|
Sociology
Sociological Theory Chapter 5:
Mead's biography differs from the thinkers covered so far in several important ways. First off, he was an American, born (1863) in Massachusetts. Second, he was for the most part a very mainstream person. He was not a "radical" like Marx, nor was he a member of an ethnic minority, like Marx and Durkheim. Simply put, he was a middle-class WASP - his father was a Protestant minister who taught at a religious college. Also, he was raised in a stable, loving home and did not suffer from serious social or emotional problems! At the same time, he was hardly "ordinary," and he did share some traits with other sociological thinkers. He was an atheist, extremely well-read in many areas (very much a "renaissance man"), and very concerned about transforming society to a better state. Unlike Durkheim and especially Marx, however, Mead's idea of change was slow. His plan was reform, not revolution. This idea is very American, and very typical of the progressive country America was at the turn of the century (1900). It was also typical of the kind of Christianity that Mead was brought up with - even though he abandoned his beliefs in the supernatural, he retained the Christian emphasis on helping others. More than writing about positive change, Mead actively took part in seeing it occurred. He belonged to and worked with organizations dedicated to making real-world, practical changes in the immediate community (in Mead's case this was the city of Chicago, where he spent most of his career). Mead was above all practical - ideas were of no interest to him if they could not be applied to making the world a better place, and it was the responsibility of intellectuals to do just that. Being practical is not the same as being traditional. Mead was very progressive - he wanted a future in which all citizens (women, blacks, the poor) had the political power to maintain a society where no one would go without. Though clearly politically "left," Mead was not a communist calling for the destruction of the market. He viewed market relationships as positive. Neither was he interested in a "welfare state." He believed in hard work, discipline, and taking responsibility for one's own actions. For instance, in addition to wanting to empower the powerless, he supported efforts to give them job training. Mead was a practical and humble man who did not consider it beneath him to take non-intellectual jobs. Mead's father died while George was still in college, making it necessary for him to wait tables at the college. After he was fired for throwing some rowdy boys out of his high school class (he had taken such a position after graduating college), Mead worked as a railroad surveyor for several years, tutoring in the off-season. Eventually he entered Harvard graduate school, studying a large variety of subjects, but especially philosophy and psychology (as we will see, Mead's contributions are best described as "social psychology"). Although he eventually worked in what became an enormously prestigious university, the University of Chicago, Mead published very little. This was probably in part due to his hatred of writing - Mead felt that writing was an inadequate way to communicate, compared to open dialogue. He was a fantastic lecturer, but refused to publish his original ideas. However, these ideas were so influential that his students hired stenographers to record his lectures; his most important ideas were published from these after his death (1931). In truth, it was the effect that Mead had in face-to-face interactions with real people that gave his theories staying power. Over the years after his death, his sociology gained more and more attention. He was not so famous in his own time.
IN A NUTSHELL
The self is formed through an interactive process between the individual and society, and society is formed through the interaction of individuals. Both are ongoing processes, continuously emerging through interaction. We can understand the process, but it is difficult to predict exactly what forms societies and personalities will take. The more complex the society, the more complex individuals tend to be. Groups and individuals adapt to their physical and social environments by adjusting their behaviors. For the group or society, this involves coordination and a division of labor. For the individual, it involves adjusting behavior to meet group expectations and goals. Humans adapt to the environment in a different manner than animals, using deliberate planning and intelligence rather than simple reactions to environmental situations. Another manner in which people adapt is by showing different versions of the self to different audiences. To have a "self" is to be self-aware - to be both a subject and an object at the same time. Being able to see ourselves as objects allows us to see ourselves the way others do - "to take the role of the other." In doing this, we imagine what is going on in someone else's head, allowing us to hear ourselves communicate and be sure we are making sense. By imagining what sort of reactions a person will have to our behaviors, we can predict such reactions and behave in appropriate ways. Having a self allows humans to act upon themselves deliberately, to think, to have internal conversations and a relationship with oneself. The "I" (subject) aspect of the self actively thinks, plans, and makes decisions. It is awake, self-aware, spontaneous, creative, and unpredictable. It is activated when we are required to think, make a decision, and act. The me is a reflection of what society thinks, including of you. It is stable and predictable, a storage place for society's expectations and the self-concept. The I and me work out which actions are appropriate, allowing a decision to be made. Human communication is made possible by symbols, stimuli with meaning attached to them by humans. "Nonsignificant gestures," on the other hand, have meaning that is instinctive. The use of symbols requires the ability to take the role of the other. Through the use of symbols, humans can accomplish many things that other animals can't, including the ability to hold internal conversations (i.e., to think). To be reflexive is to think - to be able to stop, step back, and deliberately consider a situation from different angles. It is to imagine how your own behavior might seem to others, and what outcomes might result. It is also, in thinking, to consider how your behavior fits with greater plans and social values. The reflexive mind and the existence of self are wound together. Thinking - using one's mind - is all about the I and me communicating. Mind is a mediator between the stimuli coming from the world, and our reaction to these, and is used in this way to adapt to the world. Because the mind (and senses, and perception) is limited, and because the mind is filled with information gained from social interaction, a person's interpretation of reality will be influenced by his or her socialization and experiences - and therefore by society. The meaning an object has is equivalent to the use you have for it. Meaning is constantly being created and modified, emerging from interaction. It comes from the relationship between the subject and object in the situation at hand. Meaning influences our actions, and being mistaken about the meaning of an object still leads us to a decision and action, The first stage of socialization is the "preparatory stage," during which the child learns to use symbols by association and repetition. During the next stage, the "play stage," the child learns to take the role of the other. Others serve as role models. This is a practice stage, during which the child is only able to take the role of one other at a time, though he or she may switch between roles while playing alone. In the final "game stage" people must learn the rules of the "games" they play, whether an actual game, a job, school, family life, etc. When we interact in groups, we learn the rules for that group situation. These rules may include formal rules, but mainly it is about learning to take into consideration the expectations of several others simultaneously. The mature, socialized individual eventually becomes able to take the role of "the generalized other" (i.e., the role of society as a whole). A basic function of taking the role of the generalized other is "internal social control" - controlling oneself. Another is that doing do allows us to see where our actions fit in with group activities, or even society-wide activities. We are able to play very large and sophisticated "games," coordinate our behavior with others, and accomplish great things. Mead predicted a future in which each person would be able to take into consideration the perspective of all others, and coordinate his or her actions in a way that would bring benefit to all. For most of history, people coordinated their behavior in groups with the purpose of conflict with other groups, but in Mead's ideal future, feelings of unity would exist at a global level. This "universal society" has no specific, lasting characteristics: the world would continue to change, with no predictable end or plotted course, as people develop themselves and society in a positive direction. The purpose of science is to improve society. Social science should determine the best social forms, then change or abandon them if they don't work. The scientist should be struck with a problem, think through the problem, and come up with possible explanations: "mental testing." The next step is to take explanations to the field and test them empirically: "observational testing." The scientist must be honest about what testing indicates, and should prefer simpler explanations over others. Social problems should be addressed by creating a social environment in which people want to do things that are beneficial for themselves and society. Mead believed in volunteerism, personal responsibility, and a free-market economy. Dynamic, free-market economic behavior can benefit both the individual and society. Ultimately, there should be nothing to stop free-willed human beings from enacting positive reforms.
REMEDIAL SOCIOLOGY
definition of the situation: From symbolic interactionist theory, the way people define the situation they find themselves in. To do this we use information from culture, and sometimes the input of those around us. dramaturgical theory: Erving Goffman's approach to sociology, which claims human social behavior can be understood by seeing people as actors on a stage, performing to audiences. ethnocentrism: the tendency to judge other groups and societies by the standards of our own, and to see our own culture as superior to others. evolution: a process by which species slowly change over time due to (1) random mutation in the genes, and (2) natural selection, by the environment, of genes that allow the organism to best survive and reproduce fallibility: the ability to be wrong. Scientific explanations are stated in a way that allows them to be proved false by evidence - assuming this evidence exists. Compare with non-scientific explanations (e.g., there is no evidence that would prove to believers that God does not exist, or that he did not create the Earth; religious dogma tends to be infallible). identity: the understanding a person has of him- or herself. Identity is typically based on group membership, personal characteristics, and feedback received from others. individualism: the trend in modern society for people to place personal needs and desires ahead of the good of the group, community, or society. institution: the habits, rules, and other cultural solutions a society employs to deal with basic problems of living. Examples include family, education, economy, medicine, and military. internal social control: the ability of a socialized individual to exercise self-control and thus refrain from engaging in deviant behavior. internalize: accept and take for granted a norm, value, or belief acquired from others (typically the group or society) through socialization. meaning: For Mead and the symbolic interactionists, humans attach meaning to things, both as individuals and as groups. Theoretically, any meaning can be attached to any thing (e.g., people have decided a pink triangle indicates homosexuality). This can be compared to the meaning of objects for most other animals, which is based on instinct or experience (e.g., a rat knows instinctively that the smell of a cat means danger - a bunch of rats did not to need to get together and agree on this). nationalism: loyalty to one's country, often to a fault. Nationalists tend to advocate their government's position and defend its actions, regardless of whether these positions and actions are right according to other reasonable standards. object: something that is acted upon (as opposed to something that acts). In the sentence, "Bill ate his apple and winked at Kate, "apple" and Kate are the objects. A person can be a subject and an object, even at the same time. paradigm: a broad approach to studying something. Within a single paradigm, there may be hundreds of theories. For instance, "dramaturgical theory" is sometimes classified under the paradigm of "symbolic interactionism." All theories in a paradigm tend to have similar foci, assumptions, and questions they wish to answer. parsimony: the principle that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is best and should be tested before concocting more complicated theories patriotism: love and general strong positive feelings for one's nation. May be associated with the same problems as nationalism. postmodern theory: a paradigm that criticizes the success of modernity and claims the modern era has ended. Postmodernism tends to criticize modern theories and perspectives, and attempts to "deconstruct" social constructions of reality, pointing out the history and social processes (especially involving powerful groups) behind them pure science: the idea that scientists can study reality just for the sake of understanding it, rather than studying it for specific reasons and purposes. This idea tends to ignore human bias in science. reform: slow, steady modification of society in a certain (assumed positive) direction rather than radical change involving total destruction and replacement of previous social institutions. role model: person who serves as an example of how to perform a role. Children tend to learn their own roles by observing the "role models" around them perform these roles. roles: a set of expected behaviors that go with a position (friend, student, parent, worker) one occupies in society. selection: also called "natural selection." In biology, this is the way that the environment "selects" traits in organisms that allow those organisms to survive and reproduce. social construction of reality: the idea that reality, as understood in the human mind, is not a perfect picture of external reality. Instead, our understanding of reality is shaped by others and society in general. Because this is the case, people may believe things that aren't true (like the way the Earth was once thought to be flat). social determinist: someone who thinks society is the primary cause of human behavior. For an extreme social determinist, individuals have no free will: all action is determined by the characteristics of society. social engineering: deliberate attempts to change (i.e., "engineer") society to fit a certain desired image. Governments may make attempts to do this. socialization: the social learning process a human goes through to internalize the values, beliefs, and expectations of society. This begins in early childhood and occurs through interaction, observing role models, receiving rewards and punishments, etc. subject: something that acts (as opposed to being acted upon), typically a person. In the sentence, "Bill ate his apple and winked at Kate," Bill is the subject. A person can be a subject and an object, even at the same time. symbolic interaction: a paradigm in sociology that emphasizes the importance of individuals interacting (through the use of symbols) to create society, the self, and to attach meaning to objects, actions, and situations. symbol: a stimulus with meaning attached to it by humans. The exact form the symbol takes is arbitrary. Words (spoken or written), most gestures (e.g., thumbs up, wink), emblems, logos, icons, etc. are all examples of symbols.
IDEAS THAT MADE IT
5.1 Interdependence of Self and Society The self is formed through an interactive process between the individual and society, rather than being "determined" by society. People were social even before they were fully human, thus it is accurate to say society is necessary for the self to exist. Likewise, society is formed through the interaction of individuals. Both society and the self are ongoing processes, continuously emerging through interaction. Though we can understand the process, it is difficult to predict exactly what forms societies and personalities will take. The more complex the society, the more complex individuals tend to be.
