The Symbolic Process and its Integration in Children
Preface
John Fordyce Markey
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
ATTEMPTS to locate the origin of the symbolic process and " thinking " in the separate individual are bound to make them appear an enigmatic gift. But most of those who endeavour to make such explanations have little hesitation in assuming that, if the search be long and careful enough, such phenomena will be located in hidden sources somewhere inside the organism-perhaps cotton-packed to prevent injury. Man, with such special gifts as these descriptions would indicate, is liable, for this reason, to be seen as something separate and apart, unrelated to the rest of the animal world. Cogito, ergo sum -- I think, therefore I am -- is a statement so enticing and self-satisfying, why disturb one's peace at the centre of the universe ?
Scientific advance bids fair to dislocate such ideas and to emphasize interdependent and social characteristics. But, judged by the tenacity with which it sticks, the conception of the self-sufficing and socially independent individual. must belong to a collection of embalmed ideas which missed disintegration at the appropriate time.
The recent Gestalt theorists, in spite of their brilliant work, have gone in regard to the problem under consideration little beyond pointing out mysteries which require explanation, their next and more difficult task--a task which greater attention to social interrelations will facilitate. Recent behaviouristic explanations have also suffered from ignoring important social factors, which, if cognizance were taken of them, would have furnished a very effective defence for the behaviouristic position, but which, when ignored, have left such explanations open to attack at their weakest point. But theories do not stay as hot as they are baked ; cooler analysis discloses the
( x) parts not well done. Considerably more must come off the scientific griddle before intellectual nourishment is properly taken care of on these points.
When adequate attention is given to the social relations and interactions involved in the symbolic process, much of this mystery is cleared up. Man is seen to be one with the other animals, the differences being of degree rather than of kind. The behaviouristic position becomes a tenable one in the field of " mental " phenomena without either positing a body-mind dualism or ignoring facts of human experience.
The main task of this book is an explanation of the social processes in the genesis, integration, and functioning of symbols. There is an obvious need for such a systematic treatment, and a clearer statement of these processes.
It might be of interest to note that this study was preliminary to a project in delayed reaction experiments with children during the period of language beginnings, which was outlined in connection with the Child Welfare Institute at the University of Minnesota. Due to the limits of time and the lack of an adequately accessible group of children at the proper ages, this interesting sequel was not immediately practical.
In describing the complex process of symbolic integration, it was convenient to use some short-hand terms--mnemic, engrams and engramic--which may not be familiar to everyone. These were used to indicate the large complex mass of physiological or material changes which remain. as a result of excitation or stimulus response behaviour and which later may be re-aroused or re-activated upon proper stimulation. There is involved here a large number of residual and auxiliary responses which occur in association with subsequent stimulation. If these short-cut terms mean something different from this to some readers, or, if they prefer the more elaborate statement, the above content may be substituted for them.
One of the methodological principles employed deserves special mention. "the results from its use seem to justify
( xi) its wider application in sociological study. It is based upon a definition of social which is broad enough to include influences in all organic groupings. It is the comparative examination of other animal groupings for social phenomena similar to those occurring in human groups.
The analysis of speech behaviour also adds weight to another principle which is often not recognized clearly. This is that speech reactions are to be analysed according to the function which they perform in social behaviour. The face value of the particular words used is not so important as their response relation to the stimulus situation. Some responses to questionnaires, for instance, are nothing but attempts to create a favourable impression and not an effort to give accurate responses to particular questions. Speech reactions require a behaviouristic analysis, and by the use of the behaviouristic method reflective behaviour (thinking) and the symbolic process are actually observable and analysable. In reality the observation of reflective behaviour is an every-day occurrence.
Those who do not wish to go into the historical trend may read Chapter II at places which appear suggestive to them, or may go immediately from Chapter I to Chapter III without destroying the unitary character of the treatment.
The endeavour of Ogden and Richards to formulate a science of symbolism (in The Meaning of Meaning) is a stimulating and suggestive piece of work which all those who desire a clearer understanding of communication should read carefully
Previous to the present work, my study under the stimulus of Professor Ellsworth Faris in social psychology gave me an orientation in that field which has been of great value in carrying on this research. The pioneering work of Professor K. S. Lashley in the behaviouristic field, his instruction and that of Professor R. M. Elliott have also had their direct influence upon this investigation. The first part of it, more particularly the historical part
( xii) embodied in Chapter II, was begun under the much-appreciated encouragement of Professor L. L. Bernard, with his interest in what he has termed the psycho-social environment.
There are other precursors too numerous to mention to whom it would be a pleasure to give acknowledgment, but in connection with this study these four seem to be especially deserving of mention, with the addition of another, Mr. William H. Markey, whose searching mind and intellectual freedom has had a general and specific influence hard to measure.
In the course of the book, reference gives acknowledgment to particular sources. Of these, Mead and Dewey are of especial importance and should by all means be read by those interested. I wish to thank Miss Marion Mattson, who made available to me an unpublished manuscript, in which she had treated data collected at the Merril-Palmer school in Detroit.
Throughout the book I have had the penetrating suggestions and criticisms of Professor Dorothy P. Gary, to whom I wish to express my especial appreciation for her interest and help.
I wish also to indicate my appreciation for the helpful suggestions particularly of Professors F. S. Chapin and C. R. Bird and to thank for their comments Professors W. S. Miller, P. Sorokin and D. F. Swenson, all of whom have read parts of the manuscript.
If this study adds to the understanding of social life and stimulates to further investigation, two of its objects will be realized.
J.F.M.
Minneapolis, Minn.
