Mead 's Theory Of Self And Society

This explains why things have different meanings according to the situations. Finally, as meaning emerges trough interactions, it is also maintained trough them. As we acquire ways to feel, behave and think through our interactions culture is socially constructed. This explains why for symbolic interactionists, there is no Society, no greater body that controls and determines social norms, we are the ones who trough our interactions, create them. Since our responses to symbols, signs, events and situation are public, we are free to redefine to a certain extent meanings and as new things and objects emerge, we come up with new meanings. It is when we do not use a meaning associated with a symbol, for abstract ideas such as beliefs of values, that they disappear or are modified. This is how symbolic interactionists explain the change in ‘’societies’’ mentalities over time. All of these choices and these interactions implicate a Self, a reflexive process that enables us to formulate, monitor, control and react to our own behaviour, which formation we’ll explain through Meade, Cooley and Goffman.

“How is one to know and define oneself? From the inside- within a context that is self-defined, from a grounding in a community… or from the

Self is one’s awareness of ideas and attitudes about one’s own personal and social identity. Identity is shaped at a young age from interpreting concepts about one’s own self from others (Mead, 1934). The present study will compare Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality the (id, ego, and, superego) to George Herbert Mead’s social self-theory the (“I” and “me”). The study will give an overview of both theorist and discuss each approach in relationship to each other, and defining the key concepts. According to Schultz and Schultz, (2008) the id is defined as the source of psychic energy and the aspect of personality allied with the instincts. The ego is defined as the rational aspect of personality responsible for

George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman are two theorists in the study of sociology that have impacted the way we see sociology today. Their works, when closely examined, actually share some extreme similarities. Both of these men seemed very interested in the perception of self in the eyes of others as well as yourself. “Mind, Self, and Society” is an article written by Mead which was placed in the book entitled “Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism” which was edited by Farganis with the copyright of McGraw-Hill in 2004. This primarily deals with the development of one’s self, or their identity. “Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” is an article written by Goffman which was arranged to be in the book “Inner Lives and

The nature of “I” is entirely socially, its main characteristic is the ability to become an object for oneself, hence, the ability to self-consciousness, which distinguishes it from inanimate objects and living bodies (p. 378). The features of the behavior and the establishment of the group, a specific socio-cultural system, a certain society, according to Mead are the concepts of “generalized other." Elements of the generalized other can also be inanimate objects in the form of objects of material culture and physical environment.

  1.  Discovering the Self – How do we perceive ourselves and our interactions with others?

Since the moment one is born, until one’s life comes to a halting end, he or she is always in a quest to find his or her self. Clearly, the concept of self is rather complex. Humans are different entities, with varied views on the world, which is what makes the universe such an interesting place. Of course, people are born with certain characteristics that become the bases for who he or she is. Yet, the components that fall under the self, such as, self concept, self knowledge, self esteem continue to change. Interestingly enough, the self falls under a specific spectrum. When he or she is young, he or she can merely recognize him or herself. Therefore the self is lost. However when he or she begins school the self he or she fall under one of the two

The sociological perspective of symbolic interactionist perspective used in Mead’s theory of taking the role can be used to explain the behavior observed on this show. Firstly, majority of the teens come from a single or two

     Two things can happen when we are required to base our definition of “self” on others.  One can take others’ ways of living and thinking, process them, and formulate his or her own definition, independent of anyone else.  Or, one can use the relationships he or she has with other people on which to base their own definition of self, thus making him or her dependent on those other people.  As young people, we learn and take in all we can through the world, our experiences, and relationships with other people.  From there, we grow and establish our own identities, our own “selves”, in response to those interactions with others.  This definition is continually growing and progressing as we evolve as people, interacting with different people in different environments and

According to Mead, the language process is vital in regards to the development of the “self.” The term “communication”

George Herbert Mead ideas are widely known especially the theory of symbolic interactionism and his ideas about the main phases of child development (Giddens, Duneier and Appelbaum 84). Mead’s “symbolic interactionism emphasizes that interaction between human beings occurs

The relation between the self and the otherness is necessary to define human awareness and more importantly desire. This desire is part of the primordial human

When introducing the concept of self-consciousness, it can be very difficult for individuals to understand that there are many forms of self-consciousness. Many already have a definition in mind as soon as they hear the word self-consciousness. It is made up of many concepts because it isn’t just a cognitive state, rather, many cognitive states. The mind processes many things as opposed to just knowing things. Humans are capable of doing and desiring many things while self-evaluating and questioning oneself. Everyone is able to consider their own actions and to think about themselves. When thinking, humans are able to consider ideas and depictions regarding the self and others. Regarding oneself allows for evaluating self-worth in refinement to common social roles (Bermudez).

Giving an Account of Oneself, a compelling piece of work written by Judith Butler, digs deep into what it means to give an account of oneself and how it is nearly, if not entirely, impossible to do such an activity without becoming “a social theorist” (Butler 8). Butler states “the story of my origin I tell is not one for which I am accountable, and it cannot establish my accountability,” (Butler 37) since the story is always changing. We are not able to give our accounts as the accounts we give will always be told in different lights and we, as beings, are always changing as the norms around us change. The sense of being ties into us not being the same person we were when we came into being, and nor are we the same being as when we begin to tell the story of our origin of being. However, other notable influences, such as Levinas, believe that fully exposing our origin of being would act as a sort of “surplus” (Levinas 79) meaning those we expose our origin of being to will be so overwhelmed with the situation that we would never be able to give an account of ourselves overall. Levinas’ views coincides with Butlers’ on the topic of norms and how we will never be able to act outside of norms when he states, “the moment I realize that the terms by which I confer recognition are not mine alone… I am, as it were, disposed by the language that I offer” (Levinas 26).

George Herbert Mead’s theory of the “I and the Me” claims that people are an object to the audience due to the emergence of the perspective of the others. The self is recognized as a social object set by our social structure and behavior. Mead divided the self into two separate parts. The “I” is known as the actor of the self. The “me” is the object that is formed by the evaluations of the audience’s perspective towards the self. Thus, the “me” controls and discipline the “I” of the self. The concept of the “I and the Me” was first derived from the work of self development. Mead wanted to focus on how the two separate part of the self define the identity of the person through symbolic interaction.