Understanding the Self

Chapter 2

Sociological and
Anthropological Perspectives
Chapter 2

Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives

Introduction
This chapter aims to articulate what culture means to the self as a part of the society,
analyze the anthropological and sociological constructs of the self, and attribute self-
understanding and behavior to cultural factors. The knowledge, skills, and insights that students
would gain from this course may be used in their academic endeavors, their chose disciplines,
and their future careers as they understand their self and identity.

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

- Articulate what culture means to the self as a part of the society;

- Analyze the anthropological and sociological constructs of the self; and
- Attribute self-understanding and behavior to cultural factors.

Duration

Chapter 2: Sociological and Anthropological = 6 hours

Perspectives (4 hours discussion; 2 hours
assessment)
Lesson Proper
I. Social Constructionism
Social constructionism is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication
theory that examines the development of jointly-constructed understandings of the world that
form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that
meanings are developed in coordination with others rather than separately within each
individual.
Social constructs can be different based on the society and the events surrounding the
time period in which they exist. An example of a social construct is money or the concept of
currency, as people in society have agreed to give it importance/value. Another example of a
social construction is the concept of self/self-identity. Charles Cooley stated based on his self-
theory: "I am not who you think I am; I am not who I think I am; I am who I think you think I
am." This demonstrates how people in society construct ideas or concepts that may not exist
without the existence of people or language to validate those concepts.

HOW CULTURE AFFECTS THE SELF

Edward B. Taylor, founder of cultural anthropology, classically defined culture as
“that complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, law, customs, and any
other capabilities and habits acquired by (a human) as a member of society.”
Culture helps define how individuals see themselves and how they relate to others. Remember
that individuals differ in many ways: language diversity, cultural diversity, gender diversity,
religious diversity, and economic diversity (Selmi, Gallagher, & Mora-Flores, 2015). All of
these aspects of diversity work together to form your sense of self.

According to developmental psychologist Catherine Raeff (2010), culture can influence how
you, your coworkers, and the families you serve view:

● Relationships: Culture influences how you enter into and maintain relationships. For
example, relationships may be seen as voluntary or as duty-based. This influences
how adults encourage children to form relationships: Do they choose whom to play
with or are children encouraged to play in certain ways to promote group welfare?

● Personality traits: Culture influences whether and how you value traits like humility,
self-esteem, politeness, and assertiveness. Culture also influences how you perceive
hardship and how you feel about relying on others.
 ● Achievement: Culture influences how you define success and whether you value
certain types of individual and group achievements.

● Expressing emotions: Culture influences how and whether you consider feelings
public or private.

I. The Looking Glass Self Theory by Charles Horton Cooley

When it comes to understanding ourselves, social interaction plays a more important

role than many of us realize. According to sociologist Charles Horton Cooley, individuals
develop their concept of self by observing how they are perceived by others, a concept
Cooley coined as the “looking-glass self.” This process, particularly when applied to the
digital age, raises questions about the nature of identity, socialization, and the changing
landscape of self.

The Looking-Glass Self

The looking-glass self describes the process wherein individuals base their sense of self
on how they believe others view them. Using social interaction as a type of “mirror,” people
use the judgments they receive from others to measure their own worth, values, and behavior.
According to Self, Symbols, & Society, Cooley’s theory is notable because it suggests that
self-concept is built not in solitude, but rather within social settings. In this way, society and
individuals are not separate, but rather two complementary aspects of the same phenomenon.

Core Assumptions
According to Society in Focus, the process of discovering the looking-glass self occurs
in three steps:

1. An individual in a social situation imagines how they appear to others.

1. That individual imagines others’ judgment of that appearance.
2. The individual develops feelings about and responds to those perceived judgments.

Ultimately, the process of the looking-glass self is one of alignment. 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.

