout so thatit may,in some conscious way, becomethe elementof control"(1899b, p. 406). This insight,main- tained Mead, is socialism'smost usefulcontribution to the diagnosisof modernconditions. Indeed, as long as our motivesremain private and we act without regardfor other members of society,democracy will continueto breed injusticeand human misery.It is only when the individualtakes into accountthe largersocial context,when he "takes the role of the other," that social controlbecomes a guidingforce in societyand democracy realizesits true potentialas a politicalsystem: "Social controldepends, then, upon the degree to which the individualsin societyare able to assumethe attitudes of the others who are involvedwith them in common

938

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead endeavor"(Mead [1924-25] 1964,p. 291). This, accordingto Mead, is the sociologicalessence of socialism,and this,I shouldadd, is wherehis own sociologicalideas intersectwith those of theyoung Marx. Mead's premise that"the whole natureof our intelligenceis social to thevery core" (1934, p. 141) is consistentwith Marx's view that "activityand mind,both in theircontent and in theirmode ofexistence, are social, social activityand social mind" [1844] 1964, p. 138). The same is trueof Mead's (1935-36, p. 70) contentionthat "the individual is no thrallto society.He constitutes societyas genuinelyas societyconstitutes the individual," which reminds us of Marx's (1964, p. 137) motto,"Just as societyproduces man as man, so is societyproduced by him." There is a familyresemblance between Mead's assertionthat "the unity and structureof the complete self reflects theunity and structureof the social processas a whole"(1934, p. 144) and Marx's thesisthat "man, much as he may thereforebe a particularindi- vidual, . . . is just as much a totality-the ideal society-the subjective existenceof thoughtand experiencedsociety for itself"(1964, p. 138). And, finally,Mead's (1934, p. 309) insightthat the "relationsbetween social reconstructionand selfor personalityreconstruction are reciprocal and internal"reflects the same dialectical patternthat is embedded in Marx's idea of revolutionarypractice as "the coincidenceof changingof circumstancesand of human activityor self-changing"(1963, p. 198). It would be a mistaketo push the parallelsbetween Mead and Marx too far.It would be equally mistakento ignorethem. These parallelsare notspurious; they reflect the same determinationto overcomethe opposi- tionbetween public and private,social and individual,society and man, the determinationto bringinto one continuummind, self, and societythat markedthe thoughtof the youngMarx and Mead. I wish to stressthat Mead's interactionismis closestto Marx's romanticism,that is, to that earlyperiod in Marx's intellectualcareer when he was close to the ideal- ism of Hegel and Fichte, when he did not yet break with bourgeois democratismand still had high regardfor the curativepowers of self- consciousreason (Gouldner 1973, pp. 337-40; Shalin 1986b,pp. 112-13). As Marx became increasinglydisillusioned with the prospectsfor the peacefultransformation of society, the romantic-idealist themes gave way in his writingsto a new emphasison economicfactors and revolutionary force.Mead, on the otherhand, like mostprogressive thinkers, retained his youthfulidealism as well as his romanticorganicism with its root metaphorof man-the-microcosm(Shalin 1984, pp. 55-58). The most remarkablething about romanticorganicism is thatit compelsone to see man and societynot as opposedentities but as aspectsof the same process of the productionof social realityas objectiveand meaningful.The individual appears herenot just as one organor partof the social wholebut as a social self,or, to use the language of romanticorganicism, a "species

939

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

being"reflecting in unique fashionthe totalityof social relations.By the same token, societyloses in this scheme its externalityand thinglike character;it is dissolvedinto a seriesof interactions in thecourse of which it is continuouslyregenerated as a social universe,or universeof discourse. It is veryimportant from the interactioniststandpoint that the individualembraces within his selfthe whole of society, that he "takesthe attitudeof the generalized other. " It is equallyimportant that the individual does not become a passive receptacleof social normsand values but develops a criticalattitude toward his social self and the societythat providedhim with this self." The individualis both "Me" and "I"-a responsiblemember of various social groups and a unique personality capable of transcendinga givenorder, a law-abidingcitizen and a critic of society. Insofaras theindividual successfully integrates these two aspectsof his social existence,the relationshipbetween the individualand societycan be judged organic,which is exactlywhat progressiveswished it to be. Here is a sample of statementsexpressing this romantictheme, as for- mulatedby differentprogressive thinkers: The organizationand unificationof a social group is identicalwith the organizationand unificationof any one of theselves arising within the social process.... Each individualself within this process, while it reflects in itsorganized structure the behavior pattern of that process as a whole, does so fromits own particularor unique standpoint.... [Mead 1934, pp. 144, 201] But human societyrepresents a more perfectorganism. The whole lives trulyin everymember, and thereis no longerthe appearance of physical aggregation,or continuity.The organismmanifests itself as whatit trulyis, an ideal or spirituallife, a unityof will. If then,society and the individual are reallyorganic to each other,then the individual is societyconcentrated. He is notmerely its image or mirror.He is thelocalized manifestation of its life. [Dewey 1969, p. 237] A national structurewhich encouragesindividuality as opposed to mere particularityis one whichcreates innumerable special niches, adapted to all degreesand kinds of individualdevelopment. The individualbecomes a nationin miniature,but devotedto loyalrealization of a purposepeculiar to himself.The nationbecomes an enlargedindividual whose special purpose

14 "Humansociety, we have insisted,does notmerely stamp the pattern of its organized social behaviorupon any one of its individualmembers, so thatthis pattern becomeslikewise the patternof the individual'sself; it also, at thesame time,gives hima mind.... And his mindenables him in turnto stampthe pattern of his further developingself (further developing through his mentalactivity) upon the structure or organizationof human society, and thusin a degreeto reconstructand modifyin terms ofhis self the general pattern of social or groupbehavior in termsof which his self was originallyconstituted" (Mead 1934,p. 263). I have examinedelsewhere (Shalin 1978) themacrosociological implications of thisthesis.

940

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

is thatof human amelioration, and in whoselife every individual should findsome particular but essential functions. [Croly 1909, p. 414] These utterancesshould not be taken to mean that progressivessaw contemporaryAmerican society as an actual embodimentof organicin- teraction.A contemporaryindustrial society, as Mead (1934, p. 307) and otherprogressives repeatedly stated, is riddenwith contradictions: "Withinsuch a society,conflicts arise betweendifferent aspects or phases of the same individualself . . . as well as betweenindividual selves [that must be] settled or terminatedby reconstructionsof particularsocial situations,or modificationsof the given frameworkof social relations, whereinthey arise or occur."Rather, the above statementsshould be seen as an attemptto lay down a standardfor judging contemporary reality, an ideal and a theorythat indicated the directionof social reconstruction and the method of social control.As an ideal, the futuresociety en- visionedby the progressiveimagination was somewhatakin to the ro- manticnotion of gemeinschaft,in that it accentuatedthe virtuesof the "Great Community,""free and enrichingcommunion," or free intercourse, whose participantsare "the constantmakers of a continuously new society"(Dewey [1927] 1954, p. 115-17; [1929] 1962, p. 143). A formalmodel of this futuresociety was "the universeof discourse,a communitybased simplyon theability of all individualsto conversewith each otherthrough use of the same significantsymbols"; its actualization requiresan understandingthat "the brotherhoodof men . . . is the basis fora universalsociety" (Mead 1934, pp. 282-83). As a method,interac- tionisttheory extolled the advantages of intelligentsocial controlover violentmeans of effectingsocial change.Its preferencefor peaceful, non- coerciveforms of social reconstructionwas alreadyimplied in its basic premises:If mind, self, and societybelong to one continuumand are indeed aspects of the same social intercourse,then the reconstructionof societyis largelya matterof reconstructingthe human mind. "An institution is, afterall, nothingbut an organizationof attitudeswhich we all carryin us" (Mead 1934, p. 211), and so, abolishingobsolete institutions means reformingour attitudes,our ways of thinking.That is, to change society,we have to change ourselves:"Thus the relationbetween social reconstructionand self or personalityreconstruction by the individual membersof any organizedhuman society entails self or personalityrecon- structionin some degree or other by each of these individuals.... In both typesof reconstruction the same fundamentalmaterial of organized social relationsamong human individualsis involved,and is simplytreated in differentways, or fromdifferent angles or pointsof view, in thetwo cases respectively;or in short, social reconstructionand self or personality reconstructionare thetwo sidesof a singleprocess-the processof human social evolution"(Mead 1934, p. 309).

