Lesson 2. Sociology witnesses which did not happen to you.
A true given
The social aspect of the self is explored in many ways,
in which social situation influence one’s view of self.
The self is not created in isolation, and people are not
born with perception of oneself as good in sports,
make-up artistry, dancing, or business. Such
perceptions are identified through observations, or
interactions with other people. “Am I beautiful?” “ Do
my eyebrow look like Liza Soberano na?” These
questions can be answered by looking at those people
around. The self has meaning only within the social
context, and it is wrong to say that the social situation
defines our self-concept and our self-esteem. We rely
on others to provide a “social reality”- to help us
determine what to think, feel, and do (Hardin &
Higgins, 1996).
1. SOCIOLOGICAL VIEWS OF THE SELF
1.1 The Self as Product of Modern Society
Among Others
With modernization, the self becomes a
“delocalized” self which is free to seek its own identity;
defining religion, theological tradition; free from
customary constraints hence, deviating from the
traditional way of life. Stability one’s self-identity is no
longer based on pre-given traditional broad definition
of the self.
Clifford Geertz (1973) believes that the
struggle for ones individuality is only possible in
modern society where religio-theological traditions are
gradually replaced by rational and scientific
calculations; and the intimate personal affiliations are
replaced by urbanized way of life. Modernization or the
destruction of the traditional way of life “delocalizes”
the self. This poses certain
Problem as:
1. The newfound freedom threatens the very
authenticity of the self (e.g. love).
2. Alienation (Marx) – human beings haunted
by the very images they have created
3. Objectification of the body’s ( e.g. medical
practice)
4. dehumanization of self
Solution: for the individual to discover the “true” and
“authentic” part of himself/herself to realize his/her
potentials, there is a need to abolish repressive social
constraints.
1.2 Self as Necessary fiction
Self for Nietzsche, is the sum of individual’s
action, thoughts and feelings. Self is nothing more than
a metaphor, a representation of something abstract;
symbolic. It is possible for us to remember something
even if we have not experienced it. Self has continuity
even if it is only in memory i.e, either heard or
self is not what unites these experiences, but it is
presumed unity of these experiences that gave rise to
a concept of the self.
1.3 Post-modern View of the Self
Self is a narrative, a text written and rewritten.
Self is a story. It is dynamic. Self is a product of
modern discourse that is historically and socially
imprisoned by what is acceptable by norms, etc. self in
post modernity is complicated by electronic mediated
virtual interaction of cyber self such as change in
appearance ( in the cyberspace). According to N.
Green, self is “digitalized” in cyberspace, a virtual
version of who we are. The self is seen in websites or
social media- face book, twitter, instagram, etc.
The following are the manifestation:
1. information technology dislocates the self,
thus, self is “digitalized” in cyberspace
2. Global migration produces multicultural
identities.
3. Post-modern selves are “pluralized” selves
Social Construction of the Self
Self is not discovered; it is made through the
socialization process. BUT, individual are not just
hapless victims of socialization. The individual is an
active strategizing agent that negotiates for the
definition of himself. (Ikaw ang gumagawa ng kung
ano ka”) self is acquired socially through language, like
symbols. We construct ourselves based on our social
roles through socialization agents – family, school,
community, etc.
1.4 Rewriting the Self as an Artistic Creation
Nietzsche states that the unity of the self is not pre-
given but accomplished through conscious effort –
transform self through beautiful work art. Individual
must fashion, care for and cultivate themselves. We
can recreate ourselves to get hold of the present,
forgive the past and plan the future.
Rorty: contingencies of selfhood – conceal the
“ugly” reinterpreting the overall aesthetic contours of
the self. This does not mean that by rewriting narrative
of herself she will discover something deep about
herself… redescribing one’s self is just a way of
reinterpreting and redescribing one’s past.
1.5 Self Creation and Collective Identity
Memories (photographs, video) play significant
role in creating the self and identity. Memory and
forgetting are most important in recreating a
person’s identity. Such memories of the past include
pain, triumph, etc. Such experience of the past can be
linked with social transformation.
Another important aspect of this view of self is
that creation is formed within “imagined communities”.
Selves obtain their nature from cultural traditions
embodied in various social institutions. These are
preserved in a collective narrative which becomes the
reservoir for the project of self-creation. Self creation
along cultural lines must be done in maximum cultural
recognition of differences among and between
individual and cultural groups.
