I - What is the Self?

Abstraction

The self is a topic that is often talked about but essentially goes unnoticed. Whenever the ‘I’ is
mentioned (e.g., I will go to school, I hang out with my friends, I like to eat burgers), the self is highlighted
as the “actor.” Further, the pronoun “me” is usually used as the object (e.g., tell me about it, give me
something, it makes me feel awesome). Noticeably, the self composes both the I as an actor and the me
as the object. The focus on the self is even more evident in the functional word variations of I and me
used in everyday language depending on the purpose (e.g., my, mine, myself, etc.). The consciousness of
the existence of the self has been almost automatic or reflexive. Thus, people are almost unaware of it. In
our everyday lives, we are constantly acknowledging it. Three Scholars (i.e., theorists, scientists, and
philosophers) in different fields have attempted to explain and thoroughly expound on several issues and
controversies about the nature, existence, and dimensionality of self. The most prevalent problems with
self are nature vs. nurture, identity vs. self, and dimensionalities of the self.

NATURE VS. NURTURE

Some insist that the self is predominantly a product of natural processes to which people are
inherently predisposed. The natural basis of the self is anchored on biology and explains that human traits
are passed from one generation to another. These transmitted traits serve as a blueprint of the self and
predispose one to certain self-expressions (e.g., attitude, behavior, tendencies, etc.).

In this stance, the self is studied structurally and functionally, from the molecular level to the
entirety of human physiological systems. Genetics, for example, contributes so much information about
the descriptions of the self. This field of biology primarily deals with heredity (transmission of traits and
characteristics. from one generation to another) as a process, as well as with the characterizations
(similarities and differences) of organisms.

The other side, meanwhile, argues that the self should be principally viewed as an outcome of
various nurturing factors in one’s life. Social sciences have provided several insights and explanations
about the self, both on the micro and macro levels. Different social sciences stress how group life (formal
and informal) affects an individual’s behavior and attitude and emphasize the impact of various social
institutions on the self. While the issue of the predominance of either nature or nurture is still unresolved,
one can safely assume that the self is a product of nature and nurture.

IDENTITY VS. SELF

Self and identity are topics that remain popular not only among psychologists (even authors of
psychology articles) but also among other social scientists like sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and
economists. Noticeably, the terms “self” and “identity” have been loosely interchanged in various
literatures. Many people believe that there is a very thin conceptual and functional distinction between
the two concepts and thus perceive them as synonymous.

Based on lexical definitions, the two concepts are distinct and can be delineated. Consider, for
example, the definitions provided in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the term identity: (noun, identity
\-den-ta-te, a-, -de-no-\) “the qualities, beliefs, etc., that make a particular person or group different from
others... or the distinguishing character or personality of an individual.” On the other hand, the term self
(noun) refers to “the person that someone normally or truly is.. or the entire person of an individual.” The
definitions provided suggest that the distinction that separates the two fall on the social representation
of the term (i.e., known to others or only known to oneself). Identity distinguishes or compares one from
another, while the self refers to the total characteristics or qualities of a person known and unknown to
others (but known to oneself).

A comprehensive definition that underscores the distinctions and overlaps between self and
identity was given by Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith (2012, p. 69), stating that: “Identities are the traits
and characteristics, social relations, roles, and social group memberships that define who one is. Identities
can be focused on the past- what used to be true of one, the present---what is true of one now, or the
future- the person one expects or wishes to become, the person one feels obligated to try to become, or
the person one fears one may become; together, identities make up one’s self. The concept is described
as what comes to mind when one thinks of oneself.”

DIMENSIONALITIES OF THE SELF/IDENTITY

A person’s identity is highlighted by a dominant trait that makes them distinguishable from others.
Imagine, for example, a situation where you are trying to describe a person (whose name you cannot
recall). You will find yourself thinking of remarkable traits that make others identify or even guess who
you are talking about. You may describe that person using physical attributes (e.g., tall, dark, fat, etc.).
However, this attempt may be unsuccessful because, in many instances, the physical descriptions you give
can also be seen in other people unless the physical description is unique and specific to that person (e.g.,
the tallest guy in the school, around 7 ft).

In most cases, a person’s identity can be best depicted using certain traits that would set them
apart from others (e.g., the most arrogant, the most timid, the noisiest, etc.). Unfortunately, describing a
person in the “average” category will be difficult. As the term implies, average connotes that one is just
like everybody else in the group. In this case, several observable traits should be combined to effectively
describe the person (e.g., the tall and dark guy in the class with a regional accent.. and dressed up like...).

References

Macayan, J.V., Pinugu, J.N.J., Castilo, J.C.D.C. (2018). Understanding the Self. Outcome-based Module.
C&E Publishing, Inc.
 II - The Philosophical Perspective

Abstraction

Philosophy has always sought to answer life’s difficult questions and has relentlessly pursued
answers to these, no matter how seemingly futile the quest may be. This chapter presents various
philosophers offering multiple perspectives on the self. In Philosophy, discussion of the self is a basic
search for meaning and purpose in life. Determination, rationalization, and identification of the self set
the direction from which an individual travels to fulfill their purpose in life. The inability to define oneself
leads to many contradictions within the self later on; hence, it is one of the many imperatives in life to
know oneself and lead a life charted by oneself. The philosophical quest aims to unravel who man is and
his nature by looking not just at the everyday goals of man but to determine what ultimately is man, his
dreams, and his essence. To help us understand ourselves a bit clearer and ease the pressure of coming
up with a definite answer to who we are, let us look into some of the theories and concepts in philosophy
regarding the self.

