THE SELF, SOCIETY, AND o However, we also see that this

CULTURE potential clash between the self

and the external reality is the
reason for the self to have a clear
SELF > separate, self-contained, understanding of what it might
independent, consistent, unitary, and private be, what it can be, and what it
(Stevens, 1996) will be

 SEPARATE
o By separate, it is meant that the
self is DISTINCT from other
selves
o The self is always UNIQUE and
has its own IDENTITY
 SELF-CONTAINED and
INDEPENDENT
o Self is also self-contained and
independent because IN ITSELF
IT CAN EXIST
 CONSISTENT
o It is consistent because it has a
personality that is ENDURING
and therefore can be expected to
PERSIST for quite some time
 UNITARY
o Self is unitary in that it is
CENTER of all experiences and
thoughts that run through a
certain person
 PRIVATE
o The self is private
o Each person sorts out
information, feelings and
emotions, and thought processes
within the self
o This whole process is NEVER
ACCESSIBLE to anyone but the
self
o This suggests that the self is
ISOLATED from the external
world
o It lives within its OWN WORLD
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISTS > argue
for a merged view of THE PERSON and
THEIR SOCIAL CONTEXT where the
boundaries of one CANNOT easily be
separated from the boundaries of the other
(Stevens, 1996)
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISTS > argue
that the self should NOT be seen as a
STATIC entity that stays constant through
and through. Rather, the self has to be seen
as something that is UNCEASING FLUX,
in a constant struggle with external reality
and is MALLEABLE in its dealings with
society. The self is always in participation
with social life and its identity subjected to
influences here and there
Consider a man named Jon. Jon is a MATH
PROFESSOR at a Catholic university more
than a decade now. Jon has a beautiful wife
whom he met in college, Joan. Joan was
Jon’s first and last girlfriend. Apart from
being a HUSBAND, Jon is also blessed
TWO DOTING KIDS, a son and a daughter.
He also sometimes serve 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 his social
situation. 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 and touchy. Joan considers him
sweet, something that his students will never
conceive him to be. His kids fear him. As a
father, Jon can be stern. As a lector and
commentator, on the other hand, his church
mates know him as a guy who is calm, all-
smiles, and always ready to lend a helping
hand to anyone in need.
THE SELF AND CULTURE
 Remaining the same person and
turning chameleon by adapting to
one’s context seems paradoxical.
However, the French anthropologist
MARCEL MAUSS has an
explanation for this phenomenon.
According to MAUSS, every self has
TWO FACES:
1. MOI
o Refers to a person’s sense of
who he is, his body, and his
basic identity, his biological
givenness
o A person’s basic IDENTITY
2. PERSONNE
o Composed of the SOCIAL
CONCEPTS of what it means
to be who he is
o Has much to do with what it
means to live in a particular
institution, a particular
family, a particular religion, a
particular nationality, and
how to behave given
expectations and influences
from others
This dynamics and capacity for different
PERSONNE can be illustrated better cross-
culturally. An overseas Filipino worker
(OFW) adjusting to life in another country
is a very good case study. In the Philippines,
many people unabashedly violate
jaywalking rules. A common Filipino treats
road, even national ones, as basically his
and so he just merely crosses whenever and
wherever. When the same Filipino visits
another country with strict traffic rules, say
Singapore, you will notice how suddenly
law-abiding the said Filipino becomes. A lot
of Filipinos has anecdotally confirmed this
observation.
The same malleability can be seen in how
some men easily transform into sweet,
docile guys when trying to woe and court a
particular woman and suddenly just change
rapidly after hearing a sweet “yes”. This
CANNOT be considered a CONSCIOUS
CHANGE on the part of the guy, or on the
part of the law-abiding Filipino in the first
example. The self simply MORPHED
according to the circumstances and
contexts.
LANGUAGE is another interesting aspect of
this SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM. The
Filipino language is incredibly 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 translation of “I love you”. The
Filipino brand of this articulation of love,
unlike in English, does not specify the
subject and the object of love; 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 second person
pronoun that refers to the speaker and the
one being talked to. In the Filipino
language, unlike in English, there is no
distinction between the lover and the
beloved. They are one.

Another facet in our language is its being

GENDER-NEUTRAL. In English, Spanish,
and other languages, the distinction is clear
between a third person male and a third
person female pronoun. He and she; el and
ella. In Filipino, it is plain “siya”. There is
no specification of gender. Our language
does not specify between male and female.
We both call it “siya”.

In this varied examples, we have seen how

language has something to do with culture.
It is a salient part of culture and ultimately,
has a tremendous effect in our crafting of
the self.