1.6 Self Creation and the struggle for cultural
recognition
This is a challenge of self-identity amidst
recognition of racial and ethnic identities. Self creation
is necessarily grounded on collective solidarities. We
create ourselves by struggling with cultural hassles
then owning the created self. We hide the ugly part of
our cultural nature. We learn to adjust.
Beyond Self Creation
The quest or search for self-identity is a
product of modern society but this is complicated by
the socio-cultural sensibilities of postmodernity, new
information technologies and globalization,
reconfiguring ourselves as to gender, sex, ethnicity,
and creating one’s style, signature.
Yet the project of self creation is embedded
within imagined communities. The self constantly live
in this paradox: to pursue self creation pre-given, not
willfully chosen social circumstances.
2. Mead’s Theory of Self
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) is an
American sociologist best known as a founder of
American pragmatism, a pioneer of symbolic
interaction theory, and as one of the founder of social
psychology.
Mead’s theory of the self maintains that the
conception a person holds of himself/herself in his/her
mind emerges from social interaction with others. This
is, in effect, a theory and argument against biological
determinism because it holds that the self is neither
initially there at birth nor necessarily at the beginning
of a social interaction, but is constructed and re-
constructed in the process of social experience and
activity.
The self, according to Mead, is made of two
components: the “I” and the “me”. The “me” represents
the expectations and attitudes of others (the
“generalized other”) organized into a social self. The
individual defines his or her own behavior with
reference to the generalized attitude of the social
group(s) he/she occupies. When the individual can
view himself or herself from the standpoints of the
generalized other, self- consciousness in the full sense
of the term is attained. From this standpoint, the
generalized other (internalized in the “me”) is the major
instruments of social control, for it is the mechanism by
which the community exercises control over the
conduct of its individual members.
The “I” is the response to the “me”, or the
person’s individually. It is essence of agency in human
action. So, in effect, the “ me” is the self as object,
while the “I” is the self as subject (Crossman, 2017).
In other words, the “I” is the responses of an
individual to the attitudes of others while the “me” is
the organized set of attitudes of others which an
individual assumes. The “me” is the accumulated
understanding of the “generalized other,” i.e how one
thinks one’s group perceives oneself. The “I” is the
individual’s impulses. The “I” is self as subject; the
“me” is self as object. The “I” is the knower , the “me”
is the known. The mind, or stream of thought, is the
self-reflective movements of the interaction between
the “I” and the “me” these dynamics go beyond
selfhood in a narrow sense, and from the basis of a
theory of human cognition. For Mead the thinking
process is the internalized dialogue between the “I”
and the “me”
Understood as a combination of the “I” and the
“me”, Mead’s self proves to be noticeably entwined
within a sociological existence. For Mead, existence in
a community comes before individual consciousness.
First one must participate in the different social
positions within society and only subsequently can one
use that experience to take the perspective of others
and become self-conscious (Boundless, 2016).
2.1 Mead’s Three Stages of Development of Self
Stage 1: The Preparatory Stage
The first stage is the preparatory stage. The
preparatory stage starts from the time we are born until
we are about age two. In this stage, children mimic
(imitate) those around them. This is why parents of
young children typically do not want you to use foul
language around them (Rath,2016). If a two-year-old
child can “read” what he or she has most likely done is
memorized the book that had been read to him or her.
In a noontime TV show, Vic Sotto, Allan K., Jose
Manalo, use quite foul language like “bwisit” “bastos”
“siraulo” and so is the language of a child who hears
them. Does he or she idea of what he/she is saying or
doing? No. He/She is mimicking. He/She is in the
preparatory stage. If he/she had been an older child,
the scenes in the segments of the show would cease
to have any humor. It works because he/she doesn’t
understand the meaning behind his/her words, actions,
or tone of voice.
Stage 2: The Play Stage
From about age two to six, children are in the
play stage. During the play stage children play pretend
and do not adhere to the rules in organized games like
patintero or basketball (Rath,2016). Playing a game
with children of this age is far easier to just go will any
“rules” they come up with during the course of the
game than trying to enforce any “rules” upon them.
Playing the never-ending Chinese garter with girls still
do not actually have one specific set of rules the same
as last time played, and yet they still play the game
while adhering to these rules. During this stage,
children play “pretend” as the significant other. This
means that when they play “bahay-bahayan”, they are
literally pretend to be the mommy or the daddy that
they know.
Stage 3: The Game Stage
The third stage is the game stage, which is
from about seven onwards. In this stage, children can
begin to understand and adhere to the rules of games.
