• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Name-Dropping: An Apologetic (Mead and the Intersubjective Self)

August 31, 2012 by Adam Arnold 13 Comments

[Editor's Note: Today's post is a listener submission by Adam Arnold, graduate student at the University of Warwick. You too can be a guest blogger.]

During the Buddhism Naturalized episode, the guest Owen Flanagan (as well as Mark, not unusually for him) may have dropped more names than in any other podcast. I have this same tendency in everyday life. I add footnotes and parenthetical remarks to every sentence uttered, not only to my own but to all who speak.  With increased self-consciousness, I have decreased this (to many annoying) habit. Yet my mind continues to footnote and qualify everything, a habit which only increases with continued exploration of philosophy.

I once thought this habit of mind was simply due to lack of self-esteem and insecurity (this is exactly the kind of place I would add a footnote about the difference between a lack of self-esteem and insecurity with a plethora of juicy names). I would always think, "I am not intelligent enough to think of these things myself (self-esteem) and everyone knows it (insecurity)."

However, I no longer think this. I now tend to think (hopefully not in mauvaise foi, or bad faith) that this is simply the way my mind works. Or even how all our minds work.

Lately, I have been reading about George Herbert Mead's intersubjective theory of the self. According to Mead, the self (or rather the "I" that is our self-consciousness) is an emergent property of reflection about what others think of us (as “me”s). What is implicit in this is that the mind is "essentially a social phenomenon." What does it mean to say that the mind is a social phenomenon and what does this have to do with the issue at hand?

Well, if the mind, and by extension the self, is a social phenomenon, then our thoughts, all our thoughts, are mere reflections on our Lebenswelt, or lifeworld. One can be more or less aware of this reflective quality of one's thoughts. In my case, I am highly aware of one, and only one, aspect of this, viz. the intellectual (particularly the philosophical) history that underlies the western Lebenswelt. Others are more aware of other aspects: For example, those who refer to advice given by their father in every conversation, or those who can draw apt connections to sports or music.

If this intersubjective nature of the self is correct, then it brings a whole new meaning to the Ancient Greek maxim: 'Know thyself!'. For to 'know oneself', where the self is irreducibly intersubjective, is to know the contexts and contradictions in the narrative produced by the "I" of self-conciousness; it is to remove all illusions of a coherent rugged individualism. One commentator on Mead goes so far as to say:

The ephemeral nature of the I promises that one is never all that one appears to be. Others can know only the me. Furthermore, you too can only know yourself as an object, as others know you. You are blind to your own I. The Delphic command to "Know thyself!" will in this sense always remain an open question. Self-knowledge comes against its permanent limit in the I. To this extent, one remains mysterious to oneself, and the capacity for creative innovation, that which will pro-duce from the unknown into being, belong to every human. (Miller, Mimesis and Reason)

To be clear, the claim is the following: The way our minds work, due to their essentially social nature, is through drawing connections to the social world outside of us, then, through reflection, creating a comprehensible narrative. As previously mentioned, some of us do this through fatherly maxims, some through sports or pop culture — which is probably why analogies are such a powerful tool when explicating an idea.

Personally, I do it through philosophy. It is how I come to understand the world around me; as far as I know, it has nothing to do with lack of confidence nor with pretentiousness. It is simply the way my mind makes sense of things; it is the hermeneutic tool which I use to decode our shared Lebenswelt.

Therefore, the guys (and occasional gals) of PEL, if they are anything like me, will not be able to stop themselves from name-dropping because it is simply the way the mind functions. We cannot help but take the role of another when reflecting on what we think about something.

Bear in mind that this does not excuse name-dropping in a style that is intended to dominate or destroy a conversation, but only condones name-dropping in an attempt for clarity through connections to the history of philosophy.

Does this apologetic make name-dropping any less annoying to those with little to no philosophic interest? Probably not. But as Ricky Nelson once sung: "You see, you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself"

-Adam Arnold

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Misc. Philosophical Musings Tagged With: George H. Mead, philosophy blog, philosophy of psychology, the self

Comments

  1. dmf says

    August 31, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    I always think of name-dropping, at its best, as footnoting, giving credit, and referring others to.
    It can obviously also be a kind of in-group/technical shorthand which can be useful but runs the risk of replacing the actual texts (especially these days with little emphasis on careful readings of primary texts) with sound-bites and or mere signs of being able to signal one’s group alliance.
    On to the point of your post I’m all for highlighting the dialogical/polyphonic aspects of our identity but than wonder if you are not than undermining such an understanding by confusing a kind of prescriptive philosophical task for a description of a fundament of developmental psychology when you say:
    “The way our minds work, due to their essentially social nature, is through drawing connections to the social world outside of us, then, through reflection, creating a comprehensible narrative”
    it is my understanding that while our minds are ‘extended’ in all kinds of ways that we are not, outside of specialized circumstances like doing academic work or memoir, by and large creating “comprehensible narrative(s)” and certainly not living out one as a kind of script and or play-book.
    Is narrative theory (not ordinary/habitual speech acts) an essential part of Mead’s work?
    http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/pub/sjcowley/docs/cradle.pdf

    Reply
    • Adam Arnold says

      September 8, 2012 at 5:01 am

      Sorry for the late reply. I have been busy traveling and then moving to a new house.

      What mead was trying to do is find a way between the subjectivism of high German thought and the determinism of the behaviorism of his time. This gives his philosophy of the self a peculiar quality of having overdetermined “me”s as well as a Kantian empty transcendental “I”. Mead was concerned with saving the idea of genius of the I (see Kant’s third critique). This “I” is what is doing the reflecting and narrative creation. The “I” however is something that only emerges overtime and is not something that is constantly present but only occurs during an ad hoc reflection. So, if you interpreted what I was saying as “by and large creating ‘comprehensible narrative(s)” then it was my lack of clarity. For Mead, like Dewey, we only reflect in certain situations that are not habitual, e.g. philosophic reflection or artistic activities.

      I am not familiar enough with narrative theory to comment on that aspect of your comment.

      Hope that clarifies things.

      Reply
      • dmf says

        September 8, 2012 at 7:12 am

        yes thanks, except it leaves open the question of the role of such self-consciously creative activities in terms of shaping, or not, our habitual lives.
        Narrative theory, by and large, makes the cognitive-behavioral error of assuming that we are living out scripts, or even more comprehensive life-stories/philosophies, as if the story telling directs/rules the behaviors instead of being occasional, and largely after the fact, justifications.

        Reply
        • Adam Arnold says

          September 9, 2012 at 5:16 am

          If I understand you properly, it would be the reflection of the “I” and its quality of genius. That is, the “I” through reflection on the habitual can diverge from the rules. Like the artist who diverges from the rules of tradition to create something new, the normal person has this same ability in regard to their roles. So, the roles are ontologically primary and are what gives birth to the “I” which through its “genius” can break (and change) the rules of these roles creating new habitual paths.

          Reply
          • dmf says

            September 9, 2012 at 6:43 am

            I see it was common until quite recently to underestimate the complexity/capacity of infants but this raises some parallels to our ongoing discussion of Nietzsche as the “first” psychologist and the Nietzschean/Bloomian/Freudian developmental line that Rorty takes on the anxiety of influence, poetics, and our blind impresses in his Contingency book that I hope we come to some time down the road.

  2. deelosofer says

    August 31, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    good piece

    Reply
  3. David Buchanan says

    September 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    As I understand it, Mead’s view of the self is a lot like Dewey’s. In terms of growth and development, we are social beings first in the sense that we learn to think and speak within the context of social “games”. This could include games in the literal sense, like football or checkers, but it more generally refers to any social activity in which one plays a role. As these roles increase in number and complexity we develop an increasing need to prioritize, balance and negotiate the various demands and so individuality begins to form to meet that need. Individuality is born because all the various social selves within us need a leader, so to speak.On this view, individuality is achieved fairly late in the developmental process and can only be achieved in a social context, is a product of the social context.

    Oh, and I very much agree that name-dropping is a good thing when it’s used as a footnote or example. But it’s annoying and unhelpful when it’s not used in connection with an actual idea, assertion or something of substance. It should never be used as substitute for actual conceptual content. You gotta say what mean first, then you can add a quick footnote.

    Reply
    • Adam Arnold says

      September 9, 2012 at 4:58 am

      You are right, Dewey and Mead are very close on many issues. This probably comes, in part, from their similar intellectual development. Thanks for the comment.

      Reply
  4. Gavin says

    September 1, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Good post. Mead is foundational to a lot of work on the ‘interactionist perspective’ on language and mind. What I’ve read of his work, he does seem to be a bit ahead of its time, but contemporaries of his like Vygotsky had similar notions as well. Here is a short intro to the influence of Mead’s perspective on understanding the socially mediated nature of our ‘lebenswelt’ (pp. 5-7 in the PDF):

    http://leakygrammar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/ei-ch-1-streek-goodwin-and-lebaron.pdf

    As for name-dropping, you wrote, ‘Personally, I do it through philosophy. It is how I come to understand the world around me…’

    The activity we are involved in, whether it’s playing jazz or doing philosophy, seems to push our experience of the the activity itself along certain lines of thinking. I’m not sure where I read it (get ready for a few name drops…Bourdieu, Wittgenstein, Bateson maybe?) but in the social sciences (as opposed to the natural sciences), much of our intellectual currency seems to find its value in categorizing ideas with certain individuals who first had those ideas, and this seems to help us not only access those ideas, but also substantiate our position with some hint of authority. This may be part of the reason why name dropping has this dual quality to it, of helping us think through complex ideas, as well as pissing people off as a fairly annoying practice at times…

    Reply
    • dmf says

      September 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm

      that makes more sense as it sounds more like Dewey/James and not a cognitive-behavioral/narrative theory.
      “The actions occurring in Transcript 1.1 are not orga­
      nized within a single medium, such as talk, but are
      instead constructed through the simultaneous use of
      multiple semiotic resources with quite different proper­
      ties”
      my sense is that when philosophy starts to take an interactionist/enactivist approach that the line between philosophy and anthropo-logos gets pretty blurry, and whether he meant to or not when Nietzsche started replacing teleological/theological ‘why’ questions about human behavior with genealogical/evolutionary ‘how’ questions he was a pivotal figure in this new field, Gay science or not…

      Reply
    • Adam Arnold says

      September 9, 2012 at 5:02 am

      Yes, Mead was ahead of his time in many respects. However, he seemed to still be caught in the tradition of subjectivity with his transcendental “I”. He was certainly ahead of the phenomenological tradition (Husserl and Schutz) who tried to account for intersubjectivity from a logic of subjectivity but he still couldn’t help but to save the the empty “I”.

      Reply
  5. Tony Sandy says

    September 5, 2012 at 4:08 am

    Insecurity? Maybe to a degree but it is also a defense for your standpoint, to cite the works of others as logical backup. This said actual experience cannot be referenced, only gone through. By this I mean intelligence and intelligence gathering, leads to a complex castle of defenses but the new will throw you because it sneaks through these layers, to reveal the unknown, which there are no words for / no rehearsed reactions to. It always leads to death of the former life / beliefs and birth of the new (Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light as the poster goes).

    Reply
    • Adam Arnold says

      September 9, 2012 at 5:07 am

      Why can’t experience be referenced? Isn’t this exactly what reflection is doing? I am also not sure why reflection cannot make room for the new? Isn’t this the purpose of, for example, Adorno’s negative dialectic or Derrida’s deconstruction of Nietzshean/Foucauldian genealogies? They all seem to be attempting to open up the new through a critical reflection on the past (and the present), to attempt to account for the non-identical in thought and experience.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023
  • Kunal on Why Don’t We Like Idealism?

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in