Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist

by George Herbert Mead, Charles William Morris (Editor)

Written from the standpoint of the social behaviorist, this treatise contains the heart of Mead's position on social psychology. The analysis of language is of major interest, as it supplied for the first time an adequate treatment of the language mechanism in relation to scientific and philosophical issues.

"If philosophical eminence be measured by the extent to which a man's writings anticipate the focal problems of a later day and contain a point of view which suggests persuasive solutions to many of them, then George Herbert Mead has justly earned the high praise bestowed upon him by Dewey and Whitehead as a 'seminal mind of the very first order.'"—Sidney Hook, The Nation

Genres: Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Science, Theory, Academic

440 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1934

About the author

George Herbert Mead was an American philosopher, sociologist, and psychologist, primarily affiliated with the University of Chicago. He was one of the key figures in the development of pragmatism. He is regarded as one of the founders of symbolic interactionism, and was an important influence on what has come to be referred to as the Chicago School of Sociology.

Reviews

[Samichtime · Rating 4 out of 5]

Idk why every paragraph was given a verse number, that was a little over the top! 🤨 Good info on group psychology if you can get past the pretentiousness radiating out of every page! 😫

[Mika · Rating 2 out of 5]

George Herbert Mead is the Godfather of symbolic interactionism. I first came in contact with Mead in my studies in Sociology and recently I have read this in pleasure. A subject that stands close to me and something I ferociously used on my thesis and other school related subjects. As far as I am concerned the field of Sociology has everything to own Mead.

I would love to high five this bugger (and I am secretly). Although my great interest and devotion, this is a major inconvenience read when it comes to reviewing the book alone. Boring, difficult and very long. It took my a few months even though reading a Swedish edition. It is definitely not pedagogical but very educational and should be regarded with interest. Full of insight and afterthought for an entire life time.

As Steven wrote below: If you're looking for a light read, this isn't your book. If you're looking for a way to expand your view of yourself, society, and your role in it - this book is for you

[Cecilie · Rating 1 out of 5]

It is that I read this as part of my thesis research that made some parts kind of interesting, but it’s definitely not for me. Doubt that I’d ever pick up a book like this if it wasn’t for research purposes.

[ahmad afridi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have long been awestruck by the wonders of brain. The complicated interplay of molecules , neurotransmitters, with receptors producing electrical impulses, which then result in creation of micro-cosmos we know as brain . This books deals with ability of these electrical connections to analyze the environment and connect with it in a meaningful way.
evolution of human brain and increase in size and functions of frontal lobes gave upper hand over other species . In contrast to lower species who act spontaneously to any stimuli humans have the ability to execute a delayed response analyzing whole situation based on knowledge of the said matter and previous experiences .

Human like other living beings interact with environment (including fellow human , other creatures and physical environment ) through meaningful or significant gestures which become stimuli for those he/she is interacting with for further production of significant gestures or conversation of gestures . The complexity of human social interaction is result of specialization of vocal gestures which evolved from basic sounds to complex languages . Languages , which are collections of worlds , when assembled or uttered in certain combinations result in significant gestures and not only produce a meaningful response in "others" but in the self too, while verbalizing, brain understand what is being said and can picture an attitude as well as store it for future interactions. This ability of the brain to analyze attitudes of other and to react accordingly in some form of significant gestures is called mind.

Mind arises in the social process only when that process as a whole enters into, or is present in, the experience of any one of the given individuals involved in that process. When this occurs the individual becomes self-conscious and has a mind; he becomes aware of his relations to that process as a whole, and to the other individuals participating in it with him; he becomes aware of that process as modified by the reactions and interactions of the individuals—including himself—who are carrying it on.

Hence the formation of self is result of social interactions. Here meads described in great detail about two components of self that are "I" and "me" . I being the raw self, capable of going in any direction and responding in as many ways as possible , while Me is the social self, expected of a specific conduct in a given situation . The I taking this social expectation and previous experience into consideration acts in a particular way (most of the time as expected by the society but there can be sporadic out of character responses ) this new action then become part of the "me" and can be accessed for future use. "I" of the present becomes the "Me" of future.

