There are, undoubtedly, aspects of the self that are tied inextricably to an individual’s culture. Because it is impossible to raise a child in a cultural vacuum, it is impossible to determine exactly what aspects of personality are determined by culture and which aspects are determined by birth; the relationship between culture and identity is certainly tightly bound. Markus and Kitayama, for instance, point out that people are capable of framing their sense of self in a multitude of different ways, but that their method of identity is invariably tied closely to their culture. Staples, on the other hand, suggests that much of culture is inherited and learned through one’s schooling (Staples, 2005).
One of the most interesting points of discussion brought up in both Cross et al., and the Markus and Kitayama paper are the ways in which individuals from different cultures define themselves by their relationships. Both American women and Japanese women define themselves by their relationships. However, American women, Cross et al write, are more likely to define themselves by their intimate, personal relationships, while Japanese women define themselves by their collective relationships (Cross et al., 2010). Cross et al. also examine the Markus and Kitayama study extensively to formulate their hypothesis on the individual’s self-construal, or the construction of the self, and the different ways in which Japanese culture and American cultures help the individual define him or herself.
One topic for discussion that the Cross and Markus studies both bring up is the question of whether or not it is possible for an individual to define him or herself in more than one way. Cross et al. contend that not only is it possible, it is necessary; however, Rosenberger postulates that the sense of self is indivisible. That is, for a Japanese person, his sense of Japanese identity is not separate from his self-construal of himself as a man, or from himself as he is in relation to the people he shares close intimate ties with; all of these aspects of his self-construal are linked together, and cannot stand independently (Rosenberger, 1994).
Markus and Kitayama’s study on the definition of self and culture was groundbreaking, as it introduced a new concept into social and cultural psychology: the differences in the way different cultures construct their sense of self (Cross et al., 2010). Although many of the observations in the study seem inane, the cumulative effect of the study is such that significant conclusions can be drawn from the observations of the individual and the two cultures as a whole. Markus and Kitayama were able to gather quantitative data on the cultural differences between constructions of self, a realm of study that had previously been dominated by sociological and anthropological types of studies (Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
The Cross et al. study is particularly important in a different way-- it took the premise of the Markus and Kitayama study and applied a different type of analysis to the study, in an attempt to look at the effects of the self-construal on the individual. The Cross et al. study provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of the effects of the self-construal, particularly on the way people think.
Often, finding language to talk about social and cultural differences is difficult, because these differences can be so nuanced and small. By providing definitions for different types of social-interactive constructs, Cross et al. provide a unique insight into the cultural construct of the self.
Cultural comparison is a complex topic, and one that is always fascinating to address. An area for discussion that is not addressed in the scope of these two articles is the issue of transplanted culture and self-construal; what happens, for instance, to Japanese self-construal when a Japanese individual emigrates from Japan and settles in America? Does one’s “Japanese” sense of self erode over time and become more of the independent American type? The question of whether or not environment plays a role in one’s cultural self-construal is a very interesting one and lends itself well to the discussion; if a person’s sense of self can change over time in a culturally-new environment, then the cultural construct of the self is both elastic and complex.
References
Cross, S. et al. (2010). The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (22), pp.224-253.
Rosenberger, N. R. (1994). Japanese sense of self: []. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Staples, B. (2005). Why the United States Should Look to Japan for Better Schools. The New York Times, November 21.
