MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY AT NAAWAN

College of Education and Social Sciences

Department of Social Sciences and Humanities

COURSE GUIDE

Course Details

Course Number: GEC 101

Course Name: UNDERSTANDING THE SELF

Course Description:
The course deals with the nature of identity, as well as the factors
and forces that affect the development and maintenance of personal identity.
The directive to Know Oneself has inspired countless and varied
ways to comply. Among the questions that everyone has had to grapple with at one
time or other is “Who am I?” At no other period that this question asked more urgently
than in adolescence—traditionally believed to be a time of vulnerability and great
possibilities. Issues of self and identity are among the most critical for the young.
The course is intended to facilitate the exploration of the issues
and concerns regarding self and identity to arrive at a better understanding of one’s self.
It strives to meet this goal by stressing the integration of the personal with the academic
—contextualizing matters discussed in the classroom and in the everyday experiences of
students—making for a better learning, generating a new appreciation for the learning
process, and developing a more critical and reflective attitude while enabling them to
manage and improve their selves to attain a better quality of life.
The course is divided into three major parts. The first part seeks to
understand the construct of the self from various disciplinary perspective: philosophy,
sociology, anthropology, and psychology—as well as the more traditional view between
the Eastern and Western culture—each seeking to provide answers to the difficult but
essential question of “What is the self?”. And raising among others, the question “Is
there even such construct as the self?”
The second part explores the various aspects that makes up the
self, such as the biological and material up to and including the more recent Digital Self.
The third and final part identifies three areas of concern for young students: learning,
goal setting and managing stress. It also provides for the more practical application of
the concepts discussed in this course and enables them the hands-on experience of
developing self-help plans for self-regulated learning, goal setting, and self-care.
 Number of Units: 3 Units
Pre-requisite: None
Co-requisite: None
Course Outcomes
At the end of the course, students can:
The Self from Various Perspectives
1. Discuss the different representations and conceptualizations of the self from various
disciplinary perspectives.
2. Compare and contrast how the self has been represented across different disciplines
and perspectives.
3. Examine the different influences, factors and forces that shape the self.
4. Demonstrate clinical and reflective thought in analyzing the development of one’s self
and identity by developing a theory of the self.
Course Outline
UNIT 1: Defining the Self: Personal and Developmental Perspectives on Self and Identity
Module 1: The Self from Various Philosophical Perspectives
Module 2: The Self, Society and Culture
Module 3: The Self as Cognitive Construct
Module 4: The Self in Western and Eastern Thought
Module 5: The Concept of Physical Self ( The Body, Sexuality and Gender)
Module 6: The Concept of Social Self
Module 7: The Conceept of Mental Self
Module 8: The Concept of Spiritual Self ( Religion and Spirituality)
Module 9: The Concept of Emotional Self
Module 10: The Concept of Digital Self
Module 11: Setting up goals and Learning
Module 12: Mental Health, Positive Psychology
Module 13: Stress Management
Module 14: Conflicts and Conflict Resolution Skills
Module 15: Caring for the SELF
Module 16: Finale, Reflection and Recollection Activity

Study Schedule
Week Topic Learning Outcomes Activities
Week 1 Introduction to the Course - Engage students to learn more
about the course syllabus.
- Let the students explore more
on the fundamental questions

