x_filesize')); // Sort image tag $OC_sortImg = 'current sort selection'; ?> ࡱ>  bjbj,(,( 4NBNB[&[% 8TDD4&"%%%%%%%,(+X%%|LX%X%%V#@$=h3$ %&04&?$x++$$%%4&+ :   Achieving Deweys Vision of a Radical Democracy: The Necessary Contributions of George Herbert Mead Traditional Paper [3,490 words] The real assumption of democracy inside the society of a nation and within the society of different nations is that there is always to be discovered a common social interest in which can be found a solution of social strifes. Democratic advances, therefore, has always been in the direction of breaking down the social barriers and vested interests, which have kept men [and women] from finding the common denominators of conflicting interests. -- George Herbert Mead, Democracys Issues in the World War (1917) Introduction During their forty years of working together, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead collaboratively developed a radical vision of democracy as well as transformative strategies that had real impact in their time and place. For contemporary readers, Deweys contribution to this project often overshadows Meads. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to highlight Meads distinctive contributions and to deploy them to further the radical pragmatist project of achieving a deepening and extending democracy in the twenty-first century. Specifically I will focus on two intertwined aspects of Meads continuing importance for radical democrats: (1) what Mead said about democracy and sociality, and (2) how we can deploy Meads insights now in education and in opportunities for participatory democracy in urban planning. While it is true that Dewey wrote extensively about the need for and development of a radical democracy or a deep democracy that has been the basis for providing opportunities for citizens to influence public decision makers and to develop visions for their communities, I will argue here that we need Meads understanding of community and his definition of democracy to assist us if we are to implement Deweys vision of a radical democracy. Mead on Democracy and Sociality George Herbert Meads (1934) concept of the social self (which grows through interaction among the I, the me and the generalized other) shows how individuals can learn through new kinds of social democratic participation in which they absorb and contribute new ideas through a process of interactions with others. In developing these ideas, Mead concurred with Deweys general, speculative conception of democracy he had influenced in its various stages of development, including its famous formulation in the revised version of Ethics: Democracy signifies, on one side, that every individual is to share in the duties and rights belonging to control of social affairs, and, on the other side, that social arrangements are to eliminate those external arrangements of status, birth, wealth, sex, etc., which restrict the opportunity of each individual for full development of himself [or herself]. On the individual side, it takes as the criterion of social organization and of law and government release of the potentialities of individuals. On the social side, it demands cooperation in place of coercion, voluntary sharing in a process of mutual give and take, instead of authority imposed from above (Dewey 1932: 348-349). In the last section of Mind, Self, and Society, Mead argues that, through the developing social selves, people form communities of shared understanding. Mead describes the generalized other as encompassing the norms, attitudes, social mores, language and culture of a specific community to which an individual belongs. That is, the formative community or social group to which an individual belongs initially shapes the social behavior of that individual in order to make her or him part of that community or group, though it may not always be that individuals only community, and over time, that individual will influence the generalized other. At the same time, individuals can influence the future of various groups in which they actively participate in ways that can lead to active commitment to the democratic process. For Mead, democracy is fundamentally an open process of taking the perspectives of others, a mutual process of reconciling values and re-negotiating together how reality will be framed and what the community will do to more fully actualize the shared values that emerge from on-going civic communication. Thereafter, the transactions of members of groups that have been infected with the spirit of democracy with members of other groups that have not experience this value within their experience can influence the future of the world as in ways that preserve, enhance and draw upon individual and cultural diversity, which is fully compatible with democracy. It is often assumed that democracy is an order of society in which those personalities, which are sharply differentiated, will be eliminated, that everything will be ironed out to a situation where everyone will be, as far a possible, like everyone else. But of course that is not the implication of democracy: the implication of