Module 2

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE SELF

Introduction

With the advent of Social Science in 18th century, new ways of knowing have
emerged. The new discipline departed from Philosophy’s heavy reliance on speculation
and shifted to observation as a valid approach of knowing what is real and true. This
new approach cultivated philosophical objectivity in understanding the world,
specifically in its nature. Humanity started to be considered as being part of the natural
world and gained attention as acceptable subject of study.

Consequently, the self which was dominantly regarded by Philosophers as whether

or not a concept of duality has been questioned by the Social Scientists. To re-examine
the true nature of the self, their focus shifted on the relationship of the self with its
external world. That is, with its constant interaction with the external reality, the self
is shaped by external forces that constitute society, community, and family among
others.

In this chapter therefore, the self is presented contrary to the philosophical view
whereby self is considered as having two components of the body and soul (or the body
and mind). Self in this chapter is emphasized as social by nature. Beginning from birth,
it continuously interacts with its external world that determines what it might be, what
it can be and what it will be.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of the module, students should be able to:

1. explain the basic concept of self as a product of social reality;
2. describe how self is shaped by society and culture; and
3. examine one’s self relative to his/her external world.

Learning Content

Self as a Social Construct

The self as a social construct is derived from the idea that society which takes
part in its shaping is a social construction. Through social interaction and active
understanding of the social reality by collective actions of people, living together and
their relationships become meaningful. By active understanding, it means that
individuals are not only passive participants in their social life. Through language,
 they privately and publicly utilize or share symbols within their interactions. This
creates a pattern that shapes and influences who they are, how they behave and
think.

The Self and Society

In 1996, Steven (cited by Alata, EJ et. al., 2018) found in his literature reviews that
self has been characterized as separate, self-contained, independent, consistent, unitary
and private. Said characteristics suggest that self is distinct to others. It is self-contained
and independent because it can exist by itself. It is contained in its own thoughts,
characteristics, and volition. It does not allow other self for it to exist. It has a personality
that is enduring or persists over time. It is centered on its experiences and thoughts. In
implication, self is isolated from the external world.

Taking the forefront when Philosophy started to lose its fame in the area of
understanding about the self, the discipline of Sociology asserts that humans cannot be
understood apart from it social context. Base on its idea, society is linked to the individual
as they are inherently connected and dependent on each other. Society being composed
of a large social grouping sharing in the same geographical territory implies that groups
who are more or less living together have the same cultures and predisposed to
institutions which provide their physical, social, and psychological needs and which
maintain order and the values of the culture. It makes us who we are by structuring our
interactions and lay out an orderly world before us. As a result, an individual is capable
of seeing through his/her experiences and the larger society called sociological
imagination in which society creates opportunities for him/her to think and act as well
as limiting his/her thoughts and actions.

Sociological Theories of the Self

A. The Looking Glass Self by Charles Cooley

Charles Cooley pioneered one of the most prominent Sociological perspectives of

the self. He asserted that individuals develop their concept of self by looking at how others
perceive them, hence, coined his theory as “The Looking Glass Self”.

Using the view of others, Cooley denotes that understanding of self is socially
constructed. Through social interaction, one’s sense of self is mirrored from the
judgments they receive from others to measure their own worth, values, and behavior.
This process involves the following steps:

1. An individual in a social situation imagines how they appear to others.

2. That individual imagines others’ judgment of that appearance.
 3. The individual develops feelings (of pride or shame) and responds to those
perceived judgments.

Seemingly, the theory of Charles Cooley is appealing if not complicated by some

context of interaction and nature of people involved in the process. Feedback for one plays
an important role in the process. However, not all feedback are taken or carried out in the
same weight. Thus, not all judgments or view of other people to one’s self may affect how
he/she measure his/her worth, values and behavior. For instance, some take responses
from those whom they trust more seriously than those of strangers. Misinterpretations of
signals may also occur from the point of view of the person examining him/herself. One’s
value system can be also taken into consideration when thinking through any changes to
their behavior or views of self. Ultimately, people constantly seek to create consistency
between their internal and external worlds and, therefore, continue to perceive, adjust,
and strive for equilibrium throughout their lives (Self and Socialization, nd).

B. Theory of the Self-Development by George Herbert Mead

Similar to Charle’s Cooley’s theory of self, George Herbert Mead also gave
emphasis to other’s perspective in view of one’s self. As a prerequisite of being able to
understand the self, one has to develop self-awareness. This can be derived from looking
at ourselves from the perspective of others. For instance, we put ourselves into someone
else’s shoes and look at the world through that someone’s perspective. This process is only
made possible by social interaction. If social interaction is absent particularly in one’s
early experiences, he/she will find difficulty in developing an ability to see him/herself as
others would see him/her. According to Mead, the “self” in such case is not being
developed (Theory of Self Development,nd).

By stages, Mead states that self develops through social interaction.

1. Preparatory Stage: Children in this stage are only capable of imitating

actions of others (i.e. people they particularly in contact with such as their family
members). They have no ability to imagine yet how others see things.

2. Play Stage: At this stage, children begin to try to take on the role of other
person by acting out grown up behaviors, dressing like adults, etc.

3. Game Stage: While children learn about several roles of others, they
understand how these roles interact with each other in this stage. They learn to
understand complex interactions involving different people with variety of purpose. In a
restaurant for instance, a child understands different responsibilities of people who work
together for a smooth sailing experience. He/she understands that someone from the
restaurant takes orders, others wash dishes, cook the food, etc.).
 4. Generalized other: In this stage, children develop, understand and learn
the idea of the common behavioral expectations of the general society. They are able to
imagine how they are viewed by one or many. Mead pointed out that “self” in this stage is
being developed.

The Self and Culture

The self should not be seen as a static entity which remains constant through time.
It persistently struggles with its external reality and is malleable in dealing with it. Being
active participant in its social world, the self, through interaction, is made and remade.
As it continuously interacts with others, society is continually changing and dynamic, so
thus self.

Self being endlessly exposed to its social world and is subjected to its influences here
and there. While the social world is changing and dynamic, being the same person across
time and space therefore is illogical. In this perspective, self is considered as multi-
faceted.

The Moi and Personne Self

Marcel Mauss and his contemporaries claimed that society is a result of a process
whereby actions of humans is built upon everyday social continuity. As an Anthropologist
and Sociologist, he asserted that self adapts to its everyday social condition. In particular,
the behavior of human groups and the way they perceive themselves in daily life are
influenced by their environmental and seasonal variations. Everyday life is an endless
process of actions and exchanges between and among humans to sustain their existence
and meet their needs. Cultural identity therefore is intertwined with space and time
(Airton José Cavenaghi, 2016) making one’s self determined according to its
circumstances and context.

As a result of this notion, Marcel Mauss asserted that every self has two faces--the
personne and moi. MOI refers to a person’s sense of who he is, his body and his basic
identity, his biological givennes. It is a person’s basic identity. PERSONNE on the other
hand, is composed of the social concepts of what it means, to be who he is. It has much to
do with what it means to live in a particular institution, a particular family, a particular
religion, a particular nationality, and how to behave given expectations and influences
from others. Personne therefore shifts from time to time to adapt to his social situation
(Alata, EJ et. al., 2018).

Various personne can be illustrated across culture. In the Philippines, part of the
Filipino personne-of who they are-- is their territory. This includes considering their
immediate surroundings as part of them, thus the perennial “tapat ko, linis ko”.
 Language is also an interesting aspect of who Filipinos are. Filipinos articulates
love with the famous phrase, “Mahal kita”. This phrase if translated in English means,
“I Love You”. Unlike in English, the Filipino version of “I Love You” however does not
specify who the subject and the object of love. There is no specification of who loves and
who is being loved.

Interestingly, the word “mahal” in the Philippines can both mean “love” and
“expensive”. Love is intimately bound with value while being expensive means being
precious. Putting together, someone or something expensive is therefore valuable.
Someone whom we love is valuable. When taken from its Sanskrit origin “lubh,” love can
also mean desire.

