George Herbert Mead | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Self and Identity

• Mead was a key figure associated with the Chicago School and offered a distinctive perspective on human interactions within society. He rejected the behavioristic view, which sees individuals as merely responding to external stimuli without awareness. Instead, Mead emphasized the role of consciousness and the self, arguing that these aspects are crucial for sociological study. Influenced by psychological behaviorism, he integrated its principles into his work and presented a social-psychological theory that contrasted with the dominant European theories of his time. Mead's contributions were pivotal in the development of symbolic Interactionism.
• The two primary intellectual influences on Mead's work and symbolic Interactionism are pragmatism and psychological behaviorism. His ideas are primarily found in Mind, Self and Society(1934), a compilation of his students' notes, especially those of Herbert Blumer. Blumer regarded Mead's concept of the self as fundamental to symbolic Interactionism.
• Mead believed that traditional social psychology started with individual psychology to explain social experiences. However, he prioritized the social world in shaping human destiny.

Self

• Mead's concept of the self revolves around the ability to view oneself as an object, essentially being both subject and object. This capacity, like all of Mead's major concepts, is rooted in social processes, particularly communication among individuals. Unlike lower animals or human infants at birth, the self emerges through development, social activity, and social relationships. Mead argued that a self could not exist without social experiences, although once developed, it could persist without social contact. For instance, Robinson Crusoe, after developing a self in civilization, maintained it even while isolated on what he initially thought was a deserted island. Essentially, the self is the capacity to view oneself as an object.
• The self is intricately connected to the mind. Mead posited that the body becomes a self only when a mind has developed, while the self and its reflexiveness are vital for the mind's development. Although mind and self are intertwined, with the self being a mental process, it is also fundamentally a social process. Mead, in his exploration of the self, emphasizes its grounding in social experience and processes rather than consciousness.
• Mead presents the self as a social process rather than a solitary mental one. He describes the self as arising when individuals respond to themselves in the same way they respond to others. The self, therefore, is a component of the broader social process in which individuals are engaged.
  
  The important role of Society in shaping the Self is everyday experienced by the current social media-obsessed generation

• The general mechanism for the development of the self is reflexivity, or the ability to put ourselves unconsciously into others’ places and to act as they act. As a result, people are able to examine themselves as others would examine them. As Mead says:
• It is by means of reflexiveness—the turning-back of the experience of the individual upon himself— that the whole social process is thus brought into the experience of the individuals involved in it; it is by such means, which enable the individual to take the attitude of the other toward himself, that the individual is able consciously to adjust himself to that process, and to modify the resultant process in any given social act in terms of his adjustment to it.
• The self also allows people to take part in their conversations with others. That is, one is aware of what one is saying and as a result is able to monitor what is being said and to determine what is going to be said next.
• In order to have selves, individuals must be able to get “outside themselves” so that they can evaluate themselves, so that they  can become objects to themselves. To do  this, people basically  put themselves in the same experiential field as they put everyone else. Everyone is an important part of that experiential situation, and people must take themselves into account if they are to be able to act rationally in a given situation. Having done this, they seek to examine themselves impersonally, objectively, and without emotion.
• However, people cannot experience themselves directly. They can do so only indirectly by putting themselves in the position of others and viewing themselves from that standpoint. The standpoint from which one views one’s self can be that of a particular individual or that of the social group as a whole. As Mead puts it, most generally, “It is only by taking the roles of others that we have been able to come back to ourselves”.

Child Development

Play Stage

• The play stage is where children begin to understand and adopt the perspectives of specific individuals. Unlike lower animals who play, only humans engage in pretend play by becoming someone else. For instance, when a child pretends to be an American “Indian,” they respond to stimuli as they believe others would, learning to see themselves from another’s viewpoint. This helps in the formation of a self, though it’s limited to the roles of distinct individuals.
• During this stage, children might pretend to be their parents, like “mommy” or “daddy,” which allows them to evaluate themselves as these specific individuals. However, they lack a broader and more organized sense of self.

Game Stage

• The game stage is crucial for the full development of the self. Unlike the play stage, where a child takes on the role of individual others, in the game stage, the child must understand and take on the roles of everyone involved in the game. These roles must be interrelated.
• Mead illustrates this with the example of a baseball game. In such a game, a child must not only understand their own role but also anticipate the actions and responses of all other players. For instance, a child playing in a baseball game needs to be aware of the actions of the pitcher, the catcher, and other players to effectively play their own part.
• In the game stage, children begin to form a definite personality and can function within organized groups. They start to understand their role within a specific group and how it relates to the roles of others, leading to a more organized and comprehensive sense of self.
  