Week 2-3 The Self from Various Perspectives
At the end of this lesson, the student
will be able to:
LO1: Understand why it is essential to
understand the self.
LO2: differentiate the notions of the
self from the points of view of various
philosophers across time and place.
LO3: recognize how the self has been
represented in different philosophical
schools.
LO4: appreciate one’s self against the
different views of the self that were
discussed.
Week 4-6 The Self, Society and Culture
At the end of this lesson, the student
will be able to:
LO1: distinguish the relationship
between and among the self, society,
and culture.
LO2: describe the different ways by
which society and culture shape the
self
LO3: understand how the self can be
influenced by the different institutions
in the society.
LO4: compare one’s self against the
different views of self that were
discussed.
regarding the self.
- Explain to the students about
the mechanics of the course.
- Elaborate more on the
requirements and integrative
final requirement project.
- Do a self-evaluation on the
activity “Getting to know me
and you”.
- Explore on the importance of
understanding the self.
- Elaborate on the different
notions of the self from
various philosophical
perspectives by submitting an
essay on “How do I
understand myself? What led
up to this self?”
- Evaluation on the meaning of
self-according to the
philosopher’s perspectives and
then explaining how those
perspectives are compatible
with the student’s sense of
self.
-
- Engage students in how the
self is understood.
- Explore the different ways by
which society and culture
shape the self.
- Explain the relationship
between and among the self,
society and culture.
- Elaborate on how the self is
influenced by the different
forces of the environment.
- Evaluate one’s self in terms of
describing the “self”,
influences of family in
development and comparing
one’s self in different
circumstances.
Week 7-8 The Self as Cognitive Construct
At the end of the lesson, the students
will be able to:
LO1: identify the different areas in
psychology about the “self”
LO2: create their own definition of the
“self” based on the definitions from
psychology.
LO3: Analyze the effects of various
factors identified in psychology in the
formation of the “self”.
The Self in Western and Eastern
Thought
At the end of the lesson, the students
will be able to:
LO1: differentiate the concept of self-
according to western thought against
eastern/oriental perspectives.
LO2: identify the concept of self as
found in Asian thoughts
Preliminary Examination
Week 9-13 UNPACKING THE SELF:
The Concept of Physical Self
(The Body, Sexuality and Gender)
At the end of this lessons, the students
are able to:
LO1: unpack all aspects of self:
Physical, Mental, Emotional, Spiritual
and Social
LO2: explore other aspects such as
- Engage student to do an
activity on comparing how
student view himself against
how people perceive them
depending on how the student
present themselves.
- Let student explore on the
similarities of how the student
views themselves and how
significant others view them
- The student will elaborate on
how to boost their self-esteem
or improve their self-concept.
Students will do research and
cite sources.
- Engage students in doing an
activity based on identifying
the top 5 differences between
Western and Eastern society,
culture and individuals.
- Student will explore and
explain the differentiation
between the East and the
West.
- Elaborate on the similarities of
the Eastern and Western
culture.
- Evaluate students by creating
their own representation,
diagram, or concept map of
the self-according to Filipino
culture.
- Engage students in examining
and identifying by himself
which aspect of self needs to
be developed or be enhanced
for personal development
- Allow the students to make his
“to do list” or “do’s and
don’t’s” to unlearn and
relearn in inhancing the
underdeveloped aspect of his
 Sexuality, Gender, Family systems and
others influencing the shaping of self
LO3: reexamine the sexually
transmitted diseases and its effect to
one’s health and to the total make up
of the person and his surrounding love
ones
LO4: be able differentiate religion from
spirituality
LO5: evaluate to himself the essence of
knowing the intervening influence of
social groups to his building self-
esteem, such as: family, friends,
church and the political influences
LO6: examine how emotions and
feelings determines his dispositions
and be able to identify which ones help
him build his character and identity
LO7: recognize and evaluate the
different influences of social media,
SNS into one’s identity
Identify the authenticity of this digital
posting to his personal and real
identification
Midterm Examination
Week 14- Setting up goals, Learning and Self-
18 care ( stress management and Conflict
Resolution )
At the end of the lessons, students are
able to:
LO1: set his own goals and know how
learning occurs by applying different
learning techniques after knowing and
identifying his types of intelligence
LO2:identify and resolve his own
person-being
- Let the students view and see
the different STD’s and its
psychological effects on
persons behavior and effects
to his love ones, require them
to make narrative reaction and
reflection
- Let the student do family
research in tracing his origin,
where he got the dominant
traits in him, his physical
attributes and character traits
(Genogram)
- Evaluate students experienced
encounter on peer influence
and allow them to share with
the class how did it help him
build his identity
- Engage students by doing a
poll survey on SNS and social
media exposure among them
and allow them to assess
within the class its effects and
influences on their identity
- Let them do concept map or
collage making on his cultural
identity/regional identity and
let them explain how it made
them set apart from other
Filipinos.
- Let the student evaluate
himself what types of
intelligence he is into by
allowing them to answer and
response to an inventory
checklists on multiple
intelligence
- Engage them by projecting
and creating life goals: setting
up goals
 encountered conflicts by using conflict
resolution skills
LO3: able to manage ones stress and
anxiety by identifying its sources and
using positive psychology
LO4: at the final and end of the
semester, recollection and reflection
shall be experienced by the class and
will have group processing with the
use of video clips and structured group
dynamics activities
Final Examination ( Journal Activities)
l
- Elaborate types of learning
and how it occurs by using the
different techniques
- Examine conflicts in life and
trace its causes; use conflict
resolution skills
- Identify and manage his own
metal health issues
- Allow the students do
inventory on self-care check,
expose them to a test on
stress assessment
- Elaborate to them the cause
and effect of stress and how to
manage it by applying positive
psychology
- Engage them to a group
processing activity
- Participate in a
reflection/recollection
processing activity preferably
a face to face encounter which
shall be scheduled
UNIT 1
DEFINING THE SELF: PERSONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVES
ON SELF AND IDENTITY

Module 1 THE SELF FROM VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, the student will be able to:
1. explain why it is essential to understand the self;
2. describe and discuss the different notions of the self from the points of view of various
philosophers across time and place;
3. compare and contrast how the self has been represented in different philosophical
schools; and
4. examine the self against the different views of self that were discussed in class.

Introduction
Before we even had to be in any formal institution of learning, among the many things
we were first taught as kids is to articulate and write down our names. Growing up, we were
told to refer back to this name when talking about ourselves. Our parents painstakingly thought
about our names. Should we be named after a famous celebrity? A respected politician or
historical personality? Or even a saint? Were you named after one? Our names represent us,
who we are. It has not been a custom to just randomly pick a combination of letters and
number (or even punctuation marks) like zhjk756!! to denote our being. Human beings attach
names that are meaningful to birthed progenies because names are supposed to designate us
in the world. Thus, some people get baptized with names such as “Precious”, “Beauty”, or
“Lovely”. Likewise, when our parents call our names, we were taught to respond to them
because our names represent who we are. As a student in school, we are told to always write
our names on our papers, projects, or any output for that matter. Our names signify us. Death
cannot even stop this bond between the person and her name. Names are inscribed even into
one’s gravestone.
A name, no matter how intimately bound it is with the bearer, however, is not the
person. It is only a signifier. A person who was named after a saint most probably will not
become an actual saint. He may not even turn out to be saintly! The self is thought to be
something else than the name. The self is something that a person perennially molds, shapes,
and develops. The self is not static thing that one is simply born with like a mole on one’s face
or is just assigned by one’s parents just like a name. Everyone is tasked to discover one’s self.
Have you truly discovered yours?

ACTIVITY: Do you truly know yourself?

WORDS THAT DESCRIBE ME

Circle the words that describe you.

Adaptive Self-aware Tolerant

Dependable Intelligent Fearless

Compassionate Hard Worker Capable with Hands

Respectful Calm Humble

Energetic Eccentric Clever

Creative Confidant Thoughtful

Complex Realistic Cautious

Balanced Cooperative Shy

Quiet Attentive Picky

Other words that describe you: __________________________________________

__________________________________________

_________________________________________

Your Personal Identity

“Who are You?”

Your Personal Identity

“Who are You?”
Analysis
Were you able to answer the questions above with ease? Why? Which questions did
you find easiest to answer? Which ones are difficult? Why?
Questions above in the Easy or difficult to Why?
pie chart. answer?

