Sociological Implications of the Thought of Author(s): Herbert Blumer Source: American Journal of , Vol. 71, No. 5 (Mar., 1966), pp. 535-544 Published by: The Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2774496 . Accessed: 20/09/2014 10:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions COMMENTARYAND DEBATE

Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead My purpose is to depict the nature of The possession of a self converts the hu- human society when seen from the point man being into a special kind of actor, of view of George Herbert Mead. While transforms his relation to the world, and Mead gave human society a position of gives his action a unique character. In paramount importance in his scheme of asserting that the human being has a self, thought he did little to outline its char- Mead simply meant that the human being acter. His central concern was with cardi- is an object to himself. The human being nal problems of philosophy. The develop- may perceive himself, have conceptions of ment of his ideas of human society was himself, communicate with himself, and largely limited to handling these problems. act toward himself. As these types of be- His treatment took the form of showing havior imply, the human being may be- that human group life was the essential come the object of his own action. This condition for the emergence of conscious- gives him the means of interacting with ness, the mind, a world of objects, human himself-addressing himself, responding to beings as organisms possessing selves, and the address, and addressing himself anew. human conduct in the form of constructed Such self-interaction takes the form of acts. He reversed the traditional assump- making indications to himself and meeting tions underlying philosophical, psycho- these indications by making further indi- logical, and sociological thought to the cations. The human being can designate effect that human beings possess minds things to himself-his wants, his pains, and consciousnessas original "givens," that his goals, objects around him, the presence they live in worlds of pre-existing and self- of others, their actions, their expected ac- constituted objects, that their behavior tions, or whatnot. Through further inter- consists of responses to such objects, and action with himself, he may judge, analyze, that group life consists of the association of and evaluate the things he has designated such reacting human organisms. In making to himself. And by continuing to interact his brilliant contributions along this line with himself he may plan and organize his he did not map out a theoretical scheme action with regard to what he has desig- of human society. However, such a scheme nated and evaluated. In short, the pos- is implicit in his work. It has to be con- session of a self provides the human being structed by tracing the implications of the with a mechanism of self-interaction with central matters which he analyzed. This is which to meet the world-a mechanism what I propose to do. The central matters that is used in forming and guiding his I shall consider are (1) the self, (2) the conduct. act, (3) social interaction, (4) objects, and I wish to stress that Mead saw the self (5) joint action. as a process and not as a structure. Here Mead clearly parts company with the great THE SELF bulk of students who seek to bring a self Mead's picture of the human being as an into the human being by identifying it actor differs radically from the conception with some kind of organization or struc- of man that dominates current psycho- ture. All of us are familiar with this prac- logical and social science. He saw the hu- tice because it is all around us in the man being as an organism having a self. literature. Thus, we see scholars who 535

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 536 THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY identify the self with the "ego," or who the interpretation. To illustrate: a pain regard the self as an organized body of one identifies and interprets is very dif- needs or motives, or who think of it as ferent from a mere organic feeling and lays an organization of attitudes, or who treat the basis for doing something about it in- it as a structure of internalized norms and stead of merely responding organically to values. Such schemes which seek to lodge it; to note and interpret the activity of the self in a structure make no sense since another person is very different from they miss the reflexive process which alone having a response released by that activ- can yield and constitute a self. For any ity; to be aware that one is hungry is very posited structure to be a self, it would different from merely being hungry; to have to act upon and respond to itself- perceive one's "ego" puts one in the posi- otherwise, it is merely an organization tion of doing something with regard to it awaiting activation and release without instead of merely giving expression to the exercising any effect on itself or on its ego. As these illustrations show, the process operation. This marks the crucial weak- of self-interaction puts the human being ness or inadequacy of the many schemes over against his world instead of merely such as referred to above, which misguid- in it, requires him to meet and handle ingly associate the self with some kind of his world through a defining process in- psychological or personality structure. For stead of merely responding to it, and forces example, the ego, as such, is not a self; him to construct his action instead of it would be a self only by becoming re- merely releasing it. This is the kind of flexive, that is to say, acting toward or acting organism that Mead sees man to on itself. And the same thing is true of any be as a result of having a self.' other posited psychological structure. Yet, such reflexive action changes both the THE ACT status and the character of the