II. The Self as a Product of Modern Society (Sociological Perspective)

 Your personal and social identity is never static, but this doesn’t mean you are
constantly revising who you are according to how you feel. Just because you adopt a new
fashion style or a ‘cooler’ way of talking doesn’t mean that your personal and social identity
has substantially changed. These are purely cosmetic or outer changes and more likely reflect
other aspects of yourself (your sub-personae), than to truly indicate a change in core self-
identity.
In terms of longer-term personal growth, changes in personal identity are more often
gradual and incremental than abrupt and ‘total’ makeovers. In this sense personal identity is
constantly changing in a way that isn’t necessarily obvious. But neither does it change simply
because we are tired of our current self-image and want to try something new. Personal and
social identity is not like that. Of course, we always have images of, and ideas about the sort
of person we would like to be, or become and sometimes try hard to make them real.
It is also true that in the final analysis it is you and you alone who are responsible for
the kind of person you are, the way you live your life, and how you treat others. No one else
can be you, or live your life for you. But it is not true that you can change your identity on a
whim, or by an act of will. Any such attempt would either be purely theatrical, and hence
inauthentic, or in order to deceive and manipulate others. In neither case could we say that
identity change was genuine.
Real changes in personal identity emerge out of the creative interplay between social
circumstances and events and the way you as an individual respond to them. No matter how
assertive or dominant a personality you are, in the final instance your identity needs to be
grounded in social reality. Other people have to accept you as you yourself wish to be
accepted before your personal desire for change will have any bite or social validation.

SELF IN SOCIETY AND SOCIETY IN SELF

No one can stand apart from the social world. Everyone is influenced by society and it
makes its indelible mark on us. It’s a great error to think that there is no such thing as society
or that we are separate, self-sufficient individuals. Everyone is influenced by family, friends,
education, ethnicity, work, class, gender, politics and history. At every point in our lives we
both rely on, and contribute to our social environment.
On the one hand, we can never be ‘outside’ society and its tentacles, but on the other we
(our behavior thoughts and feelings) are not simply formed or determined by society. We
have a unique ‘inner’ self which chooses what to do and how to do it. Often, these two ideas –
that we are ‘inside’ society at the same time as standing ‘apart from it’ – are thought to be
incompatible. But this is not true. They are not only compatible, but go together naturally in
social life.
Although we can never stand completely apart from society, we nevertheless retain a
certain amount of independence from it. We are able to choose how we behave towards others
in ways that are, for us ‘appropriate’ and that satisfy our own needs, wishes and desires.
Society can only present us with a set of choices; it can never completely determine for us
which choices we actually adopt. Of course, social pressures, to conform, or fit in with
established patterns of behavior always constrain us to some extent (this varies according to
different issues and situations).
However, there is always a private, personal space in which we are free to choose for
ourselves and to be self-responsible, if we so wish. In this sense we carry around in our heads
whole chunks of society’s influence, in the form of rules, regulations, laws, fashion,
advertising images, and expectations about how others will behave towards us and so on.
These inevitably inform our choices and decisions, but we are free to make up our own minds
about whether they are applicable or relevant to us and the situations in which we find
ourselves. Very often, we simply use these as guidelines and invent our own ‘versions’ of
them. This is because of two characteristics.

First, we are self-directing beings capable of independent thought and behavior. We

have the knowledge and skills that allow us to deal with other people and situations in our
own terms. We are not completely trapped by our circumstances – unless we wish to be, or if
we refuse to fight against them. We may be ‘trapped’ in poverty, but we can choose how we
will respond to it, either by resigned acceptance, or by a fierce determination not to be a
victim. In the end, we may only be able to transform ‘our situation’ a tiny bit. This may
simply amount to being satisfied with the fact that we’ve made an effort, rather than feeling
defeated or resentful because we couldn’t do more. Alternatively, the change we are able to
make may be a minor way of making our lives, or our neighbors’ lives, a little more
comfortable. Nevertheless, ‘minor’ change, is change!
Second, we are all unique individuals because we have all had a unique set of
experiences. Even if you were brought up in the same family, you experience the world in
different ways than your brothers or sisters. Their disappointments or their joys were never
exactly the same as yours. The way you responded to important events was different from
theirs. We each experience a unique configuration of events, turning points, as well as the
feelings and behavioral responses which accompany them, as we develop through childhood,
adolescence and adulthood. Our unique experiences have made us into unique persons with
our distinct personalities and abilities, our particular behavioral styles, our diverse moods and
sensitivities. We each have our own distinctive ways of reacting to events, or of relating to
people.
The fact that we have a foot in both psychological reality and social reality is reflected
in the tension between what I refer to as the duality of separateness and relatedness (Layder
1997). The self is always caught up in some aspect of this tension – between having a life
‘apart’ from others and being involved with and dependent (although not over-dependent) on
others. It is difficult for us as individuals to come to a satisfactory resolution of this problem,
since every time we express a desire to be alone, or have some space of our own, we are
automatically rejecting the idea of togetherness and involvement. Conversely, when we
commit to others, in some part, we surrender our autonomy and independence.
THE EMOTIONAL SELF
Emotions and the motivations to which they give rise have frequently been denied any
important role in our day-to-day conduct by even the most sophisticated of social theorists.
Anthony Giddens, for example, is of the view that emotions and motives are not directly
involved in everyday human behavior. Instead, what he calls ‘reflexive monitoring’ and
‘rationalization’ (reason giving and rational understanding) play the major roles. Motives
only play a part in ‘relatively unusual circumstances, situations which in some way break the
routine’ (Giddens 1984, p. 6).
Even when it does play a role, ‘unconscious’ motivation (as in Freud’s work) is more
important than anything of which we are consciously aware. My view of the emotions and
motivation is the exact opposite of Giddens’. The feelings that motivate us do not simply
derive from a deep unconscious in a Freudian sense. Although they are often below the level
of current ‘awareness’ this is frequently because we try to deny or suppress them. Otherwise,
they remain ‘subconscious’ – outside the range of present moment awareness – because they
are not necessary for the tasks immediately at hand. Indeed, in this sense they may stay out of
our conscious awareness for years.
Similarly, although we always use our cognitive skills to give reasons for what we say
and do, they are in no sense more important than, or separate from our feelings, motivations
and emotions. In fact, ‘reflexive monitoring’ and the ‘rationalization’ of conduct are soaked
through with emotions and feelings. Our plans, purposes and intentions – our motivations –
enter directly into, and underpin our everyday behavior; they don’t simply refer to the
potential for action, as Giddens insists.
The emotional or feeling side of our nature goes hand in hand with our reflective,
intelligent and calculating side. In most instances the different strands are mixed together in
different proportions. But in some instances, one strand may predominate over the others, as
in the stuffy rule-bound bureaucrat or the child, open-mouthed and filled with wonderment.
No behavior though, is completely empty of emotion, although its importance often goes
unrecognized or suppressed. The ever-presence of emotion (including what Goleman 1996
calls ‘emotional intelligence’) may, therefore, prompt us to reconsider our daily encounters.
For instance, from the ‘outside’ people’s conversations often seem to go smoothly and well,
with everyone enjoying shared understanding, attention and feeling. But on closer inspection
they turn out to be full of ‘errors’, misunderstandings, and confusion (a ‘fast moving blur’ as
Scheff 1990, describes it).

