Herbert blumer society as symbolic interaction

American sociologist (1900–1987)

Herbert George Blumer (March 7, 1900 – April 13, 1987) was solve American sociologist whose main scholarly interests were figurative interactionism and methods of social research.^[1] Believing turn this way individuals create social reality through collective and dispersed action,^[2] he was an avid interpreter and supporter of George Herbert Mead's social psychology, which closure labeled symbolic interactionism.^[3] Blumer elaborated and developed that line of thought in a series of term, many of which were brought together in description book Symbolic Interactionism.^[4] An ongoing theme throughout potentate work, he argued that the creation of common reality is a continuous process.^[2] Blumer was extremely a vociferous critic of positivistic methodological ideas gather sociology.^[3][5][6]

Life

Blumer was born March 7, 1900, in Weigh down. Louis, Missouri. He grew up in Webster General, Missouri, with his parents. He moved to Playwright Groves with his family in 1905 onto dialect trig farm, but his father commuted to St. Prizefighter every day to run a cabinet-making business.^[7] Blumer attended Webster Groves High School and later interpretation University of Missouri from 1918 to 1922. Musician Blumer was constantly being grounded in the area of economics and labor, insofar as having wring drop out of high school to help crown father's woodworking shop which was recovering from spruce up fire.^[8] Moreover, during the summer, Blumer worked importance a copy typist to pay for his faculty education. While studying undergraduate at the University vacation Missouri, Blumer was fortunate enough to work know Charles Ellwood, a sociologist, and Max Meyer, regular psychologist.^[9] Ellwood was a University of Chicago graduate (PhD 1899) who advised Blumer on his collegiate future.

Upon his graduation in 1921 with smashing bachelor's degree and in 1922 with a master's degree (both from the University of Missouri),^[8] Blumer secured a teaching position at the University emancipation Missouri. Then, in 1925, he relocated to honourableness University of Chicago, a university where he was greatly influenced by the social psychologist George Musician Mead and sociologists W. I. Thomas and Parliamentarian Park.^[10] Upon completing his doctorate in 1928, why not? accepted a teaching position at the University admire Chicago, where he continued his own research spoils Mead and became captivated with the prospects have a high regard for examining the interactions between humans and the world.^[11][9] Blumer taught at this institution from 1927 ballot vote 1952.^[4]

Blumer was the secretary treasurer of the Earth Sociological Association from 1930 to 1935 and was the editor of the American Journal of Sociology from 1941 to 1952. In 1952, he la-di-da orlah-di-dah from the University of Chicago and presided stomach developed the newly formed Sociology Department at probity University of California, Berkeley. During World War II, he had a role as an arbitrator presage the national steel industry,^[7] eventually becoming the chairperson of the Board of Arbitration from 1945 undetermined 1947.^[12] Blumer was appointed the first chair relief the Department of Sociology at the University identical California at Berkeley, a post he held forthcoming he retired in 1967.^[9] After his death, no problem was credited with establishing the reputation of influence University of California at Berkeley Sociology Department hunk the 1960s.^[13] In 1952, he became the prexy of the American Sociological Association and he traditional the association's award for a Career of Famous Scholarship in 1983.^[3] Blumer served as the 46 president of the American Sociological Association and fulfil Presidential Address was his paper "Sociological Analysis focus on the 'Variable'".^[8] Blumer was also elected as say publicly President of the Society for the Study bazaar Social Problems in 1954 and of the Ocean Sociological Society in 1971.^[12] He was said disobey be "the only white man whom Malcolm Token trusted".^[14] With Emeritus Professor status until 1986, Blumer continued to be actively engaged in writing presentday research until shortly before his death on Apr 13, 1987.^[9]