structure Human action acquires a radically dif- and elevates the process of self-interaction ferent character as a result of being formed to the position of major importance. through a process of self-interaction. Ac- We can see this in the case of the re- tion is built up in coping with the world flexive process that Mead has isolated in instead of merely being released from a the human being. As mentioned, this re- pre-existing psychological structure by flexive process takes the form of the per- factors playing on that structure. By mak- son making indications to himself, that is ing indications to himself and by inter- to say, noting things and determining preting what he indicates, the human being their significance for his line of action. To has to forge or piece together a line of indicate something is to stand over against action. In order to act the individual has it and to put oneself in the position of to identify what he wants, establish an acting toward it instead of automatically objective or goal, map out a prospective responding to it. In the face of something line of behavior, note and interpret the which one indicates, one can withhold ac- actions of others, size up his situation, tion toward it, inspect it, judge it, ascer- check himself at this or that point, figure tain its meaning, determine its possibilities, out what to do at other points, and fre- and direct one's action with regard to it. With the mechanism of self-interaction the 1 The self, or indeed human being, is not brought human being ceases to be a responding into the picture merely by introducing psycholog- organism whose behavior is a product of ical elements, such as motives and interests, along what upon him from the outside, the side of societal elements. Such additions merely plays compound the error of the omission. This is the inside, or both. Instead, he acts toward flaw in George Homan's presidential address on his world, interpreting what confronts him "Bringing Man Back In" (American Sociological and organizing his action on the basis of Review, XXIX, No. 6, 809-18).

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions COMMENTARYAND DEBATE 537 quently spur himself on in the face of amplified so as to read: Under specified dragging dispositions or discouraging set- conditions, given factors playing on a given tings. The fact that the human act is self- organization of the human being will pro- directed or built up means in no sense that duce a given type of behavior. The for- the actor necessarily exercises excellence mula, in either its simple or amplified form, in its construction. Indeed, he may do a represents the way in which human action very poor job in constructing his act. He is seen in theory and research. Under the may fail to note things of which he should formula the human being becomes a mere be aware, he may misinterpret things that medium or forum for the operation of the he notes, he may exercise poor judgment, factors that produce the behavior. Mead's he may be faulty in mapping out pro- scheme is fundamentally different from this spective lines of conduct, and he may be formula. In place of being a mere medium half-hearted in contending with recalcitrant for operation of determining factors that dispositions. Such deficiencies in the con- play upon him, the human being is seen struction of his acts do not belie the fact as an active organism in his own right, that his acts are still constructed by him facing, dealing with, and acting toward out of what he takes into account. What the objects he indicates. Action is seen as he takes into account are the things that conduct which is constructed by the actor he indicates to himself. They cover such instead of response elicited from some kind matters as his wants, his feelings, his goals, of preformed organization in him. We can the actions of others, the expectations and say that the traditional formula of human demands of others, the rules of his group, action fails to recognize that the human his situation, his conceptions of himself, being is a self. Mead's scheme, in con- his recollections, and his images of pro- trast, is based on this recognition. spective lines of conduct. He is not in the mere recipient position of responding to SOCIAL INTERACTION such matters; he stands over against them I can give here only a very brief sketch and has to handle them. He has to organize of Mead's highly illuminating analysis of or cut out his lines of conduct on the social interaction. He identified two forms basis of how he does handle them. or levels-non-symbolic interaction and This way of viewing human action is symbolic interaction. In non-symbolic in- directly opposite to that which dominates teraction human beings respond directly psychological and social sciences. In these to one another's gestures or actions; in sciences human action is seen as a product symbolic interaction they interpret each of factors that play upon or through the other's gestures and act on the basis of human actor. Depending on the preference the meaning yielded by the interpretation. of the scholar, such determining factors An unwitting response to the tone of an- may be physiological stimulations, organic other's voice illustrates non-symbolic inter- drives, needs, feelings, unconscious mo- action. Interpreting the shaking of a fist tives, conscious motives, sentiments, ideas, as signifying that a person is preparing to attitudes, norms, values, role requirements, attack illustrates symbolic interaction. status demands, cultural prescriptions, in- Mead's concern was predominatly with stitutional pressures, or social-system re- symbolic interaction. Symbolic interaction quirements. Regardless of which factors are involves interpretation, or ascertaining the chosen, either singly or in combination, meaning of the actions or remarks of the action is regarded as their product and other person, and definition, or conveying hence is explained in their terms. The indications to another person as to how he formula is simple: Given factors play on is to act. Human association consists of a the human being to produce given types process of such interpretation and defini- of behavior. The formula is frequently tion. Through this process the participants

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 538 THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY fit their own acts to the ongoing acts of continued use of the same schemes of inter- one another and guide others in doing so. pretation; and such schemes of interpre- Several important matters need to be tation are maintained only through their noted in the case of symbolic interaction. continued confirmation by the defining First, it is a formative process in its own acts of others. It is highly important to right. The prevailing practice of psycholo- recognize that the established patterns of gy and sociology is to treat social in- group life just do not carry on by them- teraction as a neutral medium, as a selves but are dependent for their con- mere forum for the operation of out- tinuity on recurrent affirmative definition. side factors. Thus psychologists are led Let the interpretations that sustain them to account for the behavior of people be undermined or disrupted by changed in interaction by resorting to elements of definitions from others and the patterns the psychological equipment of the par- can quickly collapse. This dependency of ticipants-such elements as motives, feel- interpretations on the defining acts of ings, attitudes, or personality organization. others also explains why symbolic inter- Sociologists do the same sort of thing by action conduces so markedly to the trans- resorting to societal factors, such as cul- formation of the forms of joint activity tural prescriptions, values, social roles, or that make up group life. In the flow of structural pressures. Both miss the central group life there are innumerable points point that human interaction is a positive at which the participants are redefining shaping process in its own right. The par- each other's acts. Such redefinition is very ticipants in it have to build up their re- common in adversary relations, it is fre- spective lines of conduct by constant inter- quent in group discussion, and it is essen- pretation of each other's ongoing lines of tially intrinsic to dealing with problems. action. As participants take account of (And I may remark here that no human each other's ongoing acts, they have to group is free of problems.) Redefinition arrest, reorganize, or adjust their own in- imparts a formative character to human tentions, wishes, feelings, and attitudes; interaction, giving rise at this or that point similarly, they have to judge the fitness of to new objects, new conceptions, new re- norms, values, and group prescriptions for lations, and new types of behavior. In the situation being formed by the acts of short, the reliance on symbolic interaction others. Factors of psychological equip- makes human group life a developing ment and social organization are not sub- process instead of a mere issue or product stitutes for the interpretative process; they of psychological or social structure. are admissible only in terms of how they There is a third aspect of symbolic inter- are handled in the interpretative process. action which is important to note. In mak- Symbolic interaction has to be seen and ing the process of interpretation and defi- studied in its own right. nition of one another's acts central in Symbolic interaction is noteworthy in human interaction, symbolic interaction is a second way. Because of it human group able to cover the full range of the generic life takes on the character of an ongoing forms of human association. It embraces process-a continuing matter of fitting de- equally well such relationships as co- veloping lines of conduct to one another. operation, conflict, domination, exploita- The fitting together of the lines of conduct tion, consensus, disagreement, closely knit is done through the dual process of defi- identification, and indifferent concern for nition and interpretation.This dual process one another. The participants in each of operates both to sustain established pat- such relations have the same common task terns of joint conduct and to open them to of constructing their acts by interpreting transformation. Established patterns of and defining the acts of each other. The group life exist and persist only through the significance of this simple observation be-

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions COMMENTARYAND DEBATE 539 comes evident in contrasting symbolic in- made as an automobile, material as the teraction with the various schemes of hu- Empire State Building or abstract as the man interaction that are to be found in concept of liberty, animate as an elephant the literature. Almost always such schemes or inanimate as a vein of coal, inclusive construct a general model of human inter- of a class of people as politicians or re- action or society on the basis of a par- stricted to a specific person as President ticular type of human relationship. An de Gaulle, definite as a multiplication outstanding contemporary instance is Tal- table or vague as a philosophical doctrine. cott Parsons' scheme which presumes and In short, objects consist of whatever people asserts that the primordial and generic indicate or refer to. form of human interaction is the "comple- There are several important points in mentarity of expectations." Other schemes this analysis of objects. First, the nature of depict the basic and generic model of hu- an object is constituted by the meaning it man interaction as being "conflict," others has for the person or persons for whom it assert it to be "identity through common is an object. Second, this meaning is not sentiments," and still others that it is intrinsic to the object but arises from how agreement in the form of "consensus." the person is initially prepared to act to- Such schemes are parochial. Their great ward it. Readiness to use a chair as some- danger lies in imposing on the breadth of thing in which to sit gives it the meaning human interaction an image derived from of a chair; to one with no experiencewith the study of only one form of interac- the use of chairs the object would appear tion. Thus, in different hands, human so- with a different meaning, such as a strange ciety is said to be fundamentally a weapon. It follows that objects vary in sharing of common values; or, conversely, their meaning. A tree is not the same ob- a struggle for power; or, still differently, ject to a lumberman,a botanist, or a poet; the exercise of consensus; and so on. The a star is a different object to a modern simple point implicit in Mead's analysis astronomer than it was to a sheepherderof of symbolic interaction is that human be- antiquity; communism is a different object ings, in interpreting and defining one an- to a Soviet patriot than it is to a Wall other's acts, can and do meet each other Street broker. Third, objects-all objects in the full range of human relations. Pro- -are social products in that they are posed schemes of human society should formed and transformed by the defining respect this simple point. process that takes place in social interac- tion. The meaning of the objects-chairs, OBJECTS trees, stars, prostitutes, saints, communism, The concept of object is another funda- public education, or whatnot-is formed mental pillar in Mead's scheme of analysis. from the ways in which others refer to such Human beings live in a world or environ- objects or act toward them. Fourth, people ment of objects, and their activities are are preparedor set to act toward objects on formed around objects. This bland state- the basis of the meaning of the objects for ment becomes very significant when it is them. In a genuine sense the organization realized that for Mead objects are human of a human being consists of his objects, constructs and not self-existing entities that is, his tendencies to act on the basis of with intrinsic natures. Their nature is de- their meanings. Fifth, just because an ob- pendent on the orientation and action of ject is something that is designated, one people toward them. Let me spell this out. can organize one's action toward it instead For Mead, an object is anything that can of responding immediately to it; one can be designated or referred to. It may be inspect the object, think about it, work out physical as a chair or imaginary as a a plan of action toward it, or decide ghost, natural as a cloud in the sky or man- whether or not to act toward it. In stand-

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 540 THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY ing over against the object in both a logical of joint action. Indeed, the totality of such and psychological sense, one is freed from instances-in all of their multitudinous coercive response to it. In this profound variety, their variable connections, and sense an object is different from a stimulus their complex networks-constitutes the life as ordinarily conceived. of a society. It is easy to understand from This analysis of objects puts human these remarks why Mead saw joint action, group life into a new and interesting per- or the social act, as the distinguishing spective. Human beings are seen as living characteristic of society. For him, the in a world of meaningful objects-not in social act was the fundamental unit of an environment of stimuli or self-consti- society. Its analysis, accordingly, lays bare tuted entities. This world is socially pro- the generic nature of society. duced in that the meanings are fabricated To begin with, a joint action cannot be through the process of social interaction. resolved into a common or same type of Thus, different groups come to develop behavior on the part of the participants. different worlds-and these worlds change Each participant necessarily occupies a as the objects that compose them change different position, acts from that position, in meaning. Since people are set to act in and engages in a separate and distinctive terms of the meanings of their objects, the act. It is the fitting together of these acts world of objects of a group represents in and not their commonality that consti- a genuine sense its action organization. To tutes joint action. How do these separate identify and understand the life of a group acts come to fit together in the case of it is necessary to identify its world of ob- human society? Their alignment does not jects; this identification has to be in terms occur through sheer mechanical juggling, of the meanings objects have for the mem- as in the shaking of walnuts in a jar or bers of the group. Finally, people are not through unwitting adaptation, as in an locked to their objects; they may check ecological arrangement in a plant com- action toward objects and indeed work out munity. Instead, the participants fit their new lines of conduct toward them. This acts together, first, by identifying the social condition introduces into human group act in which they are about to engage and, life an indigenous source of transformation. second, by interpreting and defining each other's acts in forming the joint act. By JOINT ACTION identifying the social act or joint action I use the term "joint action" in place the participant is able to orient himself; of Mead's term "social act." It refers to he has a key to interpreting the acts of the larger collective form of action that is others and a guide for directing his action constituted by the fitting together of the with regard to them. Thus, to act appro- lines of behavior of the separate partici- priately, the participant has to identify a