To what extent are the ‘self’ and ‘identity’ separate from society?

The two aspects of the Self according to Mead is the “me and “I”. The “me” is our social self and the “I” is our response to the “me”. The “me” is the interaction of the individual with other people and the “I” is the response of the individual to the community. The “I” subjective self and “me” is the organized self. The “I” is impulsive and subjective. The “me” is more objective, organized, gives direction and is less emotion. One example is that the “me” the individual may understand by watching significant others and teachers. That after high school in the US you usually go directly to college. The “I” might responded to maybe there is a better way, it might be better to travel or work for a year

In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matters. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question about identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism.

Self is one’s awareness of ideas and attitudes about one’s own personal and social identity. Identity is shaped at a young age from interpreting concepts about one’s own self from others (Mead, 1934). The present study will compare Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality the (id, ego, and, superego) to George Herbert Mead’s social self-theory the (“I” and “me”). The study will give an overview of both theorist and discuss each approach in relationship to each other, and defining the key concepts. According to Schultz and Schultz, (2008) the id is defined as the source of psychic energy and the aspect of personality allied with the instincts. The ego is defined as the rational aspect of personality responsible for

Our identity can sometimes be shaped by the way others see us. As we have seen, the way in which others view us can have some sort of impact on how we see ourselves. There are also other contributing factors such as our years of adolescence, the basic human need of wanting to belong and maturing; all play an equally important part in the forming of our character and who we are. On balance it appears that there is not only one influence in the shaping of our identity, but there are many.

George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman are two theorists in the study of sociology that have impacted the way we see sociology today. Their works, when closely examined, actually share some extreme similarities. Both of these men seemed very interested in the perception of self in the eyes of others as well as yourself. “Mind, Self, and Society” is an article written by Mead which was placed in the book entitled “Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism” which was edited by Farganis with the copyright of McGraw-Hill in 2004. This primarily deals with the development of one’s self, or their identity. “Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” is an article written by Goffman which was arranged to be in the book “Inner Lives and

Goffman, E. 1959. ‘Performances’ chapter 1, from the presentation of self in everyday life. London: penguin.

George Herbert Mead was an American sociologist, philosopher, and psychologist. He was most famous for his studies on how the self and the mind developed based on interactions with the generalized other. Mead was a big inspiration to social scientists and psychologists, despite having only published a few papers of his studies. He passed away before he published some of his original thoughts. Therefore, after his passing Mead’s students had put together the notes they took from his class and his unfinished manuscripts into a book. George Herbert Mead is a very influential figure in American pragmatism.

The paragmatic standpoints of the sociologist are different. Simmel’s vision is detacher from the particular individuals and in concentrated on the group as the analysis item. Group, according to Simmel, is an entity that has an independent reality, exists according to its own laws and is independent of the individual agents. A group, just as an individual, has a tendency to self-preservation due to a special vitality, the basis and process of which Simmel studies. Mead, in his turn, seeks to solve the problem of the individual self and consciousness about world and society. The key concept in his research is the concept of action, active activity (and not just a passive reaction according to the stimulus-response scheme as in classical behaviorists). Both of them mind action as the part of the social life, however,

and relationships), the Social Self (similar to Jung’s persona, is the self we play in social

Ian Burkitt presents his perspective on what affects our self-identities in his book Social Selves. Burkitt delves into the history of sociology and the thoughts not just of early sociologist like Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, but he also brings in ancient Philosophers such as Descartes and Aurelius to emphasize the narratives of self that began long ago.

Erving Goffman’s above statement, referencing actors and public image, is a clear allusion to his dramaturgical metaphor, which is one branch of his work on symbolic interactionism. His dramaturgical metaphor delves into the premise that we are all ‘actors’ who ‘perform’ to others as our ‘audience’ (Goffman, 1990). It is this metaphor which will be evaluated and analysed for its sociological significance, as well as the practical implications of the statement above, and what it means to be sociologically significant. Many other sociologists have also tackled the depths of Symbolic Interactionism, or the themes explored by the dramaturgical metaphor, of the likes of, Mead and Blumer. Their insights and contributions will be discussed concerning Goffman’s statement. However, it is Goffman’s dramaturgical metaphor which will be of the most help in evaluating the statement given and its sociological significance. Although, as relayed above, other sociologists work, such as Meads idea of the self being split into the I and the Me, and their individual functions will be important in helping us further evaluate the statement, and its sociological significance (Pampel, 2007). As will Blumer’s three-pronged approach to symbolic interactionism, allowing us to grasp a basic understanding of the concepts and frameworks surrounding symbolic interactionism, and enhance our knowledge of the dramaturgical metaphors place in symbolic interactionism (Carter & Fuller, 2015). Overall, the

Mead also talks about the meaning of “I” and “me” and the “generalized other” and their realization through the “play” and “game” stages of the development of self-consciousness. The development of self-concept is a process by which we incorporate the attitudes of others toward our self (Appelrouth and Edles, 2012). Our idea of who we are versus the rest

The self has been considered difficult to define; ‘it is much easier to feel the self than to define the self’ (Allport, 1961, p.128). This could be due to self and identity being understood differently by both traditional and critical social psychologists. Critical social psychologists view the self as reflexive and intersubjective, whereby an individual observes and responds to their own behaviour (Mead, 1934). This approach views self and identity as being socially constructed through social interactions (Stainton Rogers, 2011). Traditional social psychologists, on the other hand, assume that there is a separation between the individual and the environment; they believe that the individual can be influenced by internal and external forces (Stainton Rogers 2011). Traditional social psychologists focus more on the cognitive processes of an individual, with a slight insight into society’s influence on an individual’s self and identity. This introductory section provides a brief overview of the perspectives that will be discussed and criticised in more detail throughout the essay, they will be critically evaluated by comparing and contrasting the two distinct approaches. To subsequently conclude, that the traditional social psychological view is too parsimonious and does not understand the complexity and extent to which the society can influence the self and identity; compared to that viewed by critical social psychologists, who place a significant importance on social

One of the material that my instructor went over in class was about an American philosopher George Mead who is well known for his theory of social self. My instructor lectured us about Mead’s concepts of the “I” and the “Me”. After hearing his lecture and having learned the distinction of the “I” and “Me”, I have a totally different perspective and my self-analysis paper will most likely have more meaning than if I would have not been presented the Mead’s concept. It was rather interesting to learn of this idea that a person’s identity consists of two parts. The way that Mead explained the self, helped me understand my own behaviors and actions in the most basic of activities. Some personal experiences

George Herbert Mead focused on the idea of the self. He breaks the self down into two main sections, the “me” and the “I”. The two go hand-in-hand with each other. Applerouth and Edles (2012) explains the “me” as “a sense of who we are that is created, sustained, and modified throughout interaction with others.” (308). In this sense it is the person you are once you take into account what others will think about you. The best way to understand Mead’s concept of the “I” is best described by Applerouth and Edles (2012) when stated, “The ‘I’ reacts or answers to the ‘me,’ the phase of the self that one is conscious of.” (Applerouth and Edles 2012: 308). Thinking through the “me” is a daily act that all of us participate in, from picking out clothes, to deciding where we want to eat dinner, we go through scenarios about what others will think, and how this will affect us. The “I” is less predictable than the “me”, we can try to plan out our actions, but responses are in the moment interaction with others, which are far harder to anticipate. While they both play a role in who we are today, I focused on Mead’s idea of the “me” in relation to reasons why there is gender inequality in STEM fields.