Search

The article, "Mead vs. Blumer…" (American Sociological Review, June, 1979), carries serious misrepresentations. The authors, Clark McPhail and Cynthia Rexroat, have given an erroneous picture of (a) Blumer's view of social reality, (b) Blumer's view of naturalistic study, (C) Mead's view of scientific method, and (d) Mead's view of social behavior. Their misrepresentations arise from an effort to reduce Mead's thought to a much narrower scheme of how human social behavior should be studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the presentation by sociologist Edward A. Ross about social psychology. These demonstrations were evident in Ross' address "Problems of Social Psychology" and " his book "Social Psychology." In his address wherein it centered on inter-individual psychology, Ross focused on the forms, social products and different levels of social groupings and their causes. He confined himself to the second item that he named as planes and currents. Planes are the lasting uniformities while the currents are the quick developing but more ephemeral uniformities.

Tins paper is intended as an effort at taking-stock of the reference group concept after nearly three decades of use, the latter two of which have been marked by its more than ample employment. Its popularity indeed has so frequently led to its serving as an all-purpose post hoc explanation of behavior that it has led to the wry definition, "Your reference group is a group that you behave like and you behave like them because they're your reference group" (Cohen, 1962: 104). The inconsistencies, lack of clarity, but also areas of agreement which have marked the varied formulations of the concept, will be apparent from the following review and commentary. The Final discussion indicates some of the matters still to be considered in the use of thin important but perhaps overworked concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The work of the 1956-57 Committee on Relations with Sociologists in Other Countries was concerned with exploratory efforts to conceive ways through which the Society might promote better relations with foreign sociologists. On the basis of suggestions submitted by various Committee members a set of eight proposals were circulated among the 14 members of the Committee. Judgments were secured from 11 of the members. It is clear that further study of the proposals is required before definitive recommendations would be in order. Hence, the Committee has only a single recommendation that the present report be transmitted to the 1957-58 Committee for further inquiry and action. All of the 11 responding members agreed that such a roster would be of value. Its uses might be many. It would convey a picture of the extent of sociological interest abroad that few members of the Society possess. It could be helpful to American sociologists planning visits abroad. It could be of aid to American sociologists seeking information through correspondence. It might have subsidiary value to members of our Society interested in possible exchange relations.