Social Lens - Chapter Mead e Simmel

8/11/2019 Social Lens - Chapter Mead e Simmel

1/32

The Modern Person:

George Herbert Meadand Georg Simmel

he topics of each of the previous chapters are central to the modern project.

V-le've talked about social structures and complex social systems, religion

and the state, capitalism and bureaucracy, culture and social integration,

and so on. All of these are fairly large (macro level institutional issues that helpdefine modernity as a historical period. !n this chapter "e're bringing our analysis

do"n to the micro level and the person. !n a significant "ay this chapter is about

you. #o"ever, it is vital for you to see that the topic of this chapter is just as central

to the project of modernity as those institutional forces.

$odernity "as founded on a specific kind of person. %rior to the social and philo

sophical changes leading up to modernity, a person "asn't seen as an individual in the

"ay "e mean the term today. &o help you see this, let me explain a little bit about ho"

the modern person came about. ne of the major forces in pushing modernity for

"ard "as the %rotestant eformation) it had broad based effects beyond its religious

implications. *or example, in +hapter "e sa" ho" uther's notion of the calling

provided a cultural base for the "ork ethic of early capitalism. &he %rotestant

eformation also helped reconceptualie the person. !n traditional +atholicism a person had a relationship "ith /od based on his or her beingpart of the Catholic Church.

0alvation "asn't seen individually, but, rather, collectively-a person "ent to heaven

because he or she "as part of the +hurch, part of the 1ride of +hrist.

And membership in the +hurch "as obtained through the sacraments, such as

baptism (generally at birth and the #oly 2ucharist. *urther, people didn't have a

direct, individual relation or experience "ith /od) a person's connection "ith /od

"as continually mediated by priests, saints, the Virgin $ary, and various other

intermediaries-people "eren't even deemed capable of reading the 1ible on their

o"n. &his type of person "as also in the political realm3 0ubjects of the monarchy

"ere to be guided and cared for. &he important thing ! "ant you to see here is that

137

T


2/32

2 MODERNITYAND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

none of this implied a person individually capable of making important decisions

and guiding his or her life. !n fact, it implies just the opposite. 1ut "ith the adventof %rotestantism, the person "as singled out, made to stand before /od on his or

her o"n confession of faith. &his is "hy people converting from +atholicism "ould

be rebaptied3 1eing baptied as an infant did not involve personal choice. As ! said,

%rotestantism is just one force in the redefinition of the person, but it gives us a

sense of ho" people "ere vie"ed prior to modernity.

&he 2nlightenment and modernity brought "ith it a ne" kind ofperson, 4as a fully

centered, unified individual, endo"ed "ith the capacities of reason, consciousness, and

action4 (#all, 5667, p. 869. 1oth science and citienship are based on this idea of a

ne" kind of person-the supreme individual "ith the po"er to use his or her o"n

mind to determine truth and to use reason to discover the "orld as it exists and make

rational decisions. &his belief gave the 2nlightenment its other name3 the Age of

eason. &his ne" idea, this reasoning person, obviously formed thebasis of scientific

in:uiry) more importantly, for our purposes, it also formed the basis for the social

project. ;emocracy is not only possible because of belief in the rational individual)

this ne" person also necessitates democracy. &he only "ay of governing a group of

individuals, each of "hom is capable of rational in:uiry and reasonable action, is

through their consent.


3/32

TH!"#ST$S %#GST

&rie' &iograh

George Her*ert Mead +as *orn on ,e*r"ar -.# /012# in So"th Had%e# Massach"setts3 Mead

*egan his co%%ege ed"cation at O*er%in Co%%ege +hen he +as /1 ears o%d and grad"ated

in

/0023 A&ter short stints as a schoo% teacher and s"r(eor# Mead did his grad"ate st"dies in

phi%osoph at Har(ard3 In /042# 5ohn De+e as$ed Mead to 6oin hi to &or the

Departent o& Phi%osoph at the 7ni(ersit o& Chicago# the site o& the &irst departent o&

socio%og in the 7nited States3 Mead's a6or in&%"ence on socio%ogists cae thro"gh his

grad"ate co"rse in socia% pscho%og# +hich he started teaching in /4883 Aong his st"dents

+as Her*ert 9%"er :Chapter //;3 Those %ect"res &ored the *asis &or Mead's ost &ao"s

+or$# Mind, Self, and Society, p"*%ished posth"o"s% * his st"dents3 Mead died on Apri%

