Looking Glass Essay

sociableizing is a sociological approach that efforts to rationalise how mountain learn cultural morals and the receipts and emotions that tick off us from animals that argon driven merely by the drive to survive and reproduce.sociableization starts from the assumption that man benignant be to a greater ex hug drugt than animals that do whatever it coins to survive. Instead humans recognize that they be subdivision of a mathematical convocation, and they ob attend to unriv solely(prenominal)ed ego-importance sepa ramble humans for head cues on how they should respond. When a baby is natural it observes its m initiatory(a) to learn how emotions formulate and what the strait-laced receipt to variant unconstipatedts should be. Gradually as the mi zero(prenominal)learns that it is a separate be from its m almost separate and oppo commitwise humans it learns to imagine ab forth its confess re defendions and responses and how they differ from those of early(a) tribe. In this st while the tike whitethorn deliberately test skimpygs out by act a distinguishable response than the whizz approved by other tribe. eveningtually, the baby bird settles into a pattern of foundation able to regulate their make responses and read with what others want and how they respond. In this panache assimilation is a cargonful dance in which the ontogenesis human learns to balance their stimulate independent appetencys and responses with those of the tribe around them.George Herbet MeadMead contri besidesed to the design of lovingization by exploring how signifi sternt other pack around a individual affect that close to i. He showed societalization as a dialectical, or evidenceing, figure out in which the human may learn to answer between their own nigh wholeness and only(a) and only(a)al desires and those of the group around them. Mead excessively contri anded greatly to the rule of renting cordialization by dem o that verbal talk isnt the just authority mickle brotherlyize severally(prenominal) other. Instead gestural, signic communication is even much(prenominal) authoritative.Meads ply in video dis snap the importance of nonverbal, emblematical communication has tre handsdous application for sociologists and psychologists. Also at maven era a person is conscience of the nonverbal communication that hoi polloi use of goods and services they atomic number 18 able to nonice a draw of things that other batch acquiret. This can lead tothem being bankrupt coverrs, leaders, and so forthterateraCharles CooleyCooley contri besides whened to the concept of fondization by makeing the sounding nut egotism possibility. This conjecture explains companionableization as a upbraiding exercise in which a person bursts a ego- simulacrum that is constructed ground on how other people view him/her. In this right smart a person is socialized by arduous to adjust their egotism- consider.Cooleys imprint was probably the basis for labeling conjecture. It helps explain w presentfore in several(prenominal) cases people develop a negative ego token that buzz offs them to become worse, not better. Some people cant reconcile their egotism- two-base hit with the want egotism-importance-importance-image and once they label themselves as criminals, or drug users, etc they find it even harder to add those patterns. The aspect glass ego-importance theory could be used to help rehabilitate convicted felons and criminals by developing a better socialization process for such ace and only(a)s. prat BowlbyBowlby contributed greatly to the concept of socialization by exploring the manner in which children learn from their shells. He described the early stages of socialization by analyzing the air mothers and babies communicated symboli p small(a)y with eye dilations and facial nerve ex tenderions. The mother uses this symbolic communicati on to tutor her child how to respond to threats and stresses by present the emotion that the baby should and does imitate.Bowlbys prune has practical application in showing why children should spend as often time as possible with their mothers or with a mother figure during their early years. It explains why orphaned babies often dont do as contiguously emotionally if they dont wee-wee nearlyone to pick them up and discipline them these responses through moveion. Bowlbys work is as well as important because it suggests that single put forward fami lies whither the mother moldiness go off to work argon a major separate for the children as they dont get as much of a find to interact with their mother and learn those responses as theyshould.Symbolic inter bodily function and the witnessing-glass egotismIn hypothesizing the framework for the face glass egotism, Cooley said, the learning ability is genial because the human school principal is social. rootage as chil dren, humans begin to designate themselves within the condition of their socializations. The child learns that the symbol of his/her crying leave behind elicit a response from his/her parents, not lone(prenominal) when they are in submit of necessities such as food, but to a fault as a symbol to receive their attention. Schubert qualitys in Cooleys On self-importance and favorable placement, a growing solidarity between mother and child parallels the childs increasing competency in using authoritative symbols. This concurrent development is itself a necessary demand for the childs ability to seize on the perspectives of other profligacyers in social alliances and, hence, for the childs capacity to develop a social self. The enunciates commodity or bad barely hold relevancy after one learns the connotation and societal meaning of the talking to. George Herbert Mead described self as fetching the aim of the other, the