Additional Notes on G. H. Mead

. . . continued from previous post . . .

I would like to Know the degree to which Rom Harré’s work has been influenced by Mead. There are some useful definitions from Mead’s work that can help us understand some of Harré’s work.

UNITY – “… if this whole is touched at any point it may bring out any other element in the historian’s experience of Gladstone’ (p-85).

MEANING – ”a content of an object which is dependent upon the relation of an organism or group of organisms to it” (p. 80).

Mead suggests that one’s altitude shapes how we communicate and ”give the import.’ to the top,-01 information. He provides our use of conjunctions as an example (and, but, though). These words can set up that which follows. (see p. 86).

“The later stages of the experience itself can be present in the immediate experience which influences them.” (p. 87)

This suggests that we have already internalized altitudes (values, positions) towards experiences. (But all experiences? I suppose we might draw upon previous experiences in order to process the new experiences.)

UNIVERSALISM – when I first saw this word, my immediate association for it was ”essentialism:’ However, Mead appears to view universalisms as the means by which individuals, each with their unique perspectives, can communicate about an idea. (The idea, however, may ultimately be conceived slightly differently by each individual-but the general, universal underlying understanding of the idea transcends the particular.)

-> “It’s universality in conduct, however, amounts only to the irrelevance of the differences of the different perspectives….” (p. 89)

THE GENERALIZED OTHER – “The very universality and impersonality of thought and reason is from the behavioristic standpoint the result of the given individual taking the attitudes of others towards himself, and of his finally crystallizing all these particular attitudes into a single attitude or standpoint which may be called that of the ‘generalized other’ ” (p. 90).

References:

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self & society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. (C. W. Morris, Ed.) (Vol. 13). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

(Note: Converted from Livescribe Pen via MyScript. Still don’t have the kinks out. Will edit properly later.)

No Comments on Additional Notes on G. H. Mead

Social Constructionism, Social Psychology, Social Behaviourism . . .

A few days ago, I finished reading (rather, finally finished!!) Berger and Luckmann’s Social Construction of Reality. They indicated in the introduction that they would not cite their precursors and references as per academic style. This is a pity as I find myself wishing to dig further into the background of social constructionism.

Berger and Luckmann do provide some clues regarding the underlying philosophies of their work. In the conclusion, they mention G. H. Mead: “. . . we would contend that the linkage we have been led to make here between the Sociology of Knowledge and the theoretical core of the thought of Mead and his school suggests an interesting possibility for what might be called a social psychology– that is, a psychology that derives its fundamental perspectives from a sociological understanding of the human condition.” (p. 186).

What I have found noteworthy as I dig more deeply into Burger and Luckmann’s work is that their version of social construction does not propose that the world is completely socially constructed, rather: “there are always elements of subjective reality that have not originated in socialization, such as the awareness of one’s own body prior to and apart from any socially learned apprehension of it.’ (p. 184). Oh, and they add, ”Subjective biography is not fully social. The individual apprehends himself as being both inside and outside society” (p. 134). The individual constantly strives to achieve a balance between his/her objective and subjective self (identity).

Naturally, language is the primary source of socialization. And, this emphasis upon language, conversation in particular, was also salient in the work of Mead. So, I am now reading in order to understand more fully the background of social construction (as per the European/Scandinavian flavor–rather than the current North American focus on the work of Papert vs. Piaget). Mead’s (1934) Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist is very important.

In his introduction to the book, Charles w. Morris provides some evidence of a possible foundation for social construction: ”Mead’s endeavour is to show that the mind and the self are without residue social emergents; and that language, in the form of vocal gesture, provides the mechanism for their emergence”(p. xiv).

Coming from a behaviourist perspective–albeit a Social Behaviourist perspective–the linkage with the body and the physical world ekes through his (Mead’s) writing. At my current stage in the book it appears that he is already working towards a position that recognizes that symbols do not mean/signify the same thing to both hearer and listener—that an utterance may evoke a different emotional or physical reaction in the listener. By page 65, Mead is building an argument about the significance of the “vocal gesture.” (I am a little hazy about whether or not Mead was more a critical realist or could be classified as a pre-social constructionist.)

This is what has captivated my attention: “The vocal gesture, then, has an importance which no other gesture has. We cannot see ourselves when our face assumes a certain expression. If we hear ourselves speak we are more apt to pay attention. One hears himself when he is irritated using a tone that is of an irritable quality, and so catches himself. But in the facial expression of irritation the stimulus is not one that calls out an expression in the individual which it calls out in the other” (p. 65).

