Attempts to Transcend the Individual-Society Dualism in Understandings of the Self - Coursework Example

In their attempts to transcend the individual-society dualism in understandings of the self, how successful have the social psychoanalytical and phenomenological perspectives been? There are distinct differences in the social psychoanalytic approach and the phenomenological perspectives as related to the self. By the word transcend it is meant to suggest exceeding or moving beyond current understandings, thus in this sense it does not appear that either perspective has managed to accomplish this goal significantly. This is, perhaps, due to the fact that the self is, and appears to always have been, an elusive portion of the human social condition. From a very basic viewpoint, the social psychoanalytic approach identifies with the self through a series of free associations. Under this perspective, the self can be represented as a hidden unconsciousness or series of motives which, through verbal expression, gives significant clues to the genuine motivations behind behavioural responses. From a research perspective, in the role of researcher, assessing the behaviours of respondents would be much like tearing through thick layers of hidden unconscious until the core of the specific social issue is exposed. This particular approach tends to illustrate the self as a core unconscious with the majority of social behaviours being linked to this core personality or core desire. It would seem that there have always been complexities in attempting to understand self from a research perspective. This dualism is noted in the different approaches with the self, as previously identified, as a construct of a core motivation or core personality. Much different than the social psychoanalytical approach is the phenomenological view which appears tightly focused on experience and the tangible realities of life to explain the development and concept of self. The phenomenological approach would suggest that different environmental stimuli or life experiences strongly mandate behavioural responses to different social situations. This suggests that self is a flexible and adaptable part of personality which is in a state of constant evolution as it copes with the external social environment. The social psychoanalytical approach appears to view respondents as being almost wholly-self-contained in which internal thought patterns and motivations are so inter-linked with behavior that they cannot be separated for adequate study. One author in this area of social study describes the self as an internal, observed self and the external, observing self as if one could pick up a mirror, view the reflection, and be observed as others in society would observe them (YOUR BOOK, 200?). This approach would recognise the subject of study as a person who balances different behavioural responses based on internal thoughts and values as well as perceived judgments or criticisms from the external social environment. This would recognise the subject in terms of dualism, self against self or self for self, based on the perceived relevance of any given social situation. The aforementioned also illustrates how the social psychoanalytical approach seems to have a dualist approach in determining how the self functions either dependently or independently of the external environment. Hidden unconscious and deeply-buried motivations which are so powerful or too difficult to cope with appear, from the social psychoanalytical approach, to occur from social relevance and social interactions. At the same time, it seems to be generally understood in the social research community that the self is a manifestation of both the environment and the unconscious. There has not been an adequate model by which to measure effectiveness which could clearly indicate whether the self is dualist by nature or it can be driven by relevant external forces. The concept of transcendence is not applicable as neither approach has offered a model which concretely identifies how the self functions internally and as a product of external influence. The self clearly struggles with internal perceptions regarding their view of their cognitive and physical capabilities, somehow manages to manifest these thoughts into actions, thus impacting their external environments. From a phenomenological perspective, this series of consequences or actions would seem to view the self as being tightly-linked to the external social environment. From the social psychoanalytical approach, behaviours can be linked to motivations which are linked to self. From a technical perspective, under this model, the self would be illustrated as a figure, projecting its motivations into the external environment, being assaulted by a variety of external stimuli, and again projecting (evolved) motivations based on social interaction. However, the social psychoanalytic view does recognise the complexities of self and does not appear to attempt to completely isolate the external environment (and its many stimuli) from the development or concept of self. It does not, unlike the phenomenological approach, allow for the self to evolve or experience adaptability. This does not appear to be by design, rather a product of attempting to push motivation and behavior back into the unconscious as a primary motivator. The phenomenological approach seems to view culture, motive and the external social environment as causes which lead to effect in terms of the development of self. Unlike the days where psychoanalysts believed that neurotic conflicts were ideal for forming societal norms (Layton, 2008), phenomenological research is much less rigid. There is still argument in the social research community about whether the self is learned or a product of evolutionary forces (YOUR BOOK). This debate, at its very foundations, challenges the notion of self as being controlled by external social forces. This seems to be at the heart of social psychoanalytical research with the focus of most responses being a product of internal struggle due to unique individual factors. To satisfy research of the self, and its recognised complexities, cannot be accomplished fully if debate still rages as to how self is conceived. There is dualism in debate and neither approach seems to have manifested a fully-sustainable social model which identifies a universal