COLLEGE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

First Semester, A.Y. 2023 - 2024

MODULE 3: The Self from the Anthropological Perspective

Course Title: Understanding the Self

Course Code: GE 1

Name: __________________________________________________________
Course and Year: _________________________________________________
Contact Number/Email Address: _____________________________________
Date and Time Allotment: ___________________________________________

Introduction
This module entitled The Self from the Anthropological Perspective explains contributing factors
of culture and national identity in shaping one’s self.

I. Objectives
At the end of the end of this module, students should be able to:
1. Explain how culture affects shape one’s identity
2. Examine your sense of self through the different I-positions and the three fundamental selves
3. Reflect on your own identity struggles by writing essay

II. Lectures

In most dictionaries, the term “Filipino” is defined as belonging or relating to the Philippines, or
to its people and culture. In the context of citizenship, “Filipino” simply means membership in a nation-
state. In the constitution, a citizen is someone who legally resides in a country. Anthropologically,
however, it is different. To belong to a people is not necessarily implying a legal association to a
country but it entails a responsibility to live and protect the country’s cherished values.

To belong and relate to a culture means to adopt, accept, and treasure its entire way of
life. Therefore, in order to be called Filipino, you have to belong to the Filipino people and adopt their
culture. In this perspective, the self must be embedded in the culture.

Cultural Identity and National Identity

Culture is derived from the Latin word “cultura or cultus” meaning care or cultivation. Culture is
analogous to caring for an infant. Because an infant has prolonged dependency, he or she has to be
taken care of by the people around him or her. The infant has to learn from them so he or she can
better adjust while growing up in his or her immediate cultural environment (Leano & Corpuz, 2008).
Throughout one’s life, he or she functions according to the cultural context where he or she is situated.
As one grows old, he or she learns many things about his or her environment and realizes what makes
him or her different from other people. As an individual interacts with people and make sense of how he
or she functions in the context of his or her social and cultural background, he or she learns that he or
she has both personal identity (the way he or she sees himself of herself as an individual) and
collective identity (the way he or she sees himself or herself as member of a certain group).

Identity refers to “who the person is”, or the qualities and traits of an individual that make
him or her different from others. There are many ways to distinguish people. An example is
identifying them in a geographical context or based on where they come from. People from the West
are different from the people from the East because they are located in opposite sides of the world.
Identity also refers to how a person sees and express oneself.

Cultural identity refers to the identity or feeling of belongingness to a certain culture group.
It is an individual’s perception about himself or herself anchored on race, gender, nationality, religion,
ethnicity, and language. One might identify himself or herself as Filipino because he or she embodies
Filipino cultural ways and traditions to which he or she has been exposed while growing up. While
being a Filipino, one may also identify as a Catholic because it is his or her religious background. The
cultural categories that shape one’s overall cultural identity is meant to be multidimensional.
Cultural Identity Theory

The cultural identity theory explains why a person acts and behaves the way he or she does. It
makes sense of how an individual is influenced by the cultural contexts he or she is situated in. A single
person can possess multiple identities, simultaneously making him or her part of many cultural groups.
These identities overlap and form the identity of an individual.

A nation is a group of people built on the premise of shared customs, traditions, religion,
language, art, history, and more. National identity refers to the identity or feeling of belongingness to
one state or nation.
Rupert Emerson, a political scientist defines it as “a body of people who feel that they are a nation”.
National identity is socially constructed. It is influenced and shaped by material and non-material
cultures. Material culture such as the national flag, emblem, or seal is representative of all the people
who are part of a nation. Non-material culture, on the other hand, embodies the shared understanding
of a group of people which includes norms, beliefs, and traditions. National identity requires the process
of self-categorization. In self-categorization, one must identify himself or herself with an in-group
(identifying with one’s nation) and differentiate himself or herself from the out-groups (other nations). It
brings out positive emotions like pride, nationalism, patriotism, and the sense of responsibility one has
to the nation he or she is part of. For instance, when the national anthem is played, people are
expected to sing and honor the flag since they are part of the nation that honors that anthem.

Brian Morris’s Anthropology of the Self (Self vs Other)

According to Brian Morris, the self is not an entity but a process that orchestrates an individual’s
personal experience. As a result of this process, the person becomes self-aware and self-reflective
about his or her place in the surrounding world. The concept of “self” for him is defined as an
individual’s mental representation of his or her person, as a kind of self-representation. The
concept of “other” in relation to the self, on the other hand, refers to how one perceives the mental
representation of others.

A clear separation between self and others seems to be universal, but the meaning of this
distinction varies from person to person (Van Meijl, 2008 citing Spiro, 1993). At the same time, it seems
obvious that the relationship between the self and others is also a function of culture. (Van Meijl, 2008
citing Shweder & Bourne, 1984). Morris (1994) stated that the most crucial form of interaction and
exchange takes place neither between the psyche and culture, but instead between the self and his or
her cultural environment as mediated by social practices.

In view of the dialectical relationship between the self and the cultural milieu, which is assumed
to be different depending on the dynamics of a society, a dichotomy between western and non-western
notions of self has long been embedded in western philosophical and psychological traditions of
thinking.

This idea about the self was long conceived by Marcel Mauss. Implicitly, he focused on the
notion of the person as a cultural category while reserving the conception of the self for the
psychological dimension of personhood. He added that the person or personality was considered
primarily a cultural conception, or a category of a particular community.

Dialogical Self Theory (Internal I-position vs External I-position)

The dialogical self-theory was introduced by Hubert Hermans in 1992. The theory regarded
“self” as the “Society of Mind”. He posited the idea that the self is considered as extended to
significant others in the environment that populate the self as a dynamic multiplicity of I-positions in
which dialogical or monological relationships may emerge. In this theory, an individual’s sense of self
is established through how one identifies himself or herself with the different positions he or
she holds, internally or externally, to himself or herself.

For instance, one may say “I as educator”, “I as hardworking”, “I as looking for contentment”,
which are positions that can be in sync all together. An internal I-position refers to how one functions
in himself or herself while external I-position refers on how one identifies himself or herself based on
particular external factors. (e.g., internal: “I as empathic,” I as diligent”; external: “I as brother”, “I as
part of an organization”). All these constitute the functionality of the self.

The dialogic self-approach calls for the need for the I-positions to come in contact with each other
– to be in a dialogue with one another in order for an individual to become fully aware of the different
dimensions that constitute his or her self.
 Culture can be seen as the collective voices that shape the social positions of the self. Such
positions or voices are expressions of historically situated selves that are, particularly on the interface
of different cultures, constantly involved in dialogic relationships with other voices (Hermans, 2003).

Individual Self, Relational Self, and Collective Self

There are three fundamental selves namely the individual self, the relational self, and the
collective self. The individual self reflects the cognitions related to traits, states, and behaviors that
are stored in memory (e.g., “I am religious”, “I feel cold”, “I am ambidextrous”).

The relational self reflects cognitions that are related to one’s relationships (“I am the father”, “I
am the godfather”, or “I am the son-in-law”).

The collective self reflects cognitions that are related to one’s group. (“I am an Ilocano” or “I
am a Filipino”) (Zhum, Wu, Yang & Gu, 2016).

Each self in inherently social. Each self involves assimilations and contrasts, which respectively
occur between and within person, dyads, and groups for the individual, relational, and collective self.
Furthermore, each self is important and meaningful to human experience (Gaertner et al., 2012)

Identity Struggles

Identity Struggle is a term introduced by Anthony Wallace and Raymond Fogelson. It

characterizes the discrepancy between the identity a person claims to possess and the identity
attributed to that person by others. When an individual perceives that he or she is assigned a wrong
impression, he or she will probably always defend his or her identity. The best possible solution to this
situation is to talk to the person and establish a mutual understanding regarding one’s way of
perceiving himself or herself opposed to how he or she is perceived by others. It has to be done as
soon as possible in order to prevent future conflicts. The confrontation, however, must be done in a
calm and respectful manner.

REFERENCES:
 Ariola, M. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Unlimited Books
Library Services and Publishing Inc.
 Ariola M. (2016). Sociology and Anthropology with Family Planning. Purely Books Trading
and Publishing Co.
 Brawner & Arcega. (2018). Understanding the Self, C&E Publishing, Inc.
 Corpuz, R., Estoque, R.S., & Tabotabo, C.V. (2019). Understanding The Self. C&E
Publishing, Inc.
 Galotti, K. (2011). Cognitive Development Infancy through Adolescence. Library of
Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
 Peñaflor and Peñaflor. (2016). Values Education Legal and Ethical Perspective (1st edition).
Unlimited Books Library Services and Publishing Inc.