Reviews for George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct

The average rating for George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2015-12-18 00:00:00 Matt Ammerman Notes from midterm: Blumer's reading of Mead illustrates that communication cannot be limited to action and reaction / stimulus and response. There is certainly more happening in human interaction than the sending and delivery of information. What is perhaps most noteworthy in the comparison between the two viewpoints is with regards to the question of interpretation. According to Blumer's reading of Mead, there are two ways of communication by way of interaction. The first one, referred to as the "conversation of gestures," does not require interpretation: it is a reflexive-based gesture that generates an instinctive reaction (like the types of reactions in the animal world that have a spontaneous nature.) Such a gesture holds within itself part of the pre-to-be-followed-act: it carries part of the upcoming action that is about to follow. There is a certain level of certainty in this type of "conversation of gestures" because such a gesture brings out with it an automatic stimulus by instinct and not by meaning - hence, no need for interpretation. On the other hand, the other way of communication that Blumer demonstrates in his reading of Mead is the "symbolic interaction" by the use of "significant symbols." This way of communication, unlike the "conversation of gestures" most certainly does require interpretation, (and it is a type of communication that animals would not be capable of having.) The response that would come out of this gesture is not immediate, not reflexive, and not confined to an instinct. Rather, it is dependent on the interpretation of the meaning of the gesture, and, consequently, on the response that would come out of that interpretation. There is no certainty in this type of communication about how things will go, because the process of response would go backward before going forward: There is no automatic release that goes forward in answer to the gesture, but rather, there is a going-backward move that almost like a rewind-button goes back to the gesture and considers the implications of what it might mean, and then consider what the different indications might be, and then consider what the forthcoming response might be before devising a reply. Social interaction then, in Blumer's reading of Mead, requires interpretation on a symbolic level. Much of human behavior will ultimately depend on how the receiver will interpret the message attained, and how to act upon it. Communication in this respect is dependent on the joint interpretation and role-taking.

Review # 2 was written on 2017-06-17 00:00:00 Tiffany Horne Review to Follow Upon Completion Meanwhile... Elucidation of the Inversion In a passage about the German philosopher F.H. Jacobi on page 110, Henrich throws some light on Marx' comment about turning Hegel upside down or right side up: "Jacobi underscored the absurdity of Spinoza's position when he said, 'but, unfortunately, he who has once fallen in love with certain explanations will accept, like the blind, any conclusion whatsoever that follows from a proof he cannot refute, even if it means that he will be walking on his head.' "In response, Hegel quipped that this was the great event of the French Revolution: that man started to turn himself upside down, actually to walk on his head, that is, to construct human society and thus human life rationally. "Without quoting Jacobi, Hegel echoes him: 'Since the sun has risen and the stars are shining in the skies, no one noticed,' says Hegel, 'that man started to walk on his head.' 13 "In a later rejoinder, Karl Marx added, 'What I had to do was turn Hegel from his head back to his feet, so that we can start walking again.' 14 "'Walking' here means advancing to philosophy's real goal, not just interpreting the world, and although Marx did not know it, he echoes Jacobi's criticism. For Marxism also implies that there is something that cannot be constructed and explicated in the sense in which the idealists tried to construct and explain everything."