UNDERSTANDING THE SELF GEC1 PROF. EDUARDO L.

DOYAOEN

THE SELF AND THE FIELD OF SOCIOLOGY

At the end of this learning module, the student is expected to:

a. compare and contrast the different views of the self

b. examine the two components of self
c. describe the concept of the looking-glass self and how it affects self-
concept
d. explain the concept of social comparison and why it is important
to human behavior.

Introduction

The social aspect of the self is explored in many ways, in which social
situations influence one’s view of self. The self is not created in isolation, and
people are not born with perception of oneself as good in sports, make-up
artistry, dancing or business. Such perceptions are identified through
observations, or interactions with other people. “Am I beautiful?” “Do my
eyebrows look like Liza Soberano?” These questions can be answered by
looking at those people around. The self has meaning only within social
context, and it is not wrong to say that the social situation defines our self-
concept and our self-esteem. We rely on others to provide a “social reality” to
help us determine what to think, feel, and do (Hardin & Higgins, 1996).

SOCIAL VIEWS OF THE SELF

The Self as Product of Modern Society Among Others

With modernization, the self becomes a “delocalized” self which is free

to seek its own identity; defining religion, theological tradition; free from
customary constraints hence, deviating from the traditional way of life.
Stability of one’s self identity is no longer based on pre-given traditional broad
definition of the self.

Clifford Geertz (1973) believes that the struggle for one’s individuality
is on possible in modern society where religio-theological traditions are
gradually replaced by rational and scientific calculations; and the intimate
personal affiliations are replaced by exceedingly impersonal associations
brought about by urbanized way of life. Modernization or the destruction of
the traditional way of life “delocalizes” the self. This poses certain problems
as:
 UNDERSTANDING THE SELF GEC1 PROF. EDUARDO L. DOYAOEN

1. The newfound freedom threatens the very authenticity of the self

(e.g. love)
2. Alienation (Marx) – human beings haunted by the very images they have
created
3. Objectification of the body (e.g. medical practice)
4. Dehumanization of self

Solution: For the individual to discover the “true” and “authentic” part of
himself/herself to realize his/her potentials, there is a need to abolish
repressive social constraints.

Self as necessary Fiction

Self for Nietzsche, is the sum of individual’s action, thoughts and

feelings. Self is nothing more than a metaphor, a representation of something
abstract; symbolic. It is possible for us to remember something ever if we have
not experienced it. Self has a continuity even if it is only in memory i.e, either
heard of witnessed which did not happen to you. A true given self is not what
unites these experiences, but it is presumed unity of these experiences that
gave rise to a concept of the self

Post-modern View of the Self

Self is a narrative, a text written and rewritten. Self is a story. It is

dynamic. Self is a product of modern discourse that is historically and socially
imprisoned by what is acceptable by norms, etc. Self in post modernity is
complicated by electronic mediated virtual interaction of cyber self such as
change in appearance (in the cyberspace). According to N. Green, self is
“digitalized” in cyberspace a virtual version of who we are. The self is seen in
websites or social media- face book, twitter Instagram, etc.

The following are the manifestations:

1. Information technology dislocates the self, thus, self is “digitalized” in

cyberspae.
2. Global migration produces multicultural identities.
3. Post-modern selves are “pluralized” selves.
 UNDERSTANDING THE SELF GEC1 PROF. EDUARDO L. DOYAOEN

Social Construction of Self:

Self is not discovered; it is made through the socialization process. But,

individuals are not just hapless victims of socialization. The individual is an
active, strategizing agent that negotiates for the definition of himself. (Ikaw
ang gumagawa ng kung ano ka”). Self is acquired socially through language,
like symbols. We construct ourselves based on our social roles through
socialization agents – family, school, community, etc.

Rewriting the Self as an Artistic Creation

Nietzsche states that the unity of the self is not pre-given but
accomplished through conscious effort- transform self through beautiful work
of art. Individual must fashion, care and cultivate themselves. We can recreate
ourselves to get hold of a present, forgive the past, and plan the future.

Rorty: contingencies of selfhood – conceal the “ugly” by reinterpreting

the overall aesthetic contours of the self. This does not mean that by rewriting
the narrative of herself she will discover something deep about herself…
redescribing one’s self is just a way of reinterpreting and redescribing one’s
past.

Self Creation and Collective Identity

Memories (photographs, videos) play significant role in creating the self

and identity. Memory and forgetting are most important powers in recreating
a person’s identity. Such memories of the past include pain, triumph, etc.
Such experiences of the past can be linked with social transformation.