Can an individual exist without society? Not if that individual is human, says Mead. While he recognized that people are biological organisms with the capacity to think and talk, Mead points out that these thoughts, this language - and everything else that goes on in the mind comes from the interaction of the individual with society. We have yet not defined the "self," but for now we can say that Mead saw that arising in the same way. You cannot have a sense of self, or an identity, or a functioning mind without society. However, Mead is not suggesting that society determines your identity and thoughts. He was not a strict social determinist. The more we get into Mead, the more we will find that he sees most any given phenomenon as a process. Two or more things come together, interacting to bring a process like self into existence. You are a person with certain capacities, probably based in biology. You enter into a relationship with society, and through this relationship you form thoughts, a mind, a self. The individual is formed through a process, and continues to be a process as the person interacts with society and the environment, solving problems, achieving goals, etc. At the same time, society needs you in order to exist. Mead is like Durkheim, in that he believes characteristics of society are real. We can say that rules, language, habits of behavior, etc., are "out there." But they do not come into existence without people doing their thing. The ongoing process of people interacting with one another (in the specific manner people do - more later) creates the reality of society. We are born, enter into this process, and find certain objective regularities - structures (like the institution of family or work). Society is there, we need it, we use it, we become it - we make it happen. Like us, it is an ongoing process, continually emerging. If people need a pre-existing society, how did the first human become so? Mead was strongly influenced by Charles Darwin, who of course proposed that we slowly evolved from previous forms that were not human. We were social before we were human - human society and human minds evolved together. First we were relatively unintelligent but social creatures, then as society became more complex, so did the mind. This idea may or may not make sense to you, but anthropologists today agree (with virtually no exceptions) that this is how mind and society formed. Though Mead claimed we can understand the process by which society and self are formed, he did not believe we could always predict exactly what the outcome would be. There are many factors to take into account, and many people (with no two exactly alike). Consider a large society today, where culture is diverse and variable, and one has a lot of opportunities to meet a lot of different people. If people depend on other people to form their own personalities, it stands to reason that the most complex and "different" sorts of people will be found in such modern societies. Mead, like Durkheim, recognized the relationship between individuality and the complexity of society. He said that small, simple societies will produce a smaller variety of people, and that the opposite will also be true. But again, simple or modern, Mead made clear that society and individuals are too complex is to predict precisely: there are many possible selves and societies. As we'll see later, Mead thought people should recognize these possibilities and take action to bring about positive social change.
--------------------------------------
In Your Terms:
[partial transcript of an interview with the radical historian Howard Zinn, taken from Howard Zinn: A Radical American Vision by Davis Joyce]
…I don't predict for the future, whether things will be good or bad, because I think that things are so uncertain… So many things have happened which we could never have predicted, bad things and good things, and so, who would have predicted in Germany in the 1920s that Hitler would rise to power? And who would have predicted that in South Africa that Mandela would become president? So, I believe in the volatility of events and that people, to move things one way or the other, very often, not deliberately but by actions, each action may be deliberate, but the totality of the actions don't have any guiding, and somebody once talked about the natural selection of accidents, and so I believe that we have enough examples of history and good surprises taking place to suggest that we can have more of them, but it depends on what we do. And it depends on doing things, no matter how small our actions are, having the kind of faith that if enough people take enough small actions that at some point they may come together in some great change which is desirable.
--------------------------------------
5.2 Adaptation and Adjustment Groups and individuals adapt to their physical and social environments by adjusting their behaviors appropriately. For the group or society, this involves coordination and a division of labor. For the individual, it involves adjusting behavior to meet group expectations and goals. In general, humans adapt to the environment in a different manner than animals, using deliberate planning and intelligence rather than simple reactions to environmental situations. Another manner in which people adapt is by acting differently depending on who they are with, effectively showing different versions of the self to different audiences.
Mead was a very practical thinker, as we'll see. If you asked him what life was all about, he'd probably just say it was about people trying to adapt to their environments. This is, again, in tune with Darwin, but Mead was talking about something slightly different. He said that people adapt to their environments by adjusting their behavior. People do this as a group, but they also do it as individuals in social interaction. This is to say that (1) groups work together, adjusting their behavior so as to adapt to their environment (i.e., make a living, get things done), and (2) an individual adjusts his or her behavior in order to fit in and get along with others. In both cases it's a practical thing: people are just trying to accomplish their goals. Let's examine each more closely. Mead argued that, as Darwin said, organisms adapt to their environments. But with people, the manner in which adaptation takes place is different. "Adaptation" in the biological sense involves adaptive genes being selected by the environment (or, more accurately, "bad genes" dying out in that environment). Organisms that are "adaptive" have traits that allow them to survive, but until humans came along, these survival traits only involved (more or less) instinctual reactions to environment. A rabbit smells a predator because of its ("adaptive") sense of smell, then quickly escapes due to its superior ability to run. A tree senses the rising sun and opens its leaves to collect this energy. Humans adapt differently. Of course they have such instinctive reactions, and these allow them to solve important problems. But they also have the ability to think, plan, deliberately coordinate social behavior (as opposed to instinctive herding or schooling of fish), invent new ways of doing things, etc. These capacities have allowed our species to adapt to and survive on every continent, the bottom of the ocean, the surface of the moon, and someday soon, beyond. Mead used the term "adjust." We adjust our behaviors in order to adapt to a variety of situations. Within this great swarming of society that is adjusting and adapting, on a smaller scale individuals are doing the same thing. They are taking into consideration others' behaviors, thoughts, assumptions, values, etc., and adjusting their own actions appropriately. Groups carry out big goals, but within that group, individuals figure out how to fit in and become part of the collective effort. We do this for our own benefit, but also because we are able to understand the goals of the group - and how these goals are of interest to us.
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Clive runs another rack of glasses through the sanitizer. He was going to run some plates first, but the waitresses are low on glasses - too many are sitting on the restaurant's tables, unretrieved. The waitresses usually bus their own tables, but there's a football game today, and the place's slow period suddenly got fast. While the sanitizer runs, Clive grabs a bus tub and runs out to the dining area. He understands the waitresses' point of view, and the larger goal of the restaurant, and makes the necessary adjustments to his own behavior. The waitresses notice and appreciate Clive's efforts, and give him some of their tips at the end of the shift. The group is adjusting to an unforeseen circumstance.
--------------------------------------
Important to the way humans adjust and adapt is the division of labor. We will not dwell too much on this idea, as it was covered by other theorists, but Mead said people are able to work at a specialized task while keeping in mind the important part they play in a much bigger picture. This sort of orientation allows human beings to accomplish much that other species cannot. Crucial to the way humans divide their labor is our ability to see ourselves from the perspective of others. More on this topic will be covered in sections 5.3, 5.8, and 5.9. At this point we should mention an idea of Mead's related to the topic of both section 5.1 and this one. This idea, the idea of the modern individual having, in a sense, "many selves," no doubt influenced later thinkers, especially Erving Goffman, the man who developed dramaturgical theory. Goffman's (1959) "dramaturgy" is complex, but it can be summed up in the idea that life is like a stage, and that we are all playing roles to "audiences" (others with whom we interact). Goffman noted that we change our presentation, depending on the situation and audience. Mead said something very similar, much earlier. He said that as individuals go about trying to adapt to the (especially modern) world, they find that they must present different selves to different others. This idea should not be foreign to you, unless you interact with your best friend in the same manner you do with your grandmother. Different words are used, different topics chosen, different secrets revealed and hidden. Goffman found this necessity disturbing, and longed for a world without deception. Mead, on the other hand, had no problem with this multitude of selves. Always the pragmatist, he saw it as simply another way people adapt to situations they encounter in life.
5.3 Taking the Role of the Other To "take the role of the other" is to imagine what is going on in someone else's head - to try to "put yourself in their shoes." We must be able to hear ourselves communicate so that we can be sure we are making sense. When a person communicates in a meaningful way, he or she is simultaneously expressing a message to another and imagining what that message sounds like. Two people successfully communicating are simultaneously in their own minds, and in the mind of the other. We must be able to imagine what sort of reactions a person will have to our behaviors. If we can predict such reactions, we can behave in ways that bring forth positive reactions.
Absolutely crucial to adaptation - at least to the way human beings adapt - is the ability of a person to imagine another's point of view. Mead's concept of "taking the role of the other" is in some ways a very easy one to understand, because we do it so often. At the same time, it should be described carefully because it is so central to Mead's ideas. People naturally see the world from their own points of view. This is especially the case when we are young. Young children often find it hard to imagine how someone else might be thinking, feeling, perceiving, interpreting what's going on, etc. To "take the role of the other" is to imagine what is going on in someone else's head - to try to "put yourself in their shoes" for a moment. We may stop and do this deliberately, so that we can feel sympathy for someone else - come to realize that they have problems, desires, duties, just like us. But Mead doesn't really focus on "seeing someone else's point of view" in this sense (though this does involve taking the role of the other). What Mead is saying is that we must be able to imagine what it is like, for the person we are interacting with, to receive the messages we are sending them - whether these messages are transmitted directly (e.g., spoken) or through some sort of behavior (e.g., doing something nice to show you like someone, or following rules to show you can be trusted). We must be able to, in a sense, hear ourselves communicate so that we can be sure we are making sense. And we must be able to imagine what sort of reactions a person will have to our behaviors and messages. If you can predict such reactions, you can behave in ways that give you the reaction you want (typically, acceptance by others). Mead points out that when a person communicates in a meaningful way (typically through the use of language or other symbols - more later), they are simultaneously expressing a message to another and imagining what that message sounds like. Two people successfully communicating with symbols are simultaneously in their own minds, and in the mind of the other. There is no actual "telepathy" here, of course, but if you think about it, taking the role of the other is a lot like mind-reading because it is not hard to imagine what the other person is thinking when they hear what we are saying. You hear what you sound like from the other's point of view. You imagine how others must be reacting to your behavior. When we are in our own mind and another's simultaneously, we can be fairly certain that we are effectively communicating. I.e., we can be sure that the meaning of our words and actions is shared. Some people are very good at being sensitive to whether others "get" what they are saying. Other people are not good at this. If you've ever interacted with people who have a limited grasp of your language and culture, you might have noticed a failure to achieve meaningful communication. A foreigner may not understand particular words, or slang expressions, or the meaning of certain habits and customs. If you don't try to think about how you sound to them, you may not realize your words are not being translated, in their minds, into the meaning they have for you.
--------------------------------------
In Your Terms:
"Can I use your bathroom?" asks Joe, an American visiting New Zealand. "First door on the right," says his host. What Joe really would like to do is use the toilet, but that word sounds too blunt in his own society, so he asks for the "bathroom." But his host doesn't know that. To him, the "bathroom" is the room with the sink and bath. The room with the toilet is next door. When Joe asked about the bathroom, he imagined his host understanding that Joe meant that he needed to urinate. But when Joe's host responded, he imagined Joe getting a message regarding the location of a place to wash up. Both men are trying to "take the role of the other," and both are failing in this case. Upon entering the bathroom, Joe finds the appliance he desperately needs strangely absent. He begins to imagine exactly where in this sort of room New Zealanders might do their business. He eyes the sink. An "international incident" is about to occur…
--------------------------------------
People who are very young, insane, and/or enormously socially inept may also have trouble realizing that they are not effectively communicating. You may recall an instance in which you had a very hard time getting someone to understand you, and vice-versa, because they weren't all "there." It can be a very frustrating and uncomfortable situations, and this illustrates how important taking the role of the other is to successful human interaction. Taking the role of the other is crucial because, to behave in a manner that is human, meaning must be shared. I.e., we cannot communicate, plan, coordinate behavior, adjust to circumstances, if we can't indicate to others what we mean. Also, we can't know whether our behavior is appropriate unless we can imagine others' reactions to this behavior. And really, we can't even become human, in the sense of the self and mind developing from its interaction with others in society, if that interaction doesn't bring about meaningful communication.
5.4 Symbols A symbol is a stimulus with meaning that has been attached to it by humans. Its meaning must be learned through a social process rather than instinctively. The term "nonsignificant gestures" is used to describe gestures that are instinctive. Any meaning can be attached to a symbol. The use of symbols requires the ability to take the role of the other. Through the use of symbols, humans can accomplish many things that other animals can't.
