George Herbert Mead: On Play
- Alessandro Pennini
- Jul 17, 2016
- 7 min read
At the turn of the 20th Century, there was a trend in sociology towards macro-sociology - the analysis of societies and systems on a larger scale, deeper analysis than what had been previous attempted in the past. Examinations of systems beyond the sheer function, what motivated change and the effects of change and the ways in which society could seek to reorder itself.
Sociologists like Durkheim and Marx focused their efforts on a macro level, while on a micro-sociological level there were thinkers like George Herbert Mead. Mead is considered by many to be one of the fathers of social psychology and one of the leaders of a sociological movement known as symbolic interactionism - an attempt to cognize how we come to an understanding of our “self” and how we project our self to others through our actions.
“Action pervades Mead’s entire scheme of analysis. Society is seen in terms of action – the fitting together of lines of action of individual members” (Blumer, 2003, p8).
Mead argued that there exist two paradigms of identity for an individual: I and Me, which both co-exist to form the “self”. How we perceive ourselves recursively shapes us and our ideas of people’s perceptions in the form of “the generalised other” forces us to evaluate our own identity on an ever-changing basis.
The Generalised Other
The generalised other is a way to describe expectations; when an individual attempts to rationalise or imagine what is expected of them in a given situation, they are taking on the perspective of the generalised other. It is not what someone expects of you, but rather what everyone expects of you; one does not do that or it is expected of you.
Mead asserted that we discover the generalised other through two ways of expression as children: play and game, for which the “…the fundamental difference between the game and play is that in the latter the child must have the attitude of all the others involved in that game” (Mead, 1934, pp. 153-154).
‘These are personalities which they take, roles they play, and in so far control the development of their own personality ‘(Mead, 1934, p.153). Mead did not implicitly state that play is a solitary pursuit of imagination, but rather since it lacked logic, rules or a definite end as stated above. Children learn through play about roles, expectations of these roles and how these roles influence actions. Regardless of if play is a solitary or group pursuit, to enact or become other characters, the child takes on the signs and signifiers of that group along with the expectations. If a child plays at being a policeman, his actions influence how people see him.
Mead argued that in a game, which is distinct from play, we begin to fully realise the concept of the generalised other as an anonymous entity, the unbodied embodiment of social norms and value, intent and expectation. In a game of baseball, we realise the other players may have expectations of us, and we strive to fulfil them based on a silent understanding that has passed through the community. Through the use of other players within the game, the individual becomes aware of an expectation by a generalised other or “The attitude of the generalized other is the attitude of the whole community” (Mead, 1934, p. 154). And the game requires our full self, in other words, a game requires a coherent self while play requires only fragments of our self. As Ritzer sums up that “not only is the role of the generalized other essential to the self, it is also crucial to the development of organized group activities” (Ritzer, 2008 pg. 361)
Perhaps with the idea of the game as a metaphor for democratic life and as children learn to co-operate with the ideal of success as a team, they also learn to restrain the impulsive behaviour. (Farganis, 2004, pg. 144) It leads into a self-correcting emotional matrix, where upon rapid reflection on the outwards “me” performed by “I”. As humans, we gained the ability to reshape our behaviour to gain approval and acceptance. Through play and game, and rigorous reflection, we as children begin to gleam the idea of the self. Mead places importance upon reflection “reflection is the operation of inference in the field of ideation, i.e., the functioning as symbols of contents and characters of things, by means of which constructions of objects sought can be carried out.” (Mead, 1932, p.68) and situates it as paramount in formation of self.
Societal Stimuli
Mead speaks of the self as a kind of social object which lies in the field of experience. It is structured by the principle of sociality, or the taking of the attitude of the other in a social situation (Denzin, 2004 p.84) and within Mind, Self and Society, he says that self is a process whereupon we perceive our own being, defined by interaction, and actualize that as a form of consciousness.
The self is not a part of the body in itself, but it emerges through communication with others (Macionis and Plummer, 2012 pg. 213) Mead was interested in how humans absorb stimuli, exterior conditions or observational patterns, process them and recreate the stimuli into a “self”, which in turn creates stimuli again. The mind receives, perceives and responds before cycling again, re-organising and re-understanding concepts and symbols. “Mead and his interpreters have located the problems of meaning and behaviour inside the concept of a social self, regarded as an agent of interpretation, definition, and action within a social field” (Dunn, 1997, pg. 688)
All of this builds to the idea of symbolic interactionism, whereupon the claim of interactivity is conducted through the use of symbols and gestures (both conscious gesture and unconscious gesture).