democracy is rather that the individual can be as highly developed as lies within the possibilities of his [or her] own inheritance, and still can enter into the attitudes of the others whom he [or she] affects (326). For Mead, the democratic spirit spreads through this process of entering into the differing attitudes of others whom one affects leads to experiences of sociality, which he explains in Philosophy of the Present (1932) to mean participating simultaneously in two or more societies, groups or processes in ways that mutually influence the individual and all the communities to which he or she belongs. This kind of experience increases and diversifies the inputs to the me, which in turn stimulates the I to experiment in reconciling conflicts while including all the values involved in critical and transformative ways that suggest new possibilities for the social whole (1932: 47-97). Such experiences of sociality can lead to cosmopolitan expansion and integration of individual horizons of experience, leading to interest in and concern for diverse others. If other members of ones communities take up this influence, this can lead to more cosmopolitan attitudes and behaviors that link and transform their generalized others. The Need for Pragmatist Democratic Education In Richard Bernsteins most recent book, The Pragmatist Turn (2010), he states that John Dewey had a lifelong interest in education, especially the education of the young, which both Dewey and Mead understood would strengthen and develop democratic habits. Democratic habits do not develop automatically: they must be learned and refined though life-long processes of education involving real economic costs. Teachers must be trained and employed. Schools must be built and maintained. Continuing adult education (formal and informal) must be funded, and its opportunity costs absorbed. Because philosophers and social scientists have ignored these real economic costs of education, including of the informal education citizens gain from deliberating with their neighbors in daily life as well as at town hall meetings, the economic sector continue to take its revenge (Deweys phrase) in the absence of more deeply democratic social-theoretical checks and balances. One way to understand recent attacks by American conservative leaders and some of their supporters against public teachers unions is that these antagonists have embraced the ideology of the business model, which suggests that school administrators are the managers who have the responsibility to meet government-mandated requirements at the lowest costs to the taxpayers, whereas teachers are nothing more than labor costs, disposable employees who should be required to produce a standard product of high value at the lowest possible cost to the owners of the educational enterprise. This model does not take into consideration how the young learn, what is needed to train and maintain effective teachers with the passion to help youth learn, and what the tax-paying parents also need to learn: beyond the knowledge and discipline to guide their children in doing their homework, parents need the skills to be informed citizens and to help their children absorb these same necessary lessons, as well as the wisdom to confront other individual and social problems when they grow up. This civic education for community membership is important to Mead, who argued that Education is definitely the process of taking over a certain organized set of responses to ones own stimulation; and until one can respond to himself [or herself] as the community responses to him [or her], he [or she] does not genuinely belong to the community. American education leaders in government who are pushing for teacher evaluations based on standardized tests, such as U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, are just as guilty of simplifying the problem as are America conservative leaders. Most teachers school districts now face severely limited funding, as well as parents who lack the higher education, time, and skills to aid their children in fully grasping the material teachers assign. Thus, standardized testing is a false promise of equal opportunity that makes the teachers teach to the test, instead of teaching the children to learn. In reality, Americas current approach to funding public schools, which relies on local property and sales taxes, favors neighborhoods and communities that have large-scale retail and commercial businesses and wealthy residents, while punishing those populated by low-income and working class families and their racial-cultural communities. Radical inequalities in educational opportunities and outcomes predictably result and will continue until this funding model is transformed toward a model that pools local tax revenues. Until this change is made, which may take time to allow for effective communication about what economic democracy requires and can achieve in these locations that benefits the whole of American society, public/private partnerships with philanthropic offices of locally based firms and community organizations like that between Crenshaw High School