This books is posthumous publication of meads lectures delivered and compiled from students notes so lack a proper book form and more explanatory and is dry at times. Recommended for those interested in evolutionary psychology , behavioral psychology and social interaction

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading this book, I feel courageous enough to make the statement that the behavioral psychology that directs the human central nervous system not only provides the impulse for exogenous bodily experience, it also instills the impulse behind all rational society: the name for what G.H. Mead defines as the functioning society of minds is nothing less than the individual's love of self. Four stars.

[Ege]

I encountered this book while I was searching for resources on how social norms affect our conception of sense. This book seemed so interesting that I wanted to add it to my to-read shelf.

[Merve · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Benlik" bölümü en çok faydalandığım ve ilham aldığım bölüm oldu.

[Jakov · Rating 3 out of 5]

jedna od knjiga koja isprepliće bazične pojmove sociologije, filozofije, psihologije i ostalih srodnih znanosti... koristi se pojmovima koji će kasnije doći u uporabu freuda prilikom razvitka njegove teorije o psiho-seksualnom razvoju. doduše, djelo je dosta nezgrapno pisano, dajući osjećaj da je autor sklopio knjigu više ezoterijski, no što je namjenjeno akademskom krugu sociologa i/ili filozofa.

[Andrew]

I first encountered George Herbert Mead through his writings on the shape of the city, and "Mind, Self, and Society" was wildly different. I really liked it though. Applying the pragmatist perspective to sociology and psychology was a really important intellectual turn, one which bears a lot of similarity to the research of Freud and Weber at the same time, but is made entirely fresh by its cleansing, pragmatist approach. Mead also really redeemed behaviorism-- a social science method I'd always scoffed at before-- in my eyes. By firmly ensconcing the individual within his or her society and emphasizing the value of interpersonal networks, Mead predicted so much of the social research to come.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating - if often difficult and dense - book. While somewhat dated at times (e.g. references to "The League of Nations") and with a somewhat human-centric standpoint, this book contains a lot of really mind-blowing ideas.

Consciousness is social. Your mind is not limited to your body. The framework here posits both a mechanism for consciousness to evolve, and a way for it to exist in even the most sociobiological standpoint.

If you're looking for a light read, this isn't your book. If you're looking for a way to expand your view of yourself, society, and your role in it - this book is for you.

[Tentatively, Convenience · Rating 3 out of 5]

review of
Works of George Herbert Mead - volume 1
- Mind, Self, & Society - from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist
- Edited and with an Introduction by Charles W. Morris
- by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - August 16-24, 2015

Being the somewhat thorough type of person that I am, I've written a long review of this bk entitled: "The Generalized Other don't know SHIT!" wch you can read here:

https://www.goodreads.com/story/show/...

What's written below is just the teensiest beginning of that:

The genesis of my reading this bk may interest some. In December of 2000 I rc'vd a letter from a man named Detlev Hjuler from Flensburg, Germany. This letter contained a want list of rare recordings of avant-garde music + a catalog of things that Hjuler published himself. My days of being a prompt replier were long since behind me & I didn't answer. Hjuler was very persistent & we finally started corresponding. He bought 23 tapes that I publish (here's the link to my tape company website: http://idioideo.pleintekst.nl/WdmUind... - usually somewhat out-of-date these days) & we began trading.

Somewhere along the line I saw a list of Hjuler's record collection. It was very impressive. We started trading recordings. I'm usually very open to trading, my tape company isn't really a 'business' insofar as I usually lose money on it & have no aggressive commercial intentions, but I don't always like what I receive &, therefore, don't want to continue trading w/ that particular sender. That was the case here. By December, 2003, I stipulated that I wdn't trade w/ Hjuler any more.

Hjuler goes by the name "Kommissar Hjuler", reputedly b/c he was a police detective. He was also what, for simplicity's sake, one might call an "Outsider Musician". While I found his taste in music to be very sophisticated I found his own performances to be unbearably primitive. Still, given that I'm an anarchist & that he was a policeman & that these 2 types are usually in opposition to each other I found it somewhat fascinating that we shared similar musical interests.

12 yrs later, in 2015, Hjuler got in touch w/ me again b/c he's now publishing records & wants to publish work by Franz Kamin that I had previously published. At 1st I was wary of this b/c I'd disliked Hjuler's publications from my 1st correspondence w/ him but he sent me samples & I found them somewhat interesting so I eventually agreed. One thing led to another & he put out a short piece of mine on a record w/ longer tracks by himself & the Nihilist Spasm Band. He also invited me to collaborate w/ him by doing something w/ a CD-R that he sent me that's somehow based on the ideas of Mead:

" This is my invitation to you to collaborate with us.

"10. (SHMF-019+…) - Collaboration Project:

"Kommissar Hjuler and Mama Baer run a project called (SHMF-019+…) for which any artists are allowed to create versions of the reading DIE ANTIZIPATION DES GENERALIZED OTHER. A tape, several CD-Rs and some LPs still have become released in this series on Der Schoene-Hjuler-Memorial-Fond. A list of all artists that have been committing you will find at file (SHMF), just see no. (SHMF-019) following!

"The Generalized Other refers to George Herbert Mead's psychological explanation for the origin of social self-consciousness. Within Mead's theory, is the act of 'role-taking' in which individuals react to social gestures, and adjust to common attitudes. Through 'role-taking', people adapt to social exchanges based on gesture-response action sequences. Self-consciousness is then developed through these social actions and completed upon personal reflection. This text is hard to handle for other artists, we now have given away quite a lot of free Audio-CD-Rs to other artists, but only few were able to work with our spoken text. It is a stumbling dialogue with reading parts and conversation parts and in the result we do by far not justice to the grandilocant or intellectual theme.

"Mainly artists and musicians from experimental music scene have contributed, but not at least, this project is to create a mix of most different music styles, one of the stranges contributions was by the Afro-French Urban-Rap- and Dub-musician LO daam, who normally creates music far from any experimental scene, and the crazy version by the dark metal band HELLMOUTH from Rotterdam.

"Artists and musicians, who are interested into creating their personal version for this project, could get a promotional Audio-CD-R with the spoken text, the versions sent back become released on our label, the artists will get some free copies. Especially artists from very different music scenes are invited for their contribution, also film works or collages and paintings as limited prints are possible, it need not be the medium music, anything goes.

"Several more collaboration works like the mail-collaboration between Rudolf Eb.er of Schimpfluch Group (SHMF - Eb.er), LP in limited edition, re-issued as a CD by Blossoming Noise/USA in edition of 1000 copies, or the experimental smalltalk with Juergen O. Olbrich of NO-Institue/Paper Police (SHMF - 155), CD-R in limited edition, which is also a set for other anti-live acts, are possible."

I wasn't previously familiar w/ Mead or, if I was, I'd forgotten about him. I wasn't necessarily interested in the collaboration at 1st but "The Generalized Other refers to George Herbert Mead's psychological explanation for the origin of social self-consciousness. Within Mead's theory, is the act of 'role-taking' in which individuals react to social gestures, and adjust to common attitudes." resonated w/ me b/c one of the anarchist Street Rat slogans that I use is "Evict the Ruling Elites from your Mental Real Estate!" - the idea being that mind control is largely accomplished by behavior modification mass media techniques that colonize people's thought processes & bring them in-line w/ ruling elite interests that're particularly harmful to impoverished free thinkers.

SO, I decided to read a bk by Mead that explores this idea of the "Generalized Other" & to write a review of it. The idea being to then record my reading the review & to send the txt & the recording to a German friend of mine in the Netherlands w/ the request that he either translate my English into multiple languages & then make a recording of it & send me back his translation(s) & recording &/or to do whatever else he might feel inclined to do if anything at all. In the meantime, I haven't listened to Hjuler's CD-R b/c I don't want it to bias my procedure. My plan being to then put my recording in one channel, my German friend's in the other, & to mix in the Hjuler material as the finishing touch. THEN, this is to be sent to Hjuler for possible publication, hopefully on vinyl rather than K7 or CD-R.

Mead was a "Social Behaviorist" as the title of the bk states. I've generally had a negative attitude toward Behaviorism b/c it seems to take a strictly mechanistic appraisal of human interaction w/ an eye toward being able to control behavior. For me, even if it were possible to reduce all processes to strict cause & effect sequences that can be controlled, wch I don't believe it is, it wdn't be a goal worth pursuing b/c the result wd be oppressively reductionist. Still, I decided to approach the bk w/ somewhat of an 'open mind' since I'm hardly an expert on Behaviorism, let alone psychology in general, & can, therefore, stand to learn much more.