pants. Illustrations of joint action are a marriage ceremony as a marriage cere- trading transaction, a family dinner, a mony, a holdup as a holdup, a debate as marriage ceremony, a shopping expedition, a debate, a war as a war, and so forth. a game, a convivial party, a debate, a court But, even though this identification be trial, or a war. We note in each instance made, the participants in the joint action an identifiable and distinctive form of that is being formed still find it necessary joint action, comprised by an articulation to interpret and define one another's on- of the acts of the participants. Joint ac- going acts. They have to ascertain what tions range from a simple collaboration of the others are doing and plan to do and two individuals to a complex alignment of make indications to one another of what the acts of huge organizations or institu- to do. tions. Everywhere we look in a human This brief analysis of joint action en- society we see people engaging in forms ables us to note several matters of distinct

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions COMMENTARYAND DEBATE 541 importance. It calls attention, first, to the and hence in the course taken by the joint fact that the essence of society lies in an action; a war is a good example. Five, new ongoing process of action-not in a posited situations may arise calling for hitherto un- structure of relations. Without action, any existing types of joint action, leading to structure of relations between people is confused exploratory efforts to work out a meaningless. To be understood, a society fitting together of acts. And, six, even in must be seen and grasped in terms of the the context of a commonly defined joint ac- action that comprises it. Next, such action tion, participants may be led to rely on oth- has to be seen and treated, not by tracing er considerations in interpreting and defin- the separate lines of action of the par- ing each other's lines of action. Time does ticipants-whether the participants be sin- not allow me to spell out and illustrate the gle individuals, collectivities, or organiza- importance of these possibilities. To men- tions-but in terms of the joint action into tion them should be sufficient, however, to which the separate lines of action fit and show that uncertainty, contingency, and merge. Few students of human society have transformation are part and parcel of the fully grasped this point or its implications. process of joint action. To assume that the Third, just because it is built up over time diversified joint actions which comprise a by the fitting together of acts, each joint human society are set to follow fixed and action must be seen as having a career or established channels is a sheer gratuitous a history. In having a career, its course assumption. and fate are contingent on what happens From the foregoing discussion of the during its formation. Fourth, this career self, the act, social interaction, objects, is generally orderly, fixed and repetitious and joint action we can sketch a picture by virtue of a common identification or of human society. The picture is composed definition of the joint action that is made in terms of action. A society is seen as by its participants. The common definition people meeting the varieties of situations supplies each participant with decisive that are thrust on them by their condi- guidance in directing his own act so as to tions of life. These situations are met by fit into the acts of the others. Such com- working out joint actions in which partici- mon definitions serve, above everything pants have to align their acts to one an- else, to account for the regularity, sta- other. Each participant does so by inter- bility, and repetitiveness of joint action preting the acts of others and, in turn, by in vast areas of group life; they are the making indications to others as to how source of the established and regulated they should act. By virtue of this process social behavior that is envisioned in the of interpretation and definition joint ac- concept of culture. Fifth, however, the tions are built up; they have careers. career of joint actions also must be seen Usually, the course of a joint action is as open to many possibilities of uncer- outlined in advance by the fact that the tainty. Let me specify the more important participants make a common identification of these possibilities. One, joint actions of it; this makes for regularity, stability, have to be initiated-and they may not be. and repetitiveness in the joint action. How- Two, once started a joint action may be ever, there are many joint actions that en- interrupted, abandoned, or transformed. counter obstructions, that have no pre- Three, the participants may not make a established pathways, and that have to common definition of the joint action into be constructed along new lines. Mead saw which they are thrown and hence may human society in this way-as a diversified orient their acts on different premises. social process in which people were en- Four, a common definition of a joint ac- gaged in forming joint actions to deal with tion may still allow wide differences in the situations confronting them. direction of the separate lines of action This picture of society stands in signifi-