Another important aspect of this view of the self is that self creation is
formed within “imagined communities”. Selves obtain their nature from
cultural traditions, embodied in various social institutions. These are
preserved in a collective narrative which becomes the reservoir for the project
of self-creation. Self creation along cultural lines must be done in maximum
cultural recognition of differences among and between individuals and
cultural groups.
 UNDERSTANDING THE SELF GEC1 PROF. EDUARDO L. DOYAOEN

Self Creation and the Struggle for Cultural Recognition

This is a challenge of self-identity amidst recognition of racial and

ethnic identities. Self creation is necessarily grounded on collective
solidarities. We create ourselves by struggling with cultural hassles then
owning the created self. We hide the ugly part of our cultural nature. We learn
to adjust.

Beyond Self Creation

The quest or search for self-identity is a product of modern society but

this is complicated by the socio-cultural sensibilities of postmodernity, new
information technologies and globalization, reconfiguring ourselves as to
gender, sex, ethnicity, and creating one’s own style, signature.

Yet the project of self creation is embedded within imagined

communities. The self constantly lives in a paradox: to pursue self creation
within pre-given, not willfully chosen social circumstances.

Mead’s Theory of Self

George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) is an American sociologist best

known as a founder American pragmatism, a pioneer of symbolic interaction
theory, and as one of the founders of social psychology.

Mead’s theory of the self maintains that the conception person holds of
himself/herself in his/her mind emerges from social interaction with others.
This is, in effect, a theory and argument against biological determinism
because it holds that the self is neither initially there at birth nor necessarily
at the beginning of a social interaction, but is constructed and re-constructed
in the process of social experience and activity.

The self, according to Mead, is made of two components: the “I” and the
“me”. The “me” represents the expectations and attitudes of others (the
“generalized other”) organized into a social self. The individual defines his or
her own behavior with reference to the generalized attitude of the social
group(s) he/she occupies. When the individual can view himself or herself
from the standpoint of the generalized other, self consciousness in the full
sense of the term is attained. From this standpoint, the generalized other
(internalized in the “me”) is the major instrument of social control, for it is the
mechanism by which the community exercises control over the conduct of its
individual members.
 UNDERSTANDING THE SELF GEC1 PROF. EDUARDO L. DOYAOEN

The “I” is the response to the “me", or the person’s individuality. It is

the essence of agency in human action. So, in effect, the “me” is the self as
object, while the “I” is the self as subject (Crossman, 2017).

In other words, the “I” is the response of an individual to the attitudes

of others, while the “me” is the organized set of attitudes of others which an
individual assumes. The “me” is the accumulated understanding of the
“generalized other,” i.e. how one thinks one’s group perceives oneself. The “I”
is the individual’s impulses. The “I” is self as subject; the “me” is self as object.
The “I” is the knower, the “me” is the known. The mind, or stream of thought,
is the self-reflective movements of the interaction between the “I” and the
“me”. These dynamics go beyond selfhood in a narrow sense, and form the
basis of a theory of human cognition. For Mead the thinking process is the
internalized dialogue between the “I” and the “me”.

Understood as a combination of the “I” and the “me”, Mead’s self proves
to be noticeably entwined within a sociological existence. For Mead, existence
in a community comes before individual consciousness. First one must
participate in the different social positions within society and only
subsequently can one use that experience to take the perspective of others
and become self-conscious (Boundless,2016).

Mead’s Three Stages of Development of Self

Stage 1: The Preparatory Stage

The firs stage is the preparatory stage. The preparatory stage starts
from the time we are born until we are about age two. In this stage, children
mimic those around them. This is why parents of young children typically do
not want to use foul language around them (Rath, 2016). If s two-year-old
child can “read”, what he or she has most likely done is memorized the book
that had been read to him or her. In a noontime TV show, Vic Sotto, Allan K.,
Jose Manalo, use quite foul language like “bwisit,” “bastos!” “sira ulo,” and so
is the language of the child who hears them. Does he or she have any idea of
what he/she is saying or doing? No. He/She is mimicking. He/She is in the
preparatory stage. If he/she had been an older child, the scenes in the
segments of the show would cease to have any humor. It works because
he/she doesn’t understand the meaning behind his/her words, actions, or
tone of voice.
 UNDERSTANDING THE SELF GEC1 PROF. EDUARDO L. DOYAOEN

Stage 2: The Play Stage

From about age two to six, children are in the play stage. During the
play stage, children play pretend and do not adhere to the rules in organized
games like patintero or basketball (Rath,2016). Playing a game with children
if this stage is far easier to just go with any “rules” they come up with during
the course of the game than trying to enforce any “rules” upon them. Playing
the never-ending chinese garter with girls still do not actually have one specific
set of rules the same as last time played, and yet they still play the game while
adhering to these rules. During this stage, children play ‘pretend’ as the
significant other. This means that when they play “bahay-bahayan”, they are
literally pretending to be the mommy or the daddy that they know.