1st off, I have to give credit to the compilers of this bk:

"The volume is in the main composed of two sets of excellent student notes on the course, together with excerpts from other such notes and selections from unpublished manuscripts left by Mr. Mead. A stenographic copy of the 1927 course in social psychology has been taken as basic. This set, together with a number of similar sets for other courses, owes its existence to the devotion and foresight of Mr. George Anagnos. Sensing as a student, the importance of the material of Mr. Mead's lectures (always delivered without notes), he found in Mr. Alvin Carus a sympathetic fellow-worker who was able to provide the means necessary to employ persons to take down verbatim the various courses." - p vi of Charles W. Morris's "Preface"

Having (a) student(s) pay (a) stenographer(s) to transcribe such a course is mind-boggling to me. It's very hard for me to imagine anyone doing anything nearly so caring or labor-intensive today. As such, I'm deeply impressed by the studiousness that went into making this bk. Then again, maybe these students were just rich enuf to hire people to take notes that they cd copy later rather than pay attn in class (or even attend?) - thusly doing the same-old-same-old thing that rich people usually do: take advantage of their privilege to give themselves the appearance of scholarliness they're actually lacking & to give themselves an unfair competitive edge. Whatever the circumstances, compiling this bk is an achievement.

On the other hand, I think the substances of Mead's ideas wd've been better served if Mead himself had organized them into carefully outlined & developed logical progressions of the type of 'I think 1. pertains & conclude that 2. follows logically' etc.. - rather than the somewhat tediously repetitive & meandering flow of the lectures - but Mead didn't do that so this is what the interested researcher gets.

I have no idea whether Mead really fits into the lineage suggested in the following but this is what Morris begins his "Introduction" w/: "Philosophically, Mead was a pragmatist; scientifically, he was a social psychologist. He belonged to an old tradition—the tradition of Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz; of Russell, Whitehead, Dewey—which fails to see any sharp separation or any antagonism between the activities of science and philosophy, and whose members are themselves both scientists and philosophers." (p ix)

While I'm all in favor of ethics, I'm more relieved than convinced by the way Mead combines the 'cold' rationality of Behaviorism w/ the community-mindedness of his social values. Here's what Morris says: "The pragmatic reliance upon the experimental method, coupled with the moral and valuational relation of the movement to the democratic tradition, has resulted in a conception of philosophy as having a double concern with fact and value; and a conception of the contemporary moral problem as the redirection and reformulation of human goods in terms of the attitudes and results of the experimental method. Darwinism, the experimental method, and democracy are the headwaters of the pragmatic stream." (p x)

Morris gets me more interested in Social Psychology by posing its newness (in the early '20th century', ie): "The terms "social" and "psychologist" have not long appeared together, nor in company with biological categories, Tradition has identified psychology with the study of the individual self or mind. Even the post-Darwinian influence of biological concepts did not for a long time break up the inherited individualistic presuppositions (as is evidenced by a Huxley to find a place for moral behavior in the evolutionary process), though it did formulate the problem as to how the human mind appeared in the history of animal conduct." (p xii)

At 1st I thought "redintegration" was a typo meant to be "reintegration". Then I read it twice in the same paragraph & figured it for a term I don't know: "Mead in some places admits the facts of redintegration" & "one event leads at some organic center to the expectation of and redintegration of some other event." (p xiv) SO, I found these definitions to quote for those of you who're also unfamiliar w/ the word: "1 archaic : restoration to a former state, 2 a : revival of the whole of a previous mental state when a phase of it recurs, b : arousal of any response by a part of the complex of stimuli that originally aroused that response" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio... ) "Evocation of a particular state of mind resulting from the recurrence of one of the elements that made up the original experience." ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redi... ) What does redintegration have to do w/ the price of beans? Mead "feels that such processes do not come under the classification of "significant symbol" or "mind."" (p xiv)

Therefore, if I understand this correctly, wch I quite possibly don't, an element from a previous experience capable of stimulating some type of mental revival of sd experience is NOT a "significant symbol" & this redintegration (or reinstantiation?) is NOT a part of the "mind". Morris says: "it seems to me that he has shown that mind and the self are, without remainder, generated in a social process, and that he has for the first time isolated the mechanism of the genesis." (p xv) To wch I query: Is there, then, any process that is not a social process insofar as it's hypothetically 'impossible' for something to occur in a 'content vacuum'? &, given the possibility that all processes are social in the sense of non-isolated, is it then possible that a redintegration is 'inevitably' a social process that 'inevitably' generates significant symbols in a 'playing field' that can be accepted as a mind? Just sayin'. I mean I sure as shit don't 'know'.

