What is the Catholic View of George Herbert Mead's 'Symbolic Interactionism'

[Ben_Sinner]

I had a class in Comm Theory and this was discussed.

Basically his view is this:

afirstlook.com/edition_8/theory_resources/by_type/outline

-Self cannot be found through introspection, but instead through taking the role of the other and imaging how we look from the other’s perspective. This mental image is called the looking-glass self and is socially constructed, or as the Mead-Cooley hypothesis claims, “individuals’ self-conceptions result from assimilating the judgments of significant other.” -

-Self is a function of language.
One has to be a member of a community before consciousness of self sets in.

-Self is an ongoing process combining the “I” and the “me.”
The “I” sponsors what is novel, unpredictable, and unorganized about the self.
The “me” is the image of self seen through the looking glass of other people’s reactions.
Once your “I” is known, it becomes your “me.”

I don’t know, but something seems fishy about this. Is any of this contradictory to the faith or the teachings about ‘self’?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I had a class in Comm Theory and this was discussed.

Basically his view is this:

afirstlook.com/edition_8/theory_resources/by_type/outline

-Self cannot be found through introspection, but instead through taking the role of the other and imaging how we look from the other’s perspective. This mental image is called the looking-glass self and is socially constructed, or as the Mead-Cooley hypothesis claims, “individuals’ self-conceptions result from assimilating the judgments of significant other.” -

-Self is a function of language.
One has to be a member of a community before consciousness of self sets in.

-Self is an ongoing process combining the “I” and the “me.”
The “I” sponsors what is novel, unpredictable, and unorganized about the self.
The “me” is the image of self seen through the looking glass of other people’s reactions.
Once your “I” is known, it becomes your “me.”

I don’t know, but something seems fishy about this. Is any of this contradictory to the faith or the teachings about ‘self’?

Nothing directly but his teaching is directly opposed to the Chruch’s teaching on the human person, intellect and free will, sin, and personal responsibility. It is also opposed to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Catholic philosopher who ever lived. If possible I suggest dropping any further study of these strange authors you have been reading. You need a firm grounding in the Catholic faith before studying such men. The Catechism is linked below, it is time to begin learning exactly what the Church teaches.

I would also suggest mastering the thought of Thomas Aquinas before reading such authors. That will keep you free from intellectual errors and maybe save your sanity.
dhspriory.org/thomas/ . I would highly recommend reading Aquinas by Edward Feser and to follow his blog. There is a wealth of information there.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

the greatest Catholic philosopher who ever lived.

Sorry Aquinas that spots already taken.

 

[blase6]

-Self cannot be found through introspection, but instead through taking the role of the other and imaging how we look from the other’s perspective. This mental image is called the looking-glass self and is socially constructed, or as the Mead-Cooley hypothesis claims, “individuals’ self-conceptions result from assimilating the judgments of significant other.” -

This sounds like really stupid modern psychology which doesn’t have great evidence for its veracity.