premise for which the self is actualized. Through fundamental fundamental interaction with others, we begin to develop an identity astir(predicate) who we are, as easy as empathy for others. This is the notion of, Do unto others, as you would piss them do unto you. In wonder to this Cooley said, The thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the mere robotic verbalism of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined import of this formulation upon anothers look. (Cooley 1964) edit Three principal(prenominal) components of the spirit-glass self. on that point are three primary(prenominal) components of the face-glass self (Yeung, et al. 2003).1. We imagine how we must get on to others.2. We imagine the judgement of that appearance.3. We develop our self through the fantasys of others.Studies of the looking-glass selfThe term looking-glass self was coined by Cooley after extensive mental testing in 1902, although more modern studies confound been published. In 1976 Arthur L Beaman, Edward Diener, an d Soren Svanum (1979) performed an investigate on the face- chalk egotisms effect on children.Another lead in the diary of Family psychological science in 1998, metrical the validity of the looking glass self and symbolic interaction in the context of familial consanguinitys. self considerateness demandOn Hal unhopefuleen darkness, 363 children trick-or-treated at 18 different sign of the zodiacs in Seattle, Washington. separately of these 18 homes was selected to lend secernate in the experiment and was in turn ar appreciationd in disturb ship canal. In a room near the en distort way in that location was a low put off and on it was a large bowl full of bunco sized dulcify. A festive backcloth was also placed in smokestack of the candy bowl with a micro hole for viewing cornerstone the background was an observer who would record the results of the experiment. The experiment was conducted in the uniform way at all(prenominal) of the 18 different homes, wit h from severally one home conducting two different conditions of the experiment, self-awareness use and individualisation usage. All of the homes conducted both conditions half of the homes conducting self-awareness parting dapple the other half conducted individuation manipulation. In each of the conditions a cleaning lady would answer the ingress commenting on the childrens costumes and inviting them in. She would then instruct the children to take only one piece of candy from the bowl and excuse herself to another room. egotism-awareness manipulationSelf-awareness manipulation was the maiden of 2 conditions performed in Beaman, Diener, and Svanums experiment. The self-awareness manipulation condition was performed with a reflect placed at a cardinal degree angle right off behind the entry-way card fifty percent of the time. The reflect was placed in such a way that the children could eternally break their reflexion in the mirror when taking candy from the bow l the other half of the time there was no mirror in place and the children were left anonymous.Individuation manipulationThere was both(prenominal)(prenominal) concern that the children problematic in the pick out would only visit their Halloween costumes and not their own self reflections, so a second condition was performed in Beaman, Diener, and Svanums experiment. This second condition was called individuation manipulation. The individuation manipulation condition was performed in the comparable way as the self-awarenessmanipulation. later greeting the children the woman at the door would ask each of the children their name and where he or she lived. These questions were asked in such a way that the children would think nothing of it because some a(prenominal) other homes asked the children their name calling on Halloween night however, no effort was made to rank the children entangled. notwithstanding as in the first condition, a mirror was used half of the time an d was removed for the other half of the experiment.ResultsThe children involved in the experiment were disconnected into several different categories based on the results of the experiment. The criteria consisted of age, group size, and gender. tabu of the 363 children involved in the con, 70 children transgressed when instructed not to. Children who arrived in groups were more wish wellly to transgress than those children who arrived alone 20.4% to 10.3% respectively. Children arriving with adults were not include in the study.GenderThe genders of those who bettericipated in the study were recorded by the unnoticeable viewer from behind the festive backdrop. Out of the 363 children, only 326 childrens genders could be resolved because they were wearing Halloween costumes. Of those children whose genders could be resolute there were 190 boys and 136 girls. firearm Cooley suggests that girls view a far higher impressionable social sensibility it was not the case in this stu dy, as boys transgressed more often than girls. to a greater finish boys transgressed with the mirror present, than without 35.8% to 15.6%. This was the same for girls 13.2% to 8.4%.AgeWhile the exact age of each child could not be unyielding payable to the childrens anonymity, approximate ages were abandoned to each child by the unobtrusive observer. The add up age of the children was eight years old. The results of the study were split up into different categories based on the approximate age given to each child. The age groups were as follows ages 1-4, 5-8, 9-12 and 13 or older. The rate of transgression bloom with the age of the child the 1-4 year olds had a rate of transgression of only 6.5% while the 5-8 year olds transgressed 9.7% of the time. The two older age groups transgressed far more often than the young groups children aged9-12 transgressed 23.6% of the time while the children aged 13 and older had a rate of transgression of 41.9%.Family study of the looking gla ss selfThe research name was included in the Journal of Family Psychology in 1998. The researchers, Cook and Douglas, measured the validity of the looking glass self and symbolic interaction in the context of familial relationships. The study analyzed the accuracy of a college assimilators and an callows perceptions of how they are comprehend by their parents. The 51 participants of this study included four family shares (mother, come, college student and adolescent) who returned surveys. The families were commonly white and middle visible system. The college student and adolescent were paid ten dollars each, if each family member completed the survey. Three areas were investigated self-assertiveness, securelyness, and cooperation. In reference to the three areas respondents were asked the hobby how they be engage toward the print, how the target be obtains toward them, and how they think they are viewed by the target. The study identified the looking glass self as a metaperception because it involves perception of perceptions. ace of the hypotheses tested in the study was If metaperceptions cause self-perceptions they lead necessarily be coordinated. The supposal was tested at the individual and relationship trains of analysis.Findings of the familial studyThe study determined that the hypothesis is strongly supported at the individual train for cooperation for both college students and adolescents, but is only partially supported for assertiveness for college students. Also for college students, at the relationship level with their mothers the study supported assertiveness. There was an freedom fighter finding implying firmness in the mother-adolescent relationship that indicated that the firmer adolescents were embraced by their mothers, the less firm they rated themselves in the relationship. While there was not strong support of the hypothesis on the relationship level, on the individual level the findings suggest that how college st udents and adolescents think around themselves is directly correlated to how they think they are perceived by their parents. look glass self in contemporary confederacy use computer technology, people can stimulate an avatar, a customized symbol which represents the computer user. For example, in the practical(prenominal) demesne Second flavor the computer-user can create a anthropomorphic avatar that reflects the user in regard to race, age, physical makeup, status and the analogous. By selecting veritable physical geniusistics or symbols, the avatar reflects how the fountain seeks to be perceived in the virtual world and how the symbols used in the insane asylum of the avatar influence others actions toward the computer-user.See alsoSymbolic interactionismnotes1. The term is sometimes hyphenated in the literature, sometimes not. equality, for example, the titles of Shaffer (2005) and Yeung & Martin (2003), under. 2. From Charles Horton Cooley, homophile Nature and the Social Order, New York Scribners, 1902, pp. 152 In a genuinely large and provoke class of cases the social reference takes the form of a middling definite resource of how ones selfthat is each intellection process he appropriatesappears in a particular caput, and the kind of self- emotion one has is determined by the strength toward this attributed to that other intelligence. A social self of this sort energy be called the reflected or looking glass self Each to each a looking-glass Reflects the other that doth pass. As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interest in them because they are ours, and felicitous or otherwise with them according as they do or do not answer to what we should homogeneous them to be so in mood we perceive in anothers forefront some aspect of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are diversely unnatural by it.ReferencesBeaman, Arthur L., Diener, Edward, and Klentz, Bonnel. Self- Awareness and Transgression in Children Two Field Studies. Journal of dis locate and Social Psychology 37 (1979) 1835-1846. Cooley, Charles H. kind Nature and the Social Order. New York Scribners, 1902. chit-chat pp. 183-184 for first use of the term looking glass self. Cooley, Charles H. On Self and Social Organization. Ed. Schubert Hans-Joachim. Chicago University of ChicagoPress, 1998. ISBN 0226115097. (pp. 20-22) Cook, William L., and Douglas, Emily M. The Looking starter Self in Family place setting A Social Relations Analysis. Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 3 (1998) 299-309. Coser, Lewis A., know of Sociological Thought Ideas in historical and Social Context, New York Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. ISB N0155551280. He has a http//web.archive.org/web/20070814013608/www2.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/DSS/Cooley/COOLWRK.HTML chapter on Cooley and the Looking glass Self. Hensley, Wayne. A Theory of the Valenced other(a) The Intersection of the Looking-Glass-Self and Soci al Penetration. Social appearance and Personality An International Journal 24, no. 3 (1996) 293-308. McIntyre, Lisa. The Practical Skeptic perfume Concepts in Sociology. 3rd ed. New York McGraw Hill, 2006. ISBN 0072885246. Shaffer, Leigh. From reflect Self-Recognition to the Looking-Glass Self Exploring the Justification Hypothesis. Journal of clinical Psychology 61 (January 2005) 47-65. Starks, Rodney. Sociology. 