Self and Identity

Sociology developed as a discipline in the early 20th Century with the predominance of the Structural School in which social behaviour was viewed as emanating from the rules and norms set by the overall social structure. Sociology, with its evolutionary and functional framework was thus a discipline with a macro perspective. Symbolic Interactionism with its roots in Behavioural Psychology of the late nineteenth century ushered in a micro perspective in contrast. Instead of viewing individuals as constrained and moulded by society and its norms, it preferred to examine how individual behaviour creates relationships and to view the individual and society relationship in reciprocal fashion. Individuals were importantly seen as both subjects and agents and not merely as objects. The concept of social roles and statuses was supplemented by the concepts of self and consciousness. Social personhood was seen as a process and not simply as a given. Thus with symbolic interactionism, a dynamic and processual methodology was introduced into sociology as well as a notion of social psychology. Unlike Durkheim who wished to explain social facts only by social facts, the Symbolic Interactionists allowed psychological considerations to enter into their concepts of individual, self and society. Instead of just discussing Symbolic Interactionism about how society affects individual behaviour, symbolic interactionists worked up from below trying to find out how individuals make sense of the society and find meanings in what they do.

George Herbert Mead, an early twentieth century thinker, a social psychologist and philosopher, is regarded as the founder of this school of thought even though he never coined the term symbolic interaction

GEORGE HERBERT MEAD: BASIC CONCEPTS

- George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) was a prominent American philosopher and social psychologist.

- Mead's theory emphasizes the role of social interaction in the development of self and consciousness.

- According to Mead, the self emerges through interaction with others, and our perception of ourselves is influenced by the feedback we receive from them.

- Social communication involves making gestures that are mutually understood symbols, creating a shared world of meanings.

- Significant symbols, repeated and universally understood, shape our behaviour and communication within society.

- Mead introduced the concept of the "generalized other," representing the combined attitudes of society that individuals internalize.

- Even when alone, individuals behave as if others are present, adhering to societal expectations.

- The sense of self develops in two stages: initially through specific interactions with close individuals, then through the internalization of the generalized other.

- Mead distinguishes between the "I" (individual consciousness) and the "Me" (society's reflection of the individual).

- The interaction between the "I" and the "Me" involves negotiation, compliance, manipulation, and rebellion, shaping societal transformations.

THE EMERGENCE OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Key Tenets of Symbolic Interactionism by Herbert Blumer (1969)

1. Meaningful Individual Actions

- Individuals respond to the meanings attributed to gestures or objects.

- For instance, if the color red signifies danger, individuals will act accordingly.

2. Social Interactions within Defined Contexts

- Interactions occur within pre-established social contexts with shared meanings.

- Sacredness of objects is an example where all members of a society understand and adhere to its significance.

3. Emergence and Continuity of Meanings

- Meanings develop through ongoing interactions within society.

- Example: A child learns the sacredness of a temple from parents, which is then confirmed by other members, contributing to the general system of meanings.

4. Dynamic Nature of Meanings

- Meanings are not static and can change through social interaction.

- New meanings can emerge, and old ones can be discarded based on societal interactions and circumstances.

Blumer's Interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism

- Blumer views individuals and society as intertwined, contrary to prevalent views in the 1950s.

- Symbolic interactionism is seen as a form of interaction specific to human beings, involving meanings attributed to objects and gestures.

- Blumer advocates for "sympathetic introspection," requiring researchers to empathize with subjects to understand their behaviour.

- Symbolic interactionism's three basic premises:

1. Individuals act based on the meanings ascribed to objects or symbols, which vary by context.

2. Meanings arise from social interactions within society.

3. Meanings are interpretative and not inherent to objects; they derive significance from mental processes.

- Interactive determinism is emphasized, but human agency remains significant, allowing for individual rebellion against societal meanings.

OTHER SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

The Iowa School, represented by Manford Kuhn, and the Indiana School, led by Sheldon Stryker, offered alternative methodologies to Herbert Blumer's symbolic interactionism. Unlike Blumer's qualitative approach, these schools leaned towards positivist, quantitative methods. Kuhn, for instance, viewed behaviour as purposive, guided by past experiences and projected into the future. He advocated for rigorous scientific testing and the development of precise scientific vocabulary to describe social phenomena. Kuhn's notable contribution was the 'Twenty Statements Test,' designed to assess self-conceptualization and identities, aligning with Mead's theory of self-emergence through social interaction. However, these schools faced criticism for their structured responses and reductionist methodologies.

On the other hand, Carl Couch, a student of Kuhn, enhanced the methodology by adding dynamism and depth to interactive data, moving beyond the static laboratory environment. Meanwhile, Sheldon Stryker, from the Indiana School, applied a positivist methodology to symbolic interactionism. He viewed Mead's theory as a framework for building a concrete theory of symbolic interactionism. Stryker introduced Structural Role Theory, based on Mead's concept of role-taking, which posited that social interactions crystallize into stable patterns forming a social structure. He emphasized the role of social norms in regulating individual behaviour, suggesting that individuals act according to shared expectations, thereby reproducing social structure. This combination of micro-sociological perspective from symbolic interactionism with the macro-sociological view of Social Structuralism demonstrated how individual behaviour is both conditioned by and contributes to the maintenance of social structure.

ERVING GOFFMAN AND THE DRAMATURGICAL APPROACH

Erving Goffman's dramaturgical approach revolutionized symbolic interactionism by likening social life to a drama, where individuals perform roles in social interactions. Goffman's concept gained immense popularity, shedding new light on social organization and group dynamics. He posited that social interactions are never entirely spontaneous; rather, individuals bring a preconceived understanding of the situation and their role within it. Each person presents a particular aspect of themselves, fitting into multiple societal roles. The success of an interaction hinges on individuals' understanding of the roles they're expected to play and their expectations of others' behavior. Misinterpretations can lead to breakdowns in interactions.

To prevent such breakdowns, defensive and protective mechanisms are employed. Defensive practices involve telling stories or narratives to create a sense of catharsis, while tact involves covering up embarrassing situations. Goffman introduced terms like 'interaction' and 'performance' to describe social life. He highlighted the role of the 'front'—the expressive equipment individuals use to present themselves in social encounters. Individuals tailor their appearance and behaviour to suit the occasion, maintaining coherence between setting, appearance, and manner.

Goffman's theory of impression management underscores that most social encounters involve a performance, with individuals projecting an idealized image. He studied various social situations to uncover the strategies and performances involved, both on the 'front stage' and 'back stage.' These performances vary across cultures but remain central to social life.

Goffman's theory integrates concepts from individual personality, social interaction, and society, emphasizing the importance of impression management in all social encounters.

EXAMPLE

Erving Goffman's dramaturgical approach to symbolic interactionism views social life as akin to a theatrical performance, where individuals play roles in various social interactions. To understand this concept better, let's consider an example:

Imagine you're attending a job interview. In this scenario, you, as the interviewee, are the 'actor' in the social drama. Before entering the interview room, you prepare yourself mentally and physically, choosing appropriate attire and rehearsing responses to potential questions. This preparation represents your 'backstage' behaviour, where you craft your performance away from the audience's view.

As you enter the interview room, you transition to the 'front stage,' where your performance takes place. Here, you adopt a professional demeanour, maintaining eye contact, speaking confidently, and highlighting your qualifications and experiences. You present a carefully curated 'front,' projecting competence and suitability for the job.

Meanwhile, the interviewer, acting as the 'audience,' observes your performance, evaluating your suitability for the role. They may ask probing questions or assess your reactions to certain situations, shaping the interaction dynamics.

Throughout the interview, both you and the interviewer adhere to certain social norms and expectations associated with the roles of 'job candidate' and 'employer.' Any deviation from these norms, such as displaying nervousness or providing irrelevant answers, can disrupt the interaction flow and impact the outcome.

After the interview concludes, you return to the 'backstage,' reflecting on your performance and analysing areas for improvement. The interviewer also reflects on your performance, considering how well you fit the role they're seeking to fill.