941

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

To sum up, thereis an electiveaffinity between Mead's social philosophy and his politicalbeliefs. Along withother pragmatists, Mead aban- doned the rationalistuniverse of naturalorder, replacing it witha world brimmingwith possibilities and open to social reform.Translated into the language of sociologicaltheory, this world-in-the-makingyielded a pe- culiar versionof "sociologicalprogressivism" (Fisher and Strauss 1978, p. 488), withits dynamicpicture of societyas ongoingsocial interaction. Everyindividual appears in thispicture as simultaneouslya productand producerof society,whereas society transpires as bothan antecedentand outcomeof social interaction.Mind, self,and societyare bound together hereas partsof one continuum,or aspectsof the same processof production, of social realityas objective and meaningful,which makes it im- perativethat each be understoodin termsof the other. The circle involved in the interactionistmode of reasoningis not unintentional;it is the dialecticalor hermeneuticalcircle that requiresthat the part be ex- plained throughthe whole and the whole in termsof its parts. This dialectical approach, characteristicof 19th-centuryromanticism and 20th-centuryProgressivism, accentuates the possibilityof peacefulsocial transformationand predicatesthe reconstructionof societyon the reconstructionof the humanmind. The ultimategoal of social reconstruction, as envisionedin social interactionism,is a democraticcommunity based on the ideal of free discourseor organic interaction(Habermas 1981, pp. 11-68). When the self-consciousnessof all individualsis so altered thateach can rejoicewith the successes, empathize with the miseries, and helpmeet the needs of others, that is, wheneveryone assumes the attitude of the whole society,then the latteris transformedinto a trulyuniversal and democraticcommunity.

CONCLUSION: MEAD AND THE PROGRESSIVE LEGACY Many observershave commentedon the contradictionsinherent in the Progressivemovement, on its "profoundinternal dialectic" (Conn 1933, p. 1; see also Hofstadter1955, pp. 5, 236; White1957, p. 46; Noble 1958). There is indeeda greatdeal of tensionin progressiveideology. Its adher- entsextolled the virtuesof entrepreneurialindividualism and at thesame time stressedthe need forpublic control;they longed for a socialismof opportunityyet defended the capitalismof property;they urged a radical break withthe presentand reacheddeep intothe past foran ideal of the future;above all, theywere determinedto escape the twin dangersof radicalismand conservatism."There is the conflictbetween the old and the new, betweenthe radical and the conservative,"wrote Mead about the dominantmood of thistime, "but . .. we may not wish to be either

942

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead radicalor conservative.We may wishto comprehendand to do justiceto the changingvaluations" (1938, p. 480). It is thisdesire to riseabove the politicalextremes of the Rightand the Leftthat brought on the scornfor the progressivesfrom some contemporaryand moderncritics. Those on the Righthave chargedthat Progressivism ultimately leads to socialism. For criticson theLeft, Progressivism has been littlemore than an episode in the ongoingeffort to stem the inexorabledecline of corporatecapi- talism. Yet historicalProgressivism defies all attemptsto subsume it undera neat ideologicallabel. Progressivereformers were democratsof a new breed. These were "men and women longingto socialize theirdemocracy" (Addams 1910, p. 116), workingfor "a morebalanced, a moreequal, even, and equitable systemof human liberties" (Dewey 1946,p. 113) and determined"to limit and controlprivate economic power as the Foundershad limitedpolitical power" (Graham 1967, p. 5). It is arguable whether,as Scott (1959, pp. 697, 690) claims,"the Progressive Era was moreoriginal than the New Deal and moredaring as well," but he is rightwhen he stressesits historical importance,and he is justifiedin his critiqueof persistentattempts in modernhistoriography "to conservativeProgressivism." Kolko's thesis (1963) thatprogressive reforms constituted "the triumph of conservatism" fliesin theface ofthe progressives' democratic aspirations. The veryterm "social reconstruction"adopted by progressiveswas indicativeof their values. It harkedback to theCivil War era, whenLincoln first invoked it to describethe need to breakcleanly with the past and to startthe country on a radicallynew path. With an equal sense of urgency,progressives facedup to thetask of social reconstruction,which on theeve ofthe 20th centurymeant bringing government into the marketplace, broadening the scope of economicopportunity, democratizing education, and transform- ing the public intoan agentof social control.Although far from a mono- lithicmovement, Progressivism was championedby the people who, re- gardlessof theirmany differences,shared the beliefthat the key to the transformationof societyis-to be foundin publicdiscourse rather than in the skills of professionalpoliticians. In theirfight against laissez-faire capitalism,progressives borrowed many an insightfrom socialism; some claimed that "we are in forsome kind of socialism,call it by whatever name we please" (Dewey 1962, p. 119). Nevertheless,there were important points of theoryand methodon which progressivesand socialists parted company. Progressivesendorsed socialism's emancipatory goals but rejectedits revolutionarymeans. Their attempt,unsuccessful as it mighthave been, to workout a schemefor securing these goals without breakingthe constitutionalframework of democracy-an attemptthat is at the core of theprogressive agenda-is themost enduring legacy of the

