Chomsky versus Mead

Abstract

s model of language and mind, while perhaps understandable at the time it was written, now seems inadequate. First, the research evidence strongly suggests that mental operations exist prior to language onset, conversation of gestures, or social interaction. Second, language is not just significant symbols; it requires syntax. Third, syntax seems to be part of our bioinheritance, that is, part of our presocial mind/brain-what Noam Chomsky has called our language faculty. Fourth, this means syntax probably is not learned nor a social construction that is internalized as a cultural template. Fifth, this suggests a basic reversal of the prevailing model of symbolic interaction, mind, language, and perhaps the self as well, although there has not been the time or space to engage that topic here. Therefore, symbolic interaction may turn out to be a more Chomskyan than Meadian process. Given the bioinheritance of our mind/brain we are able to engage in symbolic interaction; it does not appear that symbolic interaction creates our mind or the basic computational algorithms of language.*I would like to thank Jonathan Turner and the anonymous reviewers for Sociological Theory for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Direct correspondence to:

Formalism, Behavioral Realism and the Interdisciplinary Challenge in Sociological Theory

“…While we all must appreciate the robust realism of appealing to the nature of individuals, who certainly do exist, great dangers lurk here for theorizing. This is because social science is the unique case in which the lower level appealed to by mechanistic accounts is ourselves, and we have a great number of prejudices about our own constitutions that we cannot rid ourselves of, because we do not know what all of them are 13 …”

Does Infant Cognition Research Undermine Sociological Theory? A Critique of Bergesen's Attack on Durkheim

“…1 1 Bergesen (2004b) has made a parallel case against G.H. Mead, where Mead and symbolic interaction theory is “evaluated in light of recent research” (p. 358).…”

Turning Durkheim on His Head: A Reply to Peterson and Bjerre

“…All of the findings reviewed in Bergesen (, , ) should be a wake up call for sociology; but they aren't. Geertz (, see also ) states the case for internalization: “undirected by culture patterns … man's behavior would be virtually ungovernable, a mere chaos of pointless acts and exploding emotions, his experience virtually shapeless,” (p. 46) or as Griswold () puts it, “biology or our own nature gives little direction to our lives, so we have to develop our own guidelines, and we do so in the course of our interactions with one another” (p. 54).…”

“…In such a state the organism is propelled directly by the forces of nature, which include internal physiology and the external environment” (Kollock & O'Brien, , pp. 53–54) (Bergesen, , p. 397).…”

“……” While this is a very hypothetical example included only to dramatize the difficulties of a learning approach, it nonetheless does draw attention to what would be obvious difficulties if this rule were to be taught to children. Sociological theory, though, still continues to see the question of “I” and “you” self/other referents as internalized cultural templates” (Bergesen, , pp. 262–263)…”