Durkheim and Mead

I was wondering if anyone else drew comparisons between Durkheim and some of the symbolic interactionists such as George Herbert Mead. Mead was highly focused on how the individual's experience in relation to others is what defines the core of identity with one's "self." The main aspect of this theory was that social interaction was the only way that the symbolic, abstract world existed. Durkheim's theory followed a similar path, as we discussed earlier in class how concepts such as "time," "space," and "the universe" exist for us because we assign them meaning. For Durkheim, religion is one of the clearest examples of how profane objects become sacred due to the meaning that a society collectively believes that object to have. Due to the close similarities between these theories, can we consider Durkheim a symbolic interactionist as well as a positivist sociologist?

Hi Emily, I was also thinking about Mead and Durkheim as having somewhat similar concepts! In the same way that Mead talks about the generalized other and how that creates an idealized self (which regulates how you act / behave according to norms and values). I agree with your connection with the concepts like time, space and the universe but I was thinking that Mead's definition of the self could be seen through Durkheim's definition of mechanic and organic solidarity. What I mean is that there is an expectation to adhere to certain roles and expectations in order to retain social cohesion within a structured society. Within organic solidarity, labour has been split up so that each person has an individual role that makes it so that they would be unable to survive on their own. Therefore, each individual defines themselves in their individual roles and must play their role in accordance to prescribed expectations in order for society to function and move forwards In regards to the claims on Durkheim being a positivist, I believe a couple other students are trying to figure that out down below!