Symbolic Interactionism and Pragmatism

[pk.]

Is symbolic interationism the best way of interpreting the world?

The philosophy of symbolic interactionism is based upon pragmatism, which appears to be the 'happy medium' between the previous 'ancient' forms of philosophy, Idealism and Realism.

It manages to discard the 'old' ideas of truth, such as an absolute truth or truth obtained through divine revelations.

The metaphysical component of pragmatism adopts evolution as the foundation. Instead of perceiving the world as dictated by other-worldly forces, (like Plato envisaged)
the pragmatists stay grounded in this world, within the realm of biology.

How, therefore, are we to comprehend the world, when evolutionary biology is the foundation of metaphysics in pragmatic ideology?

The pragmatists reconcile this chaos through the epistemology of scepticism. They believe that the scientific method is the best option in regard to perceiving the world. It relies both on observation and analytical and logical techniques. Because this methodology is not perfect, the pragmatist must have an open mind and be willing to change, much like the environment being observed.

Both Idealists and Realists believe that we are primarily knowers, and secondarily actors. The pragmatists believe this is the other way around, that we enter the world ignorant (actors) and through trial and error become knowers.

With this pluralistic idea of the world, how do we define the self?

George Herbert Mead, the father of symbolic interactionism, contends that the mind and self are without residue social emergents, and that language was the mechanism for their emergence.

The mind and self are generated in a social process.

It is the ongoing process of individuals reacting with individuals.

Therefore, unlike previous sociological ideologies, like Durkheim's Functionalism - the individual is the agent as opposed to merely being a construct of social institutions.


Pragmatic thinking summarised:

Truth is what works.

Truth is what satisfies desires.

Desires are subjective.

Truth is subjective.

Subjectives are variable.

Truth is Variable.


I have been reading many different texts on the individual and society and came across this theory/philosophy and through observing society and reviewing my own life, this seems to be the most coherent and truthful analysis of modern life. I was wondering if anyone shares this particular view, or has anything they can add to it, or against it.

 

[RobotRipping]

it's been a while since i've read up on symbolic interactionism but as you describe it, i can definitely agree with the ideas presented. I'll get hung on on the truth is variable/subjective thing, i'm not sure what exactly is meant by that. I like modal logic. Like mathematics being a truth, is it possible for 1 and 1 to be added together and not equal 2 parts? even in possible world with different physical laws? isn't something that is analytically true, necessarily true in all possible worlds? If so, truth cannot be variable, it is then objective. I cling to logic but predicate and modal logic aren't complete and there are things that just cannot be translated into predicate logic, like expressions or lyrics from a song (i think that exception is well known, cant remember the song or the lyrics tho). So just as with science, i have to keep my mind open a bit as the laws of logic and physics are subject to change, as we learn more about the universe.

i'm also a bit bias towards german idealism, it just causes a tiny bit of cognitive dissonance but i think they were on to something.

i can't be sure it's coherent, i understand it but intuitively something just tells me no. I wish i could pick it apart a bit more but i'm not a philosopher or sociologist other than what i learned in school. i'm quite partial to understanding reality in a Kantian way, i don't think he got it completely right but he did get many things right. Also kind of stuck with some ideas of functionalism as opposed to interactionism. It's been a while since i dug into some Weber and stuff though. I also like Durkheim quite a bit.

great idea for a thread anyway, hope it generates some great discussion in here.

maybe like Hegel we need the thesis, antithesis and synthesis, sounds similar to social interaction in symbolic interactionism. Someone proposes an idea, then someone reposes the opposing idea and we bring both together to form a new thesis, which goes through the same thing, like an evolution of language which brings us to societal constructs and our sense of reality. I don't know, wish i had more time to go back and read some more.

 

[pk.]

Thank you for the reply, this conversation would not even exist without you!

essentially, people need to gain knowledge, we all have varying understandings of what truth is based upon our experience in life, however they differ from other peoples' concepts of truth. science is truth also (even if it is flawed), however science must constantly adapt to new knowledge, so as we learn more, science must change also, and thus we must change. Science is based upon scepticism, except perhaps with mathematics.

It is true, mathematics is pure knowledge, but in order for it to be a truth there needs to be context, human interaction etc. for it to become a truth, otherwise it is just imaginary knowledge, that is to say, knowledge without practical use. Social truth then is the product of social interactions, that the only reason we construct a particular reality is because of our relation with others, and the idea of what we set out to achieve in the first place is born in social interaction rather than something unique and entirely our own.

 

[RobotRipping]

can the truths of mathematics exist without humanity? this is quite debatable, are they a priori or a posteriori? analytic or synthetic? Quine argues maths aren't analytic, which is interesting.

I always think of Plato in these cases, like the perfect circle thing. It's form exists somewhere. I'd argue mathematics are a priori, humans or no humans, they still hold to be true and exist, but with no consciousness of them, do they really exist? i don't know you've confused me sir! It's such a difficult thing to figure out because our language and understanding is somewhat limited. Even Quine didn't make a clear case IMO.

The article he wrote was the two dogma's of empiricism in case you don't know, the fact he argues that mathematics aren't analytic is so foreign to me at least, it just seems like 1 and 1 make 2, in all cases, in all universes and this is a truth that needs no context, the universe itself unfolded with physical laws that made everything we see today. Though you can argue that those laws were consciously created as well. But anyway, for the big bang to unravel according to the laws of physics, that mathematics can show and predict, mathetmatics must underlie the nature of the universe and therefor be a priori. That's just my argument though, it's not fleshed out too well and doesn't have have to do with the topic really lol, other than truth being relative.

i do agree with what you're saying as well though, which is why philosophy has just left me a conflicted mess with more questions than answers! Can there be such a thing as imaginary truth? or just undiscovered truth? social truth seems like a different thing as well, but truth is truth ?

I still kind of side with Kant on how we construct our reality, through images and sensory data being interpreted. The idea that another brain does the same thing gets us the objective reality which is interpreted according to kant's arbitrary number of categories of understanding. Since this is universal to all humans at least, we can say it is universal, analytic or objective. As i mentioned though i'm heavily influenced by idealism as that was my main focus of study in school.

 

[ebola?]

I would say that my metaphysical perspective runs closest to the pragmatists, though I suspect that I have a slightly heterodox interpretation of it. I really like how the philosophy recasts the relation between subject and object, taking the interaction between the two as logically and ontologically primary, the investigating and acting subject and the observed and acted upon object emerging as 'artifacts' (but not 'mere artifacts') of this process. I am more wary of some of the more concrete implications of typical interpretations of pragmatism--declaring that knowledge is "what works" can be a bit thin on the ground, unless we interrogate what it is for a symbolic creation to "work".

I am most partial to John Dewey's take on the matter, with Experience and Nature presenting the clearest exposition of a pragmatist metaphysics. I think that there is also a great deal of continuity between pragmatism and continental philosophy too: there is striking convergence with the phenomenologists of Europe and Marx's general ontology (the latter shouldn't be too surprising, given Hegel's influence on both Marx and Dewey). I also think that Bourdieu and Mead each further sociologize pragmatism in unique ways, Bourdieu of course drawing more heavily from the phenomenologists.

Oh...and if people want to see some shitty secondary sources and/or make their undergrad educations easier via plagiariam, I've written a number of essays focusing on pragmatism (spanning Quine, James, Dewey, and Royce).

ebola

 

[Foreigner]

If the truth is what works, and the truth is variable, then what works is variable. I suppose in its pure form, scepticism works; but like anything it can be restrained by dogma. It's a bit ironic to say that scepticism and science are the best way to determine truth, yet SI's claim that mind is a social construct would mean that science is also viewing the world through a social construct. It seems like maybe SI has fallen prey to the assumption that science is above the system, when really it's part and parcel with it.

A subjective, sceptical world view is an oxymoron, is it not? Scepticism relies on right and wrong, true and false, as being established norms. If truth is variable then the sceptic should resign himself to what works for himself, and not necessarily pine for universality. Yet in practice we don't see this. Scepticism relies on principles and laws that are viewed as concrete, otherwise it can't have a beef with anything. Either the observer changes that which is observed, or we are all observing the same thing. Which is it?

From the OP's description of symbolic interactionism, it seems a bit solipsist yet institutional (i.e. relying on biology) at the same time, which is contradictory. Maybe it's because it stems from a period where science and sceptisim were seen as the best options for truth?

George Herbert Mead, the father of symbolic interactionism, contends that the mind and self are without residue social emergents, and that language was the mechanism for their emergence.

The mind and self are generated in a social process.

It is the ongoing process of individuals reacting with individuals.

I'll assume that "language" also includes symbolism; and if that's the case, then it means that the animal kingdom lacks self, since they do not relate in symbols as we do. I'm not prepared to make that claim.

To me it seems that ego develops as a result of subject-object relationships, and they are not necessarily social ones. There are children who have grown up in the wild without human contact, and once re-discovered they had a sense of self, just no understanding of social norms or propriety.

I can't really argue that mind isn't at least a part of social process, but to give social process all of the credit feels wrong somehow. Are there other epistemologies within us that don't involve mind, or don't even rely on logic? I think there are.

 

[pk.]

Science is indeed part and parcel of reality, the most clear objective way of interpreting the world. Because the results are reproducible, we can read and understand prior works and extend them. Because we read parts of science from different fields and all learn at different capacities, the truth is therefore quite malleable in regards to producing artifacts into the world due to the creation of such artifacts requiring communication in which each individual has a different level of experience in the world and knowledge, and in response see it differently (pluralism). Furthermore to even come up with your own ideas, you needed to obtain this information from prior sources from people external from yourself.

The self is composed of an 'I' and a 'Me'. The “Me” is the perceived image of ourselves from the perspective of the other person which then translates to the 'I', your own understanding of the self. Thus when we speak the 'I' has been altered to relate to the perceived 'Me' (from the other person). The self undergoes dynamic transformation during periods of interaction in society, as the 'I' constantly adapts to the perceived 'Me'.

The animal kingdom does not have a self (see: Kant, Socrates, Descartes etc.) The ego does develop from subject-object relationships, however objects have different values to people. When people buy products in society for example, people see certain people with the product and then make the decision that I want it too! For example in marketing getting celebrities to promote certain products to boost popularity and consumption. In essence the idea of 'popularity' supports the view that objects are desired based up social relations.