CHAPTER 1 DEFINING THE SELF

SELF + IDENTITY = PERSONALITY

Self - person's essential being that distinguishes them from others.

Identity - the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.

Personality - the word personality itself stems from the Latin word persona, which refers to a theatrical mask
worn by performers in order to either project different roles or disguise their identities.

NAMES
Names - a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to.

Labelling - attach a label to (something).

Giving names - name given to you.

Giving names meaning - the meaning behind your name.

SELF ACCORDING TO PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES

1) Socrates. The unexamined life is not worth living.
2) Plato. Three components of the SELF:
 Rational soul - reason/ intellect
 Spirited soul - emotion/feelings
 Appetitive Soul - basic needs
3) St. Augustine. The body is bound to die on earth and the soul is to anticipate living eternally in a
realm of spiritual bliss in communion with God.
4) Thomas Aquinas. Matter & Form
 Matter - (Hyle) stuff that makes up everything.
 Form - (Morphe) essence of a substance or thing.
5) Immanuel Kant.
 Self is knowledge.
 Self is actively engaged in intelligence in man that synthesizes all knowledge and expressions.
6) Descartes. Cogito Ergo Sum (I think,therefore I am) - Body & Mind/ Dualism
  Cogito - (Mind) the thing that thinks
 Extenza/Extension - body/ Extremities
7) David Hume. The self is nothing else but a bundle of impressions, a bundle of different perceptions.
8) Gilbert Ryle. The body-mind dichotomy that has been running for a long time in history of thought by
denying the concept of an internal, non-physical self.
9) Merleau-Ponty. Body and Mind are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from one another.

LESSON 2 THE SELF, SOCIETY, AND CULTURE

INTRODUCTION
Across the time and history, the self has been debated, discussed, and fruitfully or conceptualized by
different thinkers in philosophy. Eventually, with the advent of the social sciences, it became possible for new ways
and paradigms to reexamine the true nature of the self. People put a halt on speculative debates on the relationship
between the body and soul, eventually renamed body and the mind. Thinkers just eventually got tired of focusing on
the long-standing debate since 6th Century BC between the relationship of just settled with the idea that there are
two components of the human person and whatever relationship these two have is less important than the fact that
there is a self. The debate shifted into another locus of discussion.

Given the new ways of knowing and the growth of the social sciences, it became possible for new
approaches of the examination of the self to come to fore. One of the loci, if not the most important axis of analysis,
is the relationship between the self and the external world.

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTERNAL REALITY AND

THE SELF?
In the famous Tarzan story, the little boy named Tarzan was left in the middle of the forest. Growing up, he
had never an interaction with any other human being but apes and other animals. Tarzan grew up acting strangely
like apes and unlike human persons. Tarzan became an animal, in effect. His sole interaction with them made him
just like one of them. Disappointedly, human persons will not develop human persons without intervention. This
story which was supposed to be based on real life, challenges the long-standing notion of human persons being
special and being a particular kind of being in the spectrum of living entities. After all, our “selves” are not special
because of the soul infused into us. We may be gifted with intellect and the capacity to rationalize things but at the
end of the day, our growth and development and consequentially, “selves” are truly products of our interaction with
external reality. How much of you is essential? How much of who you are now is a product of your society,
community, and family? Has your choice of school affected yourself now? Had you been born into a different
family and schooled in a different college, how much of who you are now would change?

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SELF

What is the self?
  Separate. The self is always unique and has its own identity. One cannot be another person.
 Self-contained and Independent. Self is also contained and independent because in itself it can
exist. Its distinctiveness allows it to be self-contained with its own thoughts, characteristics and volition.
 Consistency. Means that a particular self’s traits, characteristics, tendencies, and potentialities are more
or less the same.
 Unitary. Self is unitary in that it is the center of all experiences and thoughts that run through a certain
person. It is like chief command post in an individual where person sorts out information, feelings and
emotions, and thought processes within the self.
 Private. Self being private, suggests that the self is isolated from the external world. It lives within its
own world. However, we also see that this potential clash between the self and the external reality is what
spells for the self, what it might be, what it can be, and what it will be.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST PERSPECTIVE

From this perspective then, one can see that the self is always at the mercy of external circumstances that
bump and collide with it. It is ever changing and dynamic allowing external influences to take part in its shaping.
The concern then of this lesson is in understanding this vibrant relationship between the self and the external reality.

