UNDERSTANDING THE SELF NOTES

CHAPTER I
THE SELF: PERSONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVES ON SELF AND IDENTITY
LESSON 1: THE SELF FROM VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES

INTRODUCTION
Before we even had to be in any formal institution of learning, among the many things that we were first taught
as kids is to articulate and write our names. up, we were told to refer back to this name when talking about
ourselves. Our parents painstakingly thought about our names. Should we be named after a famous celebrity, a
respected politician or historical personality, or even a saint? Were you named after one? Our names represent
who we are. It has not been a custom to just randomly pick a combination of letters and number (or even
punctuation marks) like zhjk756!! to denote our being. Human beings attach names that are meaningful to
birthed progenies because names are supposed to designate us in the world. Thus, some people get baptized
with names such as "precious," "beauty," or "lovely." Likewise, when our parents call our names, we were
taught to respond to them because our names represent who we are. As a student, we are told to always write
our names on our papers, projects, or any output for that matter. Our names signify us. Death cannot even stop
this bond between the person and her name. Names are inscribed even into one's gravestone.
A name is not the person itself no matter how intimately bound it is with the bearer. It is only a signifier. A
person who was named after a saint most probably will not become an actual saint. He may not even turn out to
be saintly! The self is thought to be something else than the name. The self is something that a person
perennially molds, shapes, and develops. The self is not a static thing that one is simply born with like a mole
on one's face or is just assigned by one's parents just like a name. Everyone is tasked to discover one's self.
Have you truly discovered yours?

ABSTRACTION
The history of philosophy is replete with men and women who inquired into the fundamental nature of the self.
Along with the question of the primary substratum that defines the multiplicity of things in the world, the
inquiry on the self has preoccupied the earliest thinkers in the history of philosophy: the Greeks. The Greeks
were the ones who seriously questioned myths and moved away from them in attempting to understand reality
and respond to perennial questions of curiosity, including the question of the self. The different perspectives
and views on the self can be best seen and understood by revisiting its prime movers and identify the most
important conjectures made by philosophers from the ancient times to the contemporary period.

Socrates and Plato

Prior the Socrates, the Greek thinkers, sometimes collectively called the Pre-Socratics to denote that some of
them preceded Socrates while others existed around Socrates's time as well, preoccupied themselves with the
question of the primary substratum, arché that explains the multiplicity of things in the world. These men like
Thales, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Empedocles, to name a few, were concerned with explaining
what the world is really made up of, why the world is so, and what explains the changes that they observed
around them. Tired of simply conceding to mythological accounts propounded by poet-theologians like Homer
and Hesiod, these men endeavored to finally locate an explanation about the nature of change, the seeming
permanence despite change, and the unity of the world amidst its diversity.
After series of thinkers from all across the ancient Greek world who were disturbed by the same issue, a man
came out to question something else. This man was Socrates. Unlike the Pre-Socratics, Socrates was more
concerned with another subject, the problem of the self. He was the first philosopher who ever engaged in a
systematic questioning about the self. To Socrates, and this has become his life-long mission, the true task of
the philosopher is to know oneself.
Plato claimed in his dialogs that Socrates affirmed that the unexamined life is not worth living. During his trial
for allegedly corrupting the minds of the youth and for impiety. Socrates declared without regret that his being
indicted was brought by his going around Athens engaging men, young and old, to question their about
themselves and about the world, particularly about who they are (Plato 2012). Socrates took it upon himself to
serve as a gadfly that disturbed Athenian men from their slumber and shook them off in order to reach the truth
and wisdom. Most men, in his reckoning, were really not fully aware of who they were and the virtues that they
were supposed to attain in order to preserve their souls for the afterlife. Socrates thought that this is the worst
that can happen to anyone: to live but die inside.
For Socrates, every man is composed of body and soul. This means that every human person is dualistic, that is,
he is composed of two important aspects of his personhood. For Socrates, this means all individuals have an
imperfect, impermanent aspect to him, and the body, while maintaining that there is also a soul that is perfect
and permanent.
Plato, Socrates's student, basically took off from his master and supported the idea that man is a dual nature
body and soul. In addition to what Socrates earlier espoused, Plato added that there are three components of the
soul: the rational soul, the spirited soul, and the appetitive soul. In his magnum opus, "The Republic" (Plato
2000), Plato emphasizes that justice in the human person can only be attained if the three parts of the soul are
working harmoniously with one another. The rational soul forged by reason and intellect has to govern the
affairs of the human person, the spirited part which is in charge of emotions should be kept at bay, and the
appetitive soul in charge of base desires like eating, drinking, sleeping, and having sex are controlled as well.
