Suchergebnisse

Despite decades of scholarship on G.H. Mead (1863—1931), we are still far from an adequate estimate of the full scope of his contributions. In this article, I examine the standard caricature that portraits Mead as an essentially idealist thinker, without much to say on the `material conditions of reproduction' of modern industrialized societies. Focusing on Habermas's version of this interpretation, I try to show that if `science and democracy' is a common theme amongst classical pragmatists, Mead is the only of these to whom we owe a communicative social theory that systematically connects science's problem-solving nature to democracy's deliberative character by means of social psychology that establishes the social nature of the human self. To suggest otherwise is to ignore that Mead's intellectual edifice is perhaps best described as a system in a state of flux, a structure that comprises three ever-evolving pillars: experimental science, social psychology, and democratic politics.

This article offers an original, intellectual portrait of G. H. Mead. My reassessment of Mead's thinking is founded, in methodological terms, upon a historically minded yet theoretically oriented strategy. Mead's system of thought is submitted to a historical reconstruction in order to grasp the evolution of his ideas over time, and to a thematic reconstruction organized around three major research areas or pillars: science, social psychology and politics. If one re-examines the entirety of Mead's published and unpublished writings from the point of view of contemporary social and political theory, one can see that his contributions transcend the field of social psychology. Mead's innovative insights on the communicative aspects of social life and individual conscience are yet to be fully explored by current social and political theorists. This is partly due to the fact that his was a system in a state of flux, ever escaping the final written form.

Despite decades of scholarship on G. H. Mead, we are still far from an adequate understanding of his intellectual edifice. Making use of the entirety of Mead's writings, including numerous unpublished manuscripts, this article provides a more accurate portrait of Mead's thinking. A system in a state of flux is perhaps the best description of an intellectual building comprising three ever-evolving pillars: experimental science, social psychology, and democratic politics. This article's chief finding is that history of theory and theory building are related enterprises. Contemporary democratic theory, in particular, has much to gain from this historical re-examination of Mead's oeuvre.

This article examines the idea of democracy that can be inferred from the distinction established by Mead, in his psychology and social philosophy, between "I" and "me" as constitutive stages of the "self". The main contention is that democracy, far from being for Mead a mode of organization based merely in the egalitarian recognizance of rights, lies on the contrary in the acknowledgement of the peculiar and superior condition of the individual, i.e., in the most comprehensive development and expression of "I" as the stage of the self that embodies the idea of freedom and its self-realization. This conception of democracy is in turn wholly determined by Mead's theory of the adoption of roles. Thus, the meaning of democracy amounts basically to an ideal of communication that renders possible all modes of practical and symbolic interaction. ; El presente artículo examina la idea de la democracia que se desprende de la distinción establecida por Mead, en su psicología y filosofía social, entre el "yo" y el "mí" como fases constitutivas del "sí mismo" (self). La tesis de fondo es la idea de que la democracia, lejos de ser para Mead, una forma de organización basada meramente en el reconocimiento igualitario de derechos reside, por el contrario, en el reconocimiento de la peculiaridad y superioridad del individuo, es decir, en el más amplio desarrollo y expresión del "yo", como fase del sí mismo que encarna el ideal de libertad y autorrealización. Esta concepción de la democracia se halla, a su vez, enteramente determinada por la propia teoría de la adopción de roles de Mead, con lo que la democracia viene a significar, en el fondo, un ideal de comunicación, posibilitador de toda forma de interacción práctica y simbólica.