Mead points out that to communicate the way we do, we use a method not used by other animals: symbols. Mead originally used the term "significant symbol," but these days (and for our purposes) "symbol" is commonly used. A symbol is best defined as a stimulus with meaning that has been attached to it by humans. Mead's word "significant" may be helpful here: a symbol "signifies" something else. A symbol can be a word (spoken or otherwise), a logo, an emblem, a hand or body gesture, etc. What is important about it is that its meaning must be learned through a social process - the meaning cannot be understood instinctively. Thus, the hissing of a cat is not a symbol - it is an instinctive response, and other cats understand instinctively what it means. Mead used the term "nonsignificant gestures" to describe instinctive gestures (i.e., those that had no meaning attached to them by humans through a social process). Compare nonsignificant gestures to human communication. Right now I am communicating with you by using symbols. The marks on this page (stimuli to your eyes) looked like gibberish until you learned what they meant. Likewise, spoken words (stimuli to your ears) mean nothing until you come to understand their meaning through interacting with other people. Someone speaking a language that is foreign to you is sending auditory stimuli through the air, but you have not taken the years required to learn the meanings attached to these stimuli. Any meaning can be attached to a symbol. If I teach my children that a wink means I'm mad at them, they may frown and cry when they see someone wink (until they learn, again through social interaction, to attach other meanings to that gesture).
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Dave, an American, hitchhikes his way across southern Europe. In the US, the extended thumb indicates a request for a ride, but in Turkey, a different meaning has been attached to this symbol. Thrusting up your thumb in that country conveys the suggestion that the receiver of the message thrust a foreign object into his or her rectum. Makes sense, when you think about it, but not to Dave - until a van recently hijacked by three escaped prisoners stops to offer him a lift…
--------------------------------------
The use of symbols, argues Mead, requires the ability to take the role of the other. A person must "be" in the mind of the other and recognize that the other recognizes the meaning of the symbols. E.g., when I say the word "sun," what happens in your mind and my mind should be roughly the same thing: we both imagine a huge ball of burning gases many millions of miles from Earth. If I am aware of this simultaneous reception of meaning, then I can be confident that I have successfully communicated. You and I are "symbolically interacting" - we are interacting by using symbols. Mead did not use the term "symbolic interaction" (it was coined by one of his students, Herbert Blumer), but he was the founder of the idea. Today, "Symbolic Interactionism" is a major paradigm in sociology. Through the use of symbols, humans can accomplish marvelous things. We are not restricted to the relatively simple and limited communications of other animals. We can convey a lot of complicated information with just a few words. Consider, for example, the abstractness and complexity of sociological theory - and yet you can fit a book like this one into a backpack. For Mead, symbolic communication is essential to all of the processes he describes: planning, organization, learning society's rules, forming an identity, and thinking. As we'll soon see, Mead is very interested in what happens within the mind. What we should realize is thinking takes place symbolically. To think is to symbolically interact with oneself.
5.5 The Self To have a "self" is to be aware of your own existence - to be both a subject and an object at the same time. Very few animals are capable of this. Being able to see ourselves as objects allows us to see ourselves the way others do - to take the role of the other. It allows humans to act upon themselves deliberately, to think, to have internal conversations and a relationship with oneself. The self is divided into the "I" (subject) and the "me" (object). The "I" actively thinks, plans, makes decisions. It is awake, self-aware, spontaneous, creative, and unpredictable. It is activated when we are required to think, make a decision, and act. The me is a reflection of what society thinks, including of you. It is stable and predictable, a storage place for society's expectations and the self-concept. The I and me work out which actions are appropriate, allowing a decision to be made.
The concept of "self" means a lot of different things in everyday speech, but Mead and other "symbolic interactionists" use it to mean something more specific. Put simply, to have a "self" is to be aware of your own existence. It is the ability to be both a subject (the one who acts and perceives) and an object (that which is acted upon and perceived) at the same time. For instance, you can think about yourself. You can look into the mirror and ask yourself, "who am I?" If you're confused about the importance of this ability, consider that the human animal is one of the only ones able to recognize its own existence. All animals are subjects that react to the world, and are acted upon (by others) as objects. But experiments show that only a few animals understand that they themselves are objects. A parakeets tries to interact with a mirror because it does not understand that the bird it is seeing is itself. A cat held up to a mirror might hiss at this strange animal it has been confronted with. But a human - even a six month old baby - figures out quickly whose reflection it is seeing. The great apes are capable of this too. In one experiment, a blue dot was painted on a gorilla's forehead. Later, the ape was exposed to a mirror, and immediately reached up to touch the strange mark on its own head (not the reflection's head). The gorilla understood that the reflection was its own. Lower primates (e.g. monkeys) and other mammals will not react in the same way. So we're smart enough to know we exist - so what? Mead thought this ability allowed us to behave, socially, in a uniquely human fashion. You might have already made a connection between the self and "taking the role of the other." So did Mead. He said that being able to see ourselves as objects allows us to see ourselves the way others do (or at least imagine how they are perceiving us).
--------------------------------------
In Your Terms:
In the movie Dangerous Liaisons, Glen Close plays the character of a Marquesse (a high-ranking French Noblewoman) who has spent her life becoming an expert of deception and manipulation. At the end of the film, her true characteristics become known to her peers, and she is booed by the entire audience at an opera. The following scene - and the last one of the movie - shows the Marquesse in front of a mirror, facing herself unhappily as she removes her makeup. Her façade has been destroyed, and she knows it. She faces herself, and thinks about how others view her - as a monster who has shed its beautiful disguise. This scene demonstrates the human ability to take the role of the other, and its connection to the ability to see oneself as an object.
--------------------------------------
Rather than just "see," a more accurate phrase would be "act upon." Animals act upon themselves too - a dog scratches its own ear, for instance. But the actions we take towards ourselves are different for a couple of reasons. First, they are more than reactions. Many human actions require deliberate thought, consideration, planning, and are motivated by meanings gained from society. Second, human action towards self is carried out as if the person was an object outside his or her own body - a separate entity. In summary, you think about yourself as an object, and deliberately act upon this object for reasons that mean something to you. As a person with a self, you can feel good about yourself, punish yourself, warn yourself, remind yourself, reward yourself, feel sorry for yourself, etc. You can have an internal conversation - communicate with yourself much like you communicate with others. Once formed through interaction with society, a solitary human being essentially carries on what amounts to a social relationship with him- or herself!