When this ideal state is attained, then the human person's soul becomes just and virtuous.
Augustine and Thomas Aquinas
Augustine’s view of the human person reflects the entire spirit of the medieval world when it comes to man. the
ancient view of Plato and infusing it with the newfound doctrine of Christianity, Augustine agreed that man is
of a bifurcated nature. An aspect of man dwells in the world and is imperfect and continuously yearns to be
with the Divine and the other is capable of reaching immortality.
The body is bound to die on earth and the soul is to anticipate living eternally in a realm of spiritual bliss in
communion with God. This is because the body can only thrive in the imperfect, physical reality that is the
world, whereas the soul can also s after death in an eternal realm with the all-transcendent God. The goal of e
human person is to attain this communion and bliss with the Divine by living his life on earth in virtue. May
every
Thomas Aquinas, the most eminent thirteenth century scholar and stalwart of the medieval philosophy,
appended something to this Christian view. Adapting some ideas from Aristotle, Aquinas said that indeed, man
is composed of two parts: matter and form. Matter, or hyle in Greek, refers to the "common stuff that makes up
everything in the universe." Man's body is part of this matter. Form on the other hand, or morphe in Greek
refers to the "essence of a substance or thing." It is what makes it what it is. In the case of the human person,
the body of the human person is something that he shares even with animals. The cells in man's body are more
or less akin to the cells of any other living, organic being in the world. However, what makes a human person a
human person and not a dog, or a tiger is his soul, his essence. To Aquinas, just as in Aristotle, the soul is what
animates the body, it is what makes us humans.
Descartes
Rene Descartes, Father of Modern Philosophy, conceived of the human person as having a body and a mind. In
his famous treatise, The Meditations of First Philosophy, he claims that there is so much that we should doubt.
In fact, he says that since much of what we think and believe are not infallible, they may turn out to be false.
One should only believe that since which can pass the test of doubt (Descartes 2008). If something is clear and
lucid as not to be even doubted, then that is the only time when one should actually buy proposition. In the end,
Descartes thought that the only thing that one cannot doubt is the existence of the self, for even if one doubts
oneself, that only proves that there is a doubting self, a thing that thinks and therefore, that cannot be doubted.
Thus, his famous, cogito ergo sum, "I think therefore, I am." The fact that one thinks should lead one to
conclude without a trace of doubt that he exists. The self then for Descartes is also a combination of two
distinct entities, the thing that thinks, which is the mind, and the extenza or extension of the mind, which is the
body. In Descartes's view, the body is nothing else but a machine that is attached to the mind. The human
person has it but it is not what makes man a man. If at all, that is the mind. Descartes says, "But what then, am
I? A thinking thing. It has been said. But what is a thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands
(conceives), affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imagines also, and perceives" (Descartes 2008).
Hume
David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, has a very unique way of looking at man. As an empiricist who believes
that one can know only what comes from the senses and experiences, Hume argues that the self is like what his
predecessors thought of it. The self is not an entity over and beyond the physical body. One can rightly see here
the empiricism that runs through his veins. Empiricism is the school of thought. that espouses the idea that
knowledge can only be possible if it is sensed and experienced. Men can only attain knowledge by
experiencing. For example, Jack knows that Jill is another human person not because he has seen her soul. He
knows she is just like him because he sees her, hears her, and touches her.
To David Hume, the self is nothing else but a bundle of impressions. What are impressions? For David Hume,
if one tries to examine his experiences, he finds that they can all be categorized into two: impressions and ideas.
Impressions are the basic objects of our experience or sensation. They therefore form the core of our thoughts.
When one touches an ice cube, the cold sensation is an impression. Impressions therefore are vivid because
they are products of our direct experience with the world. Ideas, on the other hand, are copies of impressions.
Because of this, they are not as lively and vivid as our impressions. When one imagines the feeling of being in
love for the first time, that still is an idea.
What is the self then? Self, according to Hume, is simply "a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which
succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement." (Hume and
Steinberg 1992). Men simply want to believe that there is a unified, coherent self, a soul or mind just like what
the previous philosophers thought. In reality, what one thinks is a unified self is simply a combination of all
experiences with a particular person.
