Unit 1 – The Self in Various Disciplines

In this unit, you will take a journey of the self from various disciplinal perspectives:
Philosophical, Western and Eastern Thoughts, Psychological, Sociological, and
Anthropological. These perspectives will give you an insight into how Great Thinkers in
the past explain the development of self. At present, you will find similarities and
differences in your understanding of self when compared to their perspectives. It is
understandable if you agree or disagree with some. In the end, you will be able to develop
a better description of the self.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 Understand and examine the different representations and conceptualizations of the
self from various disciplinal perspectives.
 Compare and contrast and contrast how the self has been represented across the
different disciplines and perspectives.
 Demonstrate critical and reflective thought in analyzing the development of one’s self
and identity by developing a theory of the self.

Content

The Self from the Views of Philosophers

Table 1. The Philosophers and Their Guiding Principles

Philosophers Time Guiding Principle

Socrates c. 469-399 B.C. Nothing will change unless you make the change
yourself.
Plato c. 428-348 B.C. Be kind and charitable to others, and you’ll inspire
strength within your endeavors.
Augustine 354 A.D. – 430 Be of one mind and heart on the way to God.
A.D. Love -- love of God, love of neighbor -- is the
center of Christian life.
Aquinas 1225 - 1274 Faith and reason ultimately come from God and
that the two work in collaboration. In truth, our
faith guides our reasoning, while reason clarifies
and demystifies faith.
Descartes 1596-1650 I concluded that I might take as a general rule the
principle that all things which we very clearly and
obviously conceive are true: only observing,
however, that there is some difficulty in rightly
determining the objects which we distinctly
conceive.
Hume 1711 - 1776 Curiosity, or the love of knowledge, has a very
 limited influence, and requires youth, leisure
education, genius and example to make it govern
any person.
Kant 1724 - 1804 If you’re a painter, keep painting. If you’re a
singer, practice singing. Better your talent
experiences and practice.
Ryle 1900 - 1976 In searching for the self, one cannot
simultaneously be the hunter and the hunted.
Merleau - Ponty 1908 - 1961 The perceived world is the always – presupposed
foundation of all rationality, all value, and all
existence.
Note: Above are the Philosophers and their guiding principle which will give you background on how they view the
self ([Link]

Socrates. He is a philosopher in the classical time, a man who came out to question 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. He believes as claimed by Plato that the unexamined self 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 prepositions about themselves and
about the world, particularly about who they are (Plato, 2012; Alata et al., 2018, p. 5). For
Socrates, “every man is composed of body and soul” which means that every human person is
dualistic. With this, humans should be aware of who they are and the values that they are
supposed to attain in order to preserve their souls for the afterlife. Socrates thought that the
worst thing that can happen to anyone is not knowing oneself. If this happens, “he only lives but
dies inside”.

Plato. He is the student of Socrates who supported the idea that a man is a dual nature
of body and soul. In addition to Socrates, he added that there are parts or three components to
the soul: the rational soul, the spirited soul, and the appetitive soul. 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 the emotion 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 these
three souls are attained, the human person becomes just and virtuous.

Augustine. Augustine’s view of the human person reflects the entire spirit of the
medieval world. Following the ancient view of Plato and infusing it with the newfound doctrine of
Christianity. Augustine agreed that man is of bifurcated nature. There is an aspect of man that
dwells in the world that is imperfect and continuously yearns 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. The goal of every
human person is to attain this communion and bliss with the divine by living his life on earth in
virtue.

Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas, the most eminent 13th-century scholar and stalwart of
medieval philosophy, appended something to this Christian view. Adopting some ideas from
Aristotle, Aquinas said that, man is composed of two parts: matter and form. Matter refers to
common stuff that makes up everything in the universe while form refers to the essence of a
substance or thing. What makes a human person a human person is the soul, his essence.
 Descartes. Rene Descartes, Father of Modern Philosophy, conceived that the human
person is having a body and a mind. He claimed that there is so much that we should doubt. If it
is so clear that is the time that it is not to be doubted. The only thing that one cannot 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 to a conclusion without a trace of
doubt that he exists. The self then for Descartes is a combination of two distinct qualities: the
cogito or the thing that thinks which is the mind and the extenza or extension of the mind which
is the body.

Locke. John Locke as a physician rather than a mathematician, provided his perspective
on personal identity. He concluded that to discover the nature of personal identity, we’re going
to have to find out what it means to be a person. A person is a thinking, intelligent being who
can reason and reflect. A person is someone who considers himself to be the same thing in
different times and different places. A person has a consciousness of being aware of what we
are thinking and is an essential part of the thinking process. A person has a consciousness of
what makes possible our belief that we have the same identity in different times and different
places.

Hume. David Hume is a Scottish philosopher who has a unique way of looking at man.
As an empiricist, he believes that man can know only what comes from the senses and
experience. He believes that 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. Ideas are copies of impressions. One example is when you touch an
ice cube, the cold sensation is an impression. Impressions are vivid because they are products
of our direct experience with the world. An example of an idea is when you imagine the
coldness of snow if you have not yet experienced winter. Ideas are not as lively and vivid as our
impressions.

Kant. Thinking of the self as a mere combination of impressions was problematic for
Immanuel Kant. He 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 a mind that organizes impressions that men get from
the external world. He suggests that the self is an actively engaged intelligence in man that
synthesizes all knowledge and experience. Thus, the self is the seat of knowledge acquisition
for all human persons.

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 matters is the behavior that a person manifests in his day–to–day life. He
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. Maurice Jean Jacques 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 that
the mind and body are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from one another. The body
is the opening towards the existence of the world and because of these bodies men are in the
world. He further believes that the living body, thoughts, emotions, and experiences are all one.

The next lesson is more of the Eastern thought since Western thought is
greatly emphasized in the Philosophical perspectives. You need to look into the
religious beliefs and political philosophies that greatly influenced the culture and
mindset of the Eastern / Oriental people. Remember as a country we are colonized
by the West but we are part of the East plus the influence of social media,
Concept of the Self: Western and Eastern Thought

Figure 1

East Thinker meets West Thinker

Note: The figure above shows the difference on the thought of the Eastern and the Western
([Link]

Eastern Thoughts

Confucianism. Confucianism is seen as a code of ethical conduct of how one should

properly act according to their relationship with other people, thus it is focused on having a
harmonious social life. 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 (Ho, 1995; Alata et al., 2018, p. 39). In addition, 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 or her social relationships. The cultivated self in Confucianism is what scholars
called as a “subdued self” wherein personal needs are repressed for the good of many, making
Confucian society also hierarchal for the purpose of maintaining order and balance in society.

Taoism. This was founded by Lao Tzu who was a Chinese Philosopher and writer.
Taoism is living in the way of the Tao or the universe. It is a free-flowing, relative, unitary, as
well as paradoxical view of almost everything. It rejects the strictness brought by Confucianism
and would prefer a simple life. Thus, its teachings aim to describe how to attain that life. The self
is not just the extension of the family or the community; it is part of the universe. The ideal self is
selflessness without forgetting the self, it is 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. The self therefore
has harmony with everything (Ho, 1995; Alata et al., 2018, p. 39).

Buddhism. Various groups have adopted Buddhism thus you may find differences in
their teachings but more likely, their core concept 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, the quest of the human
being 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 (Ho, 1995; Alata et al., 2018, p. 39).
 Western Thoughts

Western perspective does not discount the role of environment and society in the
formation of the self but the focus is always looking toward the self. Western thought looks at
the world in dualities wherein you are distinct from other person, the creator is separate from the
object he created in which the self is distinguished and acknowledged. (Wolter, 2012; Alata et
al., 2018, p. 40)

Several studies showed that Americans for example, talk more about their attributes
when describing themselves while Asians in general talk about their social roles or the social
situations that invoked certain traits that they deem positive for their selves (Gleitman, Gross,
and Reisberg, 2011; Alata et al., 2018, p. 40) Evaluation of the self also differ as Americans
would highlight their 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 cultures, on the other hand, are called collectivistic cultures as group
and social relations that are given more importance than individual needs and wants.

