‘Domination’
‘Domination’
复制标题
统治
DOI：
10.1177/1468795x02002001672
复制
发表时间：
2002
影响因子：
0.7
通讯作者：
Lonnie Athens
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lonnie Athens
我们欠乔治·赫伯特·米德（George Herbert Mead）的巨大债务，可以说，比他之前或之后的其他任何人都更深刻地分析“社会行为”。在某种程度上，可以追溯到他在社会行动中占主导地位的重要性。始终在复杂的社会行动中。关于他们参与的社会行为的性质，米德掩盖了社会行为的一些基本分析组成部分，他否则就可以很好地确定这四个米德对社会行为的分析中的固有问题不仅是确定的，而且对每个社会行为的分析也最终得出结论。解释复杂的人类社会行动。
We owe a great debt to George Herbert Mead for, arguably, analyzing the ‘social act’ more profoundly than anyone else before or after him. While undeniably profound, his analysis, which rests on the principle of ‘sociality’, still suffers from four shortcomings that, to one degree or another, can be traced back to his downplaying the importance of dominance in social action. First, he cannot adequately account for the superordinate and subordinate roles that always arise during complex social action. Second, he can adequately account for the immediate impact of conflict on an unfolding social act, but not its ultimate origin in social action. Third, he makes people’s temporal orientation a constant, when in actuality, it varies depending on the nature of the social act in which they are participating. Finally, Mead obscures some of the basic analytical components of the social act, which he otherwise identifies brilliantly. These four inherent problems in Mead’s analysis of the social act are not only identified, but resolutions for each of them are also provided. It is ultimately concluded that Mead’s principle of ‘sociality’ must be replaced by the principle of ‘domination’ because the latter principle better explains complex human social action.