943

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

Progressivemovement. It is also a source of perennialtension and con- tradictionin Progressivismas well as in the kindredpragmatist and interactionistmovements. Progressivesrecognized that democracywould self-destructunless it providedroom forjustice, that societymust secure minimum economic and social standardsfor every one ofits members. But how muchdemoc- racy?How muchjustice? Does it includesocialized medicine, guaranteed employment,free college education? Both Mead and Dewey were likely to includethese among the standardsof social decencynecessary for the developmentof each individual'screative potential, but thereis nothing in progressiveideology that would help to resolvethis matter in principle. More important,one has to wonderwhether full equality of opportunity can be accomplishedunder privateownership of the means of production. The criticson the Lefthad good reasonto doubt thatthe effortsof the progressivesto socialize opportunitywould ever bring about the socialismof opportunityin a capitalistAmerica. The socialists'wholesale dismissalof Progressivism,however, was far too hasty. They did not understandthe progressives'preoccupation with the means of social reconstructionand specificallywith their concern for the fate of democracy in a societywhere economic power was radicallycentralized. The highest value forsocialists was economicequality; once it was achieved,Marx thought,human rightswould take care of themselves,and universal democracywould naturallyensue. But more recentsocialist thinkers have become increasinglyaware (Lynd 1974, p. 773; Giddens 1981, pp. 172-73; Lukes 1985)that this outcome is farfrom assured. All radical attemptsto nationalize the means of productionin this centuryhave resultedin thebreakdown of democratic institutions: the more radical the scope of nationalization,the moredeleterious effect it seems to have on human rights;the moresuccessful the effortsto do away withbourgeois democracy,the less roomleft for radical social criticism.This is notto say thatcapitalism guarantees human rights (think of Chile or SouthAfrica), only that human rightshave invariablybeen a casualtyof attemptsto substitutea socialist(in Marx's sense of the word)for a capitalistsociety. In lightof thishistorical experience, progressives' concern for democracy and the means-endsrelationship in social reconstructionseems farfrom irrelevant.There is a dialecticaltension between justice and democracy, equalityand freedom,that is inherentin Westernliberalism (Lasch 1983; Gutmann1983) and thatthe progressiveswere nowhereclose to resolv- ing, but thisis a creativetension, and progressiveswere correct in bringing it to light and stressingthe need to balance the considerationsof justice withthose of democracy. The amorphousnotion of public good is anothersource of difficulty and confusionin progressivetheory. Mead consistentlyrefused to enunciate

944

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead whathe meantby "publicgood" or to spellout thevalues thatwould help one judge a policyor a programas beingin the "interestsof the communityas a whole." Like otherreformers of his time,he was confidentthat each contentiousissue lends itselfto public adjudicationand thatevery social conflictcould be amicablyresolved. Critics have been attackingthe excessiveoptimism, deliberate ambiguity, and opportunistictendencies in pragmatistand progressivethought for a long time (Bourne 1915; Smith1931; Niebuhr [1932] 1960;Novack 1975).What theyare less likely to see is thatthese tendencies are notwithout a rationale.Pragmatists and progressivesrefused to specifythe exact natureof a futuredemocratic societybecause theybelieved that "everygeneration has to accomplish democracyover and over again," that"the veryidea of democracy. . . has to be constantlydiscovered, and rediscovered,remade and reor- ganized" (Dewey 1946, pp. 31, 47). Any overarchingscheme, "a vision givenon themount," is likelyto turninto a straitjacketif followed rigidly and unswervingly,as numerousattempts in recentdecades to impose a shiningrevolutionary ideal on an unyieldingreality readily testify. It is not true that progressiveshad no vision of the futureor that all their values were ad hoc. The failureof the progressivesto endorsethe com- prehensivesocial securityprogram, caused by theirfear-again not en- tirelymisplaced, as seen fromthe vantage pointof the present-of irre- sponsiblepatronage politics and unwieldyfederal bureaucracy, does not underminetheir commitment to spreadingsocial justice. Their emphasis on regulatoryreforms and publiccontrol instead of state-run and government-supervisedprograms, although unquestionably too limitingeven fortheir time, was also farfrom disingenuous and class-motivated,as it is sometimesportrayed. Progressives were essentiallyright in leavingit to thepublic to defineand redefinecontinuously what shape theirideal of a moredemocratic and humanesociety should assume in a givenhistorical setting.There will always be much bickeringand plentyof mistakes made, but in the long run a public forumis the best one forarticulating the public good. The idea of a democraticpublic, as Janowitz(1952, 1978) rightlypoints out, that is, the idea of "the passing of functions whichare supposedto inherein thegovernment into activities that belong to the community"(Mead 1899a, p. 369), is an enduringcontribution of pragmatismand interactionismto contemporarysocial thought. Anotherfacet of philosophicaland sociologicalprogressivism that has drawncriticism is tied to the beliefin scientificmethod as an instrument of social reform.Mead's insistencethat "scientific method . . . is nothing but a highlydeveloped form of impartialintelligence," that "science has becomethe methodof social progress,and social progressitself has become a religion"([1923] 1964, p. 256; 1918, p. 639) is bound to raise a numberof criticalquestions. Charges of scientismand positivismare

