The Belated Appearance of “Radical Interactionism” on the American Sociological Stage: the Rise of G.H.Mead and Fall of Robert Park

Abstract

Although many sociologists have written about the development of the sociological perspective, known as “interactionism,” two relatively important questions for understanding its emergence remain scarcely examined. (1) Why did George Herbert Mead become known as its progenitor rather than Robert E. Park ? (2) Why did “radical interactionism,” which was inspired by Park, fail to appear on the sociological landscape until the first decade of the 21st century, almost a century after the appearance of the “symbolic interactionism” that Mead inspired? To oversimplify, Mead became anointed as the progenitor of interactionism instead of Park primarily because Herbert Blumer proved to be a far more effective champion of Mead’s thought than Everett Hughes proved to be of Park’s ideas in sociology. Blumer’s greater effectiveness in performing this role was primarily due to a stronger desire to carry the banner for a new sociological perspective, more personal charisma and verbal adroitness, and much closer connection to Chicago School of Sociology during its golden era than Hughes had. Thus, the delayed emergence of a radical interactionism based on Park’s work cannot be attributed solely to the failure of Park and his heir apparent, Hughes, to fully grasp the radical implications of Park’s work. Even if these implications of Park’s work had been crystal clear to Hughes, however, it is highly doubtful that he would have ever considered promoting a radical version of interactionism. His lack of lack of desire to carry the banner for a sociological perspective, absence of personal charisma and verbal adroitness, as well as his want of closer ties to the original Chicago school of sociology, not to mention tepid liberalism, would have made him a very unlikely figure in American sociology to play this historic role.