SOCRATES (469-399 BC) “Know thyself.”

Known as the market philosopher because of his penchant for engaging youths in philosophizing
in public markets, Socrates directed philosophy’s attention from the universe to examining our existence
in the universe. He reminds us to “know thyself,” which posits that if a person knows who they are, all
fundamental issues and difficulties in life will vanish, and everything will be clearer and simpler. One could
now act according to their definition of the self without doubt and contradiction. Socrates held the
question of who a man is in such high esteem that he also said, “An unexamined life is not worth living”.
Here, there is an urgent call to examine one’s life, for it is in the examination that we can know ourselves.
Socrates is a dualist. He believed that man has a soul – which is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform,
indissoluble, and ever self-consistent and invariable – and a body – which is human, mortal, multiform,
unintelligible, dissoluble, and inconsistent. He added that some mental states can be attributed to the
soul while others are linked to the body. The body is vulnerable to basic emotions and actions; the soul
controls these emotions and actions through proper judgment and reason. This differential establishes
the superiority of the soul over the body.

For him, there was a soul first before man’s body. Man’s existence was first in the realm of ideas
and exists as a soul or pure mind. This soul has knowledge by direct intuition, which is stored in his mind.
However, once he came to the material world or the world of senses, he needed to remember most of
what he knew. This resulted in a lack of knowledge or ignorance, which caused problems for man. But,
knowledge can be restored through the process of the dialectic method, also known as the Socratic
method – a sort of intellectual midwifery trying to coax knowledge out of man. This process is an exchange
of questions and answers that ultimately aims to make the person remember all the knowledge they have
forgotten, including their former omniscient self. Answers will always be subjective, and there is no right
or wrong answer to the questions posited by Socrates. The quality and quantity of answers depend on the
person answering these basic inquiries, and one’s subsequent actions are best understood on how one
defines oneself, thus the constant reminder to “know thyself.”
 Self-knowledge, for Socrates, means knowing one’s degree of understanding about the world and
one’s capabilities and potentials. It is only through self-knowledge that one’s self emerges. Therefore, the
self is achieved and not just discovered, something to work on and not a product of a mere realization.
For him, possession of knowledge is a virtue, and ignorance is a vice. He argued that a person’s acceptance
of ignorance is a springboard for the acquisition of knowledge later on. So, one must first have the humility
to acknowledge ignorance to acquire knowledge.

PLATO (427-347 BCE) “Thinking – the talking of the soul with itself.”

An ancient Greek philosopher who was a student of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle, Plato
produced a substantial body of work that became the basis for Western thought. Regarding the concept
of the self, Plato was one of the first philosophers who believed in an enduring self that the soul
represents. He argued that the soul is eternal and constitutes the enduring self because the soul continues
to exist even after death.

An important part of his philosophy is the dichotomy of the ideal world or the world of forms –
the permanent, unchanging reality – and the material world - the constantly changing representation. The
material world is what we see around us; for Plato, this is just a replica of the real world found in the world
of Forms. Plato’s insisted that the empirical reality we experience in the material world is fundamentally
unreal and is only a shadow or a mere appearance. In contrast, the ultimate reality in the ideal world is
real as it is eternal and constitutes abstract universal essences of things. Therefore, all things in the
material world are unreal as they are all concrete objects. At the same time, the universal essences are
authentic as they are immaterial blueprints of objects in the physical world. The tangible objects in this
world are mere copies of these abstract universal essences.

This dichotomy is reflected in his idea of the nature of man. He believed that human beings are
composed of a body and a soul. The soul is the true self -the permanent, unchanging self. The changing
body, however, is not the real self but a replica of our true self. This is why it constantly changes- getting
older, changing shape, etc. The body is seen as some prison. We can free ourselves from the imprisonment
of our bodily senses through contemplation. Contemplation entails communion of the mind with universal
and eternal ideas. We continue to exist even in the absence of our bodies because we are Souls only.

RENE DESCARTES (1596) “I think; therefore I am”

This Frenchman was considered the Father of Modern Philosophy and a brilliant mathematician
(Cartesian Geometry). “I think, therefore, I am,” also known as “Cogito ergo sum”, emphasizes the
consciousness of his mind, which leads to evidence of his existence even though he doubts the existence
of everything. In other words, the existence of anything that you register from your senses can be
questioned. One can always challenge the certainty of things, but the very fact that one doubts cannot be
doubted. This is what “I think; therefore, I am” means.

In Descartes’ methodic doubt, you can say, “I think I am strong; therefore, I am strong.” If you
think you are strong, then you are strong. Whichever thought a person chooses is the one that is carried
over into their “I am.” Only humans have the hubris (excessive pride) of musing such irreverent questions
on the existence and purpose of life. And only humans have satisfied themselves with their answers to
their musings. For Descartes, the mind and the body are separate and very distinct from one another, but
he also believes that the mind is conjoined with the body in such an intimate way that they causally act
upon each other. The self, for Descartes, is nothing else but a mind-body dichotomy. Thought (mind)
always precedes action (body). Humans think first about doing something and then do it. The thought sets
the direction for human actions, but humans are always free to choose.

Descartes believed the self is “a thinking thing or a substance whose whole essence or nature is
merely thinking.” He also reassured that the self is different from the body. Hence, self and body exist but
differ in existence and reality. The self is a feature not of the body but of the mind and, thus, a mental
substance rather than a physical substance.

JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704) “What worries you, masters you.”

Unlike the first few philosophers discussed, this English philosopher thinks our identity is not only
locked in the mind, soul, or body. Locke included the concept of a person’s memory in the definition of
the self. He subscribes to the memory theory that holds that we are the same person as we were in the
past for as long as we can remember something from that past. The idea is that as long as we have
overlapping memories, we are the same person. That memory makes you aware of your existence. You
are connected to that past for as long as you and another person can remember that and still be mindful
of the present. Also, if we want to know if the person is the same one we knew ten years ago, we only
have to ask and test their memory to verify their identity.

For Locke, consciousness is the perception of what passes in a man’s mind. He rejected that the
brain has something to do with consciousness as the brain and the body may change while consciousness
remains the same. He concluded that personal identity is not in the brain but in one’s consciousness. He
supports that consciousness can be transferred from one substance (body and soul) to another. For
instance, while the soul is changed, consciousness remains the same, thereby maintaining the personal
identity through the change.

On the other hand, consciousness may be lost involuntarily through forgetfulness while the soul
stays the same. With this, he claimed that there is the same soul but a different person. Thus, the same
soul is unnecessary or insufficient in forming one’s identity over time when consciousness is lost.

The other remarkable contribution of Locke was the notion of tabula rasa – a concept that posits
everyone started as a blank slate, and the content is provided by one’s experiences over time.

DAVID HUME (1711-1776) “There is no self.”

For the Scottish philosopher David Hume, there is no stable thing called the self, for the self is a
complex set of successive impressions or perceptions. Hume views the soul as a product of the
imagination. No primordial substance houses the self, and any concept of the self is simply memory and
imagination. What you think and what you feel constitute what you are at this very moment. So if at this
moment, you are happy, then you are happy. If you are hungry, then you are hungry. That is what you
are; that is who you are.

For Hume, the existence of the mind and what’s inside the mind is divided into two: impressions
and ideas. Impressions are those things we perceive through our senses as we experience them, while
ideas are those we create in our minds even though we are no longer experiencing them. Whenever we
think of simple ideas, they must have as a basis a simple impression. Complex ideas happen when we
combine simple ideas by arranging and rearranging them. Because of this, I can make an entirely new
creation. His concept of the self follows this philosophical pattern. Hume argues that he finds a stream of
impressions and ideas when he looks into his mind, but no impression corresponding to a self that endures
through time. The self keeps changing, like how one looks, feels, and thinks – they constantly change. He
concludes that the self is nothing over and above the perceptions we enjoy. An “enduring self” is just a
fiction produced by our imagination. “I” will constantly change because the different experiences one has
for every constant change will affect and reshape that person. Thus, we cannot observe any permanent
self because we continuously change. In conclusion, there is no self.

IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804) “Dare to know!”

German philosopher Immanuel Kant theorized that consciousness is formed by one's inner and
outer sense. The inner sense is comprised of one's psychological state and intellect. The outer sense
consists of one's senses and the physical world.

Consciousness of oneself and of one's psychological state was referred to by Kant as empirical
self-consciousness. All representational states are in the inner sense such as moods, feelings, and
sensations including pleasure and pain. One must be phenomenally conscious to be aware of something
in the inner sense. On the other hand, consciousness of oneself and of one's state via acts of apperception
is called transcendental apperception. This comes from the outer sense, and allows one to synthesize or
make sense of a unified object. It makes experience possible and allows the self and the world to come
together.

Consciousness being unified, Kant argued, is the central feature of the mind. The mind should
perform both the unity of consciousness and apperception. It is the self that organizes sensations and
thoughts into a picture that makes sense to a person. The self is not an object located in one's
consciousness with other subjects.

The self itself is a subject. It is an organizing principle that makes a coherent experience possible
by using the faculties of the mind to synthesize sensations into a unified whole. The ability of the mind to
regulate those experiences into one experience makes the self a product of reason.

In refuting Hume’s idea about an enduring self not existing, Kant stressed that self is something
real, yet it is neither an appearance nor a thing in itself since it belongs to a different metaphysical class.
He believed in the existence of God and soul and emphasized that it is only through experience that
humans can acquire knowledge. However, there are questions that humans have no answers to in the
aspect of metaphysics.

For his idea of the self, Kant believes that man is a free agent, capable of making a decision for
himself. His philosophy centers and revolves around the inherent dignity of a human being. As a free
agent, man is gifted with reason and free will. He also said that since man is gifted with reason and free
will, man can organize the data gathered by the senses. From these data, and the way we organize the
data, we can now have a good idea of a man.

SIGMUND FREUD (1856-1939) “The ego is not the master in its own house.”

This Austrian neurologist’s contribution to psychology, the Psychoanalytic Theory, led to another
understanding of the philosophy of the mind. One of his famous ideas was the tripartite division of man’s
mind – the id, ego, and superego. Id has existed since birth, pertaining to instinct. It operates on the
hedonistic or pleasure principle seeking immediate gratification and avoiding pain. It serves as a
storeroom of wishes and obsessions related to sexual and aggressive desires. It ignores reality, harmony,
common sense, and reason. This structure does not recognize good or evil, laws or rules, morality or
beliefs. An egoistic, coarse, and barbaric brute emerges if it is dominant.

