Commentary on G. H.

Mead’s view of Self and Society

Presented to: Professor Darryl Ross

Bridging course for men, Carleton University

Written by: Harold Sotomayor

2/20/2010
In this brief report I attempt to succinctly describe how the philosopher and social psychologist
George Herbert Mead distinguish between body and the self and to an extent, what makes this a
radically social view of the self. I will also highlight my personal view on his theory, its connection with
the German school of thought in psychoanalysis and some of the elements of Mead’s theory I believe
are missing to make it of greater relevance in today’s society

G. H. Mead’s background

Born in 1867 in South Hadley, Massachusetts; his father was a pastor of the local congregation and later
moved the family to Oberlin, Ohio where he became a professor of homiletics at the Oberlin Theological
Seminary. Having completed his early education, young George Mead entered Oberlin College and
graduated in 1883. He then continued his studies at Harvard University in 1883. There he worked with
William James and developed an interest in philosophical and psychological studies and continued his
research and studies in Berlin and Leipzig, Germany, under guidance of Wilhelm Wundt who is widely
regarded as the "father of experimental psychology". All of the above, in my opinion, play an important
role on Mead’s approach and development of what later would become his Social Psychology. It is worth
noting his friendship with John Dewey who is considered perhaps the greater of the so called
“pragmatists” and the Chicago School of Thought of early twenty century, all this in tandem with the
notion of a modern industrial if not “mechanistic” model of society which was a predominant world
view at the time. One can imagine George Mead, perhaps in the company of J. Dewey, sitting in a
Chicago theater watching Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and discussing the context of the movie, the social
crisis of the workers struggle in a capitalist system, urban dystopia and the representation of the self.

It was William James, Mead’s former teacher, who initially tried to formulate a connection between
body and mind through his physiological-moral concept of habit in a sociological context, incorporating
interest and activity into his idea of consciousness but he did not stress the social milieu as a
developmental factor shaping the mind of the individual, namely the self. Mead on the other hand, took
those concepts further and interpreted the mind as a pattern of behaviors growing out of social
interaction thus making Mead a social behaviorist. (1)

1
A radical theory of the self

In his book Mind, Self and Society published in 1934, G.H. Mead contends that body and self are
separate and that the self is something reflexive capable of being both object and subject to itself,
arising not from the biological organism but rather from the social experience of the individual and thus
shaping our personality from the interactions of the social context in which we live (2), furthermore,
idiosyncrasies and unique characteristics that distinguish each individual are a product of that social
interaction. He assumes that at birth the individual is a Tabula Rasa, without built-in mental content and
that our knowledge and experience develops from the social community and other individuals.

Mead’s distinction between the self as a subject and the self as an object to itself contrast sharply with
earlier views from his predecessors who described the self as conscious, a term which was thought to
include both, subject and object. That interpretation is what make his theory a very distinct social view
of the self and set him apart in the field of social psychology.

Mead’s interpretation of the self and its origins, it should be noted, goes into asserting that the self
develops by being able to take the point of view of others, and what he terms the “generalized other”
becomes the basis for complex social cooperation and a crucial part of the individual own mind. In other
words, the development of the “I” and the “Me” are derived from acquiring a “generalized other”. To
illustrate this point, Mead provides a metaphor: he compares the self as a checkerboard on which the
“Me” is represented by the checkers; the “I” is the player who makes moves and the “generalized other”
is an overhanging light that illuminates the scene making the moves intelligible. To Mead, the mind of
the individual is created by society and social processes are real and measurable. That is what makes his
contribution to the theory of social formation of the self a radical one.

Mead and the Mind-Body conundrum

I shall now turn to a personal assessment of Mead’s theory. Does his hypothesis offers a plausible
solution to the individual’s perception of consciousness in society? It might be argued that it does not,
since his theory left unanswered a number of fundamental questions that are essential in attempting to
explain the universality of some behaviors present in the human animal across diverse cultures.

2
For Mead conscious life is a continuous process of solving problems and that the individual’s psychic
existence corresponds to specific concerns of her/his existence and once these problems disappear the
Psychical aspect fades from consciousness. (3) He does not address the unconscious processes and
modes of behavior that are more or less the same everywhere in all individuals, what the French
anthropologist Lucien Lévy-Brühl would term “Représentations Collectives” and Carl Gustav Jung
would later call “The Collective Unconscious.” (4)

In summary, one must acknowledge George Herbert Mead made important contributions to the
philosophy of education and social psychology, even if one thinks his ideas are rooted in industrial world
views of the 19th Century.

Harold Sotomayor

http://socialnista.posterous.com/

3
Notes

1. Israel Scheffler, Four Pragmatist A critical Introduction to Pierce, James, Mead and Dewey,
edited by Ted Honderich (New York: Humanities Press, 1974), 152.

2. George Herbert Mead, Mind Self, and Society, edited by Charles W. Morris (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1934), 356-358.

3. George Herbert Mead, “The Definition of the Psychical,” in Selected Writings, edited by Andrew
J. Reck (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), 27.

4. Carl Gustav Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, edited by Sir Herbert Read
(New York: Princeton University Press, 1980), 4-5.

Bibliography

Andrew J. Reck, Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964).

Anselm Strauss, The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1956).

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)

George Cronk, George Herbert Mead.
Bergen Community College

http://www.iep.utm.edu/mead/