Talk:George Herbert Mead (1863-1931)
From Studyplace
| Categories Concepts Subjects People Essays Reviews Commons Courses Help | Pathways Concepts Subjects People Essays Reviews Commons Courses Help |
|
Key tabs
| |
| article tab edit tab move tab | study tab history tab watch tab |
Contents |
Study
Generative questions originating the article
Key points to make
Key resources to draw on
Scope and tone of coverage
Talk
2006/2007 Queries, critiques, and points of discussion
Lead off: Emily Ford
here are some questions that have guided my thoughts on this week's readings.
- As a pragmatist, Mead looks to practical consequences as a source of meaning. How is this evident in his ideas of Self and Society?
- How and why are his ideas different from other systems we’ve studied this semester? from the past, i.e. where he is coming from? In other words, these are original thoughts, how are they new and different? How did they influence subsequent thinking?
- What predictions does Mead offer us?
- If the individual is the product of society, how does this affect our world?
- In terms of idealized types, is Mead presenting his readers with a standpoint to act from? Is he creating an arena where human action is possible? He does not seem to be interested in these theories as an intellectual exercise; if this is the case, how are his ideas a way of engendering action and meaning in the world around us?
- What is the nature of the Self as Mead conceives of it?
- What kind of educational program might derive from his ideas? What sort of meaning do they have for the field of education?
Overview
Mead attempts to provide a social interpretation of life and the world. His work reveals great interest in human experience and a firm belief in possibility. He attempted to unite, rather than isolate, doing, reflecting, and feeling, that is, action, thought, and emotion. In this work and others, he addresses the problem of the individual mind and consciousness in relation to the larger world and society, attempting to reconcile the parts with the whole. He places great emphasis on communication and elaborates on its importance by introducing a few key concepts including the generalized other and significant symbols.
The problem of society – how we have becomes selves
Mead begins with the concept of evolution, which he sees as a continuous process without any goals, whether social or scientific. Science has become a means to control the environment. Institutions, that is, social habits, need to be able to change with problematic situations. In spite of constant evolution, how to effectively control a social environment, yet still allow for the flexibility to adapt and change is an essential problem of society.
Communication and participation in what he calls the universe of discourse, is key to the life process and the development of self. Mead defines communication as the participation in common activities. Here the author clearly places great emphasis on the action. Communication itself is considered a social action, one that mobilizes intent and the unique ability of humans to take on others’ attitudes, that is, the ability to be both the subject and the object. The language process also develops the mind, which belongs to the individual and the ability to control his environment. Individual experience holds great weight with the author and the uniqueness of experiences, the ability to experience things as ones own, engenders the development of self. The self emerges as a result of the social processes involving communication and participation; it arises not only when the individual is able to reflect and direct himself but also when he identifies these actions with himself.
Self
Mead’s theory of self hinges on the individual as a product of social relations and interactions, in contrast to individual selves presupposing social processes. The emphasis placed on the individual is clear, and he goes to great length to relay the significance of individual experience (p 234). Communication, again, is central to the social process and the existence of the self, when it is directed both at the self and at others. The self emerges as a part of the whole, and allows people to take rational and intelligent actions. This objectivity becomes possible by taking on other people’s attitudes. When this communication is turned inward it becomes thinking, which is prepatory to social action.
The concepts of play and game factor into the emergence of the self. Mead defines play is the ability to know what others will do, in order to carry out one’s own action in relation to one other person. Games, on the other hand, must be able to take on the attitudes of all the others in the game. The examples he gives are playing teacher and a game of baseball. The ability to objectify oneself gives rise to what Mead calls “the generalized other,” which gives individuals unity a self. The generalized other represents a coherent attitude of a whole community. The sharing of common responses and organized attitudes makes society possible, for example recognizing the value of institutions such as property, religion, education or family. A self cannot emerge unless it is also a member of a community. Individuals are members of a community but each is a particular part, which offers a distinct and unique perspective. Membership in the community does not preclude difference, variety or individuality.
Mead also distinguishes between taking on attitudes of others and reacting to those attitudes; the former is what he refers to as the “me” and the latter he refers to as the “I.” by isolating these two phases individuals encounter conscious responsibility and novel experiences take on significance. Social control results from the expression of the me against the I; the me defines limitations that allow the I to act appropriately.
The individual is able to see itself as an object based on social relations and interactions. The mind can only find expression and relevance in social environments, which then invites an analysis and explanation of the mind. Mead believes this uniquely human characteristic is the foundation of the self, which develops as a result of social interactions, such as thinking or communicating.
Society
Mead considers institutions evidence of social cohesion; they are, fundamentally, common responses shared by all member to a given situation, ranging from attitudes towards property to words and manners. He makes the point that social processes, although frequently, do not necessarily result in oppressive institutions that crush the spirit of individuality. But on the contrary, social institutions, like individual selves are developments of a whole social life-process. Institutions also influence the extent to which the individual self is able to develop, namely by the extent to which he calls out institutionalized group responses.
The most universal aspects of human society are the economic and religious aspects. Language also provides a universal community through use of common symbols. This universe of discourse allows for interrelationships between different groups of different characters. Often these differences manifest themselves in superiority, dominance or exploitation, giving rise to conflicts and disintegration. Disintegration is the result of anti-social behavior, which Mead defines as destructive to human social organization; and it is this hostility and latent opposition that prompts individuals to call on claims of superiority. This example demonstrates how closely tied the reconstruction of the personality and of society are, as they are both reciprocal and arise internally. In spite of disintegration and anti-social behavior, Mead sees the world round him as becoming increasingly interconnected and more intricately so.
The human social ideal that Mead proposes is where all people would have perfected social intelligence. In terms of communication, an individual should not only able to put themselves in place of someone else’s attitude and be affected himself as his meaning affects others; but the idealized version of this is that an individual would also be affected as he affects others in every way. One obstacle in attaining this ideal version of society and communication is individual difference. Although Mead sees infinite value in these distinctions, he also acknowledges that they may not always allow for a common basis, and without this community, there can be no whole self on either side. Ethical ideas also emerge from interdependence when groups acknowledge a common social dependence on one another. Mead defines ethical as socially beneficial and unethical as harmful or conducive to disruption of society. This realization and valuing of one’s own particular social function is key to ethical behavior and organized social groups. Although the ideal society is fairly clearly defined, it will be impossible as long as individuals are unable to be affected as others are.
Conclusion
Mead consistently returns to the centrality of individual experience in the development of self and he considers the personality the most precious part of the individual. He asks whether the personality can carry over the social self, or whether the social self is limited to what it shares with the rest of the community, and in an ever-optimistic tone, hopes that it is the former. Overall, Mead is hopeful, not just in his vision of an ideal society, but that fundamentally he calls for greater sensitivity and communication, a greater emphasis on what individuals have in common, and the power of cooperation and understanding. These are at once, very modest and achievable goals, and yet at the same time, Mead bestows them with staggering power. Whether or not the society he lived and worked in was heading in that direction, he maintains that everything is part of a process as a whole, keeping maters in perspective and underscoring the importance of change.
Missing Pages?
Anyone else missing pp. 216-7 & 226-7 from their pdf? Eric Strome 23:14, 30 October 2006 (EST)
Except where