UNIVERSITY OF CALOOCAN CITY

Biglang Awa St., Corner Catleya St., EDSA, Caloocan City

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

UNDERSTANDING THE SELF

SUBJECT CODE: GE001
TOPIC OR LESSON 2: THE SELF, SOCIETY, and CULTURE
WEEK: 3
SUB-TOPIC/S: Anthropology and Sociology

OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC

This module focuses on the different notions of the self in relationship with the
society, culture, community, and family. It will cover concepts about social comparison,
gender, and the looking-glass self as to how it affects self-concept.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Upon completion of this module, the student will have reliably identify new ways
and paradigms to re-examine the true nature of self, and explain the relationship
between external reality and the self.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

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

a) explain the relationship between and among the self, society, and culture;
b) describe and discuss the different by which society and culture shape the self;
c) compare and contrast how the self can be influenced by the different institutions
in the society; and
d) examine one’s self against the different views of self that were discussed in class.

ENGAGE

Watch the video clip about “The Real Life Mowgli” using this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1307wjKU7nY

1|Page
Questions:
1. What can you infer from the case of Tarzan and Mowgli?
2. How much of who are you are now a product of your society, community,
and family?
3. Has your choice of school affected yourself now?
4. Had you been born into a different family and schooled in a different
college, how much of who you are now would change?

EXPLORE

Case Analysis for Discussion

Jon is a Math professor in a Catholic university for more than a decade now. Jon has a
beautiful wife named Joan, which he met in college. Joan was Jon’s first and last
girlfriend. Apart from being a husband, Jon is also blessed with two doting kids, a son and
daughter. He also sometimes serves in the church too as a lector and a commentator.
As a man of different roles, one can expect Jon to change and adjust his behaviors,
ways, and even language depending on his social situation. When Jon is in the university,
he conducts himself in a matter that befits his title as a professor. As a husband, Jon can
be intimate and touchy. Joan considers him sweet, something that his students will never
conceive him to be. His kids fear him. As a father, Jon can be stern. As a lector and
commentator, on the other hand, his church mates knew him as a guy who is calm, all-
smiles, and always ready to lend a helping hand to anyone in need.

Questions:
a. Are we being hypocritical in doing so?
b. Are we even conscious of our shifting selves?
c. Is the behavior of Jon acceptable and expected?

NOTE: This will be recorded as your recitation. Hence, in this part you are encouraged to
be factual with what you perceive. You may cite theories, prominent people and terms
to support your thoughts.

EXPLAIN

What is the Self?

The self, in contemporary literature and even common sense, is commonly

defined by the following characteristics: “separate, self-contained, independent,
consistent, unitary, and private” (Stevens 1996). By separate, it is meant that the self is
distinct from other selves. The self is always unique and has its own identity. One cannot
be another person. Even twins are distinct from each other. Second, self is also self-

2|Page
contained and independent because in itself it can exist. Its distinctness allows it to be
self-contained with its own thoughts, characteristics, and volition. It does not require any
other self for it to exist. It is consistent because it has a personality that is enduring and
therefore can be expected to persist for quite some time. Its consistency allows it to be
studied, described, and measured. Consistency also means that a particular self’s traits,
characteristics, tendencies, and potentialities are more or less the same. Self is unitary in
that it is the center of all experiences and thoughts that run through a certain person. It
is like the chief command post in an individual where all processes, emotions, and
thoughts converge. Finally, the self is private. Each person sorts out information, feelings
and emotions, and thought processes within the self. This whole process is never
accessible to anyone but the self.

The last characteristic of the self being private suggests that the self is isolated from
the external world. It lives within its own world. However, we also see that this potential
clash between the self and the external reality is the reason for the self to have a clear
understanding of what it might be, what it can be, and what it will be. From this
perspective then, one can see that the self s always at the mercy of external
circumstances that bump and collide with it. It is ever-changing and dynamic, allowing
external influences to take part in its shaping. The concern then of this lesson is in
understanding the vibrant relationship between the self and external reality. This
perspective is known as the social constructionist perspective. "Social constructionists
argue for a merged view of “the person” and “their social context” where the boundaries
of one cannot easily be separated from the boundaries of the other"(Stevens 1996).

Social constructivists argue that the self should not be seen as a static entity that
stays constant through and through. Rather, the self has to be seen as something that is
in unceasing flux, in a constant struggle with external reality and is malleable in its
dealings with society. The self is always in participation with social life and its identity
subjected to influences here and there. Having these perspectives considered should
draw one into concluding that the self is truly multifaceted.

The Self and Culture

Remaining the same person and turning chameleon by adding to one’s context
seems paradoxical. However, the French Anthropologist Marcel Mauss has an
explanation for this phenomenon. According to Mauss, every self has two faces:
personne and moi. Moi refers to person’s sense of who he is, his body, and his basic
identity, his biological givenness. Moi 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. Personne
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.

