GEORGE HE3BLRrP MEAD'S CONCEPTION

OF SOCIAL ORDER AND COMMUNICATION

G a r r y F. R o b i n

B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f M a n i t o b a 19b5

A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL

FULFILLNENT OF THE REQUIREMEN'TS

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

i n t h e

B e h a v i o r a l Science F o u n d a t i o n

@ GARRY F. ROBIN, 1373

S1b;ON FRASER UNIVERSITY

A u ~ s t , 1973

APPROVAL

Name: Carry F. Robin

Degree: Master of Arts

T i t l e of Thesis: George Perbert Mead's Concention of Social

Order and Communication.

Zxamining Committee:

I I . . >

Fred Brown Senior Supervisor

Naurice Halaerin Examining Committee

-

Ecamining Committee

V i c t o r C . F e r k i s s . Examining Committee

D a t e : August 1 3 t h . 1 9 7 3 .

I h e r e b y p a n t t o Simon F r n s c r U n i v e r s i t y t h e r i g h t t o lend

,,.,- : f 5 ,Tr -1: ;ci..-+ . . - & - . ; .... -- {t!;c t i t l e n i w h i c h i s shovn 'helow) t o u s e r s

- . - . . . .. . - - . , , - . - - - - - - . . - - ' . _ , . _ _ . _ , - - . - z - * , - . - , ' - - <.:-: - - - - - - - . . - 2 - , - - =

c o p i e s o n l y f o r s u c h u s c r s o r i n r e s p o n s e t o a r e q u e s t f r o a t h e iibrary

oi a n y o t h c r u n i v e r s i t y , o r o t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , on i t s own

b e h a l f o r f o r one of i t s u s e r s . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r

mu1 t i p l e copy ing of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d

b y ne o r t h e Dean of Gradua te S t u d i e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t copy ing

o r p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l owed

w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .

T i t l e o f T h e s i s / D i s s e r t a t i o n :

George Herbert P!eadfs Conception of Social Order and

A u t h o r : --- I . .

( s i g f a t u r e )

G a r r ~ Robin.

(name )

, / f b d 2 ( d a t e )

T h i s t h e s i z i r , conccrnc,! w i t h Ccor;;c i i e r b c r t :.:c~:!'z ;ttc;:l?tr, t o

l o c a t e what wc ~ r c di.;,)o:;cd t o c d l "inind" i n t h c n a t u r a l r io r ld , anti \.it?,

t h e p h i l o s o i ~ h i c ; ~ l ,nro'oleins st cnnic,; f r o n t h i s n t t e;n,t. ::exit s re l ;~ t , iv i : ; t i c

t r e z t m e n t o f t i m e r;nd s i x c e , c~nd it; bearin,- u,3on t h e r c l ~ t i o n of

o r & m i c 2 e r s p e c t i v e s t o t h e "2hysic t i l ti;in,atf wnich & r e t h e i r f o c u s is

. .. examined. Tho t h e z i s e j ;? lorcs sonc c ~ q e c t s o i t h e 2roSlcr1 1.9 .,IcLL:!'s

work o f d e t e r m i n i n g a l o g i c a l c o n t i n u i t y o f e x 2 e r i c n c e .~ctb;~C!ii t h e "0-aject ' '

of 2wsica . l s c i e n c e and t h e " c c t " o f t h e o r ; ; ~ ~ n i s m . ?or t h i s purpone t h e

rsrfiif i c ~ t i o n s o f :.lead1 s stat cmcnt L k t "uocicL1 5cin;;s a r c thin,;s as

S e f i n i t e l y as p k q s i c a l t h i n g s s r c s o c i a l " a r e ~ ; ~ ? l o , r e c ! d o n g w i t h h i ; .

handl ing of t h e "mind-bodjr" 2ro'ole;n as z r e l a t i o n of orc;:;nii;i-cnironinent.

Yrom t h e s e considerat ion: ; t i le t h e s i a noves t o t k e c,%estion o f how 2 h y s i c a l

o b j e c t s cone t o be r e 2 r e s e n t c Z t o t h e or<;anicn LS o b j e c t s o f i t s e x p x i e n c e .

Xeaa 's t r e a t m e n t o f t h e e v o l u t i o n ~f t h e g e s t u r e , t h e s i ~ m i f i c n n t symbol

and t h e s o c i a l r o l e s as t h e 2 a r e dcvelo2ed i n human c o e n u n i c a t i o n , is

t h e r e f o r e examined i n some d e t ~ i l .

The p r p o s e of t h e t h e s i a i a t o show, t h r o u z h ;;ccdl s work, how t h e

c o a l o f l l s o c i a l order1' i s r e a l i z e d as z rnan i fcs ta t io r , o f t h e ?rocer,ses

by hh ich t h e o r , p n i c i n d i v i d u a l r e a c h e s se l f -consciou;ness , i .e . thonc of

comnunication b o t h w i t h h imse l f and o t h e r s , and of d e l i b e r a t e m a n i p u l ~ t i o n

o f t h e a c t s i n which he i s engaged as a s o c i a l s e l f .

iii

I am dee?ly g r a t e f u l t o Prof. Fred 3rown f o r h i s

p t i e n c e and e q e r t advice i n supervis in; mjr work.

I would a l s o l i k e t o thank Pro fes so r J. Zaslove

and Diane Einblau f o r t h e i r encouragement and

a s s i s t ance .

ONE: T H E P H Y S I C A L O S J Z C T A 3 A L I F T T E O C E S S

' N O : TH6 R T T R E S ~ T A T I O R OF PXYSICAL 0 3 J E C T S I N ORGANIC ZNVIROXrIDJTAL T M N S A C T I O N

T9BEE: C O ~ ~ ~ ~ N I C A T I G N , I N T E W I O X I L I T Y , AND SGC I E T Y

CONCLUSION

L I S T O F R E F r n D i C E S

31 i3LIOGRAPIIY

INTRODUCTION Part I :

George Herbert Mead, phi losopher and s o c i a l psychologis t , judging

from t h e recorded assessments of t h o s e who have had personal contac t with

him, seemed c e r t a i n l y t o be one of t h e most enigmatic f l p r e s of t h e

Pragmatis t movement. Though h i s way o f t h i n k i n g was o f t e n not wel l under-

s tood he evoked t h e deepest admiration from many of t h e more popular

t h i n k e r s of h i s day, i nc lud ing Dewey and Whitehead. Among h i s acquain-

t ances , t h e r e was a complete convic t ion about h i s personal i n t e g r i t y as

well as a dedica ted c u r i o s i t y about h i s ideas. How could a man, who,

accord ing t o Dewey had d i f f i c u l t y i n making himself understood, i n s p i r e

such a c e r t a i n and p o s i t i v e r eac t ion . Here, i n t h e 20th century s c i e n t i f i c

world, which t r i e d t o reduce human behavior t o a common b i o l o g i c a l o r - I

mental denominator, and which ignored i n d i v i d u a l uniqueness , a n ind iv idua l

emerged, who by s t r i c t l y self-imposed a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e method o f science,

c r ea t ed a mode o f t h i n k i n g so unique and so compelling as t o defy, by

example, t h e p e r s i s t e n t p re s su re s of determinism and absolu t i s m t h a t so

e a s i l y a t t ached themselves t o t h e accomplishments of Science. One f a c t o r

t h a t at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y exp la ins h i s genius was h i s awareness t h a t t h e

s c i e n t i f i c method w a s as much a n o rgan iza t ion of human a c t i v i t y as it w a s

o f t h e problems t h a t it a b s t r a c t e d from t h i s a c t i v i t y . He saw t h a t t h e

meaning of t h e perceptua l o b j e c t , i.e. t h e "phys ica l th ing" o f sc ience ,

t h e va lue system o f s o c i e t y , was i n t r i n s i c t o any f u t u r e outcome o f

whatever pe r sep tua l a c t it evoked from t h e pe rce ive r i n r e l a t i o n t o it.

For t h i s reason, Mead was a b l e t o t a k e s e r i o u s l y t h e r o l e of t h e pe rce ive r

i n determining t h e n a t u r e o f t h e ob jec t . He was c e r t a i n l y aware of h i s

own thought t h a t way, as is a t t e s t e d t o by Dewey; i n h i s i n t roduc t ion t o

Philosophy of t h e Present : "he experienced wi th in himself t h e s t r u g g l e of

-1 a-

i d e a s , hypotheses, presentments , at f i r s t wholly p r i v a t e , a ma t t e r of

i n t i m a t e personal self-hood, t o f i n d and t a k e t h e i r p l a c e i n a n o b j e c t i v e

shared world."

The in f luences upon him i n t h i s ques t were indeed many. Rela t iv i sm,

Romantic Idea l i sm, and Realism were se r ious lycons ide red by him as

cond i t i ons by which h i s Pragmatic viewpoint should be explained. But,

l i k e Dewey and James, h i s u l t i m a t e frame o f r e f e r e n c e was t h a t o f t h e

i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of conduct and exper ience , of hypothes is and experiment.