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 542 THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY cant contrast to the dominant views of of formation. They would have to view society in the social and psychological sci- action as something constructed by the ences-even to those that pretend to view actor instead of something evoked from society as action. To point out the major him. They would have to depict the milieu differences in the contrast is the best way of action in terms of how the milieu ap- of specifying the sociological implications pears to the actor in place of how it ap- of Mead's scheme of thought. pears to the outside student. They would The chief differenceis that the dominant have to incorporatethe interpretive process views in sociology and psychology fail, which at present they scarcely deign to alike, to see human beings as organisms touch. They would have to recognize that having selves. Instead, they regard human any given act has a career in which it is beings as merely responding organisms constructed but in which it may be inter- and, accordingly, treat action as mere re- rupted, held in abeyance, abandoned, or sponse to factors playing on human beings. recast. This is exemplified in the efforts to ac- On the methodological or research side count for human behavior by such factors the study of action would have to be made as motives, ego demands, attitudes, role from the position of the actor. Since action requirements, values, status expectations, is forged by the actor out of what he per- and structural stresses. In such approaches ceives, interprets, and judges, one would the human being becomes a mere medium have to see the operating situation as the through which such initiating factors oper- actor sees it, perceive objects as the actor ate to produce given actions. From Mead's perceives them, ascertain their meaning point of view such a conception grossly in terms of the meaning they have for the misrepresents the nature of human beings actor, and follow the actor's line of con- and human action. Mead's scheme inter- duct as the actor organizes it-in short, poses a process of self-interaction between one would have to take the role of the initiating factors and the action that may actor and see his world from his stand- follow in their wake. By virtue of self- point. This methodological approachstands interaction the human being becomes an in contrast to the so-called objective ap- acting organism coping with situations in proach so dominant today, namely, that of place of being an organism merely respond- viewing the actor and his action from the ing to the play of factors. And his action perspective of an outside, detached ob- becomes something he constructs and di- server. The "objective" approach holds the rects to meet the situations in place of an danger of the observer substituting his unrolling of reactions evoked from him. view of the field of action for the view In introducing the self, Mead's position held by the actor. It is unnecessary to add focuses on how human beings handle and that the actor acts toward his world on fashion their world, not on disparate re- the basis of how he sees it and not on the sponses to imputed factors. basis of how that world appears to the If human beings are, indeed, organisms outside observer. with selves, and if their action is, indeed, In continuing the discussion of this mat- an outcome of a process of self-interaction, ter, I wish to consider especially what we schemes that purport to study and explain might term the structural conception of social action should respect and accommo- human society. This conception views so- date these features. To do so, current ciety as established organization, familiar schemes in sociology and psychology to us in the use of such terms as social would have to undergo radical revision. structure, social system, status position, so- They would have to shift from a preoccu- cial role, social stratification, institutional pation with initiating factor and terminal structure, cultural pattern, social codes, result to a preoccupation with a process social norms, and social values. The con-

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions COMMENTARYAND DEBATE 543 ception presumes that a human society ciety not as a system, whether in the form is structured with regard to (a) the social of a static, moving or whatever kind of positions occupied by the people in it equilibrium, but as a vast number of oc- and with regard to (b) the patterns of be- curring joint actions, many closely linked, havior in which they engage. It is pre- many not linked at all, many prefigured sumed further that this interlinked struc- and repetitious, others being carved out ture of social positions and behavior pat- in new directions, and all being pursued to terns is the over-all determinant of social serve the purposes of the participants and action; this is evidenced, of course, in not the requirements of a system. I have the practice of explaining conduct by such said enough, I think, to point out the structural concepts as role requirements, drastic differences between the Meadian status demands, strata differences, cultural conception of society and the widespread prescriptions, values, and norms. Social sociological conceptions of it as structure. action falls into two general categories: The differences do not mean, inciden- conformity, marked by adherence to the tally, that Mead's view rejects the exist- structure, and , marked by de- ence of structure in human society. Such parture from it. Because of the central a position would be ridiculous. There are and determinative position into which it such matters as social roles, status posi- is elevated, structure becomes necessarily tions, rank orders, bureaucratic organiza- the encompassing object of sociological tions, relations between institutions, dif- study and analysis-epitomized by the ferential authority arrangements, social well-nigh universal assertion that a hu- codes, norms, values, and the like. And man group or society is a "social system." they are very important. But their im- It is perhaps unnecessary to observe that portance does not lie in an alleged deter- the conception of human society as struc- mination of action nor in an alleged ture or organization is ingrained in the existence as parts of a self-operating so- very marrow of contemporary sociology. cietal system. Instead, they are important Mead's scheme definitely challenges this only as they enter into the process of conception. It sees human