UTS modules (2).docx

**UNIT 1** **Module 1 THE SELF FROM VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES** **Objectives:** At the end of this lesson, the student will be able to: 1. 2. 3. 4. **Introduction** Before we even had to be in any formal institution of learning, among the many things we were first taught as kids...

**UNIT 1** **Module 1 THE SELF FROM VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES** **Objectives:** At the end of this lesson, the student will be able to: 1. 2. 3. 4. **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 pie chart. Easy or difficult to answer? Why? ----------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------ **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[\*](https://revelpreview.pearson.com/epubs/pearson_chaffee/OPS/xhtml/ch03_sec_08.xhtml#P7000496877000000000000000000BED)** 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. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 9. | +=======================================================================+ | 1. 2. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 3. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 4. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 5. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 6. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 7. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 8. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ **Module 2 THE SELF, SOCIETY, AND CULTURE** **Objectives:** At the end of this lesson, the student will be able to: 1. 2. 3. 4. **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. **ANALYSIS** After having examined your "self" in its different stages, fill out the following table: Similarities in All stages of My "Self" Differences in My "Self" across the Three stages of My life Possible reason for the Differences in Me ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- **A Portrait of Yourself** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **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, feelilngs 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: 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. 2. 3. **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. 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. 2. 3. 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 aw 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. 2. 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 ourself-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. 2. 3. **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 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.