In this example, Goffman's dramaturgical approach illustrates how individuals engage in social interactions as if performing on a stage, with carefully crafted presentations influenced by societal norms, expectations, and perceptions. The concept of 'front stage' and 'backstage' behaviours highlights the distinction between public performances and private preparations, shedding light on the intricacies of social interactions.

MEAD: INTERACTIONAL SELF

One of the significant theoretical ideas that began to emerge in the beginning of the twentieth century was the understanding that individuals through their everyday activities create and maintain the larger structures of society. This came as a new insight, contrary to the previous understanding that society has its own unique origin and it is originated on its own. This understanding motivated many theorists to focus on the everyday activities of the individuals and the ways in which it creates conditions for the existence of society as a whole. Significant attention was given on the nature and the underlying principles of interaction processes and the ways in which they shape our social world in which we live. Wide range of theories emerged focusing on the micro aspects of interaction process to understand the macro structure of society and of which interactionism perspective is one.

Few of the key questions remained significant to these theorists such as how is society and the individuals related? How do individual acts and social structure influence each other? How do societies reproduce themselves through the acts and interactions of individuals? How does society shape people’s thoughts and behaviours?.

IDEAS OF GEORGE HERBERT MEAD

George Herbert Mead in his book Mind, Self and Society (1934), describes how the individual mind and self-arises out of the social process of interaction. In other words for him all our thought, experience and conduct are essentially social and arise out of interaction process. Interaction is a process of communication involving others in society and through which we experience our social world in which we live. For instance, think about a human infant the ways in which he grows up as a person having an individualised self of his/her own. In the early years of his/her childhood children would not know anything about others and their own selves but gradually by coming in contact with others they develop a sense of their own self as to who they are and how they are different from others. Thus, he observes that human self is not inborn or biologically given rather it is learnt from others in the early years of one’s childhood that is mediated through a process of communication symbols as contained in the language structure. Elaborating the discussion further in this direction he brings in the phenomenon of mind and metal processes self and society emerge and sustain through interaction process. He has been thus mainly credited for his contributions to the development of biological self to a social self and his recognition of the significance of symbolic communication through language.

Mind and Mental Process

To Mead mind is not biological like any part of our body. It is essentially a social phenomenon that develops by coming in contact with others in society. The process through which a human child comes in contact with others is called as interaction. Mead viewed that mind implies thinking and it is not just any thinking but intelligent thinking that can solve the problems that we face in our everyday life. To him the foremost function of mind is to induce an individual towards doing something that can solve the problems that the person is facing in his life and also permit people to operate more effectively in the world. In simple words Mead argued that mind involves thought processes oriented toward problem solving.

Mind, Language and Role-taking

After defining the primary function of Mind, Mead turned towards the question vital to understand the nature of Mind and mental processes. How Mind arises or develops? Is Mind present among all animal species? How does a mind think and act? For Mead “Mind” is a type of behavioural response that emerge out of the processes of interaction with others. In other words without a continuous and ongoing process of social interaction, mind could not exist. The social process in which mind emerges is one of communication with gestures as contained in language. Language that we speak is nothing but conversation of gestures, symbols and this conversation of gestures is continuously happening in our society when people meet and communicate and act. It is not something that one single individual can make it possible. An individual always acts in a community. Community is only possible with the existence of others groups of people. Take the example of family, where there is the male and the female and the child which has to be cared for after his birth. Here is a process which can only go on through interactions within this group. It cannot be said that the individuals come first and the community later, for the individuals arise in the very process itself, just as much as the human body which arise out of a process of evolution.

With the development of language as a significant gesture human beings are able to act with others and transforms to a thinking being. It means when we speak we also think and without thinking we cannot speak. Mead gave the German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt credit for understanding the central significance of the gestures in the process of communication and interaction. Wundt recognized gesture as a part of behaviour of one individual that make the behaviour of another individual possible. In other words, gestures of the first person acts as stimulus for the second person and calls out an appropriate response. This stimulus and response behaviour is common in all animal species including human beings. Consider the example of a barking dog. When a dog barks, a second dog barks or runs away. The “meaning” of the “barking gesture” is visible in the response of the other dogs in the sense that the other dog will bark or run away. But dogs do not understand the “meaning” of their gestures. They simply give a behavioural response, that is, they use symbols without what Mead refers to as “significance.”

Mind is not simply a behavioural response or any arbitrary ways of communication or interaction. Rather “Mind arises through communication by a conversation of gestures in a social process or context of experience – not communication through mind” (Mead). Conversation through gestures form the basis of mind and mental processes at the micro level and at the macro level it serve the basis of creation, maintenance and change of society. Only human beings are capable of making these meaningful and signified gestures, therefore, mind arises in them not among the lower animals. Mead took this basic idea from Wundt and extended it in ways that became the basis not only for the emergence of mind and self but also for the creation, maintenance, and change of society. According to Mead “Gestures become significant symbols when they implicitly arouse in the individual making them the same responses which the explicitly arouse, or are supposed to arouse, in other individuals” (Mead, 1934: 47). In other words, for a gesture to be significant it must “mean” the same thing to both organisms.

Mead’s next question was to understand how do animals who have the capacity to respond understand the meaning of a gesture? We do so through our capacity to consciously anticipate how other organisms will respond to our own symbols or gestures. This capacity of consciousness is a part of the mind and mental processes and is not present among the lower animals. The gestures of “lower animals”, Mead felt, do not call out the same response in the organism emitting a gesture and the one interpreting the gesture. For instance, the roar of the lion does not mean the same thing to the lion and its potential victim. Hence roaring gesture even though reflects use of vocal cord, is not a significant gesture according to Mead. Mind emerges in an individual because human infants, if they are to survive, must adjust and adapt to a social environment – that is, to a world of organized activity. At first, an infant is like a “lower animal” in that it responds reflexively to the gestures of others and emits gestures that do not evoke similar responses in it and those in the environment. But such a level of adjustment, Mead implied, is neither efficient nor adaptive. A baby’s cry does not indicate what he/she wants, whether food, water, warmth, or whatever accurately. But gradually the child learns to make gestures that are meaningful.

Now the question is to see how does this capacity of making significant gestures arise in the process of interaction? In which way human mind is involved in the process of making such significant gestures? According to Mead it does so through the vocal gestures and the ability of the individuals to speak and understand language. So invention of language is a significant thing to the emergence of mind and mental processes and the self in Mead’s theory. Language act as a stimulus for arousing a reaction in oneself and also in others while speaking. Therefore, “the critical importance of language in the development of human experience lies in this fact that the stimulus is one that can react upon the speaking individual as it reacts upon the other” (Mead,1934: 69). A vocal gesture can be thought of as a word or phrase. When a vocal gesture is used the individual making the gesture responds (implicitly) in the same manner as the individual hearing it. If you are about to walk across a busy street during rush hour, I might shout out, “Don't walk!” As I shout, I hear my own gesture the way in which you hear it, that is, I hear the same words, and I might feel myself pulling myself back, stopping my walk and stand because I hear these words. But, of course, I don't hear them exactly as you do, because I am aware of directing them to you.

What Mead suggested as characteristic of the mind is the reflective intelligence of the human animal which can be distinguished from the intelligence of lower forms. This reflective intelligence is the essential condition, within the social process, for the development of mind (Mead, 1934: 134). The reflexivity in human beings is aroused when we speak using our vocal cords to interact with each other. Reflective intelligence means one is aware of the action and reaction of his own action by others. Consider the example of shouting again. The “turning back” of experience after listing to the big shout, allows the mind and the mental process to develop. Speaking a language allows individuals to hear their own gestures in the way that others hear them. If I shout “Boo” at you, I might not only scare you, I might scare myself too as I too have learned its meanings and internalised expected responses. In other words, vocal gestures allow one to speak to oneself when others are not even present.