By valuing the individual, westerners may seem to have a loose association 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 persons
look after the welfare of their groups and value cooperation. They would also be more
compromising and they tend to go around the bush in explaining things, hoping that the other
person would feel what they want to say (Qingxue, 2003; Alata et al., 2018, p. 41).

Westerners also emphasize more on the value of equality even if they see that the
individual can rise above everything else. Asians with their collectivistic culture, put more
emphasis on hierarchy as the culture wants to keep things in harmony and order (Qingxue,
2003; Alata et al., 2018, p. 41).

The next lesson provides a psychological overview of the self. These are
based on researches that form their concept of self and identity. Psychology is more
of studying the individual mind, hence the concept below is based on the cognitive
construct but it also looked into other factors that affect the individual. Bear in mind
that the main question on this topic is, do you know who you are?

The Self: Ideas in Psychology

Figure 2

Example of a Self Concept

 Note: The figure above is an example of a self–concept or the collection of knowledge about who we are
([Link]

William James. He was one of the earliest psychologists to study the self and he
conceptualized that the self has two aspects, the “I” and the “me”. The “I” is the thinking, acting,
and feeling self. The “me” on the other hand is the physical characteristics as well as
psychological capabilities that make who you are. Thus, the “I” is the one who acts and decides
while the “me” is what you think or feel about yourself as an object (Geitman, Gross, and
Reisberg, 2011; Alata et al., 2018, p. 29).

Carl Rogers. He believes that self–concept is not fixed in a one-time frame. It is referred
to as self–schema or our own organized system or collection of knowledge about who we are.
The schema may include changes around you which may include your interests, your work,
your course, your age, your name, your 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 things or objects (Geitman, Gross, and
Reisberg, 2011; Alata et al., 2018, p. 30).

Carl Rogers also speaks about the congruence and incongruence of the self–image and
ideal self. Incongruence exists if the person’s ideal self may not be consistent with what actually
happens in life and the experiences of the person. Congruence self exists when a person’s ideal
self and actual experience are consistent or very similar. Rarely, if ever, does a total state of
congruence exist; all people experience a certain amount of incongruence. The closer our self–
image and ideal self are to each other, the more consistent or congruent we are and the higher
our sense of self-worth (Simply Psychology, 2020).

Figure 3

Venn Diagram of the Congruence and Incongruence of the Self-Image

 Note: The figure above shows how incongruence and congruence is different ([Link]

Sigmund Freud. Several psychologists follow the trend of thought of 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 as
composed of mental processes and behavior which are results of the interaction between the Id,
the Ego, and the Superego. The id is the most primitive of the three structures, it is concerned
with instant gratification of basic physical needs and urges. The superego is concerned with
social rules and morals—similar to what many people call their “conscience” or their “moral
compass.” It develops as a child learns what their culture considers right and wrong. In contrast
to the instinctual id and the moral superego, the ego is the rational, pragmatic part of our
personality. It’s what Freud considered to be the “self,” and its job is to balance the demands of
the id and superego in the practical context of reality. Freud believed that the id, ego, and
superego are in constant conflict and that adult personality and behavior are rooted in the
results of these internal struggles throughout childhood. He believed that a person who has a
strong ego has a healthy personality and that imbalances in this system can lead to neurosis
(what we now think of as anxiety and depression) and unhealthy behaviors (Psychodynamic
Perspectives on Personality | Boundless Psychology, 2020).

