 Many of the influential pragmatists of our time proudly accept the title of inheritors and stewards of the thought of Peirce, James, or Dewey. While many sociologists have taken up Mead’s banner, he has not received comparable treatment in philosophical circles. Early reviews of Mead’s posthumous publications appraised him as comparable in genius and stature to Dewey and James (Shalin 2015). These reviewers anticipated Mead’s novel ideas would prompt much philosophical debate (Shalin 2015). But philosophers who thought highly of him were often disappointed. Maurice Natanson (1956, 1) wrote of his dissatisfaction with philosophy scholars’ neglect of Mead, “The work of a truly major American philosopher is today largely unknown, frequently misunderstood where he is known, and more often than not, simply ignored.” Mead remains frequently glossed over, even by most scholars of pragmatism. The result has been a deficit in philosophical Mead scholarship relative to other classical pragmatists. (This, however, is not to say that there hasn’t been important work done on Mead, for example, Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action is indebted to Mead.) In this section we will highlight promising recent scholarship and trends, which may open up avenues for future research.