1The Mead Renaissance, as announced by Guido Baggio (2017: 2) has yet taken a new turn. For a long time, Mead’s posthumous editions – including the most discussed Mind, Self and Society, and the less considered The Philosophy of the Present (Huebner 2014a) – were the only way for researchers to gain an insight into his thought. These texts have since been the subject of commentaries, critical re-editions and in-depth analyses like the work of Hans Joas (1980/1997), Gary A. Cook (1993) and more recently Côté (2015). Most books that tackle the pragmatism movement circle around the trinity of James, Dewey and Peirce. Recent scholarship about Mead, however, reveals insights that have been overlooked for decades. We argue with confidence that with this new thrust, the thought of George Herbert Mead has risen amongst the most influential of our days and age. We take note of the multiplicity of writings related to his thought, of which the book Reintroducing Mead by Daniel R. Huebner stands as a major contribution.
2For once, it seems that Mead’s sociological thought has been freed from an overly “interactionist” historical reading and that it has acquired its letters of nobility. There is no longer doubt that the perspective inherited from the Chicago philosopher is finally included in the classical canons of sociology. Intended not only for Mead scholars and those with a thorough knowledge of his works, but also for undergraduates who are determined to grasp the topicality and relevance of Mead’s sociological ideas, the book is divided into four chapters, each of which examines a different aspect of Mead’s sociological and philosophical thought. The Mead scholarship in the last ten years has to be one of most active in the sociological and social theory field, and Daniel R. Huebner has been a major contributor to its rediscovery.
3Chapter 1, titled “Mead as Public Intellectual and Social Theorist,” is organized so that Huebner can paint a sociological portrait of Mead, while also emphasizing the need to understand him from the time in which he lived. By exploring Mead’s biographical content, he puts him back into his personal but also social context. Influences such as his upbringing in rural Massachusetts, USA and the influence of his mother, Elizabeth Mead (née Stors), who herself grew up in an educated family; his friendship with Henry Castle, who dragged him to Harvard, then Leipzig; political events, like the Hawaiian revolution and the First World war, are amongst the main elements that helped shape Mead’s path and perspective. Mead ended up marrying Helen Castle, Henry’s sister, with whom he discovered parenthood and drew his interest into education and pedagogy. The Meads, Huebner notes, were very interested in social reform and social education, as evidenced by their involvement in the Hull House Social Settlement in Chicago, upon their arrival in 1894. Mead was also a very active member of the Faculty at the newly founded University of Chicago, taking part in the creation of multiples groups (i.e. the City Club), associations, schools and laboratories, and even showing public support for women’s right to vote in the United States. The picture painted by Huebner is far from that of an armchair philosopher: Mead was an inherent part of the community in which he lived, and was working to the betterment of it. Huebner also discusses the central role that the Hawaiian question played in the lives of the Meads, a topic he pioneered a few years ago (Huebner 2014b; Côté 2016: 48-53). Mead’s legacy is as strong, if not stronger, today as it was in the decades following his death, especially through his former student, Herbert Blumer, and the development of symbolic interactionism which he attributes to Mead’s influence. Recent scholarly efforts to revisit Mead’s sociological thought challenge earlier interpretations that closely align him with symbolic interactionism, offering promising new perspectives in contemporary literature.
4The second chapter explores the logic of action central to Mead’s work. Huebner addresses the key components of Mead’s original sociological thought with remarkable clarity. Core concepts, such as the social self, which individuals internalize through social interaction, are discussed in detail, with a particular emphasis on Mead’s focus on analyzing processes as dynamic phenomena in their own right. Avoiding overly philosophical exposition, Huebner highlights the impact of Hegelian dialectics and Darwinian evolutionary principles on Mead’s thought. “Mead also put an emphasis on the dynamic, changing nature of society and on the spontaneous activeness of people in exploring and interacting with the world around them, especially with other people,” writes Huebner in a remarkable passage on the embodied human mind that stresses out how the humans are “biological organisms that adapt and respond practically to their physical and social environments, rather than abstracted mental processes or substances” (p. 25). The constant back and forth between Mead’s concepts, which he clearly explains, and the links they establish with other intellectuals influential for him (Dewey, Darwin, Wundt) tends to present his sociology in a synthetic and relevant way.
5In the third chapter, Huebner’s reintroduction shifts toward a more traditional sociological analysis, emphasizing the social structures that arise through the interaction of social selves. Once the processes that enable the emergence of the self are completed (Ch. 2), Huebner continues his presentation with the so-called “problem of society” in Mead. The most pertinent aspect of Huebner’s analysis is the convergence of Mead’s micro- and macro-sociological perspectives, which had not been adequately addressed so far in the Mead scholarship. This entails not only an intriguing examination of the genesis of the self, but also a meticulous examination of the social and political organization. Mead’s era coincided with a period of significant upheaval in Chicago and across the United States, including the Spanish-American War and the First World War. These events provided a backdrop for Mead’s understanding and theorization of democracy. Along with his view of how symbols play a role in the formation of the self, democracies represent the institutions that defend and preserve this right to express oneself in the social setting. Huebner provides a comprehensive account of how the war years influenced Mead’s perspective on democracy, its role, and its function.
6Finally, chapter four addresses a central theme in the organization of Mead’s sociological theory, that of time. The Chicago professor, in the words of Huebner, “sought to develop a social-relational theory of the natural world itself, to explain how human role-taking and self-reflective intelligence emerge within this natural world, and to consider how this uniquely human perspective is capable of transforming the world in turn” (Huebner 2022: 77).
7In addition to this new introductory work, we also acknowledge the depth of the bibliographic references of the book. Huebner’s bibliography includes an up-to-date version of the bulk of Mead’s publications. Presented in a synthetic format, it includes the vast majority of articles written by Mead and published in scientific journals from the first ones dated from 1894. Furthermore, the bibliography section, which also provides reference works on his thought, offers researchers of all levels a rich and complete overview of contemporary works, in addition to identifying the main studies that have been carried out and that are still among the most widely read and cited today. The thematic division is also highly appreciated. In conclusion, Huebner’s book represents the culmination of over a decade of fine research and provides a comprehensive introduction to Mead’s theoretical framework as well as the origins of American sociological thought.