Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The Self in George Herbert Mead’s Thought: A Socio-Ontological Analysis

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 103 - 136, 30.06.2019

Öz

Abstract:
The self, which grounds moral ontology and moral
values, is closely related to how one understands what is outside of oneself
and how one relates oneself to it through conscious behaviors. George Herbert
Mead, in his social self-theory, argues that the relationship between the
individual and the world develops the self which provides a ground for these
vital issues. At the same time this ground makes both the organism and the mind
necessary for the formation of the self. Mead argues that the organism is not
passive in the relation of the external world, rather there is an interaction
between the two. Mead argues firstly against reductive materialistic conception
of the self by pointing to the fact that the self is a matter that transcends
the organism; secondly against the rationalist self-understandings by
suggesting that the organism is a necessary condition for the formation of the
self; and lastly idealistic self-understandings by his conception of “the world
that is there” as the base of the reality for the self. In this framework, the
social self is discussed, Mead argues, in terms of two functional stages as the
subject self (I) and the object self (me). The subject self represents the
stage of the first reaction of individual to an external stimulus, while the
object self represents the stage in which this reaction is seen, recognized,
questioned and interpreted in the imagination. The subject self and the object
self are equally obligatory for the formation of a complete/whole social self.

Kaynakça

  • Aboulafia, Mitchell (2010). Transcendence On Self-Determination and Cosmopolitanism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
  • Alston, William P. (1967). “Language.” Paul Edwards (Der.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy içinde (Vol. 4, s. 384-386). New York: Collier-Macmillan Publishing.
  • Arıcı, Murat (2014). “Materyalizm, Fenomenal Özne ve Ontolojik Statüsü.” Beytulhikme an International Journal of Philosophy, 4(2): 1-13.
  • Berger, P. L. ve Luckmann, T. (1991). The Social Construction of Reality. Britain: Penguin Books.
  • Betz, John (2013). “George Herbert Mead On Social and Economic Human Rights.” F. Thomas Burke and Krzysztof Piotr Skowronski (Der.), George Herbert Mead in the Twenty-first Century içinde (s. 175-188). New York, Toronto, Polymouth, UK: Lexington books.
  • Blau, Joseph L. (1952). Men and Movements in American Philosophy. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.
  • Cook, Gary A. (2013). “Resolving Two Key Problems In Mead's Mind, Self, and Society.” F. Thomas Burke ve Krzysztof Piotr Skowronski (Der.), George Herbert Mead in the Twenty-first Century içinde (s. 95-105). New York, Toronto, Polymouth, UK: Lexington Books.
  • Cuzzort, R. P. ve King, E. W. (1980). 20th Century Social Thougth. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston Publishing.
  • Danzinger, Kurt (2001). “Wundt and the Temptations of Psychology.” Robert W. Rieber ve David K. Robinson (Der.), Wilhelm Wundt in History: The Making of a Scientific Psychology içinde (s. 69-94). New York: Springer Science & Bussiness Media.
  • Geyer, Hans F. (1973). “One Dimensional Mind and Mind Self and Society.” Walter Robert Corti (Der.), The Philosophy of George Herbert Mead içinde (s. 225-234). Switzerland: Amriswiler Bücherei.
  • Gillespie, Alex (2005). “G. H. Mead: Theorist of Social Act.” Journal for the Social Behaviour, 35(1): 19-39.
  • Habermas, Jürgen (1992). Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays. Çev. William M. Hohengarten. Cambridge, MA ve London: The Mit Press.
  • James, William (1918). The Principles of Psychology: Vol. I. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
  • Joas, Hans (1997). George Herbert Mead: A Contemporary Re-Examination of His Thought. Çev. Raymond Meyer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Levelt, Willem J. W. (2004). “Speech, Gesture and the Origins of Language.” European Review, 12(4): 543-549.
  • Lewontin, Richard C. (1991). “Foreword.” Alfred I. Tauber (Der.), Organism and the Origins of the Self içinde (129: xii-xix). Dortrech, Boston ve London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Mead, George H. (1934). Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Der. Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mead, George H. (1936). Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century. Der. Merritt H. Moore. Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Mead, George H. (1964). “The Social Self.” Andrew J. Reck (Der.), Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead içinde (s. 142-149). Chicago ve London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Mead, George H. (1964). “What Social Objects Must Psychology Presuppose.” Andrew J. Reck (Der.), Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead içinde (s. 105-113). Chicago ve London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Miller, David L. (1973). George Herbert Mead Self Language and the World. Austin ve London: University of Texas Press.
  • Reck, Andrew J. (1968). “Introduction.” Andrew J. Reck (Der.), Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead içinde (s. xiii-lxii). Chicago ve London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Santarelli, Matteo (2013). “From Others to the Other: A Psychoanalytical Reading of Mead.” Thomas Burke ve Krzysztof Piotr Skowronski (Der.), George Herbert Mead in the Twenty-first Century içinde (s. 159-171). New York, Toronto, Polymouth: Lexington Books.
  • Souter, A., Wyllie, J. M., Brink, C. O. vd. (1968). Oxford Latin Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
  • Thayer, H. S. (1968). Meaning and Action A Critical History of American Pragmatism. Indianapolis: Bobs-Merrill.
  • Wellek, Albert (1967). “Wundt, Wilhelm.” Çev. Tessa Byck. Paul Edwards (Der.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy içinde (Vol. 8, s. 349-351). Collier-Macmillan Publishing.
  • Wundt, Wilhelm (1897). Outlines of Psychology. Çev. Charles Hubbard Judd. London ve New York: William Engelmann Publishing.

