Self, Identity, and Culture

Stryker, Sheldon. 1987. Identity Theory: Developments and Extensions. In: K. Yardley and T. Honess. Self and Identity: Psychological Perspectives.  89-103.

Central Position of Stryker’s identity theory (1968, 1980):

“Commitment impacts identity salience impacts role performance”(p.89).

This was expanded with the idea that “social structure affects commitment”(p.89).

overhead 

Important Concepts:

Salience hierarchy

Commitment

• Extensiveness:  structural commitment (# of relations)

• Intensiveness:  affective commitment

Overhead

Twelve Hypothesis (Stryker 1980, pp.83-84):

1.     The grater the commitment to on an identity the higher is this identity in the salience hierarchy.

2.     The grater the commitment to an identity, the more positive is the evaluation of this identity.

3.     The larger the network of commitment on an identity the higher this identity will be in the salience hierarchy.

...

7.     The higher an identity in the salience hierarchy, the grater the probability a person perceives a given situation as an opportunity to perform this role.

8.     The higher an identity in the salience hierarchy, the grater the probability that a person will actively seek out opportunities to play that role.

...

10.   The greater the commitment, the higher the identity salience, the higher the probability that role performance reflects institutionalized values and norms.

Differences between Attribution Theory and SI:

Attribution:          cognition is an intrapersonal process

SI:                       cognition is an interpersonal process

Attribution focuses on cognitive processes and its determinants

Mead, G. Herbert. 1913. "The Social Self". Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods. Pp. 373-380.

Overhead: Terminology of Self, I, and the Me

‘I’

·      Subject

·      Myself as I am

·      Initiates social conduct “in propria persona”

‘Me’

·      Object

·      The ‘I’ as an object.

·      Myself as others see me.

·      Representation of the generalized other.

·      Can be the reflective self (p.376)

’Self’

·      “The response which one makes to his own conduct” (p.376)

·      If the self is not self-conscious: a mere organization of habit = Character (p.378).

o    To leave the field to the old self we enact a habitual character  = selfishness = immoral

·      If the self is self conscious (appears in consciousness) the old self disintegrates “and out of the moral process the new self arises” (p.378)

o     Self-conscious ego (full meaning of the term, p.377) = moral

How can we define

• Selves

• Reflective self

• Self-consciousness

Implications

 Moral development of personality or character:

 ·       The “self” is the character or personality of a person.

·       Over time [if new information gets added], there is a disintegration of organization in our character.

·       The self has to be acted upon in order to become a “reflective self.”

·       In this reflective analysis, the “self” appears in consciousness.

·       Only if conscious the “self” can interact with other “selves” we can speak of a state of “self consciousness”

·       “Self-consciousness” arises in the reflective analysis.

·       In the “self-conscious” state of reflective analysis, a new self can emerge in the discussion with other selves.

·       “Self-consciousness” is a necessary prerequisite for the growth of the “self.”

·       “The growth of the self arises out of partial disintegration, -- the appearance of the different interests in the forum of reflection”(p.379).

Religion

Moral deterioration:

How does Mead’s evolution of “self” relate to Heider?  

Just as Heider, Mead sees an Analogy to a Scientist

Question: How can the dynamic character of Mead=s self be modeled with Stryker=s concept of self?

Strauss, Anselm. 1994. Identity, Biography, History, and Symbolic Representations. Social Psychology Quarterly. 58,1: 4-12.

Three main points of interest:

1.   Strauss’s concept of identity, as compared to Mead’s self

2.   How does Strauss see the relation of the Individual and the Environment

3.   Culture and Structure in Strauss’ terms

Question: Do you ink it might be appropriate to equate Mead=s self with Strauss= concept of identity? 

The Individual and the Environment

Illustrate the example of the Iranian-American in terms of

Environmental Possibilities and Personal Choices

Culture and Structure in Strauss’ terms

Symbolic Universes

Symbolic Representations

Find an interpretation for the following citation:

“our nation [USA] is among the clearest examples of a country that is not a society”

(Strauss 1995, p.10)

A) What is society?

B) What is country?

C) How is both related?

Back to the homepage of Dr. Andreas Schneider http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Schneider/

Disclaimer: The documents linked to other sources on the WWW, others than http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Schneider/ and its subdirectories, do not necessarily express the views of Texas Tech University or Dr. Andreas Schneider. @Copyright 2006 Andreas Schneider