STORY OF JON/JOHN
Jon is a math professor in a Catholic University for more than a decade now. John has a beautiful wife
named Joan, which he met in college. John was Joan’s first and last girlfriend. Apart from being a husband, Jon is
also blessed with two doting kids, a son and a daughter. He also sometimes serves in the church too as a lector and a
commentator. As a man of different roles.  One can expect Jon to change and adjust his behaviors, ways, and even
language depending on social situations. When Jon is in the University, he conducts himself in a matter that befits
his title as a professor. As a husband, Jon can be intimate at touchy. Joan considers him sweet, something that his
students will never conceive him to be. His kids fear him. As a father, Jon is stern. Other hand, his church mates
knew him as a calm, all smiles guy ready to lend a helping hand to anyone in need. This story is not new to most of
us. We, ourselves, play different roles, act in different ways depending on our circumstances. Are we being
hypocritical in doing so? Are we being conscious of our shifting selves? According to have what we have so far, this
is not only normal but it is also acceptable and expected. The self is capable morphing and fitting itself into any
circumstances it finds itself in.

THE SELF AND CULTURE

Remaining the same person and turning into a chameleon by adopting to one’s context seems paradoxical.
However, French Anthropologist Marcel Mauss has an explanation for this phenomenon. According to Mauss, every
self has two faces: Personne & Moi.

o Moi – refers to a person’s sense of who he is, his body, his identity; his biological givenness. A person’s
basic identity.
o Personne – composed of social concepts of what it means to be who he is. Personne has much to do
with what to live in a particular institution, a particular family, a particular religion, a particular nationality,
and how to behave given the expectations and influences from others. (Jon’s story)
 THE DYNAMICS AND CAPACITY FOR DIFFERENT PERSONNE CAN BE
ILLUSTRATED BETTER CROSS-CULTURALLY
- A Filipino OFW adjusting to a life in another is a very good case study.
- A boy courting a girl
- Law abiding citizen whenever Filipino are in other country

LANGUAGE
Language is another interesting aspect of this social constructivism. The Filipino language is incredibly very
interesting to talk about. The way by which we articulate our love is denoted by the phrase, “Mahal Kita”. This of
course is the Filipino version of “I Love You”. The Filipino brand of this articulation of love, unlike the English
version, does not specify the subject and the object of love. Unlike in English version, there is no specification of
who loves and who is loved. There is simply a word for love, mahal, and the pronoun kita which is a 2nd person
pronoun that refers to the speaker and the one being likes to. In the Filipino language, unlike in English, there is no
distinctions between the lover and the beloved. They are one.

LANGUAGE VARIATIONS
▫ Mahal (Fil.) - love and expensive
▫ Lubh (Sanskrit) - desire
▫ Technically LOVE is a desire; Love is valuable.
▫ Our language is gender-neutral. In English, Spanish and other languages, there is a clear distinction
between a third person male and third person female pronoun.
▫ He and She. El and Ella plain “siya”. There is no specification of gender. Our language does not specify
between male and female. We both call it “siya’.

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

In these varied examples, we have seen how language has something to do with culture. It is salient part of
culture and ultimately, has tremendous effect in crafting of the self. This might be one of the reasons cultural divides
definitely accounts for the differences in how one regards oneself.

North Americans-Attribute being unique to themselves and claim that they are better than most people in
doing what they love doing.

Japan-degree of modesty; If one finds himself in a particular born and reared in a particular culture, one
definitely tries to fit in a particular mold. If a self is born into a particular society or culture, the self will have to
adjust accordingly to its exposure.

THE SELF AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL WORLD

- So how do people actively produce their social worlds?
 - How do children grow up and become social beings? 
- How can a boy turn out to be just like an ape?
- How do two twins coming out from the same mother turn out to be terribly different when given up for
adoption?

More than a person’s givenness (personality, tendencies, propensities, etc.), one is believed to be in active
participation of shaping the self. Most often, we think human persons are just passive actors in the whole process of
shaping of selves.

That men and women are born with different particularities that they can no longer change. Recent studies,
however, indicate that men and women in their growth and development engage actively in shaping of the self. The
unending terrain of metamorphosis of the self is mediated by language. “Language as both a publicly shared and
privately utilized symbol system is the site where the individual and the social make and remake each other”
(Schwartz, White and Lutz 1993, p.83)

MEAD AND VYGOTSKY

Human persons develop with the use of language acquisition and interaction with others. The way that we
process information is normally a form of an internal dialogue in our head. Those who deliberate about moral
dilemmas undergo this internal dialogue. “Should I do this or that?” “But if I do this, it will be like this.” “Don’t I
want the other option?” So cognitive and emotional development of a child is always a mimicry of how it is done in
the social world, in the external reality where he is in.

Both Mead & Vygotsky treat the human mind as something that is made, constituted through language as
experienced in the extended world and as encountered in dialogues with others.

A young child internalizes values, norms, practices, and social beliefs and mores through exposure to these
dialogues that will eventually become part of his individual world.

For Mead, this takes place as a child assumes the ‘other’ through language and role play. A child
conceptualizes his notion of ‘self’ through this. Notice how children are fond of playing role play with their toys?
Notice how they make scripts and dialogues for they toy as they play with them? According to Mead, it is through
this that a child delineates the “I” from the rest. Vygotsky, for his part believes a child internalizes real-life dialogues
that he had with others, with his family, his primary caregiver, or his playmates. They apply this to mental and
practical problems along with the social and cultural infusions brought by the said dialogues. Notice how children
eventually become what they watch? Notice how children can easily adopt ways of cartoon characters they are
exposed to? (Dora)

SELF IN FAMILIES
Apart from the anthropological and psychological basis for the relationship between the self and the social
world, the sociological likewise, struggled to understand the real connection between the two concepts. In doing so,
sociologists focus on the different institutions and powers at play in the society. Among these, the most prominent is
the family.

While every child is born with certain givenness, disposition coming from his parents, genes and general
condition of life, the impact of family is still deemed as a given in understanding the self. The kind of family that we
are born in and the resources available to us (human, spiritual, economic) development that we will have as we go
through life.
 One of those being whose importance of family cannot be denied. Human beings are born virtually helpless
and the dependency period of a human baby to its parents for nurturing is relatively longer than most other animals.
Learning, therefore is critical in our capacity to actualize our potential of becoming humans. In trying to achieve the
goal of becoming a fully realized human, a child enters a system of relationship, most important of which is the
family.

Without a family, biologically and sociologically, a person may not even survive or become a human
person. Go back to Tarzan example.

In more ways than one, the survival of Tarzan in the midst of the forest is in itself already a miracle. His
being a full human person with a sense of selfhood is a different story though. The usual teleserye plot of kids
getting swapped in the hospital and getting reared by a different family gives an obvious manifestation of the point
being made this section. One is who he is because of his family for the most part.

GENDER AND SELF

Another important aspect of the self that is important to mention here is gender. Gender is one of those loci
of the self that is subject to alteration, change, and development or enhancement. We have seen in the past years
how people fought hard for the right to express, validate, and assert their gender expression. Many conservatives
may frown upon this and insist on the biological. However, from the point of view of the social sciences and the
self, it is important to give one the leeway to find, express, and live his identity. This forms part of selfhood that one
cannot just dismiss. One maneuvers into the society and identities himself as who he is by also taking note of gender
identities. A wonderful anecdote about Leo Tolstoy’s wife that can solidify this point is narrated below.

SONIA TOLSTOY
Sonia Tolstoy, the wife of famous Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, wrote when she was just twenty-one, “I
am nothing but a miserable crushed worm, whom no one wants, whom no one loves, a useless creature with
morning sickness, and a big belly, two rotten teeth, and a bad temper, a battered sense of me insane.” A few years
later she wrote, “It makes me laugh to read over this diary. It’s so full of contradictions, and one would think that I
was such an unhappy woman. Yet is there a happier woman than I?” (Moffat and Painter 1974)

This account illustrates that our gender partly determines how we see ourselves in the world. Oftentimes,
society forces a particular identity unto us depending on our sex and or gender. In the Philippines, husbands for the
most part are expected to provide for the family. The eldest man in a family is expected to head the family and hold
it in. Slight modifications have been on the way due to feminism and LGBT activism but for the most part,
patriarchy has remained to be at work. 

