MODULE 2

(Week 3-4)
Time Allocation: 6 Hours

College Department College of Teacher Education

Course Code GEC 1
Course Title Understanding the Self
Place of the Course in the Program General Education
Semester & Academic Year 2nd Semester, Academic Year 2020-2021
Instructor Nancy Jane D. Victorino

DISCUSSION
Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives
PART 1: The Self from Various
Perspectives

CILO (Course Intended Learning Outcome/s):

✓ Articulate what culture means to the self as a part of the society.
✓ Analyze the anthropological and sociological constructs of the self.
✓ Attribute self- understanding and behavior to cultural factors.

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

Sir 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.

Page | 10 GEC 1 Understanding the Self (2nd Semester; A.Y 2020-2021)

Disclaimer: We do not take ownership of any intellectual property that is included in this
module. All rights belong to their rightful owner. Books, websites, pictures etc. that was used in
the making of this module is properly cited in the reference/s section at the end of every module.
 • 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 behaviour. 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.

Page | 11 GEC 1 Understanding the Self (2nd Semester; A.Y 2020-2021)

Disclaimer: We do not take ownership of any intellectual property that is included in this
module. All rights belong to their rightful owner. Books, websites, pictures etc. that was used in
the making of this module is properly cited in the reference/s section at the end of every module.
 On the one hand, we can never be ‘outside’ society and its tentacles, but on the other we (our behaviour 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 behaviour 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 behaviour. 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 neighbours 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 behavioural 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
behavioural 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 behaviour. 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.

Page | 12 GEC 1 Understanding the Self (2nd Semester; A.Y 2020-2021)

Disclaimer: We do not take ownership of any intellectual property that is included in this
module. All rights belong to their rightful owner. Books, websites, pictures etc. that was used in
the making of this module is properly cited in the reference/s section at the end of every module.
 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 behaviour; 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 behaviour though, is completely empty of emotion, although its importance often goes
unrecognized or supressed. 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, behaviour 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.

Page | 13 GEC 1 Understanding the Self (2nd Semester; A.Y 2020-2021)

Disclaimer: We do not take ownership of any intellectual property that is included in this
module. All rights belong to their rightful owner. Books, websites, pictures etc. that was used in
the making of this module is properly cited in the reference/s section at the end of every module.
 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, rainshowers 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 mould 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 centre of civilisation, 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.

Page | 14 GEC 1 Understanding the Self (2nd Semester; A.Y 2020-2021)

Disclaimer: We do not take ownership of any intellectual property that is included in this
module. All rights belong to their rightful owner. Books, websites, pictures etc. that was used in
the making of this module is properly cited in the reference/s section at the end of every module.
References:
1. Layder, D. (2004). Social and Personal Identity: Understanding Yourself. SAGE Publications Ltd. (available for
download at b-ok.asia)
2. Introduction to the Filipino Culture; https://beijingpe.dfa.gov.ph/82-the-philippines/89-introduction-on-the-filipino-
culture; 03/07/21
3. Filipino Identity: The Haunting Question; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/186810341303200103;
03/07/21
4. Filipino Cultural Identity; https://www.pana.com.ph/fyeo/materials/Filipino%20Cultural%20Identity.pdf; 03/07/21
5. Perception is Reality: The Looking-Glass Self; https://lesley.edu/article/perception-is-reality-the-looking-glass-self;
03/07/21
Additional Learning Resources:
1. Self-Identity (Sociology); https://youtu.be/SoNTgN849S4; 03/07/21
2. Charles Cooley – Looking Glass Self; https://youtu.be/bU0BQUa11ek; 03/07/21

GEC 1 MODULE 2: Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives

ACTIVITY
Name: ____________________________________ Course Code: _____________________
Course/Yr./Section: _________________________ Module # & Week: ________________
Direction: Social constructionism basically means “shared assumptions” on how we perceive the world around us. Based on your
understanding, give at least 3 (three) examples of how social constructionism is displayed by society. Examples should only be
1-2 sentences only. Write legibly.
1.

2.

3.

EXERCISE
Direction:. Write your answer on the space BEFORE the number.
__________1. According to her, culture can influence how we view different aspects of our lives.
__________2. It is a theory which states that we perceive our worth based on how we think other people see us.
__________3. True or False. We are self-directing beings.
__________4. True or False. Our emotional side has nothing to do with our logical/rational side.
__________5. It is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior, human biology, and societies, in both the
present and past, including past human species.
REFLECTION
Direction: Summarize what you have learned in this module in 5 (five) short sentences only. Write your answer inside the box.
Write legibly.

Page | 15 GEC 1 Understanding the Self (2nd Semester; A.Y 2020-2021)

Disclaimer: We do not take ownership of any intellectual property that is included in this
module. All rights belong to their rightful owner. Books, websites, pictures etc. that was used in
the making of this module is properly cited in the reference/s section at the end of every module.