Let us now discuss in what way, then, does language make mind possible? For Mead, mind involves several behavioural capacities such as the capacity to understand objects and their symbols. For instance, we have learnt that red traffic light suggest ‘stop’. And by understanding this we make our gesture of stopping near a traffic light. Similarly, we have the capacity to understand the gestures of others and act accordingly. We are also capable of suspending our own as well as ‘others’ behavioural response for a short period of time. Consider the example your father scolded you for mistake and you stopped yourself scolding your father considering his status. This shows that human beings have the capacity to judge alternative lines of conduct and visualise their consequences and select a better response. For Mead, then, ‘mind’ is behaviour, not a substance or entity. It is rather an “internal conversation of gestures” using significant symbols because an individual with mind talks to itself. A symbol does not simply stand for an object or event: it defines them in a particular way and indicates a response to them. Thus, the symbol ‘bed’ not only represents object and defines them but it also indicates a line of action that is the action of ‘sleeping’. Hence, without symbols neither communications is possible our society is not possible. Thus, any attempt to understand human behaviour must begin with a careful understanding of the symbols that individuals use during social interaction.

Mind is developed not only through the use of significant vocal gestures, but also by what Mead termed as role-taking. So having merely the capacity of reflexivity cannot ensure emergence of a matured self. Here it is worth noting that although we often employ our this capacity of reflexivity while acting but yet mostly all human beings conduct themselves in a routine, habitual, without being aware of what we say and what we do. For instance we follow many traditions, conventions without understanding those in our everyday life. We have a host of beliefs and assumptions about our life about others which are not raised at the level of (self) conscious reflection unless some problems occur in our life owing to it and that need addressing it urgently. Mind according to Mead arise out of consciousness of one’s self about others. Use of language is only possible when we become conscious of our selves. We have learnt from the above discussions that mind emerges out of social processes and creates conditions for the emergence of individual social self. Symbol and gestures as part of language helps individuals to get their matured mind as well as their social self. Thus Social life can only proceed if the meanings of symbols are largely shared and understood by the members of society. If this were not the case meaningful communication would be impossible. Think of the situation when two people meet and communicate with language that is alien to both. Thus, there has to be common symbols that can be understood by both in order to effectively communicate with each other. Common symbols provide only the means by which human interaction can be established

In order for interaction to proceed each person involved must interpret the meanings and intentions of others. This is made possible by the existence of common symbols and is actually accomplished by a process of ‘role-taking’. Role taking is the process of mentally assuming the perspective of another and responding by imaginatively placing himself in the position of the person with whom he is interacting. For example, if he observes another smiling, crying waving his hand or shaking his fist, he will put himself in that person’s position in order to interpret his intention and meaning. On the basis of this interpretation that occurs in our thought process that requires the involvement of mind, he will make his response to the action of the other. Thus, if he observes someone shaking his fist, he may interpret this gesture as an indication of aggression but his interpretation will not automatically lead to a particular response. He may ignore the gesture, respond in kind, and attempt to diffuse the situation with a joke and so on. The person with whom he is interacting will then take his role, interpret his response and either continue or close the interaction on the basis of this interpretation. In this respect human interaction can be seen as a continuous process of interpretation with each taking the role of the other. Mead argues that role-taking is essential for the emergence of mind. Since mind and self both arise though a continuous process of adjustment and readjustments, hence without the ability to assume the perspective of others with whom one must deal, it is difficult to adjust to, and coordinate responses with, others. Mead argues that there is nothing mysterious or mystical about the human mind. It is a behavior like much other behaviour of ours that is acquired by human beings while adapting to its surroundings. And it is a behavioural capacity acquired in chorological stages (that we will see in the next section while discussing the stages of development of self) with each stage setting the conditions for the next.

Play, Game and Generalized Other.

