George Herbert Mead’s Understanding Of Social Ethics

Öz

According to George Mead, a significant figure in classical American pragmatism, the self neither consists of pure reason, nor does it include an ontological bifurcation. Instead, he expresses an analytical bifurcation of the self as the I (subject self) and the (me) object self. Yet, we cannot think of the two independently. The “I”, does not appear in direct experiences; rather, it enters our cognitive domain after an event has taken place. It exists in our memories and is realized as our past. On the other hand, the “me” consists of internalizing the experiences obtained via assumptions, behaviors, and norms observed in the external world. Ethics should be analyzed based on the awareness of the relations between these two types of self and the relations between the self as a whole and ‘the other’. In this vein, both self and ethics are fundamentally social. This work aims to show that the foundation of ethics is neither merely the self nor just the society, but it is a system of networks including these two elements without any reference to a mastermind or a metaphysical entity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• George Herbert Mead,social self,naturalism,taking the role of other,cosmopolitanism,perspective,generalized other

GEORGE HERBERT MEAD'IN SOSYAL AHLAK ANLAYIŞI

Öz

Klasik Amerikan pragmatistlerinden George Herbert Mead’a göre benlik, ne salt zihinden ibarettir, ne de ontolojik çatallaşmayı içerir. O, bunun yerine sadece analitik bir ayrım olarak benliği (self) özne benlik (I) ve nesne benlik (me) olarak ifade eder. Ancak ne özne benliği nesne benlik olmaksızın, ne de nesne benliği özne benlik olmaksızın düşünebiliriz. Özne benlik, doğrudan deneyimlerimizde kendisini göstermez, eylemin gerçekleşmesinden sonra biliş alanına girer. O, hafızamızda ve geçmişimiz olarak görülür. Nesne benlik ise dış dünyadan edindiğimiz kabulleri, davranışları ve normları içselleştirmek suretiyle deneyimde görülen benliktir. Ahlak bu benlikler arasındaki bağlantıların ve bir bütün olarak benlikle “öteki” arasındaki bağlantıların farkındalığına dayalı olarak açıklanmalıdır. Bu açıdan hem benlik hem de ahlak kökeni itibarıyla toplumsaldır. Yazımız Mead’da ahlakın temelinin ne salt birey, ne de salt toplum olduğunu ancak herhangi bir üst akıl ya da metafiziksel referans olmaksızın bu iki unsurun da içinde bulunduğu bir ağlar sistemi olduğunu göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• George Herbert Mead,toplumsal benlik,natüralizm,ötekinin rolünü almak,kozmopolitanizm,perspektif,genelleştirilmiş öteki

Kaynakça

1. • Aboulafia, Mitchell, (2010), Transcendence On Self-Determination and Cosmopolitanism, Stanford University Press, California • Broyer, John Albin, (1973), “Mead’s Ethical Theory”, Walter Robert Corti (Ed.), The Philosophy of George Herbert Mead, Amriswiler Bücherei, Switzerland, ss. 171-193. • Bumin, Tülin, (2013), Hegel, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul. • Çiftçi, Adil, (2008), “Bilgi-Sosyolojik Din Sosyolojisinde Bir Kavram: Durum Tanımı”, DEÜİFD, 41-56. • De Waal, Cornelis, (2002), On Mead, Wadsworth Thomson Learning Publishing, USA. • De Waal, Cornelis, (2008), “A Pragmatist World View: George Herbert Mead’s Philosophy of the Act”, Cheryl Misak (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of American Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New York, 144-169. • Güngör, Özcan, (2013), “Sosyolojik Bir Teori Olarak Sembolik Etkileşimciliğin Ontolojik Temeli Ve Din Olgusu”, AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 13, Yıl: 13, Sayı: 1, ss. 57-91. • Kenny, Anthony, (2010), A New History of Western Philosophy, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. • Mead, George Herbert (1923/1981), “Scientific Method and the Moral Sciences”, Andrew J. Reck (Ed.), Selected Writings, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, ss. 248-267. • Mead, George Herbert, (1925/1981), “The Genesis of the Self and Social Control”, Andrew J. Reck (Ed.), Selected Writings, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ss. 267-294. • Mead, George Herbert, (1929/1981), “A Pragmatic Theory of Truth”, Andrew J. Reck (Ed.), Selected Writings, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, ss. 320-344. • Mead, George Herbert, (1929/1981), “National Mindedness and International Mindedness”, Andrew J. Reck (Ed.), Selected Writings, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, ss. 355-371. • Mead, George Herbert, (1930/1981), “The Philosophies of Royce, James and Dewey in Their American Settings”, Andrew J. Reck (Ed.), Selected Writings, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, ss. 371-392. • Mead, George Herbert, (1932), The Philosophy of the Present, Arthur E. Murphy (Ed.), Open Court Publishing Company, London. • Mead, George Herbert, (1934), Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, David L. Miller (Ed.), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. • Mead, George Herbert, (1938), Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century, Merritt H. Moore, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. • Mead, George Herbert, (1938), The Philosophy of the Act, Charles W. Morris (Ed.), The University of Chicago Press, USA. • Miller, David, (1973), George Herbert Mead: Self, Language and the World, University of Texas Press, Texas and London.