CHAPTER 1

DEFINING THE SELF: PERSONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVES

ON SELF AND IDENTITY

Module 2: The Self, Society, and Culture

Introduction

Across time and history, the self has been debated, discussed, and fruitfully or
otherwise conceptualized by different thinkers in philosophy. Eventually, with the advent of
the social sciences, it became possible for new ways and paradigms to re-examine the true
nature of the self. People put a halt on speculative debates on the relationship between the
body and soul, eventually renamed body and the mind. Thinkers just eventually got tired of
focusing on the long-standing debate since sixth century BC between the relationships of
these two components of the human person. Thinkers just settled on the idea that there are
two components of the human person and whatever relationship these two have is less
important than the fact that there is a self. The debate shifted into another locus of discussion.
Given the new ways of knowing and the growth of the social sciences, it became possible for
new approaches to the examination of the self to come to the fore. One of the loci, if not the
most important axis of analysis is the relationship between the self and the external world.
What is the relationship between external reality and the self? In the famous Tarzan
story, the little boy named Tarzan was left in the middle of the forest. Growing up, he never
had an interaction with any other human being but apes and other animals. Tarzan grew up
acting strangely like apes and unlike human persons. Tarzan became an animal, in effect. His
sole interaction with them made him just like one of them.
 Disappointedly, human persons will not develop as human persons without
intervention. This story, which was supposed to be based on real life, challenges the long-
standing notion of human persons being special and being particular kind of being in the
spectrum of living entities. After all, our selves are not special because of the soul infused
into us. We may be gifted with intellect and the capacity to rationalize things but at the end
of the day, our growth and development and consequently, our selves are truly products of
our interaction with external reality.

How much of you are essential? How much of you are now a product of your society,
community, and family? Has your choice of school affected yourself now? Had you been
born into a different family and schooled in a different college, how much of who you are
now would change?

Objectives

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. explain the relationship between and among the self, society, and culture;
2. describe and discuss the different ways by which society and culture shape the self;
3. compare and contrast how the self can be influenced by the different institutions in the
society; and
4. examine one’s self against the different views of self that were discussed in class.
 Try this!

ACTIVITY

My Self Through the Years

Paste a picture of you when you were in

elementary, in high My High School Self school, and now that you are in
college. Below the picture, list down your salient
characteristics that you
My Elementary Self remember.

 Happy girl
 Go with the flow type
 Grade conscious
of girl  Good student
 Always Happy.  Good daughter
 Tends to forgive all Lovable
the time  Softhearted
 Loves to play  Crybaby
 Silly girl  Always curious
 Crybaby  Loves to play
 Grade conscious  Honest
 Diligent  Silly girl
 Respectful  Learns not to trust people
 Honest so easily
 Good student  Not Confident
 Softhearted  Trustworthy
 Trusting people so  Tends to forgive all the
easily time
 Playful  Slightly serious
 Good daughter  Lightly distant
 Lovable  Afraid to be left alone
 Slightly Lazy
 My College Self

 Goal setter
 Happy girl
 Slightly confident
 Honest
 Trustworthy
 Crybaby
 Softhearted
 Learns to take life
serious
 Good listener
 Silly girl
 Lightly distant to
others
 Afraid to make
mistakes
 Good daughter
 Not an open book
 Determined
 Think ahead!

ANALYSIS

After having examined your “self” in its different stages, fill out the table below.

Differences in my “self”
Similarities in all stages of across the three stages of Possible reasons for the
my “self” my life differences in me
time changes personality
traits that help shape the
 Go with the flow type of  Goal setter course of people lives.
girl  Slightly confident Personality can change over
 Always happy  Afraid to be left alone a lifetime and usually its for
 Crybaby  Learning to take life the better. Issues like anxiety,
 Grade conscious serious bipolar disorder and mostly
 Respectful  Serious girl the experience in life change
 Tends to forgive all the  Tends to forgive all the me a lot to be this kind of a
time time person I am now, I tend to be
 Lazy more responsible especially
 Loves to play
 Distant in my age which I always
 Silly girl
 Taking life serious think about the how’s of my
 Diligent  Good listener future. We can’t be a happy
 Honest  Determined go lucky type of a person all
 Good student the time, experience changed
 Good daughter me to be a person that I am
 Softhearted today, change is not bad as
long as it doesn’t harm any
people and also self-change
depends on what you go
through in life.
 Read and Ponder

ABSTRACTION/GENERALIZATION

What Is the Self?

The self, in contemporary literature and even common sense, is commonly defined by
the following characteristics: “separate, self-contained, independent, consistent, unitary, and
private” (Stevens 1996). By separate, it is meant that the self is distinct from other selves.
The self is always unique and has its own identity. One cannot be another person. Even twins
are distinct from each other. Second, self is also self-contained and independent because in
itself it can exist. Its distinctness allows it to be self-contained with its own thoughts,
characteristics, and volition. It does not require any other self for it to exist. It is consistent
because it has a personality that is enduring and therefore can be expected to persist for quite
some time. Its consistency allows it to be studied, described, and measured. Consistency also
means that a particular self’s traits, characteristics, tendencies, and potentialities are more or
less the same. Self is unitary in that it is the center of all experiences and thoughts that run
through a certain person. It is like the chief command post in an individual where all
processes, emotions, and thoughts converge. Finally, the self is private. Each person sorts out
information, feelings and emotions, and thought processes within the self. This whole
process is never accessible to anyone but the self.

This last characteristic of the self being private suggests that the self is isolated from
the external world. It lives within its own world. However, we also see that this potential
clash between the self and the external reality is the reason for the self to have a clear
understanding of what it might be, what it can be, and what it will be. From this perspective
then, one can see that the self is always at the mercy of external circumstances that bump and
collide with it. It is ever-changing and dynamic, allowing external influences to take part in
its shaping. The concern then of this lesson is in understanding the vibrant relationship
between the self and external reality. This perspective is known as the social constructionist
perspective. "Social constructionists argue for a merged view of ‘the person’ and ‘their social
context’ where the boundaries of one cannot easily be separated from the boundaries of the
other” (Stevens 1996).

Social constructivists argue that the self should not be seen as a static entity that stays
constant through and through. Rather, the self has to be seen as something that is unceasing
flux, in a constant struggle with external reality and is malleable in its dealings with society.
The self is always in participation with social life and its identity subjected to influences here
and there. Having these perspectives considered should draw one into concluding that the self
is truly multifaceted.

Consider a boy named Jon. Jon is a math professor at a Catholic university for more
than a decade now. Jon has a beautiful wife whom he met in college, Joan. Joan was Jon’s
first and last girlfriend. Apart from being a husband, Jon is also blessed with two doting kids,
a son and a daughter. He also sometimes serves in the church too as a lector and a
commentator. As a man of different roles, one can expect Jon to change and adjust his
behavior, ways, and even language depending on his social situation. When Jon is in the
university, he conducts himself in a matter that befits his title as a professor. As a husband,
Jon can be intimate and touchy. Joan considers him sweet, something that his students will
never conceive him to be. His kids fear him. As a father, Jon can be stern. As a lector and
commentator, on the other hand, his church mates knew him as a guy who is calm, all-smiles,
and always ready to lend a helping hand to anyone in need. This short story is not new to
most of us. We ourselves play different roles act in different ways depending on our
circumstances. Are we being hypocritical in doing so? Are we even conscious of our shifting
selves? According to what we have so far, this is not only normal but it also is acceptable and
expected. The self is capable of morphing and fitting itself into any circumstances it finds
itself in.
The Self and Culture

Remaining the same person and turning chameleon by adapting to one’s context seems
paradoxical. However, the French Anthropologist Marcel Mauss has an explanation for this
phenomenon. According to Mauss, every self has two faces: personne and moi. Moi refers to
a person’s sense of who he is, his body, and his basic identity, his biological givenness. Moi
is a person’s basic identity. Personne, on the other hand, is composed of the social concepts
of what it means to be who he is. Personne has much to do with what it means to live in a
particular institution, a particular family, a particular religion, a particular nationality, and to
behave given expectations and influences from others.

In the story above, Jon might have a moi but certainly, he has to shift personne from
time to time to adapt to his social institution. He knows who he is and more or less, he is
confident that he has a unified, coherent self. However, at some point, he has to sport his
stern professional look. Another day, he has to be the doting but strict father that he is. Inside
his bedroom, he can play goofy with his wife, Joan. In all this and more, Jon retains who he
is, his being Jon ---his moi---that part of him that is stable and static all throughout.

This dynamics and capacity for different personne can be illustrated better cross-
culturally. An Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) adjusting to life in another country is a very
good case study. In the Philippines, many people unabashedly violate jaywalking rules. A
common Filipino treats road, even national ones, as basically his and so he just merely
crosses whenever and wherever. When the same Filipino visits another country with strict
traffic rules, say Singapore, you will notice how suddenly law-abiding the said Filipino
becomes. A lot of Filipinos has anecdotally confirmed this observation.

The same malleability can be seen in how some men easily transform into sweet,
docile guys when trying to woe and court a particular woman and suddenly just change
rapidly after hearing a sweet “yes.” This cannot be considered a conscious change on the part
of the guy or on the part of the law-abiding Filipino in the first example. The self simply
morphed according to the circumferences and contexts. In the Philippines, Filipinos tend to
consider their territory as a part of who they are. This includes considering their immediate
surrounding as a part of them, thus the perennial “tapat ko, linis ko.” Filipinos most probably
do not consider national roads as something external to who they are. It is a part of them and
they are a part of it, thus crossing the road whenever and wherever becomes a no-brainer. In
another country, however, the Filipino recognizes that he is in a foreign territory where
nothing technically belongs to him. He has to follow the rules or else he will be apprehended.

Language is another interesting aspect of this social constructivism. The Filipino

language is incredibly interesting to talk about. The way by which we articulate our love is
denoted by the phrase, “Mahal kita.” This, of course, is the Filipino translation of “I love
you.” The Filipino brand of this articulation of love, unlike in English, does not specify the
subject and the object of love; there is no specification of who loves and who is loved. There
is simply a word for love, mahal, and the pronoun kita, which is a second person pronoun
that refers to the speaker and the one being talked to. In the Filipino language, unlike in
English, there is no distinction between the lover and the beloved. They are one.

Interesting too is the word, mahal. In Filipino, the word can mean both “love” and
“expensive.” In our language, love is intimately bound with value, with being expensive,
being precious. Something expensive is valuable. Someone whom we love is valuable to us.
The Sanskrit origin of the word love is “lubh,” which means desire. Technically, love is a
desire. The Filipino word for it has another intonation apart from mere desire, valuable.

Another interesting facet of our language is its being gender-neutral. In English,

Spanish, and other languages, the distinction is clear between a third person male and third
person female pronoun. He and she; el and ella. In Filipino, it is plain, “siya.” There is no
specification of gender. Our language does not specify between male and female. We both
call it “siya.”

In these varied examples, we have seen how language has something to do with
culture. It is a salient part of culture and ultimately, has a tremendous effect in our crafting
of the self. This might also be one of the reasons why cultural divide spells out differences
in how one regards oneself. In one research, it was found that North Americans are more
likely to attribute being unique to themselves and claim that they are better than most people
in doing what they love doing. Japanese people, on the other hand, have been seen to
display a degree of modesty. If one finds himself born and reared in a particular culture, one
definitely tries to fit in a particular mold. If a self is born into a particular society or culture,
the self will have to adjust according to its exposure.

The Self and the Development of the Social World

So how do people actively produce their social worlds? How do children growing
up become social beings? How can a boy turn out to just be like an ape? How do twins
coming out from the same mother turn out to be terribly different when given up for
adoption? More than his givenness (personality, tendencies, and propensities, among
others), one is believed to be in active participation in the shaping of the self. Most often, we
think the human persons are just passive actors in the whole process of the shaping of
selves. That men and women are born with particularities that they can no longer change.
Recent studies, however, indicate that men and women in their growth and development
engage actively in the shaping of the self. The unending terrain of metamorphosis of the self
is mediated by language. “Language as both publicly shared and privately utilized symbol
system is the site where the individual and the social make and remake each other,”
(Schwartz, White, and Lutz 1993).

Mead and Vygotsky

For Mead and Vygotsky, the way that human persons

develop is with the use of language acquisition and
interaction with others. The way that we process
information is normally a form of an internal dialogue in
our head. Those who deliberate about moral dilemmas
undergo this internal dialog. “Should I do this or that?”
“But if I do this, it will be like this.” “Don’t I want the other
option?” And so cognitive and emotional development of a
child is always a mimicry of how it is done in the social
world, in the external reality where he is in.
 Both Vygotsky and Mead treat the human mind as something that is made, costituted
through language as experienced in the external world and as encountered in dialogs with
others. A young child internalizes values, norms, practices, and social beliefs and more
through exposure to these dialogs that will eventually become part of his individual world.
For Mead, this takes place as a child assumes the “other” through language and role-play. A
child conceptualizes his notion of “self” through this. Can you notice how little children are
fond of playing role-play with their toys? How they make scripts and dialogs for their toys as
they play with them? According to Mead, it is through this that a child delineats the “I” from
the rest. Vygotsky, for his part, a child internalizes real-life dialogs that he has lad with
others, with his family, his primary caregiver, or his plaaymates. They apply this to their
mental and practical problems along with the social and cultural infusionss brought about by
the said dialogs. Can you notice how children eventually become what they watch? How
children can easily adapt ways of cartoon characters they are exposed to?

Self in Families
 Apart from the anthropological and psychological basis for the relationship between
the self and the social world, the sociological likewise struggled to understand the real
connection between the two concepts. In doing so, sociologists focus on the different
institutions and powers at play in the society. Among these, the most prominent is the family.

While every child is born with certain givenness, disposition coming from his parents’
genes and general condition of life, the impact of one’s family is still deemed as a given in
understanding the self. The kind of family that we are born in, the resources available to us
(human, spiritual, economic), and the kind of development that we will have will certainly
affect us as we go through life. As a matter of evolutionary fact, human persons ar one of
those beings whose importance of family cannot be denied. Human beings are born virtually
helpless and the dependency period of a human baby to its parents for nurturing is relatively
longer than most other animals. Learning therefore is critical in our capacity to actualize our
potential of becoming humans. In trying to achieve the goal of becoming a fully realized
human, a child enters a system of relationships, most important of which is the family.
 Human persons learn the ways of living and therefore their selfhood by being in a
family. It is what a family initiates a person to become that serves as the basis for this
person’s progress. Babies internalize ways and styles that they observe from their family. By
imitating, for example, the language of its primary agents of rearing its family, babies learn
the language. The same is true for ways of behaving. Notice how kids reared a respectful
environment becomes respectful as well and the converse if raised in a converse family.
Internalizing behavior may be conscious or unconscious. Table manners or ways of speaking
to elders are things that are possible to teach and therefore, are consciously learned by kids.
Some behaviors and attitudes, on the other hand, may be indirectly taught through rewards
and punishments. Others, such as sexual behavior or how to confront emotions, are learned
through subtle means, like the tone of the voice or intonation of the models. It can then clear
at this point that those who develop and eventually grow to become adult who still did not
learn simple matters like basic manners of conduct failed in internalizing due to parental or
familial failure to initiate them into the world.

Without a family, biologically and sociologically, a person may not even survive or
become a human person. Go back to the Tarzan example. In more ways than one, the
survival of Tarzan in the midst of the forest is already a miracle. His being a fully human
person with a sense of selfhood is a different story though. The usual teleserye plot of kids
getting swapped in the hospital and getting reared by different family gives an obvious
manifestation of the point being made in this section. One is who he is because of his family
for the most part.

Gender and the Self

Another important aspect of the self is gender. Gender is one of those loci of the self
that is subject to alteration, change, and development. We have seen in the past years how
people fought hard for the right to express, validate, and assert their gender expression. Many
conservatives may frown upon this and insist on the biological. However, from the point-of-
view of the social sciences and the self, it is important to give one the leeway to find,
express, and live his identity. This forms part of selfhood that one cannot just dismiss. One
maneuvers into the society and identifies himself as who he is by also taking note of gender
identities. A wonderful anecdote about Leo Tolstoy’s wife that can solidify this point is
narrated below:
Sonia Tolstoy, the wife of the famous Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, wrote
when she was twenty-one, “ I am nothing but a miserable crushed worm, whom no
one wants, whom no one loves, a useless creature with morning sickness, and a big
belly, two rotten teeth, and a bad temper, a battered sense of dignity, and a love which
nobody wants and which nearly drives me insane.” A few years later she wrote, “It
makes me laugh to read over this diary. It’s so full of contradictions, and one would
think that I was such an unhappy woman. Yet is there a happier woman than I?”
(Tolstoy 1975)

This account illustrates that our gender partly determines how we see ourselves in the
world. Oftentimes, society forces a particular identity unto us depending on our sex and/or
gender. In the Philippines, husbands for the most part are expected to provide for the family.
The eldest man in a family is expected to head the family and hold it in. Slight modifications
have been on the way due to feminism and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
activism but for the most part, patriarchy has reminded to be at work.

Nancy Chodorow, a feminist, argues that because mothers take the role of taking care
of children, there is a tendency for girls to imitate the same and reproduce the same kind of
mentality of women as care providers in the family. The way that little girls are given dolls
instead of guns or any other toys or are encouraged to play with makeshift kitchen also
reinforces the notion of what roles they should take and the selves they should develop. In
boarding schools for girls, young women are encouraged to act like fine ladies, are trained to
behave in a fashion that befits their status as women in society.

Men on the other hand, in the periphery of their own family, are taught early on how
to behave like a man. This normally includes holding in one’s emotion, being tough,
fatalistic, not to worry about danger, and admiration for hard physical labor. Masculinity is
learned by integrating a young boy in a society. In the Philippines, young boys had to
undergo circumcision not just for the original, clinical purpose of hygiene but also to assert
their manliness in the society. Circumcision plays another social role by initiating young
boys into manhood.

The gendered self is then shaped within a particular context of time and space. The
sense of self that is being taught makes sure that an individual fits in a particular
environment. This is dangerous and detrimental in the goal of truly finding one’s self, self-
determination, and growth of the self. Gender has to be personally discovered and asserted
and not dictated by culture and the society.
 See if you can do this!

APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

Answer the following questions cogently but honestly. Write your answers in the space
provided.

1.) How would you describe yourself?

I am Cherry May A. Resurreccion, the only daughter of my mom and dad

and I am the youngest, I am a good daughter and a responsible one. I am not the most
capable or smart person, but I make up to it with perseverance, I never hold grudges
and find it difficult to hate people. I love to exercise my brain wherein it fascinates
me what human brain is capable of, and although I am limited to my own capabilities,
I do not hesitate to learn as much as I can. I love challenges, most people who say this
are not truly genuine,or say it because it’s something they can say ( for a personal
statement for example ). I say that “I love challenges” because I find my progression
fascinating, and I am not satisfied until I succeed and surpass the challenges
requirements. Continuing from the previous point,I don’t ask for more because I
appreciate the things that I have, I’m to be the best version of myself. I care about
everything, I am honest and deliberate, I’m the fun friend with too much free time, I
love reading books and I enjoy school.

2.) What are the influences of family in your development as an individual?

Like Buddha said,” thousands of candles can be like from one single candle.”
I believe that everyone has someone like one candle who has influenced her/his life
in many areas. I also believe that family does play a major role in the way we behave
in society. As for me, as i grow up, I learn many thing from my family that are
beneficial to my society. Growing up in my family has influenced three significant
 ways; not only my personality but also my educational achievement and my respect
for my culture and other culture.

The first significant way that influenced my life by growing up with my

family is my personality. My kindness to the other people, good manners, confident,
independent, and determined in my goals are some of the principles my parent have
implanted on me as I grew up. For instance, my mother is very kind and careful when
she talk to the other people. She always told me not to speak hard words to the other
people and my father tends to work hard to suffice the needs of the family which I
admire the most and even though my parents are not rich, they care about my
Education.

3.) Think of a time when you felt you were your “true self.” What made you think you
were truly who you are during this time of your life?

I read somewhere that we have three faces; The first face is the one that we
show to the outside world the way we present ourselves to people to create a profile
that we would like to be. The second face is the one that we show to those closest to
us, our friends and family this face is a truer version of yourself than the first face.
However it is the third face the one that we keep to ourselves that is the realest
version of yourself a ‘secret self’.The time when I felt that I am really on my true
self is when I’m seeing my family happy, achieving things that makes them happy
and it’s all about my family, considering that there is nothing more I want in life
rather than seeing my parents happy and a quiet bonding with them that makes me
feel more relaxed and less problematic. Thus I believe that we are never truly living
our true self at least not in away that we can express to others.Life doesn’t run
equally all the time. There are so many ups and downs comes, life become more
complicated. Sometimes we feel we are not living our true self. In this case we
should learn to manage these things which will run with our whole life.I think so
everyone at many points of our life we end up feeling we weren't true to our self.
Career, love, friends, we temporarily want this happiness and we don't want it to slip
away from our hands, where we end up living a false life. Just be the way who are
 you truly are, may be many things or people will leave and very few will stay but
those will be the best you can get.

4.) Following the question above, can you provide a time when you felt you were not
living your “true self”? Why did you have to live a life like that? What did you do
about it?

I remembered that I did not have to think or worry about how others might
perceive my actions or words. I was spontaneous and it was as if the mind and body
were working in cohesion.The times when I was not my ‘true self', there would be
hesitation. The words and actions do not come out instantly. I would pause and think
before saying or doing something. Usually, the first thought that enters the mind is
not what I would do or say. I would change or alter these actions to make it more
acceptable to others.When I am at my ‘true self', I did not have this. I said and did
whatever came to mind. There was no pause or hesitation. The mind and body acted
together. There was no filter and it felt free. There was no ‘me' holding myself back.

Being insecure about your true self in some way. Be who you are because
what people think about should never define who you are and they really don't
matter in the end

5.) What social pressures help shape your self? Would you have wanted it otherwise?

The social pressure of conformity most shaped my personality. I wanted to be

an individual and unique. So I decided to dance to the beat of my own drum. I
pushed myself not to be defined by the labels of others. A lot of social pressure is
placed on success, so that also had an affect on me pushing myself to be the best I
could be.

I always trust my closer ones more than myself also. And the effect of this I
get is a broken trust. And this habit of trusting also I changed.
The most important thing is that you should know what things hidden inside you that
needs a change. Better you know it first, the better you can improve yourself.
 I put myself down a lot, dependent on recognition, anxious, and I’m kinda lazy.

I always get a negative comment and start thinking that I’m not at all smart, or
as smart as I could be compared to others, I think about these things a lot and then
some. I know it’s a wrong way to think, but for a long time I thought that people that
are recognized for their accomplishments are the only people capable of loving and
being proud of who they are, as I was recognized a lot in my early childhood for
being smart.

I never thought that loving yourself wasn’t just about being recognized for
your accomplishments, but loving who you are as a person, faults and all.

I know I’ll never be perfect, but I’m trying hard not to see just my faults and
compare myself to others as much as I used to. In truth, my family is very supportive
and proud of me. I’m much better, but I know there’s gonna be good days and bad
ones where I don’t have any control.

And that’s okay, I’m only human, but I will work hard on some of my flaws,
since there’s always room for improvement.

6.) What aspects of your self do you think may be changed or you would like to change?

I’ve lived the same lifestyle for my past life, I’m happy that as the years go by I will
learn so much more about myself and gain more life experiences. I still have so
much growing to do as a person and here are the things that I want to change about
myself.
Open myself up more
My entire life I’ve been very introverted. I’ve had the same friends my entire
life, and it takes a lot for me to open up with new people. I’m hoping that I can just
get out of my comfort zone and just become a little bit more open and outgoing.

Cut out any toxic people in my life

It’s time to get the negative energy out of my life. There are some people in
my life who just bring such negativity, and I need to let them go. It’s time to spend
more time around people who make me feel good and happy.

Eat more healthy

Since I was a child I have known to be a skinny type of a person until now,
that’s why I will try to change my lifestyle to eat more healthy foods to become a
healthy person.

Appreciate my family more

My parents have done so much for me. I’ve always appreciated them, but I’ve
never expressed how grateful I am for them. I would love to just show them how
much I appreciate them

Stop procrastinating so much

I can’t stop procrastinating. I swear every year I get worse and worse with my
procrastinating. I’m hoping that this year I can work on stop being so lazy and
actually get my life together.
REFERENCES

Beilharz, Peter, and Trevor Hogan. 2002. Social Self, Global Culture: An Introduction to
Sociological Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chaffee, John. 2015. The Philosopher’s Way: Thinking Critically about Profound Ideas. 5th
Ed. Boston: Pearson.

David, Randolph. 2002. Nation, Self, and Citizenship: An Invitation to Philippine Sociology.
Department of Sociology, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the
Philippines.

Ganeri, Jonardon. 2012. The Self: Naturalism, Consciousness, and the First-Person Stance.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Marsella, Anthony J., George A. De Vos, and Francis L. K. Hsu. 1985. Culture and Self:
Asian and Western Perspectives. London: Tavistock Publications.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Plato. 2012. Six Great Dialogues: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, The
Republic. Massachusetts: Courier Corporation.

Rappe, Sara L. 1995. “Socrates and Self-knowledge.” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient
Philosophy and Science 28 (1): 1-24.

Schlenker, Barry R. 1985. The Self and Social Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schwartz, Theodore, Geoffrey M. White, and Catherine A. Lutz, Eds. 1993. New Directions
in Psychological Anthropology. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Stevens, Richard. 1996. Understanding the Self. California: SAGE Publications.