"Mind was not to be reduced to non-mental behavior, but to be seen as a type of behavior genetically emerging out of non-mental types. Behaviorism accordingly meant for Mead not the denial of the private nor the neglect of consciousness, but the approach to all experience in terms of conduct." - p xvii

The notion of one's POV (Point-of-View) being something that prevents the possibility of objectivity or even any 'rational' basis for a belief in objectivity doesn't seem to bother Mead at all. Given the possibility that everything is interconnected &, therefore, centerless in terms of our own hypothetical subjectivity, when I was in my early 20s I posed the idea of "ogjectivity": a state that's neither objective or subjective, a state that's a hypothetically infinite flux of interpenetrating subjectivities that come as close to objectivity as we're likely to get. The idea being that solipsism is 'impossible' b/c, despite superficial appearances, we have no center, no fixed POV that can be the center of the universe (or multiverse). Whatever the case, I will most likely continue to act as if I believe there's a world outside me that there are desirable responses to - such as pleasurable engagement &/or self-protective evasion. I fully expect that no matter how expert I become at such responses my subjective center will eventually deteriorate & I will disintegrate in a very obvious way & reintegrate piecemeal into an environment wch no longer houses my POV.

"Certain of the radical behaviorists have frankly identified "I see x" with "my ocular muscles have contracted"; and have as frankly admitted that this identification leads into a behavioristic form of solipsism. Such a situation is simply the appearance in psychology of the logical and methodological scandal which has long harassed scientific thought: on the one hand science has prided itself upon being empirical, on bringing its most subtle theories to the test of observation; on the other hand science has tended to accept a metaphysics which regards the data of observation as subjective and mental and which denies that the objects studied have the characters which as experienced they appear to have." - p xviii

Is that really solipsism tho? It seems to me that it isn't b/c the notion that there are such things as "ocular muscles" implies a belief in physical reality outside of the POV.

"The individual must know what he is about; he himself, and not merely those who respond to him, must be able to interpret the meaning of his own gesture. Behavioristically, this is to say that the biological individual must be able to call out in himself the response his gesture calls out in the other, and then utilize the response of the other for the control of his own further conduct. Such gestures are significant symbols. Through their use the individual is "taking the role of the other" in the regulation of his own conduct." - p xxi

It's this feedback that generates mind, self, & society - making those nouns more processual than object-oriented although Mead uses words like "form" to, apparently, refer to people - returning them to object status, 'objectifying' them. What I want to know is: Are there, then, 'insignificant symbols'? Symbols that don't signify? I find Mead's position interesting & well-thought-out except that I can't really accept the notion of 'objectivity':

"Mind is the presence of behavior of significant symbols. It is the internalization within the individual of the social process of communication in which meaning emerges. It is the ability to indicate to one's self the response (and implicated objects) that one's gesture indicates to others, and to control the response in these terms. The significant gesture, itself a part of a social process, internalizes and makes available to the component biological individuals the meanings which have themselves emerged in the earlier, non-significant, stages of gestural communication. Instead of beginning with individual minds and working out to society, Mead starts with an objective social process and works inward through the importation of the social process of communication into the individual by the medium of the vocal gesture. The individual has then taken the social act into himself. Mind remains social; even in the inner forum so developed thought goes on by one's assuming the roles of others and controlling one's behavior in terms of such role-taking." - p xxii

I find Morris's summary above to be marvelously succinct & I appreciate Mead's working from the outside-in instead of the inside-out. However, I'm still not convinced that our subjective perceptual 'apparatus' can have objective data to work from no matter how we roll the die. Hence, I return to my admittedly fanciful 'ogjectivity': an infinite network of interpenetrating 'subjectivities' that are all us at the same time that none of them are us exclusively. These enable us to have multiple POVs & the more of these we have the closer we get to 'objectivity' w/o ever actually getting there.

