The document provides a poststructuralist analysis of Walt Whitman's poem "Song of Myself". It argues that while Whitman is often viewed as a romantic poet focused on individualism, the poem actually engages with early sociological ideas of symbolic interactionism. The analysis examines key sections of the poem that depict the speaker's sense of self as constructed through interactions with other people and society. It suggests Whitman prefigures the work of sociologists like George Herbert Mead by distinguishing between the lowercase "i" self that is shaped by others, and the uppercase "Me" self that exists independent of external influences. The goal is to offer a new interpretation of Whitman's work that recognizes his exploration of the relationship between individuals

1. A Poststructuralist Reading:
Interactionist Ideas in Whitman’s “Song of Myself”
In his book entitled ​Mystical Discourse, ​critic D. J. Moores notes that “Whitman [is one
of] the … principal Romantics in the Anglo­American tradition” (Moores, 9). ​Not unlike
numerous critics both before (and after) him, Moores’ references Whitman’s romantic
tendencies, particularly, in this case, Whitman’s portrayal of the relationship between the
individual (here, Whitman’s speaker) and the “self” in his “Song of Myself.” Although many
critics reflect upon Whitman’s ostensible Romanticism, most have failed to address Whitman’s
speaker in relation not to his “self,” but to the greater critical social masses. This essay will thus
argue against strictly Romantist ideology of individualism through applied poststructuralist
theory ​
to Whitman’s poem, “Song of Myself.” The relationship between the social masses and
1
Whitman’s speaker will be explored through analysis of key sections in “Song of Myself.” In
doing so, it will become evident that Whitman's poetry engages symbolic interactionist ideas
predicting and employing the future forerunners of sociological interactionist theory, George
Herbert Mead and Calvin H. Cooley. The goal of this essay is nothing short of a re­centering of
1
​Critic Robert G. Dunn’s book, ​Self, Identity, and Difference: Mead and the
Poststructuralists, ​led me to the​ ​idea of researching poststructuralist theory and interactionism.
He claims that both poststructuralists and interactionists ​take into account the importance of
language, social and cultural life, etc. This is where, Dunn writes, ​postructuralist theory meets
“the Median social concept of language and meaning (Dunn 688).” He expounds, “​Where
poststructuralists tend to reduce subjectivity and meaning to discourse, Mead sees the subject in
behavioral terms and as constituted in a social self.” Taking into account the fact that
poststructuralists lack “adequate conception of social relations and a notion of self,” he writes,
“Mead attempted to situate language and meaning in processes of social interaction” while thus
“demonstrating the strengths of Meadian pragmatism and social psychology (Dunn 688).” Dunn
speaks about a “shift” from early structuralist’s emphasis on “​formal​ structures of meaning” to
its “manifestations in practice,” its greater social significance, or, as Dunn puts it, from a focus
on “language,” to “discourse” and “practice” (Dunn 687).

2. Whitman critics’ classic Romanticizing of Whitman, reifying a broader interpretation of
Whitman in relation to his foreshadowing (the theoretical perspective of) Meadian
interactionism.
Critic D.J. Moores in his book ​Mystical Discourse ​notes Whitman’s prominence as a
primary Romantic poet of the American tradition. He writes, ​“​For Whitman, […] the idea of
th[e] self is a central tenet of […] his worldview (Moores 13).” This, in its classic literary
definition, is ​Romanticism at its best. Romantist thought seeks to ​emphasize the individual's
expression of the imagination and emotion, and situates the individual “at the center of all life”
(Holman and Harmon ​ ​2​). As Whitman best demonstrates in the opening lines of his poem “Song
of Myself,” he first and foremost praises his individuality, his unique “self,” placing emphasis on
an ultimate “I.” ​As the poem’s speaker elucidates, “​I celebrate myself, and sing myself” (Lines
1­2). Whitman begins his poem with a “plug” for his “self,” immediately centering the attention
of the reader on his expression of individuality, letting the reader know that this poem will not be
a discussion about you, the reader, rather, the celebration of Whitman’s speaker’s “selfhood.”
Indeed, Whitman’s choice of titles, “Song of Myself,” amplifies this point. Before the
reader has even begun to read the text, the title jumps out, immediately cluing the reader in as to
the poem’s central theme; “Song of Myself” – the celebration of Whitman’s speaker’s “self ​
,” a
2
“song” which innately expresses the speaker’s emotions and individuality.
Although many critics have highlighted Whitman’s Romantic expression of the
individual in relation to the “self”, critics have largely failed to recognize Whitman’s (perhaps
2
​I would like to implore the reader to indulge briefly in intentional fallacy, to consider the possibility that
Whitman’s speaker here acts as a stand­in for Whitman himself, thus giving the reader Whitman’s “Song
of [him]self.”

