UNIT 1:

THE SELF FROM

VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES

“Who Am I?”
2 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

INTRODUCTION
The social aspect of the self is explored in many ways, in which social situations influence
one’s view of the 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 eyebrow look
like Liza Soberano na?” 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 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)

OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this module, you are 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.

SOCIOLOGICAL 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 brad definition of the self.
 Clifford Geertz (1973) believes that the struggle from one’s individuality is only possible
in modern society where religio-theological traditions are gradually replaced by rational and
scientific calculations; and the 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 “delocalize” the self. This poses certain problems as:
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 even if we have not experienced it. Self has a continuity even if it is only a
memory. i.e., either heard or witnessed which did not happen to you. A true self is not what unites
these experiences, but it is the presumed unity of these experience that give rise to 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 by 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-
facebook, twitter, Instagram, etc.
The following are manifestations:
1. Information technology dislocates the self, thus, self is “digitalized” in cyberspace.
2. Global migration produces multicultural identities.
3. Post-modern selves are “pluralized” selves.

Social Construction of the 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. Individuals must fashion, care for
and cultivate themselves. We can recreate ourselves to get hold of the 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 interactions. 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.

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 cultural nature. We learn to adjust.

Beyond the 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 technology 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
this paradox: to pursue self-creation within pre-given, not willfully chosen social circumstances.

MEAD AND THE SOCIAL SELF; MEAD’S THEORY OF SELF

Mead’s Theory of Self

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

known as a founder of 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 a

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 social interaction, but is 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 others”) organized in to 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.

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 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 from 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 noticeabl
entwined with 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 first 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
a two-year-old child an “read,” what he or she has most likely done is memorized the book that
had been read to him/her. In a noontime TV show, Vic Sotto, Allan K., and Jose Manalo, use quite
foul language like “bwisit,” “bastos!” “sira ulo,” and so is the language of a child who hears them.
Does he or she havea any idea of what he/she is saying or doing? No. He/she is mimicking. S/he
is in the preparatory stage. If S/he had been an older child, the scenes in the segments of the show
would cease to have any humor. It works because s/he doesn’t understand the meaning behind
his/her words, actions or tone of voice.

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 of this age 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
time it was 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 they play “bahay-bahayan”, they
are literally pretending to be the “nanay or the “tatay” 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 the games. They can begin to play more
formalized games because they begin to understand other people’s perspective-or the perspective
of the generalized others. In this stage, when children play “pretend, they may still play “bahay-
bahayan”, but are pretending nanay and tatay 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 the 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 glass self, states that a person’s self grows out 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 sees us (Isaksen, 2013)

Sometimes, the influence of other

people’s appraisals of ourselves on our
self-concept may be strong that we end up
internalizing them. For example, we are
often labeled in particular ways by others,
perhaps informally in terms of ethnic
background, or more formally in terms of
physical.
For example, if a teacher knows that a child has been diagnosed with particular psychological
disorder, that the teacher may have different expectations of the child’s behavior than he/she would
if not aware of that label. Where things get really interesting for our present discussion is when
those expectations start to become self-fulfilling prophecies, and our self-concept and even our
behavior 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 the labels. Labels used in
relation to diagnosis of psychological
disorders can be detrimental to people
who then internalize them. For example, Moses (2009) found that adolescents who self-labeled
according to diagnosis they had received were found to have higher levels of self-stigma in their
self concepts compared to those who described 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. Internal
prejudice has been found to predict more negative self-concept and poorer psychological
adjustment in members of various groups, including sexual minorities (Caster, 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
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 Comparison 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 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 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 for 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 task or doing a job for example. When
students ask their teacher for the class average on exam, they are also seeking to use social
comparison to evaluate their performance.

REFERENCES:

Villafuerte, S.L., Quillope, Al, Tunac, Rudjane, Borja, Estela (2018), Understanding the Self.
NIEME Publishing House, Co. Ltd., Cubao, Quezon City.

Ashford, J. B., Leroy., C.W. (2010). Human behavior in the social environment: A
multidimensional perspective (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Retrieved
from http://books.google.com /books?id=R8HitN5Jp0C

Boundless. “Sociological Theories of the Self.” Sociology Boundless, 27 May. 2016. Retrieved 5
Aug 2017 from https://boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-
textbook/socialization-4/the-self-and-socialization-43/sociological-theories-of-the-self-27110195/

Brunk, A.P., & Gibbons, F.X. (2007). Social Comparison: The end of a theory and the
emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 102(1), 3-21.

Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and social order. New York: Scribner’s
Crossman, Ashley (2017), Biography and works of George Herbert Mead. Retrieved June 2,
2017 https://www,thoughtco.com/george-herbert-mead-3026491

Duggan, Scott J. PhD (cand.) & Donald R. McCreary PhD. 2008. Body Image, Eating Disorders,
and the Drive for muscularity in Gay and Heterosexual Men: The Influence of media images.
Retrieved in October 05, 2008 @ https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v47n033_03

Festinger, L. U. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations. 7, 117-140.

Doi.10.1177/001872675400700202

Fox, J. D., & Stinnett, T. A. (1996). The Effects of labeling bias on prognostic outlook for
children as a function of diagnostic label and profession. Psychology In The Schools, 33(2),
143-152.

Galinsky, A.D., Wang, C.S., Whitson, J. A., Anicich, E.M., Huenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V.
(2013). The Reappropriation of Stigmatizing Labels; The reciprocal relationship between power
and self labeling. Psychological signs, 24(10), 2020-2029. doi;10.1177/0956797613482943

Hardin, C., & Higgins (1996) Shared reality: How Social Verification makes the subjective
objective. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of Social Behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 28-84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hawkins, Nicole, et. al. 2010. The impact of exposure to the Thin-ideal Media image on Women.
Retrieved on August 17, 2010 @ https://doi.org/10/1080/10640260490267751

Isaksen, Joachim Vogt, 2013. The Looking Glass Self: How Our Self-image is Shaped by
Society. Retrieved June 20, 2017 from http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/05/27/the-
looking-glass-self-how-our-image-is-shaped-by-society/

Kuligowski, Tayja. (2017). 16 Interesting Facts about the Philippines.

https://www.factretriever.com/philippines-facts

Learning How to Learn: Successful Transition Models for Educators Working with Youth with
Learning Disabilities (2014). Retrieved July 10, 2014 from https://www.ncwd-
youth.info/information-brief/learning-how-to-learn

Moses, T. (2009). Self-labeling and its effects among adolescents diagnosed with mental
disorders. Social Science and Medicine, 68 (3), 570-578.

Ruth, Stephanie Medley, (2016). Rules? What Rules?: Mead’s 3 Stage Role-Taking Process.
Retrieved June 3, 2017, from https://sociologyinfocus.com/2016/01/rules-what-rules-meads-3-
stage-role-taking-process/

Taylor, L.M., Hume, I.R. and Welsh, N. (2010) Labelling and Self-esteem: the impact of using
specific versus generic labels. Educational Psychology. 1, 1-12

Triandis, harry C. 1989. The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts. American
Psychological Association, Inc. 1989