Ego operates according to the reality principle. This structure’s role is to maintain equilibrium
between the demands of the id and superego in accordance with what is best and practical in reality. It is
developed by the individual’s experiences and adheres to the principles of reason and logic. The ego
ensures the continuous existence and protection of the individual. If the ego is successful, it produces a
brilliant, creative, and emotionally-balanced individual. Superego is the last layer to develop. It operates
according to the morality principle.

Superego is the reservoir of moral standards. It ensures compliance with society’s norms, values,
and standards. It is developed through socialization in various agents like home, school, church, and
others. If the superego is dominant, a law-abiding, morally upright, god-fearing, and socially acceptable
individual appears.

In a man’s stages of development, the id and the superego will find themselves clashing against
each other, with the superego trying to control the Id’s impulses and the Id trying to satisfy its urges. The
winner of this inner battle will be manifested in the ego, which is the self. Things are not in control of the
ego, but the ego only manifests the winner between the two. If the ego behaves, then the superego wins.
If ego misbehaves, then Id won. This battle occurs in the subconscious, and the realm of the ego is found
in the conscious.

GILBERT RYLE (1900-1976) “I act; therefore I am.”

Gilbert Ryle, a British philosopher, supported the basic notions of behavioristic psychology. His
theory is called logical behaviorism or analytical behaviorism – a theory of mind that states that mental
concepts can be understood through observable events.

For Ryle, the properties of a person are better understood as adjectives modifying a body than as
nouns (objects) parallel to it. Kindness, for example, is not a thing that exists apart from and parallel to
the body but rather a collection of properties a body has. Kindness includes properties such as being
generous, humble, courteous, loyal, and honest. Someone who never exhibited these traits would not be
called kind, and anyone considered kind exhibits some of these traits. The only proof of the mind’s
operation is evident in activities like singing, running, walking, and the like. The self is the way people
behave. Knowing and believing are just dispositions but these influence people’s actions. Therefore, the
tendency to learn, think, feel, and act is called the mind.

For Descartes, the mind is a non-physical entity within the body, producing human behavior. This,
to Ryle, is the error because a talk about the mind is simply a talk about behavior. The mind is not distinct
from the body but refers to certain aspects of our bodies. The separation of mind/soul and body could be
possible, but this is hardly the case in practice. The only way we can know how the mind works is through
the person’s behavior; hence we can only know a person through how one behaves, tendencies, and
reactions in certain circumstances.
PAUL & PATRICIA CHURCHLAND (1942/1943) “The self is the brain.”

American neuroscientists Paul Churchland and Patricia Churchland introduced eliminative

materialism – a radical claim that ordinary, common sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong
and that some or all of the mental states posited by common sense do not exist. For them, it is false to
claim that folk psychology, or common sense psychology, is the capacity to explain people’s mental states.
Most people think we have a stream of consciousness that contains images and conceptions of things
about which we have beliefs and attitudes. Our thoughts and attitudes are supported by our feelings,
which include mental states like joy and sorrow or anxiety and relief. It is also a folk belief that our sense
of the world and ourselves directly represents how the world is formed, thus making our bodies reflect or
adapt to how the world is.

With the advent of science and learning more about the nuances of the brain, it becomes clear to
Churchland that the term “mind”, our moods, emotions, actions, and consciousness, are deeply affected
by the state of our brain. Our feelings, actions, and physical state are successfully altered by manipulating
certain parts of our brains. It is only a matter of time before we can fully comprehend how the brain works
for us to understand how it creates the self. He proposes that a new conceptual framework should be
made which is based on neuroscience.

MAURICE MERLEAU-PONTY (1908-1961) “I am my body.”

A French phenomenological philosopher, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, distinguished the body into

two types: the subjective body, as lived and experienced, and the objective body, as observed and
scientifically investigated. For him, these two are not different bodies. The former is the body as-it-is-
lived. He regarded the self as embodied subjectivity. It sees human beings neither as disembodied minds
(existing without body) nor as complex machines but as living creatures whose subjectivity
(consciousness) is actualized in the forms of their physical involvement with the world. The body is the
general medium for having a world; we know through intellect and experience. The latter is the body as
observed and scientifically investigated. It is the body that is known to others.

For him, a person is defined by movement and expression. To be a self is to be more than one’s
body. It includes everything I will do with my body, how I will act on it, and how I will make it work with
other human beings. I am the sum of all that I make my body do. This includes the interpretation of the
past and how I make decisions in the present. The self is grounded on the experiences from the past, the
possibilities for the future, and the present cognition. He approaches the idea of self as a continuous flow
of movement and expression from infancy to adulthood. Our perception of who we are is strictly tied to
our bodily development. The self is a product of our conscious human experience. The definition of self is
all about one’s perception of one’s experience and the interpretation of those experiences. Merleau-
Ponty opposed the dualist account of subjectivity. Mind and body are essentially correlated, and it is only
possible to understand subjectivity by considering this essential correlation. He also opposed the
Cartesian cogito. For him, consciousness is both perceiving and engaging.
References

Corpuz, R.M., Estoque, R.S., Tabotabo C.V. (2019). Understanding the Self. C&E Publishing
Macayan, J.V., Pinugu, J.N.J., Castilo, J.C.D.C. (2018). Understanding the Self. Outcome-based Module.
C&E Publishing, Inc.
Palea, E.D.V., Nazario, M.B.D., Valero, J.B.G., Descartin, I.K.L., Morales-Nuncio, E. (2018). Introspection:
Understanding the Self. Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Additional Materials:
Batman & Identity by Crashcourse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFCMK4i2lo&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIH
KR&index=19

Personal Identity by Crashcourse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqDnLNRuSc&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIH
KR&index=20

Arguments Against Personal Identity by Crashcourse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17WiQ_tNld4&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIH
KR&index=21
 III - The Sociological Perspective

Abstraction

Knowing the self requires understanding our society and its culture and how it provokes us to
make decisions that are culturally influenced and socially constructed.No one could live by themselves
alone. By extension, man will always look for someone to commune with. The human person is a social
animal; they will always seek others for commercial or personal reasons. In the realm of sociology, the
self interacts with the social world. Initially, the self is self-absorbed and is just concerned with its own.
Progressively, however, the self expands and is now concerned with other constellations of selves, known
as others. The self, as a social being, is influenced by his culture. As products of it, we mirror the values,
traditions, and beliefs that our society holds dear. These concepts are embedded in the culture of our
people- the impact of which permeates the very soul of the social self.

To help us understand ourselves a bit clearer and ease the pressure of coming up with a definite
answer to who we are, let us look into some of the theories and concepts in sociology and anthropology
regarding the self.

SOCIAL SELF by George Herbert Mead (1863-1931)

Sociologist George Mead argued that the self is developed as one grows and ages and is
constructed by directly engaging in the world through interaction and reflections on those interactions.
For the interaction to prosper, each person involved must correctly interpret the meanings of symbols
and the intentions of others. It can only succeed by the existence of common symbols but is accomplished
through role-playing. Role-playing is the process in which one takes on the role of another by putting
oneself in the position of the person with whom they interact. One’s response to the action of another
comes after putting oneself in the place of another person. Through role-playing, the individual develops
a concept of self. By putting oneself in the position of others, one can reflect upon oneself. The idea of
self can only be created if the individual can get outside in such a way that they can become an object to
oneself. To accomplish this, one must be conscious of oneself from the standpoint of others. Therefore,
developing the concept of “self” lies in the ability “to wear other people’s shoes.”

Developmental Stages of the Self

For Mead, the self is not inborn. Babies cannot interpret the meaning of other people’s behavior.
It is usually learned during childhood, which comes in the developmental stages of the self:

1. Imitation, or the preparatory stage, is where a child imitates their parents’ behavior.

2. The play stage involves the child playing the role of others. In doing these, they become aware
that there is a difference between themself and the role that they are playing.

3. The game stage is where the child comes to see themselves from the perspective of other
people. To play the game, the child must be aware of their relationship with others and place themselves
in their roles to appreciate their particular role. In doing this, they see themselves in terms of the collective
viewpoint of other people and the attitude of generalized others.
I and Me

For Mead, the self is a social process between the I and Me. The “I” is the phase of the self that is
unsocialized and spontaneous. It is the subjective and acting part of the self, an immediate response to
others. It allows the individual to express creativity and individualism still and understand when to bend
and stretch the rules that govern social interactions possibly. It represents the self that is free and unique.
The “Me”, on the other hand, represents the conventional and objective part of the self, which results
from the progressive stages of role-playing or role-taking and the perspective one assumes to view and
analyze one’s behaviors. It is the organization of the internalized attitude of others. It represents learned
behaviors, attitudes, and expectations of others and society from the social interactions that the individual
has experienced.

Generalized Other

One of Mead’s best-known concepts is the generalized other. He described it as an organized

community or social group which gives the individual their unity of self. The attitude of the generalized
other is the attitude of the community as a whole. At the macro-level, it is considered that the self then
becomes aware at this stage of the cultural values, norms, traditions, and beliefs, acting in consideration
of everything that the society holds dear. Hence, the focus of the individual’s actions has now shifted from
the ‘self’ to the generalized other or the prominent people around him. Since an individual sees themself
as a member of the group, their actions and decisions tend to be carefully analyzed so that it would mirror
societal goals and values.

LOOKING-GLASS SELF by Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929)

Social psychologist Charles Coole introduced the view that the self is developed as a result of one’s
perceptions of other people’s opinions. People are the way they are, at least partly because of other
people’s reactions to them and what they do. They constantly pick up feedback and incorporate it into
their sense of self. It is a social construction and personal reality, showing how others influence people’s
image of themselves. For Cooley, the self, an individual’s awareness of one’s social or personal identity, is
a social development.

The self is built through social interaction, which involves three steps: first, people imagine how
they must appear to others; second, they imagine the judgment on that appearance; and finally, they
develop themselves by assessing others. People imagine not only how others see them and their actions
but also how others judge what they see, whether with approval, doubt, or hostility. As a result, the
looking-glass self is made up of feelings about other people’s judgments of one’s behavior. The self
consists of the individual’s more or less accurate assessments of other people’s judgment about one’s
self. The concept of the looking-glass self provides an idea of how the self develops in relation to the
perception of others. It should serve only as a guide for reflection and should be taken to avoid ending up
living following other people’s expectations.

PRIVATE, PUBLIC, AND COLLECTIVE SELF by Harry Triandis (1926-2019)

Private self, or individual self, is the cognition that involves traits, states, and behaviors. It is an
assessment of the self by the self. It shows one’s knowledge of attributes that differentiate them from
others.
 Public self is the cognition concerning the generalized other’s view of the self. It corresponds to
an assessment of the self by the generalized other. It shows one’s relationship with others and the role
one assumes in that relationship.

Collective self is the cognition concerning a view of the self found in memberships in social groups
(e.g., family, co-workers, tribe, professional organizations). For instance, a person may be identified as a
feminist. Attributes of being a feminist similar to other feminists are emphasized, forming the collective
self.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY by Henri Tajfel & William Sumner (1919-1982)

Social identity has been defined as the person’s sense of who they are according to their
membership in a particular group. According to the social identity theory, group membership is an
essential source of pride and self-esteem. It gives a sense of social identity--a sense of belongingness to
the social world. In this view, the world is divided into “us” and “them” through the process of social
categorization and forming social groups.

These social groups developed by William Graham Sumner are further divided into the in-group
and out-group. An in-group is an esteemed social group commanding a member’s loyalty. It is a group to
which a person belongs. On the other hand, an out-group is a scorned social group to which one feels
competition or opposition. It is a group to which a person does not belong. Social identity theory states
that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance its self-image.

Tajfel and Turner identified three mental processes involved in evaluating others as “us” or
“them” (i.e., in-group and out-group). The first process is called social categorization. People also
categorize other people to identify and understand the social environment. With this, people learn things
about themselves by knowing their category. The second process is called social identification. After
learning their category, people adopt the identity of the group they have categorized themselves with.
The last process is social comparison. After classifying themselves as part of the group and identifying
with it, they tend to compare that group with others. Here they might begin to discriminate and criticize
the other groups.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE SELF by Brian Morris (1936-present)

Brian Morris reiterated that the self is not an entity but a process orchestrating an individual’s
experience. As a result, a person becomes self-aware and self-reflective about their place in the
surrounding world. For him, “self” is defined as an individual’s mental representation of their person as
self-representation.

On the other hand, the concept of “other” refers to how one perceives the mental representations
of others. A clear separation between self and others is universal, but the meaning of this distinction varies
from person to person. At the same time, the relationship between the self and others is also a function
of culture. Morris stated that the most crucial form of interaction and exchange occurs neither between
the individual and society nor between the psyche and culture, but instead between the self and their
cultural environment as mediated by social practices. In view of the dialectical relationship between the
self and the cultural milieu, which is assumed to be different depending on the dynamics of a society, a
dichotomy between Western and non-western notions of self has long been embedded in Western
philosophical and psychological traditions of thinking.
DIALOGICAL SELF by Hubert Hermans (1935-present)

The theory introduced by Hubert Hermans regarded the “self” as the “society of Mind.” In this
theory, an individual’s sense of self is established by identifying oneself with the different positions they
hold, internally or externally to themselves. An internal I-position refers to how one functions in oneself,
while an external I-position refers to how one identifies themselves based on particular external factors.
All these constitute the functionality of the self.

The dialogic self approach calls for the I-positions to come in contact with each other – to be in a
dialogue with one another for an individual to become fully aware of the different dimensions that
constitute their self. The dialogic self approach is designed to stimulate the conversations between the
internal and external positions of the self.

SATURATED SELF by Kenneth Gergen (1935-present)

For Kenneth Gergen, the saturated self is characterized by constant connection to others. This self
absorbs many voices (sometimes contradictory) and takes in seemingly endless streams of information.
This saturation contradicts the notion of a singular, true, authentic self and instead gives way to a self
consisting of multiple selves. This is due to splitting the self into many options, which he calls multiphrenia.
That is, people establish multiple selves by absorbing the numerous voices of people in their lives, either
in real life or through the media. People then internalize these different selves, thus creating a seemingly
endless pool of selves that they can choose to draw upon depending on the needs of the current situation.
Today’s technology has become a significant outlet for people to create and experiment with
multiple selves. Through mediums such as the internet and video games, people can construct idealized
versions of who they are by selectively representing various aspects of their selves, like self-promotion on
the internet.

The saturated self as a multiphrenic condition, in which one experiences the vertigo of unlimited
multiplicity, does not only apply to mere exposure to technology but also accounts for the feeling of
overload that results in a socially saturated condition. Simply put, the saturated self is stressed. Because
of technology, there are a lot of options that are all available immediately, which leads to an endless list
of things to do. This overwhelming list of potentials, Gergen described, feels what the state of social
saturation is like. Thus, social saturation brings a general loss of true and knowable selves.

THE SELF IN THE WESTERN AND ORIENTAL THOUGHT

It is important to emphasize that self-construction is a form of cultural activity. Since culture is

very much relative, the behavior of the self depends on its context. Hence, our cultural context and the
activities included therein, to a greater extent, aid in developing our self-understanding.

Culture plays a very significant role in the development of the self-concept. It embodies specific
values, thoughts, or ideas that are central to determining a person’s sense of “self.” This relativism is
evident in the Western and Eastern construction of the self, with its prominent difference: individualism
and collectivism.

Individualism refers to the extent that you value independence and personal uniqueness. Highly
individualist people value personal freedom, self-sufficiency, control over their lives, and appreciation of
their unique qualities that distinguish them from others. On the other hand, collectivism refers to the
extent that we value our duty to groups to which we belong and to group harmony. Highly collectivist
people define themselves by their group membership and value harmonious relationships within those
groups.

Cultural variations affect how one thinks of himself as an individual entity and as a member of
society to varying degrees. It is generally accepted that the conduct and thinking of individuals differ in
the Western and Eastern/Oriental perspectives. The Western mindset is that of individualism, while
Easterners are known to be more inclusive and collectivist. These views of the self are correct in their
context. The valuing of the cultural worldview affects man’s perspective of himself. When all things fail,
we will always return to the principles and foundation of our community, our nation, and ourselves, all of
which are embedded in our culture. Thus, as Ferrante (2011) explains, culture serves as the blueprint that
guides and, in some cases, even determines the nation’s behavior as a whole and, at the micro-level,
affects the perspective and decisions of man for himself.

THE SELF AS A PRODUCT OF THE MODERN WORLD

A significant part of what should be understood about culture is that it is dynamic. Since the self
has to keep up with the ever-changing world, it needs to adjust, re-adjust, and re-align its actions with
society’s seismic transformation and evolution. Culture’s values change over time, and if they do not,
society is trapped in the challenges of the modern world. As a social construct, the self becomes a product
of the contemporary society, among other constructions.

The fast-paced world has made it more challenging to decipher the self since the sources of our
identities are no longer stable and secure. The very foundation of our society is questioned to such an
extent that man tends to veer away from what the community has always been about. Globalization, as a
product of the modern world, has then affected how we view the self.

The internet age brought an understanding of the self as a part of the global world, not just the
micro-society. With this, the values, beliefs, and traditions that the self holds dear are challenged and
criticized, as their authenticity is likewise questioned. The diversity and variations of these digital
technologies forced us to confront the vast array of our cultural traditions, challenging our belief systems
and values and exposing the strengths and weaknesses of our worldviews. The transformation of the
social world further resulted in the fragmentation of the self, as our cultural values also become
fragmented.

Technology has allowed us to do things unimaginable before. Yesterday’s handful of options is

fast becoming obsolete, and choices that man makes now integrate the post-modern world’s cultural
traditions culture has been presented as global in perspective, as today’s generation does not identify
with their societal culture but recognizes the unprecedented influence of the worldwide culture.
References

Corpuz, R.M., Estoque, R.S., Tabotabo C.V. (2019). Understanding the Self. C&E Publishing

Palea, E.D.V., Nazario, M.B.D., Valero, J.B.G., Descartin, I.K.L., Morales-Nuncio, E. (2018). Introspection:
Understanding the Self. Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.

Alata, E.J.P., Caslib Jr., B.N.C., Serafica, J.P.J., Pawilen, R.A. (2018). Understanding the Self. REX Book Store,
Inc.

Additional Materials:

How do you define yourself? by TEDxTalks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzPbY9ufnQY

How Our Identities Are Socially Constructed by TEDxTalks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIuJT1n2vRY

Is your identity given or created? By TEDxTalks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJKGZ_xSZ0
 IV - The Psychological Perspective

Abstraction

The self can be defined in many ways in different contexts. In the context of psychology, the self
can be defined as a reflexive psychological process that starts when one identifies themself as an object,
followed by describing oneself as a self-concept or self-feeling, and ends with saying that the self is
manifested in how one acts and presents themselves to others. In this process, the self is perceived
through how one sees and understands themselves.

Questioning who we are or engaging in self-reflection to figure out and understand why we
behave in a certain way is normal and is beneficial in increasing self-awareness. Who we are, though not
easily changed, might be likened to liquid, able to take many forms, depending on the factors and context
affecting it.

To help us understand ourselves a bit clearer and ease the pressure of coming up with a definite
answer to who we are, let us look into some of the theories and concepts in psychology regarding the self.

HUMANISTIC THEORY by Carl Rogers (1902-1987)

Carl Rogers believes that the self does not exist at birth; it is developed gradually during childhood,
wherein one differentiates the self from the non-self. He proposed that by utilizing free choice and action,
one can shape themselves based on what they want to be. Rogers considered the self as the center of
experience. According to him, the self is one’s ongoing sense of who and what they are and how and why
they respond to the environment. The choices an individual makes are based on their set of values. His
theory focuses on the nature of the self and the conditions that allow the self to develop freely.

Real Self and Ideal Self

The real self is who an individual is intrinsically. It is the self that feels closest to how one identifies
with. It is how one thinks, feels, looks, and acts. It is the self that feels most natural, comfortable, and true
to what and who one is. It is the self that one continuously needs to accept, takes care of, and improves.
The real self is one’s self-image.

On the other hand, the ideal self is the perception of what a person would like to be or thinks they
would be. It is an idealized image that has developed over time based on the influence of the environment
and the people one interacts with. It is the self that one thinks they should be and that one feels others
believe they should be. This self is a product of expectations and pressures from others and arises from
the need to be loved and accepted by others. It is dynamic and forever changing.

Rogers accentuated the need to achieve consistency between the ideal and real selves. According
to Rogers, when your real and ideal selves are similar, you experience congruence. High congruence leads
to greater self-worth and a healthy, productive life. When there is a great inconsistency between your
ideal and real selves or if the way you are is not aligned with what you want to be, then you experience a
state Rogers called incongruence. This could lead to maladjustment – the inability to react successfully
and satisfactorily to the demands of one’s environment.
Self-concept

When a human being is born into the world, the concept of self is presented to them like a small
dot whose size increases and develops as one age. Self-concept is the totality of a complex, organized,
and dynamic system of learned beliefs, attitudes, and opinions each person holds to be true about their
existence. It is a social product that develops out of interpersonal relationships and strives for consistency.
It is also the individual’s belief about themselves, including their attributes. Self-concept is also defined as
the organized structure of an individual’s cognitions or thoughts about themselves. It includes the
perceptions one has about their social identity and personal qualities, as well as generalizations about the
self based on their experiences.

Rogers believed that the self is composed of concepts unique to every individual. Self-concept
includes three components:

1. Self-worth or self-esteem - is what one thinks about oneself, which develops in the early
childhood stage resulting from the child’s interaction with the parents.

2. Self-image - is how one sees the self, including body image’s influence on inner personality.

3. Ideal self - is the person that one wants to be.

These perceptions and beliefs that comprise our self-concept are called self-schemas. Self-
schemas are formed by numerous factors that we may or may not be aware of, some of which include
past experiences, personality traits, abilities, physical features, values, goals, social roles, own
observations, and feedback from others.

TRUE SELF & FALSE SELF by Donald Woods Winnicott (1896-1971)

Donald Woods Winnicott introduced the concept of the true self and false self. Winnicott also
proposed that the healthy core of a healthy person’s true self is hidden from the outside world,
uninfluenced by external (harsh) realities. The false self is put up to defend the core from these realities
and prevent it from any changes.

False self

Winnicott expressed that the false self is the product of early experience. It is a defensive
organization formed by the infant because of inadequate mothering or failures in empathy. He added that
the false self is developed as the infant is repeatedly subjected to maternal care that intrudes upon,
rejects, or abandons their experience. It is also based on being completely obedient to the parent’s wishes.
Winnicott asserted that a false self develops when the child is constantly expected to follow the rules. The
false self is a mask or a persona, a form of defense that continually seeks to anticipate others’ demands
and comply with them to protect the true self from a world that is felt unsafe.

However, when the person has a false self but can still function as an individual and in society,
they have a healthy false self. The healthy false self feels that it is still connected with the true self. Thus,
it can be compliant without feeling guilty that it abandoned its true self. On the other hand, there is also
the unhealthy false self. This individual may seem happy and comfortable in their environment but feels
forced to fit in and constantly needs to adjust their behavior to adapt to the social situation.
True self

True self flourishes in infancy if the mother responds positively to the child’s spontaneous
expressions. Winnicott described the true self as a sense of self based on “spontaneous, authentic
experience.” It is part of the infant that feels creative, spontaneous, and real. It has a sense of integrity,
of connected wholeness.

The true self is a sense of being alive and real in one’s mind and body, having spontaneous and
unforced feelings. This experience of aliveness allows people to be genuinely close to others and be
creative. Winnicott believed that people unconsciously repeat early relationships (particularly the
mother-infant relationship) in one form or another. A child whose mother is positively responsive and
supports the child’s natural individuation process will grow up as an adult with a stable self-image views
other people realistically, and accepts both the positive and negative side of every person, including
themselves.

Most people need help to present their different sides for others to see easily. They may reveal
particular sides of themselves depending on the situation.

AGENTIC THEORY OF THE SELF by Albert Bandura (1925-2021)

To be an agent means to be capable of intentionally influencing one’s own functionality and life
circumstances. An agent recognizes their ability to make life decisions. Albert Bandura, who advanced the
agentic theory of the self, asserted that people are not merely passive entities molded by environmental
forces or driven by inner influences. The agentic theory of the self rejects the notion that selfhood is
culturally influenced or controlled by urges; rather, it looks upon every human being as capable of
thinking, deciding, foreseeing, and managing their actions, free to decide for themselves. Bandura terms
this capability as human agency. An individual can exert influence throughout their actions.

For Bandura, there are four core properties of human agency. The first one, intentionality, is
manifested in how an individual forms intentions with action plans and strategies to realize them. The
second property, forethought, refers to how individuals position their goals in the future and visualize
themselves in a future state of existence, ensuring that plans can anticipate possible opportunities or
roadblocks. The third, self-reactiveness, shows that agents are planners, forethinkers, and self-regulators.
This includes adopting personal standards, constructing appropriate courses of action, monitoring
activities, and regulating them using self-reactions. The fourth and last property, self-reflection, signifies
that people can self-examine their functioning. They reflect on their life pursuits, the meaning of the
actions they take to accomplish these pursuits, their thoughts, and personal efficacy. An individual with
agency is expected to be able to manifest these properties in how they function in their environment.
Bandura’s theory views the self as a person, not a distinct entity responsible for bearing
information and regulating behavior. As agents, individuals exercise control over their functioning. Since
the self is situated in an environment where the interplay of interpersonal and intrapersonal activities
occur, the self functions as a product of these influences making the individual responsible for how they
let these various influences affect how they function.
References

Corpuz, R.M., Estoque, R.S., Tabotabo C.V. (2019). Understanding the Self. C&E Publishing

Palea, E.D.V., Nazario, M.B.D., Valero, J.B.G., Descartin, I.K.L., Morales-Nuncio, E. (2018). Introspection:
Understanding the Self. Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.

Alata, E.J.P., Caslib Jr., B.N.C., Serafica, J.P.J., Pawilen, R.A. (2018). Understanding the Self. REX Book Store,
Inc.

Additional Materials:

Who am I? by School of Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocunV4JX4w

The True and the False Self by School of Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A02Ucd6monY

How To Know Yourself By School of Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lTbWQ8zD3w