Having discussed the multifaceted self this paper will now examine the impact, on the self, of the variation of language across cultural settings. It is evident that the role of language and discourse or the meanings, which we extract from them, cannot be discussed in abstract from the social practices to which they are tied. The use of grammar in the Japanese language highlights the interconnectedness of the Japanese culture. Kondo noted that their use of pronouns made it utterly impossible to engage in conversation without referring to the relationship between oneself and one’s interlocutor. Kondo’s Japanese experience illustrated that language varies across cultures and therefore we should also notice a co-existing variation in behaviour. The Dinka of Southern Sudan serve to illuminate this point. The language used among the Dinka establishes their cultural conception of the person as ‘less differentiated’ to the English notion, which distinguishes between the body, heart, mind and soul. This example demonstrates that how we are constructed depends on the pragmatics and indexicality of language as well as the society from which it emerges. This in turn determines how other societies perceive us, as the German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote ‘The limits of my language mean the limits of my world’. The experientialists would argue that while the language we use may be determined for us we are still capable of formulating utterances that are unique to the individual and therefore, generating a greater sense of autonomy and individuality. Social Constructionists while recognizing this aspect of language reconcile their position by claiming that the social setting contains these utterances. The biological perspective focuses on the ubiquitous properties of language and discourse, stating that sequences of language development are broadly similar in all societies, in other words the common features that occur in all languages suggest that some part of language development must be genetic as was advocated by Noam Chomsky. However, the Dinka example above reinforces the social constructionist approach that it is the meanings and beliefs envisaged by a culture, which determines how they represent themselves linguistically. This in turn affects our behaviour and emotional expression, as will be discussed in the following paragraph.
Rosaldo (1984) postulates “feelings are social practices organized by stories that we both enact and tell”. In other words, they are dependent on our understandings of how to react in different circumstances. Therefore, how we understand and portray our emotions depends on our social environment. For example, there are marked differences between the Euro-American culture and the Utko Eskimos in terms of their understanding of anger. The Utko Eskimos do not see anger as an appropriate response to situations in which the former would be ‘boiling over’ (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). They rarely speak of anger and consequently have few words to describe this emotion. Miller and Sperry (1987) further reinforce the notion that we are socially constructed through language and discourse in their study of communicative practices in South Baltimore. Their study highlighted how mothers’ narrative accounts of their personal experiences in the presence of their children, and their verbal interventions in the children’s activities provided the socializing context in which children learned the social rules for displaying feelings i.e. anger/aggression. Therefore, one can deduce that an individual’s emotional development will be highly dependent on the language and discourse practices in particular cultural settings. Alternatively, the biological perspective envisages a more universal functioning of emotions. It sees genes as exerting a bias in our behavioural disposition towards others and that our environment only serves to reinforce or counteract these effects (Williams, 1989) e.g. blushing caused physiological reactions within the body because of a misappropriation. However, social constructionists would argue that in order to determine what constitutes a misappropriation is socially situated. Similarly the experiential approach while acknowledging the social influence sees the primary focus as being on the individual i.e. the emotions we experience and the meanings, which we attribute to them emerge from within, as a result of reflections of the individuals, lived experience. However, the above examples vindicate the social constructionist position that behaviour is predominantly dependent on environmental influences.
People judge a person on the language s/he uses and hence, a person’s identity is constructed in the minds of others. Consequently, this affects a person’s self-image, personal experiences and interactions with others. This refutes the assumption that language is a neutral and unobtrusive medium. Through the medium of language we are not just talking, we usually hope to invoke a response thus creating a reaction. This was evident in the dialogue between Jenny and Larry in the therapy session where establishing meaning was a ‘joint accomplishment’ and establishes the ‘action orientation’ of language (Edwards and Potter, 1992). This account demonstrates that we can never simply recount events ‘neutrally’ but rather relate them in a biased manner or portray ourselves in a particular light. Furthermore, because language is viewed as a social action, it follows that taking up assertive positions in discourses can negotiate certain power relations. Children negotiate power relations from their earliest stages (Wetherell and Maybin, 2005). This is done through their conversations and interactions. Walkerdine (1981) demonstrates how Jane and Derek both compete for power and control of the situation. As children grow up, they become more accustomed to negotiating their positions in order to gain a more powerful stance. Such negotiations of power relations are an important aspect of the emerging social person and demonstrate how personal self-awareness is developed through social practices. This is in potent contrast to the experientialist perspective, which merits reflection of our individual experiences as being the major determinant to the construction of the self. However, the following paragraph citing Vygotsky and Mead will serve to establish that the knowledge constructed collectively outreaches that which can be achieved alone.
