Module 2

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE SELF

Introduction
With the advent of Social Science in 18th century, new ways of knowing have
emerged. The new discipline departed from Philosophy’s heavy reliance on speculation and
shifted to observation as a valid approach of knowing what is real and true. This new approach
cultivated philosophical objectivity in understanding the world, specifically in its nature.
Humanity started to be considered as being part of the natural world and gained attention as
acceptable subject of study. Consequently, the self which was dominantly regarded by
Philosophers as whether or not a concept of duality has been questioned by the Social
Scientists. To re-examine the true nature of the self, their focus shifted on the relationship of the
self with its external world. That is, with its constant interaction with the external reality, the self
is shaped by external forces that constitute society, community, and family among
others. In this chapter therefore, the self is presented contrary to the philosophical view
whereby self is considered as having two components of the body and soul (or the body and
mind). Self in this chapter is emphasized as social by nature. Beginning from birth, it
continuously interacts with its external world that determines what it might be, what it can be
and what it will be.
Learning Outcomes At the end of the module, students should be able to:
1. explain the basic concept of self as a product of social reality;
2. describe how self is shaped by society and culture; and
3. examine one’s self relative to his/her external world.

Self as a Social Construct

The self as a social construct is derived from the idea that society which takes part in its
shaping is a social construction. Through social interaction and active understanding of the
social reality by collective actions of people, living together and their relationships become
meaningful. By active understanding, it means that individuals are not only passive
participants in their social life. Through language, hey privately and publicly utilize or share
symbols within their interactions. This creates a pattern that shapes and influences who
they are, how they behave and think.
The Self and Society
In 1996, Steven (cited by Alata, EJ et. al., 2018) found in his literature reviews that self
has been characterized as separate, self-contained, independent, consistent, unitary and
private. Said characteristics suggest that self is distinct to others. It is self-contained and
independent because it can exist by itself. It is contained in its own thoughts,
characteristics, and volition. It does not allow other self for it to exist. It has a personality that is
enduring or persists over time. It is centered on its experiences and thoughts. In implication, self
is isolated from the external world.
Taking the forefront when Philosophy started to lose its fame in the area of
understanding about the self, the discipline of Sociology asserts that humans cannot be
understood apart from it social context. Base on its idea, society is linked to the individual as
they are inherently connected and dependent on each other. Society being composed of a large
social grouping sharing in the same geographical territory implies that groups who are more or
less living together have the same cultures and predisposed to institutions which provide
their physical, social, and psychological needs and which maintain order and the values of
the culture. It makes us who we are by structuring our interactions and lay out an orderly world
before us. As a result, an individual is capable of seeing through his/her experiences and
the larger society called sociological imagination in which society creates opportunities for
him/her to think and act as well as limiting his/her thoughts and actions.

Sociological Theories of the Self

A. The Looking Glass Self by Charles Cooley
Charles Cooley pioneered one of the most prominent Sociological perspectives of the
self. He asserted that individuals develop their concept of self by looking at how others perceive
them, hence, coined his theory as “The Looking Glass Self”.
Using the view of others, Cooley denotes that understanding of self is socially
constructed. Through social interaction, one’s sense of self is mirrored from the
judgments they receive from others to measure their own worth, values, and behavior. This
process involves the following steps:
1. An individual in a social situation imagines how they appear to others.
2. That individual imagines others’ judgment of that appearance.
3. The individual develops feelings (of pride or shame) and responds to those perceived
judgments.
Seemingly, the theory of Charles Cooley is appealing if not complicated by some context
of interaction and nature of people involved in the process. Feedback for one plays an important
role in the process. However, not all feedback are taken or carried out in the same weight. Thus,
not all judgments or view of other people to one’s self may affect how he/she measure his/her
worth, values and behavior. For instance, some take responses from those whom they trust
more seriously than those of strangers. Misinterpretations of signals may also occur from the
point of view of the person examining him/herself. One’s value system can be also taken into
consideration when thinking through any changes to their behavior or views of self. Ultimately,
people constantly seek to create consistency between their internal and external worlds and,
therefore, continue to perceive, adjust, and strive for equilibrium throughout their lives (Self and
Socialization, nd).
B. Theory of the Self-Development by George Herbert Mead
Similar to Charle’s Cooley’s theory of self, George Herbert Mead also gave
emphasis to other’s perspective in view of one’s self. As a prerequisite of being able to
understand the self, one has to develop self-awareness. This can be derived from looking at
ourselves from the perspective of others. For instance, we put ourselves into someone else’s
shoes and look at the world through that someone’s perspective. This process is only made
possible by social interaction. If social interaction is absent particularly in one’s early
experiences, he/she will find difficulty in developing an ability to see him/herself as others would
see him/her. According to Mead, the “self” in such case is not being developed (Theory
of Self Development,nd).
By stages, Mead states that self develops through social interaction.
1. Preparatory Stage: Children in this stage are only capable of imitating actions
of others (i.e. people they particularly in contact with such as their family members). They
have no ability to imagine yet how others see things.
2. Play Stage: At this stage, children begin to try to take on the role of other person
by acting out grown up behaviors, dressing like adults, etc.
3. Game Stage: While children learn about several roles of others, they
understand how these roles interact with each other in this stage. They learn to
understand complex interactions involving different people with variety of purpose. In a
restaurant for instance, a child understands different responsibilities of people who work
together for a smooth sailing experience. He/she understands that someone from the
restaurant takes orders, others wash dishes, cook the food, etc.).
4. Generalized other: In this stage, children develop, understand and learn the idea of
the common behavioral expectations of the general society. They are able to imagine how they
are viewed by one or many. Mead pointed out that “self” in this stage is being developed.

The Self and Culture

The self should not be seen as a static entity which remains constant through time. It
persistently struggles with its external reality and is malleable in dealing with it. Being active
participant in its social world, the self, through interaction, is made and remade. As it
continuously interacts with others, society is continually changing and dynamic, so thus self.
Self being endlessly exposed to its social world and is subjected to its influences here and
there. While the social world is changing and dynamic, being the same person across time and
space therefore is illogical. In this perspective, self is considered as multi-faceted.
The Moi and Personne Self
Marcel Mauss and his contemporaries claimed that society is a result of a process
whereby actions of humans is built upon everyday social continuity. As an Anthropologist and
Sociologist, he asserted that self adapts to its everyday social condition. In particular, the
behavior of human groups and the way they perceive themselves in daily life are
influenced by their environmental and seasonal variations. Everyday life is an endless
process of actions and exchanges between and among humans to sustain their existence and
meet their needs. Cultural identity therefore is intertwined with space and time (Airton
José Cavenaghi, 2016) making one’s self determined according to its circumstances and
context.
As a result of this notion, Marcel Mauss asserted that every self has two faces--the
personne and moi. MOI refers to a person’s sense of who he is, his body and his basic identity,
his biological givennes. It 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. It 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. Personne
therefore shifts from time to time to adapt to his social situation (Alata, EJ et. al., 2018).
Various personne can be illustrated across culture. In the Philippines, part of the Filipino
personne-of who they are-- is their territory. This includes considering their immediate
surroundings as part of them, thus the perennial “tapat ko, linis ko”.
Language is also an interesting aspect of who Filipinos are. Filipinos articulates love with
the famous phrase, “Mahal kita”. This phrase if translated in English means, “I Love You”. Unlike
in English, the Filipino version of “I Love You” however does not specify who the subject and the
object of love. There is no specification of who loves and who is being loved.
Interestingly, the word “mahal” in the Philippines can both mean “love” and
“expensive”. Love is intimately bound with value while being expensive means being
precious. Putting together, someone or something expensive is therefore valuable.
Someone whom we love is valuable. When taken from its Sanskrit origin “lubh,” love can also
mean desire.
Another interesting facet of the Filipino language is its being gender-neutral. The word
“siya” is used to refer to either a boy or girl. In other languages specifically English and Spanish,
demarcation between male and female pronoun is clear. In English, “he” is referred to male
while “she” refers to female. “El” in Spanish refers to male while “ella” is referred to females.
As these examples depicts cultural divide, it goes to show how one regards oneself
differently from others. The language which has something to do with one’s culture has a
tremendous effect in the crafting of the self.
The “I” and the “Me” Self
As an offshoot of his theory previously presented, George Herbert Mead
characterized the self as “I” and “Me”. Based on the theory, an individual imports from the social
process. As an individual organism, he/she may display gestures on his/her own but takes
collective attitude of others and reacts accordingly to their organized attitudes while in
constant interaction with them. The process according to Mead involves the creation of
the two facets of self. The “me” is the social self and the “I” is the response to the “me”. Both
arising from the social process, the “I” is the one responding to the attitudes of the others while
“me” is the result of the “I” assuming the organized set of attitudes of the others (it is
the result of the individual’s accumulated understanding of the generalized other). The “I”
learns about the “me”, hence, it is the knower, while the “me” is the known. Ultimately,
self is developed through language and role-play where the child learns to delineate his/her “I”
from the rest.
Lev Vygotsky
Together with George Herbert Mead, Lev Vygotsky stressed the important role of
language acquisition and interaction with others in human development. According to them,
mind is made or constituted through language that one acquires or experiences with his/her
external world. This process is mediated by one’s internal dialogue with his/her own head.
Through it, he/she learns to internalize values, norms, practices, social beliefs, etc., Consistent
exposure to internal dialogues will eventually become part of one’s individual world. For Mead,
role-playing of children indicates that they create scripts in their head, thus a manifestation of
internal dialogue within self. For Vygotsky, a child internalizes real life dialogues that he/she
had with others by recycling this during one of their mental and practical problem solving (Alata,
et. al, 2018).
Self in Families
Every human is born helpless or dependent from the external world. The first
group that one interacts with and depend for the fulfilment of his/her needs is the family. As the
basic social institution, the family is the primary provider or source of a child’s needs (human,
social, economic). It is also the main avenue for teaching young individuals the basic
things that they need to learn in order to fit in the society. It has also the capacity to develop or
encourage the actualization of one’s potentials. These are all made possible by way of
socialization whereby one learns basic ways of living, language, values, etc. by way of
imitating or observation or teaching by an adult member of the family such as the mother and
the father. A child learns ways of living, his/her selfhood, by being with the family.
Learning self in the family is conscious or unconscious. If reared with respectful family, then
he/she becomes respectful. If raised with a conversational family, then he/she becomes
conversational. Ways of living that are explicitly taught are those that are basic for the child to
learn such as table manners, speaking with an elder, etc. Through rewards and punishments,
some behaviors and attitudes are indirectly taught to a child. For example, talking about sexual
behavior or how to comfort emotions are internalized by a child through interpreting
intonation of voice by adults or of their model in the family. Clearly, these point out that
becoming an adult who does not learn about basic matters such as manners or conduct
indicates failure of the family to initiate him/her into the world. In this sense, the initial conception
of selfhood for social survival and becoming a human person is learned in the family.
Another important aspect of social process within the family is the learning of gender by
a child. Gender partly determines how one sees him/herself in the world. Though gender
is considered as one aspect of the self that is subject to alteration, change and development, it
is noteworthy that its concept is primarily acquired in the family. In a relatively
conservative cultures such as the Philippines for instance, husbands for the most part are
expected to provide for the family. Exposed to this kind of system, the sons in the family
internalize a inkling to being a future provider to behave and think like a man. Female members
of the family who are mostly exposed to their mother’s roles tend to imitate the same mentality
of women as care providers in the family according to Nancy Chodorow, a Feminist (cited in
Alata, et. al, 2018). Providing dolls instead of guns to girls also reinforces the notion of what
roles they should take, thus, the kind of self-concept they should develop.