CORE AND SATTELITE NEEDS OF SELF

APPROVAL OF SELF AND OTHERS

If love in all its varieties is a key focus for other feelings and emotions, then the need
for approval closely mirrors it. Again, there are close links between self-approval, approval by
others and approval of others. Approval (in all its guises) is essential for love and loving
relationships. Approval implies tolerance (and acceptance) of ‘differences’ in personality,
behavior and beliefs. This doesn’t need to be unconditional or totally ‘permissive’, but it does
require a certain tolerance for other’s interests and rights as well as your own.
The search for approval has its own challenges. In the formative period of childhood,
the child seeks the approval of its caretakers as a means of securing their love. This persists
into adulthood where there is a general need for the approval of others, especially loved ones,
or those who are admired or looked-up to because they have particular qualities or skills. But
this can turn into an unhealthy, excessive need for approval if the individual is uncertain about
his or her own independence, rights, responsibilities and effectiveness (the ability to influence
things). The constant searching for approval is based on the fear that the other’s love will be
withdrawn and that you will be left helpless and unloved. This, of course, is an extension of a
childhood pattern whereby the individual feels that he or she never received enough
(unconditional) approval or love from her or his parents. As a result, they learn to feel
unworthy and that they don’t have the right to expect unconditional love and approval.

III. Anthropological Perspective

Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior,

human biology, and societies, in both the present and past, including past human species.

Introduction to the Filipino Culture

The Filipino culture is an exuberant story that tells of the nation's journey through the
centuries. Customs reflect the people's faith, their oneness with others, their affinity with
nature, and their celebration of life.

The Filipino's charm lies in their smiles, in the numerous religious festivals that
venerate nature, the Divine and the cycles of life and in the virtue of pakikipag-kapwa tao that
treasures relationships, with friends and strangers alike. The concept of kapwa (others) is at
the core of the Filipino soul. A Filipino scholar says of the Filipino: the joy of his being is in
being with others.

The nation's charm is in the diversity in ways of life across the archipelago, the
resplendent colors of its folk arts and the cacophony of foreign influences that have found
roots in the Filipino languages, customs and traditions.

And so, there are the bright Santacruzan festivals in May, with pagan origins but
portraying strong Christian symbols, and an extended romance with Christmas in December.
There are the passionate Hispanic tempos in the dances of the plains of Luzon, the elegant
Muslim dances for wars and weddings from Mindanao, and the ancient strains of indigenous
music in the highlands. The country has quaint town squares that remind the spectator of its
colonial past, light breezy huts with fences decked with bougainvillas along the country lanes,
sprawling malls, high-rises and frantic city avenues, houses made of stones in typhoon-strewn
islands in the North and houses on stilts in the South.

Another writer observes that the Filipinos tendency towards passionate profusion and
unrestrained exuberance in his art stems from his exposure to nature's lush, magnificent
landscapes around him the whole year through. Thus, the richly embroidered Barong
Tagalog (national dress), baroque architecture in the 19th century and the flaming spectrum of
colors in jeepney passenger cars, ice cream carts, Christmas lanterns, kalesa (horse carriages),
fiestas and religious processions.

Filipinos worship devoutly in their cathedrals and mosques (the busy urban dwellers
attend religious services inside shopping malls and al fresco, in parks and plazas). They can
sing and recognize good singing when they hear it. They smile at strangers and babies, and
through queues, rain showers and traffic. They socialize in parties and discotheques, as well
as in markets and community dances. They make and keep friendships over food,
over lambanog (coconut wine), over mobile phone text messaging. They are sentimental and
devoted to their families. They have profound respect for elders and show self-effacing
hospitality for guests. They speak over 100 local languages and dialects, of which the
Tagalog-based Filipino is the lingua franca, as well English, with an accent. They are
basketball fans. They love Hollywood films and television dramas. They are pedestrians who
chat while walking and they are the passengers in the ubiquitous jeepneys. They love
laughing, at themselves, their politics, their game shows. They are cosmopolitan in their views
but their values are rooted in their faith, their family and their community.

