SOURCE: "Comments and Criticism: De Laguna's Interpretation of G. H. Mead," in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XLIV, No. 6, March 13, 1947, pp. 158-62.

In the following essay, Miller responds to de Laguna's criticism of Mead's philosophy, asserting de Laguna's analysis is irrelevant, trivial, and lacks perspective.

It would be surprising indeed if Mead's immediate students would allow Professor de Laguna's interpretation of Mead to pass without further comment. She speaks of Mead's failures, inadequacies, and fundamental fallacies without, I think, having Mead's broader perspective and problems in mind. Mrs. de Laguna says she is "not concerned to discuss here the subtleties of Mead's treatment of space and time." And she makes what I consider to be a false statement, namely, "'Physical' object here [for Mead] does not mean the object of physical science but that of ordinary human experience."

What I am suggesting is that without an appreciation of...