Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social identity versus personal identity
Personal versus social identity
Social identity versus personal identity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social identity versus personal identity
As a Psychologist it may be expected that Mead’s conception of mind would place the person centre stage, however his interpretation of Behaviourist theory allows for the actions, and certainly the physiology of the individual to become a matter of external interpretation. Mead speaks of Qualia and experience (Mead, 1967: 5) in a way that seemingly looks purely at individual phenomenology. However whilst Mead initially seems to explore what the individual is directly acquainted with in the mental faculties the reasons may be wrapped up in a somewhat more objectively universalised study (Mead, 1969: 65) i.e. through behaviour. A single definitive answer to this question may initially seem to be difficult to defend as the question lends its self to a variety of interpretations. A further complication to this debate may come about as a result of the fact that “Mind, Self and Society” was produced posthumously. This work, as an assimilation of his students lecture notes, was assembled based on the ideas he conveyed during his lifetime. In order to achieve true accuracy and depth in our understanding it is important to cross reference this book with other works by Mead.
In many ways it may be argued that both Mead and Wundt saw individual psychology as a flawed system of discourse and as such a social psychology should be pursued (Joas, 1980: 95). Mead was not arguing that there isn’t individual psychology; he simply argued that there are individual minds taking part in social interactions as “no self is complete in itself apart from the community” (Miller, 1975: 69). In effect Mead’s whole concept of an individual is contingent upon the community. Whilst this may be contested it may appear that Mead simply ignores the individual ph...
... middle of paper ...
...lf & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist, London, University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G.H. (1969) ed Strauss, A. On Social Psychology Selected Papers. Third Edition. London, University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G.H. (1972) ed Morris, C.W, The philosophy of the Act, London, University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G.H. (1981) ed Reck, A.J. Selected Writings George Herbert Mead. London, University of Chicago Press.
Miller, D.L. (1975) Josiah Royce and George H. Mead on the Nature of the Self, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 11, (2) pp. 67-89, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319730. Accessed 24/11/2011.
Pinchin, C, (1990) Issues in Philosophy, Hampshire, Macmillan Education LTD. Pp 97-99.
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2008) George Herbert Mead [Online] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mead/#IMe. [Accessed 24/11/2011]
Beilock, Sian. How the Body Knows Its Mind. New York, NY: Atria Books, 2015. Print. (152-158)
Myers, David G. “Chapter 14: Social Psychology.” Psychology. 10th ed. New York, NY US: Worth
Updike, John. "A & P." Literature (4th ed). Ed. Robert DiYanni. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Thiroux, J. P., & Krasemann, K. W. (2009). Ethics: Theory and practice (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Stevenson, Leslie. The Study of Human Nature: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Harmon, William, and C. Hugh Holman. A Handbook to Literature. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996.
...onson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R.M. (2013). Social Psychology (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Waiten,W., (2007) Seventh Edition Psychology Themes and Variations. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: Thomson Wadsworth.
6.) Giddens, Anthony, Duneier, Mitchell, and Appelbaum, Richard P. Introduction to Sociology: Fourth Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2003.
There are many explanations for the origins of modern social psychology. It is therefore important to consider that social psychology cannot be traced back to one single source of origin (Burr, 2003). Hence, this is the reason why there are debates of what social psychology is. Allport (1985) described social psychology as the study an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours which are influenced by the actual, imagines, or implied presence of others. As seen from this definition there is a direct link between social science and the individual psychology (Sewell, 1989). Social psychology cannot be seen as a linear phenomenon. This is because social psychology has been derived from a combination of influences. The development of social psychology can be discussed in two different ways. Firstly, social psychology is argued to be found upon political movements and social philosophies in the United Stated of America (US). Secondly, it can be argued that social psychology has developed in response to social and political needs.
Isreal, J. & Tajfel, H. (1972). The Context Of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment. University Of California: Acad Press. P57.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self and society and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Humans are designed to act with self-awareness, apply self-control, illustrate conscience, guiltiness, and make decisions based on some symbol of what they are, what they have been, as well as what they desire to be. Development of self has numerous descriptions including the development of physical or motor self to that of the mind. In the center of this all, three sociologists, including Charles Horton Cooley, George Herbert Mead, and Jean Piaget offer varying views on the development of self. The varying theories offered by these and other sociologists means that there is no universally accepted concept of development of self or how people come to aware of themselves. In fact, each individual has their own answer when it comes to answering
Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978
Mead emphasized the role of thinking and language in social life. Language is a neutral means for symbolically communicating with others. His non-rationalist orientation derives from his explanation of the role of mental behaviors before we prepare to act with others and the role of language and self-objectification in thinking. Mead doe does not attribute maximization of rewards and minimization of costs to individual motivation--he states that people are motivated by social habits and the approval or disapproval of others; this is a non-rationalist motivating force affecting our behaviors.