ROOT OF A PARTIAL "ME"

A person’s character is influenced by several factors. The environment and the genetics are the two major dominant influencers. I believe that what I am now is a product of my experiences—and that falls under the environmental factors that influenced my identity aside from the traits I have gotten genetically from my parents.

Social interactions have to do a lot in the development of a person’s character. “No man is an island” as the saying goes. The social communication that exists in a person’s experiences may contribute a lot to one’s molded identity.

Symbolic Interactionism is formulated by Blumer (1969), a student of George Herbert Mead at the University of California whose key ideas of such theory originated. It is the process of interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals. The inspiration for this theory came from Dewey (1981), which believed that human beings are best understood in a practical, interactive relation to their environment. The theory consists of three core principles: meaning, language and thought. These core principles lead to conclusions about the creation of a person’s self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin, 1997).

·         Meaning states that humans act toward people and things according to the meanings that give to those people or things. Symbolic Interactionism holds the principal of meaning to be the central aspect of human behavior.

·         Language gives humans a means by which to negotiate meaning through symbols. Humans identify meaning in speech acts with others.

·         Thought modifies each individual’s interpretation of symbols. Thought is a mental conversation that requires different points of view.

With these three elements the concept of the self can be framed. People use ‘the looking-glass self’: they take the role of the other, imagining how we look to another person. The self is a function of language, without talk there would be no self-concept. People are part of a community, where our generalized other is the sum total of responses and expectations that we pick up from the people around us. We naturally give more weight to the views of significant others.

As I have mentioned a while ago social interactions have to do a lot in one’s personality. One’s self-concept and ‘generalized other’ are being affected as we tend to have social relationships with other people particularly in the community we are currently living to. Symbolic interactionism is the way we learn to interpret and give meaning to the world through our interactions with others.  

THE SELF: Reflections in a looking glass

Self-concept is developed through the process of interaction and communication with others. It is shaped by the reactions of significant others and by our perceptions of their reactions. Once developed, it provides an important motive for behavior (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993).

Moreover, it is also the image we have of who and what we are (formed in childhood by how significant others treat/respond to us).  It is not fixed and unchanging—in my childhood years, my teachers tell me that I am naughty and talkative, but later in my life, I have developed my quietness when I was enrolled in a school wherein silence and self-discipline is strictly portrayed besides my mother have scolded me to do so. It was then my self-concept has been changed which probably could have led to my modest behavior.

COMMUNITY: The Socializing Effect of Others’ Expectations

Mead dismissed the idea that we could get glimpses of who we are through introspection. Symbolic interactionists are convinced that the self is a function of language. Without talk, there would be no self-concept, so one has to be a member of the community before consciousness of self sets in. The self is an ongoing process combining the “I” and the “me”. The “I” is the spontaneous driving force that fosters all that is novel, unpredictable and unorganized in the self. The “me” however is viewed as an object—the image of self seen in the looking glass of other people’s reactions (Griffin, 1997).

The term “generalized other” is a synonym for the “me”. The “me” is formed by those who surround you. The generalized other shapes how we think and interact within a community. It is the sum total of responses and expectations that we pick up from the people around us. We naturally give more weight to the views of significant others.

The generalized other is an organized set of information about what the general expectations and attitudes of a social group are. We refer to this whenever we try to behave or try to evaluate our behavior in a social situation. We take the position of the generalized other and assign meaning to ourselves and our actions. To summarize, there is no “me” at birth. The “me” is formed only through continual symbolic interaction—first with family, next with playmates, then in institutions like schools (Griffin, 1997).

The symbolic interactionism theory, I think, has a lot to do with my character—the totality of what comprises myself as a person. My experiences has molded a partial (although not a hundred percent) of me as to what I am now. My self-concept of today probably has become much more optimistic compared to my former experiences. Let me share to you a glimpse of what I have experienced during my late grade school and early high school days. It has to do with Mead’s concept of generalized other.

I will not forget that one incident during my sixth grade. It was the day when I first met the world’s meanest person to me. I was a transferee then. Looking out for a chair to sit on, I noticed that the one in the middle was empty and so I decided to go on it. I found everyone in the classroom so amiable and appreciated a ‘newbie’ like me except for that one. A girl with a name that starts with the letter "K" approached to where I was sitting and began to hit the desk of the chair saying something offensive. Terrified by her abruptness, I timidly said ‘sorry’ and was just like a dog lowering down its ears slowly leaving the chair. It was then when I started to feel that something would be going wrong all the way in my new school to where I was enrolled. I have already hated that girl the very first time I saw her. I was certainly sure that the feeling was just mutual. Every time I would be reciting, she would often criticize. Then, the rest of the class, especially her friends, would laugh with her. I have often been intimidated by that.

Her meanness continued until high school. I could hardly imagine why she, together with some of her friends, was like that to me. Their negative responses gradually reduced me into what I perceive myself to be—nothing but a sort of laughing stock. I was emotionally hurt every day. I did not even know if I was just being too sensitive or it was just her being too nasty.

            I associated the way my mean high school classmates, together with that girl with-a-name-that-starts-with-the-letter "K", treat and laugh at me to my personality. Probably because of my personality that made them hate me. As you’ve noticed their generalized other has shaped how I think and interact within my community. 

            However, I have later on learned the importance of acceptance of oneself. We may later on learn in life that we cannot really please everybody. Just be brave in the pursuit of your dreams.

Sources:

(Griffin, 1997) http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/theory%20clusters/interpersonal%20communication%20and%20relations/symbolic_interactionism/

(LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993)  http://www.csun.edu/~whw2380/542/Symbolic%20Interactionism%20Lecture.htm

The Glaring Facts. Symbolic Interactionism—George Herbert Mead. Retrieved December 17, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.theglaringfacts.com/communications/comm-theories/symbolic-interactionism-george-herbert-mead/