in South Los Angles and the local Urban League chapter can generate additional human and financial resources that can aid children in poor communities. Instead of requiring some kind of revolutionary overthrow of the government, such changes represent the kinds of practical and moral negotiated solutions that Mead advocated. The key insight on the democratic education processes provided by George Herbert Mead is that the emergence and growth of the I and the me in contexts of diversity-inclusive sociality changes the generalized other. Interaction across differences in class, race or social function developed through social interaction can effectively influence recognition of the needs of the differently located members of local communities. This pragmatic education process allows a shared, deeply held democratic ethos of the community to emerge, thereby strengthening the educational vision for that community. Such a process of mutual democratic education provides adults and some youth with experiences of democratic expression and contributes to the growth of their knowledge and their skills in effective problem-solving. The Need for Participatory Democratic Urban Planning in Transforming Communities Meads context-specific, radical transformation-focused about how to achieve a deeper, social democracy date from years before the beginning of his close partnership with Dewey, including the idea that local urban activism is the most effective way to foster change that he expressed in 1890 in a letter to his close college friend, Henry Castle: We must get into politics, of coursecity politics above all thingsbecause city politics needs men [and women] more than any other branchand chiefly becausethe principles of corporate lifeof socialism in Americamust start from the cityOne doesnt want too much political economy, but he wants a program for an American city that he can defend at any point, and that is adaptableThis is in connection with a vigorous spreading of moral development to the childthe vigorous organizing of movements of physical culture [such as the American urban planning movement then just beginning] will give the breath of new ideas where the air is now so thin that it cannot come without appreciation (Mead to Castle, Oct. 21, 1890; quoted in Cook 1993: 23). Since the early 1960s, leading urban planners, philosophers, sociologists and other political theorists have produced a considerable body of scholarship on the effectiveness of participatory and deliberative democracy as a tool for transforming communities through empowering local civic leaders and other citizens to influence public decisions, both in the United States and in other nations. John Dewey would point out that achieving this goal requires individual and civic investment in a long-term process of educating American citizens in more deeply democratic habits of community living. George Herbert Mead and Robert E. Park would add that it also requires adapting our existing institutions to respond to the inputs of more deeply democratic individuals and communities. This will not be easy, because empowerment changes power relations. Important recent works in transformative social theory that combine ideas and methods from Jurgen Habermas on deliberative democracy and from Thomas Jefferson and his pragmatist inheritors on democratic citizen participation have become effective and influential guides for scholars and activitists. Over the last twenty years, considerable scholarship has focused on participatory democracy and deliberative democracy, at times using the terms interchangeably. However, I believe it is important to understand these terms in ways that highlight their specific differences as well as their similarities in order to identify and interrelate the strengths and weaknesses of each unique model and method as these impact civic, professional and personal motivations and opportunities to organize and to participate in the public arena. Re-reading George Herbert Meads work has been decisive in shaping the pragmatist turn in the work of Jurgen Habermas, and thus, in the emergence of the influential, interdisciplinary school of deliberative democracy that treats his work as a research platform. Habermas is one of the most important philosophers and sociologists of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century in rationalizing and guiding the legitimate incorporation of public decision-making within democratic governance through his development of various ideal concepts, including the ideal speech situation leading to communicative action. Deliberative democracy focuses on creating the legitimate conditions for decision-makers to communicate respectfully and rationally with each other in order to make informed and inclusive democratic decisions based on shared procedural norms, values and objectives. Public reason is a limiting norm for what can be expressed and what reasons can be given for ones views in views in contexts of democratic public deliberation; what this means in practice is that feelings, personal commitments, and local habits of the heart have no place in Habermasian