  Children attain Selfhood during the Game stage

Generalized Other

• The concept of the generalized other emerges from Mead's idea of the game stage in social interaction. The generalized other refers to the collective attitude of the community or, in a specific context like a baseball game, the attitude of the entire team. This ability to adopt the perspective of the generalized other is crucial for the development of the self.
• According to Mead, an individual develops a complete self by internalizing the attitudes of the organized social group to which they belong. This means that the self is shaped by the collective attitudes of the group towards the social activities in which they are engaged. Evaluating oneself from the standpoint of the generalized other, rather than from the perspectives of individual others, enables abstract thinking and objectivity.

Mead explains the full development of the self as the process of organizing individual attitudes into the collective attitudes of the group. The self becomes a reflection of the general pattern of social behavior, influenced by the organized group attitudes that the individual internalizes. This process is facilitated through the central nervous system, allowing the individual to adopt both individual and group attitudes.

• In simpler terms, to have a self, one must be part of a community and guided by the common attitudes of that community. While play involves fragmented selves, the game necessitates a coherent and unified self.
• Taking on the role of the generalized other is not only vital for individual selfhood but also for the coordination of organized group activities. Groups rely on individuals aligning their actions with the attitudes of the generalized other. Mead emphasizes the social aspect of this process, as the generalized other embodies the group's influence over individual behavior.
• From a pragmatic perspective, the self enhances individual efficiency within society. It encourages individuals to meet expectations, thereby reducing inefficiencies associated with nonconformity. The self also fosters greater societal coordination, enabling groups to function more effectively because individuals can be relied upon to fulfill expected roles.
• While it may seem that Mead's actors are mere conformists with little individuality, he clarifies that each self is distinct. Although selves share a common structure, each one is shaped by unique biographical experiences. Moreover, there are multiple generalized others in society, reflecting the diverse groups individuals belong to. This multiplicity of generalized others leads to the existence of multiple selves within each person.
• Individuals are not bound to accept their communities as they are; they have the capacity to reform and improve them. Mead acknowledges individual creativity but frames it within a behavioristic context. To challenge the disapproval of the generalized other, an individual must establish a higher community that overrides the existing one. This involves comprehending the voices of the past and future, allowing the self to articulate a perspective that transcends the present community's views.

I” and “Me”

The “I” represents a person’s spontaneous and unpredictable response to others, embodying the creative and incalculable aspects of the self. This dimension of the self is not predetermined; it is the part of us that can surprise even ourselves with its actions. For example, when faced with a situation, an individual’s response can be a brilliant move or a mistake, and this response is uncertain until it happens. We only become aware of the “I” after the action has been taken, as it is something we reflect upon in our memories.

George Herbert Mead emphasizes the importance of the “I” for several reasons:

• Source of Novelty: The “I” is a crucial source of new and creative responses in social interactions.
• Location of Values: Mead believes that our most significant values are found in the “I.”
• Realization of Self: The “I” is essential for achieving a complete sense of self and developing a unique personality.
• Historical Evolution: Mead observes an evolutionary shift from primitive societies, where the “me” dominates, to modern societies that allow for a greater expression of the “I.”

The presence of the “I” adds dynamism and creativity to Mead’s theoretical framework. Without the “I,” individuals would be entirely controlled by external and internal forces. The “I” enables not only significant historical changes brought about by prominent figures but also everyday transformations initiated by ordinary individuals. Historical figures are seen as having a larger proportion of “I” than the average person. However, in daily life, anyone’s “I” can emerge and influence social situations. Each person has a unique blend of “I” and “me,” shaped by their life experiences.

• The “I” stands in contrast to the “me,” which is the internalized set of attitudes and expectations from others, representing the generalized other. While the “I” is spontaneous and creative, the “me” is conscious and involves a sense of responsibility. The “me” is the aspect of the self that conforms to societal norms and expectations. Mead describes the “me” as a habitual and conventional individual, highlighting its role in social control.
• Mead elaborates on social control as the dominance of the “me” over the “I.” Social control operates through self-criticism, integrating the individual’s behavior with the organized social process. Self-criticism is essentially social criticism, and behavior is socially controlled. Far from suppressing individuality, social control is integral to and associated with individual identity.
• In pragmatic terms, the “I” and “me” serve different functions. The “me” enables individuals to navigate the social world comfortably, while the “I” facilitates societal change. This balance allows society to maintain enough conformity to function while also incorporating new developments to avoid stagnation. Together, the “I” and “me” are essential components of the social process, contributing to the effectiveness of both individuals and society.

Society in Mead's Perspective

• Definition of Society: Mead defines society as an ongoing social process that precedes the development of the mind and the self. Society plays a crucial role in shaping both the mind and the self, making it central to Mead's theory.
• Society and the Individual: Society, according to Mead, represents an organized set of responses that individuals internalize through the "me." This internalization allows individuals to carry society within themselves, enabling self-control and self-criticism.
• Mead's Focus on Mind and Self: While Mead acknowledges the importance of society, his primary contributions lie in his ideas about the mind and self. He has less to say explicitly about society compared to his theoretical insights on mind and self.
• Definition of Institutions: Mead broadly defines an institution as the "common response in the community" or the "life habits of the community." Institutions are formed when the whole community responds to an individual in an identical way under certain circumstances.
• The Role of Education: Education, in Mead's view, is the process by which the common habits of the community are internalized in the individual. This internalization is essential because individuals cannot develop a sense of self or become genuine members of the community until they can respond to themselves as the community does.
• Flexibility of Institutions: Mead acknowledges that social institutions can be oppressive and conservative, stifling individuality. However, he emphasizes that institutions can also be flexible and progressive, fostering individuality and creativity. Institutions should provide broad guidelines for behavior while allowing room for individual expression.
• Mead's Distinction from Other Theorists: Unlike other classical theorists, Mead emphasizes the enabling aspect of society, focusing on how society can empower individuals rather than just constraining them. He recognizes the potential for social institutions to be both constraining and enabling.
• Emergence in Mead's Theory: Mead has a notion of emergence, where the whole is seen as more than the sum of its parts. However, he applies this idea more to consciousness than to larger societal structures. Emergence, for Mead, involves the coming into existence of something new or novel.

Symbols and Human Interaction

In Mead's view, human thought, experience, and conduct are fundamentally social and are shaped by the use of symbols, particularly those found in language. Symbols play a crucial role in defining objects and events, as well as indicating appropriate responses to them.

• Definition of Symbols: A symbol goes beyond merely representing an object or event; it defines it in a specific way and suggests a course of action. For instance, the symbol "chair" not only categorizes a type of object but also implies the action of sitting.
• Exclusion of Meanings: Symbols impose particular meanings on objects and events, often excluding other possible interpretations. For example, while chairs may differ in material (metal, cane, wood), these distinctions become less significant when categorized under the symbol "chair." Similarly, the various potential uses of a chair are narrowed down by the action suggested by the symbol.
• Facilitating Meaningful Interaction: Symbols enable humans to interact meaningfully with their natural and social environments. They are created by humans and reflect how people perceive objects and events rather than their inherent qualities.
• Necessity of Symbols for Human Interaction: Without symbols, human interaction and society as we know it would not exist. Symbolic interaction is essential because humans lack instinctual behavior patterns. Unlike other species, humans are not biologically programmed to respond automatically to specific stimuli. To survive, they must create and navigate a world filled with meaning. For example, humans categorize their natural surroundings into food and non-food items to meet their nutritional needs. In this way, they define both the stimuli and their responses to them. When hunters in the African savannah identify antelope as a food source, they are determining what is significant in their environment and how they will respond to it. Through symbols, humans impose meaning on the natural world, making interaction with it possible.

Role-Taking in Social Interaction

Role-taking is a crucial process in social interaction, as it allows individuals to interpret the meanings and intentions behind others' actions. This process is made possible by the existence of common symbols, which provide a shared understanding for communication.

Understanding Role-Taking

• Role-taking involves putting oneself in another person's position to understand their feelings and intentions. For instance, when someone sees another person smiling, crying, or making a gesture like shaking a fist, they try to imagine what that person is experiencing to interpret the action correctly.
• For example, if someone sees another person shaking their fist, they might think it signifies anger. However, how they respond to that gesture can vary. They might choose to ignore it, respond aggressively, or try to lighten the mood with humor. The person on the receiving end will then interpret this response and decide how to continue the interaction, creating a continuous cycle of interpretation and response.

Culture, Social Roles, and Institutions

• Mead acknowledged the role of culture in shaping behavior within society. Culture provides guidelines for expected behaviors in different social roles. For instance, a culture might dictate that doctors should not harm their patients.
• People tend to act in ways that align with the expected behaviors of their social roles and their personal self-concept. Social institutions, like the family or the state, exist because certain social roles are associated with them. For example, the family institution includes roles like mother, father, daughter, and son.

Flexibility in Social Roles

Despite the influence of culture and social roles, individuals have significant freedom in how they behave. Mead identified several reasons for this flexibility:

• Vagueness of Cultural Expectations: Cultural norms are often not specific. For instance, while society requires people to wear clothes, there is a wide range of acceptable clothing choices.
• Choice of Social Roles: Individuals have the freedom to choose the roles they take on, such as their profession.
• Diversity in Role Behavior: Some roles encourage diverse behaviors. For example, fashion designers are expected to create unique designs.
• Existence of Subcultures: Society is not monolithic; various subcultures exist, and individuals can choose which ones to join.
• Indication of Possibilities: Cultural symbols often suggest possibilities rather than strict requirements. For instance, the symbol of a chair indicates that it can be used for sitting but does not force people to sit.
• Inability to Fulfill Roles: There are times when individuals cannot fulfill the expectations of a social role, such as parents struggling to care for their children. In such cases, innovative behaviors may emerge.

Social roles are not static; they evolve through interactions. The dynamic nature of role behavior reflects the ongoing negotiation and adaptation within social contexts.

The individual and society

Mead’s view of human interaction sees humans as both actively creating the social environment and being shaped by it. Individuals initiate and direct their own action, while at the same time being influenced by the attitudes and expectations of others in the form of the generalised other. The individual and society are regarded as inseparable, for the individual can only become a human being in a social context. In this context individuals develop a sense of self, which is a prerequisite for thought. They learn to take the roles of others, which is essential both for the development of self and for cooperative action. Without communication in terms of symbols whose meanings are shared, these processes would not be possible. Humanity therefore lives in a world of symbols that give meaning and significance to life and provide the basis for human interaction.

The basic premises of symbolic interactionism

Blumer, a student of George Herbert Mead, systematically developed the ideas of his mentor. In Blumer’s view, symbolic interactionism rests on three basic premises:

• Human beings act on the basis of meanings that they give to objects and events, rather than simply reacting either to external stimuli such as social forces, or to internal stimuli such as organic drives. Symbolic interactionism therefore rejects both societal and biological determinism.
• Meanings arise from the process of interaction, rather than simply being present at the outset and shaping future action. To some degree, meanings are created, modified, developed and changed within interaction situations rather than being fixed and pre-formed. In the process of interaction actors do not slavishly follow preset norms or mechanically act out established roles.
• Meanings are the result of interpretive procedures employed by actors within interaction contexts. By taking the role of the other, actors interpret the meanings and intentions of others. By means of the mechanism of self-interaction, individuals modify or change their definition of the situation, rehearse alternative courses of action and consider their possible consequences. Thus the meanings that guide action arise in the context of interaction via a series of complex interpretive procedures.

A Critique of Symbolic interactionism

Interaction in a vacuum

• Interactionists have often been accused of examining human interaction in a vacuum. They have tended to focus on small-scale face-to-face interaction, with little concern for its historical or social setting. They have concentrated on particular situations and encounters, with little reference to the historical events leading up to them or the wider social framework in which they occur. Since these factors influence the particular interaction situation, the scant attention the have received has been regarded as a serious omission. Thus, in a criticism of Mead, Ropers argued: The activities that he sees men engaged in are not historically determined relationships of social and historical continuity: they are merely episodes, interactions, encounters, and situations.
• Patrick Baert and Filipe da Silva (2010) make the additional point that Mead saw social life as too consensual. While traditional societies might have considerable consensus  in terms of shared meanings, society today is characterized by the mutual coexistence of distinct cultural forms. There is certainly not just one set of implicit rules at procedures.

The origin of norms

• While symbolic interactionism provides a corrective to the excesses of societal determinism, many critics have argued it has gone too far in this direction.
• Although they claim that action is not determined by structural norms, interactionists do admit the presence of such norms. However, they tend to take them as given rather than explaining their origin. As William Skidmore (1975) commented, interactionists largely fail to explain why people consistently choose to act in given ways in certain situations, instead of in all the other ways they might possibly have acted.
• In stressing the flexibility and freedom of human action, interactionists tend to downplay the constraints on action. In Skidmore’s view, this is due to the fact that interactionism fails to give an account of social structure. In other words, it fails to explain adequately how standardized normative behaviour comes about and why members of society are motivated to act in terms of social norms.

The source of meanings

• Similar criticisms have been made with reference to what many see as the failure of interactionists to explain  the source of  the  meanings to which  they  attach such  importance.  As the  chapters  on education and on crime and deviance have shown, interactionism provides little indication of the origins of the meanings in terms of which individuals are labelled by teachers, police and probation officers.
• Critics argue that such meanings are not spontaneously created in interaction situations. Instead, they are systematically generated by the social structure. Thus Marxists have argued that the meanings that operate in face-to-face interactions are largely the product of class relationships. From this viewpoint, interactionists have failed to explain the most significant thing about meanings: their origin.

Conclusion

• Despite the limitations discussed above, symbolic interactionism has made an important contribution to sociology. It has shown the usefulness of micro sociology in understanding everyday life, particularly the dynamics of small groups. The labelling theory of Howard Becker transformed the study of crime and deviance. The sort of qualitative methodology advocated by Blumer has been widely adopted by supporters of unstructured interviewing and participant observation.
• Baert and da Silva (2010) argue that symbolic interactionism  was important in the 1960s in challenging structural perspectives such as functionalism.  Along with ethnomethodology,   it contributed to later attempts to produce a theory combining structural and interpretive/social action perspectives. Baert and da Silva say: ‘Some of the concepts and methods introduced by these new approaches have gradually filtered through. This gradual acceptance is demonstrated by their usage in the 1980s to develop a grand theory  of society.’ An example is Anthony  Giddens’s theory  of structuration.