"It is presumably the human cortex (whose place in the higher reflexes the reflexologists have made abundantly clear) and the temporal dimension of the nervous system (which allows the control of the gesture in terms of the consequences of making it) which permit the human animal alone to pass from the level of the conversation of gestures to that of the significant language symbol, and the absence of which prevent the talking birds from really talking. These two characteristics, coupled with the place of the human hand in the isolation of the physical object, are supposedly the organic bases which determine the biological differentiations of man and the animals." - p xxiii

I also always have a problem w/ 'scientific' differentiating humans from animals. Such reasoning usually smacks of speciesism, of creating a hierarchy that then gets used to justify acts of brutality. Remember that it wasn't so long ago that the notion of "subhumans" was used to justify Death Camps. Many other than me have drawn the parallel between slaughterhouses & Death Camps. I'm a meat eater & the meat I eat comes from slaughterhouses - as such, I'm not taking a more-moral-than-thou position, I, too, am culpable - but I don't want to delude myself w/ justifying ideology.

[Morpheus · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is an extended overview of Mead’s sociological tradition of symbolic interactionism.. and it is a little problematic since the book itself is comprised of a series of unpublished materials such as notes and essays from Mead’s life. This is typical of the Chicago school of thought, whose most of its scholars’ contributions were published posthumously. And it is moderately hard to formulate a consistent interpretation of the scholar’s theory himself, since the entire book was not written by him.


The early chapters, however, talk about the concept of self, and under what conditions this socio-psychological phenomenon arises. It is important to emphasise that most of the points made about the concept of the self, is from an evolutionary perspective, that links, Darwinian model of biological evolutionary theory with behavioural psychology; which I think, from a personal point of view, is confusing. This is because of the fact that there is a distinction between an ideologically driven framework— namely evolution— of interpretation of biological phenomena, and the social world, or the social reality. Mead is a pure sociologist and/or social psychologist.

The editor’s mistake was to interpret Mead’s theory of symbolic interactionism in sociology from an evolutionary perspective. It is true that the social world is evolving, but not that biological evolutionary theory of Darwin that the editor has included in his interpretation of Mead’s ideas about the self. Especially when he talks vaguely and in an unspecified manner about human organisms. It is true that the self is socio-psychologically constructed through experiences, but these experiences are rather confined to the social world than the biological world, which affects the state of intellectual development; including the theories Mead’s formulated about the origin of language. And this approach is followed throughout the entire book, unfortunately.



Nevertheless, the theory of symbolic interactionism has had— and is having— a prominent influence on sociology, psychology, and linguistics; more specifically, in language(gestures— i.e vocal gesture or physical gestures), the self, or the social representation of identities through symbols, respectively. Lastly, it is important to emphasise that it is very difficult to understand or have a consistent understanding of Mead’s ideas, apart from symbolic interactionism theory, because the originator himself did not publish his works in a consistent volume or magnum opus, or whatever you can call it. I feel that this edition needs to be narrowed as much possible as it could be, because there are a lot of repetitions in points and emphasis on ideologically driven theoretical frameworks of interpretation such as the confusion— or possibly the arbitrary insertion of the theory of evolution— with behavioural and social psychology, and sociology in general.

Morpheus.

[Jeffrey Rubard · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was once often said that the national philosophy of the United States was "pragmatism", and for a long time George Herbert Mead was frequently ranked with Peirce, William James, and John Dewey as one of its great exponents; furthermore, his influence on American (and, to a certain extent, German) sociology was tremendous. Mead's 'books' are posthumous editions of lecture notes; Mind, Self and Society is the most famous, and with some right—widely read as it was for many decades, it represents something like a philosophia perennis of American modernity.

Pragmatism is essentially a naturalism; the two primary stimuli for its development were Darwinian theory and the rise of experimental psychology, and any 'pragmatist' who claims they are not a naturalist may be putting you on a bit. Mead was the pragmatist who expanded the scope of the method to the problem of society; his theory of the development of 'symbolic interaction' from a "conversation of gestures" to one of "significant symbols" and then to the ability to reckon with a "generalized other" is still one of the most enlightening approaches to thinking of the mind as "arising and developing within the social process, within the empirical matrix of interactions".

