When we are born, we have a genetic makeup and biological traits. However, who we are as human beings develops through social interaction. Many scholars, both in the fields of psychology and in sociology, have described the process of self-development as a precursor to understanding how that “self” becomes socialized. In this section we will begin by exploring some psychological perspectives on the self and follow that with how sociologists have understood the self.

4.3.1 Psychological Perspectives on Self-Development

Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) was one of the most influential modern scientists to put forth a theory about how people develop a sense of self. He divided the maturation process into stages, and posited that people’s self-development is closely linked to their early stages of development. According to Freud, failure to properly engage in or disengage from a specific stage results in emotional and psychological consequences throughout adulthood.

Psychologist Erik Erikson (1902–1994) created a theory of personality development based, in part, on the work of Freud. However, Erikson believed the personality continued to change over time and was never truly finished. His theory includes eight stages of development, beginning with birth and ending with death. According to Erikson, people move through these stages throughout their lives. In contrast to Freud’s focus on psychosexual stages and basic human urges, Erikson’s view of self-development gave credit to more social aspects, like the way we negotiate between our own base desires and what is socially accepted (Erikson 1982).

Jean Piaget (1896–1980) was a psychologist who focused on the role of social interactions in child development. He recognized that the development of self evolved through a negotiation between the world as it exists in one’s mind and the world that exists as it is experienced socially (Piaget 1954). All three of these thinkers have contributed to our modern understanding of self-development.

4.3.2 Cooley and the Looking-Glass Self

Charles Cooley (1864–1929) argued our development of a self is similar to looking through a looking glass. With the looking-glass self, we base our image on what we think other people see (Cooley 1902). We imagine how we must appear to others, then react to this speculation. We wear certain clothes, prepare our hair in a particular manner, wear makeup, use cologne, and the like—all with the notion that our presentation of ourselves is going to affect how others perceive us. We expect a certain reaction, and, if lucky, we get the one we desire and feel good about it. Yet we have no way of knowing what other people are thinking and if they are responding to our presentations. But more than that, Cooley believed that our sense of self is based upon this idea: we imagine how we look to others, draw conclusions based upon what we think other people are thinking about, and then we develop our personal sense of self. In other words, people’s reactions to us are like partial mirrors in which we are reflected.

4.3.3 Mead and Stages of Self-Development

Later, George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) studied the self, a person’s distinct identity that is developed through social interaction. Mead argued that our selves have two components, an “I” and a “Me.” The “I” is our creative, novel response to a situation. Our “Me” is the part of our self that accounts for the larger social world. Our self is an internal dialogue between these two components. In most situations our “Me” prevails because of how we are socialized.

In order to engage in this process of self, an individual has to be able to view themself through the eyes of others. That’s not an ability that we are born with (Mead 1934). Through socialization we learn to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes and look at the world through their perspective. This assists us in becoming self-aware, as we look at ourselves from the perspective of the “other.”

How do we go from being newborns to being humans with “selves”? Mead believed that there is a specific path of development that all people go through. During the preparatory stage, children are only capable of imitation: they have no ability to imagine how others see things. They copy the actions of people with whom they regularly interact, such as their caregivers. This is followed by the play stage, during which children begin to take on the role that one other person might have. Children might try on a parent’s point of view by acting out grownup behavior, like playing dress-up and acting out the “mom” role or talking on a toy telephone the way they see adults do. This is taking the role of a particular other.

During the game stage, children learn to consider several roles at the same time and how those roles interact with each other. They learn to understand interactions involving different people with a variety of purposes. For example, a child at this stage is likely to be aware of the different responsibilities of people in a restaurant who together make for a smooth dining experience (someone seats you, another takes your order, someone else cooks the food, while yet another clears away dirty dishes).

Finally, children develop, understand, and learn the idea of the generalized other, the common behavioral expectations of general society. By this stage of development, an individual is able to imagine how he or she is viewed by one or many others—and thus, from a sociological perspective, to have a “self” (Mead 1934; Mead 1964).

4.3.4 Goffman and the Presentation of Self

Sociologist Erving Goffman presented the idea that a person is like an actor on a stage and that we can use the metaphor of theater to understand social life. Calling his theory dramaturgy, Goffman believed that we use “impression management” to present ourselves to others as we hope to be perceived. Each situation is a new scene, and individuals perform different selves depending on who is present (Goffman 1959). Think about the way you behave around your coworkers versus the way you behave around your grandparents versus the way you behave with a blind date. Even if you’re not consciously trying to alter your personality, your grandparents, coworkers, and date probably see different sides of you.

From this perspective, social life can be divided into different regions. In front-stage regions, we carry out our performances. In backstage regions, we prepare for our performances. Think about the building you have your sociology class in. The classroom is a front stage region where you and your professors carry out your classes. Within the building there are several backstage regions. The offices of your professors allow them to prepare for class. Bathrooms are also another backstage region within the building. Although there are aspects of behavior in public bathrooms that may be more front stage (Cahill et al. 1985). Stepping outside of your college campus, you can see this division of interactional space within the home (Collett and Child 2009), restaurants (Grazian 2007), or even tourist attractions (MacCannell 1976).

Similar to a play, people will also use props to help carry out their performances. For example, a judge in a courtroom has many “props” to create an impression of fairness, gravity, and control—like their robe and gavel. Those entering the courtroom are expected to adhere to the scene being set. Just imagine the impression that can be made by how a person dresses. This is the reason that attorneys frequently select the hairstyle and apparel for witnesses and defendants in courtroom proceedings.

4.3.5 Identity Theory

Let’s go back to the beginning of the chapter and the list of responses you came up with when asked, “Who are you?” As you probably noticed, you have a lot of different selves or identities and that these selves are connected to interactions with other people.

Some of the responses you provided are probably roles. Roles are positions containing a set of socially defined attributes and expectations that determine appropriate behavior for an individual or group based on their status in relation to other people or groups. As an example, you can think of the different roles you may have in your family. You may be a brother, sister, child, grandchild, mother, father, aunt, uncle, or serve in some other role. Or if you listed something related to where you work, it is most likely another role.

Given that you have multiple identities and selves, is there any consistency in our actions across different situations? Sociologists argue yes, and it is associated with identity salience. Identity salience is “the subjective importance or value that persons attach to the various roles that they accept as self-defining” (Thoits 2012:362). This means that some identities are closer to how we define ourselves and are more likely to come up in our interactions with other people. Going back to your list are there any identities/selves that you see as more central to who you are? When you have choices between different activities associated with particular identities, which do you choose?