If you have been confused by the concept of self so far, it may help to place Mead's labels "I" and "me" on the two aspects of the self. It was mentioned that the self is both a subject and an object. For Mead, the "I" is the subject and the "me" is the object. Again, the subject acts, and the object is acted upon. Thus, the "I" is that part of yourself that actively thinks, plans, makes decisions, etc. It is, to put it simply, your "free will." The I is awake, self-aware, spontaneous, creative, and unpredictable. Mead says the I becomes activated when a person is required to think, make a decision, and act. It allows us to adapt to situations we find ourselves in (see 5.2). The I cannot normally do whatever it wants. It needs to take into consideration how others will react, what society expects, etc. The "me" is essentially a storage place for these things - but it is more than this. It is a reflection of what society thinks - including what (as far as you can tell) society thinks of you. Thus, the me contains your self-concept. When you consider yourself in the mirror, your I is thinking, "how does the world see me? Who am I?" The answer to this question will not necessarily be characteristics of yourself you would like to be known for. For instance, you might think you're likeable, and want to be thought of as likeable, but if people don't like you, your me will contain the characteristic "unlikable" because that is how other people see you. The image of self that exists in the me is pretty stable because it is what others (and you) have seen over and over again. If you are shy most of the time, your I can't change your me by deciding to act outgoing on one occasion. We might think of the me as being stable and predictable. It doesn't really act, but it interacts with the I in a process that helps the I make decisions. Specifically, it acts as a counter to the I's impulsiveness. The me contains what society expects, and particularly what it expects of you, given your history. The I proposes action, the me responds to such proposals. At some point the two will hash out what should be done. This all goes on inside your head, of course, and Mead used the term "internal conversation" to describe the process.
--------------------------------------
In Your Terms:
Louis keeps quiet at the nightclub, even though he feels like throwing off his shirt and dancing on the bar. Not only is it socially unacceptable to do such a thing, but Louis is known by his circle of friends to be quiet and reserved in crowds. Megan, another of this circle, is currently on the bar, having shed everything above the waist (and the night is young). But then, Megan does this anytime she has more than six or eight shots of Tequila. She is known as a "party girl," has had a large variety of sexual partners, including some women, and in general does as she pleases. The whole room expects this of her, and even the bouncers, for some reason, make an exception (and sometimes buy her Tequila shots). Louis takes a sip from his free, designated-driver soft-drink, sighs, and continues to watch the show rather than joining it. His I has been paralyzed by his me.
--------------------------------------
A final note: The I and me are not always engaging in heated conversation. Mead uses the term "I-me fusion" to describe a situation that should remind us very much of Durkheim's "collective effervescence." During I-me fusion, there is no careful conversation between the I and me - no arguments about what is appropriate behavior. The I and me have "fused," united without conflict in response to a group situation where all members behave in an automatic manner. This may occur as a response to an emergency, in which there is no time to discuss a proper course of action, or it may occur in an emotional gathering, as in church, a group of excited fans at a concert or sports event, etc. All present are tuned into the same thoughts and feelings, and collective behavior happens without the need for deliberate planning and organization.
5.6 Reflexivity and Mind To be reflexive is to think - to be able to stop, step back, and deliberately consider a situation from different angles. It is to imagine how your own behavior might seem to others, and what outcomes might result. It is also, in thinking, to consider how your behavior fits with greater plans and social values. The reflexive mind and the existence of self are wound together. Thinking - using one's mind - is all about the I and me communicating. Mind is a mediator between the stimuli coming from the world, and our reaction to these, and is used in this way to adapt to the world.
"Subject" and "object" are terms you should have learned when studying grammar in elementary school. The subject acts and the object is acted upon. When you look up the word reflexive, it is also used in the study of grammar. It refers to a situation, in a sentence, where the subject and object refer to the same thing (e.g., "I hurt myself"). Also in the definition of reflexive, you'll find the word "reflective." I.e., sometimes to be reflexive is to reflect: to think about something carefully and deliberately. Mead said the self was reflexive in both senses of the word. Earlier, we went into detail about how the self acts upon itself. This ability is related to the ability to reflect - to use one's mind in a human way (i.e., to think). What is the essence of thinking - of having a "mind" in the human sense? We keep touching on this, and this is not surprising because for Mead, all of these ideas are related. Mind, self, taking the role of the other, symbols, self-society interdependence, and adaptation are all tied together, and each must be understood in order to understand the rest. To think is to be able to stop, step back, and deliberately consider a situation from different angles - to imagine how your own behavior might seem to others, and what outcomes might result. You might also, in thinking, consider how your behavior fits with greater plans and social values. All through this, we see that essential ability to take the role of the other - to look at your own self and its actions as if you were outside yourself. Again we go back to the idea of being both subject and object! Behavior that does not involve thinking is the opposite: it is quick, in the moment, and done without consideration. Often, such behavior is necessary. If a car comes barreling towards you, it may not be healthy to pause and reflect upon the various courses of action and how these courses might fit in with the expectations of society. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
There is a story of a man who, during the Vietnam war, was captured by the enemy and interrogated. In such a situation, it is said, people will eventually tell their interrogators what they want to know. This man decided he would not only keep quiet, but would refuse to cooperate with his captors in any way. He would not voluntarily go where they told him, would not sit down when instructed (on one occasion, his captors twisted his leg restraints to make him sit; he refused, even though they broke his leg by doing this). They would beat him mercilessly, but he would not talk, and on occasions the men beating him would get too tired to continue. He did give them some information, but only after he calculated the information would be of no use. The man was tortured for twelve years before he was finally released. The story demonstrates fundamental differences between the decision-making process of most animals and that of the human animal. The reflexive mind allows human beings to think long-term, plan, base decisions on factors beyond the immediate demands of instincts. It allows us to take into consideration how our behavior will affect others, and whether it meets up to the expectations of valued groups.
--------------------------------------
As concepts, mind and self may be hard to distinguish. Where does mind end and self begin? For Mead, there is no such point: reflexive mind and the existence of self are wound together. Thinking - using one's mind - is all about the I and me having chats. The mind can't work without the I and me (the self), and the existence of self is essentially a process of the mind! I think, therefore I (my self) am. Perfectly defining these concepts is much harder than understanding the purpose of the mind. If you've been paying attention, you might be able to guess this purpose. For Mead the pragmatist, the mighty human mind is simply the means by which people adapt to the world. Like any other animal, we use what tools we have to survive. But, unlike other animals, we are not limited to unreflective reactions. We can think carefully about the best course of action, imagine consequences, imagine reactions from a variety of others, decide whether action fits with greater goals of groups (or humanity), plan for the future, etc. For people, mind is a mediator between the stimuli coming from the world (especially from others), and our reaction to these.
5.7 Perception and Meaning of Objects Because the mind (and senses, and perception) is limited, and because the mind is filled with information gained from social interaction, a person's interpretation of reality will be influenced by his or her socialization and experiences - and therefore by society. The meaning an object has is equivalent to the use you have for it. Meaning is constantly being created and modified, emerging from interaction. It comes from the relationship between the subject and object in the situation at hand. Meaning influences our actions, and being mistaken about the meaning of an object still leads us to a decision and action,
Anyone with a broad exposure to sociological theory will see similarities between many of Mead's ideas and later theories that were developed more formally. As we have mentioned, Mead may be seen as the "father" of symbolic interactionism. Strongly connected to symbolic interactionism, but also to other ideas including postmodern theory, is the idea of the "social construction of reality." In a nutshell, to say that reality is socially constructed is to say that our understanding of reality is not perfect or exact, and is influenced by society. More specifically, the human mind must make sense out of reality. Because the mind (and senses, and perception) is limited, and because the mind is filled with information gained from social interaction, we can expect that a person's interpretation of reality will be influenced by his or her socialization and experiences - and therefore by society. What is real and not real, right and wrong, good and bad, true and false? What are we to make of the things of this Earth, or of space, or death? What should our attitudes be towards things we encounter in this world - towards males and females, old and young, black and white, rich and poor, citizen and foreigner? Why does the grass grow? What can we do to assure good crops? Are there divine beings watching us and influencing human events? Very few questions can be answered, definitively, by simply observing the facts of reality. Society helps provide answers, directs our attention to some things and not others, tells us which explanations and plans are feasible and unfeasible. What does any of this have to do with G.H. Mead? He had something to say about the topic, and put it into his own language. For Mead, the mind must try to understand many objects in the world. Remember that an "object" is not just an inanimate thing. Objects include other people, the self - just about anything a subject can act upon. Mead, in his practical way, proposed that the meaning of an object comes from its use. I.e., the meaning an object has for you is equivalent to the use you have for it. For instance, you might look at an attractive person and see them as a sex object, for the use of sex. The salesman standing across the room, on the other hand, may see them as a potential customer, for the use of making a profit.
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Three friends walk down the street and past an old building. The first friend is a real estate broker, and thinks about how much the building might be worth given its condition, location, the current market, interest rates, etc. The second is an architect and wonders who designed the building, when it was built, and if it would be possible to study the inside. The third is a burglar, and considers what sort of security system it could have, how a person might climb to the third story, and whether the residents would have anything worth stealing. The "reality" of the building is fixed. Nothing about it changes much in the moment it is simultaneously considered by these three people. Yet the reality of the building as perceived by each is very different - and very much flavored by different social circles, experiences, minds, and (most importantly for Mead) potential uses. The building means different things to different people.
--------------------------------------
The meaning of an object is not only flexible in the sense that different kinds of people perceive it differently. Meaning, for Mead, is like self and society: constantly being created and modified, emerging from interaction, unable to exist on its own. Meaning comes from the relationship between the subject and object in the situation at hand. At this moment, you are a subject acting upon this book, an object. What meaning, coming out of this relationship, are you applying to this object? Frustration and boredom? Enlightenment and wonder? Good kindling for a fire? A coaster for your beer? One of these meanings may apply at this moment, a different one later, another tomorrow. Even though we take part in creating meaning, this meaning influences our actions. Consider how powerful meaning can be. Being mistaken about the meaning of an object still leads us to a decision and action, very possibly an action we will regret. In any case, since behavior is guided by meaning, and meaning comes from interaction with others/ society (i.e., it is "socially constructed"), we can say that a person's socially constructed reality has tremendous consequences. One of Mead's colleagues at the University of Chicago, W.I. Thomas, is known for his famous statement: "If men define a situation as real, it will become real in its consequences." He uses the example of a man discovering a snake in his garden. His heartbeat increasing with fear, he jumps back, finds a rake, and attacks the snake, only to find it was a garden hose all along. The definition of the situation, not necessarily the reality, determined the consequences. To put this example in Mead's terms, we have the mind placing meaning on an object, then acting according to this meaning. The meaning comes from the immediate situation, but also from interaction with others (e.g., we may learn from others that snakes are dangerous). The consequences of meaning can be far broader than one man and a hose. Whole societies attach meaning to objects and maintain this meaning, sometimes for thousands of years.
--------------------------------------
In Your Terms:
Right after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, many people behaved in ways that in retrospect seem irrational. In an enormous show of patriotism and unity, gas stations doubled their prices, gouging those of us somehow convinced that a full tank of gas would be essential to the coming weeks and months. Many Arabs and Muslims, and those looking like Arabs and Muslims, were attacked - some killed - before the government, some time later, thought to make an announcement that such actions may not be a good idea. There was a run on Wal-Mart for firearms and ammunition because, especially here in the heartland, you need to be ready for… what exactly? It's easy enough to write all this off as blind panic and isolated incidents, but it seems clear that people, as they always do, tried desperately to attach meaning to the events (Mead would still use the term "objects" to describe such things) of 9-11 and act accordingly. The socially-constructed meaning was, and largely continues to be, based very little on well-tested reality and reason. And yet we continue to act.
--------------------------------------
The point is that socially-constructed meaning is an important motivator of behavior. We might compare this idea to Weber's point regarding causation. Weber thought the closest we could come to understanding cause was to understand the meaning behind action.
5.8 Stages of Socialization The first stage is the "preparatory stage," during which the child learns to use symbols by association and repetition. During the next stage, the "play stage," the child learns to take the role of the other. Others serve as role models. This is a practice stage, during which the child is only able to take the role of one other at a time, though he or she may switch between roles while playing alone. In the final "game stage" people must learn the rules of the "games" they play, whether an actual game, a job, school, family life, etc. When we interact in groups, we learn the rules for that group situation. These rules may include formal rules, but mainly it is about learning to take into consideration the expectations of several others simultaneously. The mature, socialized individual eventually becomes able to take the role of "the generalized other" (i.e., the role of society as a whole). A basic function of taking the role of the generalized other is "internal social control" - controlling oneself.