Abstraction
The history of philosophy is replete with men and women who inquired into the
fundamental nature of the self. Along with the question of the primary substratum that defines
the multiplicity of things in the world, the inquiry on the self has preoccupied the earliest
thinkers in the history of philosophy: the Greeks. It was the Greeks who seriously questioned
myths and moved away from them in attempting to understand reality and respond to
perennial questions of curiosity, including the question of self. The different perspectives and
views of the self can be best seen and understood then by revising its prime movers and
identify the most important conjectures made by philosophers from the ancient times to the
contemporary period.

Socrates and Plato

Prior to Socrates, the Greek thinkers, sometimes collectively called the Pre-
Socratics, to denote that some of them preceded Socrates while others existed around
Socrates’ time as well, preoccupied themselves with the question of the primary substratum,
arché, that explains the multiplicity of things in the world. These men like Thales, Pythagoras,
Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Empedocles, to name a few, were concerned with explaining what
the world is really made up of, why the world is so, and what explains the changes that they
 observed around them. Tired of simply conceding to mythological
accounts propounded by poet-theologians like Homer and Hesiod,
these men endeavored to finally locate an explanation about the
nature of change, the seeming permanence despite change, and
the unity of the world amidst its diversity.

After a series of thinkers from all across the ancient Greek world
who were disturbed by the same issue, a man came out to
question something else. This man is Socrates. Unlike the Pre-
Socratics, Socrates was more concerned with another subject, the
problem of the self. He is the first philosopher who ever engaged
in a systematic questioning about the self. To Socrates, and this
has become his life-long mission, the true task of the philosopher is to know oneself.

Socrates affirms, claimed by Plato in his dialogues, that the unexamined life is not worth
living. During his trial for allegedly corrupting the minds of the youth and for impiety, Socrates
declared without regret that his being indicted was brought about by his going around Athens
engaging men, young and old, to question their presuppositions about themselves and about
the world, particularly about who they are (Plato, 2012). Socrates took upon himself to serve as
a “gadfly” that disturbs Athenian men from their slumber and shakes them off in order to reach
the truth and wisdom. Most men, in his reckoning, were really not fully aware of who they were
and the virtues that they were supposed to attain in order to preserve their souls for the
afterlife. Socrates thought that this is the worst that can happen to anyone. To live but die
inside.

For Socrates, every man is composed of body

and soul. This means that every human person is
dualistic, that is, he is composed of two important
aspects of his personhood. For Socrates, this means
all individuals have an imperfect, impermanent
aspect, the body, while maintaining that there is also
a soul that is perfect and permanent.

Plato, Socrates’ student basically took off from his

master and supported the idea that man is a dual
nature of the body and soul. In addition to what
Socrates earlier espoused, Plato added that there are parts or three components to the soul:
the rational soul, the spirited soul, and the appetitive soul. In his magnum opus, The Republic
(Plato, 2000), Plato emphasizes that justice in the human person can only be attained if the
three parts of the soul are working harmoniously with one another. The rational soul forged by
reason and intellect has to govern the affairs of the human person; the spirited part, which is in
charge of emotions, should be kept at bay; and the appetitive soul in charge of base desires—
like eating, drinking, sleeping and having sexual intercourse, is controlled as well. When this
ideal state is attained, the human person’s soul becomes just and virtuous.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Augustine of Hippo’s view of the human person

reflects the entire spirit of the medieval world when it
comes to man. Following the ancient view of Plato and
infusing it with the newfound doctrine of Christianity,
Augustine agreed that man is of a bifurcated nature.
There is an aspect of man, which dwells in the world,
that is imperfect and continuously years to be with the
divine while the other is capable of reaching
immortality. 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. This is because
the body can only thrive in the imperfect, physical reality that is the world, whereas the soul
can also stay after death in an eternal realm with the all transcendent God. The goal of every
human person is to attain this communion and bliss with the Divine by living his life on earth in
virtue.
St. Thomas Aquinas, the most eminent 13 th century scholar and stalwart of the medieval
philosophy, appended something to this Christian view. Adopting some ideas from Aristotle,
Aquinas said that, indeed, man is composed of two parts: matter and form. Matter, or hyle in
Greek, refers to the common stuff that makes up everything in the universe. Man’s body is part
of this matter. On ther other hand, form, or morphe in Greek, refers to the essence of a
substance or thing. It is what makes it what it is. In the case of the human person, the body od
the human person is something that he shares even with animals. The cells in a man’s body is
more or less akin to the cells of any other living, organic being in the world. However, what
makes a human person a human and not a dog or tiger is his soul, his essence. To Aquinas, just
as for Aristotle, the soul is what animates the body, is it what makes us humans.

Rene Descartes, Father of Modern Philosophy, conceived

that the human person as having a body and a mind. In his
famous treatise, The Meditations of First Philosophy,
Descartes claims that there is so much that we should doubt.
In fact, he says that much of what we think and believe,
because they are not infallible, may turn out to be false. One
should only believe that which can pass the test of doubt (Descartes, 2008). If something is so
clear and lucid as not to be even doubted, then that is the only time when one should actually
buy a proposition. In the end, Descartes thought that the only thing that one can doubt is the
existence of the self. For even if one doubts oneself, that only proves that there is a doubting
self, a thing that thinks and therefore, that cannot be doubted. Thus, his famous cogito ergo
sum or “I think therefore I am”. The fact that one thinks should lead one to conclude without a
trace of doubt that he exists. The self then for Descartes is also a combination of two distinct
entities: the cogito (the thing that thinks), which is the mind and the extenza (extension of the
mind), which is the body. In Descartes’ view, the body is nothing else but a machine that is
attached to the mind. The human person has it but it is not what makes a man. If at all, that is
the mind. Descartes says, “But what then, am I? A thinking thing. It has been said. But what is a
thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands (conceives), affirms, denies, wills, refuses;
that imagines also and perceives” (Descartes, 2008).

David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, has a very unique way

of looking at man. As an empiricist who believes that one can
know only what comes from the senses and experience,
Hume argues that the self is nothing like what his
predecessors thought of it. The self is not an entity over and
beyond the physical body. One can rightly see here the
empiricism that runs through his veins. Empiricism is the
school of thought that espouses the idea that knowledge can
only be possible if it is sensed and experienced. Men can
only attain knowledge by experiencing. For example, Jack
knows that Jill is another human person not because he has
seen her soul. He knows she is just like him because he sees
her, hears her, and touches her.
To David Hume, the self is nothing else but a bundle of impressions. What are
impressions? For David Hume, if one tries to examine his experiences, he finds that they can all
be categorized into two: impressions and ideas. Impressions are the basic object of our
experience or sensation. They therefore form the core of our thoughts. When one touches an
ice cube, the cold sensation is an impression. Impressions therefore are vivid because they are
products of our direct experience with the world. Ideas, on the other hand, are copies of
impressions. Because of this, they are not as lively and vivid as our impressions. When one
imagines the feeling of being in love for the first time, that still is an idea.
What is the self then? Self-according to Hume, is simply “a bundle or collection of
different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a
perpetual flux and movement” (Hume and Steinberg, 1992). Men simply want to believe that
there is a unified, coherent self, a soul or mind just like what the previous philosophers
thought. In reality, what one thinks as unified self is simply a combination of all experiences
with a particular person
Immanuel Kant
Thinking of the self as mere combination of impressions was
problematic for Immanuel Kant. He recognizes the veracity in Hume’s
account that everything starts with perception and sensation of
impressions. However, Kant thinks that the things that men perceive
around them are not just randomly infused into the human person
without an organizing principle that regulates the relationship of all
these impressions. For Kant, there is necessarily a mind that organizes
the impressions that men get from the external world. Time and
space, for example, are ideas that one cannot find in the world but is
built in our minds. Kant calls these the apparatus of the mind.

Along with the different apparatus of the mind goes the self. Without the self, one
cannot organize the different impressions that one gets in relation to his own existence. Kant
therefore suggests the “self” is an actively engaged intelligence in man that synthesizes all
knowledge and experiences. Thus, the self is not just what gives one his personality. It is also
the seat of knowledge acquisition for all human persons.

Gilbert Ryle
Gilbert Ryle solves the mind-body dichotomy that has
been running for a long time in the history of thought by denying
blatantly the concept of an internal non-physical self. For Ryle, what
truly matter is the behavior that a person manifests in his day-to-day
life.
For Ryle, looking for and trying to understand a self as it
really exists is like visiting your friend’s university and looking for the
“university”. One can roam around the campus, visit the library and
the football field, meet the administrators and faculty, and still end
up not finding the “university”. This is because the campus, the
people, and the system, and the territory all form the university.
Ryle suggests that the self is not an entity one can locate and
analyze but simply the convenient name that people use to refer to all the behaviors that
people make.

Merleau-Ponty
Merleau-Ponty is a phenomenologist who asserts that the
mind-body bifurcation that has been going on for a long time is a
futile endeavor and an invalid problem. Unlike Ryle who simply
denies the self, Merleau-Ponty instead says the mind and body are intertwined that they
cannot be separated from one another. One cannot find any experience that is not an
embodied experience. All experience is embodied. One’s body is his opening toward his
existence to the world. Because of these bodies, men are in the world. Merleau-Ponty dismisses
the Cartesian Dualism that has spelled so much devastation in the history of man. For him, the
Cartesian problem is nothing else but plain misunderstanding. The living body, his thoughts,
emotions, and experiences are all one.

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud’s* view of the self leads to an analogous

dualistic view of the self, though the contours and content of his
ideas are very different from Kant’s. Freud is not, strictly speaking, a
philosopher, but his views on the nature of the self-have had a far-
reaching impact on philosophical thinking, as well as virtually every
other discipline in the humanities and social sciences. Naturally, his
most dominant influence has been in the fields of psychology and
psychoanalysis. Freud’s view of the self was multitiered, divided
among the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. He explains
his psychological model in the following passage from his An Outline
of Psychoanalysis.

Freud’s topographical model of the mind divided it into systems on the basis of their
relationship to consciousness: conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. Freud later developed
a structural model of the mind that divided it according to mental functions: the id, the ego,
and the superego. Freud emphasizes the fact that although the structural model has certain
similarities with the earlier topographical model, the two are not the same. Although the id has
virtually the same place as the unconscious in the sense of being the reservoir for the primal
instinctual forces responsible for all human motivation, the ego and superego systems consist
of aspects that are both conscious and unconscious in the psychoanalytic sense—in other
words, they are inaccessible to consciousness except under unusual circumstances. Freud
believed that the strength of the structural model was its ability to analyze situations of mental
conflict in terms of which functions are allied with one another and which are in conflict
(analogous to the conflicting elements in Plato’s division of the soul into Reason, Spirit, and
Appetite).

APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

In your own words, state what is the meaning of self for each of the following
philosophers. After doing so, explain how your concept of self is compatible with how they
conceived of the self.
1. Socrates
 2. Plato

3. Augustine

4. Descartes

5. Hume

6. Kant

7. Ryle

8. Merleau-Ponty

9. Freud

Module 2 THE SELF, SOCIETY, AND CULTURE

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, the student will be able to:
1. explain the relationship between and among the self, society, and culture;
2. describe and discuss the different ways by which society and culture shape the self;
3. compare and contrast how the self can be influenced by the different institutions in the
society; and
4. examine one’s self against the different views of self that were discussed in class.

INTRODUCTION
Across time and history, the self has been debated, discussed and (fruitfully or
otherwise) conceptualized by different thinkers in philosophy. Eventually, with the advent of
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 the body and the mind. Thinkers just eventually got tired of focusing
on the long standing debate since 6 th Century BC between the relationship of the two
components of the human person. Thinkers just settled with the idea 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 social sciences, it became possible for new approaches
of the examination of the self to come to fore. One of the locus, if not the most important axis
of analysis, is the relationship between the self and the external world.
What is the relationship between the 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 never had 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 like human
persons without intervention. This story, which was supposed to be
based on real life, challenges the long-standing notion of human
person 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, our “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?
ACTIVITY
Paste a picture of you when you were in elementary, in high school and now that you
are in college. Below the picture, list down your salient characteristics that you remember.

My Elementary Self My High School Self

My College Self

ANALYSIS

After having examined your “self” in its different stages, fill out the following table:
Similarities in All stages of My Differences in My “Self” Possible reason for the
“Self” across the Three stages of Differences in Me
My life
 A Portrait of Yourself
● The best thing(s) I ever did was (were) _________________________________________

● I wish I could lose my fear of _________________________________________________

● I know I have the talent to ___________________________________________________

● I enjoy people who ________________________________________________________

● I admire _________________________________________________________________

● I feel most productive when _________________________________________________

● I am motivated by _________________________________________________________

● I almost never____________________________________________________________

● My idea of fun is __________________________________________________________

● Work is exciting when ______________________________________________________

● The best advise I ever got was _______________________________________________

● The thing I value most is ____________________________________________________

● If money were no object, I would _____________________________________________

● It is easy for me to focus on _________________________________________________

● My idea of perfect life is ____________________________________________________

● My best days are __________________________________________________________

● My dream is ______________________________________________________________

● I always wanted to ________________________________________________________

● I look forward to __________________________________________________________

● I spent too much time ______________________________________________________

 ● The thing my friends like about me is __________________________________________

● When I try to change something ______________________________________________

● In a group I like to _________________________________________________________

● If I ever win a prize it will be for ______________________________________________

ABSTRACTION

What is the Self?

The self, in contemporary literature and
even common sense, is commonly defined by the
following characteristics “separate, self-
contained, independent, consistent, unitary, and
private” (Stevens, 1996). By separate, it is meant
that the self is distinct from other selves. The self
is always unique and has its own identity. One
cannot be another person. Even twins are distinct
from each other. Second, self is also self-
contained and independent because in itself it can exist. Its distinctiveness allows it to be self-
contained with its own thoughts, characteristics, and volition. It does not require any other self
for it to exist. It is consistent because it has a personality that is enduring and therefore can be
expected to persist for quite some time. Its consistency, therefore, allows it to be studied,
described, and measured. Consistency also means that a particular self’s traits, characteristics,
tendencies, and potentialities are more or less the same. Self is unitary in that it is the center of
all experiences and thoughts that run through a certain person. It is like the chief command
post in an individual where all processes, emotions, and thoughts converge. Finally, the self is
private. Each person sorts out information, feelings and emotions, and thought processes
within the self. This while process is never accessible to anyone but the self.

This last characteristic of the self, its 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. 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 external reality. This perspective is
known as the social constructionist perspective. “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 p. 222).
Social constructivists argue that the self should not be seen as a static entity that stays
constant through and through. Rather, has to be seen as something that is in unceasing flux, in
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.
Having these perspectives considered should draw one into concluding that the self is truly
multifaceted.

Consider a man named Jon. Jon is a math professor in a Catholic university for more
than a decade now. Jon has a beautiful wife Joan, which he met in college. Joan was Jon’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 his social situation. When Jon is in the university, he conducts himself in
a manner 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
mate knew him as a calm, all-smiles guy ready to lend a helping hand to anyone in need. This
short story is not new to most of us. We, ourselves, play different roles, act in different ways
depending on our circumstance. Are we being hypocritical in doing so? Are we even conscious
of shifting selves? According to what we have so far, this is not only normal but it is also
acceptable and expected. The self is capable of morphing and fitting itself into any circumstance
it finds itself in.
The Self and Culture

Remaining the same person and turning chameleon by adopting 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: personne and moi. Moi refers to a
person’s sense of who he is, his body, and his basic identity; his biological givenness. Moi is a
person’s basic identity. Personne on the other hand, is composed of the social concepts of
what it means to be who he is. Personne 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 the expectations and influences from others.

In the story above, Jon might have a moi but certainly he has to shift personne from
time to time to adapt to his social situation. He knows who he is and more or less, he is
confident that he has a unified, coherent self. However, at some point, he has to sport his stern
professorial look. Another day, he has to be doting but strict dad that he is. Inside his bedroom,
he can play goofy with his wife, Joan. In all these and more, Jon retains who he is (his being Jon
and his moi), that part of him who is stable and static all throughout.

The dynamics and capacity for different personne can be illustrated better cross-
culturally. A Filipino OFW adjusting to a 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 simply crosses whenever and wherever.
When the same Filipino visits another country with strict traffic rules, say Singapore, you will
notice how suddenly abiding the said Filipino becomes. This observation has been anecdotally
confirmed by a lot of Filipinos.

The same malleability can be seen in how some men easily transform into sweet, docile
guys when trying to woo and court a particular woman and suddenly change after hearing a
sweet “yes”. This cannot be hardly 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 the contexts.

In the Philippines, Filipinos tend to

consider their territory as a part of who
they are. This includes considering their
immediate surrounding as a part of
them, thus the perennial “tapat mo, linis
mo”. Filipinos most probably do not
consider national roads as something
external to who they are. It is a part of
them and they are a part of it, thus
crossing the road whenever and
wherever becomes a no brainer. In another country, however, the Filipino recognizes that he is
in a foreign territory where nothing technically belongs to him. He has to follow rules or else be
apprehended.

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 its 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 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.