deliberative democracy. Habermas defined these conditions for public reason as the ideal speech situation and highlighted the constitution-guided communication among government representatives as paradigmatic of democratic deliberation, although other deliberative democratic theorists such as James Fishkin have expanded his vision to include other citizens at carefully constructed, rule-governed communicative events. For Habermas, the public is to be involved in the decision process as far as this is constitutionally mandated, e.g., to meet the letter of the law by holding official public hearings on all land use decisions, but he does not see a general need to include the public in developing the vision for which an urban plan was mandated in the first place. This is why Habermasian deliberative democrats believe it is legitimate to argue that a process that involves the public might be inclusive, transparent and deliberative, but not necessarily participatory in giving citizens a real voice in directly influencing final decisions, which in their view can rightly be made by elected representatives and their expert appointees. Recent works by many other philosophers, sociologists and political theorists focusing on the tensions between rival interpretations and strategies of participatory and deliberative democratic theory draw on the work of Habermas after his pragmatist turn, especially his conversations with John Rawls. In contrast, the forms of participatory democracy that classical and contemporary pragmatist advocate emphasize the educative function of participation in public events and democratic social movements for both citizens and leaders. They also highlight the ways in which specific social issues are developed through inclusive public participation in direct interaction in order to produce shared community goals, values and objectives that are both empowering to the participants and effective in influencing representative bodies that have the constitutional power to make decisions. The background expectation of these pragmatists is that people cannot and should not leave their group memberships and personal commitments outside the room, as Habermas and Rawls suggest, and that they can learn from one another and from expert information that is effectively presented. Because their group-linked personal beliefs and preferred alternatives can change in such a participatory process and converge in many ways that reflect mutual respect, increased knowledge, and creative problem solving, their eventual views can express authentic unity without loss of still-valued diversity. Because their inputs are valued even as their knowledge base and their understanding of the perspectives of diverse others are developing within this process, their individuality can be both acknowledged and enhanced. Unfortunately, currently influential models of Habermasian deliberative democracy and Jeffersonian participatory democracy pay little or no attention to context. They ignore the fact that the empowerment process requires building up powers of various kinds out of varying kinds of strengths and deficits, and that such a process has real economic costs. They also fail to attend to the importance of the fact that the growth of personal and collective capacities and of organizational expertise is a process that occurs over time. To gain an adequate understanding of these factors, we democratic theorists and practitioners need to more carefully re-read some still-helpful works by the classical American pragmatists, especially George Herbert Mead and John Dewey, which realistically attempt to link feasibility with desirability in democratic education, growth, and participation processes. Why Democratic Urban Planning Matters and How It Works One might ask: why does democratic urban planning matter, and how can democratic urban planning processes educate both the public and decision makers? Mead himself was actively involved in local community development throughout his Chicago years, putting into practice the insight he had shared with Castle that collaborative local efforts to improve urban life for all involved is the key point of emergence for a more deeply democratic spirit, as well as the knowledge and practical capabilities to actualize it. From a contemporary Meadian pragmatist perspective, democratic urban planning presents a development proposal or a public policy to all the stakeholders and includes them in the planning process from the beginning. It is through the interaction among all the stakeholders that a new community vision is produced, and something new is emerges that with work for the betterment of the whole community the generalized other not just for the developer or elected official, but also for current and future citizens who make up the community. In developing comprehensive plans, democratic urban planning processes focus on large-scale plans and public policies that call for the real input based on lived experiences of the affected parties to influence the shape, size and impact of a proposal on that community by developing general yet binding guidelines for