User:Kcc03/sya4010draft
Generalized Other
[edit]The term Generalized Other is defined as the attitude of the entire community, or of any collectivity in which the actor is involved.(Ritzer, pp. 59) This term was coined by the sociological philosopher, George Herbert Mead. In his work, the generalized other is created by an individual in society due to the development and progression of the self. This term has influenced the sociological world; especially in feilds within Symbolic Interaction Theory.
Background Information
[edit]George Herbert Mead is a significant figure in the history of American philosophy and sociology as one of the original founders of Pragmatism and a key contributor to the development of symbolic interactionism.[1] George Herbert Mead was born on February 27, 1863. At the age of sixteen, George Herbert Mead entered Oberlin College and graduated four years later (1883) with a B.A. degree. During the 1887-1889 academic year, Mead earned his M.A. degree in philosophy at Harvard University. Mead never completed his Ph.D. studies, as his studies were interrupted in 1891 by an offer to teach philosophy and psychology at the University of Michigan. In October of 1891, Mead married Helen Castle. They had their only child, Henry, in 1892. In 1893, Mead went to the University of Chicago, where he later chaired the Department of Philosophy. Mead taught at the University of Chicago until his death on April 26, 1931, right before he was to take a new appointment as professor at Columbia University. Despite never writing a full book during his intellectual career, he published numerous articles and book reviews and his lecture notes were posthumously published by several of his students(Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century, 1936; The Philosophy of the Present, 1932; Mind, Self and Society, 1934; The Philosophy of the Act, 1938).
Development & Charateristics of the Generalized Other
[edit]To achieve this epiphany of the “generalized other” Mead claimed that a person must go through two critical stages during childhood: the "play stage" and the "game stage". The first stage that the child goes through is the “play stage”. At this point in time the child is playing or imitating the role of one person.[2] It is important to note that at this particular stage the child is unable to take on more than on role at a time. Continuing through the course of childhood, the child will cross over into the second stage. In this stage, also known as the “game stage”, the child starts to conceptualize the role of everyone in a group. Mead’s example of the “game stage” is contrived in a game of baseball. Each person not only has to be able to know the roles of every other player in the game, but also understand each of the player’s expectations during the game in order to work as a team and complete a play. This stage is vital in order to develop a sense for the generalized other. As the child continues through this stage he or she is able to understand more sophisticated roles and expectations among groups, which eventually allows him or her to conceptualize their whole community’s roles and expectations or otherwise known as the generalized other. [3] Mead points out some important characteristics regarding to the concept of the generalized other. First, he points out that the completion of the self is only achieved through understanding the generalized other. Second, he attributes qualities of abstract thinking and objectivity within people to their realization of the generalized other. Thirdly, Mead makes it clear that there is not just one ultimate generalized other, but rather multiple generalized other’s because there are many different groups and communities within society. Last, but not least Mead also states that the generalized other is ever changing and adapting. With individual agency a person or group can change a community’s dynamics, ultimately altering the generalized other, and coincidentally altering the selves within that community or society.
Importance of Generalized Other in Terms of "The Self"
[edit]To fully explain Mead’s concept on the generalized other one must first understand his claims on the development of “The Self.” In George H. Mead’s interpretation on social behaviorism he points out that the self is a social construction.[4] The self consist of two elements: the I and Me. The "I" is referring to a person's immediate response of the self to others during interaction. The "I" is impulsive, incalculable, and creative. Opposite to the "I" is the "Me". This by definition is, "The individual's adoption and perception of the generalized other." (Ritzer, pp 62) Mead believed that the formation of the generalized other was vital in order to fully develop the self, but more importantly the “me” part of the self. Once the person conceptualizes the generalized other, then that person can decide on their actions according to the expectations of that group, community, or society through the reflective process (otherwise known as “Me”) within the self.
Notable Writings by George H. Mead
[edit]- “Suggestions Towards a Theory of the Philosophical Disciplines” 1900
- “Social Consciousness and the Consciousness of Meaning” 1910
- “What Social Objects Must Psychology Presuppose” 1910
- “The Mechanisms of Social Consciousness” 1912
- “The Social Self” 1913
- “Scientific Method and the Individual Thinker” 1917
- “A Behavioristic Account of the Significant Symbol” 1922
- “The Genesis of the Self and Social Control” 1925
- “The Objective Reality of Perspectives” 1926
- “The Nature of the Past” 1929
- “The Philosophies of Royce, James, and Dewey in Their American Setting” 1929
References
[edit]- Johnson, David G. (Mar., 1983). American Sociology and Pragmatism: Mead, Chicago Sociology, and Symbolic Interaction. Theory and Society, Vol. 12, No. 2., pp. 273-277.:(http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0304-2421%28198303%2912%3A2%3C273%3AASAPMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0).
- Coutu, Walter. (Apr.,1951). Role-Playing vs. Role-Taking: An Appeal for Clarification. American Sciological Review, Vol. 16, No. 2., pp. 180-187.: (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28195104%2916%3A2%3C180%3ARVRAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M).
- Smith, T. V. (Nov., 1931). The Social Philosophy of George Herbert Mead. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 3., pp. 368-385.: (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28193111%2937%3A3%3C368%3ATSPOGH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W).
- Baldwin, John D. (Oct., 1981). George Herbert Mead and Modern Behaviorism. The Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 4., pp. 411-440.: (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8919%28198110%2924%3A4%3C411%3AGHMAMB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4).
- Ritzer, George. (2007). “Contemporary Sociological Theory & its Classical Roots”.The Basics Second Edition. Published by McGraw-Hill. New York, NY., pp. 59. ISBN-13: 978-0-07-299759-0.