-1# /42/3

*entral So+iologi+al ,estions

Societ as +e $no+ it cae to e"estion is the iss"e o& separation! The +atching perspecti(e o& an

indi(id"a% is separate &ro the actions o& the se%&3 Mead +ants to e"isition and ro%e ta$ing3 Ro%e ta$ing

progresses thro"gh three stages as the indi(id"a% de(e%ops a se%& that is increasing%

separated &ro his or her o+n actions3

.e) *on+ets

pragatis# eergence# action# eaning# nat"ra% signs and signi&icant gest"res# socia%

o*6ects# eergence# ro%e)ta$ing# perspecti(e# se% ind# p%a stage# gae stage#

genera%iBed other stage# I and the Me# interaction# societ

*on+ets and Theor): Trth/ Meaning/ and 0+tion

&here "ere many influences on $ead's thinking. !n fact, his "ork is an early

example of theoretical synthesis, bringing together several different strands ofthought to create something ne" (for $ead's influences, see $orris, 567=. 1ut for

our purposes, "e "ill concentrate on $ead's debt to the philosophy ofpragmatism.


4/32

%ragmatism is the only indigenous and distinctively American form of philoso

phy, and its birth is linked to the American +ivil >5. &he +ivil

years to culturally recover and find a

"ay of thinking and seeing the "orld that it could embrace. &hat philosophy "as

pragmatism.

Pragmati+ Trth

%ragmatism rejects the notion that there are any fundamental truths and instead

proposes that truth is relative to time, place, and purpose. !n other "ords, the

4truth4of any idea or moral is not found in "hat people believe or in any ultimate

reality. &ruth can only be found in the actions of people) specifically, people find

ideas to be true if they result in practical benefits. %ragmatism is thus 4an idea about

ideas4 and a "ay of relativiing ideology ($enand, =>>5, p. xi, but this relativiing

doesn't result in relativism. %ragmatism is based on common sense and the belief

that the search for 4truth and kno"ledge shifts to the social and communal cir

cumstances under "hich persons can communicate and cooperate in the process of

ac:uiring kno"ledge4 (


5/32

an object cannot be unconditionally kno"n) it is negotiated in interaction. &hemeaning pragmatically emerges.

Hman 0+tion

Humans act-they don't react. As $ead characteries it, the distinctly human

act contains four distinct elements3 impulse, perception, manipulation, and con

sumption. *or most animals, the route from impulse to behavior is rather direct

they react to a stimulus using instincts or behavioristically imprinted patterns. 1ut

for humans, it is a circuitous route. &he philosopher 2rnst +assirer (56 puts it

this "ay3 4$an has ... discovered a ne" method of adapting himself to his envi

ronment. 1et"een the receptor system and the effector systems, "hich are found

in all animal species, "e find in man a third link "hich "e may describe as thesymbolic system4) this system is 4the "ay to civiliation4 (pp. =, =7.

After "e feel the initial impulse to act, "e perceive our environment. &his per

ception entails the recognition of the pertinent symbolic elements-other

people, absent reference groups ("hat $ead calls generalied others, and so

on-as "ell as alternatives to satisfying the impulse. After "e symbolically take

in our environment, "e manipulate the different elements in our imagination.

&his is the all-important pause before action) this is where society becomes possi

ble. &his manipulation takes place in the mind and considers the possible rami

fications of using different behaviors to satisfy the impulse.


6/32

salivate at the sound of her treat box being opened or the tone of my voice "hen

! ask, 4


7/32

*hater 6 C The Modern Person! Mead and Sie% 7

of things "e can do "ith it. %icture a "ooden object "ith four legs, a seat, and a slat

ted back. !f ! sit do"n on this object, then the meaning of it is 4chair.4 n the other

hand, if ! take that same object and break it into small pieces and use it to start a

fire, it's no longer a chair-it's fire"ood. 0o the meaning of an object is defined in

terms of its uses, or legitimated lines ofbehavior.

1ecause the meaning-legitimated actions-and objective availability (they

are objects because "e can point them out as foci for interaction of symbols

are produced in social interactions, they are social objects. Any idea or thing

can be a social object. A piece of string can be a social object, as can the self or

the idea of e:uality. &here is nothing about the thing itself that makes it a social

object) an entity becomes an object to us through our interactions around it.

