Mater Dei College

Cabulijan, Tubigon, Bohol

Tel. No. 508-8106, 508-8166, Fax No. 508-8166

Understanding the Self/Pag-unawa sa Sarili (PERDEV 100)

Instructor: Miss Chiara Genevieve I. Lastimado, COE Faculty

THE SELF FROM VARIOUS SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Week 2 Topic

At the end of the discussion, you are expected to:

a) Discuss the different representation and conceptualization of the self from various
disciplinal perspective.
b) Compare and contrast how the self has been represented across different disciplines and
perspectives.
c) Examine the different influences, factors, and forces that shape the self.

“Not only is the ‘self’ entwined in society; it owes in society its existence in the most literal sense.”
- Theodor Adorno
The Self as a Product of Modern Society Among Other Constructions
Sociologists are concerned with questions about the person in the community. For example,
they ask questions, like; “How does society influence you?” “How do affect society?” More
importantly, “Who are you as a person in the community?” Sociology posits that socially formed
norms, beliefs and values come to exist within the person to a degree where these become natural
and normal, thus, developing the person’s self-identity.
Modernization has significantly changed society, and this has affected how an individual
build and develop his or her self-identity. Pre-modern society was centered on survival. People
behaved according to social rules and traditions while the family and the immediate environment
provided supervision on how to get through life. Choosing where to live, what line of work to do,
and even who to marry was very limited.
Modernization, however has improved people’s living conditions. A person in the modern
society is free to choose where to live, what to do and who to be with. However, stability has also
decreased as traditions and traditional support systems, such as the family, have decreased in
importance. In modern societies, individualism is dominant, and developing one’s self identity is
central (Giddens, 1991).

The Self from Various Philosophical Perspectives 1

Key Characteristics of Modernity
According to Giddens (1991), the most patent, major characteristics of modernity are:
1. Industrialism- the social relations implied in the extensive use of material power and
machinery in all processes of production.
2. Capitalism- a production system involving both competitive product markets and the
commodification (putting a price tag) of labor power.
3. Institutions of Surveillance- the massive increase of power and reach by institutions,
especially in government
4. Dynamism- the most evident characteristic of modern society. Dynamism is characterized
as having vigorous activity and progress. In a modern society, life is not a predetermined
path with limited options based on location, family, or gender, it is a society full of
possibilities. Everything is subject to change, and changes happen much more rapidly than
ever before in human history.

Social Groups and Social Networks

Sociologist Georg Simmel expressed that people create social networks by joining social
groups. A social group is described as having two or more people interacting with one another,
sharing similar characteristics, and whose members identity themselves as part of the group. An
example of social groups is your family, your barkada, your classmates. Meanwhile, social
network refers to the ties or connection that link you to your social group. The connection you
have with your family is your blood relation; the connection your have in your barkada is your
friendship; and the connection you have with your classmates is the common interest to learn.
A social group is either organic or rational. An organic group is naturally occurring, and
it is highly influenced by your family. This is usually formed in a traditional society because there
is little diversity in these communities. Sociologist Georg Simmel stated that you join these groups
because your family is also part of it, in the first place. He called it Organic Motivation. Simmel
noted that the positive effect of organic groups is rootedness. This means the foundation of the
social network runs deep, thus, giving the person a sense of belongingness. The downside,
however, is that organic group imply less freedom and greater social conformity. You are expected
to act and behave according to your community’s standards.
Rational groups occur in modern societies. Modern societies are made up of different
people coming from different places. The family in modern societies is not the main motivation
when joining rational social groups. Rational groups are formed as a matter of shared self-interest;
moreover, people join these group out of their free will. Simmel called this Rational Motivation.
Rational groups imply greater freedom, especially the freedom of movement. Relationships based
on self-interest are not as embedded as organic relationships. Interest change and when they do,
group members change. The relationship between rational social networks is tenuous, and the
person feels no meaningful connection with the others.

The Self from Various Philosophical Perspectives 2

Mead and the Social Self
Have you ever watched someone do something? Of course, you have. Even as babies we
watch others, like mom or dad do something. Why do we do that? It’s how we learn. We learn to
do things; we learn what’s safe and what’s not. When we watch other people, we learn a lot about
ourselves. Moreover, when we watch others, we also come to understand people. We understand
why they behave the way they do; what identity they claim; and what role play in society.
On the other hand, while you get to know yourself and understand others by watching
people, how can you understand yourself? Can you “watch” yourself as objectively as you do the
others? This is the question that sociologist George Mead explored.
George Herbert Mead was a sociologist from the late 1800s. he is well known for his
theory “Theory of the Social Self.” Mead’s work focused on how the self is developed. His theory
is based on the perspective that the self is a product of social interactions and internalizing the
external (i.e., other people’s) views along with one’s personal view about oneself. Mead believed
the self is not present at birth; rather it develops over time through social experiences and activities.

Developing the Self

Mead developed a concept that proposed a different stage of self-development. These
stages are language, play and game.
According to Mead, self-development and language are intimately tied. Through shared
understanding of symbols, gestures and sound, language gives the individual the capacity to
express himself or herself while at the same time comprehending what the other people are
conveying. Language sets the stage for self-development. The second stage for self-development
is play. At this level, individuals role-play or assume the perspective of others. Role playing
enables the person to internalize some other people’s perspectives; hence, he or she develops an
understanding of how the other people feel about themselves (and about others, too) in a variety
of situations.
Meanwhile, the game stage is the level where the individual not only internalizes the other
people perspectives, he or she is also able to take into account societal rules and adheres to it,
according to Mead, the self is developed by understanding the rule, and must abide by it to win the
game or be successful at an activity.

Two Side of Self: I and Me

Mead sees the person as an active process, not just a mere reflection of society. He further
proposed two interactive facets of the self: the ‘I’ the and ‘me.’ The ‘me’ and the ‘I’ have didactic
relationship, which is like a system of checks and balances. According to Mead, ‘me’ is the product

The Self from Various Philosophical Perspectives 3

of what the person has learned while interacting with others and with the environment. Learned
behaviors, attitudes, and even expectations compromise the ‘me.’ The ‘me’ exercises social control
over the self. It sees to it that rules are not broken.
On the other hand, the ‘I’ is that part of the self that is unsocialized and spontaneous. It is
the individual’s response to the community’s attitude toward the person. The ‘I’ presents impulses
and drives. It enables him/her to express individualism and creativity. The ‘I’ does not blindly
follow rules. It understands when to possibly bend or stretch the rules that govern the social
interactions. It constructs a response based on what has been learned by the ‘me.’

The Self from Various Philosophical Perspectives 4