A Preliminary Examination of the Concept of “Object”: From G. H. Mead to Gendlin in the 1980s
In the early 1980s, Gendlin began a preliminary examination of what an “object” is to living processes. By “preliminary,” I mean that at that time, Gendlin was examining only objects for animals that had acquired perception and behavior, following George Herbert Mead. In other words, he had not yet arrived at the consideration of an “object” in Chapter III of “A Process Model (APM)” (Gendlin, 1997/2018) that also applies to unicellular organisms or plants.
In Chapter I of APM, Gendlin argues that “there is no single reality, only the reality of each species. It is in the sense of en#2 that each species has a different environment” (Gendlin, 1997/2018, p. 5). Although the idea that each species has a different environment may have a genealogical origin in the “Umwelt (surroundings)” theory (Uexküll, 1934) of the European biologist Jacob von Uexküll (1864-1944), I will review the pragmatstiic genealogy here:
Mead argues that for each animal species, what it selects as an object from its environment differs: “The selection of the characters which go to make up food is a function of living individuals” (Mead, 1922, p. 158 [SW, 240]):
In the ’80s, Gendlin followed Mead’s ideas, arguing as follows. In other words, he considered that grass becomes food only when there is a digestive process:
It should be noted, however, that the “object” from Mead to Gendlin in the early 1980s is only an object for animals that have acquired perception and behavior. In other words, if the concept of an object here is to find its counterpart in APM, it is, in my opinion, the idea of an object in Chapter VI-B “The Development of Behavior Space”, and not the concept of an object in Chapter III “An Object”.
Mead does not yet have the idea that “When the object returns, the stopped process resumes and moves on. Then the object is no longer implied” (Gendlin, 1997/2018, p. 17; cf. Okamura, 2022), which corresponds to Chapter III in the later APM.
However, in the ’80s, Gendlin began to discuss the idea of the “stopped process,” albeit still in an inadequate form. He argued that “If the animal is hungry and there is no food, feeding cannot happen even though it is the body’s implied next event” (Gendlin et al., 1984, p. 260) and that “The implied action, for instance, eating, might not happen because there is no food. An implied action can not happen if the people and things it involves are missing” (Gendlin, 1984, p. 99). These ideas were gradually refined and later culminated in the following concept in Chapter III of APM: “As far as we defined it, there can be an object for the body only while the object is missing, and the process with it does not happen” (Gendlin, 1997/2018, p. 16). I believe this finally leads to the presentation of a more fundamental concept of “object” that applies not only to animals but also to unicellular organisms and plants.
The concept of “object” as it applies to plants is also discussed in more detail in his paper “Implicit precision” (Gendlin, 2012), which was written after APM was written.
References
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: the theory of inquiry. Henry Holt. Reprinted as Dewey, J. (1986). The later works, vol. 12 [Abbreviated as LW 12]. Southern Illinois University Press.
Gendlin, E.T. (1984). The client’s client: the edge of awareness. In R.L. Levant & J.M. Shlien (Eds.), Client-centered therapy and the person-centered approach: new directions in theory, research, and practice, pp. 76-107. Praeger.
Gendlin, E. T. (1997/2018). A process model. Northwestern University Press.
Gendlin, E.T., Grindler, D. & McGuire, M. (1984). Imagery, body, and space in focusing. In A.A. Sheikh (Ed.), Imagination and healing, pp. 259-286. Baywood.
Mead, G.H. (1922). A behavioristic account of the significant symbol. Journal of Philosophy, 19, 157-63.
Mead, G.H. (1932). The philosophy of the present (edited by A.E. Murphy). Open Court.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. (edited by C.W. Morris). University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G.H. (1964/1981). Selected writings [Abbreviated as SW] (edited by A.J. Reck). University of Chicago Press.
Okamura, S. (2022). The body that forefeels future: from perspective on therapeutic subculture [in Japanese]. Bulletin of the Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies, Kansai University, 55, 147-185.
Uexküll, J.v. (1934). Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen. Julius Springer.
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか?