Sociology: The Importance of Mead and Schutz Theories Essay

Introduction

The thoughts of Alfred Schutz and George Herbert Mead in the concept of the other have made impacts in the field of sociology and social psychology. The concept of the other is among important aspects of thought that these scholars share amid other contributions in sociological lines of thoughts. It is said; though, that the concept of other was not the foundation thought of Schutz but it has been applied to mend loopholes at some strategic moments in justification of arguments.

On the other hand, the concept is part and parcel of coining the thoughts of Mead and Cooley in relation to human conduct and socialization. According to Hamilton (1992), “The work of the labeling theorists is then taken to illustrate the value of the concept as used by Mead and Cooley, with some changes.” This essay is going to look at the thoughts of Alfred Schutz and George Herbert Mead and in so doing, come up with the differences and similarity of their theories.

Alfred Schutz

Alfred Schutz is considered the greatest phenomenologist having related the thought of Edmund Husserl in the field of sociology and social sciences in general. Among his works, is the “Phenomenology of the Social World” which became the basis of Max Weber’s contribution to economics and sociology. His efforts in sociology earned him reputation among his fellow scholars in Austrian school. Following Hitler’s annexation of Austria, Schutz fled to the United States as an immigrant back in 1939. It is while in the US that Schutz developed his thoughts that made impacts in social sciences studies. Among the fields his work contributed to are: logical empiricism and American pragmatism. Some of his famous sociological thoughts are conversation analysis and ethnomethodology which became foundation of new movements.

Alfred Schutz’s Phenomenology Theory

Schutz identified three chapters in the discussion of philosophical literature in between the introductory section and the conclusion chapters. To begin with, he applauded Max Weber’s opinion on the value-freedom and superiority of science and other fields including politics. Schutz commended Weber for turning down the idea of reducing social science to natural science while at the same time allowing the notion that their ideals be testable for adequacy. Schutz added to Weber’s idea by asserting that interpretation is involved in selecting experience in an individual’s line of experience. From the experience, the meaning of an act as stipulated by an actor depended on a given project that guides extended temporal process resulting from the sub-acts; hence, its realization.

The criticism of Weber’s idea meant that Schutz would develop his own thought in the concepts of meaning, and action. To begin creating his line of thought, Schutz began with Husserl’s work on consciousness of internal time; more so, consciousness’ ability to capture a reflective distinction of lived experience which at initial stage seem as undefined phrases that interrelate to one another. Finally, he was able to come up with manuscript that was published under the title, “Life Forms and Meaning Structure.” The manuscripts ideal-typical constituted life forms represented with an “I” that lives in duration, able to remember, acts, think and also relates to “Thou.” This methodology depended upon distinct ideal-types; hence, duration appeared as inaccessible. The rigidity of Schutz’s line of thought was uncovered by Husserl’s phenomenology that discovered what goes on within the consciousness processes.

Husserl’s undercover was received positively by Schutz who used account of temporality to coin the action theory with clear separation of the levels of passivity, and concurrent activities in a guiding project that bring actions. To plan an action in the future, one has to use reflective acts of projection. Reflectivity enables one to imagine a project completion in future perfect tense depending on one’s action. It can also be referred to as the ‘in-order-to’ theory of Martin Heidegger though one’s ‘because motive’ also depends on historical and environmental factors that are a possible influential factor to future action. This calls for a project that would investigate to discover pluperfect tense by finding out past decisions that succeeded past factors.

In the Schutz’s distinctions above, it is debatable whether or not freedom goes hand in hand with determinism as there are view points presented; first, because in lived-in-order to notion there is an experience of oneself being morally concerned and degree of freedom. On the other hand, examining one’s because notion after an individual’s action, an individual correlates, and as an observer of oneself one is able to project choice through historical determinants.

The consciousness parameters of Husserl enabled Schutz to conceive the idea that determinants are not empirico-mechanically caused but are rather influenced by interpretable processes that associates past events with the later ones. Schutz’s position is almost compatible with views of Thomas Nagel and P.F. Strawson. These two scholars distinguished between observer and participant attitude. In their line of thought, an observer attitude comes with determinism while that of the participant comes with freedom. Schutz asserts though that these attitudes occur within prescribed temporal frameworks and are oriented towards future or past.

Schutz classified his work in sociology as a developing phenomenological psychology focused on the inner experience and invariant feature reflected upon by theoreticians. Jurgen Habermas criticizes Schutz’s account of being in the life-world arguing that it is a culturalistic manifestation that does not address personality structure and order of institution. The scholar notes that social scientists should develop bases and ideal types that would relay meaningful aspects of life-world actors; and in doing so, determine whether the types are in conformity with the past experience. Mises’s criticism of Weber’s ideal types as being historically specific was dismissed by Schutz who responded that Weber’s Economy and Society achieved generality just as Mises’s economic theory. Weber’s subjectivity is demonstrated by his principle of marginal utility in the economic framework.

Other Philosophies of Alfred Schutz

Alfred Schutz in his work made references to some philosophers’ works one of whom was George Herbert Mead. On his arrival in the US, Schutz was able to highlight the convergence of Husserl’s and James’s thoughts. They converged on the ideals of stream of thought and on theory of fringes. The two scholars perceived that personal consciousness does not involve multiplicity of elements in unison but rather that unity that distinguishes between varying components; hence, converting ‘I’ into ‘Me.’ Another scholar who Schutz dedicated an essay to was George Santayana upon reviewing his “ Domination and Powers.” Schutz recognized Santayana’s effort to tie philosophical anthropology with politics.

Schutz strongly opposed Santayana’s line of thought after being convinced by Mises’ positive credentials on economic issues. Schutz opposed Santayana’s opinion and reduced it to domination. Schutz also opposed Santayana’s naturalistic basis of spirit of physicality of nature given that he was a phenomenologist. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2006) notes that besides the interchanges befalling American philosophers, it is Schutz who later gave an analysis of Max Scheler’s works. Among the points he highlighted was Max’s treatment of intersubjectivity. Schutz maintained that intersubjectivity is a topic that has to be treated with natural attitude upon which an individual never doubts the existence of others.

George Herbert Mead

George H. Mead was an American philosopher born in 1863 who rose to become social theorist in the class of John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and William James. Mead was praised by Dewey in his work that became famous even in non-philosophical life circles. Mead is considered the founding father of the “Symbolic Interactionism.” It is suggested that his theories were influenced by the mutual relationship he had with John Dewey. Mead contributed majorly in the development of self via communication. This theory became the foundation of Jurgen Habermas works later on. Mead did not only do superb work on theory of self and intersubjectivity but he also developed the theory of action and metaphysics; that defined emergence of temporality, (Morrione, 2004). Through metaphysics the past and future occurrences are judged on the present occasions. The publication of his most adored piece of work entitled “Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist” was done after his death in 1931.

Mead’s Thought on Role, the Self and Generalized Other

Mead played an important role in the development of language by using the significance symbol. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008), assert that:

We have the ability place ourselves in the positions of others—that is, to anticipate their responses—with regard to our linguistic gestures. This ability is also crucial for the development of the self and self-consciousness.

Mead studied physiological psychology but he could combine the thoughts of Scottish sympathy theorist and Hegel’s ideas of self and other. From this point of view, taking a perspective is not only associated with roles, but also with some complex behaviors.

Mead argued that the sense of self-consciousness and own self are bound to be either lost or won’t be developed if one takes the role of others. Instead, we would develop a nascent sense of self-consciousness that takes a different notion to the sort of reflective awareness we create. Reflective awareness requires the use of significant symbols. When our role is taken by self consciousness, we would end up being proto-self rather than the self capable of overcoming complexity that gives rise to self. According to Mead, self arises due to the concept of the generalized other under the theory of neologism. All in all, Mead suggests that the thought of self should address both the ontogenetical and phylogenetical aspects for it to be justified.

Mead’s Contribution to the Thought of “I” and “Me”

Mead’s contribution to sociology was crucial due to the distinction he gave to differentiate “I” and “Me.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2008) asserts that:

It’s worth emphasizing that while this distinction is utilized in sociological circles, it is grounded philosophically for Mead. His target, in part, is no less than the idea of the transcendental ego, especially in its Kantian incarnation.

When relations take effect, generalized other become “Me.” On the other hand, “I” gives a sense of novelty when an individual responds and gives more freedom of initiative as noted by Mead. Self can arise due to a specific generalized other and when this occurs, the self is referred to as “Me”. It is an object cognitively used to bring the sense of retrospective reflection. If we habitually act on our various ways, we lose our self-conscious and instead act at non-reflective level. On the other hand, the view point of generalized other may involve us in the process of watching and whenever this happens, we take the perspective of the generalized other. This is so because by engaging ourselves in the process of watching, we blend into the system that constitutes the generalized other. This situation presents a scenario for us to act self-consciously.

Comparisons between the Theories of Alfred Schutz and Herbert Mead

So far, Mead’s theories and works can be compared and contrasted from Schutz’s works. Schutz referred to Mead’s work because Mead was senior to him and he was therefore developed when Schutz moved to embrace American sociology. Whereas Schutz was a developed phenomenologist, Mead was behind the “Symbolic Interactionist” that contributed majorly in the development of self through communication.

Jurgen Habermas was a critic of Alfred Schutz ideology on account of being in the life-world. Jurgen argued that it was a culturalistic manifestation that did not address personality structure and order of institution. The scholar gives opinion that social scientists should instead develop bases and ideal types that would give meaningful aspects of life-world actors. In the contrary, Jurgen supported the opinion of Mead regarding the development of self through communication and this later became Jurgen’s theories foundation.

Mead did outstanding work on theory of self and intersubjectivity and developed the theory of action and metaphysics from which he is recognized. In contrast, Schutz was able to bring about sociological arguments in the economic front given his support of Weber’s economic ideas and criticism of Mises’ economic line of thought. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2006)

“Responding to Mises’s critique that Weber’s ideal-types are too historically specific, Schutz suggested that the later Weber’s ideal types in Economy and Society attain a generality comparable to that of Mises’ own economic theory, which itself could be interpreted as presenting ideal-typical descriptions of the behavior of economic agents.

Though these two scholars held different line of thoughts, they both did contribute to the development of the concept of other as had been illustrated in the initial section of this paper. They both contributed to the thought of “I” and “Me” at difference proportions given the different approaches they both took in relation to the subject. Schutz and Mead also viewed social science in the political perspective besides being general contributors to literature and linguistics fields.

Conclusion

It is justified that Alfred Schutz and George Herbert Mead are one of the greatest micro-theorists that have helped in development of sociological schools of thought of the modern times. Their works ranged from one field to another and this gives a broad picture of how their work helped define the society today. Though they may have held different opinion when developing their lines of thought, both their works concepts have been adopted by other scholars; for instance, Jurgen Habermas’ theory that emanated from Mead’s line of thought. Alfred Schutz and H. Mead developed the concepts of the other and “I” and “Me” with different viewpoints; hence, they gave a sense of wide view for coining the concepts.

References

Morrione, T.J., (2004): George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Hamilton, P., (1992): “George Herbert Mead: Critical Assessments, Volume 1.” George Herbert Mead: Critical Assessment. London: Taylor & Francis

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2008): George Herbert Mead. Web.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2006): Alfred Schutz. Web.