Pragmatism and symbolic interactionism Much of Mead's work focused on the development of the self and the objectivity of the world within the social realm: he insisted that "the individual mind can exist only in relation to other minds with shared meanings". The two most important roots of Mead's work, and of
symbolic interactionism in general, are the philosophy of
pragmatism and
social behaviorism.
Social behaviorism (as opposed to
psychological behaviorism) refers to Mead's concern of the stimuli of gestures and social objects with rich meanings, rather than bare physical objects which psychological behaviourists considered stimuli. Mead was a critic of
John B. Watson's form of behaviorism.
Pragmatism is a wide-ranging philosophical position from which several aspects of Mead's influences can be identified into four main tenets: • True reality does not exist "out there" in the real world, it "is actively created as we act in and toward the world". • People remember and base their knowledge of the world on what has been useful to them and are likely to alter what no longer "works". • People define the social and physical "objects" they encounter in the world according to their use for them. • If we want to understand actors, we must base that understanding on what people actually do. Three of these ideas are critical to
symbolic interactionism: • the focus on the interaction between the actor and the world; • a view of both the actor and the world as dynamic processes and not static structures; and • the actor's ability to interpret the social world. Thus, to Mead and symbolic interactionists,
consciousness is not separated from action and interaction, but is an integral part of both. Symbolic interactionism as a pragmatic philosophy was an antecedent to the philosophy of
transactionalism. Mead's theories in part, based on pragmatism and behaviorism, were transmitted to many graduate students at the University of Chicago who then went on to establish symbolic interactionism.
Social philosophy (social behaviorism) Mead was a very important figure in 20th-century
social philosophy. One of his most influential ideas was the emergence of mind and self from the communication process between organisms, discussed in
Mind, Self and Society (1934)
, also known as
social behaviorism. This concept of how the mind and self emerge from the social process of communication by signs founded the
symbolic interactionist school of sociology. Rooted intellectually in
Hegelian dialectics and process philosophy, Mead, like
John Dewey, developed a more materialist process philosophy that was based upon human action and specifically communicative action. Human activity is, in a pragmatic sense, the criterion of truth, and through human activity meaning is made. Joint activity, including communicative activity, is the means through which our sense of self is constituted. The essence of Mead's social behaviorism is that mind is not a substance located in some transcendent realm, nor is it merely a series of events that takes place within the human physiological structure. This approach opposed the traditional view of the mind as separate from the body. The emergence of mind is contingent upon interaction between the human organism and its social environment; it is through participation in the social act of communication that individuals realize their potential for significantly symbolic behaviorthat is, thought. Mind, in Mead's terms, is the individualized focus of the communication process. It is linguistic behavior on the part of the individual. There is, then, no "mind or thought without language"; and language (the content of mind) "is only a development and product of social interaction". Thus, mind is not reducible to the
neurophysiology of the organic individual, but is emergent in "the dynamic, ongoing social process" For Mead, mind arises out of the social act of communication. Mead's concept of the social act is relevant not only to his theory of mind, but to all facets of his social philosophy. His theory of "mind, self, and society" is, in effect, a philosophy of the act from the standpoint of a social process involving the interaction of many individuals, just as his theory of knowledge and value is a philosophy of the act from the standpoint of the experiencing individual in interaction with an environment. Gestures become significant symbols when they arouse in the individual who is making them the same kind of response they are supposed to elicit from those to whom the gestures are addressed. Only when we have significant symbols can we truly have communication. We perceive the world in terms of the "means of living." In joint activity, which Mead called
social acts, humans learn to see themselves from the standpoint of their co-actors. A central mechanism within the social act, which enables perspective taking, is position exchange. People within a social act often alternate social positions (e.g., giving/receiving, asking/helping, winning/losing, hiding/seeking, talking/listening). In children's games there is repeated position exchange, for example in hide-and-seek, and Mead argued that this is one of the main ways that perspective taking develops. However, for Mead, unlike Dewey and
J. J. Gibson, the key is not simply human action, but rather social action. In humans the "manipulatory phase of the act" is socially mediated; that is to say, in acting towards objects humans simultaneously take the perspectives of others toward that object. This is what Mead means by "the social act" as opposed to simply "the act" (the latter being a Deweyan concept). Non-human animals also manipulate objects, but that is a non-social manipulation; they do not take the perspective of other organisms toward the object. Humans, on the other hand, take the perspective of other actors towards objects, and this is what enables complex human society and subtle social coordination. In the social act of economic exchange, for example, both buyer and seller must take each other's perspectives toward the object being exchanged. The seller must recognize the value for the buyer, while the buyer must recognize the desirability of money for the seller. Only with this mutual perspective taking can the economic exchange occur. (Mead was influenced on this point by
Adam Smith.)
Nature of the self A final piece of Mead's social theory is the mind as the individual importation of the social process. Assuming that games and routine social acts have differentiated social positions, and that these positions create our cognitive perspectives, then it might be that by moving between roles in a game (e.g. between hiding and seeking or buying and selling) we come to learn about the perspective of the other. This new interpretation of Mead's account of taking the perspective of the other has experimental support. Other recent publications argue that Mead's account of the development of perspective taking is relevant not only with respect to human ontogeny but also to the evolution of human sociality. == Writings ==