I.

Course Title: The Sociological Perspective and the Anthropological

Conceptualization of the Self

A. Learning Objectives

At the end of the chapter, the students are expected to:

1. Define Sociology and Anthropology, and explain their differences, and how they overlap.
2. Recognize the sociological views about understanding the self and others
3. Explain how individuals view the self as a product of socialization
4. Discuss the different theories about the social self
5. Appreciate their own social experiences that have been helpful in understanding the self.
6. Determine how the field of Anthropology can contribute to the understanding of the self
7. Explain how culture and self are complementary concepts
8. Discuss the cultural construction of the self, social identity and identity struggles
9. Gain insights on how to achieve a sense of self, situated in multicultural and dynamic
situations.

B. Lecture Outline

I. Sociology vs. Anthropology

 Anthropology is the study of humans and the ways they live. Sociology studies the ways
groups of people interact with each other and how their behavior is influenced by social
structures, categories (rage, gender, sexuality), and institutions.

 While both fields study human behavior, the debate between anthropology vs. sociology is a
matter of perspectives. Anthropology examines culture more at the micro-level of the
individual, which the anthropologist generally takes as an example of the larger culture. In
addition, anthropology hones in on the cultural specificities of a given group or community.
Sociology, on the other hand, tends to look at the bigger picture, often studying institutions
(educational, political, religious), organizations, political movements, and the power
relations of different groups with each other.

 Anthropology studies human behavior more at the individual level, while Sociology focuses
more on group behavior and relations with social structures and institutions.

 Anthropologists conduct research using ethnography (a qualitative research method), while

sociologists use both qualitative and quantitative methods.
  The primary goal of Anthropology is to understand human diversity and cultural
difference, while Sociology is more solution-oriented with the goal of fixing social
problems through policy.

 Sociology and Anthropology are social science disciplines that focus on studying the
behavior of humans within their societies. Students interested in researching civilizations
-- past and present -- as they relate to social hierarchies should consider studying
anthropology and sociology. Many institutions combine both disciplines into one
department due to the similarities between the two. The key difference between the two
social sciences is that sociology concentrates on society while anthropology focuses on
culture.

 Sociology is the study of social life, social change and the social causes and
consequences of human behavior. Columbia University notes that sociological thinking
involves the relationships among people -- or more specifically, the associations between
people and the products of human interaction such as organizations, technologies,
economies, cities, culture, media and religion. On the other hand, The American
Anthropological Association defines Anthropology as the study of humans, past and
present. Anthropological viewpoints are inspired by observing cross-cultural differences
in social institutions, cultural beliefs and communication styles.

II. The Sociological Perspective of the Self

1. Bioecological Systems Perspectives to Understanding the Self

Interdependence and Reciprocity

Individual can only be understood in the context of his or her environment; elements are
interdependent, reciprocally related. The ―environment‖ is phenomenologically experienced
(Alampay, 2018).

Urie Bronfenbrenner Bioecological Systems

Ecology of Human development (1979) is a complex system. However, Bronfenbrenner

(1989-1999) argued that the 1979 version of his theory was revised, refined, and extended. When
we say that it is a complex system, it can be said that it is comprised of mutually overlapping
subsystems. These systems interact in a dynamic processes, transactions, and interaction. This
can be understood further in the Process-Person-Context-Time Model (PPCT).

The First idea in this model refers to the Proximal Process, which can be defined here as:
Human development takes place through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal
interaction between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons,
objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment. To be effective, the interaction must
occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time. Such enduring forms of interaction
in the immediate environment are referred to as proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
1998, p. 996, italics in the original).