citizens, developers, and elected and appointed officials more specific policies and goals to aim for in creating a more livable and sustainable urban space for the current and future generations. One of the outcomes of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001, has been the development of enhanced, diversity-inclusive public participation processes and tools for building democratic communities in the United States and in other nations worldwide. Some urban communities in the United States in which democratic urban planning is currently being practiced to various degrees of success include Lower Manhattan, the larger city of New York, New Orleans, Louisiana, Seattle, Washington, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Los Angeles, Californiaall of which have adopted innovative comprehensive plans in the last ten yearsas well as Philadelphia and Washington DC, which have used innovative civic engagement processes to develop budget priorities that their citizens were willing to pay for. In addition, a number of cities in Brazil now routinely use innovative citizen participation processes, including Porto Alegre, which uses citizen participation processes to help elected officials set the budget, as well as Rio de Janeiro, which included citizens in helping to decide how to prepare for hosting the Olympics in 2016. Examples of other countries that have experimented with citizen participation in planning processes include four cities in Europe that have gone through major rebuilding processes in recent years: pre-Olympics London, post-unification Berlin, post-communist Warsaw, and flood-prone Rotterdam. Finally, the UN-HABITAT Sustainable Cities and Localizing Agenda 21 Programmes Initiative mandates that organizers of programs in developing countries utilize democratic urban planning techniques in order to more fully understand the needs, desires and perspectives of the affected communities that are targeted for redevelopment in livable and sustainable ways. IV. Conclusion George Herbert Meads model of how individuals I and the me can change the generalized other of the various groups to which they belong is what is needed to guide development of the kinds of radically democratic communities for which Mead and Dewey worked, and for which those who have caught their democratic spirit still long. Meads model of education, participatory democracy, and democratic urban planning provides still-useful tools for urban planners, sociologists, public philosophers, civic leaders, and other publics to use in the twenty-first century as they strive to develop more deeply democratic communities. Notes     PAGE  PAGE 1  As quoted in Dmitri Shlins article G.H. Mead, Socialism, and the Progressive Agenda, in Philosophy, Social Theory, and the Thought of George Herbert Mead, edited by Mitchell Aboulafia, 1991, p. 40.  I am referring most directly to three works by John Dewey, which his discusses the meaning of democracy in: The Public and Its Problems (1927); Liberalism and Social Action (1935); and most specifically in Creative DemocracyThe Task Before Us (1939).  See Judith M. Greens insights on deep democracy and the educative function in both in Deep Democracy: Community, Diversity and Transformation (1999), and Pragmatism and Social Hope: Deepening Democracy in Global Contexts (2008).  Mead, George Herbert. 1934/1962. Mind, Self, & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Edited by Charles W. Morris.  Mead, George Herbert. 1932. The Philosophy of the Present. Edited by Arthur Murphy, with Prefactory remarks by John Dewey.  My understanding of the concept of sociality was greatly enhanced by my notes from Mitchell Aboulafias session titled George Herbert Mead and the Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism at the Summer Institute for American Pragmatism, Boulder, Co. (July 9, 2008), in which he focused his discussion of Meads work from his book The Cosmopolitan Self: George Herbert Mead and Continental Philosophy (2001). Also, see Hans Joass discussion in G.H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-examination of His Thought (1997), in which he describes this concept as sociality of motivation (1997: 120), as well as David L. Millers discussion in George Herbert Mead: Self, Language, and the World (1973), where he explains Meads concept of sociality as both presenting Meads point of view (1973: 23-24) and analyzing it as the principle by which adjustments are made (1973: 44-45). See also Alfred Schultzs Collected Papers 1 The Problem of Social Reality (1962).  Bernstein, Richard J. 2010. The Pragmatic Turn. New York: Polity.  Economists define opportunity costs as the value of alternative employments of time and resources if these were invested in some project or process.  John Dewey wrote extensively on the issue of a democracy need for checks and balances between elected officials and the various publics; see, for example, The Public and Its Problems (1927), Liberalism and Social Action (1935), and Creative DemocracyThe Task Before Us (1939).  Mead, Mind, Self and Society, 1934: 265.  