Module 2 THE SELF, SOCIETY, AND CULTURE

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, the student will be able to:
1. explain the relationship between and among the self, society, and culture;
2. describe and discuss the different ways by which society and culture shape the self;
3. compare and contrast how the self can be influenced by the different institutions in the
society; and
4. examine one’s self against the different views of self that were discussed in class.

INTRODUCTION

Across time and history, the self has been debated, discussed and (fruitfully or
otherwise) conceptualized by different thinkers in philosophy. Eventually, with the advent of
social sciences, it became possible for new ways and paradigms to reexamine the true nature of
the self. People put a halt on speculative debates on the relationship between the body and
soul, eventually renamed the body and the mind. Thinkers just eventually got tired of focusing
on the long standing debate since 6th Century BC between the relationship of the two
components of the human person. Thinkers just settled with the idea there are two
components of the human person and whatever relationship these two have is less important
than the fact that there is a self. The debate shifted into another locus of discussion. Given the
new ways of knowing and the growth of social sciences, it became possible for new approaches
of the examination of the self to come to fore. One of the locus, if not the most important axis
of analysis, is the relationship between the self and the external world.
What is the relationship between the external reality
and the self? In the famous Tarzan story, the little boy named
Tarzan was left in the middle of the forest. Growing up, he never
had an interaction with any other human being but apes and other
animals. Tarzan grew up acting strangely like apes and unlike
human persons. Tarzan became an animal, in effect. His sole
interaction with them made him just like one of them.
Disappointedly, human persons will not develop like human
persons without intervention. This story, which was supposed to be
based on real life, challenges the long-standing notion of human
person being special and being a particular kind of being in the
spectrum of living entities. After all, our “selves” are not special
because of the soul infused into us. We may be gifted with intellect
and the capacity to rationalize things but at the end of the day, our
growth and development and consequentially, our “selves” are truly products of our interaction
with external reality.
 How much of you is essential? How much of who you are now is a product of your
society, community, and family? Has your choice of school affected yourself now? Had you
been born into a different family and schooled in a different college, how much of who you are
now would change?

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

My Elementary Self My High School Self

My College Self

ANALYSIS

After having examined your “self” in its different stages, fill out the following table:
Similarities in All stages of Differences in My “Self” Possible reason for the
My “Self” across the Three stages of Differences in Me
My life
 A Portrait of Yourself
 The best thing(s) I ever did was (were) _________________________________________

 I wish I could lose my fear of _________________________________________________

 I know I have the talent to ___________________________________________________

 I enjoy people who ________________________________________________________

 I admire _________________________________________________________________

 I feel most productive when _________________________________________________

 I am motivated by _________________________________________________________

 I almost never____________________________________________________________

 My idea of fun is __________________________________________________________

 Work is exciting when ______________________________________________________

 The best advise I ever got was _______________________________________________

 The thing I value most is ____________________________________________________

 If money were no object, I would _____________________________________________

 It is easy for me to focus on _________________________________________________

 My idea of perfect life is ____________________________________________________

 My best days are __________________________________________________________

 My dream is ______________________________________________________________

 I always wanted to ________________________________________________________

 I look forward to __________________________________________________________

 I spent too much time ______________________________________________________

 The thing my friends like about me is __________________________________________

 When I try to change something ______________________________________________

  In a group I like to _________________________________________________________

 If I ever win a prize it will be for ______________________________________________

ABSTRACTION

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-contained and
independent because in itself it can exist. Its distinctiveness 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, therefore, 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, feelilngs and emotions, and thought processes within the
self. This while process is never accessible to anyone but the self.

This last characteristic of the self, its 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 what spells for the self what it might be, what it can
be, and what it will be. From this perspective then, one can see that the self is 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 this 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 p. 222).
Social constructivists argue that the self should not be seen as a static entity that stays
constant through and through. Rather, has to be seen as something that is in unceasing flux, in
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.

Consider a man named Jon. Jon is a math professor in a Catholic university for more
than a decade now. Jon has a beautiful wife 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 a 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 manner 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
mate knew him as a calm, all-smiles guy ready to lend a helping hand to anyone in need. This
short story is not new to most of us. We, ourselves, play different roles, act in different ways
depending on our circumstance. Are we being hypocritical in doing so? Are we even conscious
of shifting selves? According to what we have so far, this is not only normal but it is also
acceptable and expected. The self is capable of morphing and fitting itself into any
circumstance it finds itself in.

The Self and Culture

Remaining the same person and turning chameleon by adopting 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 a
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 the expectations and influences from others.

In the story above, Jon might have a moi but certainly he has to shift personne from
time to time to adapt to his social situation. He knows who he is and more or less, he is
confident that he has a unified, coherent self. However, at some point, he has to sport his stern
professorial look. Another day, he has to be doting but strict dad that he is. Inside his bedroom,
he can play goofy with his wife, Joan. In all these and more, Jon retains who he is (his being Jon
and his moi), that part of him who is stable and static all throughout.

The dynamics and capacity for different personne can be illustrated better cross-
culturally. A Filipino OFW adjusting to a 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 simply crosses whenever and wherever.
When the same Filipino visits another country with strict traffic rules, say Singapore, you will
notice how suddenly abiding the said Filipino becomes. This observation has been anecdotally
confirmed by a lot of Filipinos.

The same malleability can be seen in how some men easily transform into sweet, docile
guys when trying to woo and court a particular woman and suddenly change after hearing a
sweet “yes”. This cannot be hardly 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 the contexts.

In the Philippines, Filipinos tend

to consider their territory as a part of
who they are. This includes considering
their immediate surrounding as a part of
them, thus the perennial “tapat mo, linis
mo”. 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 a 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 rules or else be
apprehended.

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

language is incredibly very 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 version of “I love you”. The
Filipino brand of this articulation of love, unlike the English version, does not specify the subject
and the object of love. Unlike in its English version, there is no specification of who loves and
who is loved. There is simply a word for love, mahal, and the pronoun kita which is a 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 and
being precious. Something expensive is valuable. Someone we love is valuable to us. The
Sanskrit origin of the word love is “lubh” which means desire. Technically, love is a desire. The
Filipino word for it to has another intonation apart from mere desire, which is valuable.

Another interesting facet of our language is its being gender-neutral. In English, Spanish,
and other languages, there is clear distinction between a third person male and a 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 salient part of culture and ultimately, has tremendous effect in our crafting of the self. This
might also be one of the reasons cultural divide definitely accounts for the 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 in a particular culture, the self will have to adjust according
to its exposure.

The Self and the Development of the Social World

So how do people actively produce their social words? How do children grow up and
become social beings? How can a boy turn out to be just like an ape? How do twins coming out
from the same mother turn out to be different when given up for adoption? More than a
person’s givenness (personality, tendencies, propensities, etc.) one is believed to be in active
participation of shaping the self. Most often, we think 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 activities 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, p. 83).

Mead and Vygotsky

For George Herbert Mead and Lev Vygotsky, human persons
develop 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 dialogue. “Should I do this or that?”
“But if I do this, it will be like this”. “Don’t I want the other option?”
So cognitive and emotional development of a child is always 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 dialogues with
others. A young child internalizes values, norms, practices, and social beliefs and mores through
exposure to these dialogues 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. Notice how little children are fond of playing
role play with their toys? Notice how they make scripts and dialogues for their toys as they play
with them? According to Mead, it is through this that a child delineates the “I” from the rest.

Lev Vygotsky, for his part believes a child internalizes real-life

dialogues 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 dialogues. Notice how children can become what they watch?
Notice how children can easily adopt ways of cartoon characters they
are exposed to? Dora, for example?

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 family is
still deemed as a given in understanding the self. The kind of family that we are born in and the
resources available to us (human, spiritual, economic) will certainly affect us and the kind of
development that we will have as we got 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 our
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 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 view from their
family. For example, by imitating the language of their primary
agents of rearing, their family, babies learn language. The same is
true for ways of behaving. Notice how kids reared in respectful
environment becomes 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 possible 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 in 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
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 a human person. Go back to the Tarzan example. In more ways than one, the survival
of Tarzan in the midst of a forest is in itself already a miracle. His being a full 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 give an obvious manifestation
of the point being made in this section. One is who he is because of his family for the most part.

Gender and the Self

Another important aspect of the self that is important to mention here is gender.
Gender is one of those loci of the self that is subject to alteration, change, and the
development. We have seen in the past years how people fought hard for the right to express,
validate, and assert their gender expression. Many conservatives may frown upon this and
insist on the biological basis. 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 form of
selfhood is one that cannot just be dismissed. 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, gwo
rotten teeth, and a bad temper, a battered sense of dignity, and a love which nobody
wants wand which nearly drives me insane.” A few years later she wrote, “It makes 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?” (Moffat and Painter
1974).

This account illustrates that our gender partly determines

how we see ourselves in the world. Oftentimes, society forces a
particular identity unto us depending on our sex and/or gender.
In the Philippines, husbands for the most part is expected to
provide for the family. The eldest man in a family is expected to head the family and hold it.
Slight modifications have been on the way due to feminism and LGBT activism but for the most
part, patriarchy has remained to be at work.
Nancy Chodorow, feminist, argues that because mothers take the role of taking care of
children, there is a tendency for girls to imitate he same an reproduce the same kind of
mentality as women as care providers in the family. The way that little girls are given dolls
instead, encouraged to play with makeshift kitchen also reinforces 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 to also
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 is 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 society.

APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

Answer the following questions, cogently and honestly.