The Teachings Of Georg Simmel And George Herbert Mead

Sociology has its unique perspectives and each perspective makes sense on its own basis. From the three perspectives which are called conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, and functionalism the one that makes most sense to me is symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism as stated in the book is, “[A] theoretical perspective in which society is viewed as composed of symbols that people use to establish meaning, develop their views of the world and communicate with one another.” The sociological perspective of symbolic interactionism was developed by Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead. Symbolic interactionism is analyzed at a microsociological level unlike conflict theory and functionalism.

He believed that particular and distinguishing traits form in a group of people who communicate and relate to one another, and thus forming several types of individuals. Simmel concluded that a society is no more than the individuals who make it up; he also emphasized that people in groups of differing sizes interact differently with one another. He shares some similarities to Durkheim when regarding the problem between the individual and society. To him, sociology is more than the discovery and analysis of the natural laws that conduct human interaction, it must study the different aspects of phenomena in groups rather than larger, more global occurrences. Simmel prioritizes the interactions happening at the individual level and the small group level since, according to him, the social group in which the individuals belong to represent the natural separation as human

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

Mead’s “theory of self” is based on the perspective that the self emerges from social interactions, such as observing and interacting with others, responding to others' opinions about oneself, and internalizing external opinions and internal feelings about oneself. The social aspect of self is an important distinction. That’s because other sociologists and psychologists of Mead's time felt that the self was based on biological factors and inherited traits. This was the normal and conventional type of mindset from psychologists at the time. According to Mead, the self is not there from birth, but instead it is developed over time from social experiences and activities.

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

Four principal scholars explored the symbolic interaction theory, George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, William Isaac Thomas, and Herbert Blumer (Smith & Hamon, 2012). George Herbert Mead proposed that through interaction with others, we learn about ourselves—this is done through three stages; play stage, game stage, and generalized other (Smith & Hamon, 2012). He identifies the movement between “I” and “me.” “I” being the spontaneous, immediate reactions to a situation, “me” being the roles learned from prior experiences (Smith & Hamon, 2012). Charles Horton Cooley had the idea of the “looking-glass self”—which explains individuals consider how they appear to others in order to create their own concept of themselves (Smith & Hamon, 2012). The third scholar, William Isaac Thomas, was known for the definition of the situation, which led to the idea that understanding perspective of the people involved in the situation was necessary to understand human behavior in general (Smith & Hamon, 2012). The Thomas Theorem stated

Georg Simmel and Max Weber will first be addressed individually to outline their lives and their works. Even though Simmel and Weber both were born in the same country, they led different lives. The obvious differences among Simmel and Weber are seen in their younger years of their lives. While their works are different, they may have been working for a similar result. Simmel and Weber are now considered to have made an historic impact in the sociological world. Their individual contribution to the sociological work has been significant and will be discussed in sociology classes forever. This paper will outline the differences and similarities of Georg Simmel and Max Weber.

‘In a very large and interesting class of cases the social reference takes the form of a somewhat definite imagination of how one's self--that is any idea he appropriates--appears in a particular mind, and the kind of self-feeling one has is determined by the attitude toward this attributed to that other mind. A social self of this sort might be called the reflected or looking glass self: " Each to each a

formulate a self concept or idea of what we are like (Saunders, 2013 , p.67). Mead essentially

I think that Georg Simmel’s unique perspectives and interpretations on society are very important to the development of sociology. His first key point would be his concept of society. To Simmel, society is a, “number of individuals connected by interactions… it is not a “substance,” nothing concrete, but an event. It is a function of receiving and affecting the fate and development of one individuals by another”. This concept of society is in the middle ground of what we have previously talked about. Institutions do not solely drive it, as life would be predetermined by society, but it is also not solely individuals with the complete freedom and no interaction of society. Simmel describes individuals as “doing” society as they influence it. One of his main themes is the duality of society and this relationship. His main concept or take away from this is the importance of interactions, and how they create unity i.e. society. When looking at these interactions, Simmel focuses on form and content. The content of these

Moreover, attempts to identify Simmel as a classical father of symbolic interactionism have been discounted. For instance, Reynolds (2003b:39) dismissively states

The two aspects of the Self according to Mead is the “me and “I”. The “me” is our social self and the “I” is our response to the “me”. The “me” is the interaction of the individual with other people and the “I” is the response of the individual to the community. The “I” subjective self and “me” is the organized self. The “I” is impulsive and subjective. The “me” is more objective, organized, gives direction and is less emotion. One example is that the “me” the individual may understand by watching significant others and teachers. That after high school in the US you usually go directly to college. The “I” might responded to maybe there is a better way, it might be better to travel or work for a year

Simmel argues that ‘society exists as social forms that come through human interaction’ (1971). He was interested in the interactions between individuals within society over a period of

Before evaluating Levinas’ humanity-opening theories, however, it seems necessary to understand the process by which one can come to know the initial Other. For before the subject can enter into a just, fraternal relationship with the Other, he must be wholly prepared to welcome its face. According to Levinas, before encountering the Other, one is in a sleeping state within the Order of Being. Mundane and superficial, this Order allows only for categorization and objectification of things. At this stage even animate objects are reduced to their formal properties: a cat, for example, is classified according to its genus and species, recognized only as one instance of “cat”; a human, similarly, is reduced simply to another instance of humanity. (Rebidoux, 26 Jan 2004)

Georg Simmel, “How is Society Possible”, “The Problem of Sociology”, “Conflict”, “Sociability (Contents vs. Forms of Soc