Second to this model is the idea of Person, which refers to the idea of demand, resource
and force. The idea of demand pertains to the personal characteristics of the person such as
gender, age, race, etc. that may influence interactions because of expectations. The resource
pertains to the mental, emotional, and material capability and opportunities, or even the
inadequacy of the aforementioned. This can be in the form of intelligence, skills education, and
family life. The force on the one hand, refers to the inherent differences in temperament,
motivation, drive, and persistence

Subsystem of Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems

Urie Bronfenbrenner(1979) contributed to the ideas of the context systems: Microsystem,

Mesosystem, Exosystem, and Macrosystem. The Microsystem refers to the patterns of activities
and interaction experienced by the individual immediate setting. These interactions occur from
parent to child, and from child to teacher vis a vis as the main character of this interaction. In
these activities and interactions, we can say that the proximal processes are said to occur. The
second subsystem is the Mesosystem that refers to the interrelations of parent-teacher, work and
home environment. In this subsystem, the child environment is expanding, and how this
relationship may bring a change in behavior in the way the parent, teacher, and student interact
with each other reciprocally. While, the Exosystem refers to social structure, which may have
direct influence on the behavior of the individual such us school administration and parent‘s
workplace. The Macrosystem on the other hand, refers to the influence of culture,
socioeconomic standing, religion, government regulations and enactment of laws. This wired
social connections have significant effect on the individual behavior as a member of society
subject to the dominions of one‘s culture, economic status, and government policies(Tudge,
Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009). In Corollary to the subsystems, the Chronosystems
however, entails life transition over the course of historical time and sociohistorical events. This
life transition is inevitable, and this could be the impact of information technology, historical
events, culture, and economic status, which transpired across microtime and macrotime. It is
inherent upon human nature to change, and this change may produce perturbation to the system
in place, and producing self-disequilibrium. The role of the system is to maintain equilibrium or
homeostasis. The system effectively works in an adaptive mechanism for self-organization by
establishing patterns and rules of behavior in relation with and with respect to the environment.

2. Globalizing World: Implications to self and identity

It is intriguing to pose an inquiry about the self in two ways: are we what we are because
of who we are? Or there are forces and events shaping who we are? We may also continue to ask
and sustain our inquiry that if the latter is in fact true, what are these events and forces, and
strong these forces in influencing the development of the self? It is good to reflect on these
things for a while, and leave ourselves to think for the answers. But our philosophical thinking
may not suffice, unless we lay down empirical answers to these questions.
3. The Self in a compressing world

In the era of globalization, it is true to say that despite of improving international relations
among countries, it is observed that the self is living in a self-compressing world. There are clear
demarcation and border between countries of different race and nationality. Individuals are
separating from each other based on interest and creating demarcation line based on race and
identity. Can we not dream of the world opening its borders from different countries and
communities?
4. Culture Shapes individual Mindset

Rokeach‘s (1960) a classic study the classic study Open and Close Mind, scholars have
unfolded in response to the border crossing in globalizing world, individuals and groups are
opening and closing its doors based on their needs, interest, wishes, anxieties, or uncertainties.
Mead (1934) stated the assumption that society and the self are not mutually exclusive, but rather
inclusive as Mead argued in his book Mind, Self, and Society. The dialogical theory (Hermans &
Geiser, 2012; Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010) in this theory, the self is considered as the
society of mind which functions as a dynamic multiplicity of embodied I-positions among which
dialogical relationships can be established. Innovation and renewal of self and identity are
indispensable for further development of the self. Renewal of self renews society (with the self
being part of society and society being made up of many selves). The main requirement for
innovation and renewal is openness to each other among individuals, groups, and countries.
Openness will bring us to the social positions of other groups, cultures, and communities as part
of a globalizing society, and for the development of demarcated self of individual person.