NANCY CHODOROW-FEMINIST ACTIVIST

She argues that because mothers take the role of taking care of children, there is a tendency for girls to
imitate the same and reproduce the same kind of mentality as women as care providers in the family. The way little
girls are given dolls instead of dolls, encouraged to play with makeshift kitchen also reinforces notion of what roles
they should take and the selves they should develop. In boarding schools for girls, young women are encouraged to
act like fine ladies, are trained to behave in a fashion that befits their status as women in society.

MASCULINITY
 Men on the other hand, in the periphery of their own family, are taught early on how to behave like a man.
This is normally includes holding in one’s emotion, being tough, fatalistic, not to worry about danger, and
admiration for hard physical labor. Masculinity is learned by integrating a young boy in a society. In the Philippines,
young boys had to undergo circumcision not just for the original, clinical purpose of hygiene but to also assert their
manliness in the society. Circumcision plays another social role by initiating young boys into manhood.

GENDER
Gendered self is then shaped within a particular context of time and space. The sense of self that is being
taught makes sure that as individual fits in a particular environment. This is dangerous and detrimental in the goal of
truly finding one’s self, self-determination and growth of the self. Gender has to personally discovered and asserted
and not dictated by culture and the society.

LESSON 3 THE SELF AS COGNITIVE CONSTRUCT

INTRODUCTION
As seen from previous lessons, every field of study, at least in the field of social sciences, have their own
research, definitions, and conceptualization of self and identity. Some are similar while some specific only in their
field. Each field also has thousands of researches on self and identity as well as related or synonymous terms. The
trend of the lessons also seems to define the concept of the “self” from a larger context (i.e., culture and society)
down to the individual. However, it must be pointed out that modern researches acknowledge the contributions of
each field and this is not some sort of nurture vs. nature, society/culture vs. individual/brain, other social science vs.
psychology debate. Psychology may focus on the individual and the cognitive functions but it does not discount the
context and other possible factors that affect the individual.

For students who take up psychology, discussions on theories, development, etc. actually takes at least one
semester still, there are more to be known about the concept of “self.”

ABSTRACTION
In confidence or in an attempt to avoid further analytical discussions, a lot people say “I am who I am.” Yet
this statement still begs the question “If you are who you are, then who are you that makes you who you are?”

SELF – WILLIAM JAMES (1890)

Simply put, “self” is “the sense of personal identity and of who we are as individuals” (Jhangiani and Tarry
2014, 106).

William James (1890) was one of the earliest psychologists to study the self as having two aspects-the “I”
and the “me”.  The “I” is the thinking, acting and feeling self (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011, 616; Hogg and
Vaughan 2010, 66). The “me” on the other hand is the physical characteristics as well as psychological capabilities
that makes who you are (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011, 616; Hogg and Vaughan 2010, 66).
 SELF – CARL ROGERS (1959)
Theory of personality also used the same terms. The “I” as the one who acts and decides while the “me” is
what you think or feel about yourself as an object (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011, 616).

SELF IS IDENTITY AND SELF-CONCEPT

Identity - is composed of one’s personal characteristics, social roles and responsibilities, as well as affiliations
that defines who one is (Elmore, Oysermon, and Smith 2012, 69).

Self-Concept - is basically what comes to your mind when you are asked about who you are (Elmore,
Oysermon, and Smith 2012, 69).

Self + Identity + Self-Concept is not fixed in one time frame.

Student          CPA          CPA-LAwyer         Successful life with Business 

They are not fixed for life nor are they ever-changing at every moment. Think of malleable metal, strong
and hard but can be bent and molded in other shapes. Think about water. It can take the shape of the container. It can
be solid, liquid, or gas form, but at its core. It is still the same element.

CARL ROGERS – SCHEMA

This idea in his concept of self-schema or the own organized system or collection of knowledge about who
we are (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011, 616;” (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 107-108).

