The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead

1956 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 270
Author(s):  
Frank A. Santopolo ◽  
Anselm Strauss
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Hjortkjær ◽  
Søren Willert

AbstractThis paper examines the striking similarity between Kierkegaard’s and Mead’s theories of the self as relation, reflection and process as well as the normativity behind these theories. It is claimed that the theologian and the social psychologist share the view that the human being is an ethical being because its self is a dual relation; it relates to itself and in this relating it relates to an Other. Thus, regardless of their diverging views on the nature of this Other, they both define that of becoming a self as an unavoidable task: the task of standing in an ethical relation to oneself and to the Other. It is argued that differences in professions can be overcome: while reading Kierkegaard in the light of Mead helps to underline the relational character of Kierkegaard’s ethical notions, reading Mead in the light of Kierkegaard underlines the normative aspect of Mead’s social psychology.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Scharff

Enrique Pichon-Rivière, a pioneer of psychoanalysis, worked and wrote in Argentina in the mid-twentieth century, but his work has not so far been translated into English. From the beginning, Pichon-Rivière understood the social applications of analytic thinking, centring his ideas on "el vinculo", which is generally translated as "the link", but could equally be translated as "the bond". The concept that each individual is born into human social links, is shaped by them, and simultaneously contributes to them inextricably ties people's inner worlds to the social world of family and society in which they live. Pichon-Rivière believed, therefore, that family analysis and group and institutional applications of analysis were as important as individual psychoanalysis. Many of the original family and couple therapists from whom our field learned trained with him. Because his work was centred in the analytic writings of Fairbairn and Klein, as well as those of the anthropologist George Herbert Mead and the field theory of Kurt Lewin, his original ideas have important things to teach us today. This article summarises some of his central ideas such as the link, spiral process, the single determinate illness, and the process of therapy.


Author(s):  
Hans Joas

Together with Charles Peirce, William James and John Dewey, George Herbert Mead is considered one of the classic representatives of American pragmatism. He is most famous for his ideas about the specificities of human communication and sociality and about the genesis of the ‘self’ in infantile development. By developing these ideas, Mead became one of the founders of social psychology and – mostly via his influence on the school of symbolic interactionism – one of the most influential figures in contemporary sociology. Compared to that enormous influence, other parts of his philosophical work are relatively neglected.


Hypatia ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell Aboulafia

George Herbert Mead was a dedicated progressive and internationalist who strove to realize his political convictions through participation in numerous civic organizations in Chicago. These convictions informed and were informed by his approach to philosophy. This article addresses the bonds between Mead's philosophy, social psychology, and his support of women's rights through an analysis of a letter he wrote to his daughter-in-law regarding her plans for a career.


2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-46
Author(s):  
Magnus Granberg

This analysis of the work of George Herbert Mead and Alfred Sohn-Rethel compares their respective accounts of the formation of the self. The analysis proceeds from two important similarities: the effort to understand self-consciousness not as primordial but as the product of social processes, and the view that these processes form a circuit: the self arises from consciousness’ return to itself, concluding a movement whereby consciousness is first externalized onto objects and then internalized, taking on the insular shape of self-consciousness. What sets the two accounts apart is the site from whence the self returns: objects. In Mead, the self returns from meaningful objects, and this same (intersubjective) meaning is entangled with the process of self-formation. In contrast, for Sohn-Rethel, the self returns from objects whose meaning is not established intersubjectively but objectively: the self is the unintended consequence of commodity exchange. In Mead, interaction among people affords meaning to objects and thus evokes the self; in Sohn-Rethel, interaction among commodities evokes an objective meaning that renders people as selves. Interpretative sociology should attend to the objectively and unconsciously meaningful forms analyzed by Sohn-Rethel. To illustrate this conclusion, reference is made to a certain experience of the social under neoliberalism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document