Cooley concluded that “our sense of self develops from interactions with others,” therefore we modify our “self” depending on those people around us. For example if we perceive the reactions of others towards us as negative, we tend to change the way we act and sometimes think. There are times when we might try to fit in to a crowd were our “self” does not reach the groups ‘standards’ and we focus on the generalized other. The way society expects an individual to be, also tends to bring about change in a person’s self over the course of time. Society sets standards and as individuals we tend to form ideas about the way others see us.
Change is inevitable, since we must accommodate to our environment. Our “self” is built by the interactions we have with others, therefore the reactions that we obtain from those around us are very important. These reactions can create either a positive or negative reflection that will influence the way we feel about ourselves and even some of the choices we make in life.
An extremely important part of the self-concept is self esteem. “This is the evaluative aspect of the self-concept, and it concerns how worthwhile and confident an individual feels about himself or herself” (Eysenck 2002).
In Yvonne’s statement, she clearly states she was bullied because she was ‘plump’ when she was younger. Bullying has a very negative effect on a person’s self esteem, as it did on Yvonne’s. It affected Yvonne to such as extent she is controlling what her daughter eats to prevent her from being bullied at school.
The damage caused by the violence of childhood and high school bullies can leave lasting consequences on individuals who are harassed by bullies. As a result of continual bullying, teasing and harassment, children may feel defenceless or even feel as if their life is in danger. It is often seen that, “Kids victimised by bullies are likely to suffer mental scars from the experience… Researchers then found that those who were bullied were more likely than their peers to later report symptoms of depression and anxiety.” (Bailey 2002). The wounds from being bullied as a child will stay with that individual until adulthood. The pain of being an outcast among peers, and looked upon as inferior to other students can push an individual to suicide.
For example, “One child committed suicide after being repeatedly teased and tormented about her hair, whereas another child killed himself after being relentlessly teased about his weight (Hefty boy who feared teasing, 1996)” (Landau). Not all victims react by taking their own lives, but the damage incurred has lasting effects. Many endure the bulling all the way through high school, resulting in mild to traumatic emotional damage depending on the individual. The victim feels helpless with no one to turn to and these feelings of low self esteem may last a lifetime. A small percentage may react to bullies in an aggressive or violent manner as seen recently in school shootings and violence.
Yvonne, when she was a child, was bullied so her sense of self was challenged and her self esteem decreased. As Yvonne grew up, because she was bullied she came to associate being fat with greed, a lack of control and ugliness. This affected her confidence and had a negative effect on her life.
Being bullied has instilled in Yvonne’s mind that the best body shape to have is thin. The bullying Yvonne suffered as a child has made her instil these views about greed, being fat and obesity in her own daughter, so the attitudes have continued through the generations. Yvonne does not want her daughter’s sense of self to be damaged in the way hers was.
An over-weight child is embedded in a social context and this provides clues to the child about the acceptability of his/her weight status. There are certain factors in the child’s environment that can either protect them from negative thoughts or may place the child at risk of such self depreciating thoughts. The parents of an obese child, obviously concerned about their physical and emotional well-being, may react to their child’s weight status by expressing concern and altering the child’s eating patterns to bring about a change and make the child thinner.
The parent, namely Yvonne, may directly or indirectly criticise their child in an attempt to change the child’s behaviour. It is this parental concern and control over the child’s eating habits that send messages to the child that their obesity is undesirable and that they are unable to control their own eating habits. It is these messages, when combined with being fat, that negatively impact on a child’s evolving sense of self. When the fat child grows up, they then socialise the same negative attitudes into their own children.
There are plenty other theories of self and how the self develops. Erving Goffman is generally associated with the ideas and concepts of symbolic interactionism and was strongly influenced by the work of George Herbert Mead. Goffman was interested in exploring human interactions and how people presented themselves in everyday settings, especially in public places. This led to one of Goffman’s key works in sociology, ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’ (1956 cited in Haralambos & Holborn 2000). This major work has characterised Goffman as the founding father of ‘dramaturgy’.
Dramaturgy is the analysis of human behaviour that suggests life is a ‘play’ and people are the ‘actors’. The difference with dramaturgy is that instead of the interactions being rehearsed beforehand for an audience, real life human interactions are improvised and are expressions of one’s individuality which can change depending upon the social situation they are in. According to Goffman, the world is a stage in which we are all social actors. We play multiple roles doing set things based on expectations of each other. In certain situations we all have ideas of how to act based upon what the other person expects so they are able to interpret our actions and apply meanings to them. For example, in a classroom the teacher will adopt a professional manner in front of students and supply them with information using symbols and language he/she expects the students will understand. The students will normally adopt an attentative manner and use symbols to let the teacher know they want to ask a question such as putting up their hand and wait to be acknowledged.
