Unit 4
Unit 4
Unit 4
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Mead: Life and Times
4.3 Ideas of George Herbert Mead
4.3.1 Mental Processes and Mind
4.3.2 Mind, Language and Role Taking
4.3.3 Play, Game and Generalised Other
4.3.4 The I and Me
4.4 Let Us Sum Up
4.5 References
4.6 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress
4.0 OBJECTIVES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
One of the significant theoretical ideas that began to emerge in the beginning of
the twentieth century was the understanding that individuals through their
everyday activities create and maintain the larger structures of society. This came
as a new insight, contrary to the previous understanding that society has its own
unique origin and it is originated on its own. This understanding motivated many
theorists to focus on the everyday activities of the individuals and the ways in
which it creates conditions for the existence of society as a whole. Significant
attention was given on the nature and the underlying principles of interaction
processes and the ways in which they shape our social world in which we live.
Wide range of theories emerged focusing on the micro aspects of interaction
Contributed by Dr Pravati Dalua, Assistant Professor, Kamala Nehru College, Delhi University.
57
Self and Social process to understand the macro structure of society and of which interactionism
Reality
perspective is one. Few of the key questions remained significant to these
theorists such as how is society and the individuals related? How do individual
acts and social structure influence each other? How do societies reproduce
themselves through the acts and interactions of individuals? How does society
shape people’s thoughts and behaviours? Interactionism owes its origin to the
scholars of American Sociology in its early years as a theoretical source of
knowledge.
In section 4.2 we will discuss about the nature and development of individual self
from an interactionist perspective through an examination of Mead’s most
influential work ‘Mind self and society’ (1934) published posthumously. The
matters pertaining to the book was obtained by his students from a series of
classroom lectures. This section has been divided into four subsections. Before
we try to understand Mead’s idea, let us take a look at his life and the social
context.
of Chicago, where he remained until his death. Mead never published his work.
After his death his students edited four volumes from stenographic recordings
and notes on his lectures and from unpublished papers: The Philosophy of the
Present (1932); Mind, Self, and Society (1934); Movements of Thought in the
Nineteenth Century (1936); and The Philosophy of the Act (1938).
A philosopher at the University of Chicago, George Herbert Mead (1863-1931),
was most influential and is often credited to be the founding father of symbolic
interactionism. He made a breakthrough in understanding the symbolic elements
of human interaction and the ways in which individual selves emerge in the early
years of one’s childhood and gets matured while coming in contact with others in
society.
Activity 1
Make a list of five gestures that are not raised at the level of self-conscious
self and therefore do not qualify as significant symbols as per Mead's theory.
therefore, mind arises in them not among the lower animals. Mead took this basic
idea from Wundt and extended it in ways that became the basis not only for the
emergence of mind and self but also for the creation, maintenance, and change of
society. According to Mead “Gestures become significant symbols when they
implicitly arouse in the individual making them the same responses which the
explicitly arouse, or are supposed to arouse, in other individuals” (Mead, 1934:
47). In other words, for a gesture to be significant it must “mean” the same thing
to both organisms.
Mead’s next question was to understand how do animals who have the capacity
to respond understand the meaning of a gesture? We do so through our capacity
to consciously anticipate how other organisms will respond to our own symbols
or gestures. This capacity of consciousness is a part of the mind and mental
processes and is not present among the lower animals. The gestures of “lower
animals”, Mead felt, do not call out the same response in the organism emitting a
gesture and the one interpreting the gesture. For instance, the roar of the lion
does not mean the same thing to the lion and its potential victim. Hence roaring
gesture even though reflects use of vocal cord, is not a significant gesture
according to Mead. Mind emerges in an individual because human infants, if they
are to survive, must adjust and adapt to a social environment – that is, to a world
of organized activity. At first, an infant is like a “lower animal” in that it
responds reflexively to the gestures of others and emits gestures that do not evoke
similar responses in it and those in the environment. But such a level of
adjustment, Mead implied, is neither efficient nor adaptive. A baby’s cry does not
indicate what he/she wants, whether food, water, warmth, or whatever accurately.
But gradually the child learns to make gestures that are meaningful.
Now the question is to see how does this capacity of making significant gestures
arise in the process of interaction? In which way human mind is involved in the
process of making such significant gestures? According to Mead it does so
through the vocal gestures and the ability of the individuals to speak and
understand language. So invention of language is a significant thing to the
emergence of mind and mental processes and the self in Mead’s theory.
Language act as a stimulus for arousing a reaction in oneself and also in others
while speaking. Therefore, “the critical importance of language in the
development of human experience lies in this fact that the stimulus is one that
can react upon the speaking individual as it reacts upon the other” (Mead,1934:
69). A vocal gesture can be thought of as a word or phrase. When a vocal gesture
is used the individual making the gesture responds (implicitly) in the same
manner as the individual hearing it. If you are about to walk across a busy street
during rush hour, I might shout out, “Don't walk!” As I shout, I hear my own
gesture the way in which you hear it, that is, I hear the same words, and I might
feel myself pulling myself back, stopping my walk and stand because I hear these
words. But, of course, I don't hear them exactly as you do, because I am aware of
directing them to you. 61
Self and Social
Reality
What Mead suggested as characteristic of the mind is the reflective intelligence
of the human animal which can be distinguished from the intelligence of lower
forms. This reflective intelligence is the essential condition, within the social
process, for the development of mind (Mead, 1934: 134). The reflexivity in
human beings is aroused when we speak using our vocal cords to interact with
each other. Reflective intelligence means one is aware of the action and reaction
of his own action by others. Consider the example of shouting again. The
“turning back” of experience after listing to the big shout, allows the mind and
the mental process to develop. Speaking a language allows individuals to hear
their own gestures in the way that others hear them. If I shout “Boo” at you, I
might not only scare you, I might scare myself too as I too have learned its
meanings and internalised expected responses. In other words, vocal gestures
allow one to speak to oneself when others are not even present.