Kant
Thinking of the "self" as a mere combination of impressions was problematic for Immanuel Kant. Kant
recognizes the veracity of Hume's account that everything starts with perception and sensation of impressions.
However, Kant thinks that the things that men perceive around them are not just randomly infused into the
human person without an organizing principle that regulates the relationship of all these impressions. To Kant,
there is necessarily a mind that organizes the impressions that men get from the external world. Time and space,
for example, are ideas that one cannot find in the world, but is built in our minds. Kant calls these the
apparatuses of the mind.
Along with the different apparatuses of the mind goes the "self." Without the self, one cannot organize the
different impressions that one gets in relation to his own existence. Kant therefore suggests that it is an actively
engaged intelligence in that synthesizes all knowledge and experience. Thus, the self is not just what gives one
his personality. In addition, it is also the seat of knowledge acquisition for all human persons.
Ryle
Gilbert Ryle solves the mind-body dichotomy that has been running for a long time in the history of thought by
blatantly denying the concept of an internal, non-physical self. For Ryle, what truly matters is the behavior that
a person manifests in his day-to-day life.
For Ryle, looking for and trying to understand a self as it really exists is like visiting your friend's university
and looking for the "university." One can roam around the campus, visit the library and the football field, and
meet the administrators and faculty and still end up not finding the "university." This is because the campus,
people, the systems, and the territory all form the university. Ryle suggests that the "self" is not an entity one
can locate and analyze but simply the convenient name that people use to refer to all the behaviors that people
make.
Merleau-Ponty
Merleau-Ponty is a phenomenologist who asserts that the mind-body bifurcation that has been going on for a
long time is a futile endeavor and an invalid problem. Unlike Ryle who simply denies the "self." Merleau-Ponty
instead says that the mind and body are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from one another. One
cannot find any experience that is not an embodied experience. All experience is embodied. One's body is his
opening toward his existence to the world. Because of these bodies, men are in the world. Merleau-Ponty
dismisses the Cartesian Dualism that has spelled so much devastation in the history of man. For him, the
Cartesian problem is nothing else but plain misunderstanding. The living body, his thoughts, emotions, and
experiences are all one.

LESSON 2: THE SELF, SOCIETY, AND CULTURE

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 the 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 body and the mind. Thinkers just eventually got
tired of focusing on the long-standing debate since sixth century BC between the relationship of these two
components of the human person. Thinkers just settled on the idea that 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 the social sciences,
it became possible for new approaches to the examination of the self to come to the fore. One of the loci, if not
the most important axis of analysis is the relationship between the self and the external world.
What is the relationship between 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 as human persons without intervention. This story. which was supposed to be
based on real life, challenges the long-standing notion of human persons 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 are essential? How much of who you are now 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 you are now would change?
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 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 it to be self-contained with its own thoughts, characteristics, and
volition. It does not require any other self for it to It is consistent because it has a personality that is enduring
and therefore can be expected to persist for quite some time. Its consistency allows it to be studied, described,
and measured. Consistency also means that a particular self's traits, characteristics, tendencies. and
potentialities are more 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, feelings and emotions,
and thought processes within the self. This whole process is never accessible to anyone but the self.
This last characteristic of the self being private 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 the
reason for the self to have a clear understanding 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 the 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).
Social constructivists argue that the self should not be seen as a static entity that stays constant and through.
Rather, the self has to be seen as something that is in unceasing flux, in a constant struggle with external reality
and is malleable in its dealings with society. The self is always in participation with 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 boy named Jon. Jon is a math professor at a Catholic university for more than a decade now. Jon has
a beautiful wife whom he met in college, Joan. Joan 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
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
matter 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 mates knew him as a guy who is calm, all-
smiles, and always 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 circumstances. Are we being
hypocritical in doing so? Are we even conscious of our shifting selves? According to what we have so far, this
is not only normal but it also is acceptable and expected. The self is capable of morphing and fitting itself into
any circumstances it finds itself in.

The Self and Culture

Remaining the same person and turning chameleon by adapting 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 family, a particular religion, a particular nationality, and how to behave given
expectations and influences from others.
In the story above, Jon might have a moi but certainly, he has to shift personne 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 the doting but
strict father that he is. Inside his bedroom, he can play goofy with his wife, Joan. In all this and more, Jon
retains who he is, his being Jon-his moi-that part of him that is stable and static all throughout.
