Provide an overview of James’s empirical self the “I” and the “Me,” Cooley’s “looking glass self,” and Mead’s interacting self. TIP: Imagine you are explaining this to a friend who has no background in sociological social psychology. What are the basic ideas? Remember: This is an academic exercise and you must get the theory and concepts correct to receive full credit. This is not a reflection blog!
Blog Post Assignment 3: James, Cooley, Mead
by
Tags:
Comments
62 responses to “Blog Post Assignment 3: James, Cooley, Mead”
-
William James believed that the self would always begin with people. He had two concepts of self: the “I” and the “Me.” The “I” self reflects what people see or perceive themselves doing in the physical world and is aware of its own actions. The self as “I” has a sense of awareness, knowledge, and is subjective. While the “Me” self is objective, it is the self that you can describe. As James points out there are three dimensions of this, material, meaning physical appearance, social skills, and relationships and spiritual, values and attitudes. They can also be described as “the knower” and “the known” which is something that we called it in a previous class, which helps understand the concepts a bit better.
Cooley had another idea which is the concept of “looking glass self” which is when individuals develop their concept of self by observing how they are perceived by others. This reflects what we think or how we think other people view us. For example, someone who has been in a relationship and has ended the relationship on bad terms may think that they are bad in relationships simply because the last one did not work and from then on believe that none of their next relationships will work out because of them. Our self-concept is derived from these types of ideas. These ideas are created through our own minds, they can also influence decisions.Next is Mead’s Interacting Self. This is when people develop self-images through their interactions with other people. This mostly focuses on the fact that the concept of our “self” changes, meaning that self-awareness and self-image is a product of social experience. This kind of relates back to the concept of your “self” changing based on the environment and social situation that you are in.
LikeLike
-
Great analysis. I especially enjoyed the “knower and the known” example for the “I” and the “me.” Very helpful! Who do you think describes the self most accurately? Is there a concept or theme that resonates with you? For me, even with Mead, it seems there is still this “thing” this “self” operating in the backdrop. and whatever that is, its always trying to free itself from the social self or the generalized other. a self that is always running up against all these other formulations. Great work! Don’t forget to comment on someone’s post for full credit. Also, I would like to give you 1 point of extra credit for being the first to analyze three difficult concepts with such clarity! Email me.
LikeLike
-
I would say that the one that I resonate with the most would probably be James. Just because I feel like this concept is a bit more elaborate. Like I mentioned it goes back to the two, the “I” and the “Me” which focuses on both that outside self and inner self. Also I agree that when it comes to Meads concept, the way you explained it, there is something almost missing and or in the background. Also thank you so much for the extra credit, I appreciate it! I will email you.
LikeLike
-
-
Hi! I completely agree with you of how James points out the three dimensions of this material. I feel like these three men have a similar ideology going on which definitely tells us how the three dimensions relate to them. The material physical appearance and values/attitudes really does describe what these men are trying to tell us about ourselves as people.
LikeLike
-
-
James uses pragmatism as a method in advancing his concept of Self. He forwarded a 2-part Self: one that has experiences and one that reflects on these experiences. James argued that when we think about ourselves, there is a source of that thinking called the “I” and the object of our thought which James called the “Me.” Alongside James, Cooley described the social self as not only a communication devise, but also roots the social self in the dominion of everyday life. Cooley argued for a Self that primarily operates in the imagination. To make this point Cooley advanced his concept of the “looking-glass self” whereby we imagine how we appear to others, the judgment of that appearance, and the feelings that would arise based on pride or mortification. Mead positions the self in interaction and away from “feeling” as it turns the social self into a secondary function dependent on the primary and inward thinking or intellectual process of mind. Mead criticized both James and Mead for positioning the social self as a secondary process of mind. Mead argued for an entirely social self-rooted in play and organized games. Mead’s theory of self revolves around how children practice “Self” as they play or act out a variety of roles such as mother, father, teacher, robber, cowboy and so on and so forth. In overserving children act out these roles Mead develops the concept of the “generalized other,” whereby through games one assumes the attitude of “others” involved in the game, and in this process one gains a unity of self.
