ABSTRACT
George Herbert Mead is somewhat of an intellectual enigma. On the one hand, he is not generally considered to be one of America’s major philosophers. His importance in philosophy is primarily limited to his contribution to the American philosophical school known as pragmatism, which includes among its members John Dewey, William James, and Charles Pierce. Most philosophers rate Mead’s contribution to the development of pragmatism as not only less than that of Dewey’s, but also less than those of James and Pierce. 1 Thus, Mead is considered to be a secondary rather than a primary figure in this school. On the other hand, sociologists have come to appreciate his ideas far more than his fellow philosophers have. Despite being a philosopher, Mead now is widely regarded as a titan in sociology. Today, he is recognized as one of the most important early figures not only in American sociology, but also in the entire world. In fact, most sociologists place Mead on the same pedestal as Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, and Karl Marx. Since these intellectual giants entered the pantheon of classic figures in sociology long before Mead, however, sociologists have critically examined their ideas far more than his. Perhaps none of Mead’s ideas have escaped their critical attention more than those used by him to explain social conflict. In light of the prominent place that the problem of conflict occupies in the field of sociology, a sociological critique of his ideas on this topic is long overdue.