3. less obvious, and thus less noted) portrayal of the relationship between the individual and the
greater critical social masses. It is precisely at this juncture, a position situated somewhere
between Whitman’s speaker and the social masses of his work that I would like to begin the crux
of my essay. To best demonstrate my critical perspective, I draw on the interactions between the
speaker (standing in for the Romantic “individual”) and the social masses in Whitman’s poem,
“Song of Myself.” Poststructuralist theory deals largely in the realm of linguistics; this will be
the primary focal point for observation and analysis of “Song of Myself.”
We begin with the first section of the poem, where Whitman’s speaker first declares his
cohesion with the outside world. He proclaims, “I will go to the bank by the wood, and become
undisguised and naked/ I am mad for it to be in contact with me. (Lines 11­12)” ​The speaker
here uses his “naked” self in nature to symbolically represent his own fusion with the world
around him. He wishes for nature to be “in contact” him, the word choice connoting a physical
connection with the outside world­ as though forging a link with the outside world impacts his
physical state of well­being. He declares, “I am mad” for the contact, implying a harsh need.
This is the first reference where it becomes obvious that Whitman has a base need to connect
with others around him, to partake in interaction with others outside of himself.
Section 5 is where Whitman’s speaker begins to speak about the construction of the self
through interaction with people outside of himself. He drones,
“Trippers and askers surround me;

4. People I meet—the effect upon me of my early life, ​or​ the ward and city I live in, or the
nation,
The latest dates, discoveries, inventions, societies, authors old and new,
My dinner, dress, associates, ​looks​, compliments, dues […]
The sickness of one of my folks, or of myself, or ill­doing, or loss or lack of money, or
depressions or exaltations […]
These come to me days and nights, and go from me ​again​,
But they are not the Me myself.” (Lines 58­66)
In this section, Whitman begins by cataloguing the different ways we as humans define our
selves, through interaction with others. He mentions the “people (he) meets,” and their “effect
upon (his) life”. He recalls influences on his life such as the city he lived in and the “nation”
which shaped his self. He proceeds with “the latest dates, discoveries, inventions, etc.” – a fairly
comprehensive list of things in his life which shaped him, and helped to define who he is. All of
these things, “discoveries,” “inventions,” and “authors” affected his life in some way, helped to
shape him as a person. He acknowledges the social factors which played a key role in his
development of his self. From his food, to his dress, to the people with whom he associates and
thus interacts with­ they all reject and reinforce aspects of his life which shape his being. These
worries about family “sickness,” personal matters of strife, money problems, depression, etc. all
define who he is, his life continues to be shaped by interaction with his social environment,
affecting the way he views his self, and by extension, the rest of the world.

5. Whitman describes the stimuli so profoundly, only to sum it up with the words, “these
come to me days and nights, and go from me again, but they are not the Me myself.” He appears
to sweep away the entire notion of the effects of the stimuli with this last statement, negating it
all by saying that they do not construct the “Me.” However, the capital “M” in “Me myself”
clues the reader in to a different understand of “Me.” The “Me” denotes a different, separate
being than that which is affected by “sickness,” “depression,” and “exaltations,” etc. It is a “Me”
which is not shaped by interaction with the outside world, unique from the “I” which Whitman
describes in his line “I celebrate myself.” This “Me” foreshadows an idea centering on the
separation of the “I” and “Me” which the great sociologist George Herbert Mead would later
make famous.
In Section 15 of the poem,​ Whitman lists various professions and people whom he meets
along his way. He says that he becomes part of these people and these people come to compose
his own self. It is in this section where Whitman first begins to engage the reader in the idea of
individuality and collectivity. The catalog below is one example of Whitman’s idea of the
collective masses. ​Whitman writes,
“The opium­eater reclines with rigid head and just­open’d lips;
The prostitute draggles her shawl, her bonnet bobs on her tipsy and pimpled neck;
The crowd laugh at her blackguard oaths, the men jeer and wink to each other;
(Miserable! I do not laugh at your oaths, nor jeer you;

