Unit 2: SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE SELF

This unit discusses how society functions and becomes an influence in the
development of the self. Sociology is among the disciplines contributory to the
understanding of who we are in relation to ourselves, others, and to social systems. The
perspectives of the self by Mead and Cooley, as a product of modern society, will be
explored.

In order to understand the succeeding theories, let us look into the different
sociological perspectives.

SOCIOLOGICAL PARADIGM FOCUS

Structural Functionalism How each part of the society functions together to
contribute to the whole
Conflict Theory How inequalities contribute to social differences and
perpetuate differences in power
Symbolic interactionism One-to-one interactions and communications

Now, let’s look into the different sociological perspectives of the self.

EMILE DURKHEIM: SOCIAL INTEGRATION and MORAL INDIVIDUATION

“To love society is to love something beyond us and something in ourselves.”

Before we were born, there are already societal

influences on us that shape our life and personalities. While
alive, the societal influences continue to have an impact on
us, and even beyond our lifetime. Durkheim has worked on a
lot of theories to emphasize this. Some of his works include
how people get to live together peaceably and in organized
manner (Division of Labor), how culture, roles and norms bind
people together in synchronized behaviors, feelings and
thoughts (Social Integration), how the rights and dignity of the
individual are based on the principles of equality and Justice
(Moral Individualism). Such theories shall anchor the structuralist and functionalist
perspective in answering the question “Who am I” in the social context.

Durkheim proposed that the task of sociology is to analyze social facts.

Social Facts – conditions and circumstances external to the individual that,

nevertheless, determine the individual’s course of action. Durkheim argued that social
facts can be ascertained by using collective data such as marriage and divorces rates.
This means that through systematic collection of data, the patterns behind and within
an individual behavior can be uncovered.
 Another example of social fact can be exemplified in this instance: When you
fulfill your obligation as a son/daughter, student, brother/sister, or citizen, you perform
duties which are defined, externally to yourself and your actions, in law and in custom.
This means that even if you “do these things” (do your tasks in school, do your duties as
a son or daughter) because it conforms to your sentiments and feel their reality
subjectively, such reality is still objective. We did not create these realities (duties and
responsibilities of a child or citizen); we merely inherited them through our education
(formal and informal). That, or rather, these realities, are social facts.

Durkheim emphasized that the society is not a result or an aftereffect of

individual conduct; rather, it (society) exists prior to, and thus, shapes individual action.
In other words, individual lines of conduct are the outgrowth of social arrangements.

Social Integration is the degree to which an individual is connected to the

society. Social Integration results from a collective consciousness or a shared way of
understanding and behaving in the world in terms of norms, beliefs, and values. Those
who have weak social connections are more prone to self-destructive behaviors, or
deviancy, because they are unable to balance their desires with what is considered
appropriate by the society. People who are able to form strong social ties have a
deeper sense of belonging, form more cohesive groups and are able to reduce
conflicts. It is synonymous with Social Solidarity. Social solidarity described the social ties
that bind a group of people together such as kinship, shared location, or religion.

Moral Individualism – the doctrine that rationality leaves room for the
individualities of personalities of subjects to express themselves in the moral realm in an
autonomous choice between idealism and fulfilment-maximization. It involves a
morality of cooperation and a profound respect for humanity. It is not the glorification
of the self, “but of the individual in general” (Durkheim, 1898).

Moral Individualism and the experience of the SACRED

Moral individualism, “is a religion in which man is at once the worshiper and the
god” (Durkheim [1898]1973:46). The “sacred” dimension of the modern individual finds
its expression in the unique respect granted to him and in the protection of his rights. But
there is no such thing as inherent rights and liberties. Modern society has “consecrated,”
him, granted him rights, and made him “worthy of respect” ([1906]1953b:72,
[1906]1953a:58). Each individual embodies the universal values of humanity, each
individual consciousness carries “something divine” and it is “marked with a character
which renders it sacred and inviolable to others” ([1898]1973:52). Durkheim is optimistic
that moral individualism will become the “moral catechism” and the source of a new
morality. He claims that the “cult of the individual” has become one of the most
distinctive characteristic of modernity, and that it is replacing all other religions.
 Moral individualism has to be distinguished from the “utilitarian egoism of
Spencer and of the economists.” It involves a morality of cooperation and a profound
respect for humanity. It is not the “glorification” of the self, “but of the individual in
general” (Durkheim [1898]1973:44, 48). At its “most abstract level,” scholars have noted,
it refers to humanity in general rather than to individuals of any particular nation-state
(Giddens 1986:21). It stresses “freedom and dignity, not happiness, as highest social
ends” (Terrier 2006:294).

