 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009) |
Herbert Blumer (7 March 1900 – 13 April 1987) was an American sociologist. Continuing the work of George Herbert Mead, he named and developed the topic of symbolic interactionism. Blumer's main research interests included empirical method and observation of popular culture. He believed that sympathetic introspection and participant observation were more important than scientific approaches when it came to examining symbolic interactionism. [1]
| Sociology | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Full name | Herbert Blumer |
| Born | March 7, 1900 St. Louis, Missouri |
| Died | April 13, 1987 |
| Main interests | Sociology, Symbolic interactionism, Attitude vs. value, The impact of cinema on children and young adults |
|
Influenced by
|
|
|
Influenced
|
|
Contents |
Personal history
Blumer was born March 7, 1900 in St. Louis, Missouri. He lived there with his parents and attended the University of Missouri from 1918 to 1922. After graduation, he secured a teaching position there, but in 1925 he relocated to the University of Chicago where he was greatly influenced by sociologists George Herbert Mead, W. I. Thomas, and Robert Park.[2] Upon completing his doctorate in 1928, he accepted a teaching position at the University of Chicago, where he continued his own research and the work of Mead.[3] Blumer was the secretary treasurer of the American Sociological Association from 1930-1935, and was the editor of the American Journal of Sociology from 1941-1952. In 1952, he moved from the University of Chicago, and presided and developed the newly-formed Sociology Department at the University of California, Berkeley.[4] In 1952, he became the president of the American Sociological Association, and he received the association's award for a Career of Distinguished Scholarship in 1983. [5] Herbert Blumer died on April 13, 1987.
Academic contributions
Symbolic Interactionism
One of Blumer's major accomplishment was his invention of the term symbolic interactionism in 1937.[6] He was working off of Mead's understanding of the individual as an actor, and the importance of empirical observation. He saw humans acting towards social objects in terms of the meaning they attribute to those objects, rather than their intrinsic character. [7] Inspired by former students, Blumer decided to present his seminal articles on symbolic interactionism in a single volume. In this volume, Blumer broke symbolic interactionism down into three premises:
- Humans behave according to the meanings that things and events have for them.
- Individual meanings of things and events stem from interaction with others.
- Meanings entail interpretation rather than simple literal compliance with standardized expectations. [8]
He defined interpretation in two ways, the first being the actor's identification of the objects in a situation that has meaning. The second is an internal communicaton with him or herself to decide which meaningful object to respond to.[9] Blumer identified symbolic interaction as a uniquely human process because it requires the definition and interpretation of language and gestures, and the determination of the meaning of the actions of others. Humans must be able to understand each other, because social life is a "fluid and negotiated process." [10] It is common for individuals to try to fit their actions and behaviors to those with whom their interacting. Blumer thought that symbolic interactionism could only be approached empirically, because to conceptualize human interactions you must observe them in action. [11] He said,
- "Human groups of society exist in action and must be seen in terms of action...A cardinal principle of symbolic interactionism is that any empirically oriented scheme of human society, however derived, must respect the fact that in the first and last instances human society consists of people engaging in action." [12]
According to Blumer there were two types of symbolic interactionism, symbolic and non-symbolic. Non-symbolic interactionism is nonreflective responsiveness to the action of another or others, whereas with symbolic interactionism there is an interactive response. [13] Blumer believed there was no need to adopt scientific techniques and methods to observe symbolic interactionism; all you needed was a direct, empirical study. [14]
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism
Blumer's idea is criticized for putting too much emphasis on day-to-day life and the social formation of the individual while ignoring social structure. [15] He also tended to ignore class relations, and the restraints brought about by differing social classes. Some critics believe that Blumer deviated from Mead's ideas of scientific behaviorism, and which has not led to the development of any useful concepts based on the observations of overt behavior. [16]
Blumer's Criticisms on Thomas and Znaniecki
In 1939, Blumer published Critiques of Research in the Social Sciences: An Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki's The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, criticizing what at the time was a popular social theory.[17] Blumer claimed that Thomas and Znaniecki failed to properly distinguish between attitude as subjective and value as a societal collective element. He said they used the terms interchangeably, and therefore making the theory unreliable. It is difficult to disentangle subjective factors and objective correlates because the objective world is dealt with only to the extent that it enters subjective experiences.[18] Blumer said,
-
- "This scheme declares that a value playing upon a pre-existing attitude gives rise to a new attitude, or an attitude playing upon a pre-existing value gives rise to a new value. With terms that are uncertain and not clearly disjunctive, the presumed causal relation becomes suspect." [19]
In conclusion, Blumer recognized that in society there was not a clear enough distinction between attitude and value, and that even major social theorists have difficulty determining between the two.
