Revision summary
Mead: the self arises in self-consciousness, when one takes oneself as an object. Significant symbols make the speaker respond as the hearer does. Play, then game, then the generalised other organise that capacity. The Me is others’ attitudes; the I is the novel act. Power decides whose other is generalised; Mead left that thin.
Model answer
Introduction
George Herbert Mead argued that the self is not given at birth as a soul. It arises when the individual can take herself as an object, that is, when she becomes self-conscious in social interaction. Mind, self, and society are one process, not three boxes.
Body
Self-consciousness as taking the role of the other
- In Mind, Self and Society, the self appears when the organism can indicate to itself what it indicates to others.
- A gesture becomes a significant symbol when it arouses in the speaker the same response it arouses in the hearer. Language is the medium of this sharing.
- Self-consciousness is this doubled view: I see myself as others see me.
Play, game, and the generalised other
- In play, the child takes one role at a time: mother, teacher, police. The self is still a series of parts.
- In the game, the child must take the roles of all others in an organised activity, as in cricket or a classroom.
- The generalised other is the organised community’s attitude. When the child answers that attitude, a stable self is possible.
- Charles Horton Cooley’s looking-glass self is a cousin: we imagine appearance, judgment, and a self-feeling. Mead is more about organised process than about a mirror of vanity.
The I and the Me
- The Me is the organised set of others’ attitudes that one assumes. It is the self as object, the conventional side.
- The I is the novel response to that Me, the moment of impulse and creativity.
- Self-consciousness is the conversation of I and Me. Without the Me there is no object to be conscious of. Without the I there is no living act.
Implications
- The self is social before it is private. Durkheim’s claim that society exceeds the individual meets Mead on this path, though Mead starts from interaction, not from social facts as things.
- Erving Goffman later staged the self; Mead supplies the developmental condition for any stage.
- Indian childhood in joint households and schools multiplies generalised others: caste, kin, and nation may conflict, which is role strain, not a disproof of Mead.
Limit
- Mead underplayed class and gender power in whose “other” becomes generalised. Harding and Oakley would ask which community’s attitude is internalised as the Me.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD SY[Significant symbols] --> SC[Self-consciousness] PL[Play one role] --> GM[Game organised roles] GM --> GO[Generalised other] GO --> ME[Me as object] ME --> I[I as response] I --> SELF[Self]
Conclusion
For Mead, the self develops when the person can take the role of the other and become an object to herself. Play, game, and the generalised other build that self-consciousness. The I and the Me are its inner conversation. Society is the condition of mind, not a later add-on.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Critically analyse Parsons views on society as a social system.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2022 · Q7(a)). View answer →
-
Is the self only a copy of society?
No. The Me copies organised attitudes. The I responds and can innovate.
-
Can there be a self without language?
Mead treats vocal significant symbols as decisive for a full self. Isolated bodies do not grow that conversation.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2022 · Q3(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Critically examine how Durkheim and Merton explicate Anomie. -
2022 · Q4(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
What characterizes degradation of work in capitalist society according to Marx ? -
2022 · Q4(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Social stratification is claimed to contribute to maintenance of social order and stability in society. Critically assess. -
2022 · Q5(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Critically examine the relevance of Durkheim's views on religion in contemporary society. -
2022 · Q7(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Critically analyse Parsons views on society as a social system. -
2021 · Q1(d) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain whether Durkheim's theory of Division of Labour is relevant in the present day context -
2021 · Q3(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Critically examine the dialectics involved in each mode of production as propounded by Karl Marx -
2021 · Q4(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
With suitable examples, explain how conformity and deviance coexist in a society as propounded by R.K. Merton
More from this topic
Q8(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
How do 'Civil Society Organizations' such as 'NGOs' and 'Self-Help Groups' contribute to grassroot level social changes? Discuss
Sociological Thinkers: Karl Marx
NGOs and SHGs are civil society forms between family, market and state. They contribute through services, rights mobilisation, thrift, credit and women’s public voice. SEWA, Kudumbashree and SHG-bank linkage are standard Indian illustrations. Social capital and capabilities names for the gain. NGOisation, donor dependence and microcredit capture are the critical limits. Grassroots change holds when members remain political subjects, not only project targets.
Q7(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
How do theories of Marx, Weber and Durkheim differ in understanding religion? Explain
Sociological Thinkers: Karl Marx
Marx treats religion as ideological consolation and mystification in class society. Durkheim treats religion as the sacred form of social solidarity and classification. Weber treats religion as meaningful ethic that can steer economic and political action. Differences follow the questions of critique, function and interpretation. Marx expects unmasking; Durkheim expects the sacred to migrate; Weber traces disenchantment. Do not flatten the three into a single sentence about the importance of faith.
Q6(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
What do you understand by gender-based domestic division of labour? Is it undergoing a change in the wake of increasing participation of women in formal employment? Clarify your answer with illustrations
Sociological Thinkers: Karl Marx
Gender-based domestic division assigns unpaid household and care work mainly to women. Oakley, Hartmann and Hochschild made that work theoretically central. Women’s formal employment has produced dual burdens more often than equal sharing. Outsourcing to paid domestic workers relocates rather than ends gendered care. India’s Time Use Survey shows a large unpaid-work gap by sex. Change is lagged and class-specific, not automatic with a salary slip.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.