George Herbert Mead

 1. Early Life and Background

   – Birth and Family: George Herbert Mead was born on February 27, 1863, in South Hadley, Massachusetts, USA. He was the son of Hiram Mead, a Congregationalist minister, and Elizabeth Storrs Billings Mead, who was a deeply religious and highly educated woman.

   – Educational Environment: Mead grew up in an environment that valued education and intellectual pursuits. His mother, Elizabeth, was especially influential in his early education, encouraging critical thinking and a love of learning.

 2. Education and Intellectual Influences

   – Oberlin College: Mead enrolled at Oberlin College in Ohio in 1879 at the age of 16. Oberlin was known for its progressive values, including the promotion of coeducation and abolitionism. This environment exposed Mead to a wide range of ideas and social issues.

     – Early Interests: During his time at Oberlin, Mead developed a strong interest in philosophy, literature, and science. He was particularly drawn to the works of Charles Darwin and the emerging ideas about evolution, which would later influence his thinking about human behavior and society.

   – Harvard University: After graduating from Oberlin in 1883, Mead briefly attended Harvard University, where he studied philosophy and psychology under some of the most prominent scholars of the time, including Josiah Royce and William James. James, in particular, had a lasting impact on Mead with his ideas about pragmatism and the philosophy of action.

   – Early Struggles: After leaving Harvard, Mead faced a period of uncertainty. He worked a series of jobs, including teaching high school, but he struggled to find a clear direction in his career. This period of his life was marked by financial difficulties and a sense of aimlessness.

   – Experience in Germany: In 1888, Mead traveled to Germany to continue his studies at the University of Leipzig and the University of Berlin. This was a pivotal moment in his intellectual development. In Germany, Mead was exposed to the ideas of Wilhelm Wundt, who is often considered the father of experimental psychology. Wundt’s focus on the importance of understanding human consciousness through social and cultural contexts deeply influenced Mead’s later work on the social nature of the self.

 4. How He Entered Sociology

   – Academic Career: Upon returning to the United States, Mead secured a teaching position at the University of Michigan in 1891. It was here that Mead began to collaborate with Charles Horton Cooley and John Dewey, both of whom were interested in social psychology and philosophy.

     – Collaboration with John Dewey: Mead’s collaboration with Dewey was particularly significant. Dewey, a leading figure in the pragmatist movement, helped Mead to refine his ideas about the connection between individual consciousness and social processes. When Dewey moved to the University of Chicago in 1894, he brought Mead with him, marking the beginning of Mead’s long and influential career at Chicago.

   – Influence on Sociology: At the University of Chicago, Mead became increasingly interested in the emerging field of sociology. His work began to focus more on the social aspects of human behavior, particularly how individuals develop a sense of self through interactions with others. Mead’s ideas about symbolic interactionism, though not fully recognized as a distinct theory until after his death, were rooted in his interdisciplinary approach that combined psychology, philosophy, and sociology.

George Herbert Mead, despite being a highly influential figure in sociology and social psychology, published relatively few works during his lifetime. His most significant contributions were compiled and published posthumously by his students. Here are his major works:

 1. Theory of the Social Self

   – Overview: Mead’s theory of the social self is central to his work and explains how individual identity is formed through social interactions. This theory is extensively discussed in the book “Mind, Self, and Society“, a compilation of Mead’s lectures edited by his students.

   – Key Components:

     – The “I” and the “Me“: The self is composed of two parts:

       – “I”: The spontaneous, unpredictable aspect of the self that is the source of creativity and individuality.

       – “Me”: The socialized aspect of the self, which represents the internalized attitudes, norms, and expectations of society.

     – Generalized Other: The concept of the generalized other is integral to Mead’s theory and represents the internalized sense of society’s norms and values. Mead’s ideas about the generalized other have been further elaborated by thinkers such as Herbert Blumer, who coined the term symbolic interactionism and expanded upon Mead’s work.

 2. Symbolic Interactionism

   – Overview: Although the term symbolic interactionism was coined by Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer, it is deeply rooted in Mead’s work. This theory is extensively discussed in Mead’s lectures and writings, particularly in “Mind, Self, and Society”, where Mead explores how human beings interact with each other through symbols, primarily language.

   – Key Ideas:

     – Symbols and Language: Symbols (such as words, gestures, and objects) carry meaning, and it is through the use of these symbols that people communicate and understand each other.

     – Interpretation: Interaction is based on the interpretation of these symbols, and the meaning is not inherent in the symbols themselves but is derived from social interactions. This idea is also explored by other sociologists like Erving Goffman in his book “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life”.

     – Society as a Social Construction: Mead’s work influenced other thinkers, such as Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, who further developed the idea of society as a social construction in their seminal book “The Social Construction of Reality”.

 3. The Stages of the Development of the Self

   – Overview: Mead proposed that the self develops in stages, closely tied to the process of socialization, particularly during childhood. These stages are detailed in “Mind, Self, and Society”.

    Stages:

     – Preparatory Stage: In this stage, children imitate the actions of those around them without understanding the meanings. They are not yet aware of the concept of the self.

     – Play Stage: Children begin to take on roles that others around them assume, such as pretending to be a parent, teacher, or superhero. They start to see themselves as others see them but only in isolated roles.

     – Game Stage: Children learn to consider multiple roles simultaneously, understanding the expectations of the generalized other. This stage reflects Mead’s influence from thinkers like Charles Horton Cooley, who introduced the concept of the looking-glass self in his book “Human Nature and the Social Order”.

 4. Role-Taking

   – Definition: Role-taking refers to the ability to take the perspective of others, to understand their thoughts, feelings, and expectations. This concept is crucial in Mead’s understanding of how individuals become social beings, and it is elaborated in “Mind, Self, and Society”.

   – Significance: Through role-taking, individuals learn how to behave in socially acceptable ways and how to anticipate the reactions of others. This ability is fundamental to functioning in society and has been further explored by sociologists like Erving Goffman in his analysis of social roles and interactions.

 5. Mind, Self, and Society

   – Overview: This is not a theory per se but the title of a collection of Mead’s lectures compiled by his students, which encapsulates much of his thinking. The book covers his views on the relationship between individual consciousness (the mind), the self, and social processes.

   – Key Concepts:

     – Mind: According to Mead, the mind emerges from social interactions. It involves the ability to use symbols, particularly language, to think and communicate.

     – Self: The self is a social construct, developed through interaction with others and the internalization of societal norms. Mead’s concept of the self has influenced later works, such as George Herbert Blumer’s book “Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method”.

     – Society: Society is composed of organized patterns of social interactions and relationships, and it exists in the minds of individuals who share common symbols and meanings. This idea has also been echoed in the works of sociologists like Alfred Schutz, who explored the subjective meaning of social actions in his book “The Phenomenology of the Social World”.

 6. Significant Symbols

   – Definition: Significant symbols are gestures, words, or objects that carry the same meaning for all members of a society or group. They allow for effective communication because they evoke the same response in both the individual using them and the individual receiving them. This concept is a key component of Mead’s theory of communication as discussed in “Mind, Self, and Society”.

   – Example: A handshake, a spoken word, or a national flag can be considered significant symbols because they convey specific, shared meanings. The importance of symbols in communication has been further explored by Clifford Geertz in his book “The Interpretation of Cultures”.

 7. Social Behaviorism

   – Overview: Mead’s approach to understanding human behavior, known as social behaviorism, emphasizes that human actions are a result of social processes rather than merely biological or psychological drives. This approach is elaborated in “The Philosophy of the Act”, another posthumously published work by Mead.

   – Key Points:

     – Behavior as Social: Behavior is influenced by social interactions and the environment, and cannot be fully understood without considering these contexts.

     – Importance of Communication: Communication, particularly through symbols, is central to human behavior, as it allows individuals to coordinate their actions and understand each other. This idea of communication as central to social behavior has influenced later communication theories, including those by Jürgen Habermas, who explored the concept of communicative action in his book “The Theory of Communicative Action”.

 8. Generalized Other

   – Definition: The generalized other is a concept that refers to the internalized attitudes, expectations, and viewpoints of society as a whole. It represents the perspective that individuals take into account when considering how their behavior is viewed by the broader community. This concept is thoroughly discussed in “Mind, Self, and Society”.

   – Importance: The generalized other is crucial for the development of the self, as it allows individuals to function within and conform to societal norms and expectations. This idea has been influential in the development of social theories, such as those by Pierre Bourdieu in his work on habitus and social fields.

 9. Gestures

   – Definition: In Mead’s theory, gestures are movements or signals that provoke a response from others. They are a key part of communication and can be either vocal (e.g., spoken words) or non-vocal (e.g., body language). Mead’s discussion on gestures can be found in “Mind, Self, and Society”.

   – Significance: Gestures become significant symbols when they elicit the same response in both the individual using the gesture and the one receiving it, leading to shared understanding. This concept has been further developed in the field of nonverbal communication by thinkers like Edward T. Hall in his book “The Hidden Dimension”.

 10. Social Acts

   – Definition: A social act is a complex sequence of actions that involves multiple individuals and is coordinated through communication. Social acts are fundamental to the creation and maintenance of society. This idea is explored in “The Philosophy of the Act”.

   – Components: Mead breaks down social acts into stages, including the impulse, perception, manipulation, and consummation. Each stage involves different aspects of interaction and communication. The concept of social acts has influenced the study of collective behavior and social movements, as discussed by Neil Smelser in “Theory of Collective Behavior”.

 11. The “Conversation of Gestures”

   – Definition: This term refers to the exchange of gestures between individuals that leads to communication and mutual understanding. It is a pre-verbal form of communication, seen in animals and infants, and it forms the basis for more complex forms of communication like language. This concept is discussed in “Mind, Self, and Society”.

   – Development into Language: As the conversation of gestures becomes more sophisticated, it evolves into symbolic communication, where gestures and sounds are combined into meaningful language. This idea has been influential in the study of linguistics and language development, as seen in the works of Noam Chomsky, particularly in “Aspects of the Theory of Syntax”.

Mead’s work is deeply influential in sociology, psychology, and philosophy. The theories, concepts, and terms he developed, often captured in the books compiled by his students, continue to be foundational in the study of social interaction and the development of the self. These ideas have been further elaborated and expanded upon by numerous thinkers, making Mead a pivotal figure in the sociology.

Critics of G. H. Mead

 1. C. Wright Mills

   – Critique: C. Wright Mills, a prominent sociologist known for his work on power structures and the sociological imagination, criticized symbolic interactionism, the tradition largely derived from Mead’s ideas, for its perceived overemphasis on small-scale interactions at the expense of larger social structures.

   – Contribution:

     – In his book “The Sociological Imagination” (1959), Mills argued that symbolic interactionism, including Mead’s focus on micro-level interactions, neglects the broader social forces and institutions that shape individual behavior. He believed that a focus on power dynamics and structural factors was essential to understanding society.

 2. Talcott Parsons

   – Critique: Talcott Parsons, a leading figure in structural functionalism, criticized Mead’s theories for their focus on individual interactions and their lack of emphasis on social structures and institutions.

   – Contribution:

     – Parsons argued that Mead’s symbolic interactionism failed to account for the macro-level processes that maintain social order. In his book “The Structure of Social Action” (1937), Parsons developed a framework that emphasized the role of social systems, norms, and institutions in shaping individual behavior, contrasting with Mead’s focus on the micro-level development of the self.

 3. Randall Collins

   – Critique: Randall Collins, a sociologist known for his work in conflict theory and micro-sociology, has critiqued Mead for underestimating the role of power and conflict in social interactions.

   – Contribution:

     – Collins argued that Mead’s emphasis on consensus and the formation of the self through interaction overlooks the inherent conflicts and power struggles in social relationships. In his book “Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science” (1975), Collins emphasized the importance of conflict, coercion, and power dynamics in understanding social behavior, which he felt were not adequately addressed by Mead.

 4. Louis Althusser

   – Critique: Louis Althusser, a Marxist philosopher and sociologist, critiqued symbolic interactionism, including Mead’s work, for its perceived focus on individual consciousness rather than structural determinants.

   – Contribution:

     – Althusser argued that Mead’s theories downplayed the influence of ideology and social structures on individual thought and behavior. In his work “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” (1970), Althusser proposed that individual consciousness is shaped by dominant ideologies, which are embedded in social institutions, challenging the symbolic interactionist focus on individual agency.

 5. Michel Foucault

   – Critique: Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and social theorist, critiqued Mead’s approach for its lack of attention to the ways in which power relations permeate everyday life and the construction of the self.

   – Contribution:

     – Foucault argued that Mead’s theories overlooked the role of disciplinary power in shaping individual identities and behaviors. In his works such as “Discipline and Punish” (1975) and “The History of Sexuality” (1976), Foucault explored how power operates through social institutions and discourses to construct and regulate the self, offering a critique of Mead’s more benign view of socialization and interaction.

 6. Pierre Bourdieu

   – Critique: Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, critiqued Mead’s symbolic interactionism for its lack of consideration of the influence of social capital and habitus on social interactions and the development of the self.

   – Contribution:

     – Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus (the internalized dispositions shaped by social structures) and social capital (resources available through social networks) suggest that Mead’s theories inadequately address how social structures and power relations shape individual behaviors and identities. In his book “Outline of a Theory of Practice” (1972), Bourdieu emphasized the structural constraints on individual agency, challenging Mead’s more interactionist perspective.

 7. Jürgen Habermas

   – Critique: While Jürgen Habermas was influenced by Mead, he also critiqued Mead’s theory for its perceived lack of focus on the communicative rationality necessary for democratic deliberation.

   – Contribution:

     – Habermas appreciated Mead’s insights into communication and interaction but argued that Mead did not fully develop the concept of rational communication in the context of democracy and public discourse. In “The Theory of Communicative Action” (1981), Habermas expanded on Mead’s ideas by introducing the notion of communicative rationality, where participants in discourse seek mutual understanding and consensus, which he felt was underemphasized in Mead’s work.

 8. Anthony Giddens

   – Critique: Anthony Giddens, known for his theory of structuration, critiqued Mead’s symbolic interactionism for its lack of integration between structure and agency.

   – Contribution:

     – Giddens argued that Mead’s focus on micro-level interactions does not sufficiently address how larger social structures and individual actions are interrelated. In his work “The Constitution of Society” (1984), Giddens introduced the theory of structuration, which attempts to bridge the gap between agency and structure, offering a more comprehensive approach than Mead’s interactionism.

These sociologists and theorists have critiqued Mead’s theories for various reasons, including their perceived emphasis on micro-level interactions at the expense of larger social structures, power dynamics, and ideological influences. While they recognized the value of Mead’s work, they sought to expand or correct what they saw as its limitations, contributing to the development of more comprehensive sociological theories.

 Below are some key figures who were influenced by Mead :

 1. Herbert Blumer

   – Influence by Mead: Herbert Blumer was a direct student of George Herbert Mead and is credited with coining the term symbolic interactionism, which encapsulates many of Mead’s ideas.

   – Contribution:

     – Symbolic Interactionism: Blumer formalized Mead’s ideas into a coherent sociological theory that focuses on how people create and interpret symbols in social interactions. His book, “Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method” (1969), is foundational in the field and outlines the principles of this theoretical framework.

     – Social Action and Meaning: Blumer emphasized that human actions are based on the meanings that things have for them, and these meanings arise out of social interactions. This idea is directly derived from Mead’s focus on communication and the social construction of reality.

 2. Erving Goffman

   – Influence by Mead: Erving Goffman was influenced by Mead’s ideas about the self and social interaction, particularly the concept of role-taking and the development of the self through interaction.

   – Contribution:

     – Dramaturgical Analysis: In his seminal work “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” (1956), Goffman introduced the dramaturgical approach, which analyzes social interaction as a theatrical performance where individuals manage their impressions in front of others. This idea parallels Mead’s concept of the self as emerging through social roles and interactions.

     – Interaction Order: Goffman expanded Mead’s ideas by focusing on the structure of everyday interactions and the unwritten social rules that guide behavior in various social settings.

 3. Charles Horton Cooley

   – Influence by Mead: Although Cooley and Mead were contemporaries and influenced each other, Cooley’s concept of the looking-glass self shares significant similarities with Mead’s ideas on the social self.

   – Contribution:

     – Looking-Glass Self: Cooley’s idea that individuals form their self-concepts based on how they believe others perceive them closely aligns with Mead’s concept of the “Me.” This theory is detailed in Cooley’s book “Human Nature and the Social Order” (1902).

     – Primary Groups: Cooley also contributed to the understanding of primary groups (such as family and close friends) as fundamental to the development of the self, furthering the idea that the self is a social construct.

 4. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann

   – Influence by Mead: Berger and Luckmann’s work on the social construction of reality draws on Mead’s ideas about how reality is constructed through social interaction and communication.

   – Contribution:

     – Social Construction of Reality: In their influential book “The Social Construction of Reality” (1966), Berger and Luckmann argue that society is created and maintained through ongoing social interactions. They build on Mead’s idea that society and the self are products of communicative processes.

     – Institutionalization and Legitimation: They further explored how social norms and institutions become established and maintained, a process that Mead hinted at with his concept of the generalized other.

 5. Harold Garfinkel

   – Influence by Mead: Harold Garfinkel was influenced by Mead’s work on social interaction and the construction of meaning.

   – Contribution:

     – Ethnomethodology: Garfinkel founded the field of ethnomethodology, which studies the everyday methods people use to make sense of their social world. His book “Studies in Ethnomethodology” (1967) examines how people produce and maintain social order through communication and interaction, building on Mead’s ideas about the social nature of reality.

     – Breaching Experiments: Garfinkel’s famous breaching experiments, which involve breaking social norms to study how people react, echo Mead’s focus on the expectations and norms embedded in the generalized other.

 6. Jürgen Habermas

   – Influence by Mead: Jürgen Habermas was influenced by Mead’s work on communication and the social self, particularly in developing his theories on communicative action.

   – Contribution:

     – Theory of Communicative Action: In his work “The Theory of Communicative Action” (1981), Habermas builds on Mead’s ideas by focusing on the role of communication in the rationalization and democratization of society. He argues that social order is created through communicative action, where individuals reach mutual understanding through dialogue.

     – Public Sphere: Habermas’s concept of the public sphere, where citizens engage in rational debate, also draws on Mead’s ideas about the social nature of communication and the importance of shared symbols and meanings.

 7. Ralph H. Turner

   – Influence by Mead: Ralph H. Turner, another student of Mead, was influenced by his mentor’s ideas about the self and social interaction.

   – Contribution:

     – Role Theory: Turner developed role theory, which examines how individuals fulfill social roles and the expectations associated with them. His book “The Social Psychology of Role-Taking” (1956) builds directly on Mead’s concepts of role-taking and the generalized other.

     – Role Conflict: Turner also explored how individuals manage conflicting roles and the tensions that arise from these conflicts, furthering Mead’s work on the complexity of the self in a social context.

 8. Norbert Wiley

   – Influence by Mead: Norbert Wiley was influenced by Mead’s ideas on the self and symbolic interaction.

   – Contribution:

     – The Semiotic Self: In his book “The Semiotic Self” (1994), Wiley builds on Mead’s work by integrating it with semiotics, the study of signs and symbols. He explores how the self is constructed through symbolic processes, drawing on Mead’s ideas about the “I” and the “Me.”