This dynamics and capacity for different personne can be illustrated better cross-culturally. An overseas
Filipino worker (OFW) adjusting to 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 merely crosses whenever and wherever. When the same Filipino visits another country with
strict traffic rules, say Singapore, you will notice how suddenly law-abiding the said Filipino becomes. A lot of
Filipinos has anecdotally confirmed this observation.
The same malleability can be seen in how some men easily transform into sweet, docile guys when trying to
woe and court a particular woman and suddenly just change rapidly after hearing a sweet "yes" This cannot be
considered a conscious 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 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 ko, linis ko." 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
the rules or else he will be apprehended.
Language is another interesting aspect of this social constructivism. The Filipino language is incredibly
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 translation of "I love you." The Filipino brand of this articulation of love, in English,
does not specify the subject and the object of love; 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 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 being precious. Something expensive is valuable. Someone
whom 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 has another intonation apart from mere desire, valuable.
Another interesting facet of our language is its being gender-neutral. In English, and other languages, the
distinction is clear between a third person male and 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 a salient part of
culture and ultimately, has a tremendous effect in our crafting of the self. This might also be one of the reasons
why cultural divide spells out 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 into a particular society or 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 worlds? How do children growing up become social beings?
How can a boy turn out to just be like an ape? How do twins coming out from the same mother turn out to be
terribly different when given up for adoption? More than his givenness (personality, tendencies, and
propensities, among others), one is believed to be in active participation in the shaping of the self. Most often,
we think the 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 no longer change. Recent studies, however, indicate that men and
women in their growth and development engage actively 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).
Mead and Vygotsky
For Mead and Vygotsky, the way that human is 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 dialog. "Should I do this or that?" if I do this, it will be
like this." "Don't I want the other option?" And so cognitive and emotional development ofa child is always a
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 dialogs with others. A young child internalizes values, norms. practices, and social
beliefs and more through exposure to these dialogs 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. Can you notice how little children are fond of playing role-play with their toys?
How they make scripts and dialogs for their toys as they play with them? According to Mead, it is through this
that a child delineates the "" from the rest. Vygotsky, for his part, a child internalizes real-life dialogs 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 dialogs. Can you
notice how children eventually become what they watch? How children can easily adapt ways of cartoon
characters they are exposed to?
Self in Families
Apart from the anthropological and psychological basis for the relationship between the self the social world,
the sociological likewise struggled to understand the real 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 one's family is still deemed as a given in understanding the self. The kind of
family that we are born in, the resources available to us (human, spiritual, economic), and the kind of
development that we will have will certainly affect us as we go 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
virtually helpless and the dependency period of a human baby to its parents for nurturing is relatively longer
than most other animals. Learning therefore i 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 the 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 observe from their family. By imitating, for example, the language of its primary agents of
rearing its family, babies learn the language. The same is true for ways of behaving. Notice how kids reared in a
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 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
emotions, are learned through 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 the forest is
already a miracle. His being a fully human person 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 gives 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 is gender. Gender is one of those loci of the self that is subject to alteration,
change, and 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. However, from the point-of-view of the social sciences and the self, it is important to give the
leeway to find, express, and live his identity. This forms part of selfhood that one cannot just dismiss. 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, two rotten teeth, and a bad temper, a battered sense of dignity, and a love
which nobody wants and 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 1?" (Tolstoy 1975)
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 expected to provide for the family. The eldest man in a family is expected to head the family and
hold it in. Slight modifications have been on the way due to feminism and lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) activism but for the most part, patriarchy has remained to be at work.
Nancy Chodorow, a feminist, argues that because mothers take the role of taking care of children, there is a
tendency for girls to imitate the same and reproduce the same kind of mentality of women as care providers in
the family. The way that little girls are given dolls instead of guns or any other toys or are encouraged to play
with makeshift kitchen also reinforces the 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 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 also to 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 a space. The sense of self that is being
taught makes sure that an individual fits 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 the s society.
LESSON 3: THE SELF AS A COGNITIVE CONSTRUCT
Lesson 3: The Self as Cognitive Construct

INTRODUCTION
As discussed in the previous lessons, every field of study, at least in the social have their own research,
definition, and conceptualization of self and identity. Some are similar while some specific only in their field.