Interesting too is the word, mahal. In Filipino, the word can mean both “love” and
“expensive”. In our language, love is intimately bound with value, with being expensive and
being precious. Something expensive is valuable. Someone we love is valuable to us. The
Sanskrit origin of the word love is “lubh” which means desire. Technically, love is a desire. The
Filipino word for it to has another intonation apart from mere desire, which is valuable.

Another interesting facet of our language is its being gender-neutral. In English, Spanish,
and other languages, there is clear distinction 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 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 our crafting of the self. This
might also be one of the reasons cultural divide definitely accounts for the differences in how
one regards oneself. In one research, it was found that North Americans are more likely to
attribute being unique to themselves and claim that they are better than most people in doing
what they love doing. Japanese people, on the other hand, have been seen to display a degree
of modesty. If one finds himself born and reared in a particular culture, one definitely tries to fit
in a particular mold. If a self is born in a particular culture, the self will have to adjust according
to its exposure.

The Self and the Development of the Social World

So how do people actively produce their social words? How do children grow up and
become social beings? How can a boy turn out to be just like an ape? How do twins coming out
from the same mother turn out to be 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 the shaping of selves. That men and women are born with particularities
that they can no longer change. Recent studies, however, indicate that men and women in their
growth and development engage activities in the 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

For George Herbert Mead and Lev 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 mimicry of
how it is done in the social world, in the external reality where he is in.

Both Vygotsky and Mead treat the human mind as something that is made, constituted
through language as experienced in the external 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 little children are fond of playing
role play with their toys? Notice how they make scripts and dialogues for their toys as they play
with them? According to Mead, it is through this that a child delineates the “I” from the rest.

Lev Vygotsky, for his part believes a child internalizes real-

life dialogues that he has had with others, with his family, his
primary caregiver, or his playmates. They apply this to their mental
and practical problems along with the social and cultural infusions
brought about by the said dialogues. Notice how children can
become what they watch? Notice how children can easily adopt
ways of cartoon characters they are exposed to? Dora, for
example?

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) will certainly affect us and the kind of
development that we will have as we got through life. As a matter of evolutionary fact, human
persons are one of those beings 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 relationships, most important of
which is the family.

Human persons learn ways of living and therefore their selfhood by being in a family. It
is what a family initiates a person to become that serves as the basis for this person’s progress.
 Babies internalize ways and styles that they view from their
family. For example, by imitating the language of their primary
agents of rearing, their family, babies learn language. The same
is true for ways of behaving. Notice how kids reared in respectful
environment becomes respectful as well and the converse if
raised in a converse family. Internalizing behavior may either be
conscious or unconscious. Table manners or ways of speaking to
elders are things that are possible to teach and therefore, are consciously learned by kids. Some
behaviors and attitudes, on the other hand, may be indirectly taught through rewards and
punishments. Others such as sexual behavior or how to confront emotions are learned in subtle
means, like the tone of the voice or intonation of the models. It is then clear at this point that
those who develop and eventually grow to become adult who still did not learn simple matters
like basic manners of conduct failed in internalizing due to parental or familial failure to initiate
them into the world.

Without a family, biologically and sociologically, a person may not even survive or
become a human person. Go back to the Tarzan example. In more ways than one, the survival
of Tarzan in the midst of a 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 give an obvious manifestation
of the point being made in this section. One is who he is because of his family for the most part.

Gender and the 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 the
development. 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 basis. 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 form of
selfhood is one that cannot just be dismissed. One maneuvers into the society and identifies
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, the wife of the famous Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, wrote when
she was 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, gwo
rotten teeth, and a bad temper, a battered sense of dignity, and a love which nobody
wants wand which nearly drives 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 is expected to provide for the family. The
eldest man in a family is expected to head the family and hold it. 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, argues that
because mothers take the role of taking care
of children, there is a tendency for girls to
imitate he same an reproduce the same kind
of mentality as women as care providers in the
family. The way that little girls are given dolls
instead, 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.

Men on the other hand, in the periphery of

their own family, are taught early on how to
behave like a man. This 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.

The gendered self is then shaped within a

particular context of time and space. The sense of self
that is being taught makes sure that an 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 be
personally discovered and asserted and not dictated by
culture and society.

APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

Answer the following questions, cogently and honestly.
Module 3 THE SELF AS COGNITIVE CONSTRUCT
Objectives:

At the end of the lesson, the students shall be able to:

1. identify the different ideas in psychology about the “self”;
2. create their own definition of the “self” based on the definitions from psychology;
3. analyze the effects of various factors identified in psychology in the formation of the
“self”.

INTRODUCTION

As seen from the previous lessons, every field of the study, at least in the social sciences,
definition, and conceptualization of self and identity. Some are similar while some specific only
in their field. Each field also has thousands of research 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 nature vs. nurture, society/culture vs. individual/brain, or other social sciences 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 and still, there are more to be known about the concept of the “self”. The following
lesson provides an overview of the themes of psychology regarding the said concept.

ACTIVITY

This activity has two parts that try to compare how we look at ourselves against how
people perceive us depending on how we present ourselves to them. For the first part, list ten
to fifteen (10-15) qualities or things around the human figures representing you that you think
defines who you are.
For the second part, in the space below, write the following “I am
_________________________ (Your name). Who do you think I am based on what you see me
do or hear me say?” Since for the most part of the semester, you will be staying at home while
learning, you can chat among your friends in this activity. Do not use bad words. Consolidate all
responses and write it here on the space provided.

ANALYSIS
Compare what you wrote about yourself to those written by your classmates. What
aspects are similar and which are not? What aspects are always true to you? What aspects are
sometimes true or circumstantial? What aspects do you think are not really part of your
personality? Write your answers below:

ABSTRACTION
 In confidence or in an attempt to avoid further analytical discussions, a lot of 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?”