945

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology frequentlyleveled against pragmatismin thisconnection (Selsam 1950). Much of this criticism,in my view, stemsfrom a misconceptionof the pragmatistidea of science. It is not truethat pragmatistssaw scientific knowledgeas being value neutraland scientistsas standingabove society. "Knowing, including most emphaticallyscientific knowledge," stressedDewey (1946, p. 17), "is not outsidesocial activity,but is itselfa formof social behavior,as muchas agricultureor transportation." More- over, as Mead ([1930] 1964, p. 406) indicated,"It is not untilscience has become a disciplineto which the researchability of any mindfrom any class in societycan be attractedthat it can becomerigorously scientific." Pragmatistsdid not seek value neutrality,nor did theyespouse value partisanship.Their positionis bestdescribed as value tolerance,in thatit advocates "takingthe value perspectiveof the other"and seeks truthat "the intersectionof conflictingvalues" (Shalin 1979, 1980).15 Mead and thepragmatists did not trustthe magic powers of scientificintelligence to resolvethe burningissues of the day. Rather,they valued science as a formof rationaldiscourse in whichevery participant has a say, all claims are subjectto testing,and each solutionundergoes continuous revision. It is certainlynot a perfectinstitution, but, wartsand all, scienceoffers the best available model of democracyin action,and we shouldcredit prag- matistsfor focusing attention on the operationsof value-tolerantscience and the contributionit could make to rationaldiscourse in societyat large. One finalissue that needs to be addressedhere concernsthe progressives' boundlesstrust in democraticinstitutions and peacefulrevolution in America. As many critics(Bates 1933; Selsam 1950; Purcell 1973; Schwedingerand Schwedinger1974; Karier 1975; Novack 1975) have argued-correctly-pragmatiststended to exaggerateboth the potential for and the actual extentof social change in America. They tended to confusethe normative and thedescriptive in theiraccounts by, on theone hand, criticizingcontemporary democracy and, on the other,insisting thatthe institutionalframework of democracynecessary for social reconstructionwas already in place. This confusionis clearlyvisible in the almosttotal blindness of Mead and mostof the progressivesto theplight of blacks. They spoke eloquentlyon behalfof immigrants,women, and

15 Thereis an interestingparallel between the way pragmatists and contemporary Germanscholars searched for a propermix of science and ethics. Thus, both Dewey andWeber expressed considerable regard for scientific procedures, both thought that objectiveknowledge is grounded in values,and both rejected the "ethic of ultimate ends"and optedfor the "ethics of responsibility" or "ethics of means." Ultimately, however,Weber praised value neutrality as a stancebefitting scientific workers, whereasDewey and the pragmatists were more in tunewith the idea of value tolerance.

946

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead children,but the institutionalizedexclusion of blacks fromAmerican democracydid not seem to botherprogressive reformers much. It should be also emphasized that Mead, along with other progressives,held a rathernaive view of business leaders' readiness to heed the voice of reasonand jump on the bandwagonof reform."While a good partof the programof socialism is being put into practice,"wrote Mead (MP b2 addenda, f27), "the strikingdifference lies in the fact that it [is] being undertakennot by the proletariatbut by thewhole community under the eager guidance of captains of industry,community generals, research scientistsand conservativestatesmen." This statementflies in the face of the long war with trade unions and dogged oppositionto labor reforms that "captains of industry"waged (as theystill do), using more or less preposterousexcuses. It took a large-scalerebellion at Homestead and elsewhereto convincebig businessthat reformswere unavoidable and usefulafter all. And we may add thatit tooka massivecampaign of civil disobediencein the 1960s to bringblacks intoAmerican democracy. All ofwhich suggests that American society, certainly in theProgressive Era, was farfrom the institutionaldemocracy in whichrevolution could have been carriedout by legal means alone. Having said this,I take issue with thosecritics who see pragmatistsand progressivesas dreamyidealists at best and apologistsfor corporate capitalism at worst."These men were progressivesand melioristsof theirday, but theywere realistsand skep- ticsas well" (Janowitz1970, p. xii). They foughthard battlesin Congress forprogressive legislation, they were doing tangible things to improvethe lot of immigrantsand the poor, and theywere preparedto change the verysystem if necessaryto make roomfor meaningful reform: "In order to endureunder present conditions, liberalism must become radical in the sense that, instead of using social power to amelioratethe evil consequences of the existingsystem, it shall use social power to change the system"(Dewey 1946,p. 132). There is everyreason to believethat Mead would have endorsedthis statement.

