Understanding the Self

Chapter 2

Sociological and
Anthropological Perspectives
Chapter 2

Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives

Introduction
This chapter aims to articulate what culture means to the self as a part of the society,
analyze the anthropological and sociological constructs of the self, and attribute self-understanding
and behavior to cultural factors. The knowledge, skills, and insights that students would gain from
this course may be used in their academic endeavors, their chose disciplines, and their future
careers as they understand their self and identity.

Specific Objectives
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

- Articulate what culture means to the self as a part of the society;

- Analyze the anthropological and sociological constructs of the self; and
- Attribute self-understanding and behavior to cultural factors.

Duration

Chapter 2: Sociological and Anthropological = 6 hours

Perspectives (4 hours discussion; 2 hours
assessment)
Lesson Proper
I. Social Constructionism
Social constructionism is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory
that examines the development of jointly-constructed understandings of the world that form the
basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are
developed in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual.
Social constructs can be different based on the society and the events surrounding the
time period in which they exist. An example of a social construct is money or the concept of
currency, as people in society have agreed to give it importance/value. Another example of a
social construction is the concept of self/self-identity. Charles Cooley stated based on his self-
theory: "I am not who you think I am; I am not who I think I am; I am who I think you think I
am." This demonstrates how people in society construct ideas or concepts that may not exist
without the existence of people or language to validate those concepts.

HOW CULTURE AFFECTS THE SELF

Edward B. Taylor, founder of cultural anthropology, classically defined culture as “that
complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, law, customs, and any other
capabilities and habits acquired by (a human) as a member of society.”
Culture helps define how individuals see themselves and how they relate to others. Remember
that individuals differ in many ways: language diversity, cultural diversity, gender diversity,
religious diversity, and economic diversity (Selmi, Gallagher, & Mora-Flores, 2015). All of
these aspects of diversity work together to form your sense of self.

According to developmental psychologist Catherine Raeff (2010), culture can influence how
you, your coworkers, and the families you serve view:
● Relationships: Culture influences how you enter into and maintain relationships. For
example, relationships may be seen as voluntary or as duty-based. This influences how
adults encourage children to form relationships: Do they choose whom to play with or
are children encouraged to play in certain ways to promote group welfare?
● Personality traits: Culture influences whether and how you value traits like humility,
self-esteem, politeness, and assertiveness. Culture also influences how you perceive
hardship and how you feel about relying on others.
● Achievement: Culture influences how you define success and whether you value
certain types of individual and group achievements.
● Expressing emotions: Culture influences how and whether you consider feelings
public or private.
II. The Looking Glass Self Theory by Charles Horton Cooley

When it comes to understanding ourselves, social interaction plays a more important role
than many of us realize. According to sociologist Charles Horton Cooley, individuals develop
their concept of self by observing how they are perceived by others, a concept Cooley coined
as the “looking-glass self.” This process, particularly when applied to the digital age, raises
questions about the nature of identity, socialization, and the changing landscape of self.

The Looking-Glass Self

The looking-glass self describes the process wherein individuals base their sense of self
on how they believe others view them. Using social interaction as a type of “mirror,” people
use the judgments they receive from others to measure their own worth, values, and behavior.
According to Self, Symbols, & Society, Cooley’s theory is notable because it suggests that self-
concept is built not in solitude, but rather within social settings. In this way, society and
individuals are not separate, but rather two complementary aspects of the same phenomenon.

Core Assumptions
According to Society in Focus, the process of discovering the looking-glass self occurs
in three steps:

1. An individual in a social situation imagines how they appear to others.

2. That individual imagines others’ judgment of that appearance.
3. The individual develops feelings about and responds to those perceived judgments.

Ultimately, the process of the looking-glass self is one of alignment. People constantly
seek to create consistency between their internal and external worlds and, therefore, continue
to perceive, adjust, and strive for equilibrium throughout their lives.

