[Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism: I, me and myself = Spirit in-itself, Spirit for-itself and Spirit in-and-for-itself

Tue Apr 1 05:42:17 PDT 2014

I think it is important to recognize that while both Mead and Dewey read Hegel and very early in their careers  (that's where they met I think) could be considered Hegelians.  They, I think publicly moved away from Hegel as they entered into their more productive stages.  I think some of this may have been from the goading of other Pragmatists of the time and  there is a really big argument about the Hegelian deposit in both their writings, but it is important to be wary of connections with Hegel in Mead's especially later works.

It also might be important to remember that symbolic interactionism was not Mead's term.  I think it was coined by Herbert Blumer, definitely one of Mead's students at the University of Chicago, but after his death.  I wonder what Mead would have thought especially considering Dewey's views of interactionsim (as not really explaining that much).

A third thing is I think you can make a big argument about Mead putting a great deal of importance on language (at least as Andy points out as a mediating force in the way Vygotsky did).  My own interpretation is that he saw individuals as developing their positions in society (self) based on their relationships with those around them, and language definitely serve as a vehicle for expressing those relationships, but it is the relationships themselves that are primary.

Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Rauno Huttunen [rakahu@utu.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 6:11 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism: I, me and myself = Spirit in-itself, Spirit for-itself and Spirit in-and-for-itself

Hello,

Also Hegel's logic can be seen in Mead's concepts of I, me and myself. They actually correspond Hegel's evolution (phenomenology) of Geist (Spirit): Spirit in-itself, Spirit for-itself and Spirit in-and-for-itself.

Rauno Huttunen

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
Sent: 1. huhtikuuta 2014 12:59
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism

At the heart of vygotsky's and mead's work is hegels master/slave dialectic as they apply it to the constitution of identity, I.e. Consciousness...As though there is no consciousness/identity prior to socialization via language and symbolic interaction.  This is similar to the identitarian logic of frankfurt school logician theodor adorno.  I have a problem with that as I view language and symbolic interaction as always an element of power and domination.  In essence my research question is, "is there a sui generis consciousness that exist prior to socialization/domination by symbols and language.  Haitian metaphysics says yes...it exists at the subatomic particle level and is just as real as the i and me of language and symbolic interaction.  Zora Neale hurston in her ethnographic field work in haiti was attempting to theorize about this in her literature...it is the essence of who we are.  I may have to go into the realm of physics to make sense of this metaphysical logic.

Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
President
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
www.mocombeian.com
www.readingroomcurriculum.com
www.paulcmocombe.info

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:03/31/2014  11:53 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>,"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism </div><div>
</div>Paul,
And another piece you might be interested in:
Winter, J. A. and Goldfield, E. C. (1991), Caregiver-Child Interaction in
the Development of Self: The Contributions of Vygotsky, Bruner, and Kaye to
Mead's Theory. Symbolic Interaction, 14: 433-447.
doi: 10.1525/si.1991.14.4.433

I suspect a Hegelian/Marxian root is shared between Vygotsky and Mead. Mead
said at one point that his social psychology was an attempt to do what
Hegel did, with the hopes that it would be "less incorrigible." I have the
exact quote somewhere if you're interested.

The Vygotsky-Hegel connections have been much debated here on XMCA, but it
seems that there is good reason to think that Vygotsky would have been
influenced by Hegel, whether directly or indirectly (quick duck - I think
they'll be some words flying soon in defense of one side or the other of
this argument...).

I'm interested in this intersection as well, more in terms of links and
complementarities with Goffman and Vygotsky, but I'm happy to chat about
the Mead/Vygotsky link.

-greg

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:53 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anne Edwards has an article on this topic in *The Cambridge Companion to
> Vygotsky".
>
> I have inquired of Anne, and would of anyone interested, to understand
> where the concept of culture appears in the Meadian framework.
>
> mike
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <
> pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
>
> > I am working on a paper comparing and contrasting george herbert mead's
> > symbolic interactionism with
> > vygotsky's theory....any suggestions anyone?
> >
> > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> > President
> > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > www.mocombeian.com
> > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> > www.paulcmocombe.info
> >
> > Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities
> > www.routledge.com/9780415714372
>

--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson