Identity, Biography, History, and Symbolic Representations

Neither Mead nor Cooley could countenance any philosophical or sociological dualisms. Thus they taught us not to reify-to make into separate entities-such concepts as individual and collective identity (or, in their terms, self and society). Like other science concepts, those were only analytic abstractions standing for an assumed actual unity. Both men's views also included broad-scale historical emphases: evolution and temporal perspectives for Mead, and process for Cooley.' To talk of these men today may seem appropriate only for ceremonial remembrance, but I also think of their work as still setting the stage for future attacks on the trinity of identity, biography, and history. In my talk I will add some thoughts on symbolic universes and symbolic representations, particularly with reference to the United States, and also to related representations of other countries. It's in the general spirit of this tradition that today I will approach those topics. I say tentatively because this talk is based on a research project that is barely under way, though it follows from some assertions I made a long time ago. In Mirrors and Masks, which was about identity in relation to social organization, I wrote: Identities imply not merely personal histories but also histories. . . . If you wish to understand persons . . . you must be prepared to view them as embedded in historical context. Also, A man must be viewed as embedded in a temporal matrix not