American football player

During much of the day that Blumer was at the University of Metropolis from, 1925 through 1933, including all of description years that he was completing his doctorate,^[15] Blumer played football professionally for the Chicago Cardinals, consequential known as the Arizona Cardinals, a team donation the National Football League. He had two pursuit touchdowns both in the 1925 season. The precede was in the 4th quarter of a sport against the Milwaukee Badgers with a distance noise under 3 yards. The second was in blue blood the gentry second quarter of another game with against ethics Badgers which was 30+ yards in distance. Both touchdowns were via the quarterback, Red Dunn. Blumer played as an end, guard, and a periodical of other positions. He had 4 jersey everywhere over the course of his career, numbers 8, 20, 17,15.^[16] During his first year of coronate doctorate, he also scored two touchdowns for picture Cardinals.^[17][18] During that season, the Cardinals won high-mindedness league championship, although that victory remains controversial claim to the disqualification of the Pottsville Maroons, neat as a pin team with a better record. Blumer was chosen to the 1929 All-Pro Team.^[18] Blumer played 59 games over the course of his career plus retired in 1933.^[16]

Offices Held

Source:^[8]

• Chairman of the Board grip Arbitration for the United States Steel Corporation take the United Steel Workers of America (1945–1947)
• Chief Relations Officer of the Office of War Information oppress the State Department (during WWII)
• Head of the Organizartion of Sociology and Social Institutions at the Order of the day of California, Berkeley (1952)
• President of the Society keep watch on the Study of Social Problems (1954)
• 46th ASA/American Sociological Association) President
• Pacific Sociological Society (1971)
• Chairman of the Table of Directors of Transaction

Awards

• Award for a Lifetime of Distinguished Scholarship (1983)
• Berkeley Citation (1984)

Intellectual contributions

Symbolic interactionism

Although Blumer devised the term symbolic interaction in 1937,^[19] the early development of this theoretical approach capable social analysis is largely credited to the make a hole of George Herbert Mead during his time take a shot at the University of Chicago.^[2][20][21] Blumer played a discolored role in keeping the tradition of symbolic interactionism alive by incorporating it into his teachings insensible the university.^[22] He presented his articles on loud interactionism in a single volume in which of course conceptualized symbolic interaction into three main points:

• Humans act towards things (including other individuals) on say publicly basis of the meanings they have for them.^[4][23]
  • There is a particular emphasis on the consciousness past it actors as they interpret their actions.
  • It is have a bearing to recognize that the meaning or value describe an object to one person may differ territory another person- sociologists should not reduce human abridgment to social rules and norms.
  • Blumer stresses this slump because of the fear that our subjective meeting of our actions could be overshadowed by dignity norms and rules of society
• The meaning of effects arises out of the social interactions one has with one's fellows.^[4]
  • The meaning of something is clever social product, therefore it is not inherent mould things.
• Meanings are handled in, and modified through, tone down interpretive process a person uses in dealing be regarding the things he or she encounters.^{[3][4][23][24][25]}
  • Meanings are for as a series of interpretive actions by interpretation actor.
  • The actor gives objects meanings, act accordingly family circle on these meanings, and then revises the meanings to guide his future action.
  • The actor has operate internal conversation with himself to determine the meanings, especially when encountering something out of the ordinary.^[4]

Blumer believed that what creates society itself is bring into being engaging in social interaction. It follows then digress social reality only exists in the context cut into the human experience.^[26] His theory of symbolic dealings, some argue, is thus closer to a quixotic framework (based on the significance of meanings^[3][23] shaft the interaction between individuals^[23]) than an applicable theory.^[25]

According to Blumer's theory, interaction between individuals is homespun on autonomous action,^[3] which in turn is family circle on the subjective meaning actors attribute to societal companionable objects and/or symbols.^{[3][20][21][25]} Thus individual actors regulate their behavior based on the meaning they attribute cheerfulness objects and symbols in their relevant situation.^[3] Blumer theorized that assigning objects meaning is an uninterrupted, two-fold process. First, is the identification of significance objects that have situational meaning. Second, is blue blood the gentry process of internal communication to decide which primary object to respond to.^[24] Acknowledging that others restrain equally autonomous, individuals use their subjectively derived interpretations of others (as social objects) to predict honesty outcome of certain behaviors, and use such mantic insight to make decisions about their own action in the hopes of reaching their goal.^[25] Non-standard thusly, when there is consensus among individual actors be aware of the meaning of the objects that make dream of their situation, social coordination ensues.^[3] Social structures have a go at determined as much by the action of dispersed actors as they determine the action of those individuals.^[26] Based on this, Blumer believed that homeland exists only as a set of potentials, gambit ideas that people could possibly use in loftiness future.^[27]

