Understanding the Self

Understanding the Self

• Philosophical Perspective

  • Theoretical Concepts

    • Narrative view of the self constructs a story for the self based on past events. It focuses on explaining the relationship between our past and current identities (e.g., social roles, skills and talents, relationships with other people, etc.) and our future plans or decisions
      • Implications
        1. We possess intrinsic traits that serves as a basis for our decisions
        2. The self is constantly changing
        3. The best actions are ones that satisfies the self’s nature or essence, or the ones that accurately represent the self
      • Criticisms
        1. Too idealistic/romantic. It explains lives more than the self: the narrative view determines the value of our current actions based on their effectiveness in serving their purpose (teological perspective). In other words, the ends define the means.
           1. The issue with this is that lives can sometimes end in uncompelling times, where people die before their self-actualization or live beyond their self-actualization
        2. Does not provide a holistic perspective. Our decisions and actions are examined as isolated events instead of the combination of events that form a coherent whole. Therefore, it removes the context for our actions.
        3. Self-actualization without understanding. Some people are lucky and make decisions that actualizes their self without any actual foundation for those decisions. This suggests that people can do things that are compatible with their values and interests without ever understanding their self.
    • Character view of the self addresses the issues of the narrative self by not limiting itself to our traits but the clear overall connections of our behaviors, habits, commitments, and memories.
      • It focuses on consistency or the concept of self-sameness

  • Practical implication

    1. Making decisions that do not accurately represent the self can lead to incompatible values and interests (based on the narrative view of the self)
    2. Although there are no metaphysical, deep characteristics of the self that makes us distinct from others (only physical or non-abstract properties), we still live our lives as if there is because we base our decisions on our subjective value judgements as sense-making creatures—nothing really has any value, only the value we give it.

• Anthropological Perspective

  • Perceptions on self in different societies

    • Egocentric - suggest that although the self is a replica of all of humanity, it can still act on its own. an individual is distinct and have their own inherent characteristics
    • Sociocentric - suggest that the self is defined by their membership in a particular social group

  • Phases that mark changes in one’s status and identity

    1. Separation phase - people detach from their former identity to another
    2. Liminality phase - person transitioning into another identity
    3. Incorporation phase - incorporation of change in one’s identity

  • Social anthropological meaning of identity

    • Identity was used in the context of ethnic identity, focusing on sameness with others.
    • This is important because the group where an individual belonged constituted their social environment, through which personal identity is formed

  • Contemporary meaning of identity

    • Michel Foucault viewed the identical subject as the product of networks of power and discourse, disagreeing with the concept of sameness and subject as the source of knowledge
    • Psychology shifted its attention to plurality of identities. Identity has many parts and is fluid

  • Criticisms of the anthropological/sociocentric approach to the self

    • The non-western approach characterizes the other’s selves as the opposite of the western view: dependent, can’t distinguish between individual and their status/role that the individual occupies, can’t set itself apart from each other. The issue with this is that it negates all qualities of a “self”.
      • The anthropological view does not deny subjects of identity, only a self. Something Dumont and Marriot argues. This means that individuals do not have individual individuality but only shared individuality.
      • The issue with this is that anthropologist treat their subjects goals and motivations to be dependent on the 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.
    • Cohen (1994) argues that the self and self-consciousness are indivisible, and if anthropologist disregard the selves of their subjects, they are also disregarding their self-consciousness and distorting the accounts. This can be seen when anthropologist prematurely subsumes an individual to the groups they belong to.
      • When an anthropologist subsumes… it problematizes the relationship between the individual and the social (groups, society, or shared identities).
      • Rapport (1997) believes that individuality is necessary because it is the roots of the culture and social environment