6. The President, ​holding​ a cabinet council, is surrounded by the Great Secretaries […]
And these one and all tend inward to me, and I tend inward to them,
And such is to be of these more or less I am.” (Lines 295­322)
Whitman describes various people’s role in society repeating the word “the” before each report.
The word “the” gives definition to each statement, emphasizing that particular account. For
example, he writes, “the opium­eater reclines” as though the opium­eater has an important and
specific role particular for that society. He does not differentiate between prostitute and President
in form­ they’re both presented as just another title on the list­ beginning with “the,” followed by
a brief description; however, he proceeds to articulate their descriptions, stereotypically outlining
their respective roles in society. For example, “The prostitute draggles her shawl,” a euphemistic
way of saying the prostitute is “putting herself out there” as a prostitute typically would in any
given society. Similarly, the interactionist theorists see humans as creating and participating
actively in their society​.​ ​Each member of society adds their respective role to the mix, creating a
unified society.
Whitman’s speaker does not add his own opinion or feelings to his list of persons
mentioned, apart from the prostitute. In her case, alone, Whitman goes out of his way to pass
judgment. Calling attention to it in parentheses, he comments on the “jeerers” who make fun of
the “sloppy­looking” prostitute. He calls them "miserable," clearly disapproving of their actions.
Interactionism dictates that the words that are used to describe other’s behaviors are of great
import, shaping the way they thus view themselves. Perhaps Whitman was predicting the
interactionist idea that the way one feels they are being perceived by others, is the way they will

7. act, in turn. This was an idea piloted by the great sociologist thinker Calvin H. Cooley in his
theory of the “looking­glass self.” Cooley believed that people share a “collective awareness,”
and that they are constantly reforming their sense of self based on others around them, or more
precisely, on their perception of others around them. The new prostitute learns only to be a
prostitute from her interactions with people around her, their reinforcement or rejection of her
attitudes and actions shape who she is and becomes. Whitman is passing judgment only on the
judgers, chiding them for jeering and winking at the prostitute, thereby enabling and ennobling
the prostitute’s continued “miserable” actions.
Along the same idea of Cooley’s “looking­glass self,” Whitman writes,
“​In all people I see myself […]
And the good or bad I say of myself I say of them.
And I know I am solid and sound.” (Line 394­396)
Whitman’s speaker says he sees himself in all those around him. In other words, his “self” is a
mere reflection of those people he interacts with in society. The people around him dictate the
way he perceives himself, or his “self.”He continues, “and the good or bad I say of myself”i.e.
whatever way he makes out himself to be, or he sees of himself, he is, in effect, seeing of those
around him, as well. Cooley writes about the interactionist’s idea of the “self­concept,” that our
sense of “self” is formulated by those around us. One’s own self­image is created through other
people’s assessment (or our perception of those assessments), and interaction with others is
therefore a necessary component. Whitman continues, “I think I will do nothing for a long time
but listen/And accrue what I hear into myself . . . . and let sounds contribute toward me.” He says
I will do nothing besides take in others around me, nothing but listen to others, to “accrue” and

8. internalize everything they say to create his own self. Everything they say will “contribute
toward” him, toward the complete picture of his self, honing his individual character.
Whitman’s speaker starts the next section with the words “I understand the large hearts of
heroes” and goes on to profess encouragement and expound upon how he relates and “will not
desert” them. He ends with, “all this. . . . I like …well, and it becomes mine/ I am the man . . . . I
suffered . . . I was there.” The speaker puts himself in their shoes, it “becomes” him; the heroes
are a part of him, as though he was there, lived and breathed with them, suffered with them. This
suggests another central tenet to interactionist thinking. Cooley believed that ​people​ “​live in the
minds of others” so to speak­ that people are constantly “role­playing,” putting themselves into
the other person’s place, to ascertain their perceptions of them, and model their acti​ons after
those perceived perceptions, correspondingly. The speaker continues, “…The twinges that sting
like needles his legs and neck/The murderous buckshot and the bullets/All these I feel or am/ I
am the hounded slave.” He takes on the feelings of those whom he mentions, till essentially he IS
them, becomes one with their pain. It shapes him, creates his own ideology of his self.
Lastly, Whitman writes, “Askers embody themselves in me, and I am embodied in
them/ I project my hat and sit...”What struck me about this phraseology is Whitman’s use of the
term “project.” When one “projects” something onto someone they are literally taking their own
opinions or views and placing them onto the other person, as though placing their own mind onto
the other. Whitman is saying in these lines that others are a part of him, and he is in turn
“embodied” in them. He “projects” his own feelings and experiences onto them, which shape