REFERENCES Aaron,D. 1951. Men of Good Hope: A Storyof American Progressives. New York: OxfordUniversity Press. Addams,Jane. 1902.Democracy and Social Ethics. New York:Macmillan. 1910. TwentyYears at Hull-House.New York: Macmillan. Barnard,John. 1969. From Evangelicalism to Progressivism at OberlinCollege, 1866- 1917. Columbus:Ohio StateUniversity Press. Bates, E. S. 1933. "JohnDewey: America's Philosophic Engineer." Modern Monthly 7:387-96. Bliss,W. D. P. (1890)1970. "What to Do Now?" Pp. 350-54 inSocialism in America: Fromthe Shakers to theThird International, edited by Albert Fried. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

947

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

Bourne,R. S. 1915. "JohnDewey's Philosophy." New Republic13:154-56. Castle,Henry N. (1889) 1902."Letter of Henry Castle to GeorgeH. Mead, February 3, 1899,"pp. 578-81 in HenryNorthrup Castle: Letters. London: Sands. . 1902. "Letterof HenryCastle to Mabel, Helen,and Mother,November 27, 1894."Pp. 783-85 in HenryNorthrup Castle: Letters. London: Sands. Conn,Peter. 1983. The Divided Mind: Ideologyand Imaginationin America,1898- 1917. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Cremin,L. A. 1969. "JohnDewey and theProgressive Education Movement." Anti- ochReview 67:160-73. Croly,Herbert. 1909. The Promiseof American Life. New York:Macmillan. Debbs, Eugene. 1912. "Sound SocialistTactics." InternationalSocialist Review 12:481-86. Deegan,M. J.,and J. S. Burger.1978. "George Herbert Mead and SocialReform: His Workand Writings."Journal of the Historyof the BehavioralSciences 14:362- 73. Dewey,John. (1888) 1969. "The Ethicsof Democracy."Pp. 227-49 in JohnDewey, theEarly Works, 1882-1889, vol. 1. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press. (1927) 1954. The Public and Its Problems.New York: Holt. (1929) 1962.Individualism, Old and New. New York: Capricorn. (1938)1950. "What I Believe,Revised." Pp. 32-35 in Pragmatismand Ameri- can Culture,edited by Gail Kennedy.Boston: Heath. .1946. The Problemsof Men. New York: PhilosophicalLibrary. Dewey,John, and JohnL. Childs. 1933."The UnderlyingPhilosophy of Education." Pp. 287-319in TheEducational Frontier, edited by W. H. Kilpatrick.New York: Appleton-Century. Diner,S. J. 1975. "Departmentand Discipline:The Departmentof Sociologyat the Universityof Chicago,1892-1920." Minerva 13:514-53. . 1980. A City and Its Universities,Public Policy in Chicago,1892-1919. Chapel Hill: Universityof NorthCarolina Press. Editorial.1882. OberlinReview 10:55. . 1883. OberlinReview 10:175-76. Faris,Robert E. 1970.Chicago Sociology, 1920-1932. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Featherstone,J. 1972. "JohnDewey." New Republic8:27-32. Fisher,Berenice M., and AnselmL. Strauss.1978. "Introduction."Pp. 457-98 in A Historyof Sociological Analysis, edited by Tom Bottomoreand Lewis A. Coser. New York: Basic. Fried,Albert, ed. 1970.Socialism in America:From the Shakers to theThird Interna- tional.Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Furner,Mary 0. 1975.Advocacy & Objectivity.A Crisisin theProfessionalization of AmericanSocial Sciences,1865-1905. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. George, Henry. (1879) 1926. Progress and Poverty. New York: Doubleday, Page. Giddens,Anthony. 1981. A ContemporaryCritique of Historical Materialism, vol. 1. Berkeleyand Los Angeles:University of CaliforniaPress. Goldman,Eric. 1956. Rendezvouswith Destiny: A Historyof ModernAmerican Reform.New York: Vintage. Gouldner,Alvin A. 1973. "Romanticismand Classicism:Deep Structuresin Social Science."Pp. 323-66 in For Sociology:Renewal and Criticismin SociologyToday, by AlvinA. Gouldner.New York: Basic. Graham,Otis L. 1967.An EncoreforReform: The Old Progressiveand theNew Deal. New York: OxfordUniversity Press. Gutmann,Amy. 1983. "How Liberalis Democracy?"Pp. 25-50 inLiberalism Recon- sidered,edited by Douglas MacLean and Claudia Mills.Totowa, N.J.: Rowman& Allanheld.

