This document discusses four psychological perspectives on the self:
1. William James proposed that the self has two facets - the I-Self (the self as subject) and the Me-Self (the self as object). The Me-Self has three components: the material, social, and spiritual selves.
2. Carl Rogers described the real self (how we genuinely see ourselves) and ideal self (how we wish to be). A discrepancy between these can lead to non-equilibrium.
3. Albert Bandura viewed people as proactive agents who can shape their lives through self-efficacy and self-regulation rather than just observing others.
4. Murray Bowen discussed differentiated selves
This document discusses four psychological perspectives on the self:
1. William James proposed that the self has two facets - the I-Self (the self as subject) and the Me-Self (the self as object). The Me-Self has three components: the material, social, and spiritual selves.
2. Carl Rogers described the real self (how we genuinely see ourselves) and ideal self (how we wish to be). A discrepancy between these can lead to non-equilibrium.
3. Albert Bandura viewed people as proactive agents who can shape their lives through self-efficacy and self-regulation rather than just observing others.
4. Murray Bowen discussed differentiated selves
This document discusses four psychological perspectives on the self:
1. William James proposed that the self has two facets - the I-Self (the self as subject) and the Me-Self (the self as object). The Me-Self has three components: the material, social, and spiritual selves.
2. Carl Rogers described the real self (how we genuinely see ourselves) and ideal self (how we wish to be). A discrepancy between these can lead to non-equilibrium.
3. Albert Bandura viewed people as proactive agents who can shape their lives through self-efficacy and self-regulation rather than just observing others.
4. Murray Bowen discussed differentiated selves
This document discusses four psychological perspectives on the self:
1. William James proposed that the self has two facets - the I-Self (the self as subject) and the Me-Self (the self as object). The Me-Self has three components: the material, social, and spiritual selves.
2. Carl Rogers described the real self (how we genuinely see ourselves) and ideal self (how we wish to be). A discrepancy between these can lead to non-equilibrium.
3. Albert Bandura viewed people as proactive agents who can shape their lives through self-efficacy and self-regulation rather than just observing others.
4. Murray Bowen discussed differentiated selves
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 5
TOPIC 4: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Dr. Jona Addatu, RGC
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves” – Carl Jung
In the previous topics, you have uncovered the different conceptualizations about the “self” from the viewpoints of philosophers, anthropologists and sociologists. Indubitably, the self has been one of the prominent subjects of investigations across time and discipline, including psychology. As a science, psychology is particularly concerned with how the self evolves as it interacts with various forces. It acknowledges the self being stable and enduring through time but is also susceptible to change depending on our encounters. It offered ways of thinking about and viewing the self and these you will be examining on the succeeding discourse for 4 hours.
1. examine the self as a construct from a psychological stance;
2. compare and contrast the various psychological theories in terms of how they construed the self; 3. gain understanding of the different facets of the self as expounded by psychological perspectives; 4. create a personal conceptualization about what the self is, using the propositions of psychology.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ABOUT THE SELF
As you responded on the activity, you were able to contemplate on all the possible characteristics and attributes you have, taking into account your different selves. You had the chance too to have a grasp and figure out how you are perceived by others. More importantly, you were able to validate your own self-concept with that of your identity based on how others view you. Then perhaps you can say, “this is the real me” or you may claim, “I am who I am”. If so, what is it that makes you “you”?
The ontology of the self has been one of the most immensely researched foci of psychology. Established as a scientific discipline in 1879, psychology in its attempt to broaden theoretical explanations on the self has been so fascinated in looking unto indispensable phenomena like social interactions and individual difference variables which include personality, behavior and mental processes. Postmodern psychologists also expounded on the multiplicity of the self by exploring its subselves. These will all be tackled as we discuss each of the psychological perspectives about the self. 1. William James’s Me-Self and I-Self
American philosopher and psychologist,
William James (1842-1910), extensively explained the self and its aspects on his 1890 publication The Principles of Psychology. According to James, a man's self is the “sum total of all that he can call his, not only his body and his psychic powers, but his clothes and his house, his wife and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands “Whenever two people meet, there are and horses, and yacht and bank-account.” really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the This suggests that the self is comprise of other person sees him, and each man as everything the person has. he really is.” - William James
It embraces all his physical and corporeal possessions and extends even to the non-physical or intangible aspects. As such, our sense of self pertains to all entities which we consider ours and which we value as they are deemed extensions of us.
James proposed that the self has two facets: the I-Self and the Me-Self. The I-Self is said to be the self in action or as subject; it is that aspect of the self that does the acting, thinking, and feeling. It is also known as the self as the knower or perceiver. The Me-Self on the other hand refers to the self as an object; it is that facet of the self which is the known or the perceived. Also termed by James as the Empirical Self, the me is one’s accumulated understanding of one’s self. Further, James suggests that the Me-Self or the Empirical Self has three components: the Material Self which encompasses all of our important possessions as well as the people we treasure; the. Social Self involved how we think we are viewed and regarded by others and also our instinctive desire to be recognized; and the Spiritual Self contains our subjective dispositions like our self-appraised abilities, beliefs, attitudes, emotions, etc. For William James, these facets of the Me-Self help people define us; and aid us too in defining and understanding ourselves. These may further bring about positive or negative self- feelings that will motivate and direct our efforts to maintain, change, or improve ourselves.