Basically, we are all aware that there are standard rules depending on the type of interaction, for example if attending a funeral the ‘norm’ would be to wear black formal attire and act respectfully; we would not wear something outrageous or act loudly and offensively.
Goffman suggested that we play the role that fits best to the social situation we are in. He also believed we use front and backstage situations to determine how we play our role and manage these by our ability to respond. The way we manage our stage is by the use of props. For example, if we were attending an interview we would dress ‘business’ like and may even carry certain items such as a brief case or a folder. This would then manage the way we act and also the responses we would receive which would normally be ‘polite and formal’ than if we attended in a tracksuit carrying a rucksack.
We learn meaning through interaction, which then enables us to interpret the meaning through symbols such as bodily expressions, uniforms of dress and language. Goffman stressed that interpretations of meanings are not fixed but are modified accordingly to the social situation. This allows us to learn who we are and how we interact with others. We discover our self-meaning or identity. The identities we have will emerge in each role-play and tends to express our beliefs in relation to social categories such as class, race, gender and age. Overall, our self presentation is the invention and continuation of our public selves.
Mead (1934) argued strongly that an individual’s self-concept emerges as a result of interaction with other people. “According to him, our self-concept is based on our social experience, and it is controlled by our values and the expectations of the culture in which we live. Mead also argued that the development of the self-concept depends greatly on language, because it is through language that cultural values are often expressed” (cited in Eysenck 2002).
The language of a certain culture provides stories and accounts of what being a person is like. This is how an individual’s language and culture can affect their development of self.
The belief and view that people should be individualistic and independent is the result of modern, individualistic societies. Older traditional cultures believe people should be more collectively associated.
One process by which individuals are socialised to be individualistic or collectivist is through the construction of self-concept. In Kitayama et al (1997 cited in Leary et al 2002), the researchers examined the self-enhancement and self-criticism processes in which Americans and Japanese are socialized to be either individualist or collectivist. It is stated that Americans promote self-enhancement socialisation processes of independence, competition, and self-esteem. Japanese promote a self-criticism (which leads to self-improvement) socialisation process of interdependence, group goals, and shared improvement. The meanings of concepts are culturally constructed, and therefore concepts can have different meanings cross-culturally. An example of this is self-esteem. In American culture, self-esteem is a sought after commodity gained through independent endeavours aimed at success and self-gain. Japanese culture’s positive self-concept is aimed more at fulfilling group goals and success for the collective group, and less at individual successes or accomplishments.
Other researchers have looked toward the socialisation processes in American and Japanese preschools to identify individualist and collectivist tendencies. Fujita and Sano (1988 cited in Leary et al 2002) used participant observation and cross-cultural interviewing of American and Japanese preschool teachers to try to reveal different cultural transmission of socialisation processes. Through comparing the differences in American and Japanese day-care centres, the researchers were able to uncover contextual situations that promote or discourage individualist or collectivist behaviours, beliefs, values, and norms. Being simultaneously sensitive to the cultural construction of meanings behind American and Japanese culture allowed the researchers to discover that American and Japanese teachers do not interpret concepts in the same way. “Therefore, the teachers’ interpretations reveal two distinct cultural frameworks underlying the American and Japanese systems.” (Fujita & Sano 1988 cited in Leary 2002). By comparing different activities offered in day-care centres, the researchers were able to ascertain that American teachers promote a more independent-oriented individual (encouraging the child to eat without help, use ‘feeling words’, and make decisions for themselves).
The process of identity construction will be different for each person depending on which culture they come from. The process of identity construction has changed over the centuries. In medieval society “people’s lives and identities were tightly mapped out according to their position in the social order – by visibly ascribed attributes such as family membership, social rank, birth order and place of birth” (Hogg & Vaughan 2005). It could be said that what you saw was effectively what you got.
Change began in the sixteenth century, and the pace of change has increased ever since. One force for change was the end of secularisation, which was the idea that self fulfilment and happiness would occur in the afterlife, which was replaced with the idea that a person should actively pursue ones happiness and personal fulfilment whilst alive in this life.
Industrialisation meant people were often seen as being ‘units of production’ who would travel from place to place to work, “and thus would not have a portable personal identity that was not locked into static social structures such as the extended family” (Hogg & Vaughan 2005).
The idea of enlightenment also brought around change, which was when people realised they could create different, better identities and lives for themselves by removing oppressive ruling regimes.