Movies and Conduct
Another of Blumer's best-known studies was part of the Payne Fund research project, which was a result of fears about the effect of movies on children and young adults. The project included more than 18 social scientists who produced eleven published reports. In Blumer’s fascinating study, Movies and Conduct (1933), more than fifteen hundred college and high school students wrote autobiographies of their movie-going experiences. He uncovered that movies teach children things about life-— attitudes, hairstyles, how to kiss, even how to pickpocket.[20]
Featured Works
- Movies and Conduct (1933)
- Critiques of Research in the Social Sciences: An Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki's The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1939)
- Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (1969)
Other Works
- Movies, Delinquency, and Crime (1933)
- The Human Side of Social Planning (1935)
- "Social Psychology", Chapter 4 in Emerson Peter Schmidt (ed.) Man and Society: A Substantive Introduction to the Social Science. New York, Prentice-Hall (1937)
- "Sociological Theory in Industrial Relations", pp. 271–278 in American Sociological Review, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1947)
- "Collective Behavior." pp. 166–222. New Outline of the Principles of Sociology, ed. A. M. Lee. New York: Barnes & Noble. (1951)
- “Sociological Analysis and the "Variable"” pp. 683–690 in American Sociological Review, Vol 21, No. 6. (Dec., 1956)
Further reading
- The Methodology of Herbert Blumer by Kenneth Baugh, Jr, 1990. ISBN 0521382467
- Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
- Lyman, Stanford M. and Arthur J. Vidich (1988). Social Order and the Public Philosophy: An Analysis and Interpretation of the Work of Herbert Blumer. The University of Arkansas Press.
- "The Dilemma of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago Tradition. Martyn Hammersley." A review by Carl J. Couch. Contemporary Sociology, 20-1. (Jan., 1991), pp. 160–161.
- Kuwabara, T. and Yamaguchi, K. (2007). "An Introduction to the Sociological Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism: Blumer's Perspective Revisited", Journal of Economics and Sociology 67.
- Gerhardt, Eta.(2000). Ambivalent Interactionist: Anselm Strauss and the "Schools" of Chicago Sociology. http://springerlink.com/content/vxu8gq4bg4g5mpfy/fulltext.pdf.
References
- George Ritzer, Classical Sociological Theory, (McGraw Hill Companies, 1996)
- Calvin J. Larson, Sociological Theory from the Enlightenment to the Present, (General Hall, Inc., 1986)
- Lewis A. Coser, Masters of Sociological Thought; Ideas in the Historical and Sociological Context, (Harcourt Brace Jonanovich, Inc., 1977)
- James Farganis, Readings in Social Theory,(McGraw Hill Companies, 2008)
- Eta Gerhardt, Ambivalent Interactionist: Anselm Strauss and the "Schools" of Chicago Sociology. http://springerlink.com/content/vxu8gq4bg4g5mpfy/fulltext.pdf. (The American Sociologist, 2000)
- Herbert Blumer, An Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki's The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. (NY: Social Science Research Council, 1939)
- Herbert Blumer, Movies and Conduct. (New York: Macmillan & Company,1933). http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Blumer/1933/1933_11.html.
Notes
- ^ George Ritzer (1996). Classical Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill Companies. p. 59.
- ^ Calvin J. Larson (1986). Sociological Theory from the Enlightenment to the Present. General Hall, Inc.. p. 91.
- ^ Eta Gerhardt. Ambivalent Interactionist: Anselm Strauss and the "Schools" of Chicago Sociology. p. 7.
- ^ George Ritzer (1996). Classical Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill Companies. p. 59.
- ^ George Ritzer (1996). Classical Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill Companies. p. 59.
- ^ James Farganis (2008). Readings in Social Theory. McGraw Hill Companies. p. 331.
- ^ Lewis A. Coser (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought; Ideas in the Historical and Sociological Context. Harcourt Brace Jonanovich, Inc. p. 574.
- ^ Calvin J. Larson (1986). Sociological Theory from the Enlightenment to the Present. General Hall, Inc.. p. 143.
- ^ Calvin J. Larson (1986). Sociological Theory from the Enlightenment to the Present. General Hall, Inc.. p. 143.
- ^ James Farganis (2008). Readings in Social Theory. McGraw Hill Companies. p. 331.
- ^ Lewis A. Coser (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought; Ideas in the Historical and Sociological Context. Harcourt Brace Jonanovich, Inc. p. 574.
- ^ Herbert Blumer (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Prentice Hall.
- ^ Calvin J. Larson (1986). Sociological Theory from the Enlightenment to the Present. General Hall, Inc.. p. 144.
- ^ Calvin J. Larson (1986). Sociological Theory from the Enlightenment to the Present. General Hall, Inc.. p. 146.
- ^ James Farganis (2008). Readings in Social Theory. McGraw Hill Companies. p. 332.
- ^ James Farganis (2008). Readings in Social Theory. McGraw Hill Companies. p. 331.
- ^ Eta Gerhardt. Ambivalent Interactionist: Anselm Strauss and the "Schools" of Chicago Sociology. p. 7.
- ^ Lewis A. Coser (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought; Ideas in the Historical and Sociological Context. Harcourt Brace Jonanovich, Inc. p. 574.
- ^ Herbert Blumer (1939). An Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki's The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. NY: Social Science Research Council. p. 26.
- ^ Herbert Blumer (1933). Movies and Conduct. NY: Macmillan & Company Council. p. 192.
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