George Herbert Mead Düşüncesinde Kendilik: Sosyo-Ontolojik Bir Analiz

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 103 - 136, 30.06.2019

Öz

Öz: Bir ahlak ontolojisinden
ve değer alanından söz etmenin gerekliliği olan kendilik, insanın kendi
dışındaki âlemi nasıl anladığı ve bilinçli davranışlar üzerinden onunla nasıl
bir ilişki kurması gerektiği hususunu yakından ilgilendirir. George Herbert
Mead, sosyal kendilik kuramında birey ile alem arasında kurulacak ilişkinin bu
hususlardan birini göz ardı etmeyecek bir zemine sahip olması gerektiğini
savunur. Bu zemin aynı zamanda kendiliğin oluşumu için hem organizmayı hem de
zihni gerekli kılar. Mead, organizma-dış dünya ilişkisinde organizmanın salt
edilgen olmayıp her ikisi arasında bir etkileşim söz konusu olduğunu savunur.
Mead, kendiliğin organizmayı aşan bir husus olduğuna işaret ederek indirgemeci
materyalist kendilik anlayışlarına; kendiliğin oluşması için organizmanın
zorunlu koşul olduğunu savunarak da rasyonalist kendilik anlayışlarına;
kendiliğin gerçeklik zemini olarak “orada var olan dünya” kavramı ile idealist
kendilik anlayışlarına karşı çıkmıştır. Bu çerçevede sosyal kendilik, özne
kendilik (I) ve nesne kendilik (me) olmak üzere Mead açısından iki işlevsel
aşamada ele alınır. Özne kendilik, bireyin dışsal bir uyartıya karşı ilk
tepkisinin mahallini oluştururken, nesne kendilik bu tepkinin imgelem
içerisinde görüldüğü, fark edildiği, sorgulandığı, anlamlandırıldığı aşamayı
temsil eder. Özne kendilik ile nesne kendilik, tam bir sosyal kendiliğin
oluşumu açısından eş derecede zorunludur.

