Cooley's contribution to symbolic interactionism
The American sociologist Charles H. Cooley (1864–1929) was one of the founders of symbolic interactionism .
Symbolic interactionism
Charles Cooley, along with George H. Mead , is one of the founders of symbolic interactionism. Cooley and Mead were friends and so influenced each other. Cooley was also heavily influenced by Herbert Spencer's theory of social evolution . Like Spencer, he understood social evolution as an organic social process. The functional sub-systems therefore adapt to the environmental conditions more and more effectively. At the same time, there is a constant differentiation in the internal structure of a society.
communication
Of particular interest here is Cooley's understanding of human nature as a product of communication. This points to the great importance of socialization in American sociology. "Man develops his self, through which he first becomes a person, through the process of interaction with other people." (Ibid., P. 189) This interactionist notion of a self in which "social nature" and personification are inextricably linked became of paramount importance to symbolic interactionism and to the social sciences in general.
Individual and Society
Cooley therefore rejected the assumption of an autonomous, rational individual. He advocated the conception of the social genesis of the self. "The social self is simply any idea, or system of ideas, drawn from the communicative life, that the mind cherishes as its own. Self-feeling has its chief scope within the general life, not outside of it (...)." This view, however, did not mean a total adaptation of the individual to society and did not imply any collective or social determination of the ego. For him, as for all social behaviors, the individual and society were two expressions of the same thing. These complement and condition each other.
"Human nature is always individual and social at the same time, is a" group nature ", and each individual is the product of the specific combination of interaction relationships with other concrete persons and groups, which change with them and in turn have a modifying effect on them in constant exchange with its environment, in the course of which it changes itself and it. "
This dynamic view of the self became the basis of the individual's socialization. Such a close connection between society and individuals also characterized Cooley's understanding of social evolution. He saw this, as already indicated, based on the interactions of people.
Looking-Glass Self
Cooley, unlike Mead or Erving Goffman , was not primarily concerned with the process of organizing the self, but with emphasizing the reciprocity of people's ideas about one another. Cooley expressed this with the term "Looking-Glass Self", the mirror image self. Accordingly, every person develops his or her identity as a result of diverse processes of social interaction with other people. This creates a specific self-image. I imagine how I appear to the other person and then evaluate myself from this perspective. Cooley pointed out three basic elements which, in their totality and interaction, lead to the development of one's own experienced identity. The person acts and knows or assumes that they are being watched:
- How is it seen / experienced by other people?
- How is it then rated by these other people?
- How does this evaluation make her feel?
It is not about the actual evaluation by significant other people, but about what the individual believes about it. Because everything is subject to interpretation by the individual. In this way, according to Cooley, each is a mirror to the other. These ideas that people have of each other and their environment were for Cooley the "hard facts" with which sociology had to deal. These are socio-mental processes that strengthen the connection between "self" and "society". For this he uses the term "social mind", which is similar to Durkheim's "collective consciousness".
"Cooley paid far more attention (...) to the dynamic nature of the" social mind "as an idea that arises and changes in the communication process than Durkheim, who considers the collective consciousness as something (...) which" external "coercion on the individual exercised, treated. "
Both self and society have a dynamic character at Cooley. These are processes, more precisely: communication processes.
Review from Mead
According to the traditional assumptions of psychology , the content of the experience is entirely individual and in no way can be primarily explained by the social process, although its environment or its context is social. For a social psychology like the Cooleys - which is based precisely on this assumption - all social interactions depend on the ideas of the individuals concerned and take place within the framework of their direct and conscious influences on one another in the social experience process. Cooley's social psychology: society only exists in the mind of the individual; the view that identity is fundamentally social in nature is presented as a product of fantasy. Even for Cooley, identity presupposes experience, and that is a process in which identity develops.
Important works
- Human Nature and the Social Order (1922).
- Social Process (1918).
- Social Organization (1909).
bibliography
- CH Cooley: Social Organization. Human nature and the social order. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York 1922.
- GH Mead: Spirit, Identity and Society. From the perspective of social behaviorism. Suhrkamp , Frankfurt am Main 1975.
- G. Mikl-Horke: Sociology. Historical context and sociological theory drafts. Oldenbourg , Munich / Vienna 2001.
- M. Titze, R. Kühn: The concept of identity in theory and practice of the individual psychology of Alfred Adlers. In: HG Petzold: Identity: A core topic of modern psychotherapy. Interdisciplinary perspectives. Publishing house for social sciences, Wiesbaden 2012.
Web links
- 50 classics of sociology , web dictionary of the University of Graz
Individual evidence
- ↑ cf. 50 classics of sociology, University of Graz
- ↑ cf. Mikl-Horke 2001, p. 188.
- ↑ cf. ibid., p. 189.
- ↑ cf. ibid., p. 189.
- ↑ Cooley 1902, p. 180.
- ↑ cf. Mikl-Horke, p. 189.
- ↑ Ibid., P. 189.
- ↑ cf. ibid., p. 189ff.
- ↑ ibid., P. 191.
- ↑ cf. Titze / Kühn 2012, p. 245.
- ↑ cf. Cooley 1902, p. 183.
- ↑ cf. Mikl-Horke 2001, p. 191.
- ↑ Mikl-Horke 2001, p. 191.
- ↑ Mead 1975, p. 269.