&hrough interaction, "e call attention to it, name it, and attach legitimate lines

of behavior to it.*or example, because of certain kinds of interactions, a +oke bottle here in the

?nited 0tates is a specific kind of social object. 1ut to Di, a bushman from the

Ealahari ;esert (in the film The ods !ust "e Cra#y$, the +oke bottle becomes

something utterly different as a result of his interactions around it. *or Di, the +oke

bottle dropped from the sky-an obvious gift from the gods. 1ut "hen he brought

it to his village, this playful gift from the gods became a curse, because there "as

only one and everybody "anted it. It became a scarce resource that brought con

flict. 2ventually, Di had to go on a religious :uest because of this gift from the gods

(to us, a +okebottle.

S)mboli+ InteractionBotice in this illustration that the meaning of the +oke bottle changed as different

kinds of interactions took place. !n this sense, meaning is emergent and arises out of

interaction. As $ead (56C says, 4the logical structure of meaning ... is to be found

in the threefold relationship of gesture to adjustive response and to the resultant of

the given social act4 (p. F>. !nteraction is defined as the ongoing negotiation and

melding together of individual actions and meanings through three distinct steps.

*irst, there is an initial cue given.Botice that the cue itself doesn't carry any specific

meaning. -et's say you see a friend crying in the halls at school.


8/32

sa" him out "ith another "oman last *riday night. At this point, the social

object-marriage-"hich "as a cue that caused her to cry in happiness, hasbecome an object of anger. 0o the meaning that emerges is no" betrayal and anger.

0he then takes that meaning and interacts "ith her fiance. !n that interaction, she

presents a cue (maybe she's crying again, but it has a different meaning, and he

responds, and she responds to his response, and so on. $aybe she finds out that you

misread the cues that *riday night and the 4other "oman4 "as just a friend. 0o she

comes back to you and presents a cue, ad infinitum. Eeep this idea of emergent

meaning in mind as "e see "hat $ead says about the self (it, too, emerges.

*on+ets and Theor): Ma1ing 2orsel'

#ave you ever "atched someone doing something@ f course you have. $aybe you"atched a "orker planting a tree on campus, or maybe you "atched a band play

last *riday night. And "hile you "atched, you understood people and their behav

iors in terms of the identity they claimed and the roles they played. !n short, "hen

you "atch someone, you understand the person as a social object. After "atching

someone, have you ever called someone else's attention to that actor@ f course

you have, and it's easy to do. All you have to say is something like, 4


9/32

of the intervie"er in order to see ho" he or she "ill vie" you-you then dress oract in the 4appropriate4 manner. 1ut role-taking is distinct from impression man

agement, and it is the major mechanism through "hich "e are able to form a per

spective outside of ourselves.

A perspecti%e is al"ays a meaning-creating position.


10/32

#e had an impulse to hit the other man, perhaps because he "as jealous. 1ut he

didn't.


11/32

*hater 6 C The Modern Person! Mead and Sier 11

child is playing $ommy or ;addy "ith a teddy bear, "ho is the bear@ &he childherself. 0he is seeing herself from the point of vie" of the parent, literally. &his is

the genesis of the self perspective3 being able to get outside of the self so that "e

can "atch the self as if on stage. As the child acts to"ard herself as others act, the

child begins to understand self as a set of organied responses and becomes a

social object to herself.

&he next stage in the development of self is the game stage. ;uring this stage,

the child can take the perspective of several others and can take into account the

rules (sets of responses that different attitudes bring out of society. 1ut the role

taking at this stage is still not very abstract. !n the play stage, the child could only

take the perspective of a single significant other) in the game stage, the child can

take on the role of several others, but they all remain individuals. $ead's example

is that of a baseball game. &he batter can role-take "ith each individual player in

the field and determine ho" to bat based on their behaviors. &he batter is also

a"are of all the rules of the game. +hildren at this stage can role-take "ith several

people and are very concerned "ith social rules. 1ut they still don't have a fully

formed self. &hat doesn't happen until they can take the perspective of the general

ied other3 ?It is this generalied other in his experience "hich provides him "ith a

self4 ($ead, 56=8, p. =76.

&he generalied other refers to sets of attitudes that an individual may take

to"ard himself or herself-it is the general attitude or perspective of a community.

&he generalied other allo"s the individual to have a less segmented self as theper

spectives of many others are generalied into a single vie". !t is through the gener

alied other that the community exercises control over the conduct of its individualmembers.

?p until this point, the child has only been able to role-take "ith specific others.