H i s a t t e n t i o n was, t h e r e f o r e , on thought as a b io-soc ia l p rocess , r a t h e r

t han on a s e t o f p r i n c i p l e s governed by some Absolute All-knowing Mind.

Of p a r t i c u l a r importance t o him i n t h i s were Darwinism, Berl;sonianism,

and t h e philosophy of Samuel Alexander. One c a n ' t h e l p remarking t h e

s i m i l a r i t y of terminology o f Mead's and t h e s e phi losophies . But Mead,

u n l i k e t h e o t h e r s , was scrupulous ly s c i e n t i f i c , and h i s vocabulary kept

i n mind t h e observed f a c t , not as a r a t i o n a l e f o r metaphysical a s s e r t i o n ,

but as a t e s t o f t h e meaning o f hypotheses, and as a dimension of conduct.

Mead a l s o - kept i n mind t h e problem of r o o t i n g i n a sound

technique of empi r i ca l t h i n k i n g , t h e importance of conduct t o t h e outcome

of experienced events . I n f a c t , f o r Mead, t h e explana t ion of such even t s

i n c l u d i n g d a t a on t h e behaviors of t h e most f i n e l y determined phys ica l

p a r t i c l e s l a y i n t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h e y a f fo rded f o r conduct. To account

f o r t h e o r i g i n of such p o s s i b i l i t i e s Mead r e s o r t e d t o a theo ry of per-

s p e c t i v e s , whereby t h e obse rve r o f an o b j e c t i s observ ing himself o r

responding t o h i s conduct from t h e po in t o f view o f t h a t o b j e c t as it

e x i s t s i n h i s experience. The f r u i t f u l r e s u l t s of t h i s d o c t r i n e l e d t o

Mead t o a s s e r t t h e s o c i a l i t y o f t h e mind and t h e s e l f - t h e p l ac ing one-

s e l f i n t h e r o l e of t h e o the r . I n t h i s a r e a he was inf luenced by t h e

s o c i o l o g i s t Char les H. Cooley ' s "sympa ' het i c imaginat ions", a l though he

d i d not e n t i r e l y i d e n t i f y wi th him. However, s o c i a l i t y provided Mead

wi th a poin t of view t h a t enabled him t o exp la in i n d i v i d u a l i t y , s e l v e s ,

o r minds, as t h e y e x i s t e d from t h e i r own pe r spec t ives .

In developing a behaviora l account of s o c i a l i t y Mead found extremely

u s e f u l t h e no t ion of t h e g e s t u r e - t h e s i g n a l l i n g of organism between

each o t h e r t o coord ina te coopera t ive a c t i on , t h e most s o p h i s t i c a t e d form

o f which he termed t h e s i g n i f i c a n t symbol. The g e s t u r e was t h e means by

which t h e i n d i v i d u a l s own a c t i v i t i e s acqu i r ed t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y , i. e.

t hey came i n t o what t h e i n d i v i d u a l perce ived as t h e o the r . Th i s aspec t

of Meads thought gave r i s e t o t h e "symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n i e t " movement i n

modern soc io logy and s o c i a l psychology, headed by Herbert Blumer, &'in&

Goffman, E.L. F a r i s and o t h e r s .

The c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t Mead has madr t o s o c i a l thought i s s t a g g e r i n g

t o say t h e l e a s t , and it w i l l be some t ime y e t be fo re i t s f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e

w i l l be r e a l i z e d . It i s t h e opin ion o f t h i s w r i t e r t h a t t h e map of human

conduct t h a t he has drawn w i l l prove a r e l i a b l e r e sou rce f o r t h e

evo lu t ion o f a t r u l y human community.

Par t 11:

Soc ia l sc ience i n t h e pas t few c e n t u r i e s , has as an o f f shoo t from

t h e momentum o f Newtonian sc ience , sought t o sys temat ize and c o r r e l a t e

what might be c a l l e d " p a t t e r n s o f s o c i a l behavior." I n . so f a r as t h e r e

was a problem of de te rmining such p a t t e r n s it could only manifest i t s e l f

as a discrepancy i n awareness between " indiv idua ls" i n some "soc ie ty t t i n

which they p a r t i c i p a t e d where t h e i r a c t l o n s as individuals could be

measured as a s p e c t s o f a composite whole i n which they meaningfully co-

operated. But such a composite whole had t o r e f e r t o what i n f a c t

" individuals1 ' i n t h e i r own a c t i v i t i e s were doing from t h e po in t o f view

of what w a s o f common concern t o them as "individuals t ' . The farmer who

t i l l e d t h e f i e l d s and took h i s produce t o t h e v i l l a g e market had no i d e a

o f t h e k inds o f c u l t i v a t i o n and market ing procedures t h a t were t o grow

out o f h i s a c t i v i t i e s . 3u t as they were developed he had t o reckon wi th

them i n terms o f what he himself had t o do i n so f a r as h i s own e n t e r p r i s e

was s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e changing cond i t i ons o f t r a n s p o r t a t ion and marketing

techniques. H i s a c t i o n s were t i e d i n t o t h e a c t i o n s o f o thers .

Thus when s o c i a l sc ience i n a t t empt ing t o i n i t i a t e formal procedures

o f i nqu i ry began t o des igna te as unquest ionable f a c t s t h e ex i s t ence of

"individuals", ' t soc i e t i e s " o r "objects" (phys ica l o r s o c i a 1 ) i t w a s forced

eventua l ly t o exp la in t h e s e te rms as outgrowths o f a l i v l n g , "doin@*

h i s t o r i c a l p rocess evolv ing i n a present . I n o t h e r words t h e d e f i n i t i v e

forms of expression of t h e s e terms could be j u s t i f i e d only as they

f a c i l i t a t e d soc io -h i s to r i ca l p rocesses a l r e a d y underway i n t h e same sense

t h a t t h e oxca r t f a c i l i t a t e d t h e development of v i l l a g e markets f o r t h e

farmers produce. It was t h i s t a s k t h a t George Herbert Mead consciously

undertook t o complete and it l e d him t o express , on no unce r t a in terms,

- 2-

t h e movement o r development of at l e a s t t h e i d e a o f a l i v i n g process ,

h i s t o r i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l o r o the rwi se , i n a l l t h e p a t t e r n s of h i s thought.

What t h i s i d e a cons i s t ed o f w i l l be examined i n Chapter I i n t h e context

of a comparison of t h e n o t i o n s o f "animacy" and "inanimacy" as wel l as

t h o s e o f " t h e ac t " of l i v i n g forms and "motion" o f phys ica l bodies ,

I f t h e r e was t o be a s o c i a l p roces s i n t h e doings of I n d i v i d u a l s In

some present t hen t h e a c t s of o t h e r s would i n some sense have t o be t h e r e

i n what t h e ind iv lduz l himself would under take t o do. How t h i s coord ina t ion

of a c t i o n a r i s e s i n t h e form o f communication was ano the r preoccupat ion I"

of Mead and will be d e a l t wi th i n Chapters I1 and 111. 1 I i

I I should poln t out t h a t t h i s t h e s i s i n no way i n t e n d s t o f i n a l i z e

I

Mead's work o r exhaus t ive ly c a t e g o r i z e t h e many in f luences on h i s thought.

Rather , an a t tempt 1s made t o f l l t e r out and c r y s t a l l m e i n simple te rms

i 1 some o f h i s more important i d e a s , and perhaps p re sen t t o t h e r eade r some

examples of h i s method o f thought In t h e conv ic t ion t h a t t h i s w i l l b ea r

p rec ious f r u i t f o r f u r t h e r study.

ob;ervaole:;, a:i3 theri ?r.ccec<s to focus u2on the r e l z t i v e d i f f c r c n c e i n

~ n o - a ; ; e r v : ~ : ~ l e , b:iiere the: 6 3 j c c t :nzy ;,e :;o retiucei? (r,zj. t o t h e zto:::, o r II

zu'j-1-to:3ic ; z r - t i c l e ) that, t h e ~ c i . ~ 30 ;~oss i l ; ) i l i t ; ; of its 3eing a f f e c t ec! d 4,

'37 ck11;e :

';.!,u;; t;!:eri? is a. rc~lity e ::crt.l.r::.;:t - t o a &;rt ic-r;?iiir i n a n j ont e o b j c c.1, but I

o r t h e i r c o ; n u i n t t i o n L-ra d c f i ~ e d t;j. t h e ~ c t i o n o f o t ! ~ e r o b j e c t s c?i; t inpi-

l i v i n g organism, however, i t s r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r t h i n g s i s def ined i n and

by i t s own a c t i v i t y . It is a phys i ca l o b j e c t , composed of "inanimate"

m a t e r i a l s , but what t h e s e m a t e r i a l s a r e depends, not simply on t h e i r

r e l a t i o n s h i p t o o t h e r t h i n g s , but t o t h e organisms response t o o t h e r

t h ings . L i f e , Mead sugges t s , i s a r e f l e x i v e process where t h e organism

u s e s an environment t o s u s t a i n aad extend i t s own process:

"P lan t s and animals .... present t o s c i ence o b j e c t s whose e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r s a r e found not i n t h a t which undergoes t r ans fo rma t ion but i n t h e p roces s i t s e l f and i n t h e forms which t h e ob jec t assumes wi th in t h a t process. Since t h e p roces s involves t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f animal o r p l an t with surrounding o b j e c t s , i t is evident t h a t t h e process of l i f e as r e a l l y c o n f e r s c h a r a c t e r s upon t h e environment as it does upon t h e p l an t o r animal." 3

The s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between animacy and inanimacy i s c r u c i a l

i n Mead's work. We may conceive o f inanimate t h i n g s as i n t e g r a l t o t h e

processes o f animate t h i n g s ( such as water t o p l a n t s ) , but t h e r e v e r s e

i s inconce ivable , s i n c e inanimate t h i n g s do not d i s t i n g u i s h , i n themselves

o r t h e i r surroundings an environment i n which t h e changes t h e y undergo a r e

organized t o s u s t a i n f u r t h e r t h e i r own processes . For example, t h e

s c i e n t i s t who s u s p e c t s t h a t hydrogen and oxygen when combined i n a c e r t a i n

way w i l l produce water and who a r r i v e s through experimentat ion at a s e t

o f cond i t i ons wherein t h i s process t a k e s p l a c e , w i l l never f i n d i n any of

t h e s e cond i t i ons o b j e c t s which i n themselves c r e a t e them. They may &

t h e cond i t i ons but t h e y do not have t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of making them.

