sociology 116

MY Peer Comment Assignments

Jizak (SANDBOX) (Pitirim_Sorokin)
SWestbrook (SANDBOX) (Robert Sommer)

Did you want me to read the paragraph at the bottom for the classmate critique?--Caitmcn (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My topic will be on George H. Mead

I will analyze three sources on Mead and my main focus will be on the two phases or poles of the self which are the "I" and the "Me".

My first analysis is on a wikipedia article  on George Herbert Mead
Content of the Article: 
    1. Pragmatism and Symbolic Interaction. (337 words)
    2. Social Philosophy. Behaviorism. (1,004 words)
    3. Nature of Self. (321 words)
    4. Philosophy of Science. (307 words)
    5.Play and Game and the Generalized other. (518 words)

Biography (1) References (16) Bibliography (8) External Links (5) In general this essay has many grammatical errors, and does not include a well detailed biography and body. The heading "The Nature of self" in this essay contains a line that says: "In other words, the "I" is the response of an individual to the attitudes of others, while the "me" is the organized set of attitudes of others which and individual assumes." The footnote is [17]. This footnote reference goes to Margolis, Joseph; Jacques Catudal book named "Quarell between Invariance and Flux." This line does not exist in this book. This line belongs to the book: Works of George Mead. Mind, Self, & Society (vol.) By Charles W. Morris. On page 175

My secondary source will be the book named: Works of George Herbert Mead. Mind, Self, & Society. By Charlses W. Morris. Content of the book:

I. The Point of View of Social Behaviorism (1-33)
II. Mind (42-125)
III. The Self (135-222)
IV. Society (227-328)

Supplementary Essays

    I. The function of Imagery in Conduct.
   II. The Biologic Individual.
   III.The Self and the Process of Reflection.
   IV. Fragments on Ethics.

Bibliography (68) This book presents Meads system of social psychology in larger outlines. Charles H. Morris introduces a well detailed biography about George H. Mead. Wikipedia article could have used more information from Meads biography on this book book. Morris has better words to describe the meaning of the self according to Mead's perception of the "I" and the "Me". He states that the self consists of the "I" and the "Me". The "I" is not a "Me" and cannot become a "Me". We can have a good self or bad self but that does not mean that the "I" is against the "Me". Both are selves. When the "I" reacts to the attitude of others, then we are introduced to the "Me", and react to it as an "I".

I will include some of my proposed changes to the section below in parentheses with my initials, cm.Hopefully this doesn't make it too confusing. Another student edited my work this way and I thought it worked pretty well. Anyway, great work on this paragraph, it just needs citations after every sentance. --Caitmcn (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nature of the Self

A final piece (aspect instead of piece? -cm) of Mead's social theory is the mind as the individual importation of the social process (needs citation -cm). As previously discussed, Mead presented the self and the mind in terms of a social process (citation -cm). As gestures are taken in by the individual organism, the individual organism also takes in the collective attitudes of others, in the form of gestures, and reacts accordingly with other organized attitudes (citation -cm). This process is characterized by Mead as the "I" and the "Me" (citation -cm). The "Me" is the social self and the "I" is the response to the "Me." In other words, the "I" is the response of an individual to the attitudes of others, while the "me" is the organized set of attitudes of others which an individual assumes.[17] Mead develops (developed? -cm) William James' distinction between the "I" and the "me." The "me" is the accumulated understanding of "the generalized other" i.e. how one thinks (that? -cm) one's group perceives oneself etc. The "I" is the individual's impulses. The "I" is self as subject; the "me" is self as object. The "I" is the knower, the "me" is the known. The mind, or stream of thought, is the self-reflective movements of the interaction between the "I" and the "me." These dynamics go beyond selfhood in a narrow sense (this is unclear -cm), and form the basis of a theory of human cognition. For Mead (add comma -cm) the thinking process is the internalized dialogue between the "I" and the "me." Mead rooted the self’s “perception and meaning” deeply and sociologically in "a common praxis of subjects" (Joas 1985: 166) found specifically in social encounters. Understood as a combination of the 'I' and the 'me' (inconsistent use of quotations " or ' -cm), Mead’s self proves to be noticeably entwined within a sociological existence. For Mead, existence in community comes before individual consciousness. First one must participate in the different social positions within society and only subsequently can one use that experience to take the perspective of others and thus become self-conscious (this sentance needs commas -cm).

xxxxxxxxxxx Material Yvette sent Dan is below xxxxxxxxxxx

--Most of Meads biographies do not include a deeper background of Mead’s life, for example, who were Mead’s parents? Mead’s father was a Sacred Rhetoric and Pastoral Theology at Oberlin College beginning in 1869. Mead’s mother also taught at Oberlin, and she was to ensuring that young George was guided trough a daily routine of prayer, study, and good works. Although Oberlin College was well known for its religious orthodoxy, it also emphasized the social obligations of living as a Christian, and this included a rather “radical” commitment to the emancipation of blacks and women (Joas 1985:15).

--Reflexivity was especially important to Mead in developing the concepts of mind and self. Mead argues that the essential condition for the appearance of mind is that the individual, in acting toward and adjusting to objects in the social environment, also takes into account himself as an object in relation to the other objects present. It is by means of “reflexiveness”-the turning back of the experience of the individual upon himself or herself-that persons are able to take the attitude of the other toward them.”Reflexivenes”, is the essential condition, within the social process, for the development of mind.” (1934:134)

--For Mead the thinking process is the internalized dialogue between the internalized dialogue between the “I” and the “Me.” The “Me” is the accumulated understanding of “the Generalized Other” i.e. how one thinks one’s group perceives oneself. The “I” is the knower, and the “Me” is the known. The mind, or stream of thought, is the self-reflective movement of the interaction between the “I” and the “Me.” These dynamics go beyond selfhood in a narrow sense, and form the basis of a theory of human cognition. (Joas 1985: 166)

--According to Mead, the notion of “rights” makes sense only to the extent that self-consciousness arises as we take on the attitude of others, that is, as we assume the attitude of assent of all members of the community (the “generalized other”). Mead’s stated, “The World Court and the League of Nations are other such social objects that sketch out common plans of action if there are national selves that can realize themselves in the collaborating attitudes of others.” (1959: 195)

References

- - Joas, Hans. 1985. G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-examination of His Thoughts, Translated by R. Meyer. Cambridge, MA: MT Press.

- - 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, edited by C. W. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

- - 1959. The Philosophy of the Present, edited by A. E. Murphy. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.