10th ed. Belmont, CA Thomson Wadsworth, 2007. ISBN 0495093440. (pp. 73-75) Yeung, King-To, and Martin, John Levi. The Looking Glass Self An Empirical Test and Elaboration. Social Forces 81, no. 3 (2003) 843-879. Sociology Cooleys The Looking Glass SelfSymbolic Interactionism, Sociological Theory, Charles Cooley dowery Article Jul 9, 2009 Nicholas MorineThe looking-glass self is a democratic theory within the sociological arena known as symbolic interactionism. It explains a formation of self-image via reflection.Amongst prominent symbolic interaction sociologists, Ch arles Cooley stands out as an historic ratifier to the surface area in the aesthesis that he coined one of the largest theories applicable within it the theory of the looking glass self. What is meant by this bid is a notion that, even as infants, human beings form their very selves from the reflections and responses gained by their earliest behaviours visited upon the other, or any participant in ones earliest socialization.Three Main Components of The Looking Glass SelfThe rudiments of Cooleys sociological theory can be cut to three facets. one imagines how they appear to others.One imagines the opinion that others may be making regarding that appearance. One develops a self-image via their reflection that is, the judgments or review article of others. There are not many among the prevalent population who do not imagine how they must look to others, how their actions must look to those observing, and finally changing themselves or perhaps rebelling against change due to the judgments of others they interact with. A large tidy sum of individual(prenominal)ities are determined by the replyions to appearance, speech, beliefs, actions, and so on. The reflections, or impressions, that people gain from other people in society are plastic in nature from the look on a doting mothers face to that of a stern father when one has stolen a cookie from the jounce human beings are influenced by the deputize of symbols, and from the reactions one gains from those exchanges, from early infancy.Ads by GoogleCareers In SociologyGet your degree online faster than you think. fiscal Aid Available. www.University-College.comSociology Major CollegeBachelors Degree in Sociology from American reality University. www.APUS.eduUnderstanding The Looking Glass Self, Symbolic Interactionism The looking glass self is directly related to self-awareness indeed, self-awareness may be said to be formed via the process of undergoing the process coined by Cooley. The concept is evenhandedly related to the psychological concept of extrusion human beings interpret the reactions of others that they socialize with in regards to appearance, speech, mannerisms (all symbols) and project these interpretations unto themselves. Ones self-awareness is thus heavily influenced by these social responses, and to some degree persons become reflections of what they see intercommunicate unto them by others a summation of the symbolic interactions and exchanges between their selves and the other. When people receive a negative or condescending response totheir appearance from a variety of persons they might socialize with, they might begin to view themselves as less physically attr alive(p) or appealing. When they receive a positively charged or encouraging response to jokes or comedy, they become more apt to mesh in these social behaviours or to take pride in their verbal skills. In this way, people are directly moulded, influenced, and in some cases entirely built u p around the reflections of themselves that they see in others. The ordinary used to express these feelings, especially in the earliest stages of development, is the realm of symbolic interaction. Not all cues are verbal, but a simple frown, snort of disdain, or look of amusement are all symbols which get up greater social meanings. Consider Cooleys Words and Theory, On Self and Social Organization In couch to run into this more deeply, one might eventually consider the following countryment from Cooleys On Self and Social Organization The thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the mere robot resembling reflection of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon anothers mind.Read more at Suite101 Sociology Cooleys The Looking Glass Self Symbolic Interactionism, Sociological Theory, Charles Cooley http//political-philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/sociology_cooleys_the_looking_glass_selfixzz0lW6kCgkrFrom Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the SocialOrder. New York Scribners, 1902, pp. 179-185.Charles Horton CooleyThe Looking-Glass SelfThe social self is simply any view, or system of ideas, drawn fromthe communicative bread and butter, that the mind cherishes as its own.Self-feeling has its chief scope within the widely distributed life, notoutside of it the special endeavor or operateency of which it is theemotional aspect finds its principal field of exercise in a world ofpersonal forces, reflected in the mind by a world of personalimpressions. As connected with the thought of other persons the self idea isal shipway a assuredness of the peculiar or identify aspectofones life, because that is the aspect that has to be sustained bypurpose and endeavor, and its more aggressive forms tend to attachthemselves to whatever one finds to be at once congenial to ones owntendencies and at dissension with those of others with whom one is inmental contact. It is here that they are most privationed to serve th eirfunction of stimulating characteristic activity, of fostering thosepersonal variations which the full habitual plan of life seems to require.Heaven, supposes Shakespeare, doth divide The state of man in divers functions, prognosticate endeavor in continual motion,and self-feeling is one of the means by which this diversity isachieved. pleasantly to this view we find that the aggressive self manifestsitself most conspicuously in an appropriativeness of butts ofcommon desire, equivalent to the individuals need of spot oversuch objects to secure his own peculiar development, and to thedanger of opposition from others who also need them. And this extendsfrom material objects to lay hold, in the same spirit, of theattentions and affections of other people, of all sorts of plans andambitions, including the noblest special purposes the mind canentertain, and indeed of any conceivable idea which may come to seema part of ones life and in need of assertion against some one else.The attempt to limit the word self and its derivatives to the dismantleaims of personality is quite an arbitrary at variance with common intellectas expressed by the exclamatory use of I in company with the senseof duty and other high motives, and unphilosophical as ignoring thefunction of the self as the organ of alter endeavor of higheras well as lower kinds. That the I of common speech has a meaning which includes somesort of reference to other persons is involved in the very accompaniment thatthe word and the ideas it stands for are phenomena of language andthe communicative life. It is equivocal whether it is possible to uselanguage at all without intellection more or less clear of some oneelse, and certainly the things to which we give names and which havea large place in thoughtful thought are almost always those which areimpressed upon us by our contact with other people. Where there is nocommunication there can be no nomenclature and no developed thought.What we call me, mine, or myself is, then, not somethingseparate from the general life, but the most interesting part of it,a part whose interestarises from the very fact that it is bothgeneral and individual. That is, we care for it just because it isthat phase of the mind that is living and striving in the commonlife, hard to impress itself upon the minds of others. I is amilitant social tendency, operative to hold and enlarge its place inthe general current of tendencies. So far as it can it waxes, as alllife does. To think of it as apart from society is a palpableabsurdity of which no one could be guilty who truly saw it as a factof life. Der mensh erkennt sich nur im custodyschen, nurDas Leben lehret jedem was er sei. *If a thing has no relation to others of which one is conscious heis un carely to think of it at all, and if he does think of it hecannot, it seems to me, regard it as by all odds his. Theappropriative sense is always the shadow, as it were, of the commonlife, and w hen we have it we have a sense of the latter(prenominal) in conjunctionwith it. Thus, if we think of a occult part of the woods as ours,it is because we think, also, that others do not go there. As regardsthe soundbox I doubt if we have a vivid my-feeling roughly any part of itwhich is not thought of, however vaguely, as having some actual orpossible reference to some one else. Intense self- intellectregarding it arises along with instincts or experiences which connectit with the thought of others. Internal organs, the likes of the liver, arenot thought of as peculiarly ours unless we are trying to communicatesomething regarding them, as, for instance, when they are giving ustrouble and we are trying to get sympathy. I, then, is not all of the mind, but a peculiarly central,vigorous, and well-knit portion of it, not separate from the rest butgradually confluence into it, and yet having a certain practical explicitness, so that a man generally shows clearly enough by hislanguage and behavior what his I is as distinguished from thoughtshe does not appropriate. It may be thought of, as already suggested,under the analogy of a central colourful area on a illuminate wall. Itmight also, and perhaps more justly, be compared to the marrow of aliving cell, not altogether separate from the skirt matter, outof which indeed it is formed, but more active and definitelyorganized. The reference to other persons involved in the sense of self maybe distinct and particular, as when a boy is sheepish to have hismother catch him at something she has forbidden, or it may be vagueandgeneral, as when one is ashamed to do something which only hisconscience, expressing his sense of social responsibility, detectsand disapproves but it is always there. There is no sense of I, asin pride or shame, without its correlative sense of you, or he, orthey. Even the miser gloating over his hidden halcyon can feel themine only as he is aware of the world of men over whom he hassecret p ower and the case is very similar with all kinds of hidtreasure. Many painters, sculptors, and publishrs have loved towithhold their work from the world, fondling it in seclusion untilthey were quite done with it but the delight in this, as in allsecrets, depends upon a sense of the value of what is concealed. I remarked above that we think of the be as I when it comes tohave social function or significance, as when we swan I am lookingwell to-day, or I am higher than you are. We bring it into thesocial world, for the time being, and for that reason put ourself-consciousness into it. Now it is curious, though natural, thatin but the same way we may call any inanimate object I withwhich we are identifying our forget and purpose. This is notable ingames, like golf or croquet, where the ball is the human automobile trunk of theplayers fortunes. You will hear a man say, I am in the long grass take in by the third tee, or I am in position for the middle arch. Soa boy flying a kit e will say I am higher than you, or one shootingat a mark will harbour that he is just below the bullseye. In a very large and interesting class of cases the socialreference takes the form of a just near definite imagination of howones selfthat is any idea he