Schema is not limited. It any include your interest, your work, your course, your age, your name, your
physical characteristics, etc. As you grow and adapt to the changes around you, they also change. But they are not
passive receivers, they are actively shape and affect how you see, think, and feel about things object (Gleitman,
Gross, and Reisberg 2011, 616) (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 107-108).

SCHEMA
Self

o Hobbies
o Religion
o Nationality
o Family

THEORIES ABOUT THE SELF

 Theories generally see the self and identity as mental constructs, created and re-created in memory
(Elmore, Oyserman, and Smith 2012, 75). Current researches point to the frontal lobe of the brain as the specific
area in the brain associated with processes concerning the self (Elmore, Oyserman, and Smith 2012, 75). 

Several psychologists especially during the field’s earlier development, followed this trend of thought,
looking deeper into the mind of the person to theorize about the self, identity, self-concept, and in turn, one’s
personality.

Sigmund Freud-ID, EGO, & SUPEREGO. (Pleasure, Reality & Conscience.)

G.H. MEAD (1934)

The self is developed through human interaction (Hogg and Vaughan 2010, 66) Basically there are at least
three reasons why self and identity are social products (Elmore, Oyserman, and Smith 2012, 76). It is not merely
nurture vs. nature it is nature and nurture.

We do not create ourselves out of nothing.

Whether we like it or not, we actually need others to affirm and reinforce who we think we are.

What we think as important to us may also have been influenced by what is important in our social or
historical context. 

SELF-CONCEPTS: SELF-AWARENESS
Carver and Scheier (1981) identified two types of self that we can be aware of:

- the private self or your internal standards and private thoughts and feeling, and
- the public self or your public image commonly geared towards having a good presentation of yourself to
others (Hogg and Vaughan 2010, 69) 

THREE SELF-SCHEMA
 The Actual Self - who you are at the moment.
 The Ideal Self - who you like to be.
 The Ought Self - who we think we should be.

One should find solution to such discrepancies in order to avoid agitation, dejection, or other negative
emotions. In some instances, however, all three may be in line with one another.

SELF-AWARENESS
It may be positive or negative depending on the circumstances and our next course of action. Self-
awareness can keep us from doing something dangerous.

Self-consciousness - too much self-awareness about being observed and criticized by others
(Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 112).
 DEINDIVIDUATION
Especially in large crowds we may experience it or the loss of individual self-awareness and individual
accountability in groups. (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952; Zimbardo, 1969, all in Jhangiani and Tarry 2014,
114). A lot of people will attune themselves with the emotions of their group and because the large crowd also
provides some kind of anonymity, we may lessen our self-control and act in ways that we will not do when we are
alone.

Our group identity and self-awareness also have a great impact on our self-esteem, one of the common
concepts associated with the “self”. It is defined as our own positive or negative perception of evaluation of
ourselves (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 125). (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011, 617).

SOCIAL COMPARISON
One of the ways in which our social relationship affects our self-esteem is through social comparison.
According to the social comparison theory, we learn about ourselves, the appropriateness of our behaviors as well as
our social statuses by comparing aspects of ourselves with other people (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 139, Hogg and
Vaughan 2010, 72). 

The downward social comparison is the more common type of comparing ourselves with others.
As the name implies, we create a positive self-concept by comparing ourselves with those who are worse off than us
(Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 139,). By having the advantage, we are able to raise our esteem. Another comparison is
the upward social comparison which comparing ourselves with those who are better off than us (Jhangiani
and Tarry 2014, 139,). While it can be a form of motivation for some, a lot of those who do this actually felt lower
self-esteem as we highlight more of our weakness or inequalities. 

Take note that this occurs not only between individuals but also among groups. Thus, if a person’s group is
performing better and is acknowledged more than the other group, then his/her self-esteem may also heighten.

Social comparison also entails what is called self-evaluation maintenance theory which states that we can
feel threatened when someone outperforms us, especially when that person is close to us i.e., a friend or family
(Tesser 1988 in Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 144).

REACTION WHEN WE FEEL THREATENED OR SOMEONE

OUTPERFORMS US
First, we distance ourselves from that person or redefine our relationship with them (Jhangiani and Tarry
2014, 144). Some resort to silent treatment, change of friends, while some may also redefine by being closer with
that person, hoping that some association may give him/her a certain kind of acknowledgement also.