Stage 3: The Game Stage

The third stage is the game stage, which is from about age seven
onwards. In this stage, children can begin to understand and adhere to the
rules of games. They can begin to play more formalized games because they
begin to understand other people’s perspective or the perspective of the
generalized other. In this stage, when children play ‘pretend’, they may still
play “bahay-bahayan”, but are pretending to a mommy or a daddy
independent of the one that resides in their home. The generalized other refers
to the viewpoint of the social group at large. The child begins taking this
perspective into account during this stage (Rath,2016).

The Looking-Glass Self:

Our Sense of Self is Influenced by Others’ Views of Us

The concept of the looking-glass self states that part of how we see
ourselves comes from our perception of how others see us (Cooley, 1902).

According to American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929),

the degree of personal insecurity you display in social situations is determined
by what you believe other people think of you. Cooley’s concept of the looking
glass self, states that a person’s self grows out of a person’s social interactions
with others. The view of ourselves comes from the contemplation of personal
qualities and impressions of how others perceive us. Actually, how we see
ourselves does not come from who we really are, but rather from how we
believe others see us (Isaksen,2013).
 UNDERSTANDING THE SELF GEC1 PROF. EDUARDO L. DOYAOEN

Sometimes, the influence of other people’s appraisals of ourselves on

our self-concept may be so strong that we end up internalizing them. For
example, we are often labeled in particular ways by others, perhaps informally
in terms of our ethnic background, or more formally in terms of a physical or
psychological diagnosis. The labeling bias occurs when we are labeled, and
other’s views and expectations of us are affected by that labeling (Fox &
Stinnett, 1996). For example, if a teacher knows that a child has been
diagnosed with a particular psychological disorder, that teacher may have
different expectations and explanations of the child’s behavior that he or she
would if not aware of that label. Where things get really interesting for our
present discussion is when those expectations start to align with them. For
example, when children are labeled in special education contexts, these labels
can then impact their self-esteem (Taylor, Hume, & Welsh, 2010).

If we are repeatedly labeled and evaluated by others, then self-labeling

may occur, which happens when we adopt others’ labels explicitly into our self-
concept. The effects of this self-labeling on our self-esteem appear to depend
very much on the nature of labels. Labels used in relation to diagnosis of
psychological disorder can be detrimental to people who can internalize them.
For example, Moses (2009) found that adolescents who self-labeled according
to diagnoses they had received were found to have higher levels of self-stigma
in their self-concepts compared with those who describe their challenges in
non-pathological terms. In these types of situation, those who self-label may
come to experience internalized prejudice, which occurs when individuals
turn prejudice directed toward them by others onto themselves. Internalized
prejudice has been found to predict more negative self-concept and poorer
psychological adjustment in members of various groups including sexual
minorities (Carter, 2012) and racial minorities (Szymanski & Obiri, 2011).

In other cases, labels used by wider society to describe people negatively

can be positively reclaimed by those being labeled. Galinsky and colleagues
(2013) explored this use of self-labeling by members of oppressed groups to
reclaim derogatory terms, including “queer” and “bitch,” used by dominant
groups. After self-labeling, minority group members evaluated these terms
less negatively, reported feeling more powerful, and were also perceived by
observers as more powerful. Overall, these results indicate that individuals
who incorporate a formerly negative label into their self-concept in order to
reclaim it can sometimes undermine the stigma attached to the label.

Social Comparison Theory:

Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by Comparisons with Others

Self-concept and self-esteem are also heavily influenced by the process

of social comparison (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Van Lange, 2008). Social
comparison occurs when we learn about our abilities and skills, about the
appropriateness and validity of our opinions, and about our relative social
status by comparing our own attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those of
others. These comparisons can be with people who we know and interact with,
with those whom we read about or see on TV, or with anyone else we view as
 UNDERSTANDING THE SELF GEC1 PROF. EDUARDO L. DOYAOEN

important. However, the most meaningful comparisons we make tend to be

with those we see as similar to ourselves (Festinger, 1954).

Social comparison occurs primarily on dimensions on which there are

no correct answers or objective benchmarks and thus on which we can rely
only on the beliefs of others for information. Answers to questions such as
“What should I wear to the interview?” or “What kind of music should I have
at my wedding?” are frequently determined at least in part by using the
behavior of others as a basis of comparison. We also use social comparison to
help us determine our skills or abilities---how good we are at performing a
task or doing a job, for example. When students ask their teacher for the class
average on an exam, they are also seeking to use social comparison to
evaluate their performance.