9. them, and he in turn, is shaped by their projections. So, in essence, the whole world is shaped by
the feelings and experiences of each person projecting their experiences onto others around them.
This alludes to another fundamental belief of interactionism. Every person shapes their
environment, becoming “symbolic figures” that interact with those around them. Th​e meaning of
events, situations, and people’s behaviors come from the interpretation people (or they
themselves) give them.
Whitman culminates his “Song of Myself” with the following words, “Missing me one
place search another/ I stop some where waiting for you (lines 1342­1343).” He ends his poem
demonstrating one of the quintessential ideas of Interactionist theory. Whitman declares, if you
are missing the “me,” if you want to know where to find that aspect of my self, “search another.”
He implies that his “me” is located among others, in places outside of himself. He says “​I​ stop
some where, waiting for you,” as though he cannot go on until his “me” is found; His “I” is
“stopped some where,” He cannot move forward until his “I” and “me” are fused together.
As you can see, reader, I have thus far demonstrated that Whitman’s poetry can be
viewed more comprehensively than the archetypal Romantist approach so many of his critics
argue. The various catalogues Whitman employs, the interactions between the speaker and the
“collective” or groups of people in his poetry, the speaker’s ability to place himself “inside” the
other characters in the poem and “know them,” all balance themes of symbolic interactionist
ideas. This suggests that Whitman perhaps predicted Meadian theory, demonstrating his
profound insight into base human social relations.

10. WORKS CITED AND CONSULTED
Baars, Bernard J..​The cognitive revolution in psychology​. New York: Guilford Press, 1986. Print.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. ​Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.​Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice­Hall.
Borch C. Body to Body: On the Political Anatomy of Crowds. ​Sociological Theory ​[serial
online]. September 2009:27 (3):271­290. Available from: Academic Search Alumni Edition,
Ipswich, MA. Accessed December 22, 2011
Cook, Alice L. "A Note on Whitman’s Symbolism in 'Song of Myself.'" ​Modern Language
Notes​ 65.4 (1950): 228­32. ​JSTOR​. Web. 17 October 2011
GANG J. BEHAVIORISM AND THE BEGINNINGS OF CLOSE READING. Elh [serial
online]. Spring2011 2011;78(1):1­25. Available from: Academic Search Alumni Edition,
Ipswich, MA. Accessed December 25, 2011.
GANG, J. (2011). BEHAVIORISM AND THE BEGINNINGS OF CLOSE READING. Elh,
78(1), 1­25.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. ​Studies in Ethnomethodology.​ Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice­Hall.
Goffman, Erving. 1958. ​The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.​ Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre.
"Interactionism: Exposition and Critique ­ Larry T. Reynolds." ​Google Books​. Web. 29 Dec.
2011. <http://books.google.com/books/about/Interactionism.html?id=YisaULoW5_UC>.

11. Reynolds, David S. ​Walt Whitman's America: A Cultural Biography​. New York: Vintage Books,
1995.
Robert G. Dunn. Self, Identity, and Difference: Mead and the Poststructuralists.
The Sociological Quarterly​ , Vol. 38, No. 4 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 687­705. Print.
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/eng372/intro­h4.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/142/14.html
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/eng372/intro­h4.htm
http://teachthislit.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/%E2%80%9Ci­am­the­poet­of­the­body­and­i­am­
the­poet­of­the­soul%E2%80%9D­whitman­and­the­%E2%80%9Cnew­bible%E2%80%9D­of­l
eaves­of­grass­by­andy­hermansen/
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=f460c67c­04f7­48f3­b847­6293a2bdff38%40session
mgr4&vid=13&hid=8
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/eng372/intro­h4.htm