Each field also has thousands of research on self and identity as well as related or synonymous terms. The trend
of the lessons also seems to define the concept of the "self" from a larger context (i.e., culture and society)
down to the individual. However, it must be pointed out that modern researches acknowledge the contributions
of each field and this is not some sort of a nurture vs. nature, society/culture vs. individual/brain, and other
social sciences vs. psychology debate. Psychology may focus on the individual and the cognitive functions, but
it does not discount the context and other possible factors that affect the individual. For students who take up
psychology, discussions on theories, and development, among others actually at least one semester and there
are still more to be learned about the concept of "self." This lesson provides an overview of the themes of
psychology regarding the said concept.
ABSTRACTION
In confidence or in an attempt to avoid further analytical discussions, a lot of people say, "I am who I am." Yet,
this statement still begs the question "if you are who you are, then who are you that makes you who you are?"
As mentioned earlier, there are various definitions of the "self" and other similar or interchangeable concepts in
psychology. Simply put, "self" is "the sense of personal identity and of who we are as individuals (Jhangiani
and Tarry 2014)."
William James (1890) was one of the earliest psychologists to study the self and conceptualized the self as
having two aspects-the "I" and the "me." The "1" is the thinking, acting, and feeling self (Gleitman, Gross, and
Reisberg 2011; Hogg and Vaughan 2010). The "me" on the other hand, is the physical characteristics as well as
psychological capabilities that makes who you are (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011; Hogg and Vaughan
2010). Carl Rogers's (1959) theory of also used the same terms, the "I" as the one who acts and decides while
the "me" is what you think or feel about yourself as an object (Gleitman Gross, and Reisberg 2011).
Other concepts similar to self are identity and self-concept. Identity is composed of personal social roles, and
responsibilities, a as affiliations that define who one is (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012). Self- as well is
what basically comes to your mind when you are about who you are (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012).
Self, identity, and self-concept are not fixed in one time frame. For example, when you are asked about who
you are, you can say "I was a varsity player in 5th Grade" which pertains to the past, "a college student" which
may be the present, and "a future politician" which is the future. They are not also fixed for life nor are any they
ever-changing at every moment. Think of a malleable metal, strong and hard but can be bent and molded in
other shapes. Think about water. It can take shape of the container, but at its core, it is still the same element.
Carl Rogers this idea in his of self-schema or our organized system or collection of knowledge about who we
are (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011; Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). Imagine an organized list or a diagram
similar to the one below:
SELF------HOBBIES—FAMILY—RELIGION—NATIONALITY
The schema is not limited to the example above. It may also include your interests, work, course, age, name,
and physical characteristics, among others. As you grow and adapt to the changes around you, they also change.
But they are not passive receivers, they actively shape and affect how you see, think, and feel about things
(Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011; Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).
For example, when someone states your first name even if they are not about you, your attention is drawn to
them. If you have a provincial language and you hear someone using it, it catches your attention. If you
consider yourself a book-lover, a bookstore may always entice you out of all the other stores in a mall.
Theories generally see the self and identity as mental constructs, created and recreated in memory (Oyserman,
Elmore, and Smith 2012). Current researches point to the frontal lobe of the brain as the specific area in the
brain associated with the processes concerning the self (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012).
Several psychologists, especially during the field's earlier development, followed this trend of thought, looking
deeper into the mind of the person to theorize about the self, identity, self-concept, and in turn, one's
personality. The most influential of them is Sigmund Freud. Basically, Freud saw the self, its mental processes,
and one's behavior as the results of the interaction between the Id, the Ego, and the Superego.
However, as mentioned earlier, one cannot fully discount the effects of society and culture on the formation of
the self, identity, and self-concept. Even as Freud and other theories and researchers try to understand the
person by digging deeper into the mind, they cannot fully discount the huge and important effects of the
environment. As in the abovementioned definitions of the self, social interaction always has a part to play in
who we think we are. This is not nature vs. nurture but instead a nature-and-nurture perspective.
Under the theory of symbolic interactionism, G.H. Mead (1934) argued that. the self is created and developed
through human interaction (Hogg and Vaughan 2010). Basically, there are three reasons why self and identity
are social products (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012):
1. We do not create ourselves out of nothing. Society helped in creating the foundations of who we are and
even if we make our choices, we will still operate in our social and historical contexts in one way or the
other. You may, of course, transfer from one culture to another, but
parts of who you were will still affect you and you will also have t adapt to the new social context. Try
looking at your definition of wh you are and see where society had affected you.