Figure 4

The Structure of the Mind: Conflict Within the Mind

Note: The figure above shows the three structures of the mind: id, ego, and superego. According to Freud, the job of
the ego is to balance the aggressive/pleasure-seeking drives of the id with the moral control of the superego
([Link]

G.H. Mead. He argued that the self is created and developed through human interaction
(Hogg and Vaughan, 2010; Alata et al., 2018, p. 31). Basically, there are at least three reasons
why self and identity are social products: (1) We do not create ourselves out of nothing, society
helped create the foundations of who we are and even if we make our choices, we still operate
in our social and historical context in one way or the other; (2) Whether we like to admit or not,
we actually need others to affirm and reinforce who we think we are, we also need them as
reference points about our identity; and (3) What we think as important to us may also have
been influenced by what is important in our social or historical context like what is important to
your family, important as a result of your experience while growing, or what you find as
important during the current time (Elmore, Oyserman, and Smith, 2012, 76; Alata et al., 2018, p.
31).

Carver and Scheier. They believed that there are times when we are aware of our self–
concepts, also called self–awareness. They identified two types of the self that we can be aware
of and these are the public and the private self. The private self refers to your internal standards
and private thoughts and feelings while the public self is your public image commonly geared
towards having a good presentation of yourself to others.

Self-awareness also presents us with at least three other self–schemes: the actual,
ideal, and ought self. The actual self is who you are at that moment, the ideal self is who you
like to be, and the ought self is who you think you should be (Higgins 1997 in Hogg and Vaughn,
2010; Alata et al., 2018, p. 32). This self-awareness may be positive or negative depending on
the circumstances and our next course of action. It can keep you from doing something
dangerous, yet it can also make you concerned about being observed and criticized by others or
what is called as self–conscious (Jhangiani and Tarry, 2014; Alata et al., 2018, p. 33). Here is
the consequences when there are discrepancies of the actual, ideal, and ought self.

Figure 5

Self – Discrepancy Theory

 Note: The figure above shows the discrepancy between the actual and ideal and actual and ought self which
results in negative consequences ([Link]

Our group identity and self-awareness also has great impact on our self–esteem, one of
the common concepts associated with the self. One of the ways in which our social relationship
affects our self–esteem is through social comparisons. According to the social comparison
theory, we learn about ourselves, the appropriateness of our behaviors, as well as our social
statues by comparing aspects of ourselves with other people. This comparison may take into
two forms: Downward social comparison and upward social comparison. Downward social
comparison is when we create positive self–concept by comparing ourselves with those who are
worse off than us. Upward social comparison on the other hand is when we compare ourselves
with those who are better off than us. Upward comparison can be a form of motivation to some
but a lot of those who do this actually feel lower self-esteem as we highlight more of our
weaknesses or inequalities (Jhangiani and Tarry, 2014; Hogg and Vaughan, 2010; Alata et al.,
2018, p. 33).

Social comparison also entails what is called self–evaluation maintenance theory which
states that we can feel threatened when someone outperforms us, especially when that person
is close to us. As a result, we react in three ways. First, we distance ourselves from that person.
Second, we reconsider the importance of the aspect or skill in which we were outperformed.
Third, we strengthen our resolve to improve that certain aspect of ourselves. When the goal is
achieved, self-esteem increases (Jhangiani and Tarry, 2014; Alata et al., 2018, p. 34).

However, in the attempt to increase or maintain self–esteem, some people become

narcissistic or have overly high self–esteem, self-admiration, and self – centeredness. Though
high self–esteem is viewed as narcissism, many would still argue that healthy self–esteem may
result in 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. However, those who
will not conform to them may become bullies or experiment with abusive behaviors with drugs,
alcohol, and sex. Thus, there is duality in the behavior and attitudes (Jhangiani and Tarry, 2014;
Alata et al., 2018, p. 34).

Your mind might feel tired by now of overloaded information going through
the three topics in this unit. Do not worry this is the last and this one presents the
sociological and anthropological views of the self. Unlike a psychological
perspective which is individualistic, these views talk about human social relations
and cultural practices. Let us shift from looking for the answer to the question of
“Who am I?” (of which by now I hope you somehow found the answer) to “How
much the people around you influence who you are?” The answers for these are
based on researches and the concept of great personalities of this field. Let us now
start.