2. Carl Rogers’s Real Self and Ideal Self
Known for being one of the pillars of
humanistic theory, American psychologist Carl Rogers (1902 – 1987), posited about self- concept. Self-concept simply speaks of how we think and view of ourselves. It includes the entire schema and the knowledge that we have or that we are aware of about ourselves.
As we come to interact with others, we may
come across feedbacks or may be subjected to “The curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change.” -Carl Rogers experiences which will challenge our self-concept. Once established however, we may have difficulties changing our self-concept and thus, we are likely to deny or distort them whenever there are incongruences. Rogers posited two essential components of the self: the real self and the ideal self. According to him, the real self speaks of how we genuinely appraise ourselves. It is the self that feels most true to what and who we really are. It may not be perfect but it is the part of us that feel most real. The ideal self on the other hand, denotes one’s view of self as one wishes to be. It contains attributes, usually positive, that people aspire to possess. Further, Rogers suggests that a discrepancy between our ideal and real selves redounds to non- equilibrium, indicating an unhealthy personality.
3. Albert Bandura’s Proactive and
Agentic Self
Albert Bandura (1925 – present) is a
renowned psychologist who advocated the “Self-belief does not social cognitive theory of learning. This necessarily ensure success, but self- learning perspective contends that human disbelief assuredly behavior results from vicarious learning, spawns failure.” - through the experiences of other people. Albert Bandura
Bandura viewed people as agents or
originators of experience. We don’t just merely observe and imitate behavior; we have cognitive faculties that enable us to discern unto whether or not such behavior is worth emulating or if such can help us become better individuals. One of the fundamental concepts espoused by social cognitive theory is self- efficacy, which is defined as one’s conviction or belief that he or she can take on a certain task successfully. With these emerged the concept of the self as proactive and agentic. The self as proactive is constructive; it is optimistic that it can get through whatever adversities it may encounter. Being proactive means having the capacity to recognize and take advantage of opportunities that may be beneficial to our selves and to better our lives in general. An agentic self is one who takes charge of his choices and actions; it is self-reflective and self-regulating. Bandura views people as being more than just mere planners and fore thinkers. We are agents of change; we can be actively involved in shaping our own lives because we are equipped with the cognitive faculty and capacity to do so. We can be highly motivated and not easily discouraged when he faced with challenges. An agentic and proactive self believes that no matter how big the problem may seem to be, he or she can overcome it.
4. Murray Bowen’s Differentiated Self
Known for being one of the forerunners of family therapy and notable for having “We all have an infant developed a family systems theory, inside of us, but the infant doesn’t have to American psychiatrist Dr. Murray Bowen run the show.” - (1913 – 1990), posited on the Murray Bowen differentiation of selves. Differentiation of selves refers to the degree to which one is able to balance: (a) emotional and intellectual functioning, and (b) intimacy and autonomy in relationship (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998).
On a more personal level, differentiation involves the ability to make clear boundaries between our thoughts and feelings, and to choose which of the two will guide our behavior. Highly differentiated individuals are able to balance autonomy and intimacy in their relationship. This means that one is able to establish connection with others without losing one’s self in the process. For instance, a highly differentiated person may be able to assert one’s self despite the influence of peers.
Poorly differentiated individuals, on the other hand, may engage in fusion in their relationships. This means that they become much attached to the roles they play in a relationship, they have few firmly held beliefs, they are more likely to be compliant, and seek approval from others before making major decision. Moreover, highly differentiated individuals are flexible and are better able to adapt to stressful situations. Since they can set clear boundaries between their thoughts and feelings, they can shift of being emotional to being rational (or vice versa) depending on what the situation and may make impulsive decisions based on their current emotional states. Thus differentiation of self is the capacity to achieve a clear, coherent sense of self along with emotional relationships with important others. According to Bowen, differentiation is a salient trait foe attaining mature development and psychological well-being (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998).
5. Donald Woods Winnicott’s True and
False Selves Donald Woods Winnicott (1896-1971 was an English psychoanalyst who conceptualized the true and false selves. According to him the true self is based on our authentic experiences as a person. This is somehow similar to Roger’s concept of the real self. The feeling of being alive, doing the things you want to do, and just being yourself comprise the true self. On the other hand, the false self, which may also referred to as a fake self or superficial self, is our defense against the vulnerabilities or imperfections of our real self. Our true self may have its own share of “With games, and only with games, can the blemishes and weakness that sometimes child or the adult create, and use their whole lowers our self-esteem. As a result, we try to personalities, and the individual only discovers his personality when he becomes a creator.” cover up these flaws and act “as if” we do not have them. -Donald Woods Winnicott
The false self may start to surface as early as infancy, when we are put under the control of our parents or early caregivers. As we grow old, we are taught different rules imposed by our families, the school, or the society.
At times, we may have to put our true selves aside, just to abide by the demands of other people. We do this to maintain harmony in social relationship. There are instances when it is necessary for the false self to take over a certain situation. For instance, we need to follow norms of conduct in various social setting and if we show the false self because of forced compliance to others, then this may be unhealthy.
Continually suppressing our true selves may inhibit us from truly expressing who we are, which may negatively impact our wellbeing.
