Search

The article offers central correctionsn to J. David Lewis' paper "The Classic American Pragmatists As Forerunners to Symbolic Interactionism," that appeared in "The Sociological Quarterly," in the Summer of 1976. Misrepresentations of the views of sociologist George Herbert Mead. The weakness of Lewis' major argument that symbolic interactionists do not follow the position of Mead, but take instead, the position of John Dewey, was pointed out. Lewis' speculative conjecture is evident in his effort to trace the intellectual history some sociologists in the case of symbolic interactionism.

This article presents a commentary regarding the depiction of Professor J. H. Turner of the symbolic interactionist position of Talcot Parsons. In his paper, Turner advances two simple and straight forward contentions, Parsons is a symbolic interactionist in the way in which he sees human society but for reasons of methodological strategy Parsons proposes to study human society differently than is done by symbolic interactionists. Turner endeavors to support the first contention by arguing that there are basic similarities between Parsons' view and the symbolic interactionist analysis suffers from several forms of theoretical weakness. This article, discusses these two contentions in the light of the symbolic intearactionist position of George Herbert Mead.

This paper is an invitation to sociologists to take seriously the topic of fashion. Only a handful of scholars, such as Simmel (1904), Sapir (1931), and the Langs (1961), have given more than casual concern to the topic. Their individual analyses of it, while illuminating in several respects, have been limited in scope, and within the chosen limits very sketchy. The treatment of the topic by sociologists in general, such as we find it in textbooks and in occasional pieces of scholarly writing, is even more lacking in substance. The major deficiencies in the conventional sociological treatment are easily noted—a failure to observe and appreciate the wide range of operation of fashion; a false assumption that fashion has only trivial or peripheral significance; a mistaken idea that fashion falls in the area of the abnormal and irrational and thus is out of the mainstream of human group life; and, finally, a misunderstanding of the nature of fashion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyses the role of industrialization in creating social disturbances and disorders. Fundamental ways in which industrialization brings social disorder; Manifestations of the condition of social disorganization; Relation of early industrialization to disorganization and disorder.

Examines how sociologists are treating the topic of social development in helping to give a clear perspective and to avoid fruitless effort. Reason for the interest in social development; Views on the interest in the topic; Factors associated with social development; List of social happenings that could be considered instances of social development.

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]