The consequence of t h i s view i s fundamental, f o r it means a refram-

i n g of t h e ques t ion of how l i f e emerges out o f a phys i ca l world. U n t i l

now, t h e ques t ion i m p l i c i t l y r a i s e d by sc i ence was, how does t h e l i f e

process answer t h e p r e v a i l i n g laws o f phys i c s which have had undeniably

succes s fu l r e s u l t s i n t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h e f i e l d o f inanimate ob jec t s .

The ques t ion would now have t o read , does not t h e l i f e p roces s cha l lenge

t h e very foundat ions of t h e laws of phys i ca l sc ience such t h a t t h i s body

of knowledge would be unrecognizable i f t h e l i f e process were accepted as

a l e g i t i m a t e man i f e s t a t ion o f a un ive r se presumed sub jec t t o s c i e n t i f i c

laws?

By d e f i n i t i o n phys i ca l o b j e c t s i f t hey a r e mechanically conceived

a r e not i n themselves animate and cannot exp la in animacy. Is a theo ry

conceivable t h a t accounts f o r phys i ca l events as p a r t o f a process o f

l i f e ? Can t h e r e be a change from one sub jec t t o another where t h e cond i t i ons

wi th in t h e f l e l d of t h e change a r e t ransformed by t h e pas s ing of t h a t

change? I f so , how does such a t r ans fo rma t ion of c o n d i t i o n s become t h e

focus by which t h e pas s ing change may s u s t a i n i t s e l f as a n emergent ob jec t

o f t h e consequences t h a t fo l low i n i t s wake.4 An answer would r e q u i r e a

n o t i o n of <n observable phys i ca l o b j e c t whose enduring c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

would be found i n t h e sus tenance o f i t s e l f as a p roces s o f t ransformat ion

o f phys i ca l t h ings . It would have t o be a n o b j e ~ t t h a t could a d j u s t t o

changes i n t ime and space such t h a t by i t s occupat ion o f one f i e l d o f

space and t ime it may occupy ano the r pe r spec t ive toward which t h a t f i e l d

is changing. The animal who f e e l s hunger, hun t s i t s food, e a t s , and then

s t o p s e a t i n g when h i s a p p e t i t e i s s a t e d changes h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o what

he i s doing accord ing t o how t h e l a t t e r pas ses i n t o a s i t u a t i o n i n which

he i s a su rv ivo r , o r a con t inu ing l i fe -process . Thus t h e t rai ts of such

a n o b j e c t would t h u s be desc r ibed as occupying both systems at once, as

'hunger ' d e s c r i b e s t h e l a c k of food as much as t h e d r i v e t o go out and ge t

it. To s t a t e t h i s i n ano the r form: a n o b j e c t , as it changes, comes t o

have a pas t i n t h e t ransformat ion . It is something it wasn ' t be fo re , and

what it was be fo re i s t h u s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from i t s present form. Also,

t h e o b j e c t has a pas t before it t ransforms, a pas t which enables t h e

o b j e c t be cha rac t e r i zed i n t h e f i r s t place. The ques t ion t h a t Mead poses

i s whether it i s p o s s i b l e f o r an o b j e c t t o have two d i f f e r e n t and

exc lus ive pas t s . I n o t h e r words, can t h e pas t o f t h e o b j e c t as it

t ransforms be d i f f e r e n t before i t t ransforms and st i l l be t h e same o b j e c t ?

How can an o b j e c t be accountable t o two o r more d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r i e s when

one h i s t o r i c a l framework appa ren t ly excludes t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e o b j e c t

e x i s t i n g i n t h e o t h e r , as Mead sugges ts i s t h e case wi th l i v i n g forms.

Mead answers t h i s by p o i n t i n g out t h a t h i s t o r i e s confer t h e i r meanings

o r t h e i r ex i s t ence only on a present and t h e i r c o n t r a d i c t i o n s p e r t a i n t o

what might be t h e case i f t h e i r p a s t s were present . S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y

t h e r e i s no such t h i n g as a c ~ n t r a d i c t i o n i n space and t ime ex.cept as it

man i fe s t s i t s e l f as an occurent means by which expected p l ac ings of o b j e c t s

become only p o s s i b i l i t i e s i f t h a t occurence i s accepted as f a c t . With t h e

new occurence, space and t ime undergo change - j u s t so much change as

would account f o r t h e novel ty of t h e occurenc? i n a s i t u a t i o n of u s u a l l y

h igh improbab i l i t y of i t s happening. A s Mead s t a t e s ,

"The metaphysical ques t ion is , can a t h i n g wi th changing spa t io- temporal and energy dimensions be t h e same t h i n g with d i f f e r e n t dimensions when we have seemingly only t h e s e dimensions by which t o d e f i n e t h e th ing? It has seemed s impler t o say t h a t t h e r e a l t h i n g l i e s behind t h e s e exper iences which a r e s u b j e c t i v e and phenomenal. But l e t u s i n s t e a d accept passage as t h e c h a r a c t e r of r e a l i t y , and recognize t h a t i n passage t h e r e is change i n t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h i n g s , and t h a t because o f passage o b j e c t s can occupy d i f f e r e n t systems." 5

Objec t s , i f t hey a r e i n any sense t o have some bea r ing on events

t h a t a r e happening, as i s assumed t o be t h e case wi th l i v i n g forms which

c r e a t e environments out of t h e i r surroundings must have c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

This '1 lo~; ' , o r as ::eed tcr:?; it, t h i s 's,?t-cioua presc:;tl, as it

e:;ists 2s ti t r a i t of -the o r g a n i m " i s ;:;n e;:?ression of r e l a t i v i t y i n t e r s a

lift"* 6 i , h ~ ; ~ t h e co-orsifictr:r, of spcicc c:iC ti?,(:: a r c s c l d c t e ~ fr0:i

cn e:.iergin; p r c s e c t , rct h e r t h a n ~ l e t r t ; ~ h ~ - c l l coi;;lriic-Led, a 'now'

i;cco:;cs 20 s s i b l e i::.lcx-c t h e e,rl2urin; c k r a . c t c r i st i c s of o b j e c t s &re hit

"con~;o l iCa t , ionc of :;:-;;r;iil~ ct icnlat1 i c t o t h e ' ' f i x e d c o r 2 i t i o n s of' l ~ t c r

O C C U Y C ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ; " i Li-cin; or;zni;ns a r c con;idare;l by ii':cir! -3 e v i d w c e of

t h e ej.istefice of :;uch 2 'no:: L:; EL p h y s i c d p rescnce i n -the w o r l i o f .the

?hjr:;icLl o b j e c t . TIie c-,ri:i.nce l i o ; in t h e coat. inurl. conrix!;t 1 0 1 1 o f t ! :~

oiSg:ini or-3 b)h; s i c 2 1 t r a i t ; u;)oll t h c cnv i ronnen t i n and ' ~ y r h i c h it

surv ives . " I f an animal d i g e s t s , t h e r e must e x i s t a food which t h e

animal d iges ts" . 8

Food, i n t h i s ca se , i s not j u s t a name f o r an ob jec t

wi th "foody" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but i s a r e p e t i t i v e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e

environment which s t a b i l i z e s t h e d i g e s t i v e processes . The s e l e c t i o n o f

t h e food depends on t h e s t a t e of t h a t p roces s , t h e f e e d i n g h a b i t s of

d i f f e r e n t s p e c i e s and so on. The manner ( i n so f a r as a manner can be

determined) of t h i s s e l e c t i o n , as has been shown by t h e theo ry of n a t u r a l

s e l e c t i o n , i s one which a t t a c h e s t o t h e q u a l i t a t i v e n a t u r e of t h e phys i ca l

o b j e c t s s e l e c t e d , and l e n d s t o t h o s e q u a l i t i e s a c h a r a c t e r o f an "environ-

ment" of t h e organism, c h a r a c t e r s which would not be t h e r e without t h e

organism but which a r e n e v e r t h e l e s s p re sen t i n t h e o b j e c t as t h e phys ica l

o rgan iza t ion of t h i s "environment". It fo l lows , t hen , t h a t t h e o b j e c t s of

phys ica l s c i ence i t s e l f a r e o b j e c t s t h a t a c q u i r e t rai ts conjoined wi th t h e

o rgan iza t ion of t h e pe rcep tua l appa ra tus of t h e human organism, and which

p e r t a i n t o t h e environment of t h e o rgan ic ex tens ion o f such appara tus .

It is t h u s through t h e organism .manipulation of i t s environment

t h a t o b j e c t s a r i s e which have t h e " in s ides" , t o u se a f a v o r i t e express ion

o f Meads, o f t h e phys i ca l a c t s wi th which t h e organism i s engaged, f o r i n

t h e manipulatory process , o b j e c t s have as t h e i r conten t t h e s t r e s s e s and

s t r a i n s of ' r e s i s t a n c e ' t h a t t h e organism exper iences ' i n s i d e ' it s e l f i n

'handl ing ' t h e o b j e c t sf'

".... t h e i n d i v i d u a l h a s c a l l e d out i n t h e mechanism of h i s organism t h e s o r t of r e s i s t a n c e response he i s seeking i n t h e phys i ca l t h i n g with t h e sense of e f f o r t which accompanies h i s own response. He a s k s of t h e t h i n g t o r e p l y i n te rms o f h i s own conduct. Th i s p l ac ing o n e ' s s e l f wi th in t h e o b j e c t and t h u s g i v i n g it an i n s i d e belongs t o t h e formation of t h e hypothes is , and t h e r e f o r e , t o t h e ex tens ion of t h e space and t ime of t h e manipulatory a r e a

,::;\;iilely a:; t o t h e h l t e r n z t j ~ v t ? ? l m s o f e c t i o n which jelon,; t o th, r . ~ l '1ec:tivc a t t i tudr- . The eatc:n.;lon i n v o l v e s t h c o c c u y . t i o n o f B

t h e d i s t a n t o b j e c t (r::hicn b e l o n p i n unreflective e x e r i e n c e t o t h e f u t u r e ) >;I a u h y s i c z l o b j e c t rjhich € 3 ist r; now, t h a t i s , at t h e xornczt of t h e a e n i ? u l n t o r y ez?er ience . " 3

'The e s . - , e ~ . t i a l : ~ r e c o n d i t i o : ~ f o r such a c r e a t i o n o f a n ' i n s i d e ' i s

t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a n o s s i S l e s t r u c t u r e e i t h e r c o n s t r u c t e d SJ h y p o t h e s i s

o r by sirn;)le ; > h y s i c d a d j u s t n e n t which t o so.ne e, t r n t answers as a .v;hole

t o t h e ch?.n;e i n r e l a t i o n s w i t h o b j e c t s t h a t ensue fron! o r c a n i c

n a n i ? u l e t o r ; j c o n t z c t . I n so f a r as it srnswers as a h h o l e it r e 2 r e s e n t s

zn even t o r e n o b j e c t bj v h ~ c h ~ 1 1 ! m r t s of t h e n m i p l a t o r y e , ~ p r i e n c e

~ ~ o r l d , it o c c c r s i :~ t h e rnornent o f e x t e n s i o n o f d i s t a n t o S j e c t s from t h e

o r c a n i s a s l o c a t l o n of ll'rre o b j e c t s i n hi.; o m 2 h y s i c a l bein:. The

I' I

orZan1s.n s e e s 2 t r c e at a d i s t h n c e whose r e a l i t y iri soTe s m s c c!e?ends

unon i t s s o l i d - i t g upon c o n t z c t w i t h t h e o r g a n i s n . Such a s o l i ( 3 i t y r e ~ ~ i r e a

t h e orcanism t o e x ~ e r i e n c e h i v s e l f as s o l i d a g e i n s t i t , and i t s s ? a t i s l -

t e n : ~ o r a l d i s t z n c e i s rnezsurec? i n t e r s s o f t h e rnan ipu l> t ions n e c e s s a r y f o r

t h i s e;;?erience t o be 'contein?oraneous' w i t h t h e organism as a p r c i ? i e n t

in6ividc;t l--cont e n j o r a n e j t y : n e a n i n ~ , i n !dead' 3 t e r r i s , t h e l o c a t i o n o f

i n n e d i a t e o b j e c t s o f c o n t a c t i n a d i s t a n t spzce- t ime, so t h a t t h e t r e e at

e d i s t a n c e e r s i s t s a s an o b j e c t i n t h e 01-g~nism 's e x 2 e r i e n c e o f \;hat it.

: n a n i p l a t e s i n i t s ' h e r e an2 now' as it ap?roaches e p o i n t o f innrediete

c o n t z c t w i t h t h e t r e e . The animal m d t h e t r e e a r e s a i d t o be contem-

2orLneous when t h e h e r e and now o f t h e m i r rd ' s i r m e d i a t e f i e l d o f a c t i o r

becomes i d e n t i c a l i ~ i t h whzt he e x p e r i e n c e s o f t h e h e r e znd nox of t h e

d i a t e n t t r e e i f he were i n c o n t a c t w i t h i t . T h i s a resupposes t h z t t h e

c o n d i t i o n f o r a rnani?ul.etory e x ? e r i e n c e i s t h a t it e x t e n d s toward a

d i s t t l n t s i n c e - t i n e . I . e . , a n o b j e c t at a d i s t a n c e , t o t h e e:btent o f bein.:

ba:;ic h j r : i c ; l cont:ct .r:ith 1.-hic!; it i s cont inuously irivolvetl ~ ; : e hnve t l r k t

e f f e c t s ccrc c::;)cricilcc2. i n the: ~Gjus'Lrnen-ls 0: t!ic o;"gj^jtli;;n1; :'CS->O;LSCS

t o it as 2:i o a j c c t .

The c v l e ', 2nd its 2 x 2 , f o r e-..e:n;~le, ere .-,;~atic;ll;r (!i.3tatf. Tbc i ) r c j x->7

z c c e l c r ~ t ion;; of a c t i o n , t h c or;;zni sn i s c o ~ t i n u a l l j an:;;:.erin,'; i t s

The i:n;orlance o f f e e l i n ; i n the; ?cvelo?.3ent o f z e s t u r e czn 'uc seen i f :.:c

r e ,~ r*e ; e r ; t a t l ve o r l n ! l c e t l v e of r, \ ,ho le s c t o f o t h e r rezponaen ttat r.:lll

m n j d i f i ' e r c n t t;?es o f ~cund:; a d n o t i o n s t o cor~es .1on4 x i t h d i f f e r e n t

1 - nztiitur=l a c t i o : ~ : ; , but t!:e ,-eztcre zc; !.rezd d e s c r i b e s i.t i s no$ merely a

:nove:ne~t o r cl sound, 'out r, d i r e c t i o n of an n c t , clnd cannot t h e r e f o r e be

severed fro? t h e a c t i v i t i c r , ir, 1,hicii i ts s i ~ ~ i f i c a i c e i:: fu : l c t io : :~ l . T h i s

rzrousl:i,- co;-rnon t e n d e n c i e s to LC% thtt visual , pa - tu res coul:! not crousc.

them i n t h e same way as t h e otli r t o whom it is addressed. With such

animal behaviors warning c a l l s t h i s does not apply , s i n c e t h e c ry of

t h e animal i n s p o t t i n g danger , whi le i n d i c a t i n g t h i s danger t o o t h e r

an imals , does not ev iden t ly bea r on any f u r t h e r s t i m u l a t i o n of t h e animal

who u t t e r s i t . It does not add anyth ing more t o h i s a c t i o n than t h e

o r i g i n a l s p o t t i n g of danger. To quote Mead:

It is , of course , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h i s symbol, t h i s vocal g e s t u r e , t o such a s e t of responses i n t h e ind iv idua l himself as we l l as i n t h e o t h e r t h a t makes of t h a t vocal g e s t u r e what I c a l l a s i g n i f i c a n t symbol. A symbol does t end t o c a l l out i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l a group o f r e a c t i o n s such as i t c a l l s out i n t h e o t h e r , but t h e r e i s something f u r t h e r t h a t i s involved i n i t s be ing a s i g n i f i c a n t symbol: t h i s response wi th in o n e ' s s e l f t o such a word as ' c h a i n t o r 'dog' i s one which i s a s t imu lus t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l , as wel l as a response. 10

Such responding t o one ' s own and o t h e r ' s responses t o o n e ' s g e s t u r c i s

recognizable only i n language -- symbols. It seems from Mead's s l i g h t l y

unc lea r account , t o be t h e very a c t o f language i t s e l f , t h e emergence of

meaning i n l i v i n g processes , f o r , t o respond i n t h e above manner, t h e

g e s t u r e becomes t h e o b j e c t by which o rgan ic a c t i v i t y i t s e l f forms p a r t of

t h e environment of t h e organism. It becomes s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e c o n t r o l

of a c t i o n and i t o b s t r u c t s o r f u r t h e r s t h e a c t i n t h e same sense aS

' p h y s i c a l t t h i n g s do.

