This analysis assesses the factors underlying Charles Horton Cooley's place in the sociological canon as they relate to George Herbert Mead's puzzling diatribe-echoed in secondary accounts-against Cooley's social psychology and view of the self published scarcely a year after his death. The illocutionary act of publishing his critique stands as an effort to project the image of Mead's intellectual self and enhance his standing among sociologists within and outside the orbit of the University of Chicago. It expressed Mead's ambivalence toward his precursor Cooley, whose influence he never fully acknowledged. In addition, it typifies the contending fractal distinctions of the scientifically discursive versus literary styles of Mead and Cooley, who both founded the interpretive sociological tradition. The contrasting styles and attitudes toward writing of the two figures are discussed, and their implications for the problems of scale that have stymied the symbolic interactionist tradition are explored.

No abstract

No abstract

This essay treats recent attempts to identify symbolic interaction (SI) founding theorist Charles Horton Cooley as a pragmatist sociologist exemplifying, and even influenced by, the pragmatism of Charles Saunders Peirce, as an example of the American exceptionalist character of SI. Beginning with Cooley's creative approach to conceptualizing the social, these attempts are scrutinized and measured against the contention that Cooley's thought can be equally if not more understood as a product of influence of the literary essay tradition. A close reading is given of the concordance of his personal journal with a selection of his published writings concerning the influence of members of Cooley's essayistic ''genre matrix''-Emerson, Montaigne, and Walter Pater-on the development of his intellectual self and thought. Further substantiation is supplied by an analysis of the essayistic influence on Cooley's rigorous treatment of qualitative methodology. It is concluded that a decentered positioning of Cooley's work is preferable to a single-origin one.

No abstract