The Self: Social Psychology
1. The concept of the self, according to Mead, can be compared to that of a child playing games. The child who likes to play games will make rules for himself, these rules are made in order to please him and be in his favor (Mead, 1934). Whether or not he follows these rules is entirely up to him, and how others perceive the given rules is up to them. There is a power in change and how people react to the given rules or sets are subjective. This is much like how society is shaped. There are laws and given rules, some understand the rules while others don’t. A big part in society is understanding that you are part of it. Self-consciousness is what starts people in following the rules and being part of the given laws. While, you must also develop an attitude of understanding that the rules are not just for you, it goes deeper than that. You need to see that there are also other people “playing the game” or others who are part of society (Mead, 1934). Everyone acts in a different way depending on their own perception of the rules. Even though there is one set of given rules, everyone who is part of the game has his own way of getting by and playing. Some people might cheat their way, while others are just lucky. Each individual member of the game plays a role and builds the community as a whole. The self cannot be separated from society because it is the individuals who create it and mold it. This is much like a team of sports players, they need each other to play separate roles in order for them to move as one unit. On their own, they are not very valuable, but as a team, they can do wonders. It is not until each person on the team accepts that they are part of a community that they can be most effective. The individual in society is important because the community needs to oversee the individual conduct of each member in order to make sure that everything is going as it should. Meaning, the individual’s thinking plays a big factor in society as a whole. This is where sociology and psychology intersect. Even though these two disciplines both focus on the individual, they are different. Psychology is interested in the mental process of an individual and how he thinks, how he develops character and why he does the things he does. The theories for this study all try to explain human behavior and why people act in certain ways. Whereas sociology is interested in the individual and how the actions of one can shape society as a whole, or in reverse how society can shape an individual (Turner, 1976). Also in this kind of study, how individuals can shape other individuals. The self takes on attitudes that are influenced by other members of society, therefore being molded by the community he is in. However, for the given set of rules in society to even exist, one must have conceptualized these rules and given each individual a place in society. It is not society who dictates itself, but the individual. And, it is up to the individual to act or carry on in the way he chooses. However, society is the one that dictates right and wrong, even if the individual has the power to choose his or her own destiny. An individual can choose, however, to identify himself or herself with a community. This is where co-operative enterprises are seen. It is not uncommon for individuals to find themselves in groups. This is most favorable for those who want to belong as part of society and for those who want to be accepted. This, again is another type of behavior shaped by those in society (Turner, 1976). The rules in which people are accepted are dynamic and are dependent on powerful individuals who can mold or shape society’s thinking as a whole. The organizational attitudes or the way the community thinks is therefore dictated and received by the self.
2. The processual and structural interactionists are both seen as symbolic. The processual view is seen when the individual is emergent and is constantly changing. The variables in the social life which are seen as not solid or stable are taken into account when trying to analyze the individual. The changes that can shape the person, ones that are visible in the social life are those that affect the person the most. The structural interactionist is seen to be shaped by society and the community that the person is in. We see the individual being constructed by the society that he is in economically, politically and so forth. The external factors of society and change are common in both people. There are issues that can change an individual and are the reason why an individual acts in that sort of way. This can be compared to the self because the self is a conscious part of society that allows for the changes to be made. The changes that are done by society can only be done if the person is conscious of being part of society and having others around him. These social changes cannot be seen in someone who does not see himself as part of a community. The need in belonging or need in change is something that is within the self (Geces, 1981). You could say that being constructed by society is something that can be seen as an act for the self – because in order for someone to be accepted in a social sphere, he or she needs to identify with other members, making him or her vulnerable to such changes. Wanting or needing acceptance is something that can be seen of the self. The rules in which acceptance is made under, or the rules that dictate what should be accepted or not is all in the self. This is what is seen as morals. Each person has a different set of their own, yet can be seen as similar in some communities. For example, in some areas, it is okay to eat beef while in others it is not. The thinking that eating a cow is wrong is brought on by the constructs of society. The only reason an individual would even think that eating beef is wrong is because he had been influenced by his society. However, the idea of eating beef is wrong had to have come from an individual who had conceptualized that rule in the first place.
3. Goffman had an interesting view of the self which he describes as dramaturgical (Kivisto & Pittman, 1988). He compares the self with the concept of William Shakespear’s play, through the poem recited by the character Jacques. He believes that a person is shaped by the scene that he or she is in and comes out from the process of the performance. The individual is not an autonomous being, but should be seen together with society as a whole. This kind of thinking is similar to the structural interactionist type of person. This is because society shapes the individual and dictates him or her. The individual is put in a role not by his or her choice, but by society. The way an individual acts is dictated by society and changes because of social constraints. All social activities can be seen performed by the individual, not because the individual wanted to himself, but because it is scripted and that is how it should be going. The relationship between the individual and society as a whole is more important than the individual himself. The individual’s purpose is to play a role which makes society a whole, he or she is seen as a tool or a part that contributes to the turning gears which is the machine of society (Goffman 1959b). If an individual would start behaving in a way that is considered not socially acceptable, or in Goffman’s case, not productive for the show, the entire cast, or society as a whole will take a toll. A big part of Goffman’s (1969) theory is the power of a role. This is someone’s part in society – it is an image that the actor wants to play and wants people to see him as. The part that the individual plays is how he or she wants the world to see them. In order to get the roles in society that people want to play, they have to work for it and display the needed characters as dictated by society in order to reach these goals or achieve those dreams. The example given in the article was that if you want a white-collar job, you need to show professionalism. The act of being professional is, of course, subjective and dictated by society. This is something that is subject to change and can be altered depending on the place, time and people. People also dictate how others are seen. If a particular role in society is stereotyped, it is hard to get away from that image. The example given is about insurance agents and how they are seen as sleazy. This is an image that is hard to separate from the thinking of people. Not everyone thinks this way, but if society dictates it, then it must be true. In order to separate yourself from the norm, you must continually and regularly act in a way deviant to the given stereotypical role. However, demonstrating better qualities or good qualities that will deviate from the stereotype may not always end up in success. Each person finds it difficult to play a role that they want and show the world a way in which they wish to be seen. This coincides with the first theory by mead, of the self. In order to play a role in the world, you must be conscious that there are others around you, in the case of Goffman (1969), there are other actors. Your role can sometimes clash with others and the audience might not always agree with your morals. The self, as dictated by society, must follow certain rules in order for him or her to be accepted. There are times when these rules change, or you will be able to bend the rules, but that is up to the individual. The difference between Goffman and Mead is that Goffman sees society as a whole, as the production and the cast – not the individual (Goffman 1969a). Mead focuses on the individual and sees how he or she is shaped with self-consciousness and being part of a society. The individual is able to shape society and not just live in it. The individual has a choice to want to be part of society by conforming or being accepted as how they are. How each individual reacts to the roles given to them is entirely up to them (Mead). They see each role as a boon or bane, depending on the way society perceives it. Society plays a big role in shaping the individual, and how the individual wants to act, is entirely up to them. However, the actions are already pre-judged by society and the players within society. There is already a set of rules that are given and that each individual is expected to follow.
4. There is a true self within society, an individual can have innate characteristics without having to be in society. A man can live by himself in the mountains and still exist, not needing to be shaped by anyone else, not needing to be part of a community. Society can dictate the needs of an individual and say if certain actions are right or wrong. However, it is the own choice of the individual to act upon his or her own feelings. Even though the external factors play a big part in molding the individual, each individual has his or own thought process which they can choose to act upon. The reason why society created rules is so that the individual would follow them. The need for those rules is because each individual has a different thought process and different wants. Each individual has his or own set of morals that are innate – not dictated by society. If everything can be molded and dictated by society, everyone would be thinking the same thing, believing the same things. The reason why there are different political parties is because people sometimes do not agree on what they believe in. People prioritize different things and some, if not all, people do look out for themselves most of the time. This is a solid example of why and how the self exists. If the self did not exist, there would not be different groups, there would be no such thing as an opinion. An individual had to have shaped society with his own given set of rules that satisfied his own needs, maybe even thinking that it is the best for others (Mead, 1934) (Turner, 1976). This is why there are radicals or rebels. These are individuals who believe that the set of given rules are wrong or are to be challenged. These people within their own selves decided not to conform with society and to listen to their own needs. They believe in a different set of rules that are made for a different set of individuals. The reason why there are different religions or why some people just cannot get along with others is because the self exists and that individual thinking triggers these clashes. Not that it is always a bad thing. Individuality is a proof that the self exists, with society or not. Society plays its role in shaping the individual only if the individual allows for it to happen. There are times when the individual may choose to deviate from society because his or her beliefs are wrong. The book entitled “Repent, Harlequin! Said the TickTockman” is a great example of the self within society. The Ticktockman is a dictator who wanted everyone to work at a certain pace, given a schedule that no one should deviate from (Ellison, 1965). If he believes that a person has wronged him, he had the power to stop their hearts and take their life. Everyone thought that the TickTockman was right and they followed him like mindless fools. One day, the Harlequin came along and wanted to change things, he distracted people with jellybeans and loud noises just to get them out of rhythem and disrupt their work. Finally, the Ticktockman caught him and brainwashed him, making him tell everyone that he was wrong with his accusations (Ellison, 1965). This story is a good example of how an individual is, you can’t stop people from thinking differently. Even in a society that is ruled by dictatorship, you will always have the self and someone who is more in tuned with his inner self. The self does exist, however some people choose to exercise individuality more than others (Geces, 1981). The others just go with what society dictates – yet this is by their own choice.
References:
Mead, George H. (1934). Mind, Self & Society: from the standpoint of a social behaviorist.
Illinois: University of Chicago press
Goffman, E. (1969a). The present of self. London: Penguin Press.
Goffman, E. (1959b). The presentation of the self in everyday life. London: Penguin press.
Harlan Ellison (1965). Repent, Harlequin! said the Ticktockman.
Kivisto, P & Pittman, D. Goffman’s (1978) Dramaturgical Sociology. Personal Sales and
Service in a Commodified World.
Turner, R.H (1976). “The Real Self: From Institution to Impulse”. Chicago Journals. 81(5)
1976: 989-1016
Viktor Gecas (1981). “The Self-Concept”. Annual Review of Sociology. 8(1): 1-33.
