TOPIC 2:
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SELF
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
Reflect on the self within the social respects
Describe the influence of social processes on the development of the
self
Explain the different sociological views about self by Mead, Cooley,
and Goffman;
TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITY (LESSON PROPER):
The modern sociology of the self assumes an emerging sociological
approach reflecting new emphases on power, reflexivity and social
constructionism (Callero, 2003). However, the traditional sociological approach
to the self is associated with Mead’s symbolic interactionism and the principle
of reflexivity being at the core. The sociological theories attempt to explain how
social processes influence the development of the self.
A. Symbolic Interactionism.
This approach was pioneered by George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) an
American philosopher, sociologist, and psychologist. Symbolic interactionism is
the study of the patterns of communication, interpretation, and adjustment
between individuals. Mead conceptualizes the mind as the individual
importation of the social process. For Mead, the self and the mind are like social
processes where gestures are taken in by the individual organism and so with
the collective attitudes of others and react accordingly with other organized
attitudes. Hence, the mind and the self are the products of communication
process.
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the
relationship between humans and society. The basic notion of symbolic
interactionism is that human action and interaction are understandable only
through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols. In this
approach, humans are portrayed as acting, as opposed to being acted upon.
The main principles of symbolic interactionism are:
Human action depends on the meaning we have given to something
These meanings arise out of social interaction
Meanings humans assign to things can change
Self as reflexive process. This is the capacity to become an object to
one's self, to be both subject and object. This process is characterized
by Mead as the “I” and the “me.” The “me” is the social self and the “I”
is the response to the “me.” In other words, the “I” is the response 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.” For Mead the thinking process is the
internalized dialogue between the “I” and the “me.” ([Link])
Self as social construction. Some reviews of the sociological self argue
that the self is both a social product and a social force (Rosenberg 1981
as cited in Callero, 2003). In the first instance, the self is examined as a
bounded, structured object referring to Mead's "me" whereas in the
second instance, the self is examined as a fluid, agentic, and creative
response referring to Mead's "I." This distinction captures the core
principle of a socially constructed self that the self is a joint
accomplishment, neither completely determined by the social world nor
pregiven at birth (Callero, 2003). 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. "It is by means of reflexiveness--the turning-back of the
experience of the individual upon himself-that the whole social process
is thus brought into the experience of the individuals involved in it"(Mead,
1934 cited in Callero,2003).
According to symbolic interactionism, human beings and lower level
animals are distinct from each other since lower animals simply react to their
environment (that is, stimulus elicits a response from them) whereas human
beings do not merely react to the environment (that is humans are able to use
cognition before responding to the stimulus). Moreover, lower level animals are
unable to conceive of alternative responses to gestures. However, humans
can. Symbolic interactionism also asserts that there is no single objective
“reality”; there are only possibly various or conflicting interpretations of a
particular circumstance. Meanings are not concepts imposed in every human
being; rather, meanings can be individualized through the creative minds of
humans, and individuals may influence many meanings that form their society.
Therefore, human society is a social product. Take for instance a teenager who
smokes cigarette even if confronted with the medical evidence that stresses
the dangers of smoking. You may ask, why would he still smoke considering the
risks? The answer is in the interpretation of the situation that people create.
Studies find that teenagers are well informed about the risks of tobacco, but
they also think that smoking is cool, that they will be safe from harm, and that
smoking projects a positive image to their peers. So, the symbolic meaning of
smoking overrides the facts regarding smoking and risk.
Gender, one of the few fundamental aspects of our social experience
and identities can be understood through the perspective of symbolic
interactionism. This is a social construct that operates based on what we
believe to be true about people, given what they look like. We usually use
socially constructed meanings or interpretations of gender to help us choose
who to interact with, how to do so, and to help us identify, sometimes
inaccurately, the meaning of a person’s words or actions.
An example of how symbolic interactionism plays out within the social
construct of gender is expressed in the fact that many Filipinos or most of them,
believe that a man should not be crying regardless of any valid reasons and
that a woman should be the one responsible for the household chores at
home. These are the meanings attached to the symbols ‘man’ and ‘woman’
respectively.
Mead’s Stages of the Self (Shaefer, 2010)
Stages Definition Is the ‘self’ Example
present?
1. Preparatory Child imitates the When adults laugh and
stage actions of others No smile, child laughs
2. Play Stage Child takes the role Child first takes the role
of a single other, as Developing of doctor, then the role
if he or she where of patient
the other
3. Game Child considers the In game of hide-and-
Stage roles of two or more Yes seek child takes into
others account the roles of
simultaneously both hider and seeker
B. Looking Glass self
This approach was conceptualized by Charles Horton Cooley
(1864-1929), an American sociologist. The looking-glass self is a social
psychological concept stating that a person’s self grows out of society’s
interpersonal interactions and the perceptions of others. The term refers to
people shaping their identity based on the perception of others, which leads
the people to reinforce other people’s perspectives on themselves. People
shape themselves based on what other people perceive and confirm other
people’s opinion of themselves.
There are three main components of the looking-glass self:
First, we imagine how we must appear to others.
Second, we imagine the judgment of that appearance.
Finally, we develop our self through the judgments of others.
This means that our self-image is shaped by others, but only through the
mediation of our own mind. There is no way to truly know what others think of
us. According to Cooley, “the mind is mental” because “the human mind is
social.” In other words, the mind’s mental ability is a direct result of human
social interaction. Humans begin to define themselves within the context of
their socializations starting from their childhood.
C. Dramaturgical model of self
Dramaturgy is a concept developed by Canadian sociologist
Irving Goffman, the idea that life is like a never-ending play in which people
are actors. Goffman believed that when we are born, we are thrust onto a
stage called everyday life, and that our socialization consists of learning how
to play our assigned roles from other people. We enact our roles in the
company of others, who are in turn enacting their roles in interaction with us.
He believed that whatever we do, we are playing out some role on the stage
of life.
During our everyday life, we spend most of our lives on the front stage,
where we get to deliver our lines and perform. Sometimes we are allowed to
retreat to the back stages of life. In these private areas, we don’t have to act.
We can be our real selves. We can also practice and prepare for our return to
the front stage.
Impression Management
Goffman coined the term Impression Management to refer to our desire to
manipulate others’ impressions of us on the front stage (the idealized self).
According to Goffman, we use various mechanisms, called Sign Vehicles, to
present ourselves to others. The most commonly employed sign vehicles are
the following: social setting, appearance, and manner of interacting.
REFERENCES:
Psychology Department. (2019). Understanding the self. Unpublished.
Taag, G. C., Cuyan, A. S., Awingan, W. A., Balinggan, G. T., Carrera, W.
D., & Perez, E. N. Understanding the self. Revised edition.
Meycauayan City: IPM Publishing, c2019.
