UNDERSTANDING THE SELF Eden Joy Pastor Alata \ Bernardo Nicolas Caslib, Jr. \Janice Patria Javier Serafica \ R.A. PawilenLesson 1: The Self from Various Philosophical Perspectives. Lesson 2 The Seif, Society, and Culture ..... Lessor 3: The Self as Cognitive Construct 4: The Selfin Western and Eastern Thoughts .... y The Physical and: Sexual Self.Reem i et oben He Sern eth CHAPTER | DEFINING THE SELF: PERSONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVES ON SELF AND IDENTITY Lesson 1; The Self from Various Philosophical Perspectives Lesson Objectives At the end of this lesson, you should be able to: 1. explain why it is essential to understand the self; 2. describe and discuss the different nations of the self from the points- of-view of the various philosophers across time and place; 3. compare and contrast how the self has been represented in different philosophical schools; and 4. examine one’s: self against the different views of self that were discussed in class. INTRODUCTION = Before we even had to be in any formal institution of learning, among the many things that we were first taught as kids is to articulate and write our names, Growing up, we were told to refer back to this name when talking about ourselves. Our parents painstakingly thought about our names. Should we be named after a famous celebrity, a respected politician or historical personality, or even a saint? Were you named after one? Our names represent who we are. Ithas Not been 4 custom to just randomly pick a combination of letters and number (or ‘even punctuation marks) like zhjk756/! to denote our being. Human beings attach names that are meaningful to birthed progenies because names are supposed to designate us in the world. Thus, some-people get baptized with names such as "precious," “beauty,” or “lovely.” Likewise, when our parents call our names, ‘we were tatight to respond to them because our names represent who we are. As a student, We are told to always write our names on our papers, projects, or any output for that matter. Our names signify us. Death cannot even stop this bond between the person and her name, Names are inscribed even into one’s gravestone. 4Aname is not the person itself no matter how intimately bound itis with the bearer, It is only a signifier. A person who was named after a saint most probably will not become an actual saint. He may not even tum out to be saintly! The self is thought to be samething else than the name. The self is something that a person perennially molds, shapes, and develops. The self is not a static thing that one is simply born with like a mole on one’s face or is just assigned by one’s parents just like a name. Everyone is tasked to discover one's self. Have you truly discovered yours? ACTIVITY Do You Truly Know Yourself? Answer the following questions about your self as fully-and precisely as you can. 1. How would you.characterize your self? What makes you stand out from the rest? What makes your self special? 1 How has your self transformed itself? How is your self connected to your body?5. Howis your seff related to other selves? ‘6. What will happen to your self after you die? ANALYSIS Were § you able to answer the questions above with ease? Why? Which ele ee ee ABSTRACTION The history of philosophy is replete with men and women: who inquired ‘into the fundamental nature of the self. Along with the question of the primary substratum that defines the multiplicity of things in the world, the inquiry on the self has preoccupied the earliest thinkers in the history of philosophy: the Greeks. The Greeks were the ones who seriously questioned myths and moved away from them in attempting to understand reality and respond to perennial questions of t { | Can one truly know the self? Da you want to know about self? : fcuriosity, including the question of the self. The different perspectives and views ‘on the self can be best seen and understood by revisiting its prime movers and Identify the most important conjectures made by philosophers from the ancient times to the contemporary period. Socrates and Plato Prior the Socrates, the Greek thinkers, sometimes collectively called the Pre-Soeraties to denote that some of them preceded Socrates. while others existed around Socrates's time as well, preoccupied themselves: with the question of the primary substratum, arché that explains the multiplicity of things in the world. These men like Thales, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Empedocies, to name a few, were concemed with explaining what the world is really made up of, why’ the world is so, and what explains the changes that they observed around them. Tired of simply conceding to mythological accounts propounded by poet-theologians like Homer and Hesiod, these men endeavored to finally locate art explanation about the nature of change, the seeming permanence despite change, and the unity of the world amidst its diversity, After a series of thinkers from all across the ancient Greek world who were disturbed by the samé issue, a man came out to question something else. This Man was Socrates. Unlike the Pre-Socratics, Socrates was more concerned with another subject, the problem of the self. He was the first philosopher who ever engaged in a systematic questioning about the Self. To Socrates, and this has become his life-long mission, the true task of the philosopher is to know oneself. Plato claimed in his dialogs that Socrates affirmed that the unexamined life is not worth living. During his trial for allegedly corrupting the minds of the youth and for impiety, Socrates declared without regret that his being indicted was brought about by his going around Athens engaging men, young and old, to question their presuppositions about themselves and about the world, particularly about who they are (Plato 2012). Socrates took it upon himself to serve as a “gadfly” that disturbed Athenian men from their slumber and shook them off in order to reach the truth and wisdom. Most men, in his reckoning, were really not rm Oe mea nema stfully aware of who they were and the virtues that they were supposed to attain in order to preserve their souls for the afterlife, Socrates thought that this is the worst that can happen to anyone: to live but die inside. For Socrates, every man is composed of body and soul. This means that every human person is dualistic, that is, he is composed of two important aspects of his personhood, For Socrates, this means all individuals have an imperfect, impermanent aspect to him, and the body, while maintaining that there is also a soul that is perfect and permanent. Plato, Socrates's student, basically took off from his master and supported the idea that ee ee eee te man is a dual nature of body and soul. In addition to what Socrates earlier espoused, Plato added that there are three components of the soul: the rational soul, the spirited soul, and the appetitive soul. In his magnum opus, “The Republic’ (Plato 2000), Plato emphasizes that justice in the human person can only be attained if ote the three parts of the soul are working harmoniously with one another. The rational = soul forged by reason and intellect has to govern the affairs of the human person, He the spirited part which is in charge of emotions should be kept at bay, and the appetitive soul in charge of base desires like eating, drinking, sleeping, and having sex are controlled as well. When this ideal state is attained, then the human person's soul becomes just. and virtuous. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas Augustine's view of the human person reflects the entire spirit of the medieval world when it comes to man, Following the ancient view of Plato and infusing it with the newfound doctrine of Christianity, Augustine agreed that man is of a bifurcated nature, An aspect of man dwells in the world and is imperfect and continuously yeams to be with the Divine and the other is capable of reaching immortality. ‘The bedy is bound to die on earth and the soul is to anticipate living eternally ina realm Chapter Soha Seth Pi jal sd Ce valopenental : Popeyes Sell and identity.of spiritual bliss in communion with God: This is because the body can only thrive in the imperfect, physical reality that is the world, whereas the soul can also stay after death in an eternal realm with the all-transcendent God. The goal of every human person is to attain this communion and bliss with the Divine by living his life on earth in virtue. Thomas Aquinas, the most eminent thirteenth century scholar and stalwart of the medieval philosophy, appended something to this Christian view. Adapting some ideas from Aristotle, Aquinas said that indeed, man is composed of two parts: matter and form. Matter, or hyfe in Greek, refers to the “common stuff that makes up everything in the universe." Man's body is part of this matter. Form on the other hand, or morphe in Greek refers to the “essence of a substance or thing.” Itis what makes it what itis. In the case Of the human person, the body of the human person is something that he shares even with animals. The cells in man's body are more or less akin to the cells of any other living, organic being in the world. However, what makes a human person a human person and not a dag, or a tiger is his soul, his essence. To Aquinas, just as in Aristotle, the soul is what animates the body; it is what makes us humans. Descartes Rene: Descartes, Father of Modem Philosophy, conceived of the human person as having a body and a mind. In his famous treatise, The Meditations of First Philosophy, he claims that there is so much that we should doubt. In fact, he says that since much of what we think and. believe are not infallible, they may tum out to be false. One should only believe that since which can pass the test of doubt (Descartes 2008), If something is so clear and lucid as not to be even doubted, then that is the only time when one should actually buy @ proposition. In the end, Descartes thought that the only thing that one cannot doubt is the existence of the self, for even if one doubts oneself, that only proves that there is a doubting self, -a thing that thinks and therefore, that cannot be doubted. Thus, his famous, cagito ergo sum, “| think therefore, | am.” The fact that ‘one thinks should lead one to conclude without a trace of doubt that he exists. Theself then for Descartes is also a combination of two distinct entities, the cogito, the thing that thinks, which is the mind, and the extenza or extension of the mind, which is the body. In Descartes's view, the body is nothing else but a machine that is attached to the mind. The human persen has it but it is net what makes man a man. If atall, that is the mind. Descartes says, “But what tfen, am J? A thinking thing. lt has been said. But what is a thinking thing? It is.a thing that doubis, understands (conceives). affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imagines also, and perceives” (Descartes 2008). Hume David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, has a very unigue way of looking at man. As an empiricist who believes that one can know only what comes from the senses and experiences, Hume argues that the self is nothing like what his predecessors thought of it. The self is not an entity over and beyond the physical body. One can fightly see here the empiricism that runs through his veins. Empiricism is the school of thought that espouses the idea that knowledge can only be possible if it is sensed and experienced. Men can only attain knowledge by experiencing. For. example, Jack knows that Jill is another human person not beéause he has seen her soul. He knows she is just like him because he sees her, hears her, and touches her. To David Hume, the self is nothing else butsa bundle of impressions. What are impressions? For David Hume, if one tries to examine his experiences, he finds that they can all be categorized into two: impressions and ideas. Impressions are the basic objects of our experience or sensation. They therefore form the core of our thoughts. When one touches an ice cube, the cold sensation is an impression. Impressions therefore are vivid because they are products of our direct experience with the world. |deas, on the other hand, are copies of impressions. Because of this, they are not as lively and vivid as our impressions. When one imagines the feeling of being in love for the first time, that still is an idea. What is the self then? Self, according to Hume, is simply “a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movernent.” (Hume and Steinberg 1992) Men simply want to believe that there is a unified, coherent self, a soul or mind justlike what the previous philosophers thought. in reality, what one thinks is a unified self is simply a combination of all experiences with a particular person. Thinking of the “self as a mere combination of impressions was problematic for Immanuel Kant. Kant recognizes the veracity of Hume's account that everything starts: with perception and sensation of impressions. However, Kant thinks that the things that men perceive around them are not just randomly infused inte the human person without an organizing principle that regulates the telationship of all these impressions. To Kant, there is necessarily a mind that organizes the.impressions that men get from the external world, Time and space, for example, are ideas that.one cannot find in the world, but is built in our minds. Kant calls these the apparatuses of the mind Along with the different apparatuses of the mind goes the “self.” Without the self, one cannot organize the different impressions that one gets in relation to his ‘own existence. Kant therefore suggests thatit isan actively engaged intelligence in "man that synthesizes all knowledge and experience. Thus, the self is not just what gives one his personality. In addition, it is also the seat of knowledge acquisition for all human persons. a so 3 Gilbert-Ryle solves the mind-body dichotomy that has been running fora longtime in the history of thought by blatantly denying the concept of an internal, non-physical ‘self. For Ryle, what truly matters. is the behavior that a person manifests in his day-to-day life. For Ryle, looking for and trying to understand a self as it really exists is like visiting your friend’s university and looking for the “university.” One can roam around the campus, Visit the library and the football field, and meet the Administrators and faculty and still end up not finding the “university.” This is because the campus, the people, thesystems, and the territory ail form the university. Ryle suggests that the “self” is not “an entity one can locate and analyze but simply ihe convenient name that people “use to refer to all the behaviors that people make. Merleau-Ponty Merleau-Ponty is a phenomenologist who asserts that the mind-body bifurcation that has been going on fora jong time is a futile endeavor and an invalid problem. Unlike Ryle who simply denies the “self,” Merieau-Ponty instead says that the mind and body are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from one another. One cannot find any experience that is not an embodied experience. All experience is embodied. Gne’s body is his opening toward his existence to the world, Because of these bodies, men are in the world. Merieau-Ponty dismisses the Cartesian 9 ~s==sss==er==s==" Dualism that has spelled so much devastation in the history of man. For him, the Cartesian problem is nothing else but plain misunderstanding. The living body, his thoughts, emotions, and experiences are all one. APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT In your own words, state what “self” is for each of the following philosophers. After doing so, explain how your concept of Pecull is compatible with how they conceived of the “self.” 1. SocratesREFERENCES Beilharz, Peter, and Trevor Hogan. 2002. Social Self, Global Culture: An Introduction to Sociological ideas. New York: Oxford University Press. Chaffee, John. 2015, The Philosopher's Way: Thinking Critically about Profound Jdegas. 5th Ed. Boston: Pearson. David, Randolph. 2002. Nation, Self, and Citizenship: An Invitation te. Philippine " Sogiology. Department of Sociology, College of Social Sciences. and Philosophy, University of the Philippines. Descartes, René. 2008. Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. New York: Oxford University Press. Ganeri, Jonardon. 2012. The Seif: Naturalism, Gonsciousness, and ithe First- Person Stance. New York: Oxford University Press. Hume, David, and Eric Steinberg, 1992, An Enquiry Conceming Human Understanding; [with]A Letter froma Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh; [and] An Abstract of a Treatise of Human Nature. indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. e _ Marsella, Anthony J., George A. De Vos, and Francis L. K. Hsu, 1985. Culture and Self Asian and Western Perspectives. London: Tavistock Publications. Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviofist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Plato: 2000. Plato: “Te Republic" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2042, Six Great Dialogues: Apology, Crito;Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, The Republic. Courier Corporation. Plato. 2017. The Republic. Germany: BookRix. Rappe, Sara L. 1995. “Socrates. and Self-Knowledge.” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 28 (1):1-24. Schlenker, Barry R. 1985. The Self and ‘Social Life. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stevens, Richard. 1996. Understanding the Self. California: SAGE Publications.Lesson 2: The Self, Society, and Culture Lesson Objectives At the end of this lesson, you should be able fo: explain the relationship between and among the self, society, and culture; describe and discuss the different ways by which society and culture shape the self: compare and contrast how the self can be influenced by the different institutions in the society; and. examine one’s Self against the different views of self that were discussed in the class. = INTRODUCTION Across time and history, the self has been debated, discussed, and fruitfully or otherwise conceptualized by different thinkers in philosophy. Eventually, with the - advent of the social sciences, it became possible for new ways and paradigms to _ reexamine the true nature of the self, People put a halt on speculative debates on the relationship between the body /and soul, eventually renamed body and the mind. Thinkers just eventually got tired of focusing on the long-standing debate since sixth century BC between the relationship of these two components of the human person. Thinkers just settled.on the idea that there are two components of ‘the human person and whatever relationship these two have is less important than the fact that there is a self. The debate shifted into another locus of discussion. Given the new ways of knowing and the growth of the social sciences, it became possible for new approaches to the examination of the self to come to the fore. One of the loci, if not the most important axis of analysis is the relationship between the self and the external world. What is the relationship between external reality and the self?: In the famous Tarzan story, the fittle boy named Tarzan was left in the middle of the forest. Growing up, he never had an interaction with any other human being but apes and other animals. Tarzan grew up acting9 epee ne SE ae So Rettdleniy ee ieeper= strangely like apes and unlike human persons. Tarzan became an animal, in effect. His sole interaction with them made him just like one of them. Disappointedly, human persons will not develop as human persons without intervention, This story, which was supposed to be based on real life; challenges the long-standing notion ‘of human persons being special and being a particular kind of being in the spectrum: of living entities. Affer all, our selves are not special because of the soul infused into us. We may be: gifted with intellect and the capacity to rationalize things but at the end of the day, our growth and development and ‘consequentially, our selves. are truly products of our interaction with external reality, How much of you are’ essential? How much of who you are now a product of your society, community, and family? Has your choice of school affected yourself now? Had you been born into a different family and schooled in a different college, how much of who you are now would change? ACTIVITY My Self Through the Years Paste a picture of you when you were in elementary, in high school, and now that you are in college. Below the picture, list down your salient characteristics that you remember. My Elementary Self | | My High School Self My College SelfANALYSIS After having examined your “self’ in its different stages, fill out the table below: Similarities in all stages | Differences in my “self? | Possible reasons for the across.the three stages of my life ABSTRACTION What Is the Self? Fi ‘The self, in contemporary literature and even common sense, is commonly defined by the following characteristics: “separate, self-contained, independent, consistent, unitary, and private” (Stevens 1996). By separate, it is meant that the self is distinct from other selves. The self is always unique and has its own identity. ‘One cannot be another person. Even twins are distinct from each other. Second, self is also self-contained and independent because in itself it can exist. Its distinctness allows it to be self-contained with its own thoughts, characteristics, and volition. It does not require any other seif forit to exist. Itis consistent because it has a personality that is enduring and therefore can be expected to persist for quite some time. Its consistency allows it to be studied, described, and measured, Consistency also means that a particular selt's traits, characteristics, tendencies, and potentialities are more or less the same. Self is unitary in that itis the center of all experiences and thoughts that run through a certain person. It is like the chiefcommand post in an individual where all processes, emotions, and thoughts converge: Finally, the self is private. Each person sorts out information, feelings and emotions, and thought processes within the self. This whole process is never accessible ta anyone but the self. This last characteristic of the seifbeing [RT private suggests that the self is.isolated from. i the external warld. it lives within its own world. However, we also see that this potential clash between the self and the external reality is the reason forthe selfto havea clearunderstanding of what it might be, what it can be, and what it will be, From this perspective then, one can see that the self is always at the mercy of external circumstances: that bump and collide with it. Itis ever-changing and dynamic, allowing external influences to take part in its shaping. The concern then of this lesson is in understanding the vibrant relationship between the self and external reality. This perspective is known as the social constructionist perspective. "Social constructionists argue for a merged view of ‘the person’ and ‘their social context’ where the boundaries of one cannot easily be separated from the boundaries of the other” (Stevens 1996). Social constrtictivists argue that the self should not be seen as a static entity that stays constant through. and through. Rather, the self has to be seen as something that is in unceasing flux, in a constant struggle with external reality and is malleable in its dealings with society. The self is always in participation with social life and its identity subjected to influences here and there. Having these perspectives considered should draw one into concluding that the self is truly multifaceted. | Consider a boy named Jon. Jon isa math professor at a Catholic university for more than adecadenow. Jonihas a beautiful wife whom he met in college, Joan. Joan was Jon's first and last girlfriend. Apart from béing a husband, Jon is also blessed with two doting kids, a son and a daughter. He also sometimes serves in the church too as a lector anda commentator. As a man of different roles, one can ‘expect Jon to change and adjust his behaviors, ways, andeven language depending on his social situation. When Jon is in the university, he conducts himself in'a matter that befits his title as. a professor. As a husband, Jon can be intimate and touchy. Joan considers him sweet, something that his students will never conceive him to be. His kids fear him. As @ father, Jon can be stern. As a lector and commentator, on the other hand, his church mates knew him as a guy who is calm, all-smiles, and always ready to. fend a helping hand to anyone in need. This short story is not new to most of us. We ourselves play different roles, actin different ways depending on our circumstances. Are we being hypocritical in doing so? Are we even conscious of our shifting selves? According to what we have so far, this is net only normal but it also is acceptable and expected. The self is Capable of morphing and fitting itself into any circumstances it finds itself in. The Self and Culture Remaining the same person and turning chameleon by adapting to one’s context seems paradoxical. “However, the French Anthropologist Marcel Mauss has an explanation for this phenomenon. According to Mauss, every self has two faces: personne and moi. Moi refers to a person's senge of who he is, his body, and his basic identity, his biological givenness* Mof is a person's basic identity. Personne, on the ather hand, is composed of the social concepts of what it means to be who he is. Personne has much to do with what it means to live ina particular institution, @ particular family, a particular religion, a particular nationality, and how to behave given expectations and influences from others. In the story. above, Jon might have a moj but certainly, he has: to. shift personne from time to time to adapt to his social situation, He knows who he is. and more or less, he is confident that he has a unified, coherent self. However, at some point, he has te sport his stern professorial look, Another day, he has to be the doting but strict father that he is. Inside his bedroom, he can play goofy with his. wife, Joan. In all this and more, Jon retains who he is, his being Jon—his moi—that part of him that is stable and static all throughout. This dynamics and capacity for different personne can be illustrated better cross-culturally. An overseas Filipino worker (OFW) adjusting to life in another country is a very good case study. In the Philippines, many people unabashedly violate jaywalking rules. A common Filipino treats road, even national ones, as basically his and so he just merely crosses whenever and wherever. When the same Filipino visits another country with strict traffic rules, say Singapore, you will notice how suddenly law-abiding the said Filipino becomes. A lot of Flipinos has anecdotally confirmed this.observation.The same malleability can be seen in how some men easily transform into sweet, docile guys when trying to woe and court a particular woman and suddenly just change rapidly after hearing a sweet “yes.” This. cannot be considered a conscious change on the part of the guy, or on the part of the law-abiding Filipino in the first example. The self simply morphed according to the circumstances and contexts. In the Philippines, Filipinos tend to consider their territory as a part of who they are. This includes considering their immediate surrounding as a part of them, thus the perennial ‘fapat ko, linis ko.” Filipines most probably do net consider national roads:as ‘something external to who they are. It is a part of them and they are a part of it, thus crossing the road whenever and wherever becomes a no-brainer. In another country, however, the Filipino recognizes that he is in a foreign tefritory where nothing technically belongs to him. He has to foliow the rules or else he will be apprehended. Language is another interesting aspect of this social constructivism. The Filipino language is incredibly interésting to talk about. The way by which we articulate our love is denoted by the phrase, “Mahal kita.” This, of course; is the Filipino translation of *! love you.” The Filipino brand of this articulation of love, unlike in English, does not spetify the subject and the object of love; there is no Specification of whe loves and who is laved. There is simply a word for love, mahal, and the pronoun kita, which is a second person pronoun that refers to the speaker and the one being talked to: In the Filipino language, unlike in English, there is no distinction between the lover and the beloved. They are one. Interesting too is the word, mahal. In Filipino, the word can mean both “love” and “expensive.” In our language, love is intimately bound with value, with being expensive, being precious. Something expensive is valuable. Someone whom we love is valuable to us. The Sanskrit origin of the word love is ‘febh,” which means -desire. Technically, love-is a desire. The Filipino word for it has another intonation apart from mere desire, valuable. Another interesting facet.of our language is its being gender-neutral. In English, Spanish, and other languages, the distinction is clear between a third person male and third person female pronoun, He and she; ef and ella. In Filipino, itis plain; “siya.” There is no specification of gender. Our language does not specify between male and female. We both call it “siya.”In these varied examples, we have seen how language has something to do with culture. It is a salient part of culture and ultimately, has a tremendous effect in our crafting of the self. This might also be one of the reasons why cultural divide spelis out differences in how one regards oneself. In one research, it was found that North Americans are more likely to attribute being unique to themselves and claim that they are better'than most people in daing what they ove doing. Japanese people, on the other hand, have been seen to display a degree of modesty. If one finds himself born and reared in a particular culture, one definitely tries to fitin a particular mold, If a self is born into a particular society or culture, the ‘self will have to adjust according to its exposure. ‘The Self and the Development of the Social World So hew do people actively produce their social worlds? How do children. growing up become social beings? How can a boy turn out to just be like an ape? How do twins coming out from the same mother turn out to be terribly different when given up for adoption? More than his givenness (personality, tendencies, and propensities, among others), one is believed to be in active participation in the shaping of the self. Most often, we think the human persons are just passive actors in the whole process of the shaping of selves. That men and women are bom ‘with particularities that they can ne longer change. Recent studies, however, indicate that men and women in their grawth and development engage actively in the Shaping of the self. The unending terrain of metamorphosis of the self is mediated by language. “Language as both a publicly shared and privately utilized symbol system is the site where the individual and the social make and remake each other" (Schwartz, White, and Lutz 1993). Mead and Vygotsky For Mead-and Vygotsky, the way that human persons develop is with the use of language acquisition and interaction with others. The way that we process information is normally a form of an internal dialogue in our head. These who deliberate about moral dilemmas undergo this internal dialog. “Should | do this or that?" “But if | do this, it will be like this.” “Don't want the other’ option?” And so cognitive and emotional development ofa child is always a mimicry of how it is done in the social world, in the external Teality where he is in, Both Vygotsky and Mead treat the human mind as something that is made, Constituted through language as: experienced in the: external world and as encountered in dialogs with others. A young child internalizes values, norms, Practices, and social beliefs. and more through exposure to these dialogs that will eventually become part of his individual world, For Mead, this takes place as a child assumes the “other” through language and roie-play. A child conceptualizes his notion of "self" through this. Can you notice howilittie children are tne, of playing role-play with their toys? How they make scripts and dialogs for their toys as they play with them? According to Mead, it is through this that a child delineates the “I” from the rest. Vygotsky, for his part, a child internalizes reallife dialogs that he has had with others, with his family, his primary caregiver, or his playmates. They apply this to their mental and practical: problems. along with the social and cultural infusions brought about by the said dialogs. Can you notice how children eventually become what they watch? How children can easily adapt ways of cartoon characters they are exposed to? Self in Families be Apart from the anthropological and psycholagical basis for the relationship between the self and the social world, the sociglogical likewise struggled to understand the real connection between the two concepts. In doing so, sociologists focus on the different institutions and powers at play in the society. Among these, the most prominent is the family. While every child is born with certain givenness, disposition coming from his parents’ genes and general condition of life, the impact of one’s family is still deemed as a given in understanding the self. The kind of family that we are born in, the resources available to us (human, spiritual, economic), and the kind of development that we will have will certainly affect usas we go through life. Asa matter of evolutionary fact, human persons are one of those beings whose importance of family cannot be denied. Human beings are born virtually helpless. and the dependency period of a human baby to its parents for nurturing is relatively longer than most other animals. Learning therefore is critical in our capacity to actualize our potential of becoming humans. In trying to achieve the goal of becoming a fully realized human, a child enters.a system of relationships, most important of which is the family. Human persons learn the ways of living and therefore their selfhood by being in’a family. It is what a family initiates a person to become that serves as the basis for person's progress. Babies internalize ways and styles that they. observe from their family. By imitating, for example, the language of its primary agents of rearing its family, babies learn the language. The same is true for ways of behaving. Notice how kids reared in a respectiul environment becomes respectful as wall and the converse if raised in a converse family. internalizing behavior may either be conscious or unedhscious. Table manners or ways of speaking to elders are things that are possible to teach and therefore, are consciously learned by kids. Some behaviors and altitudes, on the other hand, may be indirectly taught through rewards and punishments. Others, such as“sexual. behavior or how to confront emotions, are learned through subtle means, like the tone of the voice or intonation of the models. itis then clear at this point that those who develop: and eventually grow to become adult who: still did not learn simple matters like basic manners of conduct failed in internalizing due fo parental or familial failure to initiate them into the world. Without a family, biologically and sociologically, a person may not even survive or become a human person. Go back to the Tarzan example. In more ways than one, the survival of Tarzan in the midst of the forest is already a miracle. His being.a fully human person with a sense of selfhoad is a different story though. The usual teleserye plot of kids getting swapped in the hospital and getting reared by a different family gives an obvious manifestation of the point being made in this section. One is who he is because of his family for the most part. Gender and the Self = ‘Another important aspect of the self is gender. Gender is one of those loci of the self that is subject to alteration, change, and development. We have seenin the past years how people fought hard for the right to express, validate, and assert ‘their gender expression. Many conservatives may frown upon this and insist on the biological. However, from the point-of-view of the social sciences and the self, itis