The Self in Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives

According to these perspectives, the self is separate, self–contained, independent,

consistent, unitary, and private (Stevens, 1996; Alata et al., 2018, p. 14). By separate it means
that the self is distinct from other selves. The self is unique and has its own identity. Self is also
self-contained and independent because in itself it can exist. It is consistent which means that a
particular self’s traits, characteristics, tendencies, and potentialities are more or less the same.
Self is also unitary since it is the center of all experiences and thoughts that run through a
certain person. Finally, the self is private since each person sorts out information, feelings
emotions, and thought processes within the self. This whole process is never accessible to
anyone but the self.

Social constructivists argue that the self should not be seen as a static entity that stays
constant through and through. Rather the self has to be seen as something that is in unceasing
flux, in constant struggle with external reality, and is malleable in its dealing with society.

The Self and Culture

Remaining the same person and turning a chameleon by adapting to someone’s context
seems paradoxical. However, the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss has an explanation for
this phenomenon. Marcel Mauss was a first-generation French sociologist, initially studying
under his uncle Emile Durkheim, the founder of the discipline. His work however fits better
under the banner of anthropology, as he studied the historical emergence of societal forces,
most famously “the gift” through ethnological research (Marcel Mauss: A category of the human
mind: the notion of person; the notion of self, 2020).

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. Personne
is composed of the social concepts of what it means to be who he is. It 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 of others.

In the essay of Mauss (1938), he gives a summarization of the “person” or “self” as a

historically variegated and developed concept. He starts with North American and Australian
conceptions, rooted in personnage, or role in society determining identity. While he mentions
concepts of the self that move towards the “I” in India and China, it did not become as prominent
as it would be in Latin society. The persona or mask representing identity becomes prominent in
Roman society (Marcel Mauss: A category of the human mind: the notion of person; the notion
of self, 2020).

Language is another interesting aspect of the social constructivism. The Filipino

language is incredibly very interesting to talk about since similar word may mean many things.
Another interesting facet of our language is its gender–neutral. In English, Spanish, and other
languages, there is a clear distinction between a male and female like the pronouns he and she.
But in Filipino, there is no specification of gender between male and female, we call it “siya”.

Bottom line, 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 into a particular society or culture, the self will
have to adjust according to its exposure.

The Self and the Development of the Social World

Men and women in their growth and development engage actively in the shaping of the
self. The unending terrain of the 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; Alata et al.,
2018, p. 18).

Mead and Vygotsky’s Human Person

Human persons develop with the use of language acquisition and interaction with others.
The way we process information is normally a form of an internal dialogue in our head. Those
who deliberate about moral dilemmas undergo this internal dialogue. So cognitive and
emotional development of a child is always a mimicry of how it is done in the social world, in the
external reality where he is in. They both treat 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 more 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.

Self in Families

While every child is born with certain givenness, and 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
will certainly affect us and the kind of development that we will have as we go 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. In trying to
achieve the goal of becoming a fully realized human, a child enters a system of relationships,
the most important of which is the family. Without a family, biologically and sociologically, a
person may not even survive or become a human person. One is who he is because of his
family for the most part.

Gender and Self

Gender is one of those loci of the self that is subject to alteration, change, and
development. In the past years, people fought hard for the right to express, validate, and assert
their gender expression. Many conservatives may insist on the biological. However, from the
point of view of social sciences and the self, it is important to give one the leeway to find,
express, and live his identity. This forms part of selfhood that one cannot just dismiss.

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 to 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.

Now that you are done with the content of this unit. You may proceed to the
learning activities. There are different activities for the four topics. Follow the
instructions.
Developed by:

JULY ANNE S. GAHISAN, MA

Jose Rizal Memorial State University – Dipolog Campus