948

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

Habermas,Jurgen. 1981. Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Band 2. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Hofstadter,Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform:From Byron to FDR. New York: Knopf. Janowitz,Morris. 1952. The CommunityPress in an UrbanSetting. Chicago: Univer- sityof ChicagoPress. . 1970. "Preface."Pp. xi-xii in Introductionto theScience ofSociology, by RobertPark and ErnestW. Burgess.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. . 1978. The Last Half-Century:Societal Changeand Politics in America. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. Joas, Hans. 1985. G. H. Mead: A ContemporaryReexamination of His Thought. Cambridge:Polity. Karier,C. J. 1975. "JohnDewey and the New Liberalism."History of Education Quarterly15:417-43. Kolko,Gabriel. 1963. The Triumphof Conservatism: A ReinterpretationofAmerican History,1900-1916. New York: Free Press. Lasch, Christopher.1983. "Liberalismin Retreat."Pp. 105-16 in LiberalismRecon- sidered,edited by Douglas MacLean and Claudia Mills.Totowa, N.J.: Rowman& Allanheld. Laslett,John H. M., and SeymourMartin Lipset, eds. 1974. Failure of a Dream? Essays in theHistory of American Socialism. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor. Levine,D. 1969. "RandolphBourne, John Dewey, and the Legacyof Liberalism." AntiochReview 29:234-44. Lukes, Steven.1985. Morality and Marxism.London: Oxford University Press. Lynd,Staughton. 1974. "The Prospectsof the New Left."Pp. 713-38 in Failureof a Dream?Essays in theHistory of American Socialism, edited by John H. M. Laslett and SeymourMartin Lipset. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor. McNaught,Kenneth. 1974. "Comment." Pp. 409-20 in Failureof a Dream?Essays in theHistory of Socialism in America,edited by JohnH. M. Laslettand Seymour MartinLipset. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor. Marx, Karl. (1844) 1964. The Economic& PhilosophicManuscripts of 1844. New York: International. . (1846) 1963. The GermanIdeology. Parts 1 and 3. New York:International. Mead, GeorgeH. (n.d.) GeorgeHerbert Mead Papers. Universityof ChicagoAr- chives. 1881. "The Relationof Art to Morality."Oberlin Review 9:63-64. . 1882a. "CharlesLamb." OberlinReview 10:15-16. 1882b. "De Quincey." OberlinReview 10:50-52. 1882c."John Locke." OberlinReview 10:217-19. . 1884. "RepublicanPersecution, Letter to theEditor." Nation 39:519-20. . 1899a. "The WorkingHypothesis in Social Reform."American Journal of Sociology 5:367-71. . 1899b."Review of Le Bon, Psychologyof Socialism."American Journal of Sociology 5:404-12. . 1907. "Review of Jane Addams'sThe NewerIdeals of Peace." American Journalof Sociology 13:121-28. . (1908) 1964. "The PhilosophicalBasis of Ethics." Pp. 82-93 in Selected Writings:George Herbert Mead, editedby A. J. Reck. New York:Bobbs-Merrill. . 1907-8. "The EducationalSituation in the Chicago Public Schools."City ClubBulletin 1:131-38. . 1908. "EducationalAspects of Trade Unions." UnionLabor Advocate8: 19-20. .1908-9a. "IndustrialEducation, the Working Man, and theSchool." Elemen- tary School Teacher 9:369-83.