See Jonathan Kozols The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America (2006).  See W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (1903) for his discussion of education as one of the three elements of the transformative social process that he believed was needed in order for an inclusive democracy to emerge in America after chattel slavery and the patterns of racial segregation (de jure and de facto) that followed it. See also contemporary education models such as Crenshaw High School in South Los Angeles, which has created partnerships including the Urban League, local businesses, students, and parents, working with teachers and administrators to create a shared community-wide generalized other for effective learning. See also the earlier South Chicago Schools Project discussed by Archon Fung in Empowering Participation (2004).  For a brief and helpful overview of Jeffersons thinking on participatory democracy, see John Deweys essay, Introducing Thomas Jefferson (1940).  See recent works by Seyla Benhabib 1996; James Bohman 2004; Bernard Cohen 1999; William Dryzek 1990; Judith M. Green 2004; Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson 1996; Jorge Valadez 2001; Iris Marion Young 1996.  See especially the influential two-volume work by Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (1984), and The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (1985).  It should be noted that other deliberative democratic theorists like James Fishkin (1991) have expanded Habermass vision to include other citizens at carefully constructed, rule-governed communicative events.  See Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (1985).  Habermas developed his thinking on deliberative democracy in dialogue with the influential American political philosopher, John Rawls, starting with an exchange of papers in the 1980s.  Refer to Greens Deep Democracy: Community, Diversity and Transformation, and Pragmatism and Social Hope: Deepening Democracy in Global Contexts.  See Gianpaolo Baiocchis description of the Porto Alegre, Brazil, participatory democracy project in Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment, in Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance, edited by Archon Fung and Eric Olin Wright (2003). Works Cited Aboulafia, Mitchell. 2001. The Cosmopolitan Self: George Herbert Mead and Continental Philosophy. Champaign, Ill: University of Illinois Press Bernstein, Richard. 2010. The Pragmatist Turn. New York: Polity Press. Cook, Gary A. 1993. George Herbert Mead: The Making of a Social Pragmatist. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Deegan, Mary Jo. 1990. Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School: 1892-1918. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan Company. Reprinted in The Middle Works of John Dewey, 1899-1924, Volume 9, edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980. _____. 1917. The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy. Reprinted in The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy, Volume 1. 1998. Larry A. Hickman, and Thomas M. Alexander, Eds. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. _____. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt. _____. 1934. Art as Experience. Reprinted in John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953, Volume 10, edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980. _____. 1935. Liberalism and Social Action. Reprinted in John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953, Volume 11, edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991. _____. 1939. Creative DemocracyThe Task Before Us. In John Dewey Volume 14: 199-1941: Essays, Reviews and Miscellany (pp. 224-230), edited by Jo Ann Boyston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press. _____. 1940. Introducing Thomas Jefferson. In The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1953: Essays, Reviews and Miscellany, Volume 14 edited by Jo Ann Boyston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press. Fung, Archon. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Fung, Archon and Erik Olin Wright. 2003. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso Press. Green, Judith. 1999. Deep Democracy: Community, Diversity and Transformation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. _____. 2002. Deepening Democratic Transformation: Deweyan Individualism and Pragmatic Feminism. In Feminist Interpretations of John Dewey: Re-Reading the Canon, edited by Charlene Haddock Siegfried. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press. _____. 2004. Participatory Democracy: Movements, Campaigns, and Democratic Living. In the Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Volume 18, Special IssuePragmatism and Deliberative Democracy, edited by Robert Talisse. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. _____. 2005. Pluralism and Deliberative Democracy. In Blackwell Companion to Pragmatism, edited by John Shook and Joseph Margolis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. _____. 2008. Pragmatism and Social Hope: Deepening Democracy in Global Contexts. New York: Columbia University Press. Joas, Hans. 1993. Pragmatism and Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. _____. 