Kaynakça

  • Aboulafia, Mitchell (2010). Transcendence On Self-Determination and Cosmopolitanism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
  • Alston, William P. (1967). “Language.” Paul Edwards (Der.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy içinde (Vol. 4, s. 384-386). New York: Collier-Macmillan Publishing.
  • Arıcı, Murat (2014). “Materyalizm, Fenomenal Özne ve Ontolojik Statüsü.” Beytulhikme an International Journal of Philosophy, 4(2): 1-13.
  • Berger, P. L. ve Luckmann, T. (1991). The Social Construction of Reality. Britain: Penguin Books.
  • Betz, John (2013). “George Herbert Mead On Social and Economic Human Rights.” F. Thomas Burke and Krzysztof Piotr Skowronski (Der.), George Herbert Mead in the Twenty-first Century içinde (s. 175-188). New York, Toronto, Polymouth, UK: Lexington books.
  • Blau, Joseph L. (1952). Men and Movements in American Philosophy. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.
  • Cook, Gary A. (2013). “Resolving Two Key Problems In Mead's Mind, Self, and Society.” F. Thomas Burke ve Krzysztof Piotr Skowronski (Der.), George Herbert Mead in the Twenty-first Century içinde (s. 95-105). New York, Toronto, Polymouth, UK: Lexington Books.
  • Cuzzort, R. P. ve King, E. W. (1980). 20th Century Social Thougth. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston Publishing.
  • Danzinger, Kurt (2001). “Wundt and the Temptations of Psychology.” Robert W. Rieber ve David K. Robinson (Der.), Wilhelm Wundt in History: The Making of a Scientific Psychology içinde (s. 69-94). New York: Springer Science & Bussiness Media.
  • Geyer, Hans F. (1973). “One Dimensional Mind and Mind Self and Society.” Walter Robert Corti (Der.), The Philosophy of George Herbert Mead içinde (s. 225-234). Switzerland: Amriswiler Bücherei.
  • Gillespie, Alex (2005). “G. H. Mead: Theorist of Social Act.” Journal for the Social Behaviour, 35(1): 19-39.
  • Habermas, Jürgen (1992). Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays. Çev. William M. Hohengarten. Cambridge, MA ve London: The Mit Press.
  • James, William (1918). The Principles of Psychology: Vol. I. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
  • Joas, Hans (1997). George Herbert Mead: A Contemporary Re-Examination of His Thought. Çev. Raymond Meyer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Levelt, Willem J. W. (2004). “Speech, Gesture and the Origins of Language.” European Review, 12(4): 543-549.
  • Lewontin, Richard C. (1991). “Foreword.” Alfred I. Tauber (Der.), Organism and the Origins of the Self içinde (129: xii-xix). Dortrech, Boston ve London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Mead, George H. (1934). Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Der. Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mead, George H. (1936). Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century. Der. Merritt H. Moore. Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Mead, George H. (1964). “The Social Self.” Andrew J. Reck (Der.), Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead içinde (s. 142-149). Chicago ve London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Mead, George H. (1964). “What Social Objects Must Psychology Presuppose.” Andrew J. Reck (Der.), Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead içinde (s. 105-113). Chicago ve London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Miller, David L. (1973). George Herbert Mead Self Language and the World. Austin ve London: University of Texas Press.
  • Reck, Andrew J. (1968). “Introduction.” Andrew J. Reck (Der.), Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead içinde (s. xiii-lxii). Chicago ve London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Santarelli, Matteo (2013). “From Others to the Other: A Psychoanalytical Reading of Mead.” Thomas Burke ve Krzysztof Piotr Skowronski (Der.), George Herbert Mead in the Twenty-first Century içinde (s. 159-171). New York, Toronto, Polymouth: Lexington Books.
  • Souter, A., Wyllie, J. M., Brink, C. O. vd. (1968). Oxford Latin Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
  • Thayer, H. S. (1968). Meaning and Action A Critical History of American Pragmatism. Indianapolis: Bobs-Merrill.
  • Wellek, Albert (1967). “Wundt, Wilhelm.” Çev. Tessa Byck. Paul Edwards (Der.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy içinde (Vol. 8, s. 349-351). Collier-Macmillan Publishing.
  • Wundt, Wilhelm (1897). Outlines of Psychology. Çev. Charles Hubbard Judd. London ve New York: William Engelmann Publishing.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Felsefe
Bölüm Araştırma/İnceleme Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Mustafa KINAĞ 0000-0003-3333-9425

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Haziran 2019
Kabul Tarihi 25 Haziran 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019 Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA KINAĞ, M. (2019). George Herbert Mead Düşüncesinde Kendilik: Sosyo-Ontolojik Bir Analiz. MetaZihin: Yapay Zeka Ve Zihin Felsefesi Dergisi, 2(1), 103-136.