They can begin to play more formalized games
because they begin to understand other people’s
perspective- or the perspective of the generalized
other. In this stage, when children play “pretend” they
may still play “bahay-bahayan”, but are pretending to a
mommy or a daddy independent of the one that
resides in their home. The generalized other refers to
the viewpoint of the social group at large. The child
begins taking this perspective into account during this
stage (Rath 2016).
2.2 The Looking-Glass self: Our Sense of Self is
Influence by Others ‘Views of Us
The concept of the looking –glass self states
that part of how we see ourselves comes from our
perception of how others see us (Cooley, 1902).
According to the American sociologist Charles
Horton Cooley (1864-1929), the degree of personal
insecurity you display in social situations is determined
by what you believe other people think of you.
Cooley’s concepts of the looking glass self, states that
a person’s self grows out of a person’s social
interactions with others. The view of ourselves comes
from the contemplation of personal qualities and
impressions of how others perceive us. Actually, how
we see ourselves does not come from who we really
are, but rather from how we believe others see us
(Isaksen,2013).
Sometimes, the influence of other people’s
appraisals of ourselves on our self-concepts may be
so strong that we end up eternalizing them. For
example, we are often labeled in particularly ways by
others, perhaps informally in terms of our ethnic
bacwkground, or more formally in terms of a physical
or psychological diagnosis. The labeling bias occurs
when we are labeled, and other’s views and
expectations of us are affected by that labeling (Fox &
Stinnett, 1996). For example, if a teacher knows that a
child has been diagnosed with a particular
psychological disorder, that teacher may have different
expectations and explanations of the child’s behavior
than he or she would if not aware of that label. Where
things get really interesting for our present discussion
is when those expectations start to become self-
fulfilling prophecies, and our self-concept and even our
behavior start to align with them. For example, when
children are labeled in special education context, these
labels can then impact their self-esteem (Taylor,
Hume, & Welsh, 2012).
If we are repeatedly labeled and evaluated by
others, then self-labeling may occur which happens
when we adopt others’ labels explicitly into our self-
concepts. The effects of this self-labeling on our self-
esteem appear to depend very much on the nature of
the labels. Labels used in relation to diagnosis of
psychological disorder can be detrimental to people
who then internalize them. For example, Moses (2009)
found that adolescents who self-labeled according to
diagnoses they had received were found to have
higher levels of self-stigma in their self-concepts
compared with those who described their challenges in
non-pathological terms. In these types of situation,
those who self-label may come to experience
internalized prejudice, which occurs when individuals
turn prejudice directed toward them by others onto
themselves. Internalized adjustment in members of
various groups, including sexual minorities
(Carter,2012) and racial minorities ( Szymanski &
Obiri, 2011).
In other cases, labels used by wider society to
describe people negatively can be positively reclaimed
by those being labeled. Galinsky and colleagues
(2013) explored this use of self-labeling by ,members
of oppressed groups to reclaim derogatory terms,
including “queer” and “bitch” used by dominant groups.
After self-labeling, minority group members evaluated
these terms less negatively, reported feeling more
powerful, and were also perceived by observers as
more powerful. Overall, these results indicate that
individual who incorporate a formerly negative label
into their self-concept in order to reclaim it can
sometimes undermine the stigma attached to the label.
2.3 Social Comparison Theory: Our Sense of Self
Is Influenced by Comparison with Others.
Self-concept and self-esteem are also heavily
influenced by the process of social comparison
(Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Van Lange, 2008). Social
comparison occurs when we learn about our abilities
and skills, about the appropriates and validity of our
opinions, and about our relative social status by
comparing our own attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
with those of others. These comparisons can be with
people who we know and interact with, with those
whom we read about or see on TV, or with anyone
else we view as important. However, the most
meaningful comparisons we make tend to be with
those we see as similar to ourselves (Festinger, 1954).
Social comparison occurs primarily on
dimensions on which there is no correct answer or
objective benchmark and thus on which we can rely
only on the beliefs of others for information. Answers
to questions such as “what should I wear to the
interview?” or what kind of music should I have at my
wedding?” are frequently determined at least in part by
using the behavior of others as a basis of comparison.
We also use social comparison to help us determine
our skills or abilities – how good we are at performing
a task or doing a job, for example. When students ask
their teacher for the class average on an exam, they
are also seeking to use social comparison to evaluate
their performance.