What Objections Did Mead Have To The Tenets Of Behavior

what Objections Did Mead Have To The Tenets Of Beha

What objections did Mead have to the tenets of behaviorism? How did Mead propose to study internal attitudes ignored by behaviorists? In Mead’s pivotal book, Mind, Self, and Society, did Mead give priority to the “social” aspect of the act or the psychological aspect of the act? Now apply Mead's analysis of "the act." Use either your everyday life or a current event news article to illustrate how "the act" exposes the inner consciousness of individuals. Be sure to identify "the act" you are analyzing. How does "the act" reveal internal attitudes or inner consciousness?

Paper For Above instruction

George Herbert Mead, one of the most influential American social psychologists and philosophers, critically examined the premises of behaviorism, a dominant psychological paradigm that emphasizes observable behaviors and external stimuli. Mead’s objections to behaviorism centered on its neglect of internal mental processes and the social origins of individual consciousness. Unlike behaviorists, who argued that psychological phenomena could be reduced to stimulus-response patterns, Mead insisted that understanding human behavior necessitated exploring internal attitudes, intentions, and the social gestures that underpin social interactions.

Mead critiqued behaviorism’s reductionist view, which disregards internal mental states, feelings, and the symbolic meanings associated with human actions. He believed that behaviorism’s focus on external observable behaviors failed to account for the internal dimension—the thoughts, feelings, and attitudes that influence human conduct. For instance, in analyzing social interaction, Mead argued that internal attitudes such as beliefs, desires, and intentions are foundational to understanding how individuals act and respond within society. Ignoring these internal states, according to Mead, leads to an incomplete understanding of human behavior, especially in complex social contexts.

To address these limitations, Mead proposed a sociological approach that emphasized the importance of internal attitudes and the self as a social product. Instead of focusing solely on external behaviors, Mead suggested studying the internal mental processes that give rise to social acts. His methodology involved analyzing the symbolic gestures used in social interactions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between internal attitudes and outward expressions. Mead believed that social acts—such as language, gestures, and symbols—serve as mediators between internal states and external behavior. These acts reflect internal attitudes and allow individuals to negotiate their sense of self within social contexts.

In Mead’s seminal work, Mind, Self, and Society, he prioritized the social aspect of the act over purely psychological processes. While acknowledging the importance of internal cognition, Mead emphasized that human actions are fundamentally social phenomena. He argued that the development of the self arises through social interaction, particularly via communicative gestures and symbolic exchanges. The social act involves both internal and external components, but Mead viewed the social dimension—how individuals interpret, respond to, and create social symbols—as central to understanding human behavior.

Applying Mead's analysis of "the act" to a real-world context can illuminate how individual inner consciousness is revealed through social conduct. Consider the everyday act of apologizing after a disagreement. This act involves internal attitudes of guilt or remorse and external expressions such as words and gestures. The apology exposes internal feelings that might otherwise remain private, but are revealed through socially meaningful actions. For example, when someone says "I'm sorry," they are expressing an internal acknowledgment of wrongdoing—a mental attitude—that is communicated through linguistic and gestural symbols. The act of apologizing thus embodies the interface between internal attitudes and external social behavior, illustrating Mead’s concept of the social act revealing inner consciousness.

In current events, a politician’s response to a scandal can serve as an example of how "the act" exposes inner attitudes. A politician-by demonstrating regret or defensiveness—uses speech and body language to reveal internal attitudes—offers insight into their true feelings and internal state. These social acts, whether sincere or strategic, are attempts to manage and communicate internal attitudes, making observable psychological states through outward behavior.

Furthermore, this perspective underscores the importance of understanding the symbolic and social nature of human actions. It emphasizes that human behavior is not merely reflexive but is mediated by internal mental states that are expressed and negotiated through social acts. Such analysis aligns with Mead’s view that the self is constructed through social interactions, highlighting the inseparability of internal attitudes and social behavior in shaping human consciousness and identity.

In conclusion, Mead’s objections to behaviorism highlight the necessity of studying internal attitudes and mental processes to fully understand human behavior. His focus on the social act and the symbolic nature of communication underscores that human consciousness is revealed through social interactions. By applying Mead’s analysis to everyday life and current events, it becomes apparent that internal attitudes are often outwardly expressed through social acts, which serve as vital indicators of inner consciousness and social identity.

References

• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press.
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press.
• Critchley, S. (2007). The Origin of the Self: The Kierkegaardian Revolution. Routledge.
• Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. Basic Books.
• Hogan, R. (2010). Social Attitudes and the Psychology of Behavior. Routledge.
• Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present. Open Court Publishing.
• Ritzer, G. (2011). Modern Sociological Theory. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Northwestern University Press.
• Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). “The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
• Thompson, J. B. (2000). Political Ethics and Social Change. Sage Publications.