If I were to say that in sociology we have observed a ghostly debate with
Weber arguing with the ghost of Marx who argued with the ghost of Hegel, I
could also say that this debate is adumbrated in Mead's statements, for he
is arguing with the ghost of John Watson the behaviorist.
Whereas Watson described behavior as S->R, Stimulus evoking Response, the
Symbolic Interactionist began by describing behavior as S->(I)->R, Stimulus
(Symbol) evoking an interaction (the mind as action) which leads to a
response. No longer are humans just more complicated versions of mice in
mazes, but because of human ability to manipulate reality symbolically,
humans can perceive an activity culminating in an objective, and the
difference between behavior, which the behaviorists offered, and activity,
which Mead offered, is that volition is accounted for, and activity is above
behavior, and there are more than ethological considerations involved in
parsing human behavior.
Activity is behavior going somewhere. Now we can understand why humans
societies have changed from generation to generation while generations of
birds, dogs, monkeys, etc., replicate and recapitulate without alteration.
Jon asks what the difference mind as activity makes in considering
psychological approaches to human behavior in which the personality is a
central concept. Generally, personality in its most psychologically genial
form is a series of measurable characteristics which can be tested, and this
can be accomplished by standardized tests, permitting comparisons over great
universes of people.
In the discussion we have been engaged in, one person reflected on her
reticence to give up the concept of personality. In a society like ours
personality has been given a strong place in everyday life beyond its status
as a psychological concept, and I have no doubt that this reification of a
psychological concept into an integral element of self makes such a
reticence understandable. It is more a statement as to how our society is
psychologized than it is descriptive of an aspect of human behavior.
However, for me, consciousness is a much more important aspect of self
because it is that part of the human organism where volition lies.
Consciousness is that aspect that controls activity, attempts to determine
outcome, and consequently is present in a foremost role as the participating
interlocutor in interaction. In fact, consciousness may be considered to be
a social product, for its engagement with social action is continuous.
Jerry Blaz
>
>1) Charon, following from Mead, states that "Mind is action, action that
>uses symbols, and directs these symbols towards the self." Despite the fact
>that this is a horrible sentence grammatically, and could be better read as:
>'Mind is symbolic action directed towards the self'" it contains several
>important sociological ideas about "psychology." First is the idea of mind.
>In this usage "mind" is not a thing, it is more akin to a verb.
>(Mead discusses "minded behavior, which is to use the adjective form).
>Given this, can somebody be "out of their mind," or "not in their
>right mind?" How can this conception of mind be compared to
>the psychological ideas of "personality" and "consciousness."
>Jon
>
>
Jerry Blaz/The BOOKie Joint
7246 Reseda Blvd.
Reseda, CA 91335
(818)345-2983/(818)343-1055
ffdog@earthlink.net
Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a good book.
Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.
G. Marx