-
William James’ empirical self describes two aspects of a person which could be referred to as the “I” and “me” in which the “I” stands for our self-awareness and personal existence. The “me” can be thought of as our bodies and the material aspects of social interaction because it is constantly growing and changing. A person’s Me is the total of everything that they can call theirs such as family, bank-account, land, clothes, and other materialistic things because if they lose all of that, then they will feel empty and down. In addition, Cooley’s looking-glass self focuses more on the social aspect of the empirical self in which a person develops a sense of “self” by noticing how they are viewed by those around them. He claims that our self-concept is built through our social settings and is not embedded in us already. Lastly, Mead’s interacting self is the idea that a person thinking is an inner conversation with themselves while a social interaction is an external conversation. People develop self-images by interacting with others and he describes this with a saying “we are one thing to one man and another thing for another”(Mead). Mead gives us an empirical self that is conscious of the roles of social structure and claims that different social relations can create different personas.
LikeLike
-
I found your analysis on the “me” very interesting. I have never before read anyone attach emptiness to James’s dimensions of the “me.” Very creative! I also enjoyed the Mead quote. Doesn’t is sound very much like James? James was so influential. Great job! I really enjoyed reading this post!
LikeLike
-
Great job on your analysis! Thank you for including the quote from Mead because it put into perspective of how much Mead and James thought similarly. I believe the three concepts we discussed all had components that intertwined with each other and this quote was a great example of that. In the text, it even states that in the early stages of Cooleys, James, and Mead’s work, they had similar ideas that the “key to the self is human reflexivity.” It is interesting to think that although they had different ideas and approaches, the base is still similar.
LikeLike
-
-
William James’s idea of the self focuses on the “I” and the “me”, in which these two are the dynamic functions of the self. He argues that the self involves our self awareness (I) and the object of that awareness (me). The “I” has a sense of agency and free will, while the “me” is what we describe with references to personal characteristics. He believed the self always begins with people in their social world, and that the “I” and “me” are not separate entities. Ultimately, the empirical self is the self of daily awareness. Charles Cooley believed the self operates in imagination and self feeling. His concept of the “looking-glass self” emphasizes that our sense of self is developed based on how we imagine ourselves from someone else’s point of view. We begin by imagining ourselves from the perspective of someone else, we then imagine the judgment of that appearance, and finally we face some sort of self-feeling based on that perception. George Mead disagrees with both James and Cooley, and argues that the self is more socially interactive. Mead states that the self arises in the process of experience and activity, arguing that the “I” and “me” have to wait for experiences and activities in order to exist. He believes that self-consciousness is the core structure of the self, and emphasizes thinking, in which we have an inner conversation with ourselves and an external conversation with others. Ultimately, he finds that the self relies on internalized conversation which constitutes thinking and experiences.
LikeLike
-
Remember, Mead argued for an entirely social self-rooted in play and organized games. Mead’s theory of self revolves around how children practice “Self” as they play or act out a variety of roles such as mother, father, teacher, robber, cowboy and so on and so forth. In acting out these roles Mead develops the concept of the generalized other whereby through games one assumes the attitude of “others” involved in the game, and in this process one gains a unity of self. This is a critical part of Meads Interacting Self.
LikeLike
-
I really liked the way you included the agency and free will aspect of the “I” in James’ theory. I feel like that really helps conceptualize the difference between the “I” and the “Me” aspects. Which theory do you identify with the most? Upon first reading, I feel like Mead is probably the closest. Humans are dependent on social interaction, and the idea that self is created through these interactions is most appealing in my mind. Great overview!
LikeLike
-
-
William James believed that both “I” and “Me” had a very similar concept but different ways of viewing such. For example, when William’s described “I”, he thinks of an entity that thinks behind his thoughts which shows to us of how he is self-aware. As for “Me”, he thinks of a logical place for the self. Which in other terms we can see how “I” is seen as an entity while “Me” is a place that can be identified as the body. “Me” is also described as the soul of humanity which can also be interpreted as the body due to humanity being full of people and objects and so on. “I”, is seen as a spiritual ego.
In Cooley’s way of “looking glass self”, it kind of already reflects what it means. Cooley already inputs the idea of “I” and “Me” but he gives of a different understand with the same concept of how a metaphorical understanding can turn into a “social aspect”. For example, Cooley states how, his idea is seen as “commonplace communicative… verified by ordinary observation”, which means that it’s another person’s presence involved to get approval or a different view of the idea of “me and I”
Lasty, Mead’s idea of interacting self has a turn of how we structure our understanding of ourselves. He believes that our “cognitive, feeling, and interaction in the formation of self” should be our way to describe and view ourselves. He reflects on the idea of how it is better empirical reality of having a self of understanding in ourselves and not just on social construct.LikeLike
-
Wonderful outline on the three theorists. I am curious though. Does our text book describe James’s conception of the I as the” spiritual ego?” James has strong arguments against the ego. Did I miss this in our text or did you get this from your own interpretation?