Second, we may also reconsider the importance of the aspect or skill in which you were outperformed
(Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 144). If got beaten in drawing, you might think drawing is not really for you and you’ll
find a hobby that where you could excel, thus preserving your self-esteem.

Lastly, we may also strengthen our resolve to improve that certain aspect of ourselves (Jhangiani and Tarry
2014, 144). Instead of quitting drawing, you might join seminars, practice more often, read book about it, add some
elements in your drawing that makes it unique, etc. Achieving your goal through hard work may increase your self-
esteem too. 
 SELF-ESTEEM VS. NARCISSISM
However, in the attempt to increase or maintain self-esteem, some people become narcissistic.
Narcissism is a “trait” characterized by overly high self-esteem, self-admiration, and self-centeredness”
(Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 128). They are often charismatic because of how they take care of their image. Taking
care of that image includes their interpersonal relationship thus they try to look for better partners, better
acquaintances, as well as people who will appreciate them a lot. This makes them a bad romantic partner or friend
since they engage in relationships only to serve themselves (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 128). 

Though self-esteem is very important concept related to the self, studies have shown that it only has a
correlation, not causality, to positive outputs and outlook (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 131). It can be argued that high
or healthy self-esteem may result to an overall good personality but it is not and should not be, the only source of a
person’s healthy perspective of him/herself.

People with high self-esteem are commonly described as outgoing, adventurous, and adaptable to a lot of
situations. They also initiate activities and building relationship with people. However, they may also dismiss other
activities that does not conform to their self-concept or boost their self- esteem. They may also be bullies and
experiment on abusive behaviors with drugs, alcohol, and sex (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 131). 

Sometimes there is a thin line high self-esteem and narcissism and there are a lot of tests and measurements
for self-esteem like the Rosenberg scale but the issue is that the result can be affected by the desire of the person to
portray him/herself in a positive or advantageous way (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 126). In case you want to take a
test and find numerical value or level for your self-esteem, try to be honest and objective about what you feel and
see about yourself. 

This duality in the behavior and attitudes only proves the above-mentioned correlation (Baumeister, Smart,
and Boden (1996) in their research on self-esteem concluded that programs, activities, and parenting styles to boost
self-esteem should only for rewarding good behavior and other achievements and not for purpose of merely trying to
make children feel better about themselves or to appease them when they get angry or sad (Jhangiani and Tarry
2014, 132).

LESSON 4 THE SELF IN WESTERN AND EASTERN THOUGHTS

INTRODUCTION
Different cultures and varying environment tend to create different perceptions of the “self” and one of the
most common distinctions between cultures and people is the eastern vs. western dichotomy wherein eastern
represents Asia and westerns represents Europe and Northern America. It must be understood that this distinction
and the countries included was politically colored at the time that aforementioned concepts were accepted and used
in the social sciences. Furthermore, it must be reiterated that while countries that are closer to each other
geographically may share commonalities, there are also a lot of factors that create differences. In the Philippines
alone, each region may have a similar or varying perception regarding the “self.”

ABSTRACTION
We will look at the religious and political philosophies that greatly influenced the mindset of each nation or
culture. Since almost all the theories about the self, which were discussed in the previous lessons, also came from
the Western scientific research, we will highlight the eastern thoughts in this lesson.
 CONFUCIANISM
Code of ethical conduct, of how one should properly act according to their relationship with other people,
thus it is also focused on having a harmonious social life (Ho 1995, 116). The identity and self-concept therefore of
the individual is interwoven with the identity and status of his/her community or culture, sharing its pride as well as
its failures (Ho 1995, 116-117).     

Self-cultivation is seen as the ultimate purpose of life but the characteristics of chun-tzu, a man of
virtue or noble character, is still embedded in his/her social relationships (Ho 1995, 117). The cultivated self in
Confucianism is what some scholars call a “subdued self” wherein personal needs are repressed (subdued) for the
good of many, making Confucian society also hierarchical for the purpose of maintaining order and balance in
society (Ho 1995, 118).  

