Module 1. Unit 2 - The Sociological Perspective of the Self.pdf

Unit 2: SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE SELF This unit discusses how society functions and becomes an influence in the development of the self. Sociology is among the disciplines contributory to the understanding of who we are...

Unit 2: SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE SELF This unit discusses how society functions and becomes an influence in the development of the self. Sociology is among the disciplines contributory to the understanding of who we are in relation to ourselves, others, and to social systems. The perspectives of the self by Mead and Cooley, as a product of modern society, will be explored. ENGAGE To have a feel of what will be covered in this unit, take some time to reflect on the following:  What social influences have contributed to the formation of yourself /identity?  What “social mirrors” were most reflective of your self-concept today?  Who are the significant others that helped shape your values and perspectives?  What are the Filipino socialization contexts that are most relevant? EXPLORE In order to understand the succeeding theories, let us look into the different sociological perspectives. SOCIOLOGICAL PARADIGM FOCUS Structural Functionalism How each part of the society functions together to contribute to the whole Conflict Theory How inequalities contribute to social differences and perpetuate differences in power Symbolic interactionism One-to-one interactions and communications EXPLAIN Now, let’s look into the different sociological perspectives of the self. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.  EMILE DURKHEIM: SOCIAL INTEGRATION and MORAL INDIVIDUATION “To love society is to love something beyond us and something in ourselves.” (Emile Durkheim) Before we were born, there are already societal influences on us that shape our life and personalities. While alive, the societal influences continue to have an impact on us, and even beyond our lifetime. Durkheim has worked on a lot of theories to emphasize this. Some of his works include how people get to live together peaceably and in organized manner (Division of Labor), how culture, roles and norms bind people together in synchronized behaviors, feelings and thoughts (Social Integration), how the rights and dignity of the individual are based on the principles of equality and Justice (Moral Individualism). Such theories shall anchor the structuralist and functionalist perspective in answering the question “Who am I” in the social context. Durkheim proposed that the task of sociology is to analyze social facts. Social Facts – conditions and circumstances external to the individual that, nevertheless, determine the individual’s course of action. Durkheim argued that social facts can be ascertained by using collective data such as marriage and divorces rates. This means that through systematic collection of data, the patterns behind and within an individual behavior can be uncovered. Another example of social fact can be exemplified in this instance: When you fulfill your obligation as a son/daughter, student, brother/sister, or citizen, you perform duties which are defined, externally to yourself and your actions, in law and in custom. This means that even if you “do these things” (do your tasks in school, do your duties as a son or daughter) because it conforms to your sentiments and feel their reality subjectively, such reality is still objective. We did not create these realities (duties and responsibilities of a child or citizen); we merely inherited them through our education (formal and informal). That, or rather, these realities, are social facts. ***REFLECTION: What are the prevailing social facts of your time? What do these collective data “say” about your possible patterns of behavior? What can you say for instance, about the fact that more young people prefer not to ‘get married”, and less want to have children of their own compared to the previous generation? Durkheim emphasized that the society is not a result or an aftereffect of individual conduct; rather, it (society) exists prior to, and thus, shapes individual action. In other words, individual lines of conduct are the outgrowth of social arrangements. Social Integration is the degree to which an individual is connected to the society. Social Integration results from a collective consciousness or a shared way of understanding and behaving in the world in terms of norms, beliefs, and values. Those who have weak social Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.  connections are more prone to self-destructive behaviors, or deviancy, because they are unable to balance their desires with what is considered appropriate by the society. People who are able to form strong social ties have a deeper sense of belonging, form more cohesive groups and are able to reduce conflicts. It is synonymous with Social Solidarity. Social solidarity described the social ties that bind a group of people together such as kinship, shared location, or religion. Moral Individualism is the doctrine that rationality leaves room for the individualities of personalities of subjects to express themselves in the moral realm in an autonomous choice between idealism and fulfilment-maximization. It involves a morality of cooperation and a profound respect for humanity. It is not the glorification of the self, “but of the individual in general” (Durkheim, 1898). Moral Individualism and the experience of the SACRED Moral individualism, “is a religion in which man is at once the worshiper and the god” (Durkheim 1973:46). The “sacred” dimension of the modern individual finds its expression in the unique respect granted to him and in the protection of his rights. But there is no such thing as inherent rights and liberties. Modern society has “consecrated,” him, granted him rights, and made him “worthy of respect” (1953b:72, 1953a:58). Each individual embodies the universal values of humanity, each individual consciousness carries “something divine” and it is “marked with a character which renders it sacred and inviolable to others” (1973:52). Durkheim is optimistic that moral individualism will become the “moral catechism” and the source of a new morality. He claims that the “cult of the individual” has become one of the most distinctive characteristic of modernity, and that it is replacing all other religions. Moral individualism has to be distinguished from the “utilitarian egoism of Spencer and of the economists.” It involves a morality of cooperation and a profound respect for humanity. It is not the “glorification” of the self, “but of the individual in general” (Durkheim 1973:44, 48). At its “most abstract level,” scholars have noted, it refers to humanity in general rather than to individuals of any particular nation-state (Giddens 1986:21). It stresses “freedom and dignity, not happiness, as highest social ends” (Terrier 2006:294). The foregoing, illustrates how such concepts as simple as norms, roles and culture in the society in which one belongs determines to a great and profound extent to which the self is embedded in the society – that the self is not just a construct accorded with an identity all its own. To be, the self has to be defined also in its social dimension. Think for example how such concepts profoundly affect gender norms, family dynamics, religion and politics and our day-to-day interactions. Even the field of psychology acknowledges that in solitude or amongst others, an individual’s thoughts, behaviors, perceptions and emotions are affected by his imagined or real influence coming from other people. The next sociological theories define the self along the symbolic interactionism paradigm. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.  CHARLES HORTON COOLEY: THE LOOKING GLASS SELF Self-concept is formed through our impressions on how other people see us. Cooley proposed that one’s self grows out of one’s social interactions with others. The degree of personal insecurity displayed in social situations is determined by what one believes other people think of him/her. Simply put, the “Self” is how we believe others see us. The process: 1. We imagine how we present ourselves to others 2. We imagine how others evaluate us 3. Finally develop some sort of feeling about ourselves such as respect or shame as a result of these impressions Critical Evaluation: What if we imagine wrongly? What if there are varied and contradictory mirror reflections? THE LABELING BIAS This occurs when we are labeled, and others’ views and expectations of us are affected by that labeling. For instance, your professor hears your classmates call you “matalino”, you are labeled as “yung matalino”. Your professor might then have higher expectations from you wherein he may expect you to have the highest scores in class. SELF-LABELING This occurs when we are repeatedly labeled and evaluated by others, and we adopt other’s labels explicitly into our self-concept This may lead to internalized prejudice, when individuals turn prejudice directed toward them by others onto themselves. They may tend to view themselves more negatively, thus, also affecting their self-esteem. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.  On the other hand, positive reclaiming may also take place when labels are used by society to describe people negatively. Those who are negatively labeled may claim these labels more positively to feel better about themselves. To illustrate: After labeling, minority group members evaluated the labels (e.g. “queer”, “torpe”, “lost”) less negatively, and reported feeling more powerful. GEORGE HERBERT MEAD: STAGES OF THE SELF According to Mead, the conception one holds about the self in one’s mind emerges from social interaction with others. The self is neither present at birth nor at the beginning of social interaction. It is constructed and re-constructed in the process of social experience. Two components of the self: 1. “Me” - objective element; represents the expectations and attitudes of others (the “generalized other”) organized into the social self; the internalized generalized other becomes the instrument upon which society has control over the actions of its individual members 2. “I” - subjective element; the response to the “me” or the person’s individuality, e.g., The “I” can decide to cross the street on a red light as he sees that there is no approaching car or a traffic police The stream of thought between the knower (“I”) and the known (“Me”) is the essence of the development of identity as influenced by the social context. STAGES BY WHICH THE SELF EMERGES: 1. PREPARATORY STAGE (1-3 years old) Children merely imitate the people around them Then they understand the symbols (gestures, language, and objects) that form the basis for their capacity to communicate with people around them As a result, they become aware of roles that people play in their immediate environment Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.  2. PLAY STAGE (4-7 years old) As a result of the above stage, they now do pretend play of different characters or roles (Role playing) They become more aware of social relationships; they can mentally assume the perspective of another and respond from that imagined viewpoint (Role taking) 3. GAME STAGE (8-9) Begins to consider several actual tasks and relationships simultaneously Grasp not only their social position but also those of others around them Perspective-taking becomes less egocentric as they begin to understand and accept that many people have different perspectives and develops greater concern about the reactions of others ELABORATE How do we integrate the theories we discussed in the context of Filipino socialization? Let’s look at a synthesis of an article by Clemen Aquino. An article written by Clemen Aquino of the Department of Social Sciences in the University of the Philippines, “Mula sa Kinaroroonan: Kapwa, Kapatiran and Bayan in Philippine Social Science”, articulates on the relevant concepts of “kapwa”, “mag-anak”, “kapatiran” on ugnayan (relations) in Philippine society. Salient points of the article: o Santiago’s early studies show kapwa and pakikipagkapwa as the broad basis of social interaction among Filipinos. The kapwa does not discriminate between the “ibang tao” and “di ibang tao.” In kapwa, self-identity is part of one’s perception of others, so there is a unity or integral relation of the sarili (self) to ibang tao (others). o The concept of mag-anak is embedded in Filipino relationships. It does not only refer to the nuclear family (father, mother, children) but encompasses the extended family, hence, an older woman in the community is called “Aunty” even if not a kin by consanguinity. o Kapatiran is reflected in religious and other organizations. The strong bond of ingroup relations determines ugnayan and pakikipag-ugnayan within the group as compared to how they interact with those who are not part of the kapatiran. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.  References: Aquino, C. (2004). Mula sa Kinaroroonan: "Kapwa, Kapatiran" and "Bayan" in Philippine Social Science, Asian Journal of Social Science, 32 (1), 105-139. Chafee, J. (2013) Who are you? Consciousness, Identity and the Self. In the Philosopher's Way: Thinking Critically about Profound Ideas. Pearson. 106 — 169. Cristi, Marcela (2012). Durkheim on Moral Individualism, Social Justice, and Rights: A gendered Construction of Rights. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 37 (4), 409 - 438 Introduction to Sociology (2013), Openstax College, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas. Villafuerte, S., Quillope, A., Tunac R., and Borja, E. (2018). Understanding the Self. Nieme Publishing House Co. Ltd., Rm. 413 Villasi Mansion, N. Domingo St., Brgy. Kunlaran, Cubao, Quezon City, Philippines. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.