LikeLike
-
Hi flowers222lolz,
I really enjoyed the description you gave and the examples for each of the theories. We can see how each individual viewed the self differently, which is just another testament to how the real definition of “Self” is completely and utterly up to our own interpretation, no matter what that may be. Even Though each person viewed the self differently they all based their theories around the foundation of the core of what makes us who we are and what shapes us into individuals. Truly interesting and you did a good job of explaining it.
LikeLike
-
-
William James had an interesting logic, one that makes complete sense but is unlikely to be thought about. Mr. James believed in “Me” versus “I”. From what he understood, the two concepts were completely different. The “me” is thought of from an outside perspective – how the individuals that you surround yourself with think of you or view you. This relation can correlate with the second or third story telling. For example, if someone were to write a book about you, what would they say? This could range from the shoes you decided to walk in or if you prefer slang versus informal vocabulary. Maybe the religion or spirtuality practices you follow or the presence of social anxiety among large groups of people. That is William Jame’s interpretation of “me”.
Secondly, “I”. This correlation is more of the action of looking into a mirror – how do you preceive yourself. (In James’s words, “Looking glass self”. It is the idea of a memoir – a story telling, first person based point of view. This includes ideaology, relationship building, possible traumas, etc.
Finally, Mead came to a conclusion surrounding “Interacting self”. This correlated with the idea “nature versus nurture, when in reality it is nature AND nurture. We often find ourselves questioning if our surroundings formed us into the beings we are today or if it was due to “fate” or choices we have made throughout our lifetime. I can assume Mead would frown at this relationship because it is not one or the other, it is simply a combination of both. Mead believes it is natural for humans to change and evolve (or digress) with other human interactions – we are constantly changing.LikeLike
-
Your interpretation of the varying logics depicted a good understanding of these sociologists and how their approaches emphasize a different approach. I liked how you broke down the concept of the “I” and “me” by explaining that the “me” is perceived from an outside perspective while the “I” is like looking into a mirror and defining what one sees. I also noticed how you broke down the explanation of the “Looking glass self” by simplifying it as a storytelling approach. This approach was presented by Charles Cooley. Lastly, highlighting that the interacting self corresponds with the concept of nature versus nurture rather than nature and nurture. This is a good breakdown when taking a deeper look into Mead’s perspective on the self.
LikeLike
-
-
James’s view on the empirical self was unique to say the least. He believed that our sense of self was essentially a combination of two halves of who we are, resulting in the “I” and “Me”. According to his theory, there are two main components that make up the “self” but within those two are three other ones that involve our material, social, and spiritual selves. Each of these aspects play a big role in who we are because we own material things, we are perceived by others in society, and we have a root of our very essence or what some would call our “core” selfs. He embodies what it means to experience things and also being able to reflect on them.
On the other hand, Cooley had a different vision and created what’s known as the “Looking Glass Self”, which is kind of common within society and generations. The “looking glass self” is basically when people base their sense of self by observing how other people view or perceive them. This self revolves around how other people view us and how we believe we are often viewed by others. According to Cooley, there are three principal elements that make up the “looking glass self” which include imagination of appearance, imagination of judgment, and the development of our “self” through this process. Therefore, as people we often use social interaction as a mirror of the judgments we face and we use that to measure things like our values, morals, worth, and so on.
In addition to that, Mead’s “Interacting Self” is kind of similar to Cooley’s “looking glass self” but approaches self differently. Mead believed that as people we develop our sense of self or self-image through interactions we have with other people. This relates back to how society and social behavior/interaction is something that’s a big part in shaping us and our individuality within the experiences we have and how we interpret them, meaning that our self is something that’s constantly changing, evolving, and growing.LikeLike
-
Great overview, I found your summary of James, Cooley, and Mead’s ideologies very spot on. I feel as though I had a different perception of what Mead was arguing compared to Cooley and James. I originally argued that Mead disagreed with Cooley, because his idea of self results from interactions such as experience and activity. However, after reading your overview, I can see how his idea of self can be somewhat similar to Cooley’s looking glass self, as his idea of self arises from self-feeling/interaction and imagination of how we are perceived.
