Sigmund Freud With George Herbert

¶ … Sigmund Freud with George Herbert Mead Compare and Contrast Max Weber and Karl Marx Nature of an individual is a concept we are all at least familiar with regardless of the fact whether how much we actually understand it. Though different branches of knowledge have attempted to explain this concept in the light of their respective fields, the Psychology has earned a reputation for extensive work in this arena.

Today we shall briefly discuss the nature of an individual from the perspective of two eminent names in psychology; they are Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). Freud saw the nature of individual through the spectacles of unconscious domain; that is he considered unconscious state of person as instrumental in forming nature of individual (Freud, 1963). Thus he advocated that unconscious dynamics are the real cause of human nature and these unseen forces are predominantly restructured and shaped by factors such as society and culture or general environment.

Further elaborating his view point he suggested that nature of the individual is classically molded by initial upbringing, hence strong and healthy atmosphere in the early part of individual's life when maximum is absorbed to reflect back takes place is highly important in formation of desired nature. Mead another well-respected figure in social psychology essentially endorsed the same premise free of Freud's influence in slightly different manner. He presented human nature as being developed from the realms of social interactions.

It means that nature of the individual is significantly influenced by the social set up, language medium, experience and surrounding conditions. According to him the features of human nature emerge as the person undergoing such frame gains from these factors and consequently come in terms with them. His theory propagates that behavior of individual is largely drawn from the experiential bouts undertaken by the person and language helps in great deal to relate everything around and communication is imperative for social interactions.

Freud being the founder of psychoanalysis (Kriegman and Knight, 1988) was very prolific in explaining the abstract world of unconscious mind. He was able to derive loads of information by deciphering the seemingly meaningless words often downplayed by regarding them as slip of tongue but Freud argued such unintentional utterances tell a great deal about the actual state of person's inner self.

He concluded that most of the time these inner feelings are intimate in nature (Freud, 1963) and hence cannot be shared or accorded overt acceptance and therefore suppressed and form subject of self denial such feelings are often forced into the world of oblivion whereas its never obliterated and is added to unconscious state where it remains till its brought out without the consent of conscious mind and the very fact these are uncontrolled, unprepared give a good indicator of person's nature.

George Herbert Mead is regarded among the founding members of pragmatism in psychology, according to him the behavior of an individual can be understood only in terms of the behavior of the whole social group of which he is a member, because his individual acts are just of complimentary status and part of bigger picture of prevalent social norms (Gillespie, 2005).

Thus unlike Freud's standard of measuring or taking guess of person's nature; Mead articulate the need to understand the society in which the person is living, the principles the individual is conforming to, the social interaction in vogue in society. These and more factors act together to set the nature of the individual and hence must be considered in evaluation. The society is the system of cohabitation having certain social order and set up in which an individual lives.

Sociology studies society and whenever the modification or transformation occurs within the social structure resulting in alteration of social norms and standards; is collectively called social change. The phenomenon can be gradual, evolutionary and hardly perceptible but definitely influencing everyone in society. On the other hand the change could be sudden and drastic in nature meaning it could take people off guard and the transformation could be long-term and sustainable but at the same time it can also be short lived and evanescent in nature.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Max Weber (1864-1920) were the distinguished German scholars of their time and both of them individually contributed a great deal in the understanding of society and its paraphernalia. There is not much to compare between the two scholars apart from the fact they both were Germans and prominent sociologists. Karl Marx is regarded as the founder of 'socialism'. He was a great philosopher and intellectual. His philosophy essentially articulates that it's in the very nature of man to bring change in the world.

This transformation process is called labor and this capacity to bring change is termed as labor power. Karl Marx's thought on sociology and philosophy had deep rooted impact on society. He was of the view that ideologies are the product of the social structure and by that he meant the theoretical perception of right being the driving force for setting up of mechanism in society whereby individuals living in society conduct themselves and approve of.

Thus establishing harmony by means of social system that ensures the well being of majority is maintained always. Max Weber is considered as one of the three main "fathers of sociology," he worked extensively to formulate and expound the different theories related to society and social change. He was the mighty exponent in elucidating the sociological perspective, to the nature of social change, and to the nature of social inequality.

Weber's approach to sociology was an attempt to compensate the deficiencies of works done by his predecessors and especially by Karl Marx; his comprehensive work was an authentic approach towards understanding of social change.

Unlike Marx who considered social change in the context of class struggle between rich and affluent bourgeois class and majority proletariat population (Avineri, 1968) in capitalist system which would inevitably result into cataclysm and subsequent transition into socialist system, Weber was not in agreement with Marx and for that matter with even majority of his predecessors because according to him their theories and social set ups were not objectively designed and were unable to accommodate history and contemporary study into account.

Weber identified causative agents of social transformations broadly into the category of four points, according to.