The Filipinos' temperament is as warm and constant as their sunshine. Their way of life
is rich, diverse and rooted. They are in harmony with others and face the world with an
engagingly courageous spirit. They are the 73 million Filipinos.
 Filipino Identity: The Haunting Question
Paper by: Niels Mulder
(from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/186810341303200103)

The deficiency of strength that Filipino national identity possesses and the insufficient
adherence that Filipino nationhood attracts lie in the failure of the state to mold the population
into an encompassing moral order in which people can distinctly imagine that they belong
together. In the absence of a shared narrative of collective emancipation that successfully ties
the individual's private life to an authoritative center of civilization, we find two opposing
“nations” co-existing in the independent Philippine state: the state-owning oligarchy versus
the nation of the ordinary people. This cleavage is enhanced by the conflict between the
arbitrary nature of politics and the identity-affirming inner core, the each-to-his-own of the
public realm versus the reassurance of little-traditional life and the English language versus
the vernacular. As a result, it keeps all and sundry – including the members of the new
Filipino middle class – from identifying with the collective whole and prevents them from
developing into a nation of genuinely committed citizens. Because these cleavages are
systemic, nation-building remains a task of which completion will stretch into the distant
future.

References/Additional Resources/Readings

Brawner, D. (2018) Understanding the Self. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc.
Charles Cooley – Looking Glass Self. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/bU0BQUa11ek; 03/07/21
Filipino Cultural Identity: Retrieved from https://www.pana.com.ph/fyeo/materials/Filipino
%20Cultural%20Identity.pdf; 03/07/21
Filipino Identity: The Haunting Question. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/186810341303200103; 03/07/21
Go-Monilla, M.J.A., Ramirez, N.C. (2018). Understanding the Self. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
Introduction to the Filipino Culture. Retrieved from https://beijingpe.dfa.gov.ph/82-the-
philippines/89-introduction-on-the-filipino-culture; 03/07/21
Layder, D. (2004). Social and Personal Identity: Understanding Yourself. SAGE Publications
Ltd. (available for download at b-ok.asia)
Perception is Reality: The Looking-Glass Self. Retrieved from
https://lesley.edu/article/perception-is-reality-the-looking-glass-self; 03/07/21
Self-Identity (Sociology). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/SoNTgN849S4; 03/07/21
Activity Sheet
ACTIVITY 1

Name:James Adrian C. MatampacCourse/Year/Section:BSA1-ODONATAScore: _________

Direction: Social constructionism basically means “shared assumptions” on how we perceive
the world around us. Based on your understanding, give at least 3 (three) examples of how social
constructionism is displayed by society. Examples should only be 1-2 sentences only. Write
legibly.
1. Other people see me that I am rugged but they don't know that I am friendly.
2. I thought my jokes were funny, I didn't know they were hurtful
3. They think I'm the kind of person who is always serious because they say they see my face
but they don't know that I'm the person who will accompany you in all the fun

ACTIVITY 2
Direction:. Write your answer on the space BEFORE the number.
Edward B. Taylor1. According to her, culture can influence how we view different aspects of our
lives.
Charles Cooley 2. It is a theory which states that we perceive our worth based on how we think
other people see us.
___True___3. True or False. We are self-directing beings.
__True____4. True or False. Our emotional side has nothing to do with our logical/rational side.
Anthropology5. It is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior, human
biology, and societies, in both the present and past, including past human species.

ACTIVITY 3
Direction:. Write your answer on the space provided.
1. Identify at least 2 Filipino anthropologists and describe their contributions towards the
Filipino conceptualization of the self.
•Melba Padilla Maggay- She was crucial in her outstanding leadership in organizing the
religious movements, particularly the evangelical Protestant presence, at the EDSA
barricades during the Philippine ‘People Power’ uprising in February 1986.

•Michael Tan - Had consistent efforts to revitalize scientific research on and in the use of
traditional medicine, develop rational drug policies, and [understand] the social and
behavioral dimensions of HIV/AIDS prevention and of reproductive health promotion.
2. Do you know someone in your family, neighborhood, or school who has identity struggles?
What is the basis of your judgment? Do you think that individuals must be able to defend their
identities if they are threatened?
•Yes just like my one neighbor I always see on his face that he is sad and deep thinking I
think he might have a problem but im not sure if he is have a problem until one day i ask him
why are you sad? and he said that he is having a big problem
•I think they need to defend thier identities even they are being threatened by others.
Assessment
Direction: How do you perceive yourself as you interact with other people in the society? How
do you think you formed this perception of yourself? Identify the people, groups, or social
institutions that significantly influenced your understanding of yourself. Fill in the table below
with your answers. Your answer will be graded based on this five (5) point rubric below:

Score Completion Accuracy Comprehension Organization Conventions

5 The answer All information Content Content is well-organized and No major

is complete. provided is demonstrates a easy to read. Points follow a grammatical or
accurate. deep logical progression. It provides spelling errors. No
understanding and examples which supports the more than two minor
application of topic with wit and analysis errors.
ethical concepts.

4 The answer All information Content Content is well-organized and No major

is missing provided is demonstrates easy to read. Points follow a grammatical or
slight details accurate. understanding and logical progression. It provides spelling errors. No
application of examples which supports the more than five minor
ethical concepts. topic with wit and analysis errors.

3 The answer Most Content Content is organized and easy Some major and
is missing information demonstrates to read. Points follow a mostly minor errors that
multiple provided is basic logical progression. It provides don’t necessarily
details. accurate. understanding and examples which supports the impair
application of topic with wit and analysis communication.
ethical concepts.

2 Content Some Content Content may be unorganized Major and minor

suggests lack information demonstrates less and difficult to read. Points do errors significantly
of provided is than basic not follow a solidly logical weaken quality of
preparation accurate. understanding and progression and have provided communication,
or application of unrelated examples. although still
comprehensi ethical concepts. comprehensible.
on.

1 Content only A small amount Content Content is unorganized, Communication

marginally of the demonstrates a illogical, and difficult to read. seriously impaired by
related to the information is lack of multitude of
question/pro accurate. understanding and spelling/grammatical
mpt. application of errors.
ethical concepts.

0 Content fails None of the Content Content is very poorly Multitude of major
to meet the information demonstrates a organized, illogical, and and minor errors
basic provided is complete lack of difficult to read. makes the answer
requirements accurate. understanding and incomprehensible.
of the task. application of
ethical concepts.
 People/Groups/Social Institutions My Self-Perception via Social How my Self-Perception was
with Whom I Have Had Meaningful Interaction Established
Encounters

• Old man pushing his tricycle along •I see my self as a silent hero •I just thought what if I was in
the highway because i help him his situation that why i help him

•helping my one friend with his • we are true friends thats why i •I just give them back what they
projects help him. did to me

Direction: Write an essay on the theories and concepts of Cooley. Consider the following
questions in writing your essay:
1. What are the three things you have discovered about your social self?
1. How are you going to apply your insights in understanding your social self?

My Reflection
 First I been realize that a lot has changed in my behavior not like before I noticed that what I
used to do I can't do now. Second all my friends in the past I only know now in other words I did
not replace them as friends and I avoided those friends who only caused me mistakes but the
important thing is I did not forget them. And lastly I've also changed the way I deal and talk to
other people, I've become more polite and I talk well, unlike before, I'm more reliable now
because I know a lot of things.
Assignment
Think and reflect what have you learned today, answer the following question. Write your
answer on the space provided.
● Ethnicity, religion, political affiliations, or even socioeconomic status may be associated
with one’s name. Analyze the names of your grandparents, parents, siblings, and yours.
What naming practices do you have in your family? How do you think your personal
name established your social identity?
● Which of the anthropological views of the self relates to your own belief? Explain how
each view impact your self-understanding.
● How are yourself and identity constructed and influenced by your culture? Include three
things you discovered about your cultural identity.
• I remember that i ask my parents about my name about where they took or how they built
my name and they said that they imitated it with an NBA superstar Lebron James because he
was my dad's idol. And it had a big impact on my personality when I was young because every
time I came out of the house they called me lebron james even though I didn't play basketball.

• I think my emotional self because my feelings come first you know the feeling that even if
they hurt you you don't want to retaliate because you feel so pityful for them
they tell your weak but you don't just show how strong you are.

• You can only think that there is a huge difference in your culture and beliefs, especially when
you go to another place, you will notice that they do things that you don't do.