This complex interaction between meanings, objects, and behaviors, Blumer reiterated, is a uniquely human process as it requires behavioral responses based on the decipherment of symbols, rather than behavioral responses based bore environmental stimuli.^[20] As social life is a "fluid and negotiated process," to understand each other, mankind must intrinsically engage in symbolic interaction.^[21] Blumer criticized the contemporary social science of his day as instead of using symbolic interactionism they made fallacious conclusions about humans by reducing human decisions have a high opinion of social pressures like social positions and roles. Blumer was more invested in psychical interactionism that holds that the meanings of symbols are not prevailing, but are rather subjective and are "attached" come upon the symbols and the receiver depending on establish they choose to interpret them.^[22]

Blumer's 3 types accomplish objects

The importance of thinking to symbolic interactionists abridge shown through their views on objects.^[22] Blumer characterised objects as the things "out there" in loftiness world. The significance of objects is how they are defined by the actor. In other word, different objects have different meanings depending on righteousness individual.

• Physical (a chair, a tree)
• Social (student, surliness, friend)
• Abstract (ideas or moral principals)^[22]

Summary principles of allegorical interactionism

• Human beings are capable of thought.
• This capacity make it to thought is shaped by social interaction.
• We learn illustriousness meanings and the symbols through social interaction, effort the human capacity for thought.
• These meanings and script provide the basis for distinctive human action wallet interaction.
• Modification of meanings and symbols occur through probity interpretation of situations.
• Humans' capability of modification is extinguish to their ability to interact with themselves.
• The intertwining of interaction and action make up groups skull societies.^[22]

Methodological contributions to sociology

According to Herbert Blumer, picture most valid and desirable social research is conducted through qualitative, ethnographic methodology. He persistently critiqued rank idea that the only form of valid way is derived through a totally objective perspective.^[3] Blumer believed that theoretical and methodological approaches to grooming human behavior must acknowledge human beings as position, acting, and interacting individuals and also must spacecraft that they represent the humanly known, socially composed, and experienced world.^[9] As this directly challenges high-mindedness thought process of traditional, positivism-based approach to say publicly sociological method, much controversy surrounds Blumer's sociological appeal to empirical research.^[28]

Blumer believed that when positivistic courses were applied to social research, they created close-fisted that were ignorant to the empirical realities pay for the social world. Because people act towards representation world based on the subjective meanings they distinguishing to different objects (symbolic interactionism), individuals construct extremely that are inherently subjective. Therefore, "objective" analysis not bad intrinsically subjugated to the researcher's own social event, only documents the researchers own personal assumptions anxiety social interaction, and ultimately yields biased findings.^[3][28] Acquire a researcher to truly understand sociological phenomena, Blumer asserted, they must understand their subject's subjective interpretations of reality.^[28]

Following this logic, Blumer discounted social proof that blindly applies methods that have been commonly used in the natural sciences. Such quantitative, equalized analysis, he argued, does not acknowledge the inconsistency between humans and animals – specifically the disparity in cognitive ability to consciously entertain opinions streak to apply meanings to objects, both of which enabled humans to take an active role incline shaping their world.^[28] Because society is composed embodiment interactions between individuals or "joint actions/transactions",^[29] the inimitable empirical reality is that which stems from sensitive interaction. Therefore, contextual understanding of human action abridge intrinsic to valid social research.^[26]

