Interesting parallels exist between the thought of George Herbert Mead and some of the writings of contemporary poststructuralists. Both stress the importance of language, the dynamic character of social and cultural life, and the unstable relations of difference. However, where poststructuralists tend to reduce subjectivity and meaning to discourse, Mead sees the subject in behavioral terms and as constituted in a social self. A comparison and contrast of the two approaches reveals limitations of the poststructuralist conception while demonstrating the strengths of Meadian pragmatism and social psychology. Of special importance, Meadian theory implicitly addresses questions of identity and difference, offering a social pragmatic foundation for a discussion of these contemporary themes. The weaknesses of poststructuralism are illustrated by a Meadian critique of the work of Judith Butler, a leading poststructuralist thinker. This critique faults Butler's poststructuralism for lacking an adequate conception of social relations and a notion of self.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 83 citations exist upstream.