How the Self Can Be Constructed - Essay Example

ANALYSIS OF HOW THE SELF CAN BE CONSTRUCTED IN REFERENCE TO GEORGE HERBERT MEAD AND ERVING GOFFMAN al Affiliations Analysis and Discussion of How the Self Can Be Constructed In Reference To George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman Introduction This paper analyses the self from two perspectives in sociology with an aim of identifying the perspective that is more accurate in deducing how individuals perceive themselves and how others perceive them. George Herbert mead’s perspective and Erving Goffman’s perspective of self are widely recognized. This paper explains and compares both of the arguments. Mead explains the developments of self and self-consciousness are the result of the individual’s experience (Mead 1). He explains that the self is a process rather than a product and it is a phase of the social group of which the individual is a member (Mead 8). Goffman’s view that the self is an actor is also explored. In his case, Goffman explains that the ‘self’ varies his performance based on his audience. The performance is based on the way he wants the audience to perceive him, but, like any other performance, it may face different dramaturgical catastrophes (Goffman, 34). George Herbert Mead In the theory of the social self, George Mead proposes that the self is gradually developed during social interactions (Mead 1). He disputes the assumption that the self is based on inherited traits and biological factors by proposing that abandonment of the soul endowed to an individual at birth (Mead 1). The self consists of ‘me’ and ‘I’, which is developed by engaging in three activities including language, play, and games. Language fosters the growth of the self by enabling individuals to communicate via sounds, words ad gestures. Hence, anger, joy, confusion, sadness, and other emotions are conveyed. It ensures that an individual understands other people’s attitudes toward and opinion of him. Play allows persons to undertake different roles and perform to the expectations of others; hence, developing the self. Through role-playing, play evokes the self-consciousness of an individual. The individual can comprehend the perspective of others and understand how other people feel about themselves, as well as, other in different social situations. Games help the self-grow by helping an individual understand and follow the rules that govern an activity, which imparts the knowledge that an individual adheres to certain rules to become successful or win in a game (Mead 4). The self consists of the ‘me’ and ‘I’. According to Mead, the socialized part of an individual is the ‘me’. It represents attitudes, expectations, and behaviours of people and society that have been learnt (Mead 8). It is developed through social interactions and the society’s knowledge gained by the individual; hence, it is a generalized other (Mead 4, 8). The ‘I’ is a present and future phase. It decides on how to respond to the ‘me’. For instance, the due to knowledge from society (me) I should behave in a certain manner or maybe I should not behave that way today. Erving Goffman In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life Erving Goffman explains that significance of human and social action and interaction is comparable to a theatrical performance. He names this phenomenal a dramaturgical model of social life. He explains that social interactions are like a theatre while the people in daily life are the stage actors playing various roles. The audience is likened to other people observing and reacting to the role-playing and performance (Goffman, 12). In a similar manner to theatrical performances, social interactions have a front stage where actors perform in front of the audience. Back stage is where the actors abandon the roles played in front the audience and become the self. The main concepts of the dramaturgical framework include performance, setting, appearance, manner, front, and stage. Performance consists of the daily activity the individual conducts. The audience receives an impression and attributes meaning to it and its performer (Goffman, 4). The performer may be unconscious of his performance or intentionally perform the action with a motive (Goffman, 19).Setting describes the place, props and scenery in which the interaction takes place. It varies from time to time and so does the audience. Hence, the actor may also change his performance (Goffman 34).Appearance communicates the social status, gender, age, occupation and the temporary social state of the individual. Manner is the way in which the individual plays his role and reacts to situations. Remarkably, inconsistencies may occur between manner and appearance. Front is the impression that the individual wants to make on his audience (Goffman, 17). At the front stage, the individual knows that people are watching him and he adheres to social conventions (Goffman 20). Backstage is where the individual becomes himself or herself. On the off stage, the audience is segmented and the actor is independent of team members. Analysis The two perspectives are correct about the perception of the self in their own rights. The main difference is that Mead concentrates on socialization while Erving concentrates on identity (Garner, 64). Mead proposes that an individual’s personality is based on the cultural norms and social conventions imparted in him during interactions from birth (Cavanaugh 233). For instance, an individual is born and brought up in a country where racism is acceptable. However, as he grows up he hears different opinions and uses his reasoning. As a result, he decides to be racists or not. On the other hand, Erving assumes that the individual already knows what is expected of him. In addition, he understands how he wants others to perceive him. The perspective focuses on social identity and conformity (Garner 68). It focuses on an individual’s ability to control and vary his behaviour based on the audience as well as the intended impression. Mead’s perspective of self, especially the ‘me’ occurs during the early development years of life. Erving’s perspective is applicable after the individual is a grownup who wants respect and a good reputation. Continuity Under Mead’s perspective, the self has an opportunity for self-continuity. As previously mentioned, the ‘me’ or the generalized self is part of the individuals process of understanding the values and customs of the other among whom he lives (Cavanaugh 233). However, the ‘I’ or present and future self, allows the individual to continue making decisions based on the information from the ‘me’ for the rest of the individual’s life. Discontinuity Erving’s perspective of self fails to consider the personal convictions of the individual. It mainly focuses on the way that the individual bows to social conventions in order to be accepted (Cavanaugh 233). He characterizes inconsistencies in the behaviour as disturbances that are confusing for the individual. Therefore, it leaves no room for personal development or self-continuity. Open system Erving’s perspective of self is an open system because it allows the individuals to play different roles in different situations. It accounts for social interactions in a group and one on one (Garner, 71). It also considers the impact of the lack of an audience on the individual. It presents varying ways in which to understand how the ‘self’ works. Closed system On the other hand, Mead’s view is closed because it mainly considers social conventions and an individual’s personal preference. It does not consider the impact of different observers in different situations. While the ‘me’ understands what society demands, ‘I’ disregards the impact of society in decision-making that contradicts fact that most individual’s care about what society thinks of them (Garner 74). Conclusion Erving and Mead’s perspective of self are both accurate about the self. The approaches might be different, but in each case, the self conforms to their explanation. While Mead explains the self by describing his socialization process, Erving sees the self as an actor on different levels and in different situations (Cavanaugh, 234). He explains the need of the self to establish a reputation in front of people but become the self when no one can see. Therefore, both perspectives describe the nature of the self. Reference List Goffman, E., 1999, Presentation of self in everyday life, [S.l.], Peter Smith Pub, Inc. Garner, R.,2010, Social theory: a reader, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Mead, G. H., & Morris, C. W., 2010, Mind, self & society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist.Chicago, Ill, University of Chicago Press. http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9 780226516608 Cavanagh, A., 2007, Sociology in the age of the Internet, Maidenhead [u.a.], Open Univ. Press. Read More