Symbolic Interactionism George Simmel Jacqueline Low

Structure, Agency, and Social Reality in Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism: The Influence of
Georg Simmel
Author(s): Jacqueline Low
Source: Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Summer 2008), pp. 325-343
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.2008.31.3.325 .
Accessed: 31/03/2015 20:24
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 [e-mail].

.

Wiley and Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Symbolic Interaction.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.194.32.30 on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:24:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SI3103_05 Page 325 Friday, June 20, 2008 5:20 PM

Structure, Agency, and Social Reality in Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism:
The Influence of Georg Simmel
Jacqueline Low
University of New Brunswick

Mead no doubt had a manifest influence on Blumer’s thinking, and
Blumer’s acknowledgment of his indebtedness to Mead is a central feature of Blumer’s writing. While I do not presume to question the importance Blumer assigns to the role played by Mead in the development of
Blumerian symbolic interactionism, I argue that the perspective also owes much to the insights of Georg Simmel. In particular, a Simmelian flavor is evident in how Blumer addresses the core sociological issues of the nature of social reality, the nature of the relationship between the individual and society, and the nature of social action.

References: Abbott, Andrew. 1997. “Of Time and Space: The Contemporary Relevance of the Chicago School.” Social Forces 75(4):1149–82. Abel, Theodore. 1959. “The Contribution of Georg Simmel: A Reappraisal.” American Journal of Sociology 24(4):473–79. American Journal of Sociology (AJS). 1958. “A Contemporary Academic View of Georg Simmel.” American Journal of Sociology 63(6):640–41. Axelrod, Charles D. 1977. “Toward an Appreciation of Simmel’s Fragmentary Style.” Sociological Quarterly 18:185–96. Bentley, Arthur F. 1926. “Simmel, Durkheim, and Ratzenhofer.” American Journal of Sociology 32(2):250–56. Blumer, Herbert. 1936. “Social Attitudes and Nonsymbolic Interaction.” Journal of Educational Sociology 9(9):515–23. SI3103_05 Page 340 Friday, June 20, 2008 5:20 PM 340 Symbolic Interaction Volume 31, Number 3, 2008 ———. 1937. “Social Disorganization and Individual Disorganization.” American Journal of Sociology 42(6):871–77. ———. 1947. “Sociological Theory in Industrial Relations.” American Sociological Review 12(3):271–78. ———. 1954. “What Is Wrong with Social Theory.” American Sociological Review 19(1):3–10. ———. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” Pacific Sociological Review 1(1):3–7. ———. 1966. “Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead.” American Journal of Sociology 71(5):535–44. ———. 1967. “Reply to Woelfel, Stone, and Faberman.” American Journal of Sociology 72(4):411–12. ———. 1969a. “Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection.” Sociological Quarterly 10:275–91. ———. 1969b. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. ———. 1975. “Exchange on Turner, ‘Parsons as a Symbolic Interactionist.’” Sociological Inquiry 45(1):59–68. ———. 1977. “Comment on Lewis’ The Classic American Pragmatists as Forerunners to Symbolic Interactionism.” Sociological Quarterly 18:285–89. ———. 1978. “Comments on George Herbert Mead and the Chicago Tradition of Sociology.” Symbolic Interaction 2:21–22. ———. 1980. “Mead and Blumer: The Convergent Methodological Perspectives of Social Behaviorism and Symbolic Interactionism.” American Sociological Review 45(3):409–19. ———. 1981. “Review of George Herbert Mead: Self, Language, and the World. By David Miller.” American Journal of Sociology 86(4):902–4. ———. 1988a. “Group Tension and Interest Organizations.” Pp. 309–25 in Social Order and the Public Philosophy: An Analysis and Interpretation of the Work of Herbert Blumer, edited by ———. 1988b. “Industrialization and Problems of Social Disorder.” Pp. 270–96 in Social Order and the Public Philosophy: An Analysis and Interpretation of the Work of Herbert Blumer, ———. 1988c. “Social Structure and Power Conflict.” Pp. 326–36 in Social Order and the Public Philosophy: An Analysis and Interpretation of the Work of Herbert Blumer, edited by S. ———. 1988d. “Sociological Theory in Industrial Relations.” Pp. 297–308 in Social Order and the Public Philosophy: An Analysis and Interpretation of the Work of Herbert Blumer, edited by ———. 2004. George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct , edited by T. J. Morrione. New York: AltaMira. Bulmer, Martin. 1984. The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the Rise of Sociological Research Collins, Randall. 1988. Theoretical Sociology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cook, Gary. 1993. George Herbert Mead: The Making of a Social Pragmatist . Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ———. 2007. “The Mead-Blumer Debate: Revisiting the Controversy.” Paper presented at the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction annual meeting, New York, August 11–13. Coser, Lewis A. 1958. “Georg Simmel’s Style of Work: A Contribution to the Sociology of the Sociologist.” American Journal of Sociology 63(6):635–41. ———. 1965. Georg Simmel. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ———. 1978. “American Trends.” Pp. 287–320 in A History of Sociological Analysis, edited by T. Couch, Carl. 1989. “Toward the Isolation of Elements of Social Structures.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 10:445–69. Fine, Gary A. 1993. “The Sad Demise, Mysterious Disappearance, and Glorious Triumph of Symbolic Interactionism.” Annual Review of Sociology 19:61–87. SI3103_05 Page 341 Friday, June 20, 2008 5:20 PM Structure, Agency, and Social Reality in Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism Forte, James A. 2001. Theories for Practice: Symbolic Interactionist Traditions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Frisby, David. 2002. Georg Simmel, rev. ed. London: Routledge. Frisby, David and Mike Featherstone, eds. 1997. Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings. London: Sage. Hamilton, Peter. 2002. “Foreword.” Pp. viii–x in Georg Simmel, edited by D. Frisby. Rev. ed. London: Routledge. Harvey, Lee. 1987. Myths of the Chicago School of Sociology. Aldershot, UK: Avebury. ———. 2007. Ein Interview mit Herbert Blumer (1900–1987), November 25, 1981. Retrieved May 2, 2007, from http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~uf331af/www/blumertxt.html. Johnson, G. David and P. A. Shifflett. 1981. “George Herbert Who? A Critique of the Objectivist Reading of Mead.” Symbolic Interaction 4(2):143–55. Katovich, Michael A., Dan E. Miller, and Robert L. Stewart. 2003. “The Iowa School.” Pp. 119–39 in Handbook of Symbolic Interaction , edited by L