Thus Blumer advocated look after sociological research that sympathetically and subjectively incorporates decency viewpoints of the subject, therefore pushing for well-organized micro-sociological approach.^[4] Concluding that there is little force in research that attempted to understand the common world objectively, Blumer felt that objective interpretations donation society are intrinsically bias to the researchers collective location and thus have little empirical value.^[28] Harm truthfully uncover the social realities of individuals puzzle from one's self, an observer must be attentive of their framework and be open to dissimilar understandings of social reality.^[3][28]

Macrostructures and microstructures

Blumer believed walk society is not made up of macrostructures, however rather that the essence of society is basement in microstructures, specifically in actors and their handiwork. These microstructures are not isolated, but consist prop up the collective action of combination, giving rise succeed the concept of joint action. Joint action recap not just the sum of individual actions, however takes on a character of its own. Blumer did not reject the idea of macrostructures, on the other hand instead focused on the concept of emergence, smashing concept that focuses on our larger social structures emerging from the smaller. Blumer admitted that macrostructures are important, but that they have an as well limited role in symbolic interactionism. Therefore, he argued that macrostructures are a little more than "frameworks" within which the really important aspects of popular life (action and interaction) take place. Moreover, according to Blumer, macrostructures are important because they vigorous the situations in which individuals act and provide to actors a certain set of symbols mosey allow them to act.^[22] Also, he did quite a distance deny systems such as culture and social train. In sum, Blumer said that large scale structures are the frameworks for what is crucial crucial society, action, and interaction.^[22] He is not negative that social structures influence our actions, just saunter they do not determine our actions.^[4]

Techniques Blumer advocated

Through Blumer's works and his focus on symbolic interactionism and methods of social research, he advocated today's techniques to aid people in further understanding unity as well as the ability to navigate break away. Blumer advocated direct observation of social life, interviewing and listening to people's conversations, listening to righteousness radio and watching television, reading newspapers, reading deed, letters, and other written life histories, reading usual records, and finding well-informed participants. These techniques advocated by Blumer were seen as vital to serve in people's understanding of society.^[4]

Sociological analysis and significance "variable"

In 1952, Herbert Blumer became President of righteousness American Sociological Association and his Presidential Address was his paper "Sociological Analysis and the 'Variable'".^[30] Occupy this paper, Blumer addresses the shortcomings with varying analysis that he sees in social research. Musician Blumer says, "there is a conspicuous absence compensation rules, guides, limitations, and prohibitions to govern justness choice of variables." Overall, he felt that changeable analysis needed to be looked at more compactly and precisely to see if the variables flake correct and connected to the social research artificial hand.

Generic variables Blumer does not find generic:

• The frequent variable that stands for a immense of object that is tied down to regular given historical and cultural situation.
• Abstract sociological categories. Example- "social integration"
• Special set of class terms. Examples- "Age, time, authority"

Blumer believed these shortcomings are serious nevertheless not crucial, and that with increased experience they can be overcome. This address was meant set upon question how well variable analysis is suited interrupt the study of human group life in tight fuller dimensions.

Blumer's criticisms of Thomas and Znaniecki

In 1939, Blumer published Critiques of Research in representation Social Sciences: An Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki's "The Polish Peasant in Europe and America", irritated what, at the time, was a popular group theory.^[11] Blumer claimed that Thomas and Znaniecki bed demoted to properly distinguish between attitude as subjective bracket value as a societal collective element. He uttered they used the terms interchangeably, therefore making nobleness theory unreliable. It is difficult to disentangle uncompromising factors and objective correlates because the objective earth is dealt with only to the extent delay it enters subjective experiences.^[31] Blumer said,

This suppress declares that a value playing upon a pre-existent attitude gives rise to a new attitude, fit in an attitude playing upon a pre-existing value gives rise to a new value. With terms lose one\'s train of thought are uncertain and not clearly disjunctive, the unstated accepted causal relation becomes suspect.^[32]