  • Postcolonial/Postmodern/Martin’s interpretation of identities

    • identities constantly transform because they refer to each other. a sign is put in place of some entity, a deferred presence that might be changed later. it points to other signs that surround it
    • identities are not only different, but also relate to each other. identities that are shared have different values depending on each person
    • Intersectionality and différance prevent the person from realizing and enacting the ‘‘pure’’ signification of a certain identity because competing significations must be taken into account.
    • there is no pure “identity”.
    • differance can allow for ambiguity, meaning that conflicting identities can work by deferring the other identity and reconstructing difference
    • In what follows I will tentatively treat the self, following Hallowell (1955), not as an independent and autonomous entity (according to the paradigm of the Western self) but as that reflexive sense that enables the person to distinguish self-consciously between him or herself and everything else.
      • This reflexive sense may also entail a sense of consistency and continuity simply because the basic difference persists. The basic difference between myself and everything else can be endowed with differing meanings, transmitted culturally or engendered by the experiences of the individual life history.
      • agency is an integral ability of human beings. The reflexive distinction between the self and everything else entails at least some agency.
    • differance helps distinguish self from everything by transforming meaning using the plurality of identities
    • identities can be experienced as plurality, but self is only one because it is continuously lives on as the frame where variety of identities are inscribed
    • self can be expressed through denial of actively managing identities too and just being sincere. this means that it’s possible for self to have autonomy motivated by own principles independent of social and cultural identities
    • self transforms as it relates to other contexts because action reinterprets social context and the meaning of being different from others. the reflexive sense of self-changes, meaning your differences with others that form your plurality of identities changes.
    • people manage their identities that allow them to relate to one another in a way that seemed most beneficial to them.

  • Summary

    • In anthropology, a better view of the self instead of the non-western is western where the self is part of being human. the ability to recognize that they have the capacity and necessity to make their own actions independent of their social identity.
    • its clearer to see this in action when a person has a plurality of identities that are conflicting where people are not restricted to a cultural consensus
    • Action requires a self that reflexively monitors the conditions, course, and outcome of action. this includes the ability to distinguish self and everythign else
    • self is both sociocentric and egocentric

• Sociological Perspective

  • Relation to Psychology

    • In psychology, the self is viewed as a unified thing or essence belonging to an individal; nonetheless, many psychological theories divide the mind, consciousness, and the brain into different parts
      • The different parts sometimes have conflicting wants
    • Sociology questions the idea that the self is unified—it doubts that the idea that the self is created or owned by the individual.

  • Concepts

    • Role Taking

      • Mead (1934) introduced the idea of role taking, or the ability to take the perspective and expectations of others to formulate one’s behavior
      • Stages of role taking:
        1. Play stage
           • Play is not guided by a specific set of rules
           • Role taking is limited to one person at a time
        2. Game stage
           • Game requires the understanding of a specific set of rules
           • Role taking occurs at a group-level
        3. Generalized other
           • The individual can respond to society’s rules
           • Role taking involves generalizing behavior across a variety of situations and audiences

    • Looking Glass Self

      • Introduced by Charles Horton Cooley on 1909
      • Process:
        1. We imagine how we appear to others
        2. Others respond and judge us based on our appearance
        3. We react to their feedback

    • Dramaturgy

      • Introduced by Goffman, dramaturgy views the self as a performance involving an performers, audience, setting, scripts, and props.
      • Goffman argued that performers define the situation (e.g., my identity, and their identity) to an audience. The audience responds by either accepting or rejecting and redefining the situation; thus, giving them a lot of power.
      • He also contends that we should examine the interactions between the elements of a particular performance instead of the performer alone when analyzing the self

• Psychological Perspective

  • Concepts

    1. Self-concept refers to how an individual views their self
       • Aspects of self-concept:
         1. Existential self the most basic part of the self-understanding that involves the the realization of a constant and distinct self
         2. Categorical self comes after the existential self and involves the understanding that the self has different properties
       • Components of the self-concept according to Carl Rogers:
         • Self-image or our view of ourselves
         • Self-esteem (self-worth) or how we value ourselves
         • Ideal self
       • Social identity theory
         • Parts of the self:
           • Personal identity pertains to our unique traits
           • Social identity pertains to the groups we belong to
         • Process to understand how the parts of the self form and evolve
           1. Categorization - we categorize people into different groups to identify and understand them without fully knowing them
           2. Identification - we adopt the identity of the groups we are part of and conform to their norms. This can affect our self-esteem.
           3. Comparison - we compare ourselves to others to maintain our self esteem
    2. Self-awareness refers to the ability of having a self-concept

Sources

Philosophy

1. Wireless Philosophy, “PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Personal Identity (The Narrative Self) [HD]” - 2016-02-05

Anthropology

1. Self and Identity in Anthropology
2. Anthropology and Culture

Sociology

1. Cmc Sociologist, “The Self: Classical Sociology - The Chicago School”- 2012-03-10

Psychology

1. khanacademymedicine, “Self concept, self identity, and social identity | Individuals and Society | MCAT | Khan Academy” - 2014-02-26