As mentioned earlier there are various definitions of the “self” and other similar or
interchangeable concepts in psychology. 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 pscyhologists to study the self and he
conceptualized 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 Vaughn 2010, 66).
The “me” on the other hand is the physical characteristics as well as psychological capabilities
that makes you who you are. 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).

Other concepts similar to 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, Oyserman, and Smith 2012, 69). Self-concept is basically what comes to your
mind when you are asked about who you are (elmore, Oyserman, and Smith 2012, 69).

Self, identity, and self-concept are not fixed in one time frame. For example, when asked
about who you are, you can say “I was a varsity player in Grade5” which pertains to the past, “a
college student” which may be the present, and a “future politician” which is the future. They
are not also fixed for life nor are they ever-changing at every moment. Think of a malleable
metal, strong and hard but can be bent and molded in other shapes. Think about water. It can
take any shape of the container, it can be in solid, liquid, or gas form, but at its core, it is still the
same elements.

Carl Rogers captured this idea in his concept of self-schema or our own organized
system or collection of knowledge about who we are (Gleitman, Gross and Reisberg 2011, 616;
Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 107-108). Imagine an organized list or a diagram similar to the one
below.

Hobbies

Self
 Family Religion

Nationality

The scheme is not limited to the example above. It may also include your interests, your
work, your course, age, name, physical characteristics, etc. As you grow and adapt to the
changes around you, they also change. But they are not passive receivers, they actively shape
and affect how you see, think, and feel about the object of things (Gleitman, Gross and Reisberg
2011, 617; Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 107-108).

For example, when someone states your name, even if he is now talking about you, your
attention is drawn to him. If you have a provincial language and you hear someone using it, it
catches your attention. If you consider yourself a book-lover, a bookstore may always entice
you out of all the other stores in a mall.

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. The most influential of them is Sigmund
Freud. Basically, Freud saw the self, its mental processes, and one’s behavior as the results of
the interaction between the Id, the Ego and the Superego.

However, as mentioned earlier, one cannot fully discount the effects of society and
culture to the formation of the self, identity, and self-concept. Even as Freud and other theories
and researchers try to understand the person by digging deeper into the mind, they cannot fully
discount the huge and important effects of the environment. As in the abovementioned
definitions of the self, social interaction always has a part to play in who we think we are. This is
not nature vs. nurture but instead a nature-and-nurture perspective.
 Under the theory of symbolic interactionism, G. H. Mead (1934) argued that the self is
created and 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):
1. We do not create ourselves out of nothing. Society helped in creating the foundations of
who we are and even if we make our choices, we will still operate in our social and
historical contexts in one way or the other way. Of course, you may transfer from one
culture to another, but parts of who you were will still affect you and you will also to
adapt to the new social context. Try looking at your definition of who you are and see
where society had affected you;

2. Whether we like to admit it or not, we actually need others to affirm and reinforce who
we think we are. We also need them as reference points about our identity. One
interesting example is the social media interactions we have. In the case of Facebook,
there are those who will consciously or unconsciously try to garner more LIKES and /or
positive reactions and that can and will reinforce their self-concept. It is almost like a
battle between who got more friends, more views, and trending topics. If one says he or
she is a good singer but his or her performance and the evaluation from the audience
says otherwise, that will have an effect on that person’s idea of himself, one way or
another.

3. What we think as important to us may also have been influenced by what is important
in our social or historical context. Education might be an important thing to your self-
concept because you grew up in a family that valued education. Money might be
important to some because they may have grown in a poor family and realized how
important money is in addressing certain needs like medical emergencies. Being a nurse
or a lawyer can be a priority in your elf-schema because it is the in-demand course
during your time.

Social interaction and group affiliation, therefore, are vital factors in creating our self-
concept especially in the aspect of providing us with our social identity or our perception of
who we are based on our membership to certain groups (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014, 110). It is
also inevitable then that we can have several social identity, that those identities can overlap,
and that we automatically play the roles as we interact with our groups. For example, you are a
student yet you are also a member if a certain group of friends. You study because it is your
role as a student but you prefer to study with your friends and your study pattern changes
when you are with your friends than when you do it alone.

However, there are times when we are aware of our self-concepts, also called self-
awareness. Carver and Scheier (1981) identified two types of self that we can be aware of:
1) The private self or your internal standards and private thoughts and feelings, and
 2) The public self or your public image commonly geared towards having a good
presentation of yourself to others (Hogg and Vaughan 2010, 69).

Self-awareness also presents us with at least three other self-schema: the actual, ideal,
ought self. The “actual self” is who you are at the moment, the “ideal self” is who you like to be,
and the “ought self” is who we think we should be (Higgins 1997 in Hogg and Vaughn 2010, 74).
Example is that you are a student interested in basketball but is also academically challenged in
most of your subjects. Your ideal self might be to practice more and play with the varsity team
but ought to pass your subjects as a responsible student. One has to 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 may be positive or negative depending on the circumstances and our next
course of action. Self-awareness can keep you from doing something dangerous., it can help
remind you that there is an exam tomorrow on one of the subjects when you are about to
spend time playing computer games with your cousins, among others, in other instances self-
awareness can be too much that we are concerned about being observed and criticized by
others, also known as self-consciousness (Jahngiani and Tarry 2014, 112). At other times,
especially with large crowds. We may experience deindividuation or the “loss of individual self-
awareness and individual accountability in groups” (Festinger, Pepitone, and Newcomb 1952;
Zimbardo 1969). 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. A common example is a mass
demonstration erupting into a riot.

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 behavior, as well as our social status by comparing ourselves with other
people.

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. By having the advantage, we are able to raise our self-esteem.
Another comparison is the upward social comparison which is comparing ourselves with those
who are better off than us. 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 weaknesses 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 be heightened.
 Social comparison also entails what is called self-evaluation maintenance theory which
states that we can feel threatened when someone out-performs us, especially when that
person is close to us i.e. a friend or family. In that case, we usually react in three ways. First, we
distance ourselves from that person or redefine our relationship with them (Jhangiani and Tarry
2014, 144). Some will 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 reconsider the importance of the
aspect or skill in which you were outperformed. If you got beaten in drawing, you might think
that 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. Instead of quitting drawing, you might join seminars, practice more often,
read books 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.

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”. They are often charismatic because of how they take care of their image.
Taking care of that image includes their interpersonal relationships thus they will try to look for
better partners, better acquaintances, as well as people who will appreciate them a lot. This
makes them bad romantic partner or friend since they engage in relationships only to serve
themselves.

Sometimes there is a thin line between 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
results can be affected by the desire of the person to portray him/herself in a positive or
advantageous way. In case you really want to take a test and find a numerical value or level for
your self-esteem, try to be honest and objective about what you feel and see about yourself.

Though self-esteem is a very important concept related to the self, studies have shown that
it only has a correlation, not causality, to positive outputs and outlook. 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 in a lot of situations. They also initiate activities and building relationships 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.

This duality in the behavior and attitudes only proves the abovementioned 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 be rewarding good
behavior and other achievements and not for the purpose of merely trying to make children
feel better about themselves or to appease them when they get angry or sad.

APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

Activity 1: Success Stories

Think about and write two or three of your success stories. Use separate sheet when
necessary.
1. ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2. ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

What does this say about who you are and what’s important to you? Share with your group
“why” these success stories are important to you. We will have a scheduled online session for
group sharing.

Activity 2: Improving Self-esteem

Do a research and list ten (10) things to do in order to boost your self-esteem or
improve your self-concept. Cite your resources. Analyze each item which of those that you have
listed is applicable to your own self at this time.
Module 4 THE SELF IN WESTERN AND EASTERN THOUGHT
Objectives
At the end of the session, the students will be able to:
1. differentiate the concept of self-according to western thought against eastern/oriental
perspectives;
2. explain the concept of self as found in Asian thoughts; and
3. create a representation of the Filipino self

Introduction
Different cultures and varying environment tends to create different perception of the
“self” and one of the most common distinctions between culture and people is the eastern vs.
western dichotomy wherein eastern represents Asia and western 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 similar or varying perception
regarding the “self”.

Activity
Write the top five (5) differences between Western and Eastern society, culture, and
inviduals in the table below. Cite your sources.
WESTERN EASTERN

Analysis
 Do you agree with the differentiation between the West and the East? Where can you
find the Philippines in the distinction? What are the factors that make the Philippines similar or
different from its Asian neighbors? Is there also a difference between regions or ethnolinguisitic
groups in the Philippines?

ABSTRACTION
There are actually a lot of sources in which you can analyze the perspective of each
culture and country about the concept of “self”. You can see it in their literature like how one
culture depicts a hero or villain in their stories. You can see it in their social organization like
how they see their boss or their subordinate. Art works, dances, even clothing may show you
clues about the “self”.
For the purposes of this lesson, however, we will look at religious beliefs 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.

First is Confucianism. Confucianism can

be seen as a 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). 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.

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. 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.

The second philosophy is Taoism.

For the purpose of discussion, Taoism is
living in 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
life. Thus, its teachings aim to describe
how to attain that life.

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. The ideal self is selflessness but this is
not forgetting about the self, it is living a balanced life with society and nature, being open and
accepting to change, forgetting about prejudices and egocentric ideas and thinking about
equality as well as complementarity among humans as well as other beings. 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.
 The third belief is Buddhism. There are
various groups who have adapted Buddhism thus
you may find differences in their teachings with our
discussion but more likely, their core concepts
remained the same. The self is seen 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. It is
therefore our quest to forget about the self, forget
the cravings of the self, break the attachments you
have with the world, and renounce the self which is
the cause of all suffering and in doing so attain the
state of Nirvana.

The self or the individual is not the focus of the abovementioned Asian or Eastern
philosophies or belief. Even when extended discussions about how the self should work,
Confucianism and Taoism still situate 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 its connections and 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, a Western perspective does 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 of 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 wherin
you are distinct from the other person, the creator is separated from the object he or she
created, in which the self is distinguished and acknowledged. On the other hand, the Eastern
perspective sees the other person 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).

Several studies showed that Americans, for example, talk more 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.
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.

The western culture then is what we would call an individualistic culture since their
focus is on the
person. Asian
culture on the other
hand is called a
collectivist culture
as the group and
social relationships
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. Competition
is the name of the game and they are more likely straightforward and forceful in their
communication as well as decision making. Eastern or oriental persons look after the welfare of
their group and value cooperation. They would also be more compromising and they tend to go
around the bush explaining things, hoping that the other person would feel what they really
want to say.

Westerners also emphasize more on the value of equality even if they see that the
individual can rise above everything else. Because everyone is on their own in the competition,
one can say that they also promote ideals that create a “fair” competition and protect the
individual. Asians, on the other hand, with their collective regard, put more emphasis on
hierarchy—as the culture wants to keep things in harmony and in order. For example,
Westerners would most likely call their boss, parents or other seniors by their first name. The
boss can also be approached head-on when conflicts or problems about him/her arises. For
Asians, we have respectful terms for our seniors and a lot of workers would not dare go against
the high ranking officials.

It must be emphasized, however, that these are general commonalities among

Western cultures as compared to Asian or Oriental culture. In the case of the Philippines, we
can also consider the colonization experience for differences and similarities with other Asian
neighbors. We might also find variation among provinces and regions due to geographical
conditions.
With the social media, migration, and intermarriages, variety between the Western
and Asian perceptions may either be blurred or highlighted. Whereas conflict is inevitable in
diversity, peace is also possible through the understanding of where each of us is coming from.

APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

Create your own representation, diagram, or concept map of the self-according to

Filipino culture. Provide a brief explanation about your output.