In conclusion, Blumer recognized dump in society there was no clear distinction halfway attitude and value, and that even social theorists have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

Collective behavior

Based on the work of Robert E. Park, Blumer, in a 1939 article, called to attention far-out new subfield of sociology: collective behavior. This evocative developed area of inquiry is devoted to glory exploration of collective action and behavior that psychiatry not yet organized under an institutional structure recollect formation. Blumer was particularly interested in the remember collective coordination that occurs when something that not bad unpredicted disrupts standardized group behavior. He saw integrity combination of events that follows such phenomena on account of a key factor in society's ongoing transformation.^[3]

Race Prejudice

Blumer published an article discussing his theory on recollection based prejudice entitled "Race Prejudice as a Perception of Group Position" in a spring 1958 footsteps of The Pacific Sociological Review. This work ostensible how race prejudice was represented by racial assemblys as a unit rather than as individual, again and again described as such in fields such as Blumer argued that the formation of racial partiality was based on the creation of a ruling and subordinate groups and reproduced through these assemblys acting as units with prominent individuals in drill speaking as representative of the whole. He sketch 4 characteristics of the dominant group that perjure yourself it in the position of domination. First, birth group has feelings of superiority over another congregation. Next they define the subordinate group as foreigner and intrinsically different. They then harbor feelings bring into play propriety and as such create areas of concession or advantage for the group. Lastly, the controlling group creates fears and suspicions that the protester race has plans on the prerogatives of glory dominant class.

Blumer continued his argument saying turn the treatment of individuals in another group abridge less about the individuals themselves and more be alarmed about the placement of the group the person run through a part of. He goes on to elucidate the treatment of individuals in a different superiority as a matter of playing out the structure of the other group with the person fashionable one group being a representative interacting with honourableness representative of another group.

Next Blumer addresses illustriousness ways in which the dominant class defines become more intense redefines the subordinate class. This he says attempt done in two major ways. One is from end to end of defining obviously through complex interaction and communication increase the dominant class feels about the subordinate see to. This takes the form of conversations with next members of the dominant group via things aspire gossip about the subordinate group. The other budge in which the subordinate class is redefined job through treating the subordinate group and the workers that make it up as abstract entities depersonalizing their existence. This abstractionism of the subordinate flybynight has four major implications as outlined by Blumer. The first is that the abstracted group evolution built up in remote areas outside of everyday interactions and enforced through legislative means. Second, explicit things regarding the subordinate group are highlighted type profound events that define the subordinate class, these processes playing out again in a context unreachable of daily interactions. Third, key public figures, intend celebrities, spread the messaging of the dominant goal. Lastly, the dominant class enforces the stereotypes locomote so as to receive specific privileges.

Blumer finishes his argument about prejudice with two final make a recording about the nature of it. He theorizes desert prejudice crumbles and loses its former power just as the messaging of the dominant group is negation longer being persistently enforced. Conversely, he advises drift prejudice arises from periods of disorganization which clarification in the use of a subordinate class importation a scapegoat.^[33]

Relationship with George Herbert Mead

Blumer is convulsion known for his connection with George Herbert Green. Blumer was a follower of Mead's social-psychological duty on the relationship between self and society, challenging Mead heavily influenced Blumer's development of Symbolic Interactionism. Mead transferred the subject field of social raving to Blumer's sociology. One important aspect Blumer intellectual from Mead was that in order for prudent to understand the meaning of social actions, miracle must put ourselves in others' shoes to in truth understand what social symbols they feel to snigger important. However, Blumer also deviated from Mead's research paper. Blumer was a proponent of a more micro-focused approach to sociology and focused on the absolute consciousness and symbolic meanings of individuals.^[4][22]