LikeLike
-
-
William James empirical self refers to the two aspects of one individual, being the “I” and the “Me”. One aspect to the self was one that has experiences and the other reflects on those experiences. William argues that the “I” has full awareness and free will, it is what initiates our behavior. While the “Me” is the objective self and has three dimensions, material, physical, and social. Concisely, the “I” and the “Me” are a dynamic that make up the self and that help us evaluate our social and self-awareness. However, Charles Cooley “looking glass self” presents a different idea of the empirical self. Cooley argues that our self is rooted in self-feeling and by observing how we are perceived by others. He explains that there are three principal components, the imagination of how we appear to others, the judgement of our appearance by others, and the self-feeling such as pride. Ultimately, he explains that the self is developed from the point of view of others and how that makes us feel internally. By using Cooley’s “looking glass self” we create opinions about ourselves that help us make decisions and evaluate everyday life experiences. Lastly, Meads interacting self argues that our self is developed by interactions with other people and meanings we draw from experiences. Mead argues for the normality of having multiple personalities, he goes back to the idea that we can change based on our setting and life experiences. For example, we can be completely two separate people at work or at home. Therefore, our self-image is influenced by experiences and social structure/experience.
LikeLike
-
This a great overview. I do not see a 50 word response from you to another post. Did I miss it? you have already submitted the assignment in Canvas, and you could get a 0 for this hard work if you haven’t done a 50 word response. Please reach out to me.
LikeLike
-
Hi! I think you did a great job with explaining each theory. I find it interesting how you mentioned that we can be one person at home and another person at work. I think this can be very true because we usually adapt to our surrounding and act accordingly. I am sure we are aware of our true self and the self that we think other people want us to be.
LikeLike
-
Great overview! Here are my views on Mead:
Mead positions the self in interaction and away from “feeling” as it turns the social self into a secondary function dependent on the primary and inward thinking or intellectual process of mind. Mead criticized both James and Mead for positioning the social self as a secondary process of mind. Mead argued for an entirely social self-rooted in play and organized games. Mead’s theory of self revolves around how children practice “Self” as they play or act out a variety of roles such as mother, father, teacher, robber, cowboy and so on and so forth. In acting out these roles Mead develops the concept of the generalized other whereby through games one assumes the attitude of “others” involved in the game, and in this process one gains a unity of self.
LikeLike
-
Hi Ski0505. I love how you kept your blog short and straight to the point, where I on the other hand couldn’t stop typing to save my life, smh! What’s so crazy is that reading your post made me realize I wrote a whole book but left out the three dimensions of ‘Me’. I liked how you compared James’s and Cooley’s empirical self quickly and effortlessly. Good Job!
LikeLike
-
I like how you mentioned the three dimensions of James’s “me”. I didn’t do that and it helped me understand the concept a bit more. I think the “I” and “me” are equally as important to us because we need full self awareness in as many aspects as possible. It’s interesting how you brought up how Cooley the three aspects of “the looking glass self”. I never really thought about how we can imagine how we appear, know how we appear, and want to appear. Nice job!
LikeLike
-
Hi, you did a great job explaining each of the three theories. When you were talking about Mead’s ideal I liked how you talked about how we could be two completely different people at work vs at home. I feel that way with my friends at school vs my friends at home. It was a perfect way to summarize that portion of the assignment.
LikeLike
-
-
William James viewed the concept of self in two ways. The first concept of self is the “I.” James explains that this is the self as a subject or in other words, the “knower.” In this concept, the “I” is the part of you that allows you to be consciously aware of who you are. This self perceives and feels. The second concept of self is the “Me.” Here, James explains that this self is an object or the “known.” It is the self-concept one has of themself and comes from knowledge and thoughts of who one thinks they are.
Charles Horton Cooley created a concept known as the “looking-glass self” to explain a sense of self. In this concept, our “self” is socially created and develops from one’s interactions with others. It depends on three components which include how we imagine we appear, how we think others judge us, and self-feeling and reflection. In other words, we develop an image of ourselves based on how we think we appear to others.
George Hebert Mead’s approach to the concept of self is known as the interacting self. This concept seems to have similar aspects to James and Cooley. Mead explains that the “reflexive self allows people to view themselves from an external point of view.” This means that we develop a sense of “self” based on social interactions with others and this process starts as early as the childhood stages.