Mead's argument t h a t t h e organism i n i t s phys io logica l and rudimen-

t a r y behaviora l a c t i v i t i e s con fe r s c h a r a c t e r s upon t h e surrounding world

? s much as t h a t world modi f ies t h e organism may be u s e f u l l y app l i ed t o

unders tanding f u r t h e r t h e mechanism of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t symbol. T h i s view,

c o i n c i d e n t a l l y , was taken by t h e American poet Mallace Stevens. I n descr ib- l

i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n of p o e t i c meaning, S tevens remarks, " the word i s o f a

t h i n g t h a t does not e x i s t without t h e word". Th i s statement r e f l e c t s t h e

it ,elf z.:: it e.:tcq,'- . UL) >c;& t o i;hc :nc_~iii;>ulat i o n srcc: bcco:ncs the o b j c c t i v e

It has o f t e n been noted i n t h i s connect ion by many t h i n k e r s tha t

language tra1:sforms o r ex tends t h e senses. The t r u t h of t h i s can only be

apprec i a t ed i f it i s understood t h a t an animal , ( i n h i s case , t h e human

animal) , senses h i s own t endenc ie s t o a c t upon an ob jec t jus t as he senses

t h e ob jec t . I t i s cont inuous ly responding both i n s i d e and out s i d e it-

s e l f i n a v a r i e t y of ways t o a v a r i e t y of o b j e c t s , and it is i n t h e s e

va ry ing processes (which, i n the ix 'menta l ' a s p e c t , William James r e f e r r e d

t o a s ' s t ream of consc iousness ' ) t h a t any one o b j e c t makes i t s presence

f e l t . I n t h e last chap te r , it w a s po in ted out how phys ica l o b j e c t s a c t on

t h e organism through d i s r u p t i n g t h e l a t t e r ' s own processes . These d i s r u p t e d

processes a r e as much of what t h e organism a c t s upon as is t h e ob jec t t h a t

i n h i b i t s them. I f t h i s i s kept i n mind, it can be seen how i n organisms

wi th d i s t a n c e r e c e p t o r s , o b j e c t s at a d i s t a n c e s t i m u l a t e t h e manipulatory

a r e a without t h e r e be ing anyth ing immediately t h e r e t o answer such st imula-

t i o n and how t h i s a c t u a l d i s t a n c e i s s t r u c t u r e d i n t h e experience of t h e

organism through i t s responses t o t h e i n h i b i t e d s t a t e . What goes on beyond

i t s immediate per iphery t a k e s pl; .ce as t h e outcome of a s e l e c t i o n of i t s

responses t o it wi th in t h i s per iphery:

... t h e r e l a t i o n s t h a t make o f t h e surrounding o b j e c t s t h e environ- ment of t h e organism a r e a c t i v e i n s i d e t h e organism. 11

Therefore t h e c o n t r o l t h e organism e x e r c i s e s ove r i t s surroundings is i n

a l a r g e measure i d e n t i c a l t o i t s f u t u r e c o n t r o l over i t s own impulses o r tend-

e n c i e s t o a c t i n r e l a t i o n t o them. With t h e u s e of s i g n i f i c a n t symbols it can

i n d i c a t e t o i t s e l f what i n i t s manipulatory a r e a answers t o t h e promises of

d i s t a n t s t i m u l i t o f u l f i l t h e a n t i c i p a t i o n s of immediate conduct. When a

coord ina t ion i s s t ruck between t h e element of promise and t h e sequences of

o n s i n g a c t i o n , we have t h e emergence of what Mead r e f e r s t o as t h e 'b iolo-

g i c a l i nd iv idua l ' .

fu:;c t ion o r s;':i'>olic~.t I o n .

predi . ;;>a sit ion;; t h e r e e:,,cr, ,I::! t h e social r o l e i iher-e i n5 iv id i l a l s c o ~ l t !

C e r t a i d ; ail i !~dor t s : i t , i n f l u e n c e i n t h e Y i e l 5 o f '~el!zviorc;l ijcienct.

i s t h e n o t i o n o f i n t c n t i o n a l i t j . ?.'he t h e s i ; : t k t " a l l Sekzv ior i s ;.osl-

o r i c n t e t l " h23, i l l the ?:=st Seen a ?o~;u l&r 'msi .~ f o r s o c i a l i n q u i r y . llexl

c e r t a i n l y ~ o u l ! ? . riot l z v e de.-.j ed i t s i :n?or t~ncc. . I n f n c t , he ct:.rri.crl i t

one rite? f u r t h e r t o d-ge:ice t h e pi-o;>o:;itio:; i f I i n t e r j ~ r c t him c o r r e c t l y

t h z t " a l l ~ o u l - o r i e n t e d b e h v i o r i s s o c i e l " . I n t h i s c h Z 2 t e r , I woul:l l i k e

t o :;lrc:;cnt a p i c t u r e of rrhat I t h i d : :;ez:? :ne;nt by tki i : s t a t c r i e ~ t .

o b j e c t -, x r u c t u r e s , o r or?.erq of t h e un iver ;e e r e perspective; of' an a c t

The 2resv:)go:sition here i s t h a t t h e unive:-se i s cons t i tu ter : I foor t 5 e in tend-

in: oorlr;.~lim i n t h e t i t nns!-;ers t o t!lcsc c o n - l i t i o n s ~ Y ~ i c h sllo1::e:i f o r t h e

? ro jec ted. f u t u r e . I n 2 i v i d u s l s i n : l ev i ; iq ; ?lkn:; o f a c t i o n t o r e x h so!ne

3 r e s e n t l j r i s i n h e r e n t l y t h i s end zt a l e t , e r d a t e g iven t h e p roce2ure upon

which t i ley p l c n . ? ' h e i r con-luct , t h e n , i s t o t h e n z f i e 1 2 of si? justment

herein t h e kiorlc? ?asses t o t h i s em?. I n so f a r as it p a s s e s t h e worl2

res?onc?:; t o t1:ese ed ju:;txer,ts a d t h e zd jus t rnen t s i n t u r n a r e c o n s t i t u t e i !

by t h e c c t i n ; o u t o f t h e s e r e s p o n s e s i n t h e form,of a p r o j e c t e d sequence

o f e v e n t s o f whic:h t h e enii i n vie;.: i s t h e t e r m i n a l n o i n t .

Yeacl r e f e r r ; t o t h i s a c t l ~ , - o u t of t h e r e s p o n s e s o f a n env i ronnen t 2s

e s s e n t i d l ; a c o o ? c r z t i v e ?recess I n t h ~ ~ t t h e o r i p n i s m a 6 d r c s s e s i t s o k n

l i f e i l rocesses throu;h t h e rec::)onses of o t h e r o S j e c t s t o i t s a c t i o n s . Ia

to co.lti:;:;c ci:.i.,-- i:; !..,r , . - A . ',* A: ){.- - -,- ; - L-,c:< -.. of oxc i:.lj::iL.t;d ~ : ; I . L ~ i :; :*. - , l - . - ~ ( ~!

yea-3on::r; for* i'r,c: 01 !.i.:,. 'i'lAz ~ i ~ b l s , , ; of ;;I.( 5. L cal:i i : ~ u ~ L i o i 1 :: .!:-,t.yc, i:,

- . tl.(; :-L...: - ! . j : c . : , : t , ~ l t~ LC+. , -k!.p ;%.k Jbi-i,~: !(;.,, 4bi,:.': L (:(;o7-;.~:,ilUl :.:LC .'~,;::x-i~~i::; c f

q--;-"a 1 ;, ~ ~ : ; ~ , ; , ks:: > t j i ~ r L;c,2t~x.;Ll , I : .. L v 1 i . 'I,l?c:;(: 0;;-

.;ci:;, c o , ; c c r ~ . ; j;hicli i . v . a ? ~ ~ ou-? GI' tlli:; r-csl:n 0;' v;!;&t I,:ci~,.! ~2 .11 . ; t>ic

I I ~ ( , ~ , ~ : . ~ . . - . - ~ ,,,,,lial: u>,;csLix~:;;", c v i n i n casc:; oc t h e X T I O S ~ ct13~:,i;l, 1"0:~r:~,; oJ'

o : t i . o : : I i of c o ~ l i c i i t t of , to

lo.-, .AL, .--.-..,- :> .. i . > , , G ~ . ~ C ~ - I . -. -! . ~ . : G G * ? s 3: z ~ c ~ . c - c K I . ~ I ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ t ~ i p c ; i re ~ ~ ~ i 6 d i 2 ?,ile I

rc;ila;i.;c:; ~ ; ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ; ; i ~ > ; i ~ - ~ ~ y L ~ i L r ~ ~ ~ ~ ; : l s l ~ t h i ~ ~ ~ . v ~ ~ ; ~ ~ f J ' ~ c y ~ : l c e s i,q t!lciL*

e.-pe;.ienc:c;;, t o ,<:;.;i~iri~ \;',licli .tl;i'jr , - , h c e i n co::,mo:l. F o r e ; . : a q l c , thc