Two speculative conjectures about the book: although Mead is usually read as on a continuum with later "social constructionists", early in the book he engages in naturalistic speculation about the neurological 'location' of full, rationally structured mentation in a way that 'presages' Donald Hebb's "mental objects", perhaps because Hebb got some of the idea from Mead. Secondly, writing shortly before the New Deal Mead brought a great deal of an 'enlightened' attitude to society into view, and one piece is how completely our 'fellow-feeling' can scale up to the world level.

I am tempted to take the analysis further and say that Mead's statement "Universal discourse is then the formal ideal of communication" ought to be read slightly 'literally' as saying that the 'toplevel' of human society is the logical "universe of discourse", that we not only do not escape from society in our 'referential discourse' but begin mending the social fabric and our conception of historical events by attending to 'states of affairs' of any kind with mindfulness and "interpretative charity".

[Solarsky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mead's landmark 1934 work laying the groundwork for today's important theoretical currents in today's social sciences - groundbreaking claims linking to contemporaries: symbolic interactionism, actor-network theory, philosophy of mind, social constructivism, etc. The only thing that inhibits the work is still too much adherence to behaviorism, which it seeks to criticize, and conservative-functionalist thinking. Also, the translation of the theory into Mead's theory of the state and ideal society, which seems a much more simplified and vulgar version of Habermas' idea of a society based on an ideal communication situation
4/5

[Arda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes from thesis:

Alas, it is not only the language of “equality” and “democracy” that one puts on to get the physical “pass” upon which interaction would be made possible, but even the perception of the “self” changes when observing the self being gazed upon as ‘other.’ An individual’s self-image is typically a reflection of how others see that self, or, more specifically, how that individual sees how others see that self. So, it is a way of first seeing oneself through the eyes of others (the looking glass self,) and, in turn, reacting to that image or self-perception (Mead, 1934).

[Arda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes from thesis:

Alas, it is not only the language of “equality” and “democracy” that one puts on to get the physical “pass” upon which interaction would be made possible, but even the perception of the “self” changes when observing the self being gazed upon as ‘other.’ An individual’s self-image is typically a reflection of how others see that self, or, more specifically, how that individual sees how others see that self. So, it is a way of first seeing oneself through the eyes of others (the looking glass self,) and, in turn, reacting to that image or self-perception (Mead, 1934).

[Epilegein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Assurément, l'un des meilleurs livres que j'ai pu avoir entre les mains! Trop de choses à dire pour je m'hasarde en un résumé ou bref commentaire.

Je me contenterai d'indiquer pour ceux qui ignorent qui est Georges Herbert Mead qu'il est l'une des principales figures du pragmatisme, qu'il est considéré comme l'un des pères fondateurs de la psychologie sociale et le père spirituel de l'école de sociologie de Chicago qui donnera naissance à l'interactionnisme symbolique. A la lecture d'une tel ouvrage on ne peut qu'acquiescer à l'apport majeur, et pourtant trop peu connu, de cet auteur!

[Shane Thayer · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's not a fun read, but I find what he's laid out here very helpful in understanding a great deal. I strongly suggest the book. It's dense and worth multiple reads to really grasp what's going on in here

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book about the social origins of mind and self. Mead's style is lucid, almost to the point of transparency. A new favourite for me.

[Mia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Já vím, že Meadovy teorie jsou klíčové, ale píše je prostě trochu nudně :D Dostat se přes rozbor behaviorismu na začátku mi trvalo věky.

[Abby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fue una de las lecturas que me costó más trabajo entender en el semestre, desarmar todas las piezas de mi mente para poder entender cómo Mead analizaba a las personas y lo que su estudio representa.

[Gabri Tava · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il cuore di questo saggio è un intuizione veramente notevole: nella specie umana il pensiero, l'ipseitá e la responsabilità (o responsivitá intenzionale) emergono per mezzo dell'avvento e la frequentazione della "voce", intesa come gesto vocale. In che modo? Il gesto vocale è udito dagli altri a cui è inviato e allo stesso tempo da sé stessi. Questa dinamica consente all'individuo di assumere il significato di quello che dice per mezzo della voce; significato che consiste nelle conseguenze pubbliche (società) che è abituato ad aspettarsi rispetto a un determinato gesto vocale. Così l'individuo emerge come tale (sè) capace di governare le sue reazioni, stimolandole in sé stesso in un colloquio interiore: in questo colloquio il singolo si apre le sue possibilità all'interno di una situazione problematica in cui si trova (pensa, qui sta la mente per Mead) e sceglie le conseguenze che prospetta migliori. Mead rifiuta la mente cartesiana e anche la Black box del comportamentista Watson. Si posiziona su un campo intermedio: la mente si manifesta nel particolare comportamento suddetto, nell'uso deliberato dei gesti vocali. Il nodo rivoluzionario: i gesti e gli strumenti come la voce (anche se Mead forse non userebbe questo termine) sono messi a fuoco come plasmanti radicalmente l'essere umano nella sua forma.