III.The Self as a Product of Modern Society (Sociological Perspective)

Your personal and social identity is never static, but this doesn’t mean you are
constantly revising who you are according to how you feel. Just because you adopt a new
fashion style or a ‘cooler’ way of talking doesn’t mean that your personal and social identity
has substantially changed. These are purely cosmetic or outer changes and more likely reflect
other aspects of yourself (your sub-personae), than to truly indicate a change in core self-
identity.
In terms of longer-term personal growth, changes in personal identity are more often
gradual and incremental than abrupt and ‘total’ makeovers. In this sense personal identity is
constantly changing in a way that isn’t necessarily obvious. But neither does it change simply
because we are tired of our current self-image and want to try something new. Personal and
social identity is not like that. Of course, we always have images of, and ideas about the sort of
person we would like to be, or become and sometimes try hard to make them real.
It is also true that in the final analysis it is you and you alone who are responsible for the
kind of person you are, the way you live your life, and how you treat others. No one else can
be you, or live your life for you. But it is not true that you can change your identity on a whim,
or by an act of will. Any such attempt would either be purely theatrical, and hence inauthentic,
or in order to deceive and manipulate others. In neither case could we say that identity change
was genuine.
Real changes in personal identity emerge out of the creative interplay between social
circumstances and events and the way you as an individual respond to them. No matter how
assertive or dominant a personality you are, in the final instance your identity needs to be
grounded in social reality. Other people have to accept you as you yourself wish to be accepted
before your personal desire for change will have any bite or social validation.

SELF IN SOCIETY AND SOCIETY IN SELF

No one can stand apart from the social world. Everyone is influenced by society and it
makes its indelible mark on us. It’s a great error to think that there is no such thing as society
or that we are separate, self-sufficient individuals. Everyone is influenced by family, friends,
education, ethnicity, work, class, gender, politics and history. At every point in our lives we
both rely on, and contribute to our social environment.
On the one hand, we can never be ‘outside’ society and its tentacles, but on the other we
(our behavior thoughts and feelings) are not simply formed or determined by society. We have
a unique ‘inner’ self which chooses what to do and how to do it. Often, these two ideas – that
we are ‘inside’ society at the same time as standing ‘apart from it’ – are thought to be
incompatible. But this is not true. They are not only compatible, but go together naturally in
social life.
Although we can never stand completely apart from society, we nevertheless retain a
certain amount of independence from it. We are able to choose how we behave towards others
in ways that are, for us ‘appropriate’ and that satisfy our own needs, wishes and desires. Society
can only present us with a set of choices; it can never completely determine for us which choices
we actually adopt. Of course, social pressures, to conform, or fit in with established patterns of
behavior always constrain us to some extent (this varies according to different issues and
situations).
However, there is always a private, personal space in which we are free to choose for
ourselves and to be self-responsible, if we so wish. In this sense we carry around in our heads
whole chunks of society’s influence, in the form of rules, regulations, laws, fashion, advertising
images, and expectations about how others will behave towards us and so on. These inevitably
inform our choices and decisions, but we are free to make up our own minds about whether
they are applicable or relevant to us and the situations in which we find ourselves. Very often,
we simply use these as guidelines and invent our own ‘versions’ of them. This is because of
two characteristics.

First, we are self-directing beings capable of independent thought and behavior. We

have the knowledge and skills that allow us to deal with other people and situations in our own
terms. We are not completely trapped by our circumstances – unless we wish to be, or if we
refuse to fight against them. We may be ‘trapped’ in poverty, but we can choose how we will
respond to it, either by resigned acceptance, or by a fierce determination not to be a victim. In
the end, we may only be able to transform ‘our situation’ a tiny bit. This may simply amount to
being satisfied with the fact that we’ve made an effort, rather than feeling defeated or resentful
because we couldn’t do more. Alternatively, the change we are able to make may be a minor
way of making our lives, or our neighbors’ lives, a little more comfortable. Nevertheless,
‘minor’ change, is change!
Second, we are all unique individuals because we have all had a unique set of
experiences. Even if you were brought up in the same family, you experience the world in
different ways than your brothers or sisters. Their disappointments or their joys were never
exactly the same as yours. The way you responded to important events was different from theirs.
We each experience a unique configuration of events, turning points, as well as the feelings and
behavioral responses which accompany them, as we develop through childhood, adolescence
and adulthood. Our unique experiences have made us into unique persons with our distinct
personalities and abilities, our particular behavioral styles, our diverse moods and sensitivities.
We each have our own distinctive ways of reacting to events, or of relating to people.
The fact that we have a foot in both psychological reality and social reality is reflected in
the tension between what I refer to as the duality of separateness and relatedness (Layder
1997). The self is always caught up in some aspect of this tension – between having a life ‘apart’
from others and being involved with and dependent (although not over-dependent) on others. It
is difficult for us as individuals to come to a satisfactory resolution of this problem, since every
time we express a desire to be alone, or have some space of our own, we are automatically
rejecting the idea of togetherness and involvement. Conversely, when we commit to others, in
some part, we surrender our autonomy and independence.

THE EMOTIONAL SELF

Emotions and the motivations to which they give rise have frequently been denied any
important role in our day-to-day conduct by even the most sophisticated of social theorists.
Anthony Giddens, for example, is of the view that emotions and motives are not directly
involved in everyday human behavior. Instead, what he calls ‘reflexive monitoring’ and
‘rationalization’ (reason giving and rational understanding) play the major roles. Motives only
play a part in ‘relatively unusual circumstances, situations which in some way break the routine’
(Giddens 1984, p. 6).
Even when it does play a role, ‘unconscious’ motivation (as in Freud’s work) is more
important than anything of which we are consciously aware. My view of the emotions and
motivation is the exact opposite of Giddens’. The feelings that motivate us do not simply derive
from a deep unconscious in a Freudian sense. Although they are often below the level of current
‘awareness’ this is frequently because we try to deny or suppress them. Otherwise, they remain
‘subconscious’ – outside the range of present moment awareness – because they are not
necessary for the tasks immediately at hand. Indeed, in this sense they may stay out of our
conscious awareness for years.
Similarly, although we always use our cognitive skills to give reasons for what we say
and do, they are in no sense more important than, or separate from our feelings, motivations
and emotions. In fact, ‘reflexive monitoring’ and the ‘rationalization’ of conduct are soaked
through with emotions and feelings. Our plans, purposes and intentions – our motivations –
enter directly into, and underpin our everyday behavior; they don’t simply refer to the potential
for action, as Giddens insists.
The emotional or feeling side of our nature goes hand in hand with our reflective,
intelligent and calculating side. In most instances the different strands are mixed together in
different proportions. But in some instances, one strand may predominate over the others, as in
the stuffy rule-bound bureaucrat or the child, open-mouthed and filled with wonderment. No
behavior though, is completely empty of emotion, although its importance often goes
unrecognized or suppressed. The ever-presence of emotion (including what Goleman 1996 calls
‘emotional intelligence’) may, therefore, prompt us to reconsider our daily encounters. For
instance, from the ‘outside’ people’s conversations often seem to go smoothly and well, with
everyone enjoying shared understanding, attention and feeling. But on closer inspection they
turn out to be full of ‘errors’, misunderstandings, and confusion (a ‘fast moving blur’ as Scheff
1990, describes it).

CORE AND SATTELITE NEEDS OF SELF

Although loving and being loved by others

are crucial, the love of self is no less
important. All three are interdependent.
Without experiencing the love of others it is
difficult to have a loving relationship with
yourself. Without the love of self the ability
to give love to others is hampered. Self-love
is not the same as narcissism or an unhealthy
preoccupation with oneself – it’s not
egocentrism gone mad. It’s more about
accepting who you are and taking
responsibility for what you do. It’s about
having integrity, taking care of yourself and
being self-protective when it is required.
APPROVAL OF SELF AND OTHERS

If love in all its varieties is a key focus for other feelings and emotions, then the need for
approval closely mirrors it. Again, there are close links between self-approval, approval by
others and approval of others. Approval (in all its guises) is essential for love and loving
relationships. Approval implies tolerance (and acceptance) of ‘differences’ in personality,
behavior and beliefs. This doesn’t need to be unconditional or totally ‘permissive’, but it does
require a certain tolerance for other’s interests and rights as well as your own.
The search for approval has its own challenges. In the formative period of childhood, the
child seeks the approval of its caretakers as a means of securing their love. This persists into
adulthood where there is a general need for the approval of others, especially loved ones, or
those who are admired or looked-up to because they have particular qualities or skills. But this
can turn into an unhealthy, excessive need for approval if the individual is uncertain about his
or her own independence, rights, responsibilities and effectiveness (the ability to influence
things). The constant searching for approval is based on the fear that the other’s love will be
withdrawn and that you will be left helpless and unloved. This, of course, is an extension of a
childhood pattern whereby the individual feels that he or she never received enough
(unconditional) approval or love from her or his parents. As a result, they learn to feel unworthy
and that they don’t have the right to expect unconditional love and approval.

IV. Anthropological Perspective

Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior,

human biology, and societies, in both the present and past, including past human species.

Introduction to the Filipino Culture

The Filipino culture is an exuberant story that tells of the nation's journey through the
centuries. Customs reflect the people's faith, their oneness with others, their affinity with nature,
and their celebration of life.

The Filipino's charm lies in their smiles, in the numerous religious festivals that venerate
nature, the Divine and the cycles of life and in the virtue of pakikipag-kapwa tao that treasures
relationships, with friends and strangers alike. The concept of kapwa (others) is at the core of
the Filipino soul. A Filipino scholar says of the Filipino: the joy of his being is in being with
others.

The nation's charm is in the diversity in ways of life across the archipelago, the
resplendent colors of its folk arts and the cacophony of foreign influences that have found roots
in the Filipino languages, customs and traditions.
 And so, there are the bright Santacruzan festivals in May, with pagan origins but
portraying strong Christian symbols, and an extended romance with Christmas in December.
There are the passionate Hispanic tempos in the dances of the plains of Luzon, the elegant
Muslim dances for wars and weddings from Mindanao, and the ancient strains of indigenous
music in the highlands. The country has quaint town squares that remind the spectator of its
colonial past, light breezy huts with fences decked with bougainvillas along the country lanes,
sprawling malls, high-rises and frantic city avenues, houses made of stones in typhoon-strewn
islands in the North and houses on stilts in the South.

Another writer observes that the Filipinos tendency towards passionate profusion and
unrestrained exuberance in his art stems from his exposure to nature's lush, magnificent
landscapes around him the whole year through. Thus, the richly embroidered Barong
Tagalog (national dress), baroque architecture in the 19th century and the flaming spectrum of
colors in jeepney passenger cars, ice cream carts, Christmas lanterns, kalesa (horse carriages),
fiestas and religious processions.

Filipinos worship devoutly in their cathedrals and mosques (the busy urban dwellers
attend religious services inside shopping malls and al fresco, in parks and plazas). They can
sing and recognize good singing when they hear it. They smile at strangers and babies, and
through queues, rain showers and traffic. They socialize in parties and discotheques, as well as
in markets and community dances. They make and keep friendships over food,
over lambanog (coconut wine), over mobile phone text messaging. They are sentimental and
devoted to their families. They have profound respect for elders and show self-effacing
hospitality for guests. They speak over 100 local languages and dialects, of which the Tagalog-
based Filipino is the lingua franca, as well English, with an accent. They are basketball fans.
They love Hollywood films and television dramas. They are pedestrians who chat while
walking and they are the passengers in the ubiquitous jeepneys. They love laughing, at
themselves, their politics, their game shows. They are cosmopolitan in their views but their
values are rooted in their faith, their family and their community.

The Filipinos' temperament is as warm and constant as their sunshine. Their way of life
is rich, diverse and rooted. They are in harmony with others and face the world with an
engagingly courageous spirit. They are the 73 million Filipinos.

Filipino Identity: The Haunting Question

Paper by: Niels Mulder
(from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/186810341303200103)

The deficiency of strength that Filipino national identity possesses and the insufficient
adherence that Filipino nationhood attracts lie in the failure of the state to mold the population
into an encompassing moral order in which people can distinctly imagine that they belong
 together. In the absence of a shared narrative of collective emancipation that successfully ties
the individual's private life to an authoritative center of civilization, we find two opposing
“nations” co-existing in the independent Philippine state: the state-owning oligarchy versus the
nation of the ordinary people. This cleavage is enhanced by the conflict between the arbitrary
nature of politics and the identity-affirming inner core, the each-to-his-own of the public realm
versus the reassurance of little-traditional life and the English language versus the vernacular.
As a result, it keeps all and sundry – including the members of the new Filipino middle class –
from identifying with the collective whole and prevents them from developing into a nation of
genuinely committed citizens. Because these cleavages are systemic, nation-building remains a
task of which completion will stretch into the distant future.

References/Additional Resources/Readings

Brawner, D. (2018) Understanding the Self. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc.
Charles Cooley – Looking Glass Self. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/bU0BQUa11ek; 03/07/21
Filipino Cultural Identity: Retrieved from
https://www.pana.com.ph/fyeo/materials/Filipino%20Cultural%20Identity.pdf; 03/07/21
Filipino Identity: The Haunting Question. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/186810341303200103; 03/07/21
Go-Monilla, M.J.A., Ramirez, N.C. (2018). Understanding the Self. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
Introduction to the Filipino Culture. Retrieved from https://beijingpe.dfa.gov.ph/82-the-
philippines/89-introduction-on-the-filipino-culture; 03/07/21
Layder, D. (2004). Social and Personal Identity: Understanding Yourself. SAGE Publications Ltd.
(available for download at b-ok.asia)
Perception is Reality: The Looking-Glass Self. Retrieved from
https://lesley.edu/article/perception-is-reality-the-looking-glass-self; 03/07/21
Self-Identity (Sociology). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/SoNTgN849S4; 03/07/21