Social constructionists argue, “the business of being shaped as a person by others, and by the cultural environment, starts right from the earliest stages of life” (Wetherell & Maybin). Through socialisation, children are constantly using, learning and respecting their language skills and that of others. The use of motherese in Western societies highlights the significance of domestic interactions with children and underlines the importance of language as a social factor in the child’s linguistic and interactional advancement. This is in contrast to the equally valid discourse of the Kaluli mothers of Papua New Guinea who speak on behalf of their babies using formal language. This is conducted with a view to teaching them how to talk with people in varying contexts and to recognize their position in these dialogues. Thus, the mothers are ‘scaffolding’ their children to acquire communicative competence. Vygotsky (1978) advocated that children’s’ potential for cognitive development depends upon the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD): a level of development attained when children engage in social behaviour with adults. The range of skill that can be developed with adult guidance or peer collaboration exceeds what can be obtained alone. Children in turn internalise these discourses as a cognitive tool in inner thought, to interact with others and to represent and explore personal experience (Vygotsky, 1962). This is demonstrated by Kondo who acquired new ways of thinking through her emersion in the Japanese language and culture. As highlighted in the above examples Bruner suggested that the experienced adult ‘scaffolds’ the child’s learning. This scaffolding is always culturally shaped as a result of the indexical properties of discourse, so that people are not only learning the skill, they are also learning the context, for example, Kondo was happy to learn the skill of cooking Japanese cuisine but she found the etiquette of serving the food problematic as it demeaned her prior understanding of the role of women. This again serves to highlight the cultural impact of language and discourse and how it subtly aids the process of socialisation in constructing our identity.
The conventions of a culture such as stories, myths and narrative play a central role in socialization. Narrative determines children’s conditions of imagination; they can discuss roles, objects and directions. Both Mead and Vygotsky see the young child as internalising social beliefs and values through role-play in imaginative play, which becomes part of their individual thought. They learn about situations and ideas not yet tried. This social linguistic interaction contributes to children’s construction of knowledge and their overall development. It enables them to discuss, evaluate and create opinions and judgements on society. This is evident in Julie and Kirsty’s discussion of swearing. Julie is trying to reconcile being justified in ‘swearing’ at her mother and ‘being cheeky’. The experientialists see the usefulness of language in that external dialogue provides the raw material for inner dialogue. However, they see it as being limited in that it doesn’t account for the role of dimensions i.e. reason and reflection in influencing our inner thoughts. Social constructionists counteract this by not envisaging people as mere passive pawns, there is scope for the individual to mould their lives and influence their social environment.
In conclusion, both the experiential and the biological perspectives respectively criticise the social constructionist approach for not focusing on individual differences within a culture and placing too much emphasis on the role of the cultural setting. However, one would have to argue that the social constructionist theory does allow for a sufficient degree of what the experiential approach terms ‘situated freedom’ whereby people are free to construct their lives as they see fit despite their social circumstances within their cultural setting e.g. when Kondo decided to leave Japan as a result of the processes of socialisation. While it has been argued that the biological and experiential perspectives offer some insight into how the self is constituted it is the social constructionist perspective, which offers a greater analysis of how the self is constructed through language and discourse. Therefore, one can conclude that the self is a product of the language and discourse that s/he engages in through ‘the sum and swarm of participation in social life’ (Stevens & Wetherell, 1996).
References
- Audio-Cassette 1, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
-
Bruner, J. (1985) cited in Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J., (1996), ‘The distributed self: a social constructionist perspective’ in Stevens, R. (ed.) Understanding The Self, Open University, Milton Keynes p.251.
- Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) cited in Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J., (1996) p.244.
-
Lalljee, M. (1996), ‘The interpreting self: an experimentalist perspective’ in Stevens, R. (ed.) Understanding The Self, Open University, Milton Keynes.
- Markus, H and Kitayama, S (1991) cited in Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J., (1996) p.236.
- Miller, P.J. and Sperry, L.L. (1987) cited in Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J., (1996) p.256.
- Rosaldo, M (1984) cited in Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J., (1996) p.235.
-
Stevens, R. (1996), ‘Introduction: making sense of the person in the social world’ in Stevens, R. (ed.) Understanding The Self, Open University, Milton Keynes.
-
Stevens, R. (1996), ‘The reflexive self: an experiential perspective’ in Stevens, R. (ed.) Understanding The Self, Open University, Milton Keynes.
-
Stevens, R. & Wetherell, M., (1996), ‘The self in the modern world: Drawing together the threads’ in Stevens, R. (ed.) Understanding The Self, Open University, Milton Keynes p.358.
- Taylor, C. (1991) cited in Stevens, R. & Wetherell, M., (1996), p.350.
-
Thomas, K. (1996), ‘The defensive self: a psychodynamic perspective’ in Stevens, R. (ed.) Understanding The Self, Open University, Milton Keynes.
-
Toates, F, (1996), ‘The embodied self: a biological perspective’ in Stevens, R. (ed.) Understanding The Self, Open University, Milton Keynes.
- Vygotsky, L. (1962, 1978) cited in Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J., and (1996) p.251.
- Walkerdine, V. (1981) cited in Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J., (1996) p.263.
-
Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J., (1996), ‘The distributed self: a social constructionist perspective’ in Stevens, R. (ed.) Understanding The Self, Open University, Milton Keynes p.247, 263.
- Williams, R. (1989) cited in Toates, F, (1996) p.44.
-
Wittgenstein, L. cited in McGuinness, B.F., Nyberg, T., & G.H. von Wright (eds.), Pears, D.F. & McGuinness, B.F. (trans.), (1971), ProtoTractatus -- An Early Version of Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press