Mead, Behaviorism and Indeterminacy
Schleiermacher once said that every interpretation is the best. I would add, provided the interpreter understands that his is an interpretation, not the final statement of whatever it is that one seeks to interpret. Collins' wide-ranging and provocative essay (to which I can not do full justice here) on Mead generally avoids imposing on us the definitive reading of Mead. The author correctly points out that "we have a legitimate choice between the various intellectual elements in Mead." Still, I would like to take issue with Collins' choice. Not because it does not have merit, but because it leaves out what I believe to be most important and original in Mead's writings.
Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies | Sociology
Copying and permissions notice: Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the Regents of the University of California/on behalf of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® on [JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/r/ucal)] or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com.
Shalin, D. N.
Mead, Behaviorism and Indeterminacy.
Symbolic Interaction, 12(1),