Race, as theorized by Du Bois, and Gender as theorized by Gilman, have important implications for Mead’s theory, particularly to the limits of taking the attitudes of others in the formation of society. For starters, race according to Dubois is a product of historical and social factors (Du Bois, 2001). Gilman on the other hand views gender as a result of lived experiences shaped by the attitudes of the dominant gender at a particular time. More specifically the meaning of the female gender is a consequence of conformity to prescribed patriarchal expectations (Gilman, 2020). This is not different from race. People of color for instance have historically been defined by their experiences which have to a large part been a subject of conformity to the attitudes and expectations of the white supremacy expectations. The poor in society are defined and shaped by the expectations of those who wield economic power. In brief, the issue of race, gender, and inequality are social constructs concerning Mead’s theory of existence in society by taking the attitudes of others which in the real-world entails taking on the attitude of those who hold higher social, racial, and economic positions in society.
Interestingly, those in advantageous or superior social positions are rarely motivated or see the incentive to take the attitudes of those seemingly inferior or inferior positions in society, such as women, people of color, and the poor. Instead, people in superior positions are more likely to impose themselves on other members of society in a bit to preserve their existence or advance their interests which are in most cases at the expense of the inferior and to the detriment of societal organization (Morris, 1964, p. 640). The main reason why marginalized groups take the attitudes and ideals of dominant groups for acceptance. Gender inequality, racism, and social inequality are social constructs, strictly defined by dominant groups, imposed on the marginalized, and accepted by the marginalized to be accepted and organized into the society. During this social interaction, negative attitudes are developed towards women, people of color, and the poor. As these groups intelligently and consciously reconstruct their personalities to navigate the social conflicts arising from competing interests, they in effect lead to a reconstruction of the social order which we perceive in the end as an organized human society.
Mead’s concept of the social and asocial aspects of human society posits that ethical ideals emanate from an individual’s feeling of cooperation and social interdependence. On the other hand, ethical problems arise from an individual’s feelings of individuality, social independence, and self-superiority over others (Morris, 1964, p. 642). The social aspect leads to harmonious and ethical social organization based on mutual respect and interdependence while the asocial aspect leads to ethical problems of non-cooperation and imbalanced social organization. Plugging the asocial aspect in a society of different races, gender, and economic powers leads to racial discrimination, gender inequality, and socioeconomic inequality. Mead’s theory can therefore guide the dominant groups of society on the importance of cooperation and taking on the attitude of the inferior groups to bring harmony to an ideal society. Mead states that “Every human individual must, to behave ethically, integrate himself with the pattern of organized social behavior which, as reflected or prehended in the structure of his self, makes him a self-conscious personality.” (Morris, 1964, p. 641). In other words, an ideal society is one where different individuals and groups can equally take on the attitudes of the other to foster interdependence regardless of race, gender, or socioeconomic status.
This ideal situation, however, is only achievable when such individuals exist in a group that shares similar ends and no competing interests. Mead identifies significant challenges against this ideal. He recognizes the complexity of this assumption by arguing that individualistic and non-individualistic members of society cannot easily be brought into common social relations with one another. The author claims that even though it could be done, it would be a long and painful process of dual social adjustment. The main impediment according to Mead is the lack of common interest shared by all individuals (Morris, 1964, p. 643). They lack a common end goal and, in most cases, they possess competing interests which more often than not accentuates their conflict. Mead considers an economic example by stating that “individuals acting in their socially functional capacity as members of the capitalistic class whereas other individuals are acting in their socially functional capacity as members of the laboring class represents directly opposed social interests” (Morris, 1964, p. 643) It is not hard to see how race, gender, and socioeconomic inequality fits into this picture. Not unless society can align male and females’ majority and minority, the poor and the well to do are goals and interests, there will be no incentive to cooperate or mutually adjust for harmony.
Gilman recognized this fact in her argument for women’s empowerment. She realized that women’s and men’s interests conflicted because of their contrasting economic levels (Gilman, 2020). She realized that if women are afforded the same economic empowerment as men, then gender equality and freedom for women is an inevitable outcome. By this, we will have aligned men’s and women’s interests. In the same breath, Du Bois recognizes that the source of racism is African-Americans’ poor socioeconomic standing, so in the end, extending higher education is the ultimate panacea to the race problem (Du Bois, 2001). In other words, by educating African Americans about the ideal superior level of society, we will in effect have aligned the interests of both black and white and in effect foster cooperation and interdependence. For example, when you have a Black doctor, a policewoman, and a white teacher, discrimination is the unlikely outcome. Instead, interdependence is a natural choice in fostering the progress of that society regardless of gender, race, or economic standing.
References
Du Bois, W. E. B., & Bernasconi, R. (2001). Race.
Gilman, C. P. (2020). Women and economics. In Women and Economics. University of California Press.
Morris, C. W. (1962). George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society.
write