As the individual progresses in the ability to use abstract language and concepts, he

or she is also able to think about general or abstract others. 0o, for example, a

"oman may look in the mirror and judge the reflection by the general image that

has been given to her by the media about ho" a "oman should look.

Another insightful example of ho" the generalied other "orks is given to us by

/eorge r"ell in his account of 40hooting an 2lephant.4 r"ell "as at the time a

police officer in 1urma. #e "as at odds "ith the job and felt that imperialism "as an

evil thing. At the same time, the local populace despised him preciselybecause he rep

resented imperialistic control) he tells tales of being tripped and ridiculed by people

in the to"n. ne day an elephant "as reported stomping through a village. r"ell"as called to attend to it. n the "ay there, he obtained a rifle, only for scaring the

animal or defending himself if need be.


12/32

he shot the elephant. As r"ell puts it, at that time and in that place, the "hite man4"ears a mask, and his face gro"s to fit it. ... A sahib has got to act like a sahib4

(pp. 58=-58C. Bot shooting "as impossible, for 4the cro"d "ould laugh at me.

And my "hole life, every "hite man's life in the 2ast, "as one long struggle not to

be laughed at4 (p. 58C.


13/32


and by necessity interactions re:uire more than one person. $ead thus postulates

the existence of t"o interactive facets of the self3 the ! and the $e. &he $e is the

self that results from the progressive stages of role-taking and is the perspective

that "e assume to vie" and analye our o"n behaviors. &he 4!4 is that part of the

self that is unsocialied and spontaneous3 4&he self is essentially a social process

going on "ith these t"o distinguishable phases. I& it did not have these t"o phases,

there could not be conscious responsibility and there "ould be nothing novel in

experience4 ($ead, 56C, p. 59F.


14/32

T0.#3G TH P"SP*T#4-S2M&!5#* #T"0*T#!

S*o%ic interaction DE/; is a priar perspecti(e in socio%og# and there are se(era% tpes o& E/3

The one e"e o& Ta%cott Parsons' str"ct"ra% &"nctiona%is and +as ssteatiBed *

Her*ert 9%"er3 9%"er /414; speci&ica%% ta$es on Parsons' notion o& the "nit act as ?the

>"aint notion that socia% interaction is a process o& de(e%oping 'cop%ientar e"antitati(e data# *oth o& +hich a %ead to the pro*%e o& rei&ication that

9%"er points o"t3 S*o%ic interactionis# then# as 9%"er concept"a%iBed it is an approach

that points to the necessit o& interpretation and o(ing theor &ro the gro"nd "p :o&ten

re&erred to as ?gro"nded theor?;3 More genera%% and historica%%# 9%"er's +or$ &o%%o+s thato& George Her*ert Mead and pragatis in ephasiBing the po%itica% responsi*i%it &or choices

and the eergent propert o& deocratic ethics3

In *rie 9%"er's schoo% o& s*o%ic interaction is a theoretica% perspecti(e in socio%og

that ass"es that h"an *eings are &"ndaenta%% oriented to+ard eaning# that

eaning is not a characteristic o& a +ord or o*6ect# and that eaning eerges &ro the

interaction3 Centra% iss"es and >"estions &or s*o%ic interaction inc%"de the prod"ction

and "se o& the se%& in interaction# ho+ eaning is achie(ed# and ho+ actions and

interactions are +o(en together3

=or$ de(e%oped &ro this perspecti(e has ta$en a (ariet o& paths# s"ch as Ho+ard 9ec$er's

%a*e%ing theor# (utsiders' )tudies in the )ociology of *e%iance :/412;F Noran DenBin's

c"%t"ra% st"dies# )ymbolic lnteractionism and Cultural )tudies' The+olitics ofnterpretation

:/44-;F and R3 S3 Perin*anaaga's theor o& dia%ogic acts# The +resence of )elf :-888;3 An

o"tstanding reso"rce containing priar +or$s is en P%"er's )ymbolic lnteractionism,(o%"es / and - /44/;3

Another schoo% o& E/ that gained &orce in the /4.8s is o&ten ca%%ed the Io+a Schoo%# *este


15/32

*hater 6 3# The Modern Person! Mead and Sie% 15

Georg Simmel (188-1918)

Theorist's Digest

Concepts and Theor! The Indi(id"a% in Societ

Subecti!e and "becti!e #ultures

Concepts and Theor! The Se%& in the Cit

The $i!ision of %abor

Money and Markets

Social &et'orks( Rational )ersus "rganic #rou* Membershi*

S"ar

Ta$ing the Perspecti(e),ora% Socio%og

immel is particularly significant for "hat he adds to $ead's theory of the self.

As "e've seen, $ead's theory sees the self as a perspective that comes out of

interactions, and he sees the meanings of symbols, social objects, and the self

as emerging from negotiated interactions. !n general, 0immel "ould not take issue

"ith $ead's analysis)but he does add a caveat. *or 0immel, cultural entities-such as

social forms, symbols, and selves-can exist subjectively and under the influence ofpeople in interaction, just as $ead says. #o"ever, 0immel also entertains the possi

bility that culture can exist objectively and independent of the person and interaction.

!t's the influence of this objective culture on the person that interests 0immel.

TH!"#ST$S %#GST

&rie' &iograh

Georg Sie% +as *orn in the heart o& 9er%in on March /# /00# the o"ngest o& se(en

chi%dren3 His &ather +as a 5e+ish *"sinessan +ho had con(erted to Catho%icis *e&ore Georg

+as *orn3 In /0.1# Sie% *egan his st"dies :histor# phi%osoph# pscho%og; at the 7ni(ersito& 9er%in# ta$ing soe o& the sae co"rses and pro&essors as Ma< =e*er +o"%d a &e+ ears

%ater3 In /00# Sie% *ecae an "npaid %ect"rer at the 7ni(ersit o& 9er%in# +here he +as

dependent "pon st"dent &ees3At 9er%in# he ta"ght phi%osoph and ethics# as +e%% as soe o&

the &irst co"rses e(er o&&ered in socio%og3 In a%% pro*a*i%it# George Her*ert Mead +as one o&

the &oreign st"dents in attendance3 Tho"gh Sie% +rote an socio%ogica% essas and

artic%es# his ost iportant +or$ o& socio%og +as p"*%ished in /488#The Philoso*hy of Money

A%% together# Sie% p"*%ished 2/ *oo$s and se(era% h"ndred essas and artic%es3 In /4/8# he#

a%ong +ith Ma< =e*er and ,erdinand Tonnies# &o"nded the Geran Societ &or Socio%og3

+#ontinued

S


16/32

:Contin"ed;

In /4/# Sie% +as o&&ered a &"%%)tie acadeic position at the 7ni(ersit o& Stras*o"rg3Ho+e(er# as =or%d =ar I *ro$e o"t# the schoo% *"i%dings +ere gi(en o(er to i%itar "ses and

Sie% had %itt%e %ect"ring to do3 On Septe*er -0# /4/0# Sie% died o& %i(er cancer3

Central Sociological Questions

Man socio%ogists arg"e that peop%e are &ored thro"gh socia% interaction and e


17/32


perceptions of the "orld to form objects of experience. 0o, nature can only exist asthe object 4nature4 because scientists are observing the "orld through the apriori

(existing before category of nature. !n other "ords, a scientist can see "eather as a

natural phenomenon, produced through processes that "e can discover, only

because she assumes beforehand (a priori that "eather does not exist as a result of

the "him of a god.

0immel "ants to discover the a priori conditions for society. &his "as a ne" "ay

of trying to understand society, rather than using a mechanistic and organismic

analogy. !n understanding society, ho"ever, 0immel "ants to maintain the integrity

of the individual but at the same time recognie society as a true force.


18/32

Objective culture is made up of elements that become separated from the

individual's or group's control and reified as separate objects. &hink about tie

dye &-shirts, for example. Gou can no" go to any department store and buy such a

shirt. Gou do not have to be a hippie to "ear it, nor are you necessarily identi

fied as a hippie, nor do you necessarily feel the connection to the values and

norms of the hippie culture. It exists as an object separate from the individuals

"ho produced it in the first place. nce formed, objective culture can take on

a life of its o"n and it can exert a coercive force over individuals. *or example,

many of us gro"ing up in the ?nited 0tates believe in the ideology and morality

of democracy, though in truth "e are far removed from its crucial issues, ideals,

and practices.

&he diagram in *igure 7.5 pictures the relationship bet"een subjective and

objective culture.


19/32

culture increases, it becomes more and more difficult for individuals to embrace it

as a "hole. !ndividuals come to experience culture sporadically and in fragments.

#o" individuals respond to this tension bet"een subjective experience and culture

is of utmost concern to 0immel.