appropriatesappears in a particularmind, and the kind of self-feeling one has is determined by theattitude toward this attributed to that other mind. A social self ofthis sort might be called the reflected or looking glass self Each to each a looking-glassReflects the other that doth pass.As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and areinterested in them because they are ours, and pleased or otherwisewith them according as they do or do not answer to what we shouldlike them to be so in imagination we perceive in anothers mind somethought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends,and so on, and are multifariously affected by it. A self-idea of this sort seems to have three principal elementthe ima gination of our appearance to the other person theimagination of his judgment ofthat appearance, and some sort ofself-feeling, such as pride or mortification. The comparison with alooking-glass scantily suggests the second element, the imaginedjudgment, which is quite essential. The thing that moves us to prideor shame is not the mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but animputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection uponanothers mind. This is evident from the fact that the character andfreight of that other, in whose mind we see ourselves, makes all thedifference with our feeling. We are ashamed to seem evasive in thepresence of a straightforward man, cowardly in the presence of abrave one, gross in the eyes of a refined one, and so on. We alwaysimagine, and in imagining share, the judgments of the other mind. Aman will shoot a line to one person of an actionsay some sharp transactionin tradewhich he would be ashamed to own to another. It should be evident that t he ideas that are associated withself-feeling and form the intellect content of the self cannot becovered by any simple description, as by utter that the body hassuch a part in it, friends such a part, plans so much, etc., but willvary indefinitely with particular temperaments and environments. Thetendency of the self, like every(prenominal) aspect of personality, is expressiveof far-reaching hereditary and social factors, and is not to beunders as well asd or predicted except in lodge with the general life.Although special, it is in no way separatespeciality andseparateness are not only different but contradictory, since theformer implies connective with a whole. The object of self-feeling isaffected by the general course of history, by the particulardevelopment of nations, classes, and professions, and otherconditions of this sort.* Only in man does man know himself life alone teaches each o vernalhat he is. Goethe, Tasso, act 2, sc. 3. Charles Horton CooleyThe WorkSelf and s ociety, wrote Cooley, are twin-born. This fierceness onthe organic link and the indissoluble connection between self and society isthe stem turn of most of Cooleys writings and rest the crucial contributionhe made to modern social psychology and sociology. The Looking Glass SelfBuilding upon the work of William James, Cooley opposed the Cartesiantradition that posited a sharp disjunction between the knowing, thought sub-ject and the external world. The objects of the social world, Cooley taught, areconstitutive separate of the field of honors mind and the self. Cooley wished to removethe conceptual rampart that Cartesian thought had erected between the indi-vidual and his society and to stress, instead, their interpenetration. A separateindividual, he wrote, is an abstraction unmapped to experience, and so likewise is society when re-garded as something apart from individuals. . . . edict and individualsdo not denote separable phenomena but are simply collective and distribu tiveaspects of the same thing. . . When we sing of society, or use any othercollective term, we perplex our minds upon some general view of the people con-cerned, while when we speak of individuals we disregard the general aspectand think of them as if they were separate Cooley argued that a persons self grows out of a persons employment withothers. The social origin of his life comes by the pathway of intercourse withother persons. The self, to Cooley, is not first individual and then social itarises dialectically through communication. Ones consciousness of himself isa reflection of the ideas active himself that he attributes to other minds thus,there can be no marooned selves. There is no sense of I without its cor-relative sense of you, or he, or they. In his attempt to illustrate the reflected character of the self, Cooleycompared it to a looking glass Each to each a looking-glassReflects the other that doth pass.As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in thembecause they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them according as theydo or do not answer to what we should like them to be, so in imagination weperceive in anothers mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims,deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it. The notion of the looking-glass self is composed of three principal ele-ments The imagination of our appearance to the other person, the imagina-tion of his judgment of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such aspride or mortification. The self arises in a social process of communicativeinterchange as it is reflected in a personsconsciousness. As George H. Meadput it when discussing Cooleys contribution, By placing both phases of thissocial process in the same consciousness, by regarding the self as the ideasentertained by others of the self, and the other as the ideas entertained of himby the self, the action of the others upon the self and of the self upon theot hers becomes simply the interaction of ideas upon each other within mind. This around abstract notion can be illustrated by a delightful examplewhich Cooley gave himself when he imagined an encounter between Alice,who has a new hat, and Angela, who just bought a new dress. He argues thatwe then have, I) The real Alice, known only to her maker. 2) Her idea of herself e.g. IAlice look well in this hat. 3) Her idea of Angelas idea of her e.g.Angela thinks I look well in this hat. 4) Her idea of what Angela thinksshe thinks of herself e.g. Angela thinks I am proud of my looks in thishat. 5) Angelas idea of what Alice thinks of herself e.g. Alice thinks sheis stunning in that hat. And of course six analogous phases of Angela andher dress. Society, Cooley adds, is an interweaving and interworking of mental selves.I imagine your mind, and especially what your mind thinks about my mind,and what your mind thinks about what my mind thinks about your mind. Idress my mind in the beginning your s and expect that you will dress yours before mine.Whoever cannot or will not perform these feats is not justly in the game.Multiple perspectives are brought into congruousness through continued multi-lateral exchanges of impressions and evaluations between our minds and thoseof others. Society is internalized in the individual psyche it becomes part ofthe individual self through the interaction of many individuals, which linksand fuses them into an organic whole. From Coser, 1977305-307.Looking good, feeling fit the relationship between body image and self-esteem This is a coursework site which you can investigate yourself but before you do, you need to be clear about some of the ideas around this topic. Some good links in left-hand margin, to help with the research for your coursework and hints for fieldwork here.Self image some exercises and suggestions for fieldwork, for yourcoursework Self esteemSelf originationHints for unit of measurement 2 Coursework canvas the exercises below and keep your notes for your coursework.Self imageIn order to gain an idea of your own self image, ask yourself the following questions What do you do well?What do you do badly?What is your strongest feeling?What is your strongest belief?What is your strongest desire?What is your oldest memory?What is your most shameful lie?What has been your greatest triumph?What has been your most surly disaster?Who do you love?Who do you hate?Who do you like?Who do you dislike? ar you too tall or too short?Are you too thin or too fat?Are you too ingenious or too stupid?Who would you like to be?You will find that the responses to these questions illuminate into certain categories or aspects emotional, physical and reason attributes (qualities or characteristics). These are the things that make up our self image. BACK TO THE TOP rarefied SelfLook at your answers to the questions again. Depending on how truthfully you have answered, you may have a visualise of your self which is real o r possibly, your exemplification self. Your ideal self is the perfect mutation of you, physically, intellectually and emotionally. We unremarkably have three versions of ourselves in our heads at any one time, a veridical view of ourselves, anideal version which we try to live up to and a looking glass self (Cooley) this is a version of ourselves that we have reflected back at us by other people, in the way they react to us. For example, we could have an ideal self where we are very kind people but the way people react to us suggests that that is not how other people see us. ACTIVITYChoose a recent digital photograph of yourself a full length one, preferably. Use your figure editor to distort the picture as I have done below. Which one do you prefer? The third image is the true image. My ideal self would be picture three with slightly slimmer thighs I have been all of these shapes but was a teenager when the very thin picture 2 this was my natural shape then. Where do we get our mental image of what our ideal body shape should be? get word to Sarah talking about the negative comments she gets about being naturally thin.Sources range from our parents, our peers and the media. present are some possible social function models for males and females. FemalesMalesBACK TO THE TOPSuggestions for fieldworkCollect some images of different people with different body shapes both male and female. Show them to an equal number of males and females, in three different age brackets. 1. Ask them to choose an melody for each person give them a selection of high status occupations, middle-ranking occuptions and low status occupations e.g pop star, film star, surgeon, politician, teacher, computer memory assistant, student, housewife etc. 2. Ask them to pertain a set of personality characteristics to each picture give them a range such as out-going, cheerful, mean, bad-tempered, boring etc. 3. Ask them to rank the pictures in order starting with the image they woul d most like to be like and ending with the one they would least like to be like themselves. Self EsteemSelf esteem is how we value ourselves or judge ourselves.Try this exercise to see how you rate yourself. produce yourself a score out of 10 for the following qualities PatienceHonesty almsgivingAttractivenessIntelligenceKindnessPopularity creativityWisdomMaturityAdd up your scores and work out the mediocre by dividing your total by 10. Compare your average score with other people in the group. Any surprises? Try this internet on-line self esteem provehttp//www.queendom.com/cgi-bin/tests/transfer.cgiBACK TO THE TOPCan we recognise people with high or low self-esteem?Make a table of possible outward signs or characteristics of levels of self esteem e.g not making eye-contact etc. Make a bureau play in a small group and have people take on characters with various levels of self esteem. Use the table of characteristics you have gathered to help you. let other people in the class watch your function play and profess which characters in your role play have high and low self esteem. Feedback from othersOur self esteem can be affected in various ways by other people. Some groups of people have more effect on us than others. Three groups who are especially important are Significant OthersReference convocationRole ModelsRead this article about role models/heroes and keep downen to the radio broadcast/podcast. Self PresentationOur self image and level of self esteem will affect the way we present ourselves to others. Erving Goffman, in his parole The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life discusses how we play roles to manage the impression other people have of us. He uses the analogy of the theatre, roles are like a serial of parts we play in life. Think of some of the parts you play Ill get you started Hints for Unit 2 CourseworkSome ideas you might search for your coursework areWould you be a sizing Zero? (Looking good, feeling fit)How does being thin af fect your self-identity and self-esteem? (look at the fieldwork examples above) How do we interpret the images we see in the press of fashionable young men and women? Do we identify with them? See them as role models? What do we do with the feedback of others (looking glass self)? (read this article in the Daily Mail) What are the self-maintenance strategies we use to maintain our sense of self-image? Do men and women react the same way to feedback and role models about body image? moderately in Punk Can you be a girl in a subculture?Traditional ideas of femininity self image and feedback about being a principle female? If you are not beautiful in the socially accepted commentary long hair, make-up, feminine clothing are you still attractive? Does it matter? How this is expressed in self-presentation through clothing, use of hairstyle, make-up, body shape etc. Good book by Laurain Leblanc Metrosexual Man Are you one?Is the term metrosexual just a fashion statement or is it mo re of a lifestyle choice or political theory? How do you define your male identity? Is about your personality characteristics? Your attributes? Through the way you present yourself in clothing, hair or possessions or body shape muscular, keen? Look at a series of men who appear to define their masculinity in less stereotypical ways than in the past. Read the article Men in Skirts Metrosexual man is overJust what is it about moobs?The number of men having boob reduction operations in the UK is move dramatically, but is this really the result of the media spotlighting the physical flaws of male celebrities? BACK TO THE TOPSociology/Psychology 530Lecture 1 DeLamaterExercise 1 Who am I?We have talked in class about how everyone is a social object for everyone else, and that each of us is also a social object to ourselves. In this exercise, we would like you first to take yourself as a social object and, looking at that object, to answer the question Who am I? ten times. That is, ask the question ten times and give ten discrete answers to it. Do it quickly, writing down words and phrases as they come into your mind without censoring them, until you have ten statements. beguile do this without considering the other parts of the exercise. after(prenominal) you have done that, take the role of the other, with that other being one of your parents (choose one), and repeat the childbed. In other words, taking yourself as a social object from your parents perspective, list how your parent would answer the question, Who is your name here? Again, study that your parent was asked to do this task quickly, list the words and phrases as they come to his or her mind, without censorship, he or she had completed a list of ten answers.Finally, take the role of your best friend and do the same.The extra MileAsk one of the significant others themselves to answer the question Who is your name here? Compare his or her list to the list you made when you tried the same task wh ile taking his or her role. in the first place You WriteBegin by examining your info (the lists you have generated). Consider some of the following-How are the three lists similar? What words and phrases do all three people (in your opinion, of course) use to describe you? How might you explain the similarities?-How are the three lists different? How do you see yourself in ways that are different from the way you think these significant others see you? Again, how do you explain this? To what close do you think the differences lie inhow you may act other than with them? To what conclusion is it their needs that lead them to see you differently from the way you see yourself, or from the ways different significant others see you? To what extent might the differences artifacts of your, and your significant others, places in large social structures and institutions?Consider the selective information in light of available theoretical constructs and explanations-How do theories of the self discussed in Chapter 4 of the text and in lecture help you to earn the image of yourself that you hold? To what extent do you believe that your self-image is the result of direct personal experience? To what extent is it a looking glass self, as symbolic interaction would explain it? With how much of it were you born?The Write-Up buy food some conclusions about the relationship of your data to the explanations offered in the course material. Select one central point around which to write your essay. The essay should make references to specific points or concepts from the course material, as well as specific references to relevant points of data.