INDIVIDUAL SPONTANEITY AND THE POSSIBILITY OF COMMUNITY IN MEAD’S SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3 , 1092 - 1111 , 15.09.2024

Ali Özgür Gürsoy

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1470933

Cited By: 1

https://izlik.org/JA53MR45AL

Öz

The central question of the present study is how to understand the spontaneity of the social self in George H. Mead’s account of the genesis and structure of the self. Its argument develops in three stages. First, I provide a brief discussion of the notion of the self in relation to social existence in Hegel in order to highlight some salient features that will prefigure some of the claims that Mead makes. Second, I discuss Mead’s theory in greater detail in order to emphasize the role of communication and ‘attitude-taking’ in the constitution of the self. These factors comprise what is particularly original in Mead’s account. Finally, I offer an evaluation of Mead’s key claims in the context of certain questions concerning the relationship between the individual and community. I think that Mead provides a sound scheme by means of which we can understand the constitution of the self as a social phenomenon and communities as dynamic systems susceptible to transformation in response to individual and/or group action, i.e., without reifying communities. However, the dynamics of social change, for the most part in terms of ‘adaptation’ in Mead’s account, needs some modification, if we want to understand those periods of social upheaval during which the continuity between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ seems minimal.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mead , Self , Spontaneity , Community , Social Change

MEAD’İN TOPLUMSAL PSİKOLOJİSİNDE BİREYİN KENDİLİĞİNDENLİĞİ VE TOPLULUĞUN OLANAKLILIĞI

https://izlik.org/JA53MR45AL

Öz

Bu makalenin temel sorusu George H. Mead’in kendilik/benlik oluşumu için sunduğu açıklamada, özünde toplumsal bir varlık olan benliğin kendiliğindenliğini nasıl anlayabileceğimizdir. Makalenin argümanı üç aşamada geliştirilmektedir. İlk olarak, Mead’in temel iddialarını daha netleştirmek adına, Hegel’de benlik ve toplumsallık ilişkisinin bazı hususları tartışılmaktadır. İkinci olarak, Mead’in kuramı iletişimin ve ‘tavır-alma’nın önemi vurgulanarak tartışılmaktadır. Bu tartışmalar, Mead’in açıklamalarının özgün boyutunu açığa çıkarmaktadır. Son olarak, birey ve toplum arasındaki ilişki üzerinden Mead’in temel iddiaları değerlendirilmektedir. Benliğin toplumsal bir varlık olarak kurulumunu ve toplulukların bireylerin ve grupların eylemlerine göre dönüşüme açık dinamik sistemler oluşunu anlamamızda, Mead’in kuramı geçerli bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Ancak, toplumsal değişimi nihayetinde ‘adaptasyon’ kavramı ile açıklayan Mead, eski ve yeni arasındaki benzerliklerin asgari olduğu radikal toplumsal dönüşümleri açıklayabilmek adına geliştirilmeye ihtiyaç duymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Benlik , Kendiliğindenlik , Topluluk , Toplumsal Değişim

Kaynakça

• Abbott, O. (2020). The self as the locus of morality: a comparison between Charles Taylor and George Herbert Mead's theories of the moral constitution of the self. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour Volume 50, (Issue 4) p. 516-533
• Baugh, B. (2003). French Hegel: from surrealism to postmodernism (1st ed.). Routledge.
• Côté, J.-F. (2019). The past, present, and future of G. H. Mead in symbolic interactionism: a dialectical encounter around the issue of feminism, power, and society. In The Interaction Order (Vol. 50, pp. 117–140). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0163-239620190000050006
• Côté, Jean-François (2023). George Herbert Mead and psychoanalysis. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 15 (2).
• Dewey, J. (1972). The early works of John Dewey, volume 5, 1882 - 1898: early essays, 1895-1898 (J. A. Boydston, Ed.; First Edition). Southern Illinois University Press.
• Farneth, M. (2017). Hegel's social ethics: religion, conflict, and rituals of reconciliation. Princeton University Press.
• Hegel, G. W. F. (1979). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Honneth, A. (2008) Reification: a new look at an old idea. Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, S. (2010). Self, time and narrative: re-thinking the contribution of G. H. Mead. Life Writing, 7 (2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/14484520903445255
• Matějčková, T. (2021). Hegel’s conception of personal difference. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 35 (1), 50–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.35.1.0050
• Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist (C. W. Morris, Ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
• Nielsen, G. (2000). Looking back on the subject: Mead and Bakhtin on reflexivity and the political . In: Brandist, C., Tihanov, G. (eds) materializing Bakhtin. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501461_8
• Pippin, R. B. (1989). Hegel’s idealism: the satisfactions of self-consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
• Pippin, R. B. (2008). Hegel’s practical philosophy: rational agency as ethical life (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Puddephatt, A. J. (2017). George Herbert Mead. In M. H. Jacobsen (Ed.), The interactionist imagination: studying meaning, situation and micro-social order (pp. 95–119). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58184-6_4
• Ricoeur, P. (2012). Time and narrative: volume I (K. McLaughlin & D. Pellauer, Trans.; 1st edition). The University of Chicago Press.
• Rorty, R. (1996). Who are we?: moral universalism and economic triage. Diogenes, 44 (173), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/039219219604417302
• Silva, F. C. (2007). Re-examining Mead: G. H. Mead on the material reproduction of society. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7, 291-313
• Silva, F. C. (2010). Mead and modernity. Science, selfhood, and democratic politics (Lexington Books).
• Stuhr, J. J. (1994). Rendering the world more reasonable: The practical significance of Peirce’s normative science. In Peirce and value theory (p. 3). John Benjamins. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027276612- sc.6.04stu
• Wiley, N. (2021), "Reflexivity in George Herbert Mead", Denzin, N.K., Salvo, J. and Chen, S.-L.S. (Ed.) Radical interactionism and critiques of contemporary culture (Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 52), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0163-239620210000052005
• Zahavi, D. and Zelinsky, D. (2023). "Experience, subjectivity, selfhood: beyond a Meadian sociology of the self", Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour volume 54, (Issue 1) p. 36-51