Objective: The purpose of the article is to bring Mead’s and post-structuralists’ views closer together. Here, Symbols and discourses play an important role.
Method: A theoretical investigation has been conducted in Mead’s and post-structuralists’ ideas with emphasis on Michel Foucault. Moreover, various concepts such as discourse, self, subject and object may help us to reach a convergence between these two. 
Theoretically, the place of language and meaning as well as using various aspects of discourse and theories related to post-structuralists, in sum, will give some theoretical observations.
Results: When an individual is placed in a dynamic and symbolic environment, it comes out of certainty and then accepts various and even rival meanings. The issues of ‘self’, ‘subject’ and ‘society’ are Mead’s points of departure to enter into the universe of discourse that begins with two origins of ‘I’ and ‘Me’. According to Mead, representation of the ‘self’ clarifies two concepts of ‘Mind’ and ‘Reality’. Placement of the individual in collectivity, leads the person to the situation where she may see herself as an object (external) and thus, here symbols play a basic role. 
Even mind is formed through symbols that have been replaced with different objects and construct it. In fact, symbols enter into the mechanism of human behavior and form his/her thought. 
G. H. Mead believes that significant symbols and gestures assume the social process of experience and behavior in which they develop. According to Mead, the “world of discourse” implies a context in which these significant symbols and gestures have meaning. Here, Mead talks of ‘generalized other’ in the sense that an individual accepts attitude of others towards her and finally all these specific attitudes are flourished in the form of single point of view. It is obvious that Mead links the world of discourse with the concept of ‘generalized other’. All this social process is a space where symbols have a common and the same meaning for all members of the group. At the same time, social participation is formed in these conditions. The formation of mind which is a matter related to the subject, actually has an external feature based on accepting attitude of others which in turn relies on symbols. All these happen through language that provides communication and social presence.
In fact, significant symbols arouse mental streams and, in this way, an individual is able to think and also, she responds to herself. Therefore, it can be said that thinking is formed through the presence of symbols as well as the social process.
conclusions:  On findings, it can be said that Mead’s concept of ‘social self’ has always been constructed in a social process as well as the universe of discourse and therefore, the concept of ‘self’ will accept various meanings. According to Foucault, individual or ‘subject’ has been involved in discursive sphere and eventually an integrated discursive whole is remained. Foucault has dealt with a displaced, limited and disintegrated subject and therefore, a ‘suspended’ subject as well as ‘discursive events’ may emerge.
Emphasizing on discourse, Foucault considers improvisation of concepts to be formal, and then believes to the suspension of these discourses, in order to reach the ‘discursive events’ that constitutes his desired human sciences. In this way, making concepts and announcing them and finally, emergence of ‘discursive act’ becomes important. Therefore, discourses and their constituent concepts having functional features, each of which plays a role in the whole discursive feature. Because of the historical importance of functions in the making of concepts, Foucault is indifference about structures, that is to say, he studies the formation process of those concepts and also complexities hidden behind them.
Mead believes that in the formation of self, the issues of experience and social behavior are of great importance. At the same time, social functions are essential features that play an important role in their creations. Mead says that an individual does not respond to every kind of stimulus, rather, she responds only to some of them and language shows the process of the motivation released by the individual.
Symbols are used as mediators by language, and as a result of this use, the social self of the individual is shown. By emphasizing the formation of the discourse, Foucault emphasizes the phenomenon of language and highlights discourses. Language has become a complex phenomenon. 
     Before Foucault, Mead discussed about the object and paid attention to the formation of the subject and the mind through objects (symbols). Here we see that G. H. Mead’s intended object, which creates the mind and thinking through symbols, coexist with Foucault’s multiple and unstable subject. Both find each other in the outside world through symbols.
There is an important point that is emphasized throughout this article. In fact, we have two notions of symbol and discourse; understanding the former is simple and the latter is complex. The article tried to demonstrate that there is a relationship between these two concepts that may be established by theories and concepts discussed from both sides of social interactionists and post-sturctrulists. The kind of thought of Mead and Foucault are as such that they have referred to these concepts. Studying issues mentioned above may show that we have come from simplicity to complexity. This has happened through the use of language and also the quality of this usage. The complexities of establishing social relationship in the contemporary world are largely related to the issue of language. The importance of language dates back to making symbols which are apprehensible in the relationship between individuals. But, while observing the use of language today, in market place, in regulations and rules, in working conditions, etc. these complications may be visible. As G. H. Mead and Foucault emphasized, not only discourses but even symbols have become complicated
Foucault defines the ‘subject’ as a social construct and Mead, introduces the ‘mind’ as a social phenomenon. The Mead’s social self and Foucault’s discursive subject reach to each other. In the end, it can be stated that we have come from symbols to discourses but the symbols still stand.