Let us now discuss in what way, then, does language make mind possible? For
Mead, mind involves several behavioural capacities such as the capacity to
understand objects and their symbols. For instance, we have learnt that red traffic
light suggest ‘stop’. And by understanding this we make our gesture of stopping
near a traffic light. Similarly, we have the capacity to understand the gestures of
others and act accordingly. We are also capable of suspending our own as well as
‘others’ behavioural response for a short period of time. Consider the example
your father scolded you for mistake and you stopped yourself scolding your
father considering his status. This shows that human beings have the capacity to
judge alternative lines of conduct and visualise their consequences and select a
better response. For Mead, then, ‘mind’ is behaviour, not a substance or entity. It
is rather an “internal conversation of gestures” using significant symbols because
an individual with mind talks to itself. A symbol does not simply stand for an
object or event: it defines them in a particular way and indicates a response to
them. Thus, the symbol ‘bed’ not only represents object and defines them but it
also indicates a line of action that is the action of ‘sleeping’. Hence, without
symbols neither communications is possible our society is not possible. Thus, any
attempt to understand human behaviour must begin with a careful understanding
of the symbols that individuals use during social interaction.
Mind is developed not only through the use of significant vocal gestures, but also
by what Mead termed as role-taking. So having merely the capacity of reflexivity
cannot ensure emergence of a matured self. Here it is worth noting that although
we often employ our this capacity of reflexivity while acting but yet mostly all
human beings conduct themselves in a routine, habitual, without being aware of
what we say and what we do. For instance we follow many traditions,
conventions without understanding those in our everyday life. We have a host of
beliefs and assumptions about our life about others which are not raised at the
level of (self) conscious reflection unless some problems occur in our life owing
to it and that need addressing it urgently. Mind according to Mead arise out of
62
consciousness of one’s self about others. Use of language is only possible when Mead: Interactional Self
we become conscious of our selves. We have learnt from the above discussions
that mind emerges out of social processes and creates conditions for the
emergence of individual social self. Symbol and gestures as part of language
helps individuals to get their matured mind as well as their social self. Thus
Social life can only proceed if the meanings of symbols are largely shared and
understood by the members of society. If this were not the case meaningful
communication would be impossible. Think of the situation when two people
meet and communicate with language that is alien to both. Thus, there has to be
common symbols that can be understood by both in order to effectively
communicate with each other. Common symbols provide only the means by
which human interaction can be established.
In order for interaction to proceed each person involved must interpret the
meanings and intentions of others. This is made possible by the existence of
common symbols and is actually accomplished by a process of ‘role-taking’.
Role taking is the process of mentally assuming the perspective of another and
responding by imaginatively placing himself in the position of the person with
whom he is interacting. For example, if he observes another smiling, crying
waving his hand or shaking his fist, he will put himself in that person’s position
in order to interpret his intention and meaning. On the basis of this interpretation
that occurs in our thought process that requires the involvement of mind, he will
make his response to the action of the other. Thus, if he observes someone
shaking his fist, he may interpret this gesture as an indication of aggression but
his interpretation will not automatically lead to a particular response. He may
ignore the gesture, respond in kind, and attempt to diffuse the situation with a
joke and so on. The person with whom he is interacting will then take his role,
interpret his response and either continue or close the interaction on the basis of
this interpretation. In this respect human interaction can be seen as a continuous
process of interpretation with each taking the role of the other. Mead argues that
role-taking is essential for the emergence of mind. Since mind and self both arise
though a continuous process of adjustment and readjustments, hence without the
ability to assume the perspective of others with whom one must deal, it is
difficult to adjust to, and coordinate responses with, others. Mead argues that
there is nothing mysterious or mystical about the human mind. It is a behavior
like much other behaviour of ours that is acquired by human beings while
adapting to its surroundings. And it is a behavioural capacity acquired in
chorological stages (that we will see in the next section while discussing the
stages of development of self) with each stage setting the conditions for the next.
63
Self and Social Check Your Progress 1
Reality
When individuals take the attitude of others then they tend to develop a self-
similar to the attitude of the others who me the person is getting influenced. This
is an insight that is borrowed from William James who viewed that individuals
possess multiple of selves, carry the attitudes and images of them in their
everyday life. We generally show a different side of ourselves to each of the
different groups whom we interact with.
Activity 2
Write your own autobiography. Make a list of a series of events that
represent and defines the "me" part of your present self by reading your own
autobiography.
as:...................................
The ‘self’ occupies a central place in Mead's theory. In this unit we have tried to
understand the social origin of human self through the process of interaction
referring to his most widely read work Mind, Self and Society where he gives
priority to society over the mind and highlights the idea that the social leads to
the development of mental states. We first tried to understand the basic principles
of act and the ways in which lower animals differ from human beings in terms of
their mental capabilities by bring in language as significant symbol in human
society. In this context we discussed the unique capacities of human beings to
use and understand significant gestures in the form of language. Then we
proceeded to understand how human self develops by taking roles of other in
society under three stages: the preparatory stage, the play stage and the game
stage. This discussion then followed by differentiating the "I" and the "me"
component of self that emerge though a process of social interaction.
4.5 REFERENCES
Aboulafia, Mitchell. (2016). "George Herbert Mead", The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (FallEdition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.
stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/mead/>.
Andrew J. Reck (ed.) (1964). Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Blumer, Herbert. (1966). "Sociological Implications of the Thought of George
Herbert Mead," American Journal of Sociology, 71, 534-544.
Mead, G. H. (1972). Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist: Ed., with Introd., by Charles W. Morris. University of Chicago
Press.
68