Search

This paper makes an initial statement on the importance of the concept of the other in sociology and social psychology and then examines the place this concept plays in the essential thought of Alfred Schutz, G. H. Mead, and C. H. Cooley. It is argued that the concept is not a fundamental part of the thought of Schutz, that it is used merely as a convenient loophole at various strategic moments in the argument, whereas in the work of Mead and Cooley it is conceived as an active and embodied entity that plays a crucial role in their respective theories of socialization and human conduct. The work of the labeling theorists is then taken to illustrate the value of the concept as used by Mead and Cooley, with some changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is not offered, even by implication, as an explanation for urban riots and confrontations. It is an exposition of a point of view, a methodology, and a body of evidence which hopefully may shed some light on this complex and pressing social problem. Within the social sciences several levels of analysis exist, each appropriate to the study of a certain type of problem (Devereaux, 1963; Bendix, 1963). Experimental approaches to social psychology have been particularly valuable in the analysis of individual behavior in a social context; emphasis has been on finding both the social determinants and the social implications of the behavior of an individual. While we believe that part of the explanation of collective phenomena, such as urban revolts, lies in the analysis of the behavior of individuals (cf. Brown, 1965), we do not advocate naive reductionism. We propose only to use data from the laboratory to form some operational definitions and hypotheses to guide further study and interpretation of collective events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]