Mead and Park: A “Socio-Biographical” account of their becoming pragmatists, but developing opposing interactional viewpoints

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Although Robert Ezra Park and George Herbert Mead were both pragmatists, they became the progenitors of two alternative versions of interactionism. Mead developed his version on the basis of his principle of “sociality,” which subsequently became known as “symbolic interactionism.” Conversely, Park developed his opposing version later labeled “radical interactionism,” on the basis of the principle of “dominance.” To solve this mystery behind their development of divergent forms of interactionism, I examined their lives from a “socio-biographical” approach. This entailed my comparing the critical, formative social experiences that they had undergone from their early childhoods to the end of their academic careers. My comparisons uncovered some important similarities in their critical formative social experiences shedding light on why they became career-long pragmatists. Despite the significant overlaps found in their socio-biographies, however, crucial differences also surfaced that lead to their development of opposing forms of interactionism. The dissimilar critical formative social experiences that were found sprang from the starkly different paths that they followed toward becoming tenured, full professors at the University of Chicago. To oversimplify, Park followed a much more zigzagged, bumpier, and obstacle-ridden path than Mead to reach this destination.