A livello tecnico il saggio è una ricostruzione postuma di appunti dello psicologo e degli studenti. Per questo motivo gli argomenti risultano ricorsivi. A tutti coloro che si troveranno a studiare l'opera consiglio all'inizio una lettura molto scorrevole, senza soffermarsi su ogni parte. Gli argomenti verranno presto ripetuti. Inoltre, per riuscire a muoversi nel testo con agilità, consiglio precedentemente di leggere dei sunti dei punti principali del pensiero di Mead; questo perché, data la genesi postuma, il materiale del testo risulta a mio parere mal organizzato. Procedere al buio, senza sapere dove il percorso vuole andare a parare può produrre confusione.

[Kafka]

from list on: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/11...

Also from this thread, is advice on PhD prep:
"Assuming you are already somewhat familiar with classic sociological theory, I wouldn't read more of it before grad school--you will read plenty of it soon enough. Otherwise, Bourdieu is a good (if terribly unclear) synthesizer--"Distinction" is as good a summary of sociology's take on the world as any.

With this background in place, I would instead focus on acquiring basic knowledge about humans and systems from other domains. Specifically, I would look into books on cognition, genetics, evolution, social networks, complex systems, and game theory. The real advances in academics come not from pursuing a single theoretical direction or line of research, but from weaving disparate research traditions together. All the fields I list above are currently hot, generating lots of fabulous research. There is much stuff to import into sociology from them.

Also, chances are that if you come from a Soc undergrad your skills at math are insufficient for keeping up with quantitative sociology or related fields. I would sit down with a good book on probability/statistics, and also brush up on some linear algebra (for networks) and calculus (for game theory and evolutionary models). The one thing you will never regret is spending more time on math."

[Liangdi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must-read for anybody interested in symbolic interactionism.

Although I would say it is not the easiest read ever, but it is comprehensive enough for people to understand the basics of G.H. Mead. Prof. Morris and some students of Mead edited notes taken at Mead's lectures (which may be one of the most famous courses ever given) and these eventually resulted in Mind, Self and Society . It may never have been Mead's intention to have his theory divided in three parts. Nevertheless, this book's influence on later sociologists, such as Herbert Blumer, cannot be doubted.

[Zip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yikes! This classic, paradigm-forming tome sets down the groundwork for symbolic interactionism-but it is extremely difficult to read-the writing reads like a translation, even though it is originally written in English. The ideas, though, once you put on your decoder ring, are still relevant today in 2007 as much as they were almost a century ago. ( Most of these are acutlly recollections of students via their lectur notes rather than Mead's actual writing)

[Csenge · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel weird, rating a book that is objectively an academic classic and has been out for 70 years, but... darn, this was a hard read. Parts are definitely outdated, and true to academic tradition, the basic concepts could have been explained and summarized in half the page count. But there it is, I read it, I got the gist.
(Also, if you are reading this for play theory like I did, spoiler alert: There are only 2 short chapters in there dealing with play. Out of 42)

[Phil · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extremely interesting and compelling work that is made even more interesting in understanding its context. While the final section, which in some ways is an almost utopian vision of world peace through an expanded and globalized world runs naive, the understanding of the self as the building block of society, but not an atom, is remarkable and important.

It's a classic for a reason.

[eesenor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mead argues that individual consciousness is fundamentally not personal, but social.

[Jenn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Must finish this weekend so I can add one sentence to that manuscript before I send it back to the reviewers

[Kurt Bruder · Rating 5 out of 5]

A work of rare genius and insight. Mead's account for the development of the human sense of self in and through social interaction has yet to be equalled, let alone eclipsed.