19 z EDUCATION AND THE zyxwv CONDICIO SOCIALIS: DOUBLE CONTINGENCY IN INTERACTION Raf Vanderstraeten Faculty of Sociology University of Bielefeld, Germany In the first decades of the twentieth century, the American pragmatist George H. Mead presented a number of reflections on the social origins of the self and the human mind. As part of these reflections, Mead described and analyzed the distinc- tive characteristics of the social world. He focused attention on the difference between action and interaction, between the ways humans respond to physical objects and the ways we respond to (the acts of) other humans. The complexity of social interaction, Mead argued, stimulates us to direct attention to our own attitudes and our own behavior: “A man’s reaction toward weather conditions has no influence upon the weather itself. It is of importance for the success of his conduct that he should be conscious not of his own attitudes, of his own habits of response, but of the signs of rain or fair weather. Successfulsocial conduct brings one into a field within which a consciousness of one’s own attitudes helps toward the control of the conduct of others.”’ zyxwv In many cases, our reaction toward physical objects has no influence on these objects. But our reaction toward the acts of others is a stimulus for them to act in a different way zyxwv - which, in turn, is a stimulus for our subsequent reaction, and so on. Mead’s analyses stimulate a reflection on the difference between individual action and social interaction and, more particularly, on the basic conditions of social interaction: ”What is the basic mechanism whereby the social process goes on!”2 How do two individuals who come face-to-face bridge the gap between them and establish an appropriate relation to one another? How is social interaction possible? How does the other-orientation in each of the participants emerge and evolve in a social relation? In this article, these questions provide a starting point for reflecting on the basic conditions of social and educational interaction in our world. The following observations draw upon writings in the field of sociological theory and social philosophy, most notably those of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann. In 1. GeorgeH. Mead, Selected Writings, ed. Andrew J. Reck [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 131. See also thereconstmction of Mead’spositionin Jim Garrison, “Towarda Pragmatic Social Constructivism,” in Constructivism and Education, eds. Marie Larochelle, Nadine Benarz, and Jim Garrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19981, 4-60; and Gert J. J. Biesta, “Mead, Intersubjectivity, and Education: The Early Writings,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 17, no. 2 (1998): 73-99. 2. George H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society, From the Standpoint zyxw of a Social Behaviorist, ed. Charles W. Morris (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1967),13. Together with emergent sociological conceptions (for example, those of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber], Mead’s approach has contributed to an understanding of education in terms of socialization and acculturation instead of in terms of the “unfolding” of the human mind. EDUCATIONAL THEORY / Winter 2003 / Volume 53 / Number 1 0 2003 Board of Trustees / University of Illinois