Binalonan, Pangasinan

College of Teacher Education

First Semester, A.Y. 2021-2022
MODULAR LEARNING

MODULE 3: The Self from the Anthropological Perspective

Course Title: Understanding The Self

Course Code: GE 1

Name: __________________________________________________________
Course and Year: _________________________________________________
Contact Number/E-mail Address: _____________________________________
Date and Time Allotment: ___________________________________________

Introduction
This module entitled The Self from the Anthropological Perspective explains contributing
factors of culture and national identity in shaping one’s self.

I. Objectives
At the end of the end of this module, students should be able to:
1. Explain how culture affects shape one’s identity
2. Examine your sense of self through the different I-positions and the three fundamental
selves
3. Reflect on your own identity struggles by writing essay

II. Lectures

In most dictionaries, the term “Filipino” is defined as belonging or relating to the Philippines, or
to its people and culture. In the context of citizenship, “Filipino” simply means membership in a
nation-state. In the constitution, a citizen is someone who legally resides in a country.
Anthropologically, however, it is different. To belong to a people is not necessarily implying a
legal association to a country but it entails a responsibility to live and protect the country’s
cherished values.

To belong and relate to a culture means to adopt, accept, and treasure is entire way of
life. Therefore, in order to be called Filipino, you have to belong to the Filipino people and adopt
their culture. In this perspective, the self must be embedded in the culture.
Cultural Identity and National Identity

Culture is derived from the Latin word “cultura or cultus” meaning care or cultivation.
Culture is analogous to caring for an infant. Because an infant has prolonged dependency, he or
she has to be taken care of by the people around him or her. The infant has to learn from them
so he or she can better adjust while growing up in his or her immediate cultural environment
(Leano&Corpuz, 2008). Throughout one’s life, he or she functions according to the cultural
context where he or she is situated. As one grows old, he or she learns many things about his
or her environment and realizes what makes him or her different from other people. As an
individual interacts with people and make sense of how he or she functions in the context of his
or her social and cultural background, he or she learns that he or she has both personal
identity (the way he or she sees himself of herself as an individual) and collective identity (the
way he or she sees himself or herself as member of a certain group.

Identity refers to “who the person is”, or the qualities and traits of an individual that make him or
her different from others. There are many ways to distinguish people. An example is identifying
them in a geographical context or based on where they come from. People from the West are
different from the people from the East because they are located in opposite sides of the world.
Identity also refers to how a person sees and express oneself.

Cultural identity refers to the identity or feeling of belongingness to a certain culture

group It is an individual’s perception about himself or herself anchored on race, gender,
nationality, religion, ethnicity, and language. One might identify himself or herself as Filipino
because he or she embodies Filipino cultural ways and traditions to which he or she has been
exposed while growing up. While being a Filipino, one may also identify as a Catholic because it
is his or her religious background. The cultural categories that shape one’s overall cultural
identity is meant to be multidimensional.

The cultural identity theory explains why a person acts and behaves the way he or she
does. It makes sense of how an individual is influenced by the cultural contexts he or she is
situated in. A single person can possess multiple identities, simultaneously making him or her
part of many cultural groups. These identities overlap and form the identity of an individual.

A nation is a group of people built on the premise of shared customs, traditions, religion,
language, art, history, and more. National identity refers to the identity or feeling of
belongingness to one state or nation.
Rupert Emerson, apolitical scientist defines it as “a body of people who feel that they are a
nation”. National identity is social constructed. It is influenced and shaped by material and
non-material cultures. Material culture such as the national flag, emblem, or seal is
representative of all the people who are part of a nation. Non-material culture, on the other
hand, embodies the shared understanding of a group of people which includes norms, beliefs,
and traditions. National identity requires the process of self-categorization. In
self-categorization, one must identify himself or herself with an in-group (identifying with one’s
nation) and differentiate himself or herself from the out-groups (other nations). It brings out
positive emotions like pride, nationalism, patriotism, and the sense of responsibility one has to
the nation he or she is part of. For instance, when the national anthem is played, people are
expected to sing and honor the flag since they are part of the nation that honors that anthem.

Brian Morris’s Anthropology of the Self

According to Brian Morris, the self is not an entity but a process that orchestrates an individual’s
personal experience. As a result of this process, the person becomes self-aware and
self-reflective about his or her place in the surrounding world. The concept of “self” for him is
defined as an individual’s mental representation of his or her person, as a kind of
self-representation. The concept of “other” in relation to the self, on the other hand, refers to
how one perceives the mental representation of others. A clear separation between self and
others seems to be universal, but the meaning of this distinction varies from person to person
(Van Meijl, 2008 citing Spiro, 1993). At the same time, it seems obvious that the relationship
between the self and others is also a function of culture. (Van Meijl, 2008 citing
Shweder&Bourne, 1984). Morris (1994) stated that the most crucial form of interaction and
exchange takes place neither between the psyche and culture, but instead between the self and
his or her cultural environment as mediated by social practices.
In view of the dialectical relationship between the self and the cultural milieu, which is assumed
to be different depending on the dynamics of a society, a dichotomy between western and
non-western notions of self has long been embedded in western philosophical and
psychological traditions of thinking.

This idea about the self was long conceived by Marcel Mauss. Implicitly, he focused on the
notion of the person as a cultural category while reserving the conception of the self for the
psychological dimension of personhood. He added that the person or personality was
considered primarily a cultural conception, or a category of a particular community.

Dialogical Self

The dialogical self theory was introduced by Hubert Hermans in 1992. The theory regarded
“self” as the “society of Mind”. He posited the idea that the self is considered as extended to
significant others in the environment that populate the self as a dynamic multiplicity of
I-positions in which dialogical or monological relationships may emerge. In this theory, an
individual’s sense of self is established through how one identifies himself or herself with the
different positions he or she holds, internally or externally, to himself or herself. For instance one
may say “I as educator”, “I as hardworking”, “Ias looking for contentment”, which are positions
that can be in sync all together. An internal I-position refers to how one functions in himself or
herself while external I-position refers on how one identifies himself or herself based on
particular external factors. (e.g., internal: “I as empathic,” I as diligent”; external: “I as brother”,
“I as part of an organization”). All these constitute the functionality of the self.
The dialogic self approach calls for the need for the I-positions to come in contact with
each other – to be in a dialogue with one another in order for an individual to become fully
aware of the different dimensions that constitute his or her self.
 Culture can be seen as the collective voices that shape the social positions of the self.
Such positions or voices are expressions of historically situated selves that are, particularly on
the interface of different cultures, constantly involved in dialogic relationships with other voices
(Hermans, 2003).

Individual Self, Relational Self, and Collective Self

There are three fundamental selves namely the individual self, the relational self,
and the collective self. The individual self reflects the cognitions related to traits, states, and
behaviors that are stored in memory (e.g. “I am religious”, “I feel cold”, “I am ambidextrous”).
The relational self reflects cognitions that are related to one’s relationships (“I am the father”, “I
am the godfather”, or “I am the son-inl-law”). The collective selfreflects cognitions that are
related to one’s group. (“I am an Ilocano” or “I am a Filipino”) (Zhum, Wu, Yang &Gu, 2016)
Each self in inherently social. Each self involves assimilations and contrasts, which
respectively occur between and within person, dyads, and groups for the individual, relational,
and collective self. Furthermore, each self is important and meaningful to human experience
(Gaertner et al., 2012)

Identity Struggles

Identity Struggle is a term introduced by Anthony Wallace and Raymond Fogelson. It

characterizes the discrepancy between the identity a person claims to possess and the identity
attributed to that person by others. When an individual perceives that he or she is assigned a
wrong impression, he or she will probably always defend his or her identity. The best possible
solution to this situation is to talk to the person and establish a mutual understanding regarding
one’s way of perceiving himself or herself opposed to how he or she is perceived by others. It
has to be done as soon as possible in order to prevent future conflicts. The confrontation,
however, must be done in a calm and respectful manner.

IV. REFERENCES:

Ariola, Marciano, Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person, 2016, Unlimited Books
Library Services and Publishing Inc., Intramuros, Manila

Ariola, Marciano, Sociology and Anthropology with Family Planning, 2016, Purely Books Trading
and Publishing Corp., Intramuros, Manila

Brawner &Arcega, Understanding the Self, 2018, C&E Publishing, Inc. Quezon City.

Corpuz, R., Estoque, Ronan S., Tabotabo, Claudio V., Understanding The Self, 2019, C&E
Publishing, Inc., Quezon City
 Galotti, Kathleen, 2011, Cognitive Development Infancy through Adolescence, Library of
Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, Canada.

Levine and Munsch, Child Development, 2011, Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication
Data, Canada

McNamara, Valverde et al. Science, Technology & Society,2018, C &E Publishing, Inc.

Pasco, Suarez and Rodriguez, Ethics, 2018, C&E Publishing, Inc. Quezon City.

Peer & Reid Special Educational Educational Needs, 2012, Sage Publication. Ltd, London

Peñaflor and Peñaflor, Values Education Legal and Ethical Perspective (1st edition), 2016,

Unlimited Books Library Services and Publishing Inc., Intramuros, Manila

Prepared by:
ARRA JOYCE M. OFICIAR
Faculty, CTE

Checked by:
RAYMOND N. CLARO, PhD.
Program Head, CTE