George Herbert Mead and the Unity of the Self
He reacts, and how he reacts is always to some degree different from how he has reacted in the past. Its responses may differ only in small ways from previous responses, making them functionally equivalent, but they will never be exactly the same. No catch in a ball game is ever identical to a previous catch. The situation is there for us to act in a self-conscious fashion.
George Herbert Mead in the Twenty-first Century
Nor is it a substance. It is a way of designating a locus of activity. However, this statement should not to be interpreted as endorsing the notion of a transcendental ego. A transcendental ego is not fictitious.
James , —; James , —; James , — Freud's super-ego could be conscious or unconscious. They are systems that often undergo transformation. This will become more apparent in the next section when we discuss Mead's ideas regarding emergence. In this context it is enough to suggest the following: when a ballplayer makes a catch in a manner that has never been made before—that is, makes a play that is significantly different from prior catches—the new play may become part of the repertoire of the team's behaviors. In other words, the play may alter the existing generalized other by modifying existing behavioral patterns.
In so doing, it gives rise to a modified or new self because the game as a whole has been changed. Once again, this may be easier to see in terms of the transformations that take place in families when new reactions occur as children and adults interact over time.
- An den Ufern lauert das Leben (German Edition).
- Similar books and articles.
- More Books by F. Thomas Burke & Krzysztof Skowronski.
New selves are generated as family systems are transformed. For Mead, novelty is not a phenomenon that can be accounted for in terms of human ignorance, as it can for a determinist such as Spinoza. In the Spinozistic framework, even though everything in nature is determined, as finite modes we must remain ignorant of the totality of causes.
Biography of Sociologist George Herbert Mead
In principle, however, an infinite Mind could predict every event. Mead, following in the footsteps of Darwin, argues that novelty is in fact an aspect of the natural world, and that there are events that are not only unpredictable due to ignorance, but are in principle impossible to predict. In the latter category, for example, we find mutations that help to give rise to new species, as well as the creative responses of baseball players, musicians, composers, dancers, scientists, etc.
In The Philosophy of the Present —a compilation based on the Carus Lectures delivered in late in Berkeley—Mead outlines his thoughts on nature and time.
radiotvichilo.sdb.bo/includes/map10.php Mead did not have the opportunity to develop his ideas into a book. He passed away early in In spite of the fact that these lectures were hurriedly written due to obligations that he had as chair of the University of Chicago's philosophy department, they contain ideas that illuminate his earlier work and indicate the direction of his thought. Existence involves non-existence: it does take place. Our world is one in which change is real and not merely a subjective, perceptual, phenomenon.
The universe doesn't just spin its wheels and offer motion without real novelty. Part of the impetus behind The Philosophy of the Present was to argue against an interpretation of space-time, such as Hermann Minkowski's, which eliminates the truly novel or the emergent. Emergence involves not only biological organisms, but matter and energy; for example, there is a sense in which water can be spoken of as emerging from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen. It's worth noting at this juncture that Mead had always been keenly interested in science and the scientific method. However, as a pragmatist, the test of a scientific hypothesis for him is whether it can illuminate the world that is there.
He certainly was never a positivist. As mentioned, Mead is a systemic thinker who speaks of taking the perspectives of others and of generalized others. This is not to say that every human community has an equally viable account of the natural world. This is in part why we have science for Mead.
However, it is not only human perspectives that are objective for Mead. While it is true that only human beings share perspectives in a manner that allows them to be self conscious about the perspectives of others, there is an objective reality to non-human perspectives. How can a non-human perspective be objective? First, it is important to note that perspectives are not primarily visual for Mead. They are ways of speaking about how organisms act and interact in environments. In the words of David Miller,.
Mead has been referred to as a tactile philosopher, as opposed to a visual one, because of the importance of contact experience in his thought. Perspectives involve contact and interaction between organisms and their environments. For example, a fish living in a certain pond can be thought of as inhabiting an ecosystem.
The way in which it navigates the pond, finds food to eat, captures its food, etc. Its interactions in its environment shape and give form to its perspective, which is different from the snail's perspective, although it lives in the same waters.
The Second Sleep
In other words, organisms stratify environments in different ways as they seek to meet their needs Miller , — The pond, in fact, is not one system but many systems in the sense that its inhabitants engage in different, interlaced interactions, and therefore have different objective perspectives.
The fish, of course, does not comprehend its perspective or localized environment as a system, but this doesn't make its perspective subjective.
Human beings, given our capacity to discuss systems in language, can describe the ecology of a pond or better, the ecologies of a pond depending on what organisms we are studying. We can describe, with varying degrees of accuracy, what it is like to be a fish living in a particular pond, as opposed to a snail.
Through study we learn about the perspectives of other creatures, although we cannot share them as we can the perspectives of the language bearing members of our own species. For Mead, as noted, systems are not static. This is especially evident in the biological world. New forms of life arise, and some of them are due to the efforts of human beings, for example, the botanists who create hybrids. Mead argues that if a new form of life emerges from another form, then there is a time when the new organism has not fully developed, and therefore has not yet modified its environmental niche. In this situation the older order, the old environment, has not disappeared but neither has the new one been born.
Mead refers to this state of betwixt and between as sociality. Sociality is a key idea for Mead and it has implications for his sociology and social psychology. What makes this all the more interesting is that human beings have a capacity for reflection.
We can even set up conditions to promote changes that we believe may transform us in certain ways. Or to put this in another light, new problems are bound to arise in the world, and because of our capacity for sociality, we can get some purchase on the courses of action available to us as we reflect on the novel problems confronting us. Of course, because the problems are novel means that we do not have ready solutions. However, the capacity to stand betwixt and between old and possible new orders, as we do between old and new social roles, provides us with some opportunity for anticipating alternatives and integrating new responses.
As a matter of fact, Mead links moral development with our capacity for moving beyond old values, old selves, in order to integrate new values into our personalities when new situations call for them. It's worth noting here that Mead did not develop an ethics, at least not one that was systematically presented. It is important to emphasize that for pragmatic reasons Mead does not think that the idea of compassion is sufficient for grounding an ethics.
He argues for a notion of obligation that is tied to transforming social conditions that generate pain and suffering. Returning to Mead's notion of sociality, we can see that he is seeking to emphasize transitions and change between systems. This emphasis on change has repercussions for his view of the present, which is not to be understood as a knife-edge present.
In human experience, the present arises from a past and spreads into the future. In a manner reminiscent of James's account of the stream of thought, Mead argues that the present entails duration James , — It retains the receding past and anticipates the imminent future.
Related George Herbert Mead in the Twenty-first Century
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved