Your points are well taken. I do wish to point out two maybe three
things which are the basis of the views I expressed. Your Kantian view
of inner tuition and outer experience is understood and certainly a major
component of Mead's work. Yet, if I go a step further, as Blumer did, and
recognize that we act on the basis of meanings produced and modified
through social interaction and interpretive process, then the
internalization of Eurocentric norms (as Mead advocated) comes into conflict
with the reservation experience. While the city experience might build
on the rural experience for many. It might also come into conflict with
the rural experiences of others.
The second point, perhaps just an expansion of the first, is that in a
Euroamerican city environment Mead's phases of "other", what Manis and
Meltzer called "interplay" do not permit a DuBois-like double
environment or double consciousness. As such parts, but not all of me
must be left behind on a temporary basis. Otherwise the building of the
city experience on top of the reservation experience becomes cultural
genocide.
Richar