The dynamics and capacity for different personne can be illustrated better cross-
culturally. An overseas Filipino worker (OFW) adjusting to life in another country is a very
good case study. In the Philippines, many people unabashedly violate jaywalking rules.
A common Filipino treats road, even national ones, as basically his and so he just merely

3|Page
crosses whenever and wherever. When the same Filipino visits another country with strict
traffic rules, say Singapore, you will notice how suddenly law-abiding the said Filipino
becomes. A lot of Filipinos has anecdotally confirmed this observation.

The same malleability can be seen in how some men easily transform into sweet,
docile guys when trying to woe and court a particular woman and suddenly just change
rapidly after hearing a sweet “yes.” This cannot be considered a conscious change on
the part of the guy, or on the part of the law-abiding Filipino in the first example. The self
simply morphed according to the circumstances and contexts.

In the Philippines, Filipinos tend to consider their territory as a part of who they are.
This includes considering their immediate surrounding as part of them, thus the perennial
“tapat ko, linis ko.” Filipinos most probably do not consider national roads as something
external to who they are. It is a part of them and they are a part of it, thus crossing the
road whenever and wherever becomes no-brainer. In another country, however, the
Filipino recognizes that he is in a foreign territory where nothing technically belongs to
him. He has to follow the rules or else he will be apprehended.

Language is another interesting aspect of this social constructivism. The Filipino

language is incredibly interesting to talk about. The way by which we articulate our love
is denoted by the phrase, “Mahal kita.” This, of course, is the Filipino translation of “I love
you.” The Filipino brand of this articulation of love, unlike in English, does not specify the
subject and the object of love, mahal, and the pronoun kita, which is second person
pronoun that refers to the speaker and the one being talked to. In the Filipino language,
unlike in English, there is no distinction between the lover and the beloved. They are one.

Interesting too is the word, mahal. In Filipino, the word can mean both “love” and
“expensive.” In our language, love is intimately bound with value, with being expensive,
being precious. Something expensive is valuable. Someone whom we love is valuable to
us. The Sanskrit origin of the word is “lubh,” which means desire. Technically, love is a
desire. The Filipino word for it has another intonation apart from mere desire, valuable.

Another interesting facet of our language is its being gender-neutral. In English,

Spanish, and other languages, the distinction is clear between a third person male and
third person female pronoun. He and she; el and ella. In Filipino, it is plain, “siya.” There is
no specification of gender. Our language does not specify between male and female.
We both call it “siya.”

In these varied examples, we have seen how language has something to do with
culture. It is a salient part of culture and ultimately, has a tremendous effect in our crafting
of the self. This might be also one of the reasons why cultural divide spells out differences
in how one regards oneself. In one research, it was found that North Americans are more
likely to attribute being unique to themselves and claim that they are better than most
people in doing what they love doing. Japanese people, on the other hand, have been
seen to display a degree of modesty. If one finds himself born and reared in a particular
culture, one definitely tries to fit in a particular mold. If a self is born into a particular society
or culture, the self will have to adjust according to its exposure.

4|Page
The Self and the Development of the Social World

So how do people actively produce their social worlds? How do children growing
up become social beings? How can a boy turn out to just be like an ape? How do twins
coming out from the same mother turn out to be terribly different when given up for
adoption? More than his givenness (personality, tendencies, and propensities, among
others), one is believed to be in active participation in the shaping of the self. Most often,
we think the human persons are just passive actors in the whole process of the shaping
of selves. That men and women are born with particularities that they can no longer
change. Recent studies, however, indicate that men and women in their growth and
development engage actively in the shaping of the self. The unending terrain of
metamorphosis of the self is mediated by language. “Language as both a publicly
shared and privately utilized symbol system is the site where the individual and the social
make and remake each other” (Schwartz, White, and Lutz 1993).

Mead and Vygotsky

For Mead and Vygotsky, the way that human persons develop is with the use of
language acquisition and interaction with others. The way that we process information is
normally a form of an internal dialogue in our head. Those who deliberate about moral
dilemmas undergo this internal dialog. “Should I do this or that?” “But if I do this, it will be
like this.” “Don’t I want the other option?” and so cognitive and emotional development
of child is always a mimicry of how it is done in the social world, in the external reality
where he is in.

Both Vygotsky and Mead treat the human mind as something that is made,
constituted through language as experienced in the external world and as encountered
in dialogs with others. A young child internalizes values, norms, practices, and social
beliefs and more through exposure to these dialogs that will eventually become part of
his individual world. For Mead, this takes place as a child assumes the “other” through
language and role-play. A child conceptualizes his notion of “self” through this. Can you
notice how little children are fond of playing role-play with their toys? How they make
scripts and dialogs for their toys as they play with them? According to Mead, it is through
this that a child delineates the “I” from the rest. Vygotsky, for his part, a child internalizes
real-life dialogs that he has had with others, with his family, his primary caregiver, or his
playmates. They apply this to their mental and practical problems along with the social
and cultural infusions brought about by the said dialogs. Can you notice how children
eventually become what they watch? How children can easily adapt ways of cartoon
characters they are exposed to?

Mead’s Three Stages of Development of Self

STAGE 1: 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 you to use foul language around them (Rath, 2016). Do children
have idea of what they are saying or doing? No. They are just mimicking.

5|Page
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 an organized games like
patintero or hide n’ seek and others.

STAGE 3: The Game Stage

In this stage, from age seven onwards, 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 other.

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 looking-glass self states that
a person’s self grows out of a person’s social interaction 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).

Self in Families

Apart from the anthropological and psychological basis for the relationship
between the self and the social world, the sociological likewise struggled to understand
the real connection between the two concepts. In doing so, sociologists focus on the
different institutions and powers at play in the society. Among these, the most prominent
is the family.

While every child is born with certain givenness, disposition coming from his
parents’ genes and general condition of life, the impact of one’s family is still deemed as
a given in understanding the self. The kind of family that we are born in, the resources
available to us (human, spiritual, economic), and the kind of development that we will
have will certainly affect us as we go through life. As a matter of evolutionary fact, human
persons are one of those beings whose importance of family cannot be denied. Human
beings are born virtually helpless and the dependency period of a human baby to its
parents for nurturing is relatively longer than most other animals. Learning therefore is
critical in capacity to actualize our potential of becoming humans. In trying to achieve
the goal of becoming a fully realized human, a child enters a system of relationships, most
important of which is the family.

Human persons learn the ways of living and therefore their selfhood by being in a
family. It is what a family initiates a person to become that serves as the basis for this
person’s progress. Babies internalize ways and styles that they observe from their family.
By imitating, for example, the language of its primary agents of rearing its family, babies

6|Page
learn the language. The same is true for ways of behaving. Notice how kids reared in a
respectful environment become respectful as well and the converse if raised in a
converse family. Internalizing behavior may either be conscious or unconscious. Table
manners or ways of speaking to elders are things that are impossible to teach and
therefore, are consciously learned by kids. Some behaviors and attitudes, on the other
hand, may be indirectly taught through rewards and punishments. Others, such as sexual
behavior or how to confront emotions, are learned through subtle means, like the tone
of the voice or intonation of the models. It is then clear at this point that those who
develop and eventually grow to become adult who still did not learn a simple matters
like basic manners of conduct failed in internalizing due to parental or familial failure to
initiate them into the world.

Without a family, biologically and sociologically, a person may not even survive or
become human person. Like that of the case of Tarzan, in more ways than one, his
survival in the midst of the forest is already a miracle. His being a fully human person with
a sense of selfhood is a different story though. The usual teleserye plot of kids getting
swapped in the hospital and getting reared by a different family gives an obvious
manifestation of the point being made in this section. One who he is because of his family
for the most part.

Gender and the Self

Another important aspect of the self is gender. Gender is one of those loci of the
self that is subject to alteration, change, and development. We have seen in the past
years how people fought hard for the right to express, validate, and assert their gender
expression. Many controversies may frown upon this and insist on the biological. However,
from the point-of-view of the social sciences and the self, it is important to give one the
leeway to find, express, and live his identity. This forms part of selfhood that one cannot
just dismiss. One maneuvers into the society and identifies himself as who he is by also
taking note of gender identities. A wonderful anecdote about Leo Tolstoy’s wife that can
solidify this point is narrated below:

Sonia Tolstoy, the wife of the famous Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, wrote
when she was twenty-one, “I am nothing but a miserable crushed worm, whom
no one wants, whom no one loves, a useless creature with morning sickness, and
a big belly, two rotten teeth, and a bad temper, a battered sense of dignity, and
a love which nobody wants and which nearly drives me insane.” A few years later
she wrote, “It make me laugh to read over this diary. It’s so full of contradictions,
and one would think that I was such an unhappy woman. Yet is there a happier
woman than I?” (Tolstoy 1975)

This account illustrates that our gender partly determines how we see ourselves in
the world. Often times, society forces a particular identity unto us depending on our sex
and/or gender. In the Philippines, husbands for the most part are expected to provide for
the family and hold it in. Slight modifications have been on the way due to feminism and
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBTQ+) activism but for the most part,
patriarchy has remained to be at work.

7|Page
 Nancy Chodorow, a feminist, argues that because mothers take the role of taking
care of children, there is a tendency for girls to imitate the same and reproduce the same
kind of mentality of women as care providers in the family. The way that little girls given
dolls instead of guns or any other toys or are encouraged to play with makeshift kitchen
also reinforces the notion of what roles they should take and the selves they should
develop. In boarding schools for girls, young women are encouraged to act like fine
ladies, are trained to behave in a fashion that befits their status as women in society.

Men on the other hand, in the periphery of their own family, are taught early on
how to behave like a man. This normally includes holding in one’s emotion, being tough,
fatalistic, not to worry about danger, and admiration for hard physical labor. Masculinity
is learned by integrating a young boy in a society. In the Philippines, young boys had to
undergo circumcision not just for the original, clinical purpose of hygiene but also to assert
their manliness in the society. Circumcision plays another social role by initiating young
boys into manhood.

The gendered self is then shaped within a particular context of time and space.
The sense of self that is being taught makes sure that an individual fits in a particular
environment. This dangerous and detrimental in the goal of truly finding one’s self, self-
determination, and growth of the self. Gender has to be personally discovered and
asserted and not dictated by culture and the society.

ELABORATE

Individual Assignment:

Paste a picture of you when you were in elementary, in high school, and now that you
are in college. Below the picture, list down your salient characteristics that you
remember.

My Elementary Self My High School Self My College Self

__________________________ __________________________ __________________________

__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________

8|Page
After having examined your “self” in different stages, write your thoughts on the
following:
A. Similarities in all stages of my “self”
B. Differences in my “self” across the three stages of my life
C. Possible reasons for the differences in me
D. Aspects of yourself you think may be changed or would you like to change

Take a clear shot/picture of your output. Submission shall be made through Google
classroom, messenger/email, whichever is accessible. Due next meeting.

NOTE: This will be part of your Final Paper (Portfolio).

RUBRIC FOR ESSAY/ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS SCORE

3 – The 2 – The 1 – The 0.5 – The 0–
explanation is explanation is explanation is explanation is not Has no
RELEVANCE

directly relevant relevant to the quite relevant to clear and has a explanation
to the topic. Every topic. Most of the the topic. Only few very rough
detail points details contribute of the details transition of idea.
toward the topic. to the contribute to the The details are
development of development of not relevant to
the topic. the topic. the topic.
3 – The 2 – The 1 – The 0.5 – The 0–
ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE/

explanation shows explanation explanation shows explanation Has no

at least 9 shows at least 6 at 3 to 5 shows at most 2 explanation
correct/valid to 8 correct/valid correct/valid correct/valid
evidences to evidences to evidences to evidences to
support his/her support his/her support his/her support his/her
answer. answer. answer. answer.
2 – The 1.5 – The 1 – The 0.5 – The 0–
explanation is explanation is explanation is explanation is not Has no
CLARITY

clear, has a very clear, has a good somewhat clear clear and has a explanation
good flow of transition, most of and has a rough very rough
discussion, every the details are transition from one transition of
detail is connected to idea to another. ideas.
connected to each other.
each other.
2 – The 1.5 – The 1 – The 1.5 – The 0–
TECHNI-

explanation has explanation has 1 explanation has 3 explanation has Has no

CALITY

no error in to 2 errors in to 4 errors in at least 5 errors in explanation

grammar, spelling, grammar, grammar, spelling, grammar,
and punctuations. spelling, and and punctuations. spelling, and
punctuations. punctuations.
OVERALL SCORE:

EVALUATE

DIRECTIONS:

In this, you will be asked to answer different sets of questions which is a combination of
different types of objective examination (multiple choices, identification, and essay).
Note that in this part you are encouraged to remember the topic/s discussed.

9|Page
The link of the Google Form for this quiz will be posted in Google classroom or in our
Facebook messenger group.

You will have to work on this during the asynchronous time. For clarifications and
questions, feel free to send a message via Facebook messenger. Submission shall be
made through Google classroom, messenger/email, whichever is accessible, before the
end of the meeting/class.

REFERENCES

Understanding the Self 1st ed., E.J. Alata, B.N. Caslib Jr., J.P.J. Serafica, & R.A. Pawilen. Rex Book Store Inc.
Manila, Philippines. 2018

Understanding the Self. S.L. Villafuerte, A.F. Quillope, R.C. Tunac, & E.I. Borja. Nieme Publishing House Co. LTD.
2018

Nation, Self, and Citizenship: An Invitation to Philippine Sociology. David, Randolph. 2002

Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Mead, George Herbert. 1934

ADDITIONAL
MATERIALS

N/A

PREPARED BY:

Prof. Cielito Y. Sullivan

Instructor III, UCC North Campus

Prof. Maria Cecilia M. Saenz

Guidance Specialist/Instructor, UCC South Campus

10 | P a g e