Beyond dualities in behavioural economics: what can G. H. Mead’s conceptions of self and reflexivity contribute to the current debate?

Dual systems theories play an important role in the conceptual foundations of behavioural economics, such as distinguishing between ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ responses to stimuli. After critically reflecting their empirical validity in the light of recent research in psychology and the neurosciences, I argue that their major flaw is the inadequate treatment of reflection. I introduce the distinction between ‘reflectivity’ and ‘reflexivity’, showing that human action involves complex brain connectivities that integrate the two systems, as understood traditionally. G. H. Mead’s distinction between ‘I’ and ‘me’ as modes of the self is a promising alternative to existing dualities, which combines with a selectionist model of action generation. Whereas all standard approaches in behavioural economics and neuroeconomics remain internalist, Mead’s theory establishes a paradigm for behavioural economics that centres on the pivotal role of language and symbolic systems in mediating human action, and which can integrate behavioural economics with other cross-disciplinary strands of research in economics, such as on identity and culture.