After the I and the me, Mead's most famous contribution to sociology is probably his ideas on the stages of socialization. As we said in section 5.1, the individual requires society to form. Mead went into some detail about how this happened, separating socialization into several stages. The first stage is the "preparatory stage," during which the child learns to use symbols. Mead did not focus on this stage, but mentioned it was necessary for the child to move on to subsequent stages. There is no specific age range for the stages, but we can assume the preparatory stage begins at birth, and lasts during the time when the child is not yet able to communicate symbolically. The meanings of symbols are learned by association and repetition - the child comes to associate images and feelings with such words as "mom," "ball," dog," "play," etc. Does the child have a "self" yet? Are we self-aware at nine months old? It was mentioned earlier that even babies can recognize themselves in the mirror, but it is probably safe to say that the self as you know it is still forming. During the preparatory stage, instinct still plays a large role in behavior. During the next stage, the "play stage," the child learns to take the role of the other. Again, this means that the child becomes able to see itself from the point of view of someone else. The implications of this are that, first, we realize that others have expectations of us, and second, we form a "me" based on the opinions others have of us. For children, significant others are typically family members and friends, but may also include fictional characters, for instance from a cartoon show. All such others serve as role models, providing the developing child with information about what society expects, and how they measure up to such expectations. What is interesting about the play stage is that the child is only able to take the role of one other at a time. This is a practice stage - a time when children are learning how to play the many different roles of their society. They are "trying on" roles, but not yet ready to occupy a position in a group where playing the role is important to group functioning. You can observe this in a group of young children (say, two or three year olds). They might play together, but they can't, for instance, "play house" yet because each is unable to coordinate his or her behavior in a way that can take into consideration the expectations of all group members. I.e., a three year old cannot "take the role of" more than one "other" at a time.
--------------------------------------
In Your Terms:
Kelly observes her four young cousins, ages two to four, trying to play house. She notes that each is in a sense playing his or her own game. Two of them try to be the mom at once. The one who plays the dad is trying to go to work, and brings the baby along, but one of the moms plays as if he is home taking care of the baby with her. There is little organization, and this occasionally produces frustration, especially among the older children. But for the most part no one seems to care. --------------------------------------
Though taking the roles of several others simultaneously does not occur, children in the play stage may switch between roles while playing alone. It is common to find young children having a conversation with themselves - out loud. Whether playing with dolls, action figures, or an invisible friend, children seem to practice "taking the role of the other" by switching from one character to another in play. At some point the child makes the leap to the last stage, the "game stage." The name of the stage says it all. The idea is that we must learn the rules of the game we are playing, whether that is an actual game, a job, school, family life, or whatever. When we interact with multiple others (i.e., in groups), we learn the rules for interaction in that group situation. These rules may include actual, formal rules, but mainly Mead is talking about learning to take into consideration the expectations of several others simultaneously, whether such "rules of the game" are written or not.
--------------------------------------
In Your Terms:
Ronnie, the catcher, gets ready for the pitch. The pitcher signals he's using a fastball, and Ronnie takes this into consideration. At the same time, Ronnie must take into consideration what the second baseman expects because the runner on second seems itching to steal. Ronnie also takes into consideration that other runner on third, because no matter what happens, he has to be ready to stop him from coming home. Ronnie knows not only these things, but the official rules of baseball, the typical strategies used by his opponents, the techniques the coach expects him to use, the hopes of his fans, etc. The mind does a lot in a four or five second play.
--------------------------------------
Each of us plays many "games," and for each the expectations may be different. But Mead says the mature, socialized individual eventually becomes able to take the role of what he calls "the generalized other." In the simplest terms, the generalized other is society. Each of us forms an idea of what society expects, and how society would judge us in any given situation. To take the role of the generalized other is to imagine this amalgamation of judges - to see ourselves from the point of view of all the people in a position to judge us (i.e., society). When we take the role of the generalized other, we feel society's pressure, and judge ourselves on how well we are living up to societal expectations. We can compare this concept of generalized other to the ideas of other theorists. For those of us who know Freud, the generalized other is much like the superego: society's expectations internalized, part of the personality. Durkheim's collective conscience is also similar - except that Mead's generalized other exists in the mind, and Durkheim's collective conscience is a "social fact" with existence separate from any specific individual. Of course, Mead would note that the generalized other existing in the mind reflects (if not perfectly) the real perspective of one's society. This brings up the important point that your generalized other is not exactly the same as mine, even if we live in the same society. Because we have been exposed to different groups of people, we may perceive society's expectations differently. And Mead would add that, since the self is not something imprinted directly by society, but created out of interaction between society and individual, different individuals can be expected to have arrived at different perceptions of how society judges. A basic function of taking the role of the generalized other is what sociologists call "internal social control." Society has the power to control us, of course, but it rarely exercises this power directly. Instead, once we have been more or less successfully socialized, we control ourselves. We internalize society's standards of right and wrong, and monitor ourselves according to these standards. Again we see the interaction between self and society. What we often find in people who are extremely deviant is a complete inability to look inward and criticize themselves. Yet a functioning society must be populated by people willing to be their own worst critics. The more this is the case, and the less a society needs to rely on formal social control (e.g., police, courts, prisons), the more advanced Mead considered that society to be. In the next section, we explore more Mead's vision of a healthy society.
5.9 Taking the Role of All Others By taking the role of the generalized other, we are able to see where our actions fit in with group activities, or even society-wide activities. We are able to play very large and sophisticated "games," coordinate our behavior with others, and accomplish great things. Mead predicted a future in which each person would be able to take into consideration the perspective of all others, and coordinate his or her actions in a way that would bring benefit to all. For most of history, people coordinated their behavior in groups with the purpose of conflict with other groups, but in Mead's ideal future, feelings of unity would exist at a global level. This "universal society" has no specific, lasting characteristics: the world would continue to change, with no predictable end or plotted course, as people develop themselves and society in a positive direction.
There is a greater purpose to all this "role-taking." Remember that we are social animals, and that we need each other to survive and accomplish things. By taking the role of the generalized other, we are able to see where our actions fit in with group activities, or even society-wide activities. We are able to play very large and sophisticated "games," coordinate our behavior with others, and accomplish great things (as groups and societies sometimes do).
--------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Nancy takes |