The transmission of culture is now a lot faster than it was in traditional cultures. The more traditional theories of identity construction were linked closely to the dynamics of class, gender, race and religion, but these are now a lot less important in the modern societies of today.
In the past, people’s identities were seen as fairly stable, widely shared and based on one or two key variables such as class and nationality. In pre-industrial societies, people identities were largely based around traditional structures such as religion. However, as industrialisation and urbanisation began to take hold, societies became more complicated. People’s identities became increasingly based around the structures and organisations that were part of their everyday lives.
Modern identities are more fragmented now than 200 years ago, “people no longer possess a single, unified conception of who they are, but instead possess ‘several, sometimes contradictory or unresolved identities’” (Haralambos & Holborn 2000). People now have more choice about the social groups they join, which adds to people being able to actively create their identities.
People used to define their identity around their social class, but this is no longer the case. New, modern social movements have developed which are concerned with a number of different of issues and identities such as “feminism, black struggles, national liberation, anti-nuclear and ecological movements. Instead of people feeling part of a class, their identity became fragmented in terms of their gender, ethnicity, religion, age, nationality, views on ecology and so on” (Haralambos & Holborn 2000).
The more modern theories of identity have suggested that people’s identities can frequently change and may contain considerable contradictions.
The growth and invention of the television and the internet have changed how people view themselves, and have given choice so people can change and alter their identity as they wish.
The media has become one of the key agents of socialisation, which reaches all age ranges 24 hours a day. Identity creation before used to rely on face to face interaction which the media cuts out.
The media creates people and figures that its audiences can identify and emulate. It therefore has important socialising and enculturating effects via its gender and role models which valorise certain types of behaviour and vilify other types. The media creates identities that modern people can copy or take bits from.
Another important change that will have had an impact on how the sense of self develops over generations is female roles. The family used to be the main agency by which gender socialisation took place.
Giddens (2006) states “gender differences are not biologically determined, they are culturally produced.”
Years ago, girls were bought up and socialised in to the idea that they would stay at home, cook dinner, clean and have children. However, the rise of femininity has altered these roles. Modern women now are more interested in achieving economic independence before having children, which means when they do eventually have kids; if they are female they will have different ideas about what it is to be female. Through the generations the role of women has changed, mainly due to the rise of feminism.
The decline of the nuclear family has also contributed to the change in modern identities. The rise of the single parent family means the norm is no longer a heterosexual set of parents. This change will transmit through the children to the next generations. The rise of feminism also ties in with the decline of the nuclear family because feminists believe the traditional family hides a range of internal divisions, inequalities and asymmetries of power. Feminists believe the nuclear family is not the usual source of comfort we all assume they are, but actually a source of oppression for its female members.
It was the rise of feminism during the 1960s and 1970s that saw the family criticised for its unequal power relations between men and women. Also from this time there has been a rise in advertising that states women do not have to stay at home and care for children. The increased freedom in recent years, especially for women, has seen the cultural norms changing. The further the years go on and the more diversity we have, the more freedom women have and the more equal they are seen to men.
We present ourselves to others through everyday interactions, through the way we dress and speak, making ourselves the same as those with whom we share an identity and different from those whom we do not.
Both as individuals and through collective action it is possible to redefine and reconstruct our identities. We can alter and interpret the roles we adopt. Through collective action, such as feminism, it is possible to influence the social structures which constrain us, however there are limits. The scripts of our everyday interactions are already written and at the wider level structures are deeply embedded in contemporary culture, economy and society.
There have been changes in our lives, in the domestic arena, in the work place, in our communities and at the level of the nation and its place in society. Change has also created diversity which has brought new opportunities for redefining ourselves, at home and in the work place, and as members of different ethnicities and nations within Britain.
In conclusion, it can be seen our identities are no longer fixed, but are now more fluid and open to change. There are lots more socialisation agencies for children apart from there just being social support from the family and face to face interaction as there was years ago.
Reference Page
Eysenck, M. 2002. Simple Psychology. 2nd ed. East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.
Giddens, A., 2006. Sociology. 5th ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gross, R. 2005. Psychology: The science of the mind. 5th ed. Oxon: Hodder Headline plc.
Haralambos, M & Holborn, M. 2000. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 5th ed. London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.
Hogg, M. & Vaughan, G. 2005. Social Psychology. 4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Leary, M et al. 2002. Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guildford Press
Bailey, T. 2002. Reclaiming children & youth- Teasing and harassment. (Online) Accessed at: [January 2008]
Landau, S. et al. 2001. You really don't know how much it hurts: Children's and pre-service teachers' reactions to childhood teasing. (Online) Accessed at: [January 2008]