Comparison of Symbolic Interactionists - Essay Example

Comparison of Symbolic Interactionists and Psychoanalytic Studies Understand “the Self” Freud’s of the “self” was done so by the model he set forth of the ego, the alter ego and the id. Freud believed that each individual was composed of these three factions but only when an individual’s ego was managing one’s id, was one a healthy example of “self”. Freud felt that the “self” was composed of a myriad of ingredients that accounted for the person as a whole. These parts of the self included according to Freud, Comparatively, George Herbert Mead approached the concept of the “self” through the perspective of sociology, philosophy and social psychology of which he was one of the founding fathers. Mead believed that one achieved maturation into one’s true identity through the act of ”play” and pretend. This being characteristic of normal child development, Mead was able to explain its occurrence as an integral part of normal development. The purpose of this paper, is to examine several concepts established by Mead and Freud. The ideology of self, psychoanalysis, social an dinner conflict, mind and society as well as other important psychosocial concepts will be discussed. The primary ideology behind Freud’s definition of psychoanalysis was an attempt to delve into and interpret the thoughts of the unconscious mind. Psychoanalysis also deals with therapy geared to treat neurosis. It is essentially a discipline which is based on findings from clinical experience as well as from investigative experimentation. Psychoanalysis is much more similar to psychotherapy than it is to a type of philosophy. Mead’s approach was not as neurologically inspired as the approach of Freud. Mead believed that individuals were more a product of their environment or society itself than of an inner tendency that one was born with (such as the concept of the primal demands of the id). Mead was a social theorist and took a rather unconventional approach to the study of the self and personal development. The essential premise of psychoanalysis is simply to bring the conscious mind into a state of awareness of the urges and motives of the subconscious mind. This means impulse awareness and motives. Freud felt that thoughts and feelings do not disappear though they may become repressed. In a look at the model of the “self” set forth by Freud, one can see the ideology behind an internal struggle between three separate aspects which make up the whole of the individual whereas Mead places the notion of the “self” in an external context within society. The notion of symbolic interaction was another basis for Mead’s studies for which he is also noted. Symbolic interaction is a relatively large sociological perspective which has been integral in influencing many facets of micro sociology as well as social psychology. Mead studied American pragmatism and was thuis able to elaborate greatly in the ideology of symbolic interaction. When cociologists or social psychologists seek to study certain social situations using symbolic interaction, they will first gather qualitative research. This is often done by means of participant observation. This method allows the researchers to study the concepts of “self” and the self within society. Today, usage of symbolic interaction is prominent in areas of law enforcement studies such as criminology and the study of deviant behavior. Additionally, symbolic interaction may be used to observe and understand small group dynamics as well as collective behaviors and social movements. Comparatively speaking, In spite of a number of fundamental contrasts between the assumptions and methodologies of symbolic interactionist and psychoanalytic theories of social interaction in general and socialization in particular, the two perspectives embrace several common interpretations of human action”(Elliot et al, 2008). It is important to not only look at the similarities and differences of the two methods but rather how the two may compliment one another. Freud’s theories on psychotherapy focused inward while Mead’s symbolic interaction illustrated more of the individual’s outward integration within society. Allowing for the existence of this understood duality, one can better understand not only one’s own concept of self but also perhaps how one is seen or identified within society as well as how one is naturally integrated within that society based on principles of the subconscious and other Freudian analytical concepts. An important but neglected aspect of sociology and sociopsychology, is social conflict and its role in society as well as with an individual. The term “social conflict” refers to any type of disagreement, verbal exchange of hostility between 2 or more individuals or verbal abuse from one individual toward others, can be said to define social conflict. Situations which result in an argument between friends, within a marriage or domestic partnership or otherwise is also considered to be social conflict. Often times, social conflict may lead to violence. Social conflict may be associated with different social; or psychological or even biological factors. “Available data suggest that lower SES is associated with higher levels of social conflict for adults (Ryff, Seeman, unpublished analyses of Mid-Mac data; Schuster et al, 1990). Evidence also suggests that the same is true at younger ages where lower SES is associated with more troubled peer relations (Bolger et al, 1995)”(MacArthur et al, 1999). The area od social conflict is essentially in need of a great deal of attention and research from the arena of sociopsychology and sociology. It is understood at this time that when looking at any population as a whole, children are the most greatly affected by social conflict such that it can impact them on a deep psychological level. (MacArthur, 1999). As this paper has been drawing similarities and differences against Freudian concepts of self and Mead’s theories on symbolic interaction and sociology, one can say that social conflict would be more capably understood through a sociological approach whereas the notion of inner conflict may be more readily dealt with through a Freudian outlook stemming from the notion of “the self”. Inner conflict or primal urges are specifically those issues which we deal with inside of ourselves. It can be said that most moral or ethical decisions that we make are based primarily on an inner conflict prior to the analytical process of making an ethical or moral decision. An example of this is the decision that some individuals make to sheat on their significant others, domestic partners or spouses. The primal urge within the individual will press for the satiation of a mortal and physical desire which must be satisfied. This can be said to the id as descry=bed by Freud. The ego however, will remind the self of the moral incorrectness of such a decision. Perhaps a person will find themselves feeling a sense of empathy for their spouse or significant other, where they reflect on how they themselves would feel if placed in the same situation of being cheated on and betrayed. In some cases, this is enough for one to make a more morally based decision as per the ego, and remain faithful to their partner, while spurning the id. In other cases, one may succumb to the basic desires that the id is concerned with, and decide to fulfill one’s primal urges while ignoring the better judgment of the ego which reminds us to be empathetic as well as to be moral to varying degrees depending on the individual. According to feminist theory, one could say that the woman is constantly subjected to inner conflict between her desires and intuitions and what society places upon her as the “norm”, “The matrix of shame is viewed as consisting of conflicts arising from the intertwined emergence of the awareness of ones separateness and desire. Internal conflicts may emerge from symbiotic desires and strivings for separate love, from oedipal sexual desires as well as from aggression. Disappointments in desire for love and reciprocity may predispose one to shame.”(Reenkola, 2005). Based on the Theory of primary socialization, deviant types of behavior such as drug use, are influenced by primary social sources. Primary social sources refers to one’s inner circle of family, friends, co-workers or classmates. The primary socialization theory dictates that a certain individual’s character traits or personality do not necessarily relate to their deviant behavior but instead their relationships and interactions are virtually always affected by the deviant behavior (such as drug or alcohol abuse). (Oeting et al, 1998). The following exert from Oeting et al details the relating of behavior with primary socialization: Interpretation of research results from the point of view of primary socialization theory suggests the following: 1) Characteristics such as depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem are related to drug use and deviance only when they have strong effects on the primary socialization process, i.e., among younger children; 2) Traits such as anger, aggression, and sensation seeking are related to drug use and deviance because these traits are more likely to influence the primary socialization process at all ages; 3) The psychopathologies that are least likely to interfere with bonding with prosocial socialization sources, the anxieties and most of the affective disorders, are less likely to have co morbidity drug dependence; and 4) Psychopathologies such as oppositional disorder, conduct disorder, attention deficit disorder, and antisocial personality are more likely to interfere with primary socialization, and the literature shows that these syndromes are also most likely to have a dual diagnosis with drug dependency. Just as Freud attempted to explain the factions of the self in order to describe the overall person, Mead took a similar approach in looking at society and the organism of that society which is composed of multiple organisms equaling one sort of theoretical organism made up of many. Within this same context, Mead defines the “social act”, “the social act in relation to the social object. The social act is a collective act involving the participation of two or more individuals; and the social object is a collective object having a common meaning for each participant in the act. There are many kinds of social acts, some very simple, some very complex. These range from the (relatively) simple interaction of two individuals (e.g., in dancing, in love-making, or in a game of handball), to rather more complex acts involving more than two individuals (e.g., a play, a religious ritual, a hunting expedition), to still more complex acts carried on in the form of social organizations and institutions (e.g., law- enforcement, education, economic exchange)”(Cronk, 2005). Studying Freudian theory provides a basis for the concept of self and is certainly a fundamental premise of psychology. Furthering this ideology of self understanding to a level of social understanding and awareness truly allows human beings to grasp even further, not only themselves respectively but also themselves within a group. By looking at and examining the foundation for much of what we know about social theory as established by Mead, we can more fully understand not only who and what we are as individuals but also as a society, “Without social identity there is no human world. Without frameworks of similarity and difference, people would be unable to relate to each other in a consistent and meaningful fashion (Jenkins, 2004). References Cronk, George. (2005) “George Herbert Mead (1863 - 1931)”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved from website at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/mead.htm#SH3c Elliott, Rodney. Meltzer, Bernard. (2008) “Symbolic Interactionism and psychoanalysis: Some Convergences, divergences and complimentaries”, Caliber Journals of the University of California Fall 1981 vol 4 no. 2 pp. 225- 244, retrieved from website at: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/si.1981.4.2.225?cookieSet=1&jou rnalCode=si Jenkins, R. (2004) “Social Identity”, Routledge, London. MacArthur, John D. and Catherine. (1999) “Social Support and Social Conflict”, Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health, retrieved from website at: http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/Research/Psychosocial/notebook/socialconflict. Html Menp - Reenkola leg. Psych., Elina. (2005) “Female shame as an unconscious inner conflict” Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing 28: 101-109, retrieved from website at: http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=spr.028.0101a Oeting, ER., Donner - Meyer, J.F., Deffenbacher, J.L., (1998) “The role played by the personal traits in the etiology of drug use”, PubMed, retrieved from website at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9603274 Read More