Overview: George Herbert Mead
George Herbert Mead, who was born in 1863 in South Hadley, is one of the major figures in the history of philosophy in America. Notably, Mead is remembered as one of the founders of “pragmatism” together with other philosophers such as Tufts, James, Peirce, and Dewey (Blumer & Morrione, 2014). Critically to emphasize is that Mead is renowned for publishing different papers in his lifetime. In fact, after Mead’s death, some of his students would produce around four books in Mead’s name especially from the unpublished manuscripts and notes of Mead as well as from their own notes and some of Mead’s lessons at the Chicago University. In terms of the twentieth-century social theory, Mead has been exercising significant influences among the social scientists and philosophers.
Specifically, the emergence theory of self and mind out of the process of significant social communication by Mead has been termed as the basis of the sociology school based on symbolic interactionist as well as social psychology (Blumer & Morrione, 2014). At the same time, the thought propagated by Mead included not only his well-known and highly appreciated social philosophy but also great contributions to philosophical anthropology, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of nature, the historical philosophy as well as process philosophy. In fact, it is such contributions that have made some philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and John Dewey consider Mead as one of the thinkers of the highest order.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The “Role”, “Self” and “The Generalized Others”
Apparently, Mead’s assumption that experiences of anticipatory are essential in developing a language has been termed as one of the most critical features of his account of the significant symbols (Blumer & Morrione, 2014). According to Mead, people have the ability to place themselves in the positions of gestures. Mead asserts that this ability is critical to humans especially when it comes to the development of the self as well as self-consciousness (Blumer & Morrione, 2014). In his own account and that of Hegel, “self” is not only critically social but also cognitive. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the “self” from the individual who has attributes that are non-cognitive in nature. On this basis, Mead notes that the “self” is not identical to a person and that it is as well linked to the self-consciousness. The self in this case starts developing when people start interacting with others as well as playing their roles. The questions of “roles” in Mead’s argument are a constellation of behaviors which are responses to other individuals’ behaviors. The notion of taking roles as well as playing them is common from the social-psychological and sociological literature for example in a situation where children play as teachers and other children playing as students. However, to play as teachers, there is a need for people’s ability to anticipate what the students could say and the other way round. In this context, playing roles is when one takes others’ perspective and attitudes.
Mead notes that if individuals simply took others’ roles, they could never be in a position of developing selves as well as self-consciousness. In this way, individuals have a nascent self-consciousness form which is parallel to the sort of reflexive awareness needed in the usage of significant symbols. Connectively, this kind of role-taking (self) consciousness plays a pivotal role in making it possible what may be termed as a proto-self instead of self since it does not have the complexity that is necessary for giving rise to the self.
To explain how the “self” arises, Mead introduced the neologism “ the generalized other” (Blumer & Morrione, 2014) . According to Mead, when adults, as well as children, take roles in their lives, this may be termed as playing such roles in dyads. Besides, the exchange of such sort is definitely not the same as the more complicated and complex behaviors that are needed when participating in games. According to Mead, based on the latter case, individuals are required to learn the specific others’ responses and the behaviors that are linked with each position on the field (Deegan, 2008). In this context, an individual can internalize these behaviors and after they succeed they can perceive their own from the game’s perspective as a whole, which he referred, to as the system of organized actions (Blumer & Morrione, 2014). Therefore, the social group or organized community that provides a sense and unity of “self” can be termed as “the generalized other.” On this basis, the generalized others is manifested as well in different social classes and subgroups in the society which include the political parties, corporations, clubs among others.
The above overview of the link in Mead’s role, self, and “the generalized other” explains why there are concrete divisions in different societies across the world. The above examples indicate that there is no country or society that does not have the generalized others. One of the key features of different groups under “others” is that the members of such formations consider the rest as not part of them due to different factors such as wealth, education, race, and so on.
The Aspect of “Other” In the American Society
In the American context, the aspect of “other” is common in almost every aspect of political, social and economic forms. In this way, it must be remembered that there are different ways in which the “other” theory can be looked. However, the “other” element is more manifested based on the divisions that are experienced in different aspects of the American lifestyle.
Under the political perspective, the common aspect of “us versus others” is based on the republicans and democrats (Blumer & Morrione, 2014) . As the names suggest, Democrats believe in the democratic style of leadership as opposed to the Republicans. Some of the issues that Democrats have been advocating for include freedom of making one’s self-decision such as abortion among women. The Democrats have as well been advocating for social inclusivity and stopping of discrimination among American races. On the other hand, Republicans have been advocating for capitalism style of governance where the wealth and resources are concentrated among the few. According to the Republicans, members of the American society have the individual responsibility of relying on themselves instead of expecting to be helped by other members of the society. For example, the Republicans are of the view that individuals should work hard to afford the best style of life including access to healthcare and education, which should be based on the money that one has.
On the other hand, Republicans tend to have rigid positions, unlike the Democrats who allow for flexibility in different issues in the American society. In this way, it is clear that republicans and democrats depict both conservative and liberal ideals respectively. The common manifestation of the division between democrats and republicans is how they vote. During general elections, the Democrats support a democratic candidate and vice versa. However, it must be emphasized that the divisions among republicans and democrats continue to be narrower especially due to the complexity of some issues such as gun control, foreign policy, abortion, immigration among others.
On the basis of races, American society is one of the most divisive (Blumer & Morrione, 2014) . Over the years, the minority groups have been fighting for equal rights to those given to the majority. Some of the main groups of minority include the African Americans, Hispanic or Latinos, as well as Asians among others. The white Americans consider themselves as the bonafide owners of America and its resources and that “others” need to understand that. On the other hand, the minority groups consider themselves as the oppressed and have the right to access all services as the white Americans. Notably, over the years, for instance, African Americans have been discriminated in many social, political, and economic spheres. According to some of the white Americans, African Americans are not supposed to access the same services as the white such as some educational facilities, healthcare services, and recreational facilities among others. In recent years, gun violence has been on the increase. The police and members of the society have been killing the African Americans while the latter have been responding with the same vile. In this way, the aspect of “others” based on racial discrimination is prevalent in the American society.
Another perspective of “others’ is based on the social classes in America (Blumer & Morrione, 2014). American society is categorized into six social classes which include the poverty level, working poor, working class, middle class, new money, and upper class. By only taking one of these social classes, for example, it is simple to note the aspect of “us versus other”. Among these categories, the members of the working poor have been vocal in raising their complaints about different issues such as better working conditions and remunerations. Together with the poor class in the society, they consider themselves as being left out in policy formulations, which can be seen by different industrial strikes in the past years.
Conclusion
Based on the above factors, it is clear that the works of George Herbert Mead continue to be reliable sources for different social issues. Evidently, his “role, self and the generalized others” can be observed in today’s American society. However, some aspects of “other” are fading due to different factors such as globalization.
References
Blumer, H., & Morrione, T. J. (2014). George Herbert Mead and human conduct . Walnut Creek,
Calif.: AltaMira.
Deegan, M. J. (2008). Self, war, & society: George Herbert Mead's macrosociology . New
Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers.