     – Mead’s Legacy: Wiley has also contributed to the interpretation and extension of Mead’s ideas, particularly in understanding how language and symbols shape the self.

These sociologists and thinkers extended Mead’s foundational ideas, contributing to the development of symbolic interactionism, role theory, and the social construction of reality, among other fields. Their work has continued to shape the understanding of human interaction, communication, and the development of the self in sociological theory.

 Books of G. H. Mead

Significant contributions were compiled and published posthumously by his students. Here are his major works:

 1. “Mind, Self, and Society” (1934)

   – Overview: This is Mead’s most famous work, compiled by his student Charles W. Morris from lecture notes and unpublished manuscripts. The book explores the relationship between individual consciousness and social structures, introducing key concepts like the self, the “I” and the “Me,” the generalized other, and symbolic interaction.

   – Significance: “Mind, Self, and Society” is foundational in the field of symbolic interactionism and is widely regarded as one of the most important texts in social psychology.

 2. “The Philosophy of the Present” (1932)

   – Overview: This book is based on a series of lectures that Mead delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1930. It was published posthumously by his student Arthur E. Murphy. The book explores Mead’s philosophy of time, the present as a dynamic moment where the past and future converge, and the role of experience in shaping reality.

   – Significance: “The Philosophy of the Present” highlights Mead’s contributions to process philosophy and his emphasis on the temporality of human experience.

 3. “The Philosophy of the Act” (1938)

   – Overview: Another posthumous publication, “The Philosophy of the Act” was edited by Charles W. Morris, John M. Brewster, Albert M. Dunham, and David L. Miller. The book presents Mead’s thoughts on the nature of action, perception, and the interrelation of the individual and the environment.

   – Significance: This work delves into Mead’s pragmatic approach to action and perception, providing insights into how human beings engage with their surroundings.

 4. “Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century” (1936)

   – Overview: This book was compiled from lecture notes by Mead’s students. It surveys the major intellectual developments of the 19th century, including the rise of German idealism, Darwinism, and the development of social sciences.

   – Significance: This work offers a historical perspective on the intellectual currents that influenced Mead’s own thinking and the development of sociology.

 5. “Essays in Social Psychology” (1934)

   – Overview: This collection, published after Mead’s death, brings together various essays and articles written by Mead on social psychology. These essays cover topics such as the nature of social behavior, the development of the self, and the role of language in human interaction.

   – Significance: The essays provide a comprehensive view of Mead’s thoughts on social psychology, complementing the ideas presented in “Mind, Self, and Society.”

 6. “Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead” (1964)

   – Overview: Edited by Andrew J. Reck, this volume includes a selection of Mead’s key writings across various topics, including philosophy, psychology, and social theory. It is an excellent resource for those looking to explore Mead’s ideas in a more condensed format.

   – Significance: This collection offers readers a broader view of Mead’s intellectual contributions beyond the themes explored in his more famous works.

 7. “The Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert Mead” (1982)

   – Overview: Edited by David L. Miller, this volume brings together unpublished manuscripts by Mead that were not included in his more famous books. It provides deeper insights into his thoughts on the relationship between the individual and society.

   – Significance: The book is valuable for scholars interested in exploring the full range of Mead’s ideas and the development of his thought.

 8. “Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist” (1934)

   – Overview: This is an alternative title for the widely known “Mind, Self, and Society,” highlighting the behaviorist perspective from which Mead approached social psychology. It emphasizes the importance of social behavior in the formation of the self.

   – Significance: The text is central to understanding the development of symbolic interactionism and the behaviorist influences on Mead’s work.

 9. “Play, School, and Society” (2001)

   – Overview: This book is a collection of essays and articles by Mead, focusing on the role of play and education in socialization and the development of the self.

   – Significance: The book is important for understanding Mead’s views on education, play, and their role in shaping social behavior.

Mead’s publications, though limited in number, have had a lasting impact on sociology, psychology, and philosophy. His works are central to the development of symbolic interactionism and continue to influence contemporary social theory.

George Herbert Mead Quiz

Submit