0immel identifies three general variables of objective culture. As any of these

variables increases, culture becomes more objective and less subjectively available

to the individual. *irst, culture can vary in its absolute si#e. &he pure bulk of cul

tural material can increase or decrease. !n modernity, the amount of objective

culture increases continuously. *or example, in the year =>>>, the "orld produced

approximately 5,=>> terabytes of scanned printed material. A terabyte contains

over 1 trillion bytes. !f "e "ere to make a single book that contained just 5billion

characters, it "ould be almost C= miles thick. A trillion is 5,>>> billion. It has been

estimated that to count to 5 trillion "ould take over 56>,>>> years, if "e counted=9C78. &he human race created over 5,=>> trillion bytes of printed information

in =>>>. &hat's not counting the !nternet. And that figure increases by =I to 5>I

each year.

+ulture can also vary by its di%ersity of components. et's take fashion, for

example. Bot only are there simply more fashion items available (absolute sie,

there are also more fashion types or styles available-there are fashions for hip

hop, grunge, skater, hardcore, preppy, glam, raver, piercer, and so on, ad infinitum.

*inally, culture can vary by its comple0ity. ;ifferent cultural elements can either be

linked or unlinked. !f different elements become linked, then the overall complex

ity of the objective culture increases. *or example, "hen this nation first started,

there "Jere only a fe" different kinds of religions (a couple of different %rotestant

denominations and +atholicism. ;ue to various social factors, the objective cul

ture of religion has increased in its sie and diversity, resulting in any number of

different kinds of religion in America today. &he culture of religion has also

become more complex, especially in the last fe" years. &oday "e find people "ho

are joining together in "hat "as previously thought to be antithetical forms of

religion. 0o, for example, "e can find +hristian-%agans in Borth +arolina. As these

different forms become linked together, the religious culture becomes increasingly

more complex.

*or 0immel, cultural forms are necessary to achieve goals in a social setting.

#o"ever, if these forms become detached from the lived life of the individual, they

present a potential problem for the subjective experience of that individual. !n an

ideal "orld, there is an intimate connection bet"een the personal experience of theindividual and the culture that he or she uses. #o"ever, as the gap bet"een the indi

vidual and culture increases, and as culture becomes more objective, culture begins

to attain an autonomy that is set against the creative forces of the individual.

*on+ets and Theor): The Sel' in the *it

!n the follo"ing sections "e "ill be exploring the ideas expressed as 42lements of

$odernity4 in *igure 7.5. &hese are the specific characteristics of the modern age

that tend to decrease subjective and increase objective cultures. 0immel's primary


20/32

concern in this shift is the effects it has on the individual's personal experience of

the self. &here are three interrelated forces in modernity that tend to increase objective culture in all three of its areas-urbani.ation, the division of labor, and the use

of money and markets. ?rbaniation appears to be the principal dynamic, as it

increases the level of the division of labor and the extent that money and markets

are used. It also changes one's "eb of affiliations from a dense, primary net"ork to

a loose, secondary one. As is typical "ith 0immel, "e "ill find that he believes that

social processes bring some conflicting effects. Additionally, as you'll see, 0immel's

argument is complex, so read the next sections carefully by thin&ing through and

&eeping trac& of the theoretical connections and effects. At the end of our discussion

!'ll give you a model that captures 0immel's theory.

0immel's (568> concern "ith objective culture is no"here clearer than in his

short paper 4&he $etropolis and $ental ife43

&he most profound reason ... "hy the metropolis conduces to the urge of

the most individual personal existence ... appears to me to be the follo"ing3

the development of modern culture is characteried by the preponderance of

"hat one may call the 4objective spirit4 over the 4subjective spirit.4 (p. =5

&he initial factor in back of this objective spirit is urbaniation-the process that

moves people from country to city living. &his move "as a major factor in creat

ing the modern era, and in that sense urbaniation is historically specific. 1ut it's

extremely important for us to keep in mind that this process didn't stop at some

point. &he dynamics that brought about urbaniation are ongoing) thus, contem

porary societies still have varying degrees of urbaniation, "ith some areas being

more or less urbanied. &hus the levels of the effects from urbaniation vary as

"ell. ?rbaniation created three other factors3 increasing division of labor,

expanding use of money and markets, and greater ratio of rational to organic

group membership.