“The term ‘symbolic interaction’ refers, of course to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes place between human beings. The peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings interpret or “define” each other’s actions instead of merely reacting to each other’s actions” (Blumer, 1969 pp. 78-79)
Symbols as Meaning, Symbols as Interaction
Dramaturgy, while not explicitly stated within Mead’s work was an implied concept many further symbolic interactionists took away after examining his work, whereupon symbols of identification can be manipulated to create new meaning for the individual using them. Furze et al. (2008, p. 127) defined that ‘dramaturgical analysis views social interaction as a sort of play in which people present themselves to appear as best they can’ and when considered in the context of role play, and outward me versus inward I, the struggle to appear as best you can or genuine is a battle against yourself. Certain symbols are learned among all of us, and adjustment of one’s self behaviour can allow for acceptance into groups or approval, by observation, reflection and discourse with the self. What is essential to communication is that the symbol should arouse in one's self what it arouses in the other individual.
Societal elements are composed of signs and signifiers, of meaning that we have assigned to it through social interaction. If one understands how these building blocks work, you can create new meaning through pre-existing materials
Goffman lead the discussion on Dramaturgy with his definition of life having a front stage and a back stage “It was suggested earlier that when one's activity occurs in the presence of other persons, some aspects of the activity are expressively accentuated and other aspects, which might discredit the fostered impression, are suppressed. It is clear that accentuated facts make their appearance in what I have called a front region; it should be just as clear that there may be another region - a 'back region' or 'backstage' - where the suppressed facts make an appearance.” (Goffman, 1959, pg. 114).
There are aspects of ourselves that we form behind closed doors, away from the eyes of our potential audience upon the stage. Goffman builds his with the metaphor of the stage, borrowing from the Shakespeare quotation but the point is valid and relevant to the contemporary world. Much of modern life revolves around carefully selecting symbols, signs and signifiers to create meaning on the stage. The stage that we play on is shifting, and we have to be able to read our audience. Our clothing lends subtext to our personalities, what we choose to share about ourselves creates new versions of us.
Dramaturgy In Motion
When asked to relate this aspect to my own life, I find myself drawn to the aspect of an online persona.
We are increasingly interconnected through all forms of media; everything is becoming linked with each other. The idea that we can live a fictional world in cyberspace and a different one in reality begins to blur the lines between our personalities, as multiple uses of stages and overlapping use of symbol creates confusion in meaning.
One could conceivably represent themselves as different types of people with the proper use of symbols to represent things, and exist as multiple symbolic entities inside the internet. The idea that our online identities may have more expression than our real selves is often explored in a number of shows, such as the 1998 anime series “Serial Experiments Lain” to which Jackson extrapolates briefly
“As an entity, Lain, the character, is shown to simultaneously exist in many places… Eventually, however, Lain becomes aware of these simultaneous identities. And they may, indeed, be viewed as simultaneous…” (Craig Jackson 2012, 191-192)
I saw this show as a young child and it left a profound impression on me, proving to me that our online selves as only what we choose to project and it is through mastery of learned gesture and symbol we can do this. Careful framing, selective editing, retouching creates new meaning to our old self.
We create symbols and in turn they shape us, much in the way our tools once did. As lines become blurred between reality and non-reality, it will only be what appears to be real that is considered real. If all the signs and symbols of reality are there, what proof is there to say it is otherwise?
References:
Blumer, H & Mead, GH, ‘George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct’
Altamira Press, 2003, pp.4-8,
Mead, George Herbert, ‘Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist’
Chicago University Press, 1934, pp. 149-160, pp. 175-178
Ritzer, George, 2008 ‘Symbolic Interactionism’
7th Edn, Mc-Graw Hill, Ch. 10, pp. 347-386
Farganis, James, 2004 ‘Readings in Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism’ 4th edn, McGraw Hill Higher Education, pg. 84
Mead, George Herbert ‘The Philosophy of the Present’
LaSalle (1932): pp. 68 - 90. (The Implications of the Self" Chapter 4)
Denzin, Norman K, ‘Symbolic Interactionism’, ‘A Companion to Qualitative Research’
Sage Publications, 2004, pp. 81-84
Macionis and Plummer, 2012, ‘Sociology: A Global Introduction’
5th edn, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, pg. 213
Dunn, Robert G, 1997. ‘SELF, IDENTITY, AND DIFFERENCE: Mead and the Poststructuralists’. THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 38, No. 4, pg. 688
Blumer, Herbert, 1969 ‘Society as Symbolic Interaction’
Engelwood Cliffs, Prentice Halls, ch.3, pg. 78-89
Furze, B, Savy, P, Brym, R & Lie, J, 2008 ‘Sociology: In Today’s World’
1st edn, Cengage Learning Australia
Goffman, Erving, 1990 ‘The Presentation of self in everyday life’
England Penguin Books, pp. 109-140
Jackson, Craig ‘Topologies of Identity in Serial Experiments Lain’
Mechademia, 2012, Vol.7 (1), pp.191-201 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
Comments