Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Note Highligths The Important Only F Not Close Parenthises Thats Explain (Ucsp)
Note Highligths The Important Only F Not Close Parenthises Thats Explain (Ucsp)
Note Highligths The Important Only F Not Close Parenthises Thats Explain (Ucsp)
Symbolic interaction[edit]
In hypothesizing the framework, "the mind is mental"
because "the human mind is social". From the time
they are born, humans define themselves within the
context of their social interactions. Children learn
that the symbol of their crying will elicit a response
from their caregivers, not only when they are in need
of necessities such as food or a diaper change, but
also when they are in need of attention. Cooley best
explains this interaction in On Self and Social
Organization, noting that "a growing solidarity
between mother and child parallels the child's
increasing competence in using significant symbols.
This simultaneous development is itself a necessary
prerequisite for the child's ability to adopt the
perspectives of other participants in social
relationships and, thus, for the child's capacity to
develop a social self."[5]
George Herbert Mead described the creation of the
self as the outcome of "taking the role of the other",
the premise for which the self is actualized. Through
interaction with others, we begin to develop an
identity of our own as well as developing a capacity
to empathize with others. As stated by Cooley, "The
thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the
mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an
imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this
reflection upon another's mind" (Cooley 1964).
Critical perspectives[edit]
It has been argued that the looking glass self
conceptualization of the social self is critically incomplete
in that it overlooks the divergent roles of ingroups and
outgroups in self-definition.[13] That is, it has been
demonstrated that while individuals will converge upon the
attitudes and behaviours of ingroup members, they will
also diverge from the attitudes and behaviours of outgroup
members.[14] The neglect of the latter scenario is attributed
to the looking glass approaches' implicit focus on ingroup
member appraisals. This alternative perspective is derived
from the self-categorization theory analysis of social
influence.[15] Indeed, it is further argued that the looking
glass self metaphor fails to reflect the fact that influence
derives from the self-categorization of other individuals as
part of the self.[13][16] In other words, people are not shaped
by the reflections from 'others', but rather are shaped by
the creation of a collective social identity that contrasts
'us' against relevant 'others'. Therefore, the concept of
self-identity may be considered an example of a social
construction.
The "looking-glass self" is a concept drawn originally from the
work of George Herbert Mead, encapsulating the idea that our
self-image - the mental idea we have of who and how we are - is
shaped by our interactions with others. This has three steps:
This applies to the second and third steps, too: we can't know how
others judge us or how they feel about us. Instead, we depend on
our imagination: either thinking about how they might react
when we're looking in the mirror, or observing their responses and
attempting to infer from those to their inner ruminations.