Mead came to this point of view through his work in what Blumer called
'symbolic interactionism'. This theory seeks to explain human interaction with one
another and their environment. The theory proposes that people break all things down
into symbols, and then assign these symbols meaning, through language and thought.
Obviously, this theory is very much based around human communication, both internally
(to the self) and externally.
This theory relates strongly to the school of thought that claims that thought is defined by
language. Gingrich, Paul, 2000, Symbolic Interactionism. Therefore it is through talking
to one another that we broaden our language base, allowing a deeper range of thoughts. If
it is indeed our grasp of language that gives rise to philosophy and allows for a moral
conscience to develop, then it can be argued convincingly that it is language that makes
us human, and talking makes us more so.
Of course, the entire debate on what it is that makes us human, must be dragged in at
some point if we are to contend that talking is humanising. If we take a biological view,
then talking is not what makes us human, although it would certainly be part of the
description. If we are talking about a moral judgement, wherein a serial murderer or
rapist, is judged as not being human, despite biological evidence to the contrary, then
language once again be considered. Clearly the words "human" and "humanizing" are
being used in a very vague manner here. No doubt Mead and Blumer had a clear idea of
what they meant, but as illustrated by their own theory, meaning is construed differently
by individuals, with different words. Nelson Lindsey, 1998, Herbert Blumer's Symbolic
Interactionism. That is to say that two different people would have two different
symbolic meanings attached to the word "human". In which case, the success of this essay
depends entirely on the hope that the marker finds the same meaning in the question as
the writer. To take this one step further, the very concept of an essay holds different
meanings, as anyone who has ever had more than one teacher could tell you.
If we mean by humanizing, that talking increases the brain's capacity for abstract
thought, then there is no question that language is the most human activity a person can
engage in. It is through language, analogies in particular, that complex ideas can be
conveyed. Littlejohn, Stephen, 1999, Theories of Human Communication. Philosophy, for
example, depends very much on language to be able to convey meaning. To take an
interesting example from a recent tutorial that this writer was a part of, in discussing the
importance of language to the human culture I had occasion to ask a question to the class.
I asked the class in general, if anyone could tell me what the difference was between the
color red and the color blue. This provoked the usual suspects to strut their own
theories, and use my question as a springboard to allow them to pontificate to a captive
audience, but none could answer the question satisfactorily. That was simply because
nobody had the language to answer the question with, and therefore, they had probably
not considered the question before. It is this point which shows us that language allows
thought, and language is broadened through talking to one another.
The use of language in a very broad manner, allows human communication, which in turn
expands the base of knowledge and language. If human beings could not communicate in
an abstract manner, then every person would be forced to learn the same lessons
continually in a self perpetuating cycle that would disallow progress. Therefore it can be
clearly seen that talking is both human and humanizing.