5. Self and identity as Sociocultural and Sociohistorical Phenomena: the Impact of

Globalization

It makes sense to say that the self and society are shaping each other in a continual
process. The society penetrating the self, and self is introducing innovation, and social change.
According to Hermans and Hermans-Konopka(2010) globalization can be liken to Janus-faced_
a face to the right leading to creativity and innovation of self and identity, and the left face
leading to identity confusion and marginalization. We can define globalization as the process by
which cultures influence each other through channels such as trade, immigration, and the
exchange of information via mass media and technologies (Hermans, 2010). A compelling
example of Globalization, which violates social mores and traditions are given by Jensen, Arnett,
and Mckenzie, (2011) the popularity of internet connectivity has given young adults freedom in
Chile to organize sexual parties, which tend to violate customary sexual behavior, and violated
traditional sexual mores. In China, the emergence of factory girls in their early teens moving
from rural areas to cities in an attempt to find work, attending English classes, others became
escorts to businessmen. Many of them are working in order to send hard earn money back to
their families.

6. Internet Implication to Self and Identity

The use of internet has become revolutionary in the process of globalization. It has the
capacity to broaden one‘s vision even without leaving the comfort of one‘s home. The internet
now a days are accessible in any locations in schools, workplace, train station, or even at home.
The internet has allowed users to have access to unlimited type of information. Larson (2002)
concluded in his review of related studies that the freedom of choice and empowerment provided
by the internet in the lives of adolescents as their social mode of communications and digital
connectivity. These digital connections can be in the form of establishing friendship, romantic
partners, their health and well-being, their education, their civic and community engagement.
Larson further added the downside of internet as it uncovers vulnerabilities to interpersonal
manipulation and exploitation, and it opens opportunities for deviant behavior such as hacking
and accessing diversity of pornographic materials (see also Hevern, 2012). ―Central to the recent
culture have been the increased pace of social change and the growing pervasiveness of
ambiguous and Discordant customs to which children are expected to subscribe. Under the
cumulative impact of rapid industrialization, immigration, urbanization, mobility, technology,
and mass communication, there has been a steady erosion of traditional values and standards.
Instead of a simple and coherent body of practices and beliefs, children find themselves
confronted with constantly shifting styles and increasingly questioned norms whose durability is
uncertain and precarious. Few times in history have so many children faced the tasks of life
without the aid of accepted and durable traditions. Not only does the strain of making choices
among discordant standards and goals beset them at every turn, but these competing beliefs and
divergent demands prevent them from developing either internal stability or external
consistency(Millon, Lerner, & Weiner, 2005).(p. 363)

7. Individualism and Collectivism

Individualism and collectivism are conceptualized as syndromes of beliefs and attitudes that
distinguish different Cultural populations. Collectivism is seen as encompassing such core ideas
as an emphasis on the views, needs, and goals of one‘s in-group as having priority over one‘s
own personal views, needs, and goals, and a readiness to cooperate with in-group members. In
contrast, individualism is seen as entailing such core ideas as that of individuals as ends in
themselves who should realize their own selves and cultivate their own judgment. In collectivist
cultures, in-groups are assumed to influence a broad range of behaviors, with individuals
experiencing pressure to conform to in-group norms or leave the groups. In contrast, in
individualistic cultures (in-groups) are seen as providing only limited norms, with individuals
readily able to enter and exit in-groups: The relationship of individuals with their in-groups is of
limited intensity(Millon et al., 2005).

8. Other Relevant Theories Regarding the the Social Self

8.1 George Herbert Mead: Social Self Theory

George Herbert Mead, a sociologist from the late 1800s, is well known for his theory of
the social self, which includes the concepts of 'self,' 'me,' and 'I.'

Mead's work focuses on the way in which the self is developed. Mead's theory of the social
self is based on the perspective that the self emerges from social interactions, such as observing
and interacting with others, responding to others' opinions about oneself, and internalizing
external opinions and internal feelings about oneself. The social aspect of self is an important
distinction because other sociologists and psychologists of Mead's time felt that the self was
based on biological factors and inherited traits. According to Mead, the self is not there from
birth, but it is developed over time from social experiences and activities.

8.2 Charles Horton Cooley: 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 othe rs to measure their own
worth, values, and behavior. 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 complem entary aspects of the same
phenomenon.

III. The Anthropological Conceptualization of the Self

1. How is the term, identity, conceptualize in the context of Anthropology?

The concept “Identity” has transformed due to its cultural context. It means consistency of
the self to behave in a certain pattern of behaving or dispositions. Identity as a disposition is an
enduring characteristic gained from childhood experiences and carried over to adult life. The
self-identity must be consistent and fixed over a certain period of time , and at the same time it
can also be dynamic. A person can be regarded suffering from identity crisis, when he does not
know what he wants to do, lacking in purposeful regulation of his action. In social anthropology ,
the term, identity, was commonly used to refer as “ethnic identity” in its collective
connotation. Identity in this sense does refer to the individuality, but collective similarity of the
self with others.

2. The Self as a Self-Representation

In ‗The Illusion of Wholeness‘, Ewing goes on to distinguish two further usages, both of
which she attributes to psychoanalytic thinking on the topic of the self. One of these is self as
self-representation (1990: 254). By self-representations, Ewing means culturally shaped
concepts of self that one applies to oneself – or, as Melford Spiro elsewhere puts it, ‗the
individual‘s mental representation of his own person‘ (1993: 109).4 These appear to be
composed minimally of labels (such as ‗dutiful daughter‘ or ‗clever politician‘ in her case study
to be discussed later) and images, but doubtless also of other knowledge, accumulated memories
of self-relevant experiences of all kinds – particularly early experiences of identification with
others (Ewing, 1990). Importantly, self- representations in Ewing‘s terms are multiple and
constantly shifting. Since the self is composed of these multiple, shifting representations, any
sense or experience that individuals have of a cohesive, continuous self is illusory.

3. Anthropology’s Denial of Others’ Selves

 People in India, would hardly deny that Indians have identities. In this understanding,
then, Indians have an identity instead of a self. Contrary to the meaning of ties. In this
understanding, then, Indians have an identity instead of a self.

Anthropologists generally do not apply this understanding of identity to themselves and

members of their own society. People who have only such an identity are not autonomous,
independent, and pursuing their own goals; they are dependent on their cultural/ social group and
behave according to the prescriptions and interests of that group. Cultural and social determinism
lurks behind this conceptualization of non- Western selves.

The close look at persons embracing a plurality of identities indicates that it is

indispensable to distinguish between (shared) identity/identities and self. This ability to manage
different identities— to manage difference—is an important aspect of the self. Put the other way
round, to conceive of a plurality of identities that can simultaneously and/or subsequently be
embraced and enacted by the ‗‗same‘‘ person we need something that somehow remains the
‗‗same‘‘—in spite of the various differences entailed by different identities(Sökefeld, 2002).

4. Egocentric and Sociocentric Concept of the Self

In various societies, there are two views of the self, the egocentric view and the
sociocentric view of the self. In the egocentric view, the self is viewed as free and independent,
and unique from other people. He can act in ways different from others that make distinct his
personal traits and character. On the other hand, the sociocentric view refers to the sameness of
the individual person to other people; thus, there are similarities among men in terms of personal
characters and traits.

5. A Sense of Self in a Multicultural and Dynamic Situations

In this sense of the similarity and differences among individuals, people may begin to
create their own social identities. The Identity toolbox refers to the characteristics of personal
identity that the individual chooses to form his social self. Family sense of belongingness is
important in determining one‘s sense of personal identity. Another example of what is essential
to the formation of identity due to the influence of one‘s culture is religion. Religious affiliation
is an important element of sense of belonging in a group. It governs the same manner of thinking
and belief held together by the dogmatic teaching of a religion. Another important element of
ethnic identity is the name given to a person that will make him different in many aspects from
other people. It is a mark of ancestral membership, that determine his place and position in
society. Furthermore, it is important in human collective experiences to give meaning to these
experiences. The filipino identity is a by product of historical events, that will determine our
identity as a Filipino. Our cultural heritage, our values and norms are shaped by our cultural
experiences.