society not as interpretation and definition out of which an established structure but as people joint actions are formed. The manner and meeting their conditions of life; it sees extent to which they enter may vary great- social action not as an emanation of so- ly from situation to situation, depending cietal structure but as a formation made on what people take into account and how by human actors; it sees this formation they assess what they take account of. Let of action not as societal factors coming to me give one brief illustration. It is ridicu- expression through the medium of human lous, for instance, to assert, as a number of organisms but as constructions made by eminent sociologists have done, that social actors out of what they take into account; interaction is an interaction between social it sees group life not as a release or ex- roles. Social interaction is obviously an pression of established structure but as a interaction between people and not be- process of building up joint actions; it tween roles; the needs of the participants sees social actions as having variable are to interpret and handle what confronts careers and not as confined to the alterna- them-such as a topic of conversation or tives of conformity to or deviation from a problem-and not to give expression to the dictates of established structure; it their roles. It is only in highly ritualistic sees the so-called interaction between relations that the direction and content of parts of a society not as a direct exercising conduct can be explained by roles. Usu- of influence by one part on another but as ally, the direction and content are fash- mediated throughout by interpretations ioned out of what people in interaction made by people; accordingly, it sees so- have to deal with. That roles affect in

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 544 THEAMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY varying degree phases of the direction and understand the life of a society on the content of action is true but is a matter assumption that the existence of a society of determination in given cases. This is necessarily depends on the sharing of a far cry from asserting action to be a values can lead to strained treatment, product of roles. The observation I have gross misrepresentation, and faulty lines made in this brief discussion of social roles of interpretation. I believe that the applies with equal validity to all other Meadian perspective, in posing the ques- structural matters. tion of how people are led to align their Another significant implication of Mead's acts in different situations in place of scheme of thought refers to the question presuming that this necessarily requires of what holds a human society together. and stems from a sharing of common As we know, this question is converted values, is a more salutary and realistic by sociologists into a problem of unity, approach. stability, and orderliness. And, as we know There are many other significant so- further, the typical answer given by soci- ciological implications in Mead's scheme ologists is that unity, stability, and order- of thought which, under the limit of space, liness come from a sharing in common of I can do no more than mention. Socializa- certain basic matters, such as codes, senti- tion shifts its character from being an ments, and, above all, values. Thus, the effective internalization of norms and disposition is to regard common values as values to a cultivated capacity to take the glue that holds a society together, as the roles of others effectively. Social con- the controlling regulator that brings and trol becomes fundamentally and neces- keeps the activities in a society in orderly sarily a matter of self-control. Social relationship, and as the force that pre- change becomes a continuous indigenous serves stability in a society. Conversely, process in human group life instead of an it is held that conflict between values or episodic result of extraneous factors play- the disintegration of values creates dis- ing on established structure. Human unity, disorder, and instability. This con- group life is seen as always incomplete ception of human society becomes subject and undergoing development instead of to great modification if we think of society jumping from one completed state to an- as consisting of the fitting together of other. Social disorganization is seen not acts to form joint action. Such alignment as a breakdown of existing structure but may take place for any number of reasons, as an inability to mobilize action effectively depending on the situations calling for in the face of a given situation. Social joint action, and need not involve, or action, since it has a career, is recognized spring from, the sharing of common values. as having a historical dimension which The participants may fit their acts to one has to be taken into account in order to be another in orderly joint actions on the basis adequately understood. of compromise,out of duress, because they In closing I wish to say that my presen- may use one another in achieving their tation has necessarily skipped much in respective ends, because it is the sensible Mead's scheme that is of great significance. thing to do, or out of sheer necessity. This Further, I have not sought to demonstrate is particularly likely to be true in our the validity of his analyses. However, I modern complex societies with their great have tried to suggest the freshness, the diversity in composition, in lines of in- fecundity, and the revolutionary implica- terest, and in their respective worlds of tions of his point of view. concern. In very large measure, society HERBERT BLUMER becomes the formation of workable rela- tions. To seek to encompass, analyze, and University of California, Berkeley

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:44:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions