The Nature of the “Self”
According to Cooley, Goffman, and Mead
Michael Dearborn
SOC 483
How can one understand their self? What are the necessary tools to even be able
to see one’s own self? The idea of viewing one’s self in light of society has dramatically
changed with the evolution of social theories in the past one hundred years. The nature
of the self is one of the most important points of the symbolic interactionism paradigm.
Three of the leading sociologists in theorizing the nature of the self and its relationship to
society are George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, and Erving Goffman. The
theories of these men have several similarities and differences. First I will summarize the
theory regarding the self of each of these three sociologists. Then I will compare and
contrast some of the key points of each theory.
Mead’s Theory
George Herbert Mead's work has had a profound influence on symbolic
interactionism as a sociological paradigm. The theories he developed on the concept of
the "self" are based on social psychology and are among his most notable. The core idea
of Mead's definition of the self is the ability to see one's self as an object as well as a
subject (Mead, 1934). The self is more than just a pronoun used to refer to one's self. It
is also being able to view one's self as the rest of society sees it. Looking at the self as an
object is developed through society (Mead, 1934). At birth, we have no concept of our
self because we have not formed any social activity or relationships. We are only able to
see ourselves as the center of the universe without fitting into any social situations.
However, as we develop psychologically and socially, we learn to view ourselves as
others see us. Although the self is seen as an object, it is a process that is constantly
being shaped by society (Mead, 1934).
It is impossible to discuss Mead's concept of the self without also mentioning the
mind. One of Mead's important points about the self is that it is related to and
interdependent with the mind. The mind makes possible the ability to understand and
perceive symbols in social settings (Ritzer, 2004). Therefore, the mental process is
essential in the development of the self (Ritzer, 2004). However, the self also has an
influence on how the mind is developed because Mead believes that the social process
happens before the mind recognizes the symbols (Ritzer, 2004).
According to Mead, the self is composed of two different parts. The first part is
the "I," which is the initial reaction in social situations. It is the part that is the reflex to
society and is creative (Mead, 1934). In a way, it is related to Sigmund Freud's concept
of the "id" in that it is more instinctual and emotional. The "me" is the part of the self
that thinks in context of the society. As Mead defines, it is the "organized set of attitudes
of others which one himself assumes" (Mead: 175, 1934). The "me" will look at social
expectations and form actions that are expected of society. The "me" is dependent on
how the self perceives that others see them. Again there is a similarity between Mead's
"me" and Freud's "ego." The “I” and the “me” develop in the light of the “generalized
other”. The “generalized other” has the “attitude of the whole community” (Mead: 154,
1934). It is in the relationship to the general community that the self finds unity (Mead,
1934). A person understands the generalized other when they can role-play as this
general person within society.
Cooley’s Theory
Cooley's notion of the self is dependent on society as a whole. The looking-glass
self is the most important of Cooley's contributions to symbolic interaction. It can be
defined as "a self-image based on how we think others see us" (Macionis: 67, 2002).
Basically, it is forming an identity of yourself around how you perceive that others see
you. The idea one has of their self is a collection of social responses of others to their
behavior. There are three main steps that Cooley sees to the formation of the lookingglass self. In the first step, one will picture how he believes others see him (Cooley,
1902). In the next step, one will attach a type of judgment or opinion to that image
(Cooley, 1902). In the last step, one will undergo a certain emotion or feeling about their
self based on the perceptions we see others having of us (Cooley, 1902). Collins put it
best as "I feel about me the way I think you think of me" (Collins: 146, 1972).
The other theory that Cooley had that relates directly to the formation of the self
is the idea of primary and secondary groups. Primary groups are the closest, most
intimate social relationships that we have (Jandy, 1942). In these groups, we learn many
of ideologies and beliefs, and we gain a strong sense of fellowship with other group
members through face-to-face interaction (Jandy, 1942). Primary groups are most likely
to be family, close peer groups, etc. According to Cooley, primary groups have the
largest impact on the development of the looking-glass self (Jandy, 1942). Since these
are the most profound and influential people in our lives, we are likely to think highly of
their opinions of us. On the other hand, secondary groups are of looser cohesion and
more impersonal (Jandy, 1942). We tend to not hold these opinions as valuable in
creating the image of ourselves.
Goffman’s Theory
Erving Goffman's approach to the self was done through his work of dramaturgy.
In dramaturgy, Goffman sees everyone as an actor and all actions are a performance for
an audience (Goffman, 1959). The performance is necessary because of a tension that
lies between doing what we want by instinct and reflex, and adhering to social standards
and expectations (Ritzer, 2004). Therefore, we must try to maintain a stable self-image
for those around us. This self-image is presented through our performance. Goffman
saw that the self is a product of the interaction between the actor and the audience
(Goffman, 1959). As actors, we want others to see an idealized version of ourselves and
thus we try to hide secrets that may damage the image we are trying to portray (Goffman,
1959). Also, our performances can be interrupted and disturbed by other actors and by
circumstances (Goffman, 1959). Goffman says impression management consists of “the
attributes that are required of a performer for the work of successfully staging a character
(Goffman: 208, 1959). Our impression management is the ability to maintain control of
our self-image to others despite any disruptions.
The other important part of Goffman's work on the self is its relation to his frame
analysis. Frame analysis is different from the social psychological approach that has
been discussed thus far whereas social structures become the focal point. This does not
mean that Goffman uses a structural-functional point of view, but he does see that there
are scripted actions and rituals in certain social settings (Drew, 1988). Some social
structures have a large influence on how actors make their performance in order to fit in
with the expectations. A frame is the situation where a certain set of actions is deemed
the appropriate response (Collins, 1994). An example of a frame is where everyone has a
pre-determined role is a classroom setting where it is appropriate for the students to sit in
the desks and keep quite while the professor speaks at the front of the room.
Compare and Contrast of Theories
Now that we have a general grasp on each of the theories of Mead, Cooley, and
Goffman, we can analyze some of the similarities and differences of their theories. To
start off, the main basis that all three hold in common is they all use a social psychological approach to forming symbolic interactionism theories. All three sociologists view
the emersion of the self as dependent on society. By some manner or another, the way
we see ourselves in society is the image we create in our mind of our self. Also, they all
saw the self as an on-going process, not just as an object.
The first difference in theories that we can observe is a difference in methodology
of research between Cooley and Mead. Cooley is heavily criticized for being too
imaginative in his work (Collins, 1972). Cooley had a phenomenological style of study
where he saw the only reality in how people imagined their surroundings (Collins, 1994).
Therefore, in order to understand people, the sociologist must image their self in the place
of that person (Collins, 1994). On the other hand, Mead saw the study of the self in a
more empirical manner (Collins, 1994). In fact, Mead had a hand in developing
pragmatic philosophy (Ritzer, 2004). Mead believed that scientific study was superior to
the phenomenology that Cooley used. Their ideas on how research should be conducted
had an influence on the development of the theories on the self.
Another stark difference between Cooley and Mead is Cooley’s lack of
addressing the equivalent of Mead’s “I” and “generalized other.” Cooley focuses his
work on the looking-glass self, without much attention given to qualities of the self that
are not founded in other people. Also, Cooley did not take into account the concept of
role-playing on a societal level, such as Mead did in his “generalized other.” Cooley saw
that face-to-face interaction in primary groups was the main way in which the self is
formed (Jandy, 1942). However, Mead saw a difference between the role-playing of
individuals that helps to create the concept of the “me,” and the role-playing as applied to
society as a whole. Also, he realized the difference between the self we understand as a
result from inactions with others, and the self that we are by instinct and reflex.
Therefore, Mead made a distinct separation between the “I” and the “me” and the
“generalized other.” Collins gives a clever analogy to Mead’s concept of the self. He
compares the self to a checkerboard game where the pieces are the image(s) of the “me,”
the “I” is the player using his internalized perceptions to move the “me,” and the
“generalized other” is the light in which all actions are seen (Collins 1994).
Despite the differences in the way that Cooley and Mead break down the self, the
components of Mead’s “me” and Cooley’s looking-glass self are remarkably similar. As
we defined earlier, the “me” is the part of the self where define ourselves based on “the
organized set of attitudes of others which one himself assumes” (Mead: 175, 1934) and
the looking-glass self is derived from forming your own self-image based on how you
perceive others see you (Cooley, 1902). Both theories are similar in that we assume the
role of someone else to form an opinion about ourselves. The only real difference
between these two theories is not in the concept of the self, but in the development of the
self. Cooley saw three specific stages that one goes through in their development of the
self. The last stage is where we internalize the judgments that we think others are having
about us. Mead does not have a specific stage where the person has this internalization.
Instead, Mead saw the development of role taking to create a sense of the self (Mead,
1934). The lowest level of psychological development was when a child has the ability
to pretend they are someone else in playing a game (Mead 1934). The next level of
development is where the child is able to play at many different roles all at the same time
(Mead, 1934). Finally, the most mature stage comes when role taking transcends
individuals and applies to role taking of societal norms (Mead, 1934). Regardless of the
exact process of the development of the self, both Cooley and Mead have very similar
ideas between the “me” and the looking-glass self.
Goffman and Mead also had an important similarity in their opinions as to how
the whole of society influenced the self. Goffman developed the concept of frame
analysis in this later work. The “framework” done by Goffman showed that society itself
has a large influence over the performances of actors in certain social settings (Drew,
1988). The societal expectations of the situation expand larger than just the judgments
and perceptions of the individuals in the setting (Drew, 1988). This setting is a specific
frame of that society since everyone knows the proper outcome (Drew, 1988). This is
similar to Mead’s idea of the “generalized other.” In the concept of the “generalized
other,” a person will take on the role of society, thus also seeing the larger expectations of
society, and not just individuals.
There are both some similarities and differences between Goffman’s dramaturgy
and Mead’s idea of role taking. The important similarity is in function of acting.
Goffman’s work is entirely based on the idea that people are all actors and we all conduct
our performances for our audiences (Goffman, 1959). To Goffman, these acts led to the
development of the self through interaction with other actors (Goffman, 1959). Mead has
a similar idea in role taking. In role taking, we try to understand intention of the other
person by looking through their point-of-view (Marcionis, 2002). Through the cognition
of different symbols, our mind is able to recognize and understand intentions (Marcionis,
2002). In a way, this behavior of role-playing implies that we are acting like we believe
the other person would. Of course, we only act like the other person in our mind through
our role taking. This is the major difference between the two concepts of dramaturgy and
role taking. Both involve acting, but Mead’s role taking involves acting internally in the
mind. On the other hand, dramaturgy is about expanding this act to a live performance
on stage.
The final comparison that I will make is between Mead’s “I” and “me,” and
Goffman’s idea that there is both a performance self and a hidden self. To Mead, there is
the part of the self which responds first by reflex and instinct, and this self is more
creative than the “me” (Mead, 1934). Usually though, these initial reactions and thoughts
are repressed though because they do not fit into the expectations of society or others.
Goffman had a similar idea with the part of the self that we keep hidden in our
performances. They are many secrets that one has the will damage his performance if the
secret is known to the audience (Goffman, 1959). On the other hand, Goffman sees the
performance self that is always interested in making the best impression because we want
others to see us as we intend them to see us (Goffman, 1959). Therefore, the self we put
on for others will be socially acceptable to other individuals. Mead’s “me” has the same
intention of generating a self-image that is based on social expectations. Thus, Mean and
Goffman have comparable ideas as to separate parts of the self.
All three sociologists, Mead, Cooley, and Goffman, have had a profound impact
on the development of symbolic interactionism. The self is more easily understood and
predicted by using some of the ideas of Mead, Cooley, and Goffman. Through their
analysis of the self, we can better see how the day-to-day interactions in society have an
influence on how we view ourselves. Their theories have some very important areas of
similarity, but also some key differences. Each theory is likely to have a lasting effect on
future sociologists.
Bibliography
Collins, Randall. 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Collins, Randall and Michael Makowsky. 1972. The Discovery of Society. New York:
Random House.
Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York:
Charles Schribner’s Sons
Drew, Paul and Anthony Wootton. 1988. Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction
Order. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday Anchor Books.
Jandy, Edward C. 1942. Charles Horton Cooley: His Life and His Social Theory. New
York: The Dryden Press.
Macionis, John J. 2002. Society the Basics: 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall International.
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman. 2004. Classical Sociological Theory: 4th Ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.