1997. G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Reexamination of his Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mead, George Herbert. 1910. Social Consciousness and the Consciousness of Meaning, The Psychological Bulletin, VII, pp.397-405. Reprinted in Pragmatism: The Classical Writings, edited by H.S. Thayer. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1982. ______. 1915. The Social Self, The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, X, pp. 374-380. Reprinted in Pragmatism: The Classical Writings edited by H.S. Thayer. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company _____. 1932. The Philosophy of the Present. Edited by Arthur Murphy, with Prefactory remarks by John Dewey. Chicago: Open Court Press. _____. 1934/1962. Mind, Self, & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Edited by Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. _____. 1938. The Philosophy of the Act. Edited by Charles W. Morris, in collaboration with John M. Brewster, Albert M. Dunham and David L. Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Park, Robert E, Ernst W. Burgess and Roderick D. McKenzie. 1925 [1967]. The City: Suggestions for Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Strauss, Anselm, Ed. 1977. George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology Selected Papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1969 [1835]. Democracy in America. Ed. J.P. Mayer, Tran. George Lawrence. New York: Harper and Row.  /015?KLcdex~D E F H } ~ WXؼzi]iiR]hihOJQJh>[h5OJQJ!jh>[h0JOJQJUh>[hF@OJQJhOJQJh>[hOJQJhiOJQJhihiOJQJhOJQJhi5OJQJhihi5OJQJhhi5CJ OJQJaJ hi5CJ OJQJaJ hS[!5CJ OJQJaJ h5CJ OJQJaJ 1dexE F "h]^hgdi dgdhd]^hgdih]^hgdi]^gdF@$]^a$gdi $a$gdi\{+,23+6wlmøꬤꃤxg!jh>[h0JOJQJUh>[h>[OJQJh>[hw OJQJh>[h OJQJh>[hKOJQJhiOJQJh>[h6OJQJh>[hF@OJQJhbJOJQJhF@OJQJh>[hbJ6OJQJh>[hbJOJQJh>[hOJQJhihOJQJ("n $K)T*U*r1444^6P9Q9 dgdKgdKAh]^hgdF@ d]gd dgddgd]^gdF@h]^hgdi d]gd09Pj&' !!!!!!-#.#$$R*S*T*U*,,..p3u344444445=6ź}umh>[hK5h>[hKA5 h5h>[h\t5h>[h5!jh>[h0JOJQJUh>[h6OJQJh>[hKOJQJh>[hOJQJh>[h5OJQJjh>[h0JUh>[h6 h>[hh>[hF@OJQJhOJQJ)=6]699N9O9P9Q9::==7>:>|>}>@@A-BCBLBOBdBeBDE@FAFGGhHuHIIQJRJLLOOOdSȳȫȳȠȫȳȫȳȳȫȳȳȐrh>[hB*OJQJphh>[hKB*OJQJph hhh>[hPJh>[h0JPJh>[h6jh>[h0JUh>[h] h>[hh>[hF@OJQJhKOJQJhF@OJQJh>[hKOJQJh>[h,OOJQJ*Q9<?DTJOeSSY` accccccccccc &`#$gdgd dgd $da$gd ^gd d]gddSeSSSSSS{TTTT_U`UNXRXZ=Z[[[[c\f\]]`a aa߿xllV߿Jh>[h5OJQJ*jh>[h0JB*OJQJUphhK=B*OJQJphh>[h>[B*OJQJphhYB*OJQJph h>[h6B*OJQJphh>[B*OJQJphh>[hKB*OJQJphh>[hB*OJQJph h>[hK5B*OJQJph h>[h5B*OJQJphh>[hF@B*OJQJphacccccccccccccccccccccccccccccshW!jh(h60JOJQJUh-h6OJQJhg eh60JOJQJh50JOJQJmHnHuh:zVh60JOJQJ!jh:zVh60JOJQJUh6 h60Jjh60JUhlHjhlHUhghOJQJh>[h5OJQJh@5OJQJhgOJQJh>[hOJQJccccccccddesffg4k{kl.m h]^h`gd h^h`gd h^h`gdh^h`gd@h(&#$]hgd:zV &`#$gdh]hgdcdTdddddd ee2eeeeeef&fifpfrfsftfffffg=gggghi4iliijjjj,k4k5kUkgk{k|kllllll/m0m8mNm[m\msmmmmmmnnno h(h66B*OJQJphh(h6B*OJQJph!jh(h60JOJQJUh6OJQJh(h66OJQJh(h6OJQJE.m/m[mmpXq(r)r>sttOuuww w!w"w#w/w :h^h`gd h^h`gdh^h`gd h^h`gd h]^h`gdoppppXqYq)r*rorrr4s>s?stt'ttttOuPucuuuuuuvvw#w/wKwwww x!xMxNxXxxxxy,yYyy&zezzz{0{={c{{h(h66OJQJ]"h(h66OJQJ]nH tH h(h6OJQJnH tH h(h65OJQJhIJ5OJQJ!jh(h60JOJQJUh(h66OJQJh(h6OJQJ:/ww xxxxyz{{|N}~~# h^h`gd:zV! & 0` P@1$7$8$H$gd:zV) & 0` P@h1$7$8$H$^h`gd:zV h^h`gd:zV{{{"|||}})~~~  #:q@Y݁[ĂƂق.gك6#tFH󭝭蒆hZ]h66OJQJhZ]h6OJQJh(h66OJQJnH tH h(h6OJQJnH tH h(h6OJQJ] h(h66B*OJQJphh(h6B*OJQJphh(h6OJQJh(h66OJQJ2#MƂe{) & 0` P@h1$7$8$H$^h`gd:zV! & 0` P@1$7$8$H$gd:zV h^h`gd:zV$ h^h`a$gd:zV h]^h`gd:zVH  dgd$ hd^h`gd$ hd^h`gd:zV h^h`gd h^h`gd:zV *gȈ hghOJQJhlHhh6OJQJh6OJQJh(h66OJQJh(h6OJQJhZ]h66OJQJhZ]h6OJQJh66OJQJ 2:piBP/ =!"#$% &666666666vvvvvvvvv66666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH H`H gziNormalCJ_HaJmH nHsH tHDA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List F@F 9u Footnote Text OJQJaJHoH 9uFootnote Text Char CJOJQJPT@P p- Block Text]^hOJPJQJaJtH 4+@"4 p- Endnote TextJo1J p-Endnote Text CharCJaJnHtH>*`A> p-Endnote ReferenceH*TQ@RT I:" Body Text 3 a$B*OJPJQJaJphRoaR I:"Body Text 3 CharB*CJOJPJQJph8 @r8 4@0Footer!>o> 4@0 Footer CharCJaJnHtH.)`. 4@0 Page Number44 -0Header !>o> -0 Header CharCJaJnHtH@&`@ UFootnote ReferenceH*ZR@Z UBody Text Indent 2dx^h OJPJQJZoZ UBody Text Indent 2 CharCJOJPJQJaJ@@ z.List Paragraph ^m$2B@2 !l>s0 Body Text xDoD  l>s0Body Text CharCJaJnHtHH@"H #^0 Balloon Text"CJOJQJaJRo1R "^0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJaJnHtH<P@B< %0 Body Text 2 $dxHoQH $0Body Text 2 CharCJaJnHtHPK!pO[Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢]yl#!MB;.n̨̽\A1&ҫ QWKvUbOX#&1`RT9<l#$>r `С-;c=1g~'}xPiB$IO1Êk9IcLHY<;*v7'aE\h>=^,*8q;^*4?Wq{nԉogAߤ>8f2*<")QHxK |]Zz)ӁMSm@\&>!7;wP3[EBU`1OC5VD Xa?p S4[NS28;Y[꫙,T1|n;+/ʕj\\,E:! t4.T̡ e1 }; [z^pl@ok0e g@GGHPXNT,مde|*YdT\Y䀰+(T7$ow2缂#G֛ʥ?q NK-/M,WgxFV/FQⷶO&ecx\QLW@H!+{[|{!KAi `cm2iU|Y+ ި [[vxrNE3pmR =Y04,!&0+WC܃@oOS2'Sٮ05$ɤ]pm3Ft GɄ-!y"ӉV . `עv,O.%вKasSƭvMz`3{9+e@eՔLy7W_XtlPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-!pO[Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 -_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!!Z!theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ'( theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]# }W&-R"$&5|6d:@>?QBDUG^z  t`/Z%]%  %%%(=6dSaco{EGIJLMOQSV"Q9c.m/w#FHKNPRTU  (!!8@0( @@ B S  ? [[[[[[[[[[[0,,*G/G[[[[[[[[[[[^^dd[i'j ppqq]rcrTzezzz{|~F~ɀ::::::::::::::::10qT$ZG8^8`OJPJQJ^Jo( ^`OJQJ^Jo(o  ^ `OJ QJ o(  ^ `OJQJo(x^x`OJQJ^Jo(o H^H`OJ QJ o( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJ QJ o(^`.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.80^8`0o(.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.$14                 [_KA[[@  X@Unknown G*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3 *Cx Arial3Times7@Cambria3Nj-3 fgA Trebuchet MSC  PLucida Grande? *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math hfff M* M*hh0e[e[ J#qHP$P'~42! xx  Judith Green David Woods    Oh+'0  $ H T ` lx'Judith Green Normal.dotm David Woods4Microsoft Macintosh Word@F#@2,bb !! Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ}6^{o{Rg9so{ckZssVVsso{ssg9o{{RkZc^so{s{sRs{RVo{sNskZo{kZg9RZskZkZsso{o{so{so{{VB^-kRBVR=B^NsNsJRRRF1R{VwVs=9R5VZV^JRJR5R==VF1^JRRBF15R9R^BJRVg9so{o{o{:F1^RkZ{BkZkZg9g9kZkZg9kZ^wZkZkZg9kZZg99kZcZ^g9kZg9wo{RsRo{kZg9kZg9kZo{^F1cg9ZVkZg9VBF1o{kZkZJR:VkZBNs{kZRRVJRNsNsF1Nso{kZZo{VBZNsg99ZBRVBVF1cZBVVJRJRNsZF1ZcRJRVcJRNsVZRNsRZBJRsww Ƣ Ƣ-Rc^RNsJRZV^^B^Vcc-swo{kZo{kZo{kZkZwskZZsw% kZg9^ZVwkZkZg9ZkZ o{ssws{wo{ Ƣ Ƣco{o{w{{sw{{ws{{{wwwww{o{,kZkZRg9^Zo{VZZRNsRZVg9^kZZZVZZcRcsVZZVkZVVo{VZcRco{^kZg9VZ V^RZo{cVZVo{VR{Ew{{s{{{{{{{{{{{g9^cZZo{^kZV^cZ^Vg9^^Z^Zg9g9o{RZ^^V^^o{g9^co{Zo{Vc^c^g9^^Z^kZcg9^Z^Z^ZkZZg9^ZG{w{{{ {{{w{{{{>kZ^kZg9kZg9o{g9o{^co{^skZg9kZg9wZkZccssg9cg9cg9cw^skZg9kZZwg9c^g9{c^kZcg9kZg9^o{wcckZg9o{g9wso{o{s ws{so{so{so{o{wo{{o{so{kZwwsso{so{o{ws{so{so{{sw{wso{so{so{swkZso{o{so{sg9g9kZkZckZkZ^o{so{co{g9o{w^kZkZwg9wZkZw^kZ wo{kZ^g9kZcg9kZsckZsZkZwo{kZo{ckZco{g9{g9kZkZskZo{wo{kZwkZo{skZo{wkZkZo{wo{wkZkZwkZskZo{wo{wo{kZo{g9kZg9o{kZo{o{wwkZkZ{kZkZo{kZwo{skZkZw{wsskZws/wo{wwg9skZ{kZsw{o{wo{wo{wsswskZ{wso{wsskZsswo{o{wg9swo{o{{wwo{swo{g9cc^sccg9g9^g9wckZcg9sccg9scg9ZscZco{c sccg9cco{kZkZg9cscZo{^skZc^ckZ#{skZ{G^VVZVNsZZg9ZkZcZVVZ^VVo{VRRZ^Rww Ƣƻ{w{cg9kZ1wc^kZZg9kZc^kZg9kZwccg9g9kZsg9kZkZsscg9kZo{o{g9sZkZwNskZg9g9cg9ZkZg9wg9g9Zo{g9{yso{1cwskZwo{kZw{o{o{kZkZwskZo{o{so{kZo{wso{kZsso{wo{o{{wso{wo{wwo{wo{{w{s Ƣ Ƣ#g9o{scwkZo{sw% cRcVRVRVZV^ Ƣ ƢWw{{{{{{{{{{{{{{wVc^^g9kZZg9^kZc^cwcg9^kZg9cg9c^Zccs^cV^{kZcZckZZcg9ckZg9^^g9g9c g9g9c^c^csVV^Zwc{w{w{s{wsw{{wo{o{wo{o{wwsw{{ww{{w{s{w {{wwg9s{{s{w{sws Ƣ Ƣ0wo{ckZco{o{kZkZsg9so{kZso{g9kZkZc{wkZo{cscwo{skZkZwg9sg9kZkZo{so{o{s{kZwso{^s o{kZo{ckZo{o{g9o{swkZo{g9o{scssso{kZg9kZo{ kZkZso{kZcg9g9wskZg9 {o{kZkZg9skZwg9o{kZ g9kZwg9wo{o{kZo{kZwkZkZg9kZkZsg9cskZwg9o{ckZZkZo{skZkZw Ƣ ƢUw{wwwwo{sw{o{{ww.g9NsNskZZZkZVVRRVkZVkZR^Rg9VV^cRRkZVZVg9^^g9cZVRZVNsVR^g9g9RZ^sV^V^cso{ZVNscRZVZVg9ZcR^o{)www{w Ƣ ƢHsg9o{kZo{so{^kZkZwkZo{kZ^o{o{ckZkZ{^^o{g9kZsc^o{wkZkZg9o{o{wo{g9^kZso{kZkZo{ssckZkZckZkZ{o{wkZwckZcg9kZ^kZg9co{kZg9o{kZo{kZg9o{wo{o{kZkZwo{o{sg9kZ6o{swo{kZo{g9{o{so{o{kZo{kZco{g9wo{wkZkZskZg9co{o{wkZkZo{so{kZwsskZwkZ^kZkZ^kZkZwkZo{css Ƣ Ƣo{ww{ww{{{swo{{s{4o{w{o{ws{kZ{{ww{swso{{{kZ{wws{s{w{{w{s{w{ww{wws{o{w{{w{o{ZZ^^g9cg9o{^ccV^^Zg9cZZo{^o{ZZVg9kZ^o{^o{^"co{^Zw^VZg9ZkZ^^Z^Rc^o{V^^c^o{csZc^cg9ZR{1{{{w{{w Ƣ{{o{o{^g9cg9sg9^ckZkZcg9c^ckZ^g9cg9g9kZ^kZwcsVg9o{ccg9^kZco{o{g9^cg9kZg9cco{Zco{^Z{g9ckZVkZcg9g9sg9cwwo{o{kZskZswswsso{kZs wo{o{{s{ss{wws{sw{wswkZsws o{{w{s{wso{{ws Ƣ Ƣs wkZo{o{kZso{sso{sso{so{{skZg9g9skZo{{wso{kZo{skZswo{ kZo{sswg9o{wsg9o{so{g9so{sso{o{w{kZo{{sg9kZwg9g9o{g9sg9o{sg9sg9+kZscZckZkZskZsg9ckZ^wo{o{g9g9kZg9g9cVsg9Zg9g9kZcg9kZ{g9kZsg9g9cg9sckZg9 kZckZ{kZkZwkZg9^wo{c Ƣ ƢS{{{{{{{s{ {{wws{BkZZZkZRVZVo{V^ZZVZcg9kZRVkZ^Z^RZc{^VZkZg9o{V^VwZ^kZVZo{RZVckZ^ZVVg9g9o{ZV^VZo{RcZo{ZO{w{{w{{{s{{{{o{{{ Ƣ Ƣwg9kZwo{kZso{so{g9wo{{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZ{g9o{wo{o{g9wkZo{kZo{o{{g9kZkZsso{so{{o{cso{wg9o{kZkZo{so{cco{g9sso{{g9o{ssg9co{g9kZg9skZs^^kZkZg9kZkZsg9kZ+g9kZo{^kZcg9g9{ckZg9kZo{g9cg9wg9sg9o{g9g9kZkZ^g9g9kZZ{g9o{kZg9sso{sg9g9o{ Ƣ Ƣo{w{{kZ{ {{sw{w{wswws{ws{wwGkZVNssZ^V^cscVZ^g9Z^ZZ^^Zco{VZVccVo{VZVg9^VsRZkZZ^^V^RVVZZkZ^g9cZVZcZg9RVZZ^Z^kZ^g9^#{{{{ Ƣw9sZkZg9w^cg9kZkZg9o{kZ{Vg9kZ^kZo{cg9kZg9o{ZsZkZ^o{kZco{cg9g9kZ^cg9sg9ccg9ckZg9^g9g9kZco{o{^kZg9 o{kZsg9RkZkZco{w.wkZo{kZwkZso{so{o{sso{o{sskZwwo{so{wo{sso{o{swswg9swso{o{g9ssg9g9o{so{ swswsso{sso{wswo{so{o{{ Ƣ Ƣwwg9kZskZwsswswso{ssw{skZwwkZwwo{swws{kZsskZwo{{wsso{wsso{w{o{{wkZs wso{wswwkZo{{wwkZcs^g9g9csc^^ckZo{^^sg9o{^kZg9cZso{g9c scg9scg9cskZg9ckZo{skZcs^^cZo{cg9g9scZ{cg9 Ƣ ƢL{{{{{{{{{w{{{o{Z^ZkZRg9^cg9o{^^ZcZ^^Z^csckZ^,Z^^co{cZZg9^o{ZcZ^Zc^o{ckZZZ^^g9c^g9o{ckZ^^c^o{Zo{kZ^csVc {w{w{{ww{w{{wkZw{w{w{w{ww{w{w{wwsww{w{{{w{ Ƣ Ƣa(swwo{o{kZo{o{wswg9kZswsswwssws{kZwwskZsskZ{kZo{swo{ss{]sg9sg9Zc^g9 skZckZg9ckZo{kZg9o{kZkZo{g9cckZg9o{^cg9g9o{ckZg9 Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣƭo{ƭw Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ wag ՜.+,0 hp  'GreenWoods Associates*e[  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Ffw=h1TableX+WordDocument4SummaryInformation(n8 DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObj` F Microsoft Word 97-2004 DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8