Another interesting facet of the Filipino language is its being gender-neutral. The
word “siya” is used to refer to either a boy or girl. In other languages specifically English
and Spanish, demarcation between male and female pronoun is clear. In English, “he” is
referred to male while “she” refers to female. “El” in Spanish refers to male while “ella” is
referred to females.

As these examples depicts cultural divide, it goes to show how one regards oneself
differently from others. The language which has something to do with one’s culture has a
tremendous effect in the crafting of the self.

The “I” and the “Me” Self

As an offshoot of his theory previously presented, George Herbert Mead

characterized the self as “I” and “Me”. Based on the theory, an individual imports from
the social process. As an individual organism, he/she may display gestures on his/her
own but takes collective attitude of others and reacts accordingly to their organized
attitudes while in constant interaction with them.

The process according to Mead involves the creation of the two facets of self. The
“me” is the social self and the “I” is the response to the “me”. Both arising from the social
process, the “I” is the one responding to the attitudes of the others while “me” is the result
of the “I” assuming the organized set of attitudes of the others (it is the result of the
individual’s accumulated understanding of the generalized other). The “I” learns about
the “me”, hence, it is the knower, while the “me” is the known. Ultimately, self is
developed through language and role-play where the child learns to delineate his/her “I”
from the rest.

Lev Vygotsky

Together with George Herbert Mead, Lev Vygotsky stressed the important role of
language acquisition and interaction with others in human development. According to
them, mind is made or constituted through language that one acquires or experiences
with his/her external world. This process is mediated by one’s internal dialogue with
his/her own head. Through it, he/she learns to internalize values, norms, practices, social
beliefs, etc., Consistent exposure to internal dialogues will eventually become part of one’s
individual world. For Mead, role-playing of children indicates that they create scripts in
their head, thus a manifestation of internal dialogue within self. For Vygotsky, a child
internalizes real life dialogues that he/she had with others by recycling this during one of
their mental and practical problem solving (Alata, et. al, 2018).

Self in Families

Every human is born helpless or dependent from the external world. The first
group that one interacts with and depend for the fulfilment of his/her needs is the family.
As the basic social institution, the family is the primary provider or source of a child’s
needs (human, social, economic). It is also the main avenue for teaching young
individuals the basic things that they need to learn in order to fit in the society. It has also
the capacity to develop or encourage the actualization of one’s potentials. These are all
made possible by way of socialization whereby one learns basic ways of living, language,
values, etc. by way of imitating or observation or teaching by an adult member of the
family such as the mother and the father.

A child learns ways of living, his/her selfhood, by being with the family. Learning
self in the family is conscious or unconscious. If reared with respectful family, then he/she
becomes respectful. If raised with a conversational family, then he/she becomes
conversational. Ways of living that are explicitly taught are those that are basic for the
child to learn such as table manners, speaking with an elder, etc. Through rewards and
punishments, some behaviors and attitudes are indirectly taught to a child. For example,
talking about sexual behavior or how to comfort emotions are internalized by a child
through interpreting intonation of voice by adults or of their model in the family. Clearly,
these point out that becoming an adult who does not learn about basic matters such as
manners or conduct indicates failure of the family to initiate him/her into the world. In
this sense, the initial conception of selfhood for social survival and becoming a human
person is learned in the family.

Another important aspect of social process within the family is the learning of
gender by a child. Gender partly determines how one sees him/herself in the world.
Though gender is considered as one aspect of the self that is subject to alteration, change
and development, it is noteworthy that its concept is primarily acquired in the family.

In a relatively conservative cultures such as the Philippines for instance, husbands

for the most part are expected to provide for the family. Exposed to this kind of system,
the sons in the family internalize a inkling to being a future provider to behave and think
like a man. Female members of the family who are mostly exposed to their mother’s roles
tend to imitate the same mentality of women as care providers in the family according to
Nancy Chodorow, a Feminist (cited in Alata, et. al, 2018). Providing dolls instead of guns
to girls also reinforces the notion of what roles they should take, thus, the kind of self-
concept they should develop.