PRAGMATISM AND THE DIALOGICAL SELF

Abstract

This paper argues that American pragmatism, usually viewed as an action-based or practical theory of meaning, should also be regarded as a theory of inner speech or the dialogical self. James invented background concepts in the I-me duality of the self and the stream of consciousness. Peirce introduced inner speech itself, showing how this process is central to the human moral and deliberative capacities. Mead showed how we solve everyday problems with inner speech. And Dewey pointed out how we run mental experiments with the inner conversation. Taken jointly these thinkers constructed a complex and far reaching theory of the dialogical self. A second issue I consider is pragmatism's theory of meaning and how it relates to the dialogical self. I argue that the theory of meaning is best understood as including a socio-cultural component. And further this public theory of meaning should be distinguished from a second kind, the personal or private variety. I conclude by showing the advantages of orienting pragmatism toward both meaning and inner speech. The classical American pragmatists, Peirce, James, Mead and Dewey, are known for their theory of meaning. The idea that the meaning of a statement is in its practical or activist consequences is considered their common denominator. But these thinkers also had innovative ideas concerning human nature or the self, the most central being that the self is an internal dialogue. In addition the two ideas, meaning and dialogue, are connected. Humans pursue meaning by the dialogical method. This method is enacted both publicly via interpersonal and communal dialogue and privately by virtue of inner speech or the dialogical self. Inner speech is the key to the human semiotic or symbolic ability, itself the means of inventing culture.