Have you ever stopped to think that human beings have the capacity to create and personify entities that are not always objective? Part of this case is the labor market, the financial market and some other examples you can remember. And when does an entire group become generalized? A whole nation? As saying: the Brazilian does not know how to vote! The European discriminates against immigrants! Anyways… these are examples of what the American philosopher George Mead calls “the generalized other”.

“The attitude of the generalized other is the attitude of the community as a whole. So, for example, in the case of the social group that is a team of ball players, it is the team that is the other generalized, as long as it participates, as an organized process or social activity, in the experience of each of the individual members ”, comments Mead.

There are personality characteristics that the “I” can give to groups or societies, but they are fictitious, representations of oneself about others. Such notions communicate soul and feelings through the perspective of itself. Note that these brief examples commented here are stereotyped and imaginary forms, they are not seen as facts or contain scientific evidence.

Total sovereignty over the territory of the “I” would be impossible since it always shares borders with the other. In our own eyes we have the other’s vision, even the language was pre-built by many who preceded our arrival. Reflections like this outlined the paths that originated the Agora theory, showing precisely this point of the inseparable character of the other in the considerations of ourselves.