Att inte spänna kärran framför hästen : precisering av Meads ”rollövertagande”

Not to put the cart before the horse: clarification of Mead’s ”role taking” George Herbert Mead’s “role taking” is subject to many interpretations. Some dominant definitions restrict role taking to reflective people trying to understand each other and taking on each others' roles. Other definitions restrict role taking to the stage of a developed language. Against these two types of definitions I assert that Meads concept is explanatory, not merely descriptive, functionally as well as existentially. It has a value also on elementary levels of human development, where man is socially similar to other primates. Swedish sociologists have contributed fruitfully to straighten the debate. My intention is to clarify it further, and to explicate my own interpretation. Basic role taking is a non-reflective activity going on in any place where living entities influence each other with gestures in similar ways. In human beings it gives rise to conscious discursive reflectivity, and it coincides phylogenetically and ontogenetically with development of language, rather than being created by it. Role taking emanates from breaking automatic responsivity. It introduces distance and reflectivity and results in conscious social behavior, rather than being produced by such. In this way, role taking is a major step in the development of intelligence on earth.

George Sand : une femme moderne ?

A travers des œuvres de George Sand (1804-1876), le mémoire étudie la littérature champêtre, l'exotisme et l’écriture féminine. Dans un deuxième temps il montre les relations avec des personnes célèbres qui ont influencé l’auteur et les correspondances entretenues entre George Sand et elles. Enfin le mémoire se termine par une étude de la femme moderne qu'était George Sand.

Motståndets betydelse : Ett bidrag till aktör-strukturdebatten

The significance of inhibition: a contribution to the agency-structure debate A central problem in social theory today is how to integrate agency and structure. The vital question is how to explain social reality by proceeding from both the notion of people doing things which affect the social relationships in which they are embedded (agency) and the idea of the social context moulding social activity (structure). Sociologists as Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens and Jürgen Habermas call attention to social practices as the ”missing link” between agency and structure. In accentuating social practices, the aim is to explain how people in their daily encounters actively contribute to the production and reproduction of social structures. This article puts forth the posthumous contribution of George Herbert Mead to the agency-structure debate. I argue that his social pragmatist theory gives us a compound and thorough– but not fully recognized – explanation of the dynamics and the course of events in structurally framed encounters. By especially emphasizing the importance Mead ascribes to the inhibited social act, I examine how his theory deepens the understanding of social practices as a bridge between agency and structure.

Självet, rollerna och pågående koordinationer av mänskliga handlingar : Om att försöka se ’samhället’ som något annat än fängelse eller marionetteater

The self, roles and the ongoing coordination of human action. Trying to see ‘society’ as neither prison nor puppet theatre In the article it is argued that structural North-American role-sociology may be integrated with theories emphasizing ‘society’ as ongoing processes (f. ex. Giddens’ theory of structuration). This is possible if the concept of role is defined as a recurrence oriented to the action of others standing out as a regularity in a societal process. But this definition makes it necessary to in a fundamental way understand what kind of social being the role-actor is. This is done with the help of Hans Joas’ theory of creativity and Merleau-Pontys concept of ‘flesh’ arguing that Meads concept of the ‘I’ maybe understood as an embodied self-asserting I, which at least in reflexive modernity has the creative power to split Meads ‘me’ into a self-voiced subject-me and an other voiced object-me. The embodied I communicating with the subject-me may be viewed as that role-actor which is something else than the role played. But this kind of role-actor is making for new troubles because it is hard to understand how this kind of self is creating self-coherence by using Meads concept of ‘the generalized other’. This trouble is handled by using Alain Touraines concept of the ‘subject’ and arguing that the generalized other is dissolving in de-modernized modernity. In split modernity self-coherence may instead be created by what in the article is called the generalized subject. This concept means a kind of communicative future based evaluation, which has its base in the ‘subject’ opposing the split powers of both the instrumentality of markets and of life-worlds trying to create ‘fundamentalistic’ self-identities. This kind of self is communicative because it also must respect the other as ‘subject’. It exists only in the battle against the forces of the market or a community. It never constructs an ideal city or a higher type of individual. It creates and protects a clearing that is constantly being invaded, to use the words of the old Frenchman himself. Asa kind of test-case it is by the way in the article shown how Becks concept of individualization may be understood in a deeply social and role-sociological way.