2. Whether we like to admit it or not, we need others to affi and reinforce who we think we are. We also
need them as points about our identity. One interesting example is the social media we have. In the case
of Facebook, there are those v will consciously or unconsciously try to garner more "likes" and/o
positive "reactions" and that can and will reinforce their self-concept is almost like a battle between who
got more friends, more views, an trending topics. If one says he is a good singer but his performance
and the evaluation of his audience says otherwise, that will have an effect on that person's idea of
himself, one way or another. reference who

3. What we think is important to us may also have been influenced by what is important in our social or
context. Education might be an important thing to your self-concept because you grew up in a that
valued education. Money might be important to some because they may have grown in a low-income
family and realized how important money is in addressing certain needs like medica emergencies. Being
a nurse or a lawyer can be priority in your self- schema because it is the in-demand course during your
time.
Social interaction and group affiliation, therefore, are vital factors in creating our self-concept especially in the
aspect of providing us with our social identity or our perception of who we are based on our membership to
certain groups (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). It is also inevitable that we can have several social identities, that
those identities can overlap, and that we automatically play the roles as we interact with our groups. For
example, you are a student who is also part of a certain group of friends. You study because it is your role as a
student but you prefer to study with your friends and your study pattern changes when you are with your friends
than when you do it alone.
There are times, however, when we are aware of our self-concepts; this is also called self-awareness. Carver
and Scheier (1981) identified types of self that we can be aware of: (1) the private self or your internal
standards and private thoughts and feelings, and (2) the public self or your public image commonly geared
toward having a good presentation of yourself to others (Hogg and Vaughan 2010).
Self-awareness also presents us with at least three other self-schema: the actual, and ought self. The "actual"
self is who you are at the moment, the "ideal" is who you like to be, and the "ought" self is who you think you
should be (Higgins 1997 in Hogg and Vaughn 2010). An example is that you are a student interested in
basketball but is also academically challenged in most of your subject. Your ideal self might be to practice
more and play with the varsity team but ought to pass your subjects as a responsible student. One has to find a
solution to such discrepancies to avoid agitation, dejection, or other negative emotions. In some instances,
however, all three may be in line with one another.
Self-awareness may be positive or negative depending on the circumstances and our next course of action. Self-
awareness can keep you from doing something dangerous; it can help remind you that there is an exam
tomorrow in one of your subjects when you are about to spend time playing computer games with your cousins,
among others. In other instances, self-awareness can be too much that we are concerned about being observed
and criticized by others, also known as self-consciousness (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). At other times,
especially with large crowds, we may experience deindividuation or "the loss of individual self- awareness and
individual accountability in groups" (Festinger, Pepitone, and Newcomb 1952; Zimbardo 1969 in Jhangiani and
Tarry 2014). A lot of people will attune themselves with the emotions of their group and because the large
crowd also provides some kind of anonymity, we may lessen our self-control and act in ways that we will not
do when are alone. A common example is a mass demonstration erupting into a riot.
Our group identity and self-awareness also has a great impact on our self- esteem, one of the common concepts
associated with the "self." It is defined as our own positive or negative perception or evaluation of ourselves
(Jhangiani and Tarry 2014; Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011).
One of the ways in which our social relationship affects our self-esteem is through social comparison.
According to the social comparison theory, we learn about ourselves, the appropriateness of our behaviors, as
well as our social status by comparing aspects of ourselves with other people (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014; Hogg
and Vaughan 2010).
The downward social comparison is the more common type of comparing ourselves with others. As the name
implies, we create a positive self-concept by comparing ourselves with those who are worse off than us
(Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). By having the advantage, we can raise our self-esteem. Another comparison is the
upward social comparison which is comparing ourselves with those who are better off than us (Jhangiani and
Tarry 2014). While it can be a form of motivation for some, a lot of those who do this actually felt lower self-
esteem as they highlight more of their weakness or inequities.
Take note that this occurs not only between individuals but also among groups. Thus, if a person's group is
performing better and is acknowledged n than the other group, then his self-esteem may also be heightened.
