“Is there a real me or am I just my social roles?” Explain how a sociologist would go about answering this question.
For many hundreds of years philosophers, psychologists, politicians and eventually the general ‘western’ public have created the idea of a core ‘self’. This ‘self’ can be seen as the core entity of a person, untouched by society. Many theorists contrast the ‘self’ with the ‘personal identity’ - how we see ourselves due to our social interaction. However this has been proven to be a very ‘western’ point of view, and many sociologists have disputed the existence of a ‘self’ that is unrelated to social processes for reasons which are outlined in this essay.
George Herbert Mead’s theories in the early 20th century are the starting point of the sociological rejection of a ‘real me’ as untouched by society. Mead argued that the self consists of more than just a bare organisation of social attitudes, but can be divided into an ‘I’ and a ‘me’ (1962, p.173). Mead defined the ‘I’ as the ‘response of an organism to the attitudes of the others’ while the ‘me’ was defined as the ‘organised set of attitudes of others which one assumes’ (1962, p.175). Therefore it could be interpreted the Mead did recognise the existence of a core ‘self’ as expressed in his definition of the ‘I’, because the ‘I’ is present throughout one’s life as it is a natural response to situations - unpredictable and unique. In contrast, the ‘me’ knows what is socially required in a certain situation through the recognition of the attitudes of others, and will know what the consequences of the actions will be (1962, p.176). However since Mead defined the ‘I’ as a natural response to the attitudes of others and the ‘me’ as the assumption of the attitudes of others there is a clear absence of any referral to a core ‘self’ untouched by influence from others.
The relevance of Mead’s theory becomes evident when he analyses whether social order derives from individuals or whether individuals derive from social order. The individualist theory takes the experience of the individuals as predominant over the social processes in which they are involved (1962, p. 223.). In other words, the interaction between individuals creates a social order, and social processes exist as a result of this individual interaction. Alternatively, the ‘social’ theory believes that the existence of individuals is derived from the socials processes that take place around them and that ‘the social process of experience or behaviour is seen as logically more important and ‘prior’ to individuals and individual experience’ (1962, p.223). These two arguments are in direct conflict with each other, and are directly linked to whether there is a core self or whether we are just our social roles. Mead disputes the individualist theory, and therefore lays the basis for the rejection of the ‘core self’s’ existence. He does this by questioning whether the individualist theory can explain the origin of the mind, as he believes social interaction with other individuals is essential in the creation of a sense of oneself, that you have a certain role to perform which is determined by other people’s expectations (1962, p.224).
The whole theory of ‘social roles’ is crucial in the ability to offer an alternative to the existence of a ‘core self’. A role can be defined as ‘a typified response to a typified expectation’ (Berger 1963, p.112) and can only exist where social organisation is present, as roles have been identified as being the smallest sub-units of social organisation (Olsen 1968, p.104). In the creation of a role, an individual already has a pattern of behaviour assigned to how they should act, almost like an actor on stage. This notion of already having your behaviour assigned runs in direct contrast with having a core untouched by social experience because your behavioural patterns are decided, not by your own free will, but by what is expected of you to perform in your particular social role.
Moreover, social roles can provide satisfaction when they are fulfilled, resulting in their existence becoming even more deeply ingrained into our ‘personal identity’. A person feels wiser while teaching and feels more motherly while acting out the role of the mother, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle which leads to further destruction of the whole theory of a core ‘self’. Similarly, the inability to fulfill a role in society can undermine a sense of identity and value in society, such as unemployment which is seen as more than just a state of financial hardship because of the inability to fill the working role in society (Billington et. al. 1998, p.40. Alternatively, intense frustration can result from ‘always being the children’s mommy, or the minister’s wife and never being myself’ (Billington et. al., p.49) which could be interpreted as resentment of being unable to break away from our ‘social roles’ and live the achievable life of a ‘real me’ . However, this resentment is a result of the inability to fulfill the desire we experience for a ‘core self’ even if that ‘core self’ may not even exist.
Mead’s ‘I’ and ‘me’ theory becomes crucial in the explanation of why it is possible to ‘acknowledge the validity of the deeply social and relational view of the personal identity conceived as a complex of roles and retrieve a sense of ‘I’, which does not rely on the notion of a pre-social essence’ (Billington et. al. p.52). Mead does not dispute the existence of the individual, but argues that ‘as we become more aware of how our personal and social histories shape our lives we can release our creative potential both to fashion our role and relationships and to struggle against the socially structured relationships of power that constrain and oppress us’ (Billington et. al. p.56). Therefore a certain ‘core self’ is believed to exist, certainly in western culture, although it is created by society and is continually modified by the ‘me’.
From a sociological point of view, our role in society is crucial in the creation of the sense of who we are. Identity can be viewed as ‘socially bestowed, socially sustained and socially transformed’ (Berger, p.116) therefore seemingly dismissing the whole possibility of a ‘core self’. However, the lasting desire to break out from our social roles and discover the ‘true me’ does validate Mead’s claim that the individual exists, but only as a product of society. Therefore it could be argued that I am both my social roles and the ‘real me’, but since the ‘real me’ is so defined itself by society it would be risky to distinctly separate the two.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Aubert, Vilhelm. Elements of Sociology, Heinemann Educational, London, 1964.
Berger, Peter L. Invitation to Sociology, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1963.
Billington R., J. Hockley and S. Strawbridge. Exploring Self and Society, Macmillan, London, 1998.
Mead, George H. Mind, Self and Society, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962.
Olsen, Marvin E. The Process of Social Organisation, Holt, Rinehead and Winston, New York, 1968.