 We now transition from the philosophy of mind to the impact of Mead’s work in social and political philosophy, and its relationship to Hegel. Mead’s early Hegelianism has been aptly noted (Cook 1993, 37–47; Joas 1985). Although there are scholars who argue that Mead shed his Hegelian roots, others recommend that Mead’s mature work be read in light of Hegel (Aboulafia 2010). Recently, while continuing the methodological project of a systematic reading of “the published Mead,” Jean-François Côté (2015) presents a critical reconstruction of Mead’s concept of society by advancing a genealogical account of Mead’s lifelong engagement with Hegelian themes. Here, the cogenesis and indefinite co-restructuring of a self-aware society and selfhood, in its ontogenetic and phylogenetic manifestations, represent a marriage between Darwin’s evolutionary processes and Hegel’s dialectics. Côté (2015) asserts that for Mead, modern mass democracy –characterized by the political reforms of his time and the development of what Mead calls “international-mindedness” – has produced a self-aware and self-transformative global society. Côté (2015, 181) notes, however, that the promise of a cosmopolitan society does not end in mere “globalization.” Indebted to the thought of Mead, Aboulafia’s (2010) most recent book examines self-determination and cosmopolitanism. Among other topics, he explores the ways in which the social self and a form of transcendence relate to self-determination and the fashioning of a cosmopolitan sensibility that is sensitive to the experiences of different groups and peoples. Aboulafia’s and Côté’s projects offer opportunities to develop a Mead-inspired political theory that emphasizes the transformative efforts of individuals and institutions.