The %i9ision o' labor

#istorically, people generally moved from the country to the city because of

industrialiation. As a result of the !ndustrial evolution, the economic base of

society changed and "ith it the means through "hich people made a living. Aspop

ulations became increasingly concentrated in one place, more efficient means of

providing for the necessities of life and for organiing labor "ere needed. &hisincrease in the di%ision of labor happened so that products could be made more

:uickly and the "orkforce could be more readily controlled. 0immel 1 568> argues

that the division oflabor also increases because of "orker-entrepreneur innovation3

4&he concentration of individuals and their struggle for customers compel the

individual to specialie in a function from "hich he cannot be readily displaced by

another4 (p. =>.

&he division of labor demands an 4ever more one-sided accomplishment,4 and

"e thus become specialied and concerned "ith smaller and smaller elements of


21/32

the production process. &his one-sidedness creates objective culture3 , p. ==.

0immel claims that the consumption of products thus produced has a triviali

ing effect. &his is basically the same issue "ith "hich $arx "as concerned3

+ommodities produced in modern economies have little if any intrinsic meaning.

1efore modernity most products "ere handmade, had very clear meanings to

groups and individuals, and "ere usually embedded in socially reciprocal relations

of gift giving, support, and lineage.


22/32

their objective and abstract "orth. 0o, ! understand the value of my guitar ampli

fier in terms of the money it cost me and ho" difficult it "ould be to replace (interms of money. &he more money ! have, the less valuable my 0unn amplifier "ill

be, because ! could afford a hand-"ired, bouti:ue amp. &hus, our connection to

things becomes more tenuous and objective (rather than emotional due to the use

of money.

&hird, money also discourages intimate ties "ith people. %art of this is due to the

universal nature of money. 1ecause of its all-inclusive character, money comes to

stand in the place of almost everything, and this effect spreads.


23/32

*hater 6 ? The Modern Person! Mead and Sie% 23

has entered a kind of contract. &he "orker agrees to "ork for the employer a givennumber of hours per "eek at a certain pay rate. &his agreement covers an extended

period of time, "hich should only be terminated by a t"o-"eek notice or severance

pay. &his relationship may cover a great deal of geographic space, as "hen the "ork

place is located on the


24/32

&his factor has an effect on individual freedom of expression.


25/32


note about this freedom is that it is forced on the individual-in other "ords, thereare fe" organic connections. !n large cities, people usually do not have much family

around and the personal connections tend to be rather tenuous. !n 0outhern

+alifornia, for example, people move on average every five to seven years. $ost only

kno" their neighbors by sight, and the majority of interactions are "ork related

(and people change jobs about as often as they change houses.


26/32

more of the roles a person occupies clash "ith one another (such as "hen your

friends "ant to go out on &hursday night but you have a test the next morning.

&he greater the number of groups "ith "hich one affiliates, the greater is the

number of divergent roles and the possibility of role conflict. #o"ever, the ten

dency to keep groups spatially and temporally separate mitigates this potential. !n

other "ords, modern groups tend not to have the same members and they tend to

gather at different times and locations. 0o "e see the roles as separate and thus not

in conflict.

+omplex group structures also contribute to the blase attitude% an attitude of

absolute boredom and lack of concern. 2very social group "e belong to demands

emotional "ork or commitment, but "e only have limited emotional resources,

and "e can only give so much and care so much. &here is, then, a kind of inverserelationship bet"een our capacity to emotionally invest in our groups and the

number of different groups of "hich "e are members. As the number and diversity

of social groups in our lives goes up, our ability to emotionally invest goes do"n.

&his contributes to a blase attitude, but it also makes conflict among groups less

likely because the members care less about the groups' goals and standards.

&his blase attitude is also produced by all that "e have talked about so far, as

"ell as overstimulation and rapid change. &he city itself provides for multiple

stimuli. As "e "alk do"n the street, "e are faced "ith diverse people and cir

cumstances that "e must take in and evaluate and react to. !n our pursuit of indi

viduality, "e also increase the level of stimulation in our lives. As "e go from one

group to another, from one concert or movie to another, from one mall to

another, from one style of dress to another, or as "e simply "atch &V or listen tomusic, "e are bombarding ourselves "ith emotional and intellectual stimulation.

!n the final analysis, all this stimulation proves to be too much for us and "e emo

tionally "ithdra". *urther, this stimulation is in constant flux. Eno"ledge and

culture are constantly changing. $odern kno"ledge constantly changes because

of the basic assumptions in back of science (the modern "ay of kno"ing3

0cientific kno"ledge is based on skepticism, testing, and the defining value of

progress. &he general culture of modernity is affected by changes in kno"ledge,

yet cultural change is also fueled by ever-expanding capitalist markets and com

modities and mass media.