2o:i-t j c i s s ~ ~ i ~ l - to ?kc ~ ; i v ~ i r ; . , At iorl 02 h i ,: col ica&xe; ; , i:; cqr".-, .... L7 ,;~3 i n : J K ~ ~ L C -

- t i . j e 3i:;ccj.t,,y,2 zi';'cctitl; tk,e G e c i q i ~ ~ - : ~ ~ ; , l ; i ~ , - c> ;,;roceas o f t h e ~oa::~u!.lit;; ::;;~,y

- . . , bc: cozrJ~:--::7r':;! i!J- lli;. 7. 2:: 3 1 1 . ~ ~ " t i i k i r . ; s o l i t its" 1:he:i kc ;;haul l LC:

. . ,,.Lr,cln,. J ,,, ;- c , ?i :-.I- ,.,L,,. '-,.. 5~ci- i 2-ttits2.c;;, inco:n;;zt i j l t : 2;s t!-LC;. r i ~ o , -ever -the

1es ; ;?.rii;~ i:.l i h ~ i f3.:'::1 of ~ I ~ ~ ~ c L . L ~ o , T I : ; '3j ~oxzofil ; ' ':iel:: geotu:-e;;--t,ke

l l eg lcc t t o ~::.sh the c!ir,:;c: i?z;;r in : ; ic ;~+c ts t h e \ : i r e z !iiL~;ll-:nj.;i~leJl~czs o f

t h e 2 o l i t i c d :l.tcicio~:-nzi;cr ~ ' ~ . g i ~ : l i ~ i : ; +hc infc:.j.or z l ~ t h ~ r i t y o f t h e

thouzzxi:; o? i!o~:::;t,ic; l-.ou;;~3l;ol,is .tkirL.t ,nay 3c i n f l u e n c e < ? b j h i s 2crr;onzl

deci: ; ions, t tnc! she ::~y rcc;?o:lc? r ~ e r s o n ~ l l ~ r 1,:ith e q u d uthc:.it;r t o o3ject . ;

\ : i t k i n h i s ;>!i;.~ic;i.l ,?rc;cncc t k t L:i'c s i , ;n i f ' i cmt t o h i s con2uct as 2

? o l i t i c i a n . A l l of t h e t:lzuicg resaof izca i:1 t h e s i t u c t i o n a r e con t ro1 lcC

Sjr ii?.;lt t h e pztu:-.c,; ci;:.lif i c z n t t o one in<.ivic!ual ; e, . :~erience mt;m f o r

cr ,otlrer<, a,nd i h j . 2 i n 1 1 2 1 ~ i s <ci;cr~ninc:! L;J rzfwc- t lce t o the share2

t k t 2;-c t h e for* any s u c c e s s f u l r cs?onze of conzoiz ,;estulXe,--

corr,:nunica-ti-vc p r o c e s s , f o r bjr such reference the ;)roblen;:; a s t h e y e x i s t

l o r ti;e s e ; ) ~ r r ; t e i n Z i v i d ~ a l : , such ;ls i h c ? o l i t i c i . n n and hi ; w i f e , a r e

]mo\::i t o L ~ F ; : ~ 2rot;lc:n.; of c:.ec~tili;; z 2h:ired o r co:n?ocit e ;ct.

t i -c -t\lt,,.:,,- t;.,' .. ' -.-.,, 4' - -. .- A . , ..,., L i d ~ i , , . , , :ox. i : - l i u i ; l u ~ l ; i.1 t?:ti:- ~i: ,e of .., .--r-s?.u:.e ;:.t3

. . ~ % i ~ . i 2 t . . ? i':.~::, "s:!i: Toir:;; t:.i:.~ , -, .c I :~. . V~ . ' C S :;Csl,;<iLtc t o t!lC? i n the: Co::;;(j-

n i t c LC: t o ;:Licl: ti-!c; ::c,"cr. It i z t h i s ? ~ c t cn::>lez :kt :!if'r t.0

i i12.i~:-tc t o hci..:;cli' L rc::?c.;;;c i h ~ t i:oal.?. be co::?rctLeil:iS1c t o hey ku3-

ba.n< ~~2 2 ... o c r . , J !~c: XZ;. i:x;i:le t o hc rzc l r " t i le r o l e of t h e ;~ : ) l i t i c i r , : i

2;; c$ i z~~c ; . ;~ -9A~~ zi;;,l y, 2l.e ? ~ c ; ::,a ;?,e .,,;ill ;:az% c<:yL2i;ily f'j.0,' .A<& L - . v > - ~L>. .L .~f21:

. . s i 1 c z t l J ~ cozi~c:-~:;izi~-; \ : i t11 .tcr ! ~ : x ~ : ~ i . d ~ ez~;;~;iri; i x t h e ~roblk?::,; of !:i:;-

cc,;;l-:;c th i . i .,,eel,: $,silo;; :- 3 i :;LCL 0 3k:t. t h ; i:;.?.ic:-i.r;:; $ C

i;cr::cli% : h A ( ; ~ l%~l( ; 1.; -L~:c :;kA~:*i:iL; c:' AL,;~:! .L-,,o ~ : . . ; ) ~ y i ~ , q c & ~ (jf cj.i:$l~d:G,:;jl~y ::.!;,:

A . , ,L4 l;A,;cjL : ; i ~ l - ~ ~ ~ ~ i,:)~? f ' ~ . ~ n ~ ~ . - - > . ' ~ ,>c,] j.<icjzill. yllLl; !!<.y uLjcc2L i ."re; c:-+c l ' o ~ ~ - ~ - r - , . : ,."A .\. O i

- ,.,oc; c,.... .+>,\ 2 cr -. A -, L , L b v 1 :; f 1 ~ ; ; 2 L ~ ; 1 ~ - i j ~ ~ 2 1 1 2 - I ~ o c i i A ~ l 1. e . 0 1 , ~ - , . r~l i~: :~ , i :~:;o '~~>:< A L L .; h c 2.. s 82 l-:

- =.? ot,: e r - . ; - . '.- s. ,, A iZi tbC ?. , cC,. dblo:i I ' 0:' c.~t;:. i:i ~ . .h l c ' ? . , A - L - t l i t ,J- ::l?.y l-e::>a:lcI c.o:l~oir ,~tlu: .

. T . . ,ov,: - ~ :>e ~ : p y ; > : . ~ t i-;~:., of i h c . sei,<-n.,.-:c; iii3ivi3u;;,l :.; 1-i: . --arf7; , .,,., ,-, .- -- . t!le c0.;Lii uIu...> i -

.,.<;c';r:c::7vr yor (..;; joiiiJL z-c>:;*s>i;,;G;:: ;.;::" - A A .. -,.,A J -JZi.',- ; ~ C ? L ? :,r &:I;! ::I:,,+ C7<C:1 L C 02;2!3 ,: :,<, jL.t A c);; 2 %!cc:; z v l . t e r tE13 r ~ ~ t Jvj- l~t tkLe2e , j t.ys,jer,-t i~:es o c c c r i n thCl.t

;.tic!;, in so I[,;- ;Is -Lilcj :.,:-c: i:lJ.:j.c:lti.:l S j .;i.c;tu.c, a:-c z ~ l ~ . c ~ ; i j . co!l:r)i;.,-f.

res>on;cr;. ?:I&: t i le conf l i c l : ; of i n t c r c ; ; t , t h e :iii"fcre::i. sub;^'^' J . I L I . ~ L ' - - - "

inifi.iit:u;l c-,:;>iri t;ylces G f : : o c i ~ l j.!l$ er.co~:~:,c, c;:-l:l tp,c ,n.:ri*- ' . - , s t t i - L u L ~ : 0:'

~nin.? ti;r;.t sha ;~e 2 c o i l l e c t ~ o r ~ , r j * :;<;en:: are bu"ihe c o n t o u r s of 2 cox:n~:?icri-

.1 ' - c l c e p r o c e s s seci:in; t o r x k c i n t e l l i g ~ b l e t h c contlii.io:.;s '27 i.;'riic;h t?~o:;e

coi; jo i rAt k c t !:yii ch a r e init i t t c z ,-r.-',- .,, . . , b~~ : i~k l l~ in that ~ ) T O C ~ S S %LJ k?

r o o t c 2 i n t l ic ;,:o;,id of ;.;icier e.,:2e=.ience. 'ihe con joi;lt nc t t k t t h e s;l,-ii:2lic

re>;_)o!l.:e i a i t i a t c ; b:itliin -. ti:^ i r , 2 i v i d u a l enz,'jles iii~r; t o z n a l y a c f o r h i : n -

s e l f c n & i - t i o i ; s of such ~ ~ c t i o n , xi2 t h u z :r.znip?r,te k i ; o m an(: o t h e r s

: : ; . 3ut kc C:IH on1.y 20 :;o ;is a S O C ~ ; ; ~ i n ; l i - ~ i d u ~ l , i. C. , :is or;e

~,lio:;e rcn;.:o:;.:t2r: i ~ r c f'~iln:!. i n t h e ; i : 1 ~ 1 - ~ l i z e 5 ~ c t i ~ i t i e n of t h e ,;;oou>.

i'i'eri,~~).; i t c: r, kjc ::een froin t h i ; : t i r ;c~- ; ; io l : hot;, if olic, t~.ke::

: ! c ~ . ! ' :; p.;it io:: .;crioii;;l;-, i.nt el-t io:ial it. becc:nco 03 j e c t i:'i c!:, t h e zi?n:;c

of t t:".i!l, t o LC? ~ c t i : ' 1 , . t h j . i . ~ . i : u . A:; h2d 'L:uc:~ s t c t c . ?

c a - l i c r i n t!,j ; ck;!t i:., t i ,e i n 2 i v i i i ~ a l s ovii f i e 1 2 o f coii:.cct i:; 2 con-

C i t io:; \ ;hcyc i2 tj;e act 21~o-d:-~,.' ,,,I in hi:n '3J & ~ . t ~ ? ! L ~ u s i :; COCI;)~ et ~ ;6 . J.~c?, :*

,lo;;;i.Sii;iS. z ? i Z e s cn17 if' t k 2 - t iu,!ivicV,sl h e s 2. : )cr3?cct ivo of hi,; CO:-:-

duct , 0.r if' e;lr!-ili--vric;-; LA^ 'r,7---ei:i i a l l 111s rfij,3;-lse;; a.rc 2

..;cciuc:7cc sf' con2ition.; i:; r;! i i~?~ it ?zsaes i l l t o h i s r:ri,2ey e-sse;..iencc.. P o r

S L c ~ % ,, 2:i en~-irl-~b~j.i:;, i~ (;.ci&, for. I.:i:n, -tile rt:~;?o;i:;es !:c+ r:!alrcs t o L: ~ t i : c ~ l , .

t a k e n h e r e be p x t . :..r co~r.?lei. a m n a:; ! !cd t;rts, it i s i i u i t e -,onsiblri,

mi! cer ta in1 .y ;::ore >rofi t t ; . 'ule, t o a.nav:er th i r ; i n g e r j s i r ; ? le terrqs. L c t

L\R ~ ? ; S U I T C ) , t h 2 n f o r o u r p u r y s e s , t h t :;I]. of !,*hat :.:c c a l l socict;., i t r .

custo:nr;, in:;ti.t.utio:la sn:i a s y i r s t i o n s , r e s t s i n t h e han2s o f e rxh l iv in ; :

a ~ l d t h i n 1 ; i i t ~ > c r s o n , &nc? t n ~ t t h e r e are 23 r i a y p e r a 2 e c t i v e s o f ~ I i t ~ t con-

s t i t u t e s t h i s s o c i e t y L:: t h e r e z r e indivic!ur21s, Let U; a s s u x e fu:-ther t h ~ t

grou?:; f o m o u t of t h e cooi7erst i v e a c t s ;t;.ioing from t ,he res:>on:;es o f

d i f f e r e ~ t i n ~ i v i ? . u z ~ l s t o o b j e c t s , l e t u s sczy ' p h y s i c a l o b j e c - t s ' that a r e

co:nmon t o t h e i r ilii'f ezen t ~ e r s 2 e c t i v e s . Xow int . roduced in - to t h i s situz.-

t i o n i s such FA p ' n y s i c d o b j e c t !ihich i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e con7 le t io r : o f

d i f f e r e n t o r c o n f l i c t i n < e c t ; of s e v e r a l of t h e s e ;roili>s. The u s e t o

which it i;. put represent : ; a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t '~etrrec:1 t h e r . I ihere

:.le?dts a ~ , r o x . ~ i s s i2n i f i c t t : l t i s i n t h e s ;qr ~ : c vie:.; t h c ?ers?ect iver ; o f

eech ,-mu? i n such 2 s i t u z t i o n . 3 i r s t l . y as h2d been :mintec! o u t i n

c h q t e r orle t h e r e i s sornsthinc of tl?e n z t u r c of tha. t ;~h j rn ic? l o 'aject i n

each o f t h e grou? per - , ?ec t ivea i n so f a r c s it is a s t i : m l u a t o t h e n t o

coml3lete an &,ct. 3econdl;r, n s ;)ointec? o u t i n t h e beginnin,: o f t h i s cha2-

t e r , i n so f a ? ns t h e o b j e c t s t i m u l a t e s the g o u ? s t o d i f f e r e n t a c t s ,

c ~ n t r ~ i l i c t o r ~ 2:- t h e y nzy b e , t h e a c t s o f e a c h o f them z r e a f f e c t e d by

- t h e a c t 3 of i h e o t h e r s tor.;arc!s t h e scne o b j e c t . The :sh$sical o b j e c t i s

t h u s 2 ' s o c i a l t o b j e c t , i. e. , it cornes t o re2re:;ent s n e r s 2 e c t i v e ertch

c roun has of t h e o t h e r . I t s i n 7 o r t a n c e f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t a c t s e n p g e s

encl-i grour, u i t h t h e o t h e r s ection.; towar.' i t . hJo;i, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t

crrch srou:) i n consurmniin:it s involvement w i t h t h e o b j e c t can evoke a

recpo!l:;c. t h a t i s c o r i s u ~ m a t ~ r ~ f o r t h e o t h e r s a c t as ~ i e l l , t o t h a t e x t e n t

i s thclt \:hich lie c a l l CL s o c i e t y c r e a t e d . Such a p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s on ly

!nay be 1ocatcr;L i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y i n eslch o f t h e :;roups resr lonses t o t h e

cor:~non o h j c c t . %he bzs i r , f o r t h i s l i e s i n a co:n:non f i e l d c f .,!lysicsl

p e r c e ~ t i o n , i n com:non ~ h ; . s i o l o ~ i c r t l t i i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s , end i n 2 con.non

co::i:ncn t o t t c ;iill"erc.r,t acts can be ~nrcie a l s o an o b j e c t by k,hich t h e sict,r.

e e r l i e r pi-izses. One n~ici i t v i s u e l i z e , t h e n , ;,Iee.tils ' s o c i e t y ' its ar?

t h e kncis o f t h e i r a c t r t o i n d i c ~ ~ t e t o thex ;c lves t h e r o l e s o t h e r z c t o r s

occu?;r i n r e l z t i o n t o d i f f e r e n t 3 h a s e s o f t h e s e a c t s r:ith which t h e y r re

engdged. I n pl3yln: ou t t h c end o f r ~ n ~ c t t o & n o t h e r , one i n v o l v e s one::

self i n a c t i o n cihich i s c o n j o i n t , f o r t h e o t h e r ' s r e s 2 o n s e s a r e t h e con5i- . t i o n : f o r t h i s encct:nent. For e i m p l e , n 50y a i t t i r y at horne su . J -?en l j

decider , he t:~znto t o p l : : ~ b a s e b a l l w i t h h i s friend:;. The c . n e i s 91a je3

o u t i n t h e forrr. o f 2.3 o u t c o n e o f t h e v z r i o u s inte:-;ne<iary re:;;)on;es o f

c o n t ~ c t i n ; h i ; f r iencio , 0," ;c t t in ; t o t h e l z y i n : ; f i e l ? , e t c . I n ill of

t o t h e gene as :;or:iethin,; o f ~iilici-i a l l \<horn h e e n z n p s i n t h i s e n t e r p r i s e

a r e p,rtici:jznt s. It i s 2 game, t h e n , v!hich e:..ist:; f o r hlm as L d i s o ; i -

t i o n w h e r e i : ~ nclture t,.'- . : t h e form o f p c r s ; ~ c ? c t i ~ ~ e s snri t h a t \<hen we s.sk

ebout e c a u s e behind c o n s c i o u s n c : ; ~ ;.ie ;re r e a l l y eskin;: about an i n t e r ? r e -

t a t i o r z 0,' it i n t e r x s of t h e p e r c p e c t i v e r : p r e s e n t f o r i t . F o r XezCi t h e

\:orld change:; irrev0c:;bl;- \+;hen conr ,c iousneas a r i s e s 2nd so t o a t t enpt

a n c i g l z n a t i o n o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n terns o f a t , o r l d wi thou t it would be

f u t i l e .

t h z t were ej:?crieilccil b j t h e or;nni:;rn 7.Ied t erne? ' s o c i a l ' i n t h e sen;e

t h a t d i . s t sn t o j j e c t s ( a n 3 i n t h e case of human i r . t e r a c t i . o n , ' o t h e r '

s e l v e s ) ;.;ere tl-le c o n d i t i o n s by ~ h i c h t h e o r ~ a n i n n c m e t o e : .>er ience

hirn;elf a s conl;e:n?oraneous p j i t k h i s o;,n immediztc: a c t i v i t i e s . Idea . l ly ,

t h i s n e i n t t h z t t h e 0r;anis:n was a b l e t o a r r i v e at h i s own a c t i v i . t i e s a:;

a nc,t tern by \ ;h i& d l he behe ld as t h e u n i v e r s e u:lloldec? b e f o r e h in .

1. Seor,;e 1Ierbe1-t : l e t d , ? h l l o : o . ~ h ~ pi' t h e P r e s c z t Open C o u r t , L a s a l l e , I l l l n o l s , I j , ) , ?. 33--? ,.

2. i b i d . p. 34.

4 Xeads t h e o r y o f e!:er.;e:lcc and i t s r c l a t i o n t o t h e l i f e a r o c e s s mnj: be foun:? i n i t s c l e a r e s t f o r c i n Chzptel- I1 of' Philoso:,!-lg o f t h e P:vst~:zt, .

6. Geor,:e Xerber t !Ict d , P k i l o x ?: l t r o f t h e Act U:livc:.~;itjr o f C h i c z ; ~ 1338. p. 157.

1G. ibi,!. 2. 441.

1 ,Z\ " 1 1 . b i d . 1. ,L.

13. i b i d . 2. Ll17.

1. I arn re fe r r in , : kcere t o t h e rlork o f t h e e t h o l o { : i s t s , e . ~ . 5'inberk;en Lorenz a d o t h e r s .

c Z. 6 t e r m Yea2 borrov;ec! fro:r. h i s t e a c h e r , K. ;;'undt, w h i l e studyin$: i n

Cernmy.

3. The ?hilo:;o - ~ h j o f tke ? r e s e . l t , 2. 128.

4 il ! m a se r?orro'.;ed f r o n John 3ewey untl r"rri.hur 3en t l e y i n Knorrin ': mc! t h e Xz'nor.~.~, -3e~;co:i ? r e s s , 3o;ton, 1343. !J. 156.

CIiA?:'2'? I1 ( ~ o n t inuec?)

Geor:;e ;ier'oept ;!end, Yinri, nelf, snC 3ociet:{, U n i v e r s i t y o r Chic;: TI

her,:;, Ciiick:;~, 17-34. :I. 4%.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works by Mead:

The P h i l o s o ~ h y of t h e Present . Edi ted , wi th an I n t r o d u c t i o n , by Arthur E. Murphy, with P r e f a t o r y Remarks by John Dewey. Chicapp: Open Court ,

Mind, S e l f , and Society: From t h e Standpoint o f A S o c i a l Behavior i s t . Edited, wi th an In t roduc t ion , by Char les W, Morris. Chicago: Un ive r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1934.

The Philosophy of t h e Act. Edi ted , w i t h an In t roduc t ion , by Char les W. Morris i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n wi th John M. Brewster, Alber t M. Dunham, and David L. Mi l le r . Chicago: Un ive r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1938.

The Soc ia l Psyr,holom of George Herbert Mead. Edi ted , wi th a n Introduc- t i o n , by Anselm S t r auss . Chicago: Un ive r s i t y of Chicago P res s , Phoenix Books, 1956.

Se lec ted Writ ings. Edi ted wi th a n I n t r o d u c t i o n , by Andrew J. Reck. Ind ianapo l i s : Bobbs-Merrill Co., L ib ra ry of L i b e r a l Arts, 1964.

A r t i c l e s and Books on Mead:

B i t t n e r , C , J . "G.H, Mead's S o c i a l Concept of t h e Se l f . " Sociology and Soc ia l Research 16 ( ~ e ~ t e m b e r , 1931 ): 6-22.

Blumer, Herbert . "Socio logica l Imp l i ca t ions o f t h e Thought o f G.H. Mead". American Journal. o f S o c i o l o a 71 (Piarch, 1966) : 535-544. Comment by Robert F. Babs, i b i d , 545-547; and r e p l y , i b i d , 547-548.

Brothers ton , B.N. "Genius of P r o p t i t i c Empiricism." Jou rna l of Philosophy 40 (1 943): 14-21 , 29-39.

De Laguna, Grace A. "Communication, t h e Act , and t h e Object wi th Reference t o Mead." Jou rna l of Philosophy 43 (1 946) : 225-238.

Desmonde, W i l l i a m H. "George Herbert Mead." I n The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edi ted i n 8 volumes by Paul Edwards. Vol. V , pp. 231- 233. New York: The Macrnillan Co., The Free P r e s s , 1967.

Dewey, John. "George Herbert Mead," Jou rna l of Philosophy 28 (1931): 309-31 4

Doan. Frank M. 'Notat ions on G.H. Meads P r i n c i p l e of S o c i a l i t y wi th ' Spec ia l Reference t o Transformat ions." j ou rna l o f ~ h i l o s o ~ h ~ 53

( I 956): 607-61 5.

F a r i s , El lsworth, "The S o c i a l Psychology of George Mead." American Journal of Sociology 43 ( ~ o v e m b e r , 1937): 391-403.

Fen, Sing-Nan. "Presen t and Re-Presenta t ion : A D i s c u s s i o n o f Meads Ph i losophy o f t h e Presen t . " P h i l o s o p h i c a l Review 60 ( ~ c t o b e r , 1951 : 545-5500

Kolb, k i i l l iam L. 'IA C r i t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n o f Mead's ' I ' and 'Me' concepts". S o c i a l F o r c e s 22 arch, 1944): 291-296.

Lee, Grace Chin. George H e r b e r t Mead: P h i l o s o p h e r o f t h e S o c i a l I n d i v i d u a l , New York: K i n g ' s Crown P r e s s , 1945.

McKinney, John C. "The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f George H. Mead t o t h e Soc io logy of Knowledge." S o c j a l F o r c e s 34 ( ~ e c e m b e r , 1955): 144-149.

"George H. Mead and t h e Ph i losophy o f Science." Ph i losophy o f S c i e n c e - 22 ( ~ c t o b e r , 1955) 264-271.

M i l l e r , David L. "De Laguna ' s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f G.H. Mead." J o u r n a l o f Ph i losophy 44 (1947: 158-1 62) .

"G.H. Mead' s Concept i o n o f t h e P a s t .I1 Ph i losophy o f S c i e n c e 1 0 T ~ a n u a r ~ , 1943) : 29-39.

"G.H. Mead' s Concept i o n o f t h e P r e s e n t ." Phi losophy o f S c i e n c e 10 ( ~ a n u a r ~ , 1943): 40-46.

"George H e r b e r t Mead." I n Encyc loped ia Americana, Vol. X V I I I pp. 473-474, New York: G r o l i e r , 1967. .

M o r r i s , C h a r l e s W , "George H e r b e r t Mead." I n Encyc loped ia B r i t a n n i c a , Vol. XV, p. 22. 1967.

" P e i r c e , Mead, and Pragmatism." P h i l o s o p h i c a l Review 47 T r c h , 1938): 109-127.

Natanson, Maurice, "George H. Mear' ' s Metaphys ics o f Time." J o u r n a l o f Ph i losophy 50 (1 953): 770-782.

The S o c i a l Dynamics o f George H. Mead. I n t r o d u c t i o n by Horace El. Kallen. Washington, D.C.: P u b l i c A f f a i r s P r e s s , 1956.

P f e u t z e , P a u l E. The S o c i a l S e l f . New York: Bookman A s s o c i a t e s , 1954.

Q u a r e n t e l l i , E.L., and J. Cooper. "Self -Concept ions and Others : A F u r t h e r ~ e s t o f Meadian Hypotheses." ~ o c i o l o ~ i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 7 (summer, I 966): 281-297.

* Smith , T.U. "George H e r b e r t Mead." I n Encyc loped ia o f t h e S o c i a l Sc iences . FAited by Edwin R.A. S e l i g n a n , Vol. X , pp. 241-242. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1933.

"The S o c i a l Phi losophy o f George Hrl .ber t Mead. " American J o u r n z l o f Soclolo:.;y 37 ( ~ o v e r n b e r , 1931 ): 368-3850

Thayer , H.S. Meaning and Act ion: A C r i t i c a l H i s t o r y o f P r a p a t i s r n . I n d i a n a p o l i s : Bobbs-Merri l l , 1968. P a r t 2, Chap te r 5.

Tonmcss, Al f red . "A N o t a t i o n o f t h e Problem o f t h e P a s t - With E s p e c i a l Refe rence t o George H e r b e r t Mead." J o u r n a l o f Ph i losophy 29 (1 932): 593-606.

T r o y e r , W . L. "Meads S o c i a l and Ehnct i o n a l Theory o f Mind." American Socio1o;:ical Review 11 ( ~ ~ r i l , 1946) : 198-202.

Ushenko, Andrew. " A l t e r n a t i v e P e r s p e c t i v e s and t h e I n v a r i a n t Spase- Time: D i s c u s s i o n o f The Ph i losophy o f t h e P r e s e n t , by G.H. Mead." ~ i n d 43 ( ~ ~ r i l , 1934): 193-203. -

Wal lace , D. " R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e Educa t ion o f George H e r b e r t Mead." Arneri can J o u r n a l o f Soc io logy 72 ( ~ a n u a r ~ , 1967): 396-408.

O t h e r Works C i t e d :

Dewey, John and A r t h u r B e n t l e y , Knowing and t h e Known, Beacon P r e s s , Boston, 1949.

S t e v e n s , Wal lace , The Necessary A n r c l , F a b e r and Faber , London, 1942.