The foregoing, illustrates how such concepts as simple as norms, roles and culture
in the society in which one belongs determines to a great and profound extent to
which the self is embedded in the society – that the self is not just a construct accorded
with an identity all its own. To be, the self has to be defined also in its social dimension.
Think for example how such concepts profoundly affect gender norms, family
dynamics, religion and politics and our day-to-day interactions. Even the field of
psychology acknowledges that in solitude or amongst others, an individual’s thoughts,
behaviors, perceptions and emotions are affected by his imagined or real influence
coming from other people.

The next sociological theories define the self along the symbolic interactionism
paradigm.

CHARLES HORTON COOLEY: THE LOOKING GLASS SELF

Self-concept is formed through our impressions on how other people see us.

Cooley proposed that one’s self grows out of one’s social

interactions with others. The degree of personal insecurity displayed in
social situations is determined by what one believes other people
think of him/her. Simply put, the “Self” is how we believe others see us.

The process:

1. We imagine how we present ourselves to others

2. We imagine how others evaluate us

3. Finally develop some sort of feeling about ourselves such as respect or shame as a
result of these impressions
The LABELING BIAS

This occurs when we are labeled, and others’ views and expectations of us are
affected by that labeling. For instance, your professor hears your classmates call you
“matalino”, you are labeled as “yung matalino”. Your professor might then have higher
expectations from you wherein he may expect you to have the highest scores in class.

SELF-LABELING

This occurs when we are repeatedly labeled and evaluated by others, and we
adopt other’s labels explicitly into our self-concept

This may lead to internalized prejudice, when individuals turn prejudice directed
toward them by others onto themselves. They may tend to view themselves more
negatively, thus, also affecting their self-esteem.

On the other hand, positive reclaiming may also take place when labels are
used by society to describe people negatively. Those who are negatively labeled may
claim these labels more positively to feel better about themselves. To illustrate: After
labeling, minority group members evaluated the labels (e.g. “queer”, “torpe”, “lost”)
less negatively, and reported feeling more powerful.

GEORGE HERBERT MEAD: STAGES OF THE SELF

According to Mead, the conception one holds about the

self in one’s mind emerges from social interaction with others. The
self is neither present at birth nor at the beginning of social
interaction. It is constructed and re-constructed in the process of
social experience.

Two components of the self:

1. “Me” - objective element; represents the expectations and attitudes of others (the
“generalized other”) organized into the social self; the internalized generalized other
 becomes the instrument upon which society has control over the actions of its
individual members

2. “I” - subjective element; the response to the “me”or the person’s individuality, e.g.,
The “I” can decide to cross the street on a red light as he sees that there is no
approaching car or a traffic police

The stream of thought between the knower (“I”) and the known (“Me”) is the
essence of the development of identity as influenced by the social context.

STAGES BY WHICH THE SELF EMERGES:

1. PREPARATORY STAGE (1-3 years old)

• children merely imitate the people

around them

• then they understand the symbols

(gestures, language, and objects that
form the basis for their capacity to
communicate with people around them

• as a result they become aware of roles

that people play in their immediate
environment

2. PLAY STAGE (4-7 years old)

• as a result of the above stage, they now do

pretend play of different characters or roles
(Role playing)

• they become more aware of social

relationships; they can mentally assume the
perspective of another and respond from that
imagined viewpoint (Role taking)

3. GAME STAGE (8-9)

• begins to consider several actual tasks and

relationships simultaneously

• grasp not only their social position but also

those of others around them
 • perspective taking becomes less egocentric as they begin to understand and
accept that many people have different perspectives and develops greater
concern about the reactions of others

How do we integrate the theories we discussed in the context of Filipino

socialization? Let’s look at a synthesis of an article by Clemen Aquino.

An article written by Clemen Aquino of the Department of Social Sciences in the

University of the Philippines, “Mula sa Kinaroroonan: Kapwa, Kapatiran and Bayan in
Philippine Social Science”, articulates on the relevant concepts of “kapwa”, “mag-
anak”, “kapatiran” on ugnayan (relations) in Philippine society.

Salient points of the article:

• Santiago’s early studies show kapwa and pakikipagkapwa as the broad basis of
social interaction among Filipinos. The kapwa does not discriminate between the
“ibang tao” and “di ibang tao.” In kapwa, self-identity is part of one’s perception of
others, so there is a unity or integral relation of the sarili (self) to ibang tao (others).

• The concept of mag-anak is embedded in Filipino relationships. It does not only refer
to the nuclear family (father, mother, children) but encompasses the extended
family, hence, an older woman in the community is called “Aunty” even if not a kin
by consanguinity.

• Kapatiran is reflected in religious and other organizations. The strong bond of ingroup
relations determines ugnayan and pakikipag-ugnayan within the group as
compared to how they interact with those who are not part of the kapatiran.