949

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

. 1908-9b. "EditorialNotes." Elementary School Teacher9:156-57. . 1908-9c. "EditorialNotes." Elementary School Teacher9:212-14. . 1909. "The Adjustmentof Our Industryto Surplusand UnskilledLabor." Proceedingsof the National Conference of Charities and Corrections34:222-25. . 1912."Remarks on Labor Nightconcerning Participation of Representatives of Labor in theCity Club." CityClub Bulletin5:9. .1915. "Madison:The Passageof the University of Wisconsin through the State PoliticalAgitation of 1914;the Survey by WilliamH. Allenand His Staffand the LegislativeFight of 1915,with the Indications These Offerof thePlace theState UniversityHolds in theCommunity." Survey 35:349-61. . (1915) 1964."Natural Rights and theTheory of the Political Institution." Pp. 150-70 in SelectedWritings: George Herbert Mead, editedby A. J. Reck. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. .1916-17. "ProfessorHoxie and theCommunity." University of Chicago Mag- azine 9:114-17. . 1917a. "Germany'sCrisis-Its Effecton Labor. Part I." ChicagoHerald, Thursday,July 26. 1917b. "Germany'sCrisis-Its Effecton Labor. PartII." ChicagoHerald, Friday,July 27. . 1917c. "War Issues to U.S. Forcedby Kaiser."Chicago Herald, Thursday, August2. 1917d. "Democracy'sIssues in theWorld War." ChicagoHerald, August 4. 1917e."American Ideals and theWar." ChicagoHerald, Friday, August 3. 1918. "Social Work,Standards of Livingand theWar." Proceedingsof the NationalConference of Social Work45:637-44. . (1923)1964. "Scientific Method and theMoral Sciences." Pp. 248-66Selected Writings:George Herbert Mead, editedby A. J. Reck. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. . (1924-25) 1964. "The Genesisof the Self and Social Control."Pp. 267-93 in SelectedWritings: George Herbert Mead, editedby A. J.Reck.New York:Bobbs- Merrill. . (1925-26) 1964. "The Natureof AestheticExperience." Pp. 294-305in Se- lectedWritings: George Herbert Mead, editedby A. J. Reck. New York: Bobbs- Merrill. . (1930)1964. "Philanthropy from the Point of View of Ethics." Pp. 392-407in SelectedWritings: George Herbert Mead, editedby A. J. Reck. New York:Bobbs- Merrill. 1934.Mind, Self,and Society.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. 1935-36. "The Philosophyof John Dewey." International Journal of Ethics 46:64-81. .1936. Movementsof Thought in theNineteenth Century. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. . 1938. The Philosophyof the Act. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. Niebuhr,Reinhold. (1932) 1960.Moral Man and ImmoralSociety. New York:Scrib- ners. Noble,David W. 1958.The Paradox of Progressive Thought. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress. Novack, George.1975. Pragmatism versus Marxism. New York: Pathfinder. Orloff,Ann Shola, and Theda Skocpol. 1984. "Why Not Equal Protection?Ex- plainingthe Politicsof Public Social Spendingin Britain,1900-1911, and the UnitedStates, 1880s-1920." American Sociological Review 49:726-50. Pease,Otis, ed. 1962.The Progressive Years: The Spirit and Achievement ofAmerican Reform.New York: Braziller. Purcell,Edward A., Jr.1973. The Crisis of Democratic Theory. Lexington: University Pressof Kentucky.

950

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mead

Raushenbush,Winifred. 1979. Robert E. Park: Biographyof a Sociologist.Durham, N.C.: Duke UniversityPress. Reck,A. J., ed. 1964. SelectedWritings: George Herbert Mead. New York: Bobbs- Merrill. Resek,Carl. 1967. The Progressives.Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Roosevelt,Theodore. 1909. "Socialism."Outlook 41:619-23. . (1912) 1962. "A Confessionof Faith." Pp. 310-41 in The ProgressiveYears: TheSpirit and Achievementof American Reform, edited by Otis Pease. New York: Braziller. Schwedinger,Herman, and Julia R. Schwedinger.1974. The Sociologists of the Chair. New York: Basic. Scott,A. M. 1959. "The ProgressiveEra in Perspective."Journal of Politics 21: 685-701. Selsam,Howard. 1950."Science and Ethics."Pp. 81-92 in Pragmatismand American Culture,edited by Gail Kennedy.Boston: Heath. Shalin, D. N. 1978. "The Genesisof Social Interactionismand Differentiationof Macro-and MicrosociologicalParadigms." Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 6:3-38. . 1979."Between the Ethos of Science and theEthos of Ideology." Sociological Focus 12:275-93. . 1980. "MarxistParadigm and AcademicFreedom." Social Research47: 361-82. . 1984."The RomanticAntecedents of Meadian Social Psychology."Symbolic Interaction7:43-65. . 1986a. "Pragmatismand Social Interactionism."American Sociological Re- view 51:9-29. . 1986b. "Romanticismand the Rise of SociologicalHermeneutics." Social Research 53:77-123. . 1987."Socialism, Democracy and Reform:A Letterand an Articleby George H. Mead." SymbolicInteraction, vol. 10, no. 2. Smith,T. V. 1931. "The Social Philosophyof GeorgeHerbert Mead." American Journalof Sociology 37:368-85. Smith,Timothy L. 1957.Revivalism and Social Reformin Mid-NineteenthCentury America.New York: Abington. Sombart,Werner. (1909) 1968. Socialismand Social Movement.New York: Kelley. Wilson,Woodrow. (1912) 1962. "Addressat Duquesne Garden."Pp. 372-78 in The ProgressiveYears: The Spiritand Achievementof American Reform, edited by Otis Pease. New York: Braziller. White,Morton C. 1957. Social Thoughtin America:The Revoltagainst Formalism. Boston:Beacon.

951

This content downloaded from 131.216.164.45 on Wed, 8 May 2013 12:16:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions