DISCUSSION
T H E R E L A T I O N B E T W E E N V Y G O T S K Y A N D M E A D R E C O N S I D E R E D . A C O M M E N T ON CLOCK
Recently, in a paper entitled 'Vygotsky and Mead on the Self, Meaning and Internalisation', H.-J. Glock attempted to show how the study of Mead's theory of the mind can contribute to the Vygotskian frame-work.' Glock starts his interesting discussion by stating that "The initial point of contact between Mead and Vygotsky is clear. Both thinkers reacted in a creative way to what Vygotsky called 'the crisis in contem-porary psychology' .. .".2 He then goes on to show that Mead and Vygotsky share essentially the same views on a number of important topics. This approach leaves unanswered, however, the question of the origin of the similarity of Mead's and Vygotsky's views.1 In several publications I have argued that the problem of 'the initial point of contact' can be elucidated, at least partly, by referring to G. W. F. Hegel's writings.4
My argument can be summarized as follows. Both Mead and Vygotsky studied Hegel's writings intensively. This is known from biographical information and can be illustrated by referring to many paragraphs in their works.5 For example, Vygotsky's famous description of grasping movements turning into pointing, quoted by Bakhurst6 and Glock, is phrased in explicitly Hegelian terms.7 Furthermore, both investigators were influenced by Hegelian ideas in a more indirect way: Mead through pragmatism and Vygotsky through Marxist thought." Finally, some of their common points of view can be tracked down to the writings of the German philosopher. I will deal here only with the concept of 'social interaction' in relation to the development of the seif. Solomon has shown that this concept of 'social interaction' is central to Hegel's philosophy. In his Phenomenology of Spirit Hegel defended the view that without interpersonal interaction there would be no self and no self-consciousness.11 Hegel rejected the 'prisoner in a cell' (Mead)
92 DISCUSSION
view. One cannot have self-consciousness without the mediation of other people, or as Solomon puts it, "the self is no autonomous monad, which knows itself immediately and the world only 'mediately'".10 Thus, there can be no individual self prior to interaction with other people in Hegel's opinion. I would argue that both Mead and Vygotsky trans-posed this (epistemological) thesis to the domain of ontogenesis.
Although I realise that the concept of 'influence' is quite complex, I think that by referring to Hegel's writings one can understand at least part of the striking similarities between Mead and Vygotsky. This common background suggests that the combining of Vygotsky's and Mead's ideas, as attempted by Glock, may be a fruitful endeavour.
NOTES
1 H.-J. Glock, 'Vygotsky and Mead on the Self, Meaning and Internalisation'. in Studies in Soviet Thought 31(1986), pp. 131 — 148 (- G).
2 G,p. 131.
•' The similarity between their views has been noted by several researchers, for example, by Th. Luckmann in his introduction to the German translation of Thinking and Speech: Denken und Sprechen, (Frankfurt a/M, 1977) and J. V. Wertsch and C. A. Stone, 'The Concept of Internalisation in Vygotsky's Account of the Genesis of Higher Mental Functions', in Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives, ed. J. V. Wertsch, New York, 1985.
4 R. van der Veer, 'Similarities between the Theories of G. H. Mead and L. S.
Vygotskij: An Explanation?, in Studies in the History of Psychology and the Social Sciences, eds. S. Bern, H. Rappard, W. van Hoorn, Leiden, 1985; R. van der Veer, Cultuur en Cognitie. De Theorie van Vygotskij, Groningen, 1985 (— V).
* Some facts about Vygotsky's life can be found in K. Levitin's One is Not Born a Personality, Moscow, 1982.
" D. J. Bakhurst. "Thought, Speech and the Genesis of Meaning on the 50th Anniver-sary of Vygotsky's Myslenie i Ree', in Studies in Soviet Thought 31 (1986), pp. 103— 129.
DISCUSSION 93
" Information about the relation between pragmatism and Hegelianism can be found in R. C. Solomon. In the Spiril of Hegel. New York. 1983. pp. 385—401 (- S), and in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol III. ed. Ph. P. Wiener. New York. 1973, p. 556. See also I. Markova, Paradigms, Thought and Language (Chichester, 1982} on the relation between Hegelianism and Mead's theory.
« S.p.430. "' S,p.436.
Department of Education, R E N E VAN DER V E E R University of Leiden,