Social comparison also entails what is called self-evaluation maintenance theory, which states that we can feel
threatened when someone out-perform us, especially when that person is close to us (i.e., a friend or 1988 in
Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). In this case, we usually react in three First, we distance from that person or redefine
our relationship with them (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). Some will resort to the silent treatment, change of
friends, while some may also redefine by being closer to that person, hoping that some association may give
him a certain kind of acknowledgment also Second, we may also reconsider the importance of the aspect or
skill in which you were outperformed (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). If you got beaten in a drawing competition,
you might think that drawing is for you and you will find a hobby where you could excel, thus preserving your
self-esteem. Lastly, we may strengthen our resolve to improve that certain aspect of ourselves (Jhangian and
Tarry 2014). Instead of quitting drawing, you might join seminars, practice more often, read books about it, and
add some elements in your drawing that makes it unique, among others. Achieving your goal through hard
work may increase your self-esteem, too.
However, in the attempt to increase or maintain self-esteem, some people become narcissistic. Narcissism is a
"trait characterized by overly high self- esteem, self-admiration, and self-centeredness" (Jhangiani and Tarry
2014). They are often charismatic because of how they take care of their image. Taking care of that image
includes their interpersonal relationships thus they will try to look for better partners, better acquaintances, as
well as people who will appreciate them a lot. This makes them a bad romantic partner or friend since they
engage in relationships only to serve themselves (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).
Sometimes, there is a thin line between high self-esteem and narcissism and there are lot of tests and
measurements for self-esteem like the Rosenberg scale but the issue is that the result can be affected by the
desire of the person to portray herself in a positive or advantageous way (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). In case
you want to take a test and find a numerical value or level of your self- esteem, try to be honest and objective
about what you feel and see about yourself.
And though self-esteem is a very important concept related to the self, studies have shown that it only has a
correlation, not causality, to positive outputs and outlook (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). It can be argued that high
or healthy self- esteem may result to an overall good personality but it is not, and should not be, the only source
of a person's healthy perspective of herself.
People with high self-esteem are commonly described as outgoing. adventurous, and adaptable in a lot of
situations. They also initiate activities and building relationship with people. However, they may also dismiss
other activities that do not conform to their self-concept or boost their self-esteem. They may also be bullies
and experiment on abusive behaviors with drugs, alcohol, and sex (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).
This duality in the behavior and attitudes only proves the above-mentioned correlation. Baumeister, Smart, and
Boden (1996) in their research on self-esteem concluded that programs, activities, and parenting styles to boost
self-esteem should only be for rewarding good behavior and other achievements and not for the purpose of
merely trying to make children feel better about themselves or to appease them when they get angry or sad
(Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).

LESSON 4: THE SELF IN WESTERN AND EASTERN THOUGHTS

INTRODUCTION
Different cultures and varying environment tend to create different perceptions of the "self" and one of the most
common distinctions between cultures and people is the Eastern-vs-Western dichotomy wherein Eastern
represents Asia and Western represents Europe and Northern America. It must be understood that this and the
countries included was politically colored at the time that aforementioned concepts were accepted and used in
the social sciences. Furthermore, it must be reiterated that while countries who are geographically closer to each
other may share commonalities, there are also a lot of factors that create differences. In the Philippines alone,
each region may have a similar or varying perception regarding the "self."
ABSTRACTION
There are actually a lot of sources in which you can analyze the perspective of culture and country about the
concept of "self." You can see it in their literature like how one culture depicts a hero or a villain in their
stories. You can see it in their social organization like how they see their boss or their subordinate. dances, even
clothing may show you clues about the "self."
In this lesson, we will look at religious beliefs and political philosophies that greatly influenced the mindset of
each nation or culture. Since almost all the theories about the self, which were discussed in the previous
lessons, also came from the Western scientific research, we will highlight the Eastern thoughts in this lesson.
First is Confucianism. Confucianism can be seen as a code of ethical conduct, of how one should properly act
according to their relationship with other people; thus, it is also focused on having a harmonious social life (Ho
1995). Therefore, the identity and self-concept of the individual are interwoven with the identity and status of
his/her community or culture, sharing its pride as well as its failures (Ho 1995).
Self-cultivation is as the ultimate purpose of life but the characteristics of a chun-tzu, a man of virtue or noble
character, is still embedded in his social relationships (Ho 1995). The cultivated self in Confucianism is what
some scholars call a "subdued self" wherein personal needs are repressed (subdued) for the good of many,
making Confucian society also hierarchal for the purpose of maintaining order and balance in society (Ho
1995).
The second philosophy is Taoism. Taoism is living in the way of the Tao or the universe. However, Taoism
rejects having one definition of what the Tao is, and one can only state clues of what it is as they adopt a free-
flowing, relative, unitary. as paradoxical view of almost everything. Taoism rejects the hierarchy and strictness
brought by Confucianism and would prefer a simple lifestyle and its teachings thus aim to describe how to
attain that life (Ho 1995).
The self is not just an extension of the family or the community; it is part of the universe, one of the forms and
manifestations of the Tao (Ho 1995). The ideal self is selflessness but this is not forgetting about the self, it is
living a balanced- life with society and nature, being open and accepting to change, forgetting about prejudices
and egocentric ideas and thinking about equality as well as complementarity among humans as well as other
beings (Ho 1995). In this way, you will be able to act spontaneously because you will not be restricted by some
standards but because you are in harmony with everything.
The third belief is Buddhism. There are various groups who have adopted Buddhism; thus, you may find
differences in their teachings with our discussion but more likely, their core concepts remained the same. The
self is seen as an illusion, born out of ignorance, of trying to hold and control things, or human-centered needs;
thus, the self is also the source of all these sufferings (Ho 1995). It is, therefore, our quest to forget about the
self, forget the cravings of the self, break the you have with the world, and to renounce the self which is the
cause of all suffering and in doing so, attain the state of Nirvana (Ho 1995).
The self or the individual is not the focus of the abovementioned Asian or Eastern philosophies or beliefs. with
extended discussions about how the self should work, Confucianism and Taoism still situate the self within a
bigger context. In striving to become a better person, one does not create a self above other people or nature but
a self that is beneficial to his community as well as in order and harmony with everything else. As for
Buddhism, the self, with all its connections and selfish ideas, is taken not just out of the center of the picture,
but from the whole picture entirely.
As previously discussed, Western perspective does not discount the role of environment and society in the
formation of the self but the focus is always looking toward the self. You compare yourself in order to be better,
you create associations and bask in the glory of that group for your self-esteem; you put primacy in developing
One can also describe that the Western thought looks at the world in dualities wherein you are distinct from the
other person, the creator is separate from the object he created, in which the self is distinguished and
acknowledged (Wolter 2012). On the other hand, the Eastern perspective sees the other person as part of
yourself as well as the things you may create, a drama in which everyone is interconnected with their specific
roles (Wolter 2012).
Several studies showed that Americans, for example, talk more about their personal attributes when describing
themselves while Asians in general talk roles or the social situations that invoked certain traits that they deem
positive for their selves (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011). Evaluation of the self also differs as Americans
would highlight their personal achievements while Asians would rather keep a low profile as promoting the self
can be seen as boastfulness that disrupts social relationships (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011).
The Western culture is what we would call an individualistic culture their focus is on the person. Asian culture,
on the other hand, is called a collectivistic culture as the group and social relations that is given more
importance than individual needs and wants.
By valuing the individual, Westerners may seem to have loose associations or even loyalty to their groups.
Competition is the name of the game and they are more likely straightforward and forceful in their
communication as well as decision- making. Eastern or oriental persons look after the welfare of their groups
and values cooperation. They would also be more compromising and they tend to go around the bush in
explaining things, hoping that the other person would "feel" what they really want to say (Qingxue 2003).
Westerners also emphasize more on the value of equality even if they see that the individual can rise above
everything else. Because everyone is their own in the competition, one can say that they also promote ideals
that create fair competition and protect the individual. Asians, with their collectivistic culture, put more
emphasis on hierarchy as the culture wants to keep things in harmony and order (Qingxue 2003). For example,
Westerners would most likely call their bosses, parents, or other seniors by their first name. The boss can also
be approached head-on when conflicts or problems about him arises. For Asians, we have respectful terms for
our seniors and a lot of workers would not dare go against the high-ranking officials (Qingxue 2003).
It must be emphasized, however, that these are general commonalities among Western cultures as compared to
Asian or Oriental cultures. In the case of the Philippines, we can also consider the colonization experience for
differences and similarities with our Asian neighbors. We might also find variation among provinces and
regions due to geographical conditions.
With the social media, migration, and intermarriages, variety between the Western and Asian perceptions may
either be blurred or highlighted. Whereas conflict is inevitable in diversity, peace is also possible through the
understanding of where each of us is coming from.