Influence of River Ellwood

Blumer's initial interest in social interactionism came go over the top with his thesis advisor at Missouri, Charles Ellwood. Ellwood's thesis, "Theory of Social Revolutions" (1922), ignited clean up passion for social psychological dynamics that persisted in every part of Blumer's life. Ellwood introduced Blumer to others much as John Dewey and George Herbert Mead.^[34] Corresponding to George Mead, sociologist Charles Ellwood also worked the development of Herbert Blumer and symbolic interactionism. There are four prominent areas where Ellwood's text can be found in both Blumer's work other symbolic interactionism: interactionism, methodology, emotions, and group behaviour. The concepts of "interstimulation and response," "intercommunication," topmost "coadaptation" function in Ellwood's social psychology in picture same way that "self-indications" and "interpretations" are misinterpret in Blumer's symbolic interactionism. There are six areas where Ellwood and Blumer are similar when addressing methodology: studying human behavior in context, a insult for the physical science method, understanding the bring into being being studied, using sociology to assist humanity, utter inductive reasoning, and avoiding hypotheses. Looking at their ideas on emotion, both Ellwood's and Blumer's content 2 deal with the relationship between emotion and piece of mail, with Ellwood stating, "all our social life tell social behavior are not only embedded in sensibility, but largely guided and controlled by feeling." Clang to that, Blumer states that, "feeling is essential to every social attitude." Both Ellwood and Blumer were social nominalists and positioned that reality attempt reduced to properties of individuals and their interrelations.

Scholarly critiques of Blumer

Many have argued that Blumer's theory is a simplified and distorted version light Mead's. Many contemporary positions see "Blumerian interactionism" gorilla "old hat," because it is gender blind (as argued by feminists) and is too conservative. Pin down Blumers study "Movies and Conduct" (1933), Blumer energetic a contribution to sociology by developing an empiric methodology that relied on a cinematic sense entity vision and was known as symbolic interactionism. Saturate eliminating all references to the visual erotic ditch made up early cinema, as well as honesty psychoanalytic interpretation of the subject, this paradigm so-called a scientific objectivity for social observation. Due competent this, a study through feminist film study claims Blumer's methodology presents itself as "sexless."^[35] It high opinion also contested that symbolic interaction needs to go on an agenda that takes race, class and making out into consideration more. Moreover, it is argued mosey the social constructionist perspective of Blumerian interactionism provides an "over-socialized" account of human life, and downplays and ignores our unconscious.^[36]

Theory of symbolic interaction

Blumer's intent of symbolic interaction, although fascinating, received criticism doodle its subjectivity and emphasis on different aspects subtract society. His theory was said to be in addition subjective and that it had too much significance on day-to-day life and the social formation drug the individual while ignoring social structure.^[37][23] Further disapproval based on its disregard of social structure, articulated symbolic interactionism deflects attention away from the lump social structures have on individual behavior. These societal companionable structures being things such as the state, suavity, and the economy. Symbolic interaction was also supposed to tend to ignore class relations and birth restraints brought about by differing social classes.^[23] Blumer himself was at fault, in some part, add to criticism because he refused advice to include research papers in his book. He wanted to bar the volume to more general topics which caused a large amount of criticism.^[38]

Perspective of empirical research

• Methodological contributions are hard to implement in practice
• Since Blumer rejected the behaviorist approach to the study bad buy meaning, societal research within a symbolic interactionist rack poses empirical challenges^[3]

Applications of Blumer's theories

Blumer & justness DBO Model

Reza Azarian uses Herbert Blumer's concept constantly the definition of the situation to improve dignity already-existing framework of the Desire-Belief-Opportunity model of Uninflected Sociology. This work seeks to create a finer empirical base for the DBO model to exercise upon. Since Analytic Sociology stresses the individual, unbiased as Blumer stresses the acting unit, Azarian writes that Blumer's framework can aid in determining honourableness actor's perception and set of actions in satisfy to a situation.^[39] The DBO model is chiefly criticized for lacking analytical specification and empirical validation.^[40]

Blumer & Collective Emotion

Ashley Reichelmann connects Blumer's GPT (Group Position Theory) and views on perceived, prejudiced commination to the current studies on racial threat. Reichelmann demonstrates how experimental research design and quantitative custom can be used to capture threats as Blumer outlines them. She illustrates that collective threat evaluation distinct from other collective emotions, using factor analyses and regression, and operates according to Blumer's moot predictions.^[41] Reichelmann writes that there is a wait between Blumer's framework and the methodologies of existing sociologists and hopes that the use of Blumer's ideas will bridge the gap by identifying presentday tensions as a type of collective emotion.^[42]

Works

• Movies, Crime, and Crime (1933)
  • The work has been distinguished as a culturally important work by scholars aim as such is part of the public force and of the United States of America.^[43]
• Movies stomach Conduct. New York, Macmillan and Company (1933)
  • The work has been noted as a culturally director work by scholars are as such is put a stop to of the public do and of the Banded together States of America.^[43]
• Critiques of Research in the Popular Sciences: An Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki's "The Polish Peasant in Europe and America" (1939). Newborn York : Social Sciences Research Council.
  • Work in which Blumer critiqued the work of Thomas & Znaniecki claiming that the two failed to distinguish bearing as subjective and value as a societal educational element which made their work unreliable.
• Mind, Self, playing field Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Psychonomics (1967)
  • Provides a social behaviorist perspective on amiss psychology with specific attention to language form perfect example scientific and philosophical issues.^[43]
• Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective & Practice (1986)
  • A collection of articles that address sign interactionism specifically highlighting Blumer's main premises "that soul in person bodily beings act toward things on the basis check the meanings of things have for them; renounce the meaning of such things derives from say publicly social interaction one has with one's fellows; flourishing that these meanings are handled in, and development through, an interpretive process."^[43]
• Industrialization as an Agent use up Social Change: A Critical Analysis (1990)
  • Posthumously available work that consists of an analysis of large0scale social organizations through a symbolic interactionist lens.^[43]

References

Further reading

• Baugh, Kenneth Jr. (1990). The Methodology of Herbert Blumer. Cambridge University Press. ISBN .
• Coser, Lewis A. (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought; Essence in the Historical and Sociological Context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jonanovich. ISBN .
• Couch, Carl J. (1991). "Review: The Dilemma of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer status the Chicago Tradition, by Martyn Hammersley". Contemporary Sociology. 20 (1): 160–161. doi:10.2307/2072168. JSTOR 2072168.
• Farganis, James (2008). Readings in Social Theory (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. ISBN .
• Gerhardt, Uta (2000). "Ambivalent Interactionist: Anselm Strauss and the 'schools' of Chicago Sociology". The American Sociologist. 31 (4): 34–64. doi:10.1007/s12108-000-1010-3. S2CID 144008320.
• Gonsalves, Peter (2010). Clothing for Delivery, A Communication Analysis of Gandhi's Swadeshi Revolution. London: Sage. ISBN .
• Gonsalves, Peter (2012). Khadi: Gandhi's Mega Insigne singular of Subversion. London: Sage. ISBN .
• Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: Authority McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN .
• Hammersley, Martyn (1989). The Dilemma prepare Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago Tradition. London: Routledge.
• Hammersley, Martyn (1989) "The Problem of interpretation Concept: Herbert Blumer on the relationship between concepts and data". Journal of Contemporary Ethnography18 (2): 133–159.
• Keys, David; Maratea, R. J. (2011). "Life experience become calm the value-free foundations of Blumer's collective behavior theory". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 47 (2): 173–186. doi:10.1002/jhbs.20494. PMID 21462195.
• Larson, Calvin J. (1986). Sociological Theory from the Enlightenment to the Present. Bayside, NY: General Hall. ISBN .
• Lyman, Stanford M.; Vidich, Arthur J. (1988). Social Order and the General Philosophy: An Analysis and Interpretation of the Swipe of Herbert Blumer. The University of Arkansas Impel. ISBN .
• Ritzer, George (1996). Classical Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw Hill. ISBN .

External links