Essentials of Sociology. George Ritzer

has examined symbolic interaction between humans and animals (Alger and Alger 1997; Irvine 2004).

      Symbolic Interaction

      Of greatest importance in distinguishing humans from animals is a kind of gesture that can be made only by humans. Mead calls such a gesture a significant symbol, a gesture that arouses in the individual making it a response of the same kind as the one it is supposed to elicit from those to whom it is addressed. It is only with significant symbols, especially those that are vocal, that we can have communication in the full sense of the term. In Mead’s view—although more and more research on animals tends to contradict it (Gerhardt and Huber 2002; Gillespie-Lynch et al. 2013)—ants, bees, dogs, and apes are unable to communicate by means of such symbols.

      Over time, humans develop a set of vocal significant symbols, or language. According to Mead, language involves significant symbols that call out the same meaning in the person to whom an utterance is aimed as they do in the person making the utterance. The utterances have meaning to all parties involved. In a conversation of gestures, only the gestures are communicated. With language, both the (vocal) gestures and the meanings are communicated. One of the key functions of language is that it makes the mind and mental processes possible. To Mead, thinking (and the mind; see the following section) is nothing more than internalized conversations individual humans have with themselves. It is little different from talking to other people.

      Symbols also make possible symbolic interaction, or interaction based on significant symbols. This allows for much more complex interaction patterns than those that occur where interaction is based only on gestures. Because people can think about and interpret significant symbols, they can interact with large numbers of people and make complex plans for future undertakings. They can interpret the symbolic meaning of what others say and do and understand, for example, that some of them are acting in accord with their own plans. Animals lack the ability to make and understand complex plans.

      Ask Yourself

      What did George Herbert Mead mean by saying that thinking is so much like talking to yourself that it is little different from talking to other people? Do you agree with him? Why or why not? Think of some examples and counterexamples.

      Mind and Self

      Central to Mead’s ideas about the development of human beings, and the differences between humans and nonhumans, are the concepts of mind and self. The mind is an internal conversation using words (and also images, especially, but certainly not only, for the autistic and the deaf; Fernyhough 2014; Grandin 2000). That internal conversation arises, is related to, and is continuous with interactions, especially conversations one has with others in the social world. Thus, the social world and its relationships and interactions precede the mind and not vice versa. This perspective stands in contrast to the conventional view that prioritizes the brain and argues that we think first and then engage in social relationships. It also differs from the view that the mind and the brain are one and the same thing. The brain is a physiological organ that exists within us, but the mind is a social phenomenon. It is part of, and would not exist without, the social world. While the brain is an intracranial phenomenon, the mind is not.

      The self is the ability to take oneself as an object. The self develops over time. Key to the development of self is the ability to imagine being in the place of others and looking at one’s self as they do. In other words, people need to take the role of others to get a sense of their own selves. There are two key stages in Mead’s theory of how the self develops over time, the play stage and the game stage.

      1 Play stage. Babies are not born with the ability to think of themselves as having a self. However, as they develop, children learn to take on the attitudes of specific others toward themselves. Thus, young children play at being Mommy and Daddy, adopt Mommy’s and Daddy’s attitudes toward the child, and evaluate themselves as do Mommy and Daddy. However, the result is a very fragmented sense of the self. It varies depending on the specific other (e.g., Mommy or Daddy) being taken into consideration. Young children lack a more general and organized sense of themselves.

      2 Game stage. Children begin to develop a self in the full sense of the term when they take on the roles of a group of people simultaneously rather than the roles of discrete individuals. Each of those different roles comes to be seen as having a definite relationship to all the others. Children develop organized personalities because of their ability to take on multiple roles—indeed, the entirety of roles in a given group. The developed personality does not vary with the individual role (Mommy, Daddy) a child happens to be taking. This development allows children to function in organized groups. Most important, it greatly affects what they do within specific groups.

      Mead offers the example of a baseball game (or what he calls “ball nine”) to illustrate his point about the game stage of development. It is not enough in a baseball game for you to know what you are supposed to do in your position on the field. To play your position, you must know what those who play the other eight positions on the team are going to do. In other words, a player, every player, must take on the roles of all the other players. A player need not have all of those roles in mind all of the time; three or four of them will suffice on most occasions. For example, a shortstop must know that the center fielder is going to catch a particular fly ball; that he is going to be backed up by the left fielder; that because the runner on second is going to “tag up,” the center fielder is going to throw the ball to third base; and that it is his job as shortstop to back up the third baseman. This ability to take on multiple roles obviously applies in a baseball game, but it applies as well in a playgroup, a work setting, and every other social setting.

      In Mead’s game stage of the development of the self, we learn how to work with others by understanding their roles as well as our own. Do you think this learning process is ever complete?

      Jim West / Alamy Stock Photo

      The Generalized Other

      Mead also developed the concept of the generalized other, or the attitude of the entire group or community. The generalized other includes the roles, prescriptions, and proscriptions individuals use to develop their own behaviors, attitudes, and so forth. Individuals take the role of the generalized other. That is, they look at themselves and what they do from the perspective of the group or community. “What would people think if I . . .” is a question that demonstrates the role of the generalized other.

      The generalized other becomes central to the development of self during the game stage. In the classroom, the generalized other is the attitude of a group working on a collaborative project. In the family, to take still another example, it is the attitude of all family members. In taking on the perspectives of the generalized other, children begin developing more fully rounded and complete selves. They can view and evaluate themselves from the perspective of a group or community and not merely from the viewpoints of discrete others. To have a coherent self, in the full sense of the term, as an adult one must become a member of a group or community. An adult must also be sensitive to the attitudes common to the community. Having members who can take the role of the generalized other is also essential to the development of the group, especially in its organized activities. The group can function more effectively and efficiently because it is highly likely that individual members will understand and do what is expected of them. In turn, individuals can operate more efficiently within the group because they can better anticipate what others will do.

      This discussion might lead you to think that the demands of the generalized other produce conformists. However, Mead argues that while selves within a group share some commonalities, each self is different because each has a unique biographical history and experience. Furthermore, there are many groups and communities in society and therefore many generalized others. Your generalized other in a baseball game is different from your generalized other in a classroom or in the family.