Lecture 2 The relational self SOCY20402 Self and Society Lecture 2 The relational self

Outline A relational view of society The relational self Mead: Becoming a self Crossley: Dialogical selves

Aims of this lecture To gain an understanding of the significance of a relational approach to self and society To understand the relational mechanism whereby we gain a sense of self To understand why an account of agency is important within a relational approach

A relational view of society

A relational view of society – Simmel and Elias Society is made up of the relationships between people Simmel: Society is something that people do – ‘sociation’ Elias: Society and social change not as something alien or outside of individuals, but something that individuals contribute to ‘Society’ is the result of (inter)actions becoming permanent The basis of society is interaction between individuals Relations that become definable and consistent structures such as state, family and class that assume a logic and independence of their own (Simmel, 1950: 9) Elias: Individual action is crucial to social change Society and individuals are not two separate entities Elias: We should not try to see individuals and society as separate because this leads to seeing one as more important than the other Metaphor of a painting (Simmel) and bricks and a house (Elias)

The relational self

The relational origins of the self Elias (1991) The Society of Individuals We develop our individuality in a group We are born into a society that pre-exists us and this society will help shape our instincts and consciousness The self as relationship We develop our sense of self in relation to others, we are thoroughly interrelated (Gergen, 1999: 124) ‘We know who we are because, in the first place, others tell us.’ (Jenkins, 2000: 11)

George Herbert Mead: The relational process of becoming a self

Developing a sense of self Our identities are created in interaction with others – ‘selfhood is utterly social’ (Jenkins, 2000: 11) Our capacity to imagine how others see us is key (cf. Cooley’s ‘looking glass self’) At first, babies have no sense of separateness from others or the world Cannot take an outside view of themselves Not aware that other people have a different point of view Not aware that they are experienced by others

Developing a sense of self This sense of self, of an ‘I’, develops gradually At first, a child develops the ability to imagine how specific persons (e.g. parents) see her or him The importance of play: taking the role of others, learning rules With time, the child develops a sense of a social self, a ‘me’ This sense of ‘me’ becomes more refined The child develops an abstract notion of the social group and its norms, and starts to judge his or her own behaviour in light of these norms The ‘me’ is the self that has internalised a set of social attitudes ‘Most typically parents in the first instance, the voice of these others tells the child who she is and what she should do’ (Jenkins, 2000: 11)

The generalized other Mead says that the child develops the ability to imagine how a ‘generalized other’ sees his or her behaviour ‘The attitude of the generalized other is the attitude of the whole group.’ (Mead, 1934: 154) The generalized other is ‘the internalized voice of the individual’s community’ (Jenkins, 2000: 11)

Our selves are relational ‘That which we have acquired as self-conscious persons makes us [ . . . ] members of society and gives us selves. Selves can only exist in definite relationships to other selves. No hard-and-fast line can be drawn between our own selves and the selves of others [ . . . ] The individual possesses a self only in relation to the selves of the other members of his social group; and the structure of his self expresses or reflects the general behaviour pattern of this social group to which he belongs, just as does the structure of the self of every other individual belonging to this group.’ (Mead, 1934: 164)

Emily Emily’s interactions with her father just before bedtime (dealing with separation anxiety) are interwoven into her monologues Regulation turns into self-regulation ‘... the monologues are concerned with others, and her experiences of being with others [ . . . ]. The monologues are [ . . .] of herself in relation to others and to events that constitute her waking life. In the example discussed above, she uses her father’s expression and his prosody [intonation], and immediately recounts her next anticipated experience of him. She describes her present experience (going to sleep) in terms of a general social reality, by recounting the same event occurring at the same time for ‘everybody’. The monologues thus express a shared rather than a private reality, and may function to displace her experience of separateness by recounting her experiences of belongingness in a social reality.’ (Watson, 1989: 279)

What is Emily doing? Emily is situating herself within the world of people, representing her own experience amongst that of others She does this through a process of internalization where: ‘the individual perspective of the unsocialized child becomes the social perspective of the child in a social world’ (Nelson, 1989: 284). Presenting herself as a social being who is aware of others (not simply an ego with wants and needs) Understanding and taking a perspective that looks at how events are socially organized (i.e. not simply from own point of view, but understanding how events are interpreted by others in the group) (Nelson, 1989: 285)

Adults are not the only others... De Castro (2004) on how children construct a sense of self not only relation to significant adult others, but also their peers

Some critiques of Mead Overemphasis on the collective – disregards individual agency Power and inequalities are missing from his account. Assumes society is unified – whose generalized other do we internalize? No concept of self-conflict

Agency

Crossley: Dialogical selves We are not passive lumps of clay – we hold a dialogue with ‘the generalized other’ and we can either follow or challenge social norms (Crossley, 2006) ‘We are aware of what others think or will think about our actions, [ . . . ] and we anticipate that response to our actions within this imaginary space, and if we can construct a persuasive reply to what we believe will be their criticism, or can persuade ourselves that we are not bothered by what they will say and do, then we may pursue our desired course of action.’ (Crossley, 2006: 89) There is no one single overpowering authority – we have access to several perspectives There can be several ‘generalized others’ These dialogues we hold with social norms are unpredictable and can generate new perspectives (Crossley, 2006; cf. Elias, 1991)

To conclude Self and society are inextricably bound together: we are inherently social beings We develop our sense of self in relationships with others We are moral and dialogical selves – not passive lumps of clay freely moulded by outside forces Social processes such as power are inherent in the construction of the self E.g. inequalities, exclusion and conflict and their impact on the self Differences within society? Whose generalized other do we internalize? More on this in Lectures 4 and 5 (and Lecture 9)

Tutorial preparation: Breaching experiment Before the tutorial, please conduct a ‘breaching experiment’ whereby you breach the social norms of interaction E.g. when someone asks you ‘How are you?’, ask them what exactly they mean by this: your physical health, your mental well-being, etc. Observe what happens in this interaction How does your interlocutor react to your responses? What does this reveal about the social norms of interaction? E.g. which norm have you breached? How does this feel for you? Why might this be?

Essay writing tip of the week: Decode the question… Most questions refer to a specific theoretical claim. You should be able to summarise and assess the claim that is being referred to in the question Phrases like ‘in what ways’, ‘critically evaluate’, ‘discuss the claim’ or ‘how significant?’ indicate that you must consider theoretical counter-arguments and empirical variation or counter-evidence

Examples Critically discuss the argument that whereas our identities in the past were defined by social categories, we are now free to choose our identity. Provide a critical discussion of the impact that ‘regulatory discourses’ have on the self.

… and answer it! Make sure all material is directly relevant to the question as set Keep the question firmly in mind - don’t wander off the point Avoid writing an essay that takes the form of ‘everything I can remember about this topic’ In other words, do not merely parrot back the lecture slides Show evidence of further reading but in a focused manner