In addition to language Mead provided a useful model of process by which the self among human beings emerges through the example of child development. However, we can also refer it from the attitude of more primitive people out of which our civilization has arisen (Mead, 1934:166).The first stage of the development of self is called as the preparatory stage. In this stage the human infant merely imitate the people around them especially the family members with whom they continually interact. For example, when adults laugh and smile the child would also laugh and smile too. As they grow older, children become more adept at using symbols in the form of gestures and words that form the basis of human communication. The play stage: at this stage, the children become more aware of social relationships. They develop skill in communicating through symbols and role taking of others occur. In other words they begin to pretend to be other people. They start to implement the "role taking". They learn things like good and bad characters, doctors, patients, and teachers and so on. At this stage children also learn for instance when it is a suitable time to ask for favours from their elders. In The Game Stage the children of the older age group such as 8 to 9 begin to consider several tasks are relationships simultaneously. They grasp not only their own social positions but also those of others around them. These ‘others’ are what, Mead called as the “generalized other", which means, the attitudes, viewpoints as a whole that a child takes into account in his or her behaviour. For example, the child understands which is expected to do and recognise the responsibilities of his own as well as of others in his activities. Emphasis on the existence of others in society for the development of one's own self has been significantly addressed by others great sociologists. Mead's generalized other resembles Charles Cooley's "looking glass self" theory in its expanded form.

Continuing our discussion further Mead observed that in order to play any role as a responsible member of society individuals must internalise the expectations or attitudes of others in relation to their own roles. These generalized others or the community in concrete cases can take different forms such as the family members, political parties, clubs, and corporations. In abstract cases social classes or subgroups individuals are related to each other more or less in indirect ways such as the class of poor people and the class of rich ones.

When individuals take the attitude of others then they tend to develop a self similar to the attitude of the others who me the person is getting influenced. This is an insight that is borrowed from William James who viewed that individuals possess multiple of selves, carry the attitudes and images of them in their everyday life. We generally show a different side of ourselves to each of the different groups whom we interact with.

H Cooley : The Looking Glass Self

The concept of the looking glass-self theory constitutes the cornerstone of the sociological theory of socialization. The idea is that people in our close environment serve as the “mirrors” that reflect images of ourselves. Actually, how we see ourselves does not come from who we really are, but rather from how we believe others see us. The main point is that people shape their selfconcepts based on their understanding of how others perceive them. We form our self-image as the reflections of the response and evaluations of others in our society. As children we were treated in a variety of ways. If parents, relatives and other important people look at a child as smart, they will tend to raise him with certain types of expectations. As a consequence the child will eventually believe that he is a smart person. This is a process that continues when we grow up. For instanse, if you believe that your closest friends look at you as some kind of superhero, you are likely to project that self-image, regardless of whether this has anything to do with reality. According to Cooley, this process has three steps. First, we imagine how we appear to another person. Sometimes this imagination is correct, but may also be wrong since it is merely based on our assumptions. Second, we imagine what judgments people make of us based on our appearance. Lastly, we imagine how the person feels about us, based on the judgments made of us. The ultimate result is that we often change our behavior based on how we feel people perceive us.

The “I” and the “Me”

One of Mead's most significant arguments presented in his book is his distinction between the “I” and the “Me.” It is also important to note that the “I” and “Me” are functional distinctions for Mead, not metaphysical ones that occur in our theological debates. He refers to them as phases of the self (Mead, 1934: 178, 200), although he more typically used the word self to refer to the “Me” (Aboulafia, 2016). The 'me' is considered the socialised aspect of the individual. In other words it represents learned behaviours, attitudes, and expectations of others and of society that we tend to learn from our childhood days. This is sometimes referred to the attitude or images of generalized other. The 'me' is considered a phase of the self that is in the past and it can be known by reflecting on what and how things were. The 'I', therefore, can be considered the present and future phase of the self. The 'I' represents the individual's identity based on response to the 'me.' The 'me' is what prevents someone from breaking the rules or boundaries of societal expectations whereas the 'I' allows the individual to still express creativity and individualism and understand when to possibly bend and stretch the rules that govern social interactions. This part of our self thus allows human beings to go for innovation and stretch the inflexible boundaries of our tradition, customs and regulations. For instance, if you accidentally put your hand in a fire then the expression that how you feel has to come from the ‘I” but how you choose to express your feeling has to come from the socialized part of yourself