concept of self. However, both approaches have given new perspectives on self in their different perspectives on how responses are generated by society, are translated, and then manifested into behavioural actions. The social psychoanalytical approach has attempted to highlight the relevance of nonverbal discourse in different social situations or measure social responses to emotional stimuli, however the approach seems to always view the self through the same theoretical lens: The self is consistently measured by the social environment and this form of dual observer and observed subject struggles consistently to gain control over the development and evolution of self-concept but cannot seem to manage this because of internal unconscious needs. The phenomenological perspective offers more flexibility in the relevance of the external environment and how it is tightly-linked to behavioural responses. This view of the self is one in which self-concept is unique for most people as they would measure the environment based on self values and make an assessment based on personal criteria. Amusingly, it appears that the phenomenological approach, in its attempts to view the self as tightly-woven with environment, it actually segregates environment as this approach views the self as both capable and in control to dismiss or adopt certain principles based on environmental assessment. This pushes the self back as a self-contained decision-maker which is much more closely associated with the social psychoanalytical approach. Illustrating the two approaches’ differences also illustrate how, when blended, they alter the scope of our understandings of self, but clearly do not transcend these lessons. Experiences in some way shape the decision-making process and the self is a regulating entity which guides action. The social psychoanalytical approach suggests that the self is guided by earlier or more primal lessons which were developed at early stages of human development. This could involve reacting to facial expressions and achieving the perceived acceptable human response in order to gauge further action. However, these social lessons, learned during formative years, appear under this lens to be a guiding factor on how self-concept regulates self in a variety of social situations. Nonverbal communication as a contributing factor in how self identifies and adapts is prevalent in most social psychoanalytical research, therefore this could be an argument that self is even more self-contained than previously thought where understanding others is as simple as recognising a facial twitch or crooked smile. For the sake of expanding the knowledge of self, the social psychoanalytical approach appears to have opened new doors in understanding how the biology versus sociology of behavior is formed but has missed on transcending the understandings. The phenomenological approach would reject social lessons in which nonverbal facial cues act as stimuli for behavioral response as this would undermine this approach’s’ perceived flexibility in recognising the multitude of adaptable and flexible capabilities of self it has provided. The environment triggers emotion which in turn triggers assessment which in turn triggers behavioural response; in a multitude of social scenarios. The phenomenological approach appears to be able to explain the impact of events and scenarios but misses the mark in understanding how self is conceived, regulated, or predicted. It would require the social psychoanalytical model and the phenomenological model to manifest, with viable and reliable data, a new model which outlines the self as more than a theoretical construct to achieve transcendence. One interesting scenario to consider would be a hypothetical business environment in which the highest human desire was the receipt of job role autonomy. Above autonomy, there were no dissatisfactions among the work group. Where did these workers develop their demand for autonomy? Was it a boss who too often cracked the whip? (Phenomenological). Was it because each had their own desires for perceived outcome of autonomy? (Social psychoanalytical). A model which could be conceived which takes into consideration all aspects of human interaction and measures the biological principles of behavioural response within a scope of accuracy would transcend the dualism in understanding self. Though both approaches appear to have contributed significant insight into how self operates, its overall scope and ability to evolve, both approaches appear to understand that self is both a regulating and a judgmental personality construct which drives the majority of decision-making. When behaviour has been attributed to environmental stimuli, what are the mechanisms behind the assessment and rationalisation process which contribute to self’s evolution? These answers are given new insight by social psychoanalytical and phenomenological approaches, however they contribute additional dualism in understandings of the self as they provide additional opportunities for study but fail to offer significant new breakthroughs in self and self-concept. Perhaps it is the differences in these approaches which will lead to a new blended approach and develop a theoretical model which, when tested, achieves success in a wide variety of different social environments, taking into consideration a wide variety of soci-economic factors in the process. Free association within an appropriate sample population, over a measured period of time, could blend both approaches in the analysis portion of data collection to determine the evolution of self. It does not seem that contemporary understandings of self are going to be realised by simply the social psychoanalytical nor the phenomenological models. Is self wholly-contained and regulated by biology or does the social environment transcend almost all internal struggles when it exerts its influence? Neither social psychoanalytical nor phenomenological approaches have managed to offer these answers in a valid and reliable way. Bibliography AUTHOR. (DATE). YOUR BOOK HERE. Edition. City, Publisher, Page. Layton, Lynne. (2008). “What divides the subject? Psychoanalytic reflections on subjectivity, subjection, and resistance”. Harvard Medical School. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/sub/journal/v22/n1/pdf/sub20083a.pdf (accessed 17 Mar 2009). Read More