What is interesting is how hearing our own voices affects us. Take, for example, the scene in “The King’s Speech” (the movie) when the linguist places headphones (blaring loud music) upon Edward’s head, and asks Edward to read a passage. Instead of stuttering, Edward was able to recite the passage perfectly whilst unable to hear his own voice.

Can we use this information when considering human interaction in online environments? How do our online gestures affect us when we are aware of them? Can we hear ourselves online? Or, lacking the vocal gesture, does the text-based interaction impact us less? Or, just differently? And what of ambient presence and the longevity of the online footprint? Lots of questions . . .

(Note to self: I wrote this text by hand using a LiveScribe pen and notebook. Then, I converted my cursive to text using their MyScript tool. I think I needed to set the options to the text (only) format. It did include some arrows and boxes that I tend to draw in my notes—due to the use of the shape and freeform drawing settings mistakenly being toggled on. More testing needed.)

References:

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (p. 219). Garden City, NY: Anchor Books (Random House, Inc.).

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self & society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. (C. W. Morris, Ed.) (Vol. 13). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

1 Comment on Social Constructionism, Social Psychology, Social Behaviourism . . .

Actor Network Theory (ANT)

A friend shared his ANT paper with me. The penny dropped. I did not previously envision how one would “trace networks”. In his paper, he traced a variety of actors (human and non-human) that were required to enable a current process to act.

The real-life example of an ANT analysis was very helpful to understand what LaTour meant by the following statements:

• “There is no society, no social realm, and no social ties [LaTour was reacting against the preset social concepts in sociology], but there exists translations between mediators that may gnerate traceable associations” (p. 108) [ANT seems to be commensurate with relational approaches.]
• “. . . a good account will perform the social in the precise sense that some of the participants in the action–through the controversial agency of the author–will be assembled in such as way that they can be collected together” (p. 138).
• details are the key in ANT research (my notes).
• “a network is the trance left behind by some moving agent” (p. 132).

An important ingredient is LaTour’s conception of “intermediaries” and “mediators”. As you read the definitions below, think of a complex network of interactions between actors in a given situation and consider which of the actors is an intermediary and which is a mediator:

INTERMEDIARY

• transports meaning without transformation
• inputs = outputs
• one entity, thought might have many parts (complex)

MEDIATOR

• may count for one, many, nothing, infinity . . .
• input != (not equal) output (no predictors)
• transforms, translates, distorts, modifies meaning of elements (inputs)
• may lead in multiple directions

LaTour writes there is “constant uncertainty over the intimate nature of entities–are they behaving as intermediaries or as mediators?” (p. 39).

PRINCIPLE OF IRREDUCTION

• “the philosophical meaning of ANT: a concatenation of mediators does not trace the same connections and does not require the same type of explanations as a retinue of intermediaries transporting a cause” (p. 107).

According to LaTour, good accounts trace networks as you have done in this paper. But, for him, the identification of mediators vs. intermediaries is very important: “As soon as actors are treated not as intermediaries but as mediators, they render the movement of the social visible to the reader” (p. 128).

Looking back at the analysis, some of the actors identified have become visible to us. Why? And, are there any actors that might be escaping our view because they are behaving as intermediaries? Hmmm . . . is it possible that a true affordance might be one such invisible actor? Or, are affordances mediators in that they transform, translate, etc. the meaning of actors/elements? I suspect that an intermediary can sometimes act as a mediator and vice-versa.

Reference

LaTour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

No Comments on Actor Network Theory (ANT)

PhD Proposal: Getting Started

It occurred to me as I exercise my avoidance and procrastination muscles, that it might be beneficial to start a blog. I’ve spent several days now jotting down ideas of how to get started on my PhD proposal. Obviously, the best way is to simply get started.

So far, I have started writing the first two paragraphs explaining the philosophical orientation of my intended work. Then, I started creating folders for the most significant aspects of the proposal:

• theoretical articles & references
• papers about phenomenography
• papers about learner-identity
• papers about threshold concepts and reflectivity

I am now ready to type out the headings for the main sections of the proposal.

The main thing to keep in mind is the scope of the proposal: 3000 words.

No Comments on PhD Proposal: Getting Started