TAOISM
Taoism is living the way of the Tao or the universe. However, Taoism rejects having one definition of what
the Tao is, and one can only state clues of what it is as they adapt a free-flowing, relative, unitary, as well as
paradoxical view of almost everything. Taoism rejects the hierarchy and strictness brought by Confucianism and
would prefer a simple. Thus, its teachings aim to describe how to attain that life (Ho 1995, 119).   

The self is not just an extension of the family or the community, it is part of the universe, one of the forms
and manifestations of the Tao (Ho 1995, 120). The ideal self is selflessness but this is not forgetting about equality
as well as complementarity among humans as well as other beings (Ho 1995, 120-121). In this way, you will be able
to act spontaneously because you will not be restricted by some legalistic standards but because you are in harmony
with everything. 

BUDDHISM
There are various groups who adopted Buddhism thus you may find differences in their teachings with our
discussion but more likely, their core concepts remained the same. The self is seeming as an illusion, born out of
ignorance, of trying to hold and control things, or human-centered needs, thus the self is also the source of all these
sufferings (Ho 1995, 121). It is therefore our quest to forget about the self, break the attachments you have with the
world, and to renounce the self which is the cause of all sufferings and in doing so attain the state of Nirvana (Ho
1995, 122).  

The self on the individual is not the focus of the abovementioned Asian or Eastern philosophies or belief.
Even with extended discussions about how the self should work. Confucianism and Taoism still situates the self
within a bigger context. The person, in striving to a better person, does not create a self above other people or nature
but a self that is beneficial to his/her community as well as in order and in harmony with everything else. As for
Buddhism, the self, with all his connections selfish ideas, is totally taken, not just out of the center of the picture, but
out of the whole picture as a whole. 

Bearing the previous lessons in mind. Western perspectives do not discount the role of environment and
society in the formation of the self but the focus is always looking towards the self. You compare yourself in order
to be better; you create associations and bask in the glory that group for your self-esteem; you put primacy in
developing yourself.

One can also describe that the Western thought looks at the world in dualities wherein you are
distinct from the other person, the creator is separate from the object s/he created, in which the self is distinguished
and acknowledged (Wolter 2012, 1). On the other hand, the eastern perspective sees the other as part of
yourself as well as the things you may create, a drama in which everyone is interconnected with their specific roles
(Wolter 2012, 1).

AMERICAN CULTURE
Several studies showed that Americans, for example, talk about their personal attributes when describing

themselves while Asians in general would talk about their social roles or the social situations that invoked certain
traits that they deem positive for their self (Gleitman, Gross and Reisberg, 2011, 618). Evaluation of the self also
differs as Americans would highlight their personal achievements while Asians would rather keep a low profile as
promoting the self can be seen as boastfulness that disrupts social relationships (Gleitman, Gross and Reisberg,
2011, 619). 

INDIVIDUALISTIC VS. COLLECTIVISTIC

The Western culture then is what we would call individualistic culture since their focus is on the
person. Asian culture on the other hand is called a collectivistic culture as the group and social relations is
given more importance than individual needs and wants.

By valuing the individual, westerners may seem to have loose associations or even loyalty to their
groups. Competitions is the name of the game and they are more likely straightforward and forceful in their
communications as well as decision-making. Eastern or oriental persons look after the welfare of their
groups and values cooperation. They would also be more compromising and they tend to go around the bush in
explaining things, hoping that the other person would feel what they really want to say (qingxue 2003, 23-24;27).

WESTERNERS VS. EASTERNERS

Westerners also emphasizes more on the value of equality even if they see that the individual can rise
above everything else. Because everyone on their own in the competition, one can say that they also promote ideals
that create a “fair” competition   and protect the individual. Asian, with their collective regard, puts more emphasis
on hierarchy-as the culture wants to keep the harmony and in order (Qingxue 2003, 26-27).

It must be emphasized, however, that these are general commonalities among Western cultures as
compared to Asian or Oriental cultures. In the case of the Philippines, we can also consider the colonization
experience for differences and similarities and regions due to geographical conditions.

With the social media, migration, and intermarriages, variety between the Western and Asian perceptions
may either be blurred of highlighted. Whereas conflict is inevitable in diversity, peace is also possible through the
understanding of where each of us is coming from.