V!e have covered a great deal of conceptual ground in this section. !t's been made

all the more complicated because each of the things "e have talked about brings

both functional and dysfunctional effects and the effects overlap and mutually rein

force one another. !'ve diagramed 0immel's theory in *igure 7.=. Bote that !'ve con

centrated on the effects of urbaniation on the individual, "hich is 0immel's focus.

At first glance the complexity of the model may seem over"helming. #o"ever, if

you follo" each of the paths, you'll find that it simply expresses "hat "e've been

talking about over the past fe" pages. *or example, starting at the level of division

of labor, "e can see that increases in the division of labor create specialied cultures,

"hich in turn increases the level of objective culture (relative to subjective that

then increases the likelihood that people "ill experience a blase attitude. Gou can

also "ork back"ards in the model. !f you "ant to kno" "hen it's more likely that

people "ill have a sense of freedom in personal expression, start at that box and


27/32

E


28/32

28 MODERNITYAND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

"ork back"ards from the arro"s pointing to the box.


29/32

T0.#3G TH P"SP*T#4-

"se to create predicta*%e patterns o& socia% interaction3 In doing so# &ora% socio%ogists a$e a

distinction *et+een the content and &or o& an interaction3 The content is +hat the

interaction is a*o"t)the interests and p"rposes)s"ch as ed"cation# arriage# *"siness# and

so &orthF and ost socio%ogists are concerned +ith the content3 Th"s the socio%og o& ed"cation

te%%s "s +hat is happening in ed"cation3

,ora% socio%ogists# on the other hand# st"d the str"ct"res o& socia% interaction that c"t acrosss"ch content areas3 ,or e


30/32

:Contin"ed;

C Georg Sie% p"*%ished >"ite a *it# "n%i$e Mead3 I s"ggest that o" start o&& +ith the

&irst t+o readers# and then o(e to his s"*stantia% +or$ on one!

o Sie%#G3 :/44;3 2ssays on )ociology +hilosophy and Aesthetics 3by4eorg )immel

3and others4' eorg )immel, 5676-5856 :3 H3 =o%&e# Ed3;3 Ne+ Yor$! Harper Ro+3

o Sie%# G3 :/4./;3 eorg )immel' (nndi%iduality and )ocia9:orms :D3 N3 Le(ine#

Ed3;3 Chicago! 7ni(ersit o& Chicago Press3

o Sie%# G3 /4.0;3 The+hilosophy of!oney (&. 9ottoore D3 ,ris*# Trans3;3

London! Ro"t%edge and egan Pa"%3

C To read ore a*o"t Mead# I +o"%d recoend the &o%%o+ing!

o 9a%d+in# K. D3 :/401;3 eorge Herbert !ead' A ;nifying Theory for )ociology.

9e(er% Hi%%s# CA! Sage3

o 9%"er# H3 :/414;3 )ymbolic lnteractionism' +erspecti%e and!ethod. Eng%e+ood

C%i&&s# N5! Prentice Ha%%3

o 9%"er# H3 :-88;3 eorge Herbert !ead andHuman Conduct (&. K. Morrione# Ed3;3

=a%n"t Cree$# CA!A%taMira Press3

o Coo$# G3 A :/442;3 eorge Herbert !ead' The !a&ing of a )ocial +ragmatist.

7r*ana# IL! 7ni(ersit o& Chicago Press3

C ,or Sie%# the &o%%o+ing are e


31/32


32/32

:Contin"ed;

=ea9ing the Threads (bilding theor)

C Mead and Sie% o&&er an opport"nit to snthesiBe their theories to get a *etter

"nderstanding o& ho+ the se%& is ipacted * odern &actors3 Thin$ o& Mead te%%ing "s

a*o"t ho+ the person is socia%iBed# and "se Sie% to e"isition ore genera%% as c"%t"re# and "nderstand ro%e)ta$ing

occ"rring +ithin "r*an settings# +ith a%% that ip%ies3 A&ter o"'(e *eg"n to get a sense

o& +hat the odern se%&person +o"%d *e# thin$ a*o"t ho+ the se%& o& soeone gro+ing

"p and %i(ing in Los Ange%es# Ca%i&ornia# ight *e di&&erent than soeone gro+ing "p

and %i(ing in a sa%%# r"ra% to+n3

Social Lens - Chapter Mead e Simmel

Documents

Transcript of Social Lens - Chapter Mead e Simmel