LikeLike
-
I think your analysis is very spot on! Your Mead explanation was the most informative for me as it was the hardest on for me to comprehend and put into examples. The process of self does begin in the early childhood stages and develops as a person grows older and gains new experiences.
LikeLike
-
Great overview. Don’t forget about Mead’s concepts of play, games, and the generalized other. The quote you use really cements his idea of the generalized other.
Mead’s theory of self revolves around how children practice “Self” as they play or act out a variety of roles such as mother, father, teacher, robber, cowboy and so on and so forth. In acting out these roles Mead develops the concept of the generalized other whereby through games one assumes the attitude of “others” involved in the game, and in this process one gains a unity of self
LikeLike
-
-
James believed that there are two parts of a person, “I” and “me”. The “I” refers to our existence and being aware that we exist, being aware of what we do, being aware of our thoughts. The “me” refers to how the outside physical world sees us. We have no control of the “me” since it is defined by outside factors. The view of the self based on cooley’s “looking glass self” is the theory that we get what we know about ourselves based on what we learn from what others think about us. For example, if someone says you are a very shy person based on what they observe then you will see yourself as a shy person without analyzing other factors such as being tired or simply not wanting to talk. They would just think “I must be shy, since that is how I am perceived in the outside world”. This theory suggests that we are easily influenced by society. Mead’s “interacting self” refers to the theory that our interactions with other people shapes our “self”. This goes to show the importance of society and social interactions and how that teaches us more about ourselves. When we interact we learn about what kind of people we like, what interests we have, the experiences we live, etc. Our self is influenced by our social interactions and the setting we are in. It is also constantly changing. I also believe this is the main way we learn about the world and ourselves especially as a child because we pick up on behaviors and personalities.
LikeLike
-
Great overview. Don’t forget about Mead’s concepts of play, games, and the generalized other.
Mead’s theory of self revolves around how children practice “Self” as they play or act out a variety of roles such as mother, father, teacher, robber, cowboy and so on and so forth. In acting out these roles Mead develops the concept of the generalized other whereby through games one assumes the attitude of “others” involved in the game, and in this process one gains a unity of self
LikeLike
-
wow that is so right, another important point I missed in my blog. Meade’s concept of playing games was an important part of his theory which I stupidly left out because I focused more on the interactions aspect. Dueling noted!
LikeLike
-
-
I really like the example you provided about being shy, and I also heavily agree about how this theory may comment on being easily influenced by society. I think this can raise a few questions though. Did this theory live out to be true, are we all seeing ourselves through a looking glass? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I definitely think I see myself through a looking glass which leads to over analyzation and overthinking. I think we let ourselves create an unattainable image of ourselves through social media and then try to top those standards every time, which can be similar to Cooley’s theory, we are just looking at ourselves through a platform where others see us.
LikeLike
-
-
James’s view on self is deeply tied to his functionalist view on psychology. He believed the “self” will always begin with people and that the “self” is a communication device to help us deal with our environment. His theory stems from an inward communication which divides the empirical self into 2 parts, the I and the Me. The I is the source of our thinking and the part of self that has the experiences. The I is also the inner practice of self-awareness in thought, meaning the I is aware of its own actions and has a free will and is an indicator of behavior. While the Me is the object of our thought and is the one that reflects on our experiences. The Me is also the subjectivism evident in open reference to personal characteristics, which means the me is the object of self or the self you can describe with references to personal characteristics.
Cooley’s looking glass self-theory is not philosophical and focused more on the social aspect of the social self. Cooley explains that the self he talks about is the self that everyone possesses. In Cooley’s theory he describes how one’s “self” is based on how other’s see them. He explains that the looking-glass self has three principle components, “the imagination of our appearance to the other person; the imagination of his judgement of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeding”. He uses social interaction as a mirror that people look into while using how everyone views them to assess their own worth and values.
Meade believed the “self” is part of the process of communication. The thinking is an inner conversation with oneself; social interaction is an external conversation with one self. According to Meade’s theory the “self” is developed by social interactions and social experiences. This is evident when he said, “The self is something which has a development; it is not initially there, at birth, but arises in the process of social experiences and activity, that is, develops in the given individual as a result of his relations to that process as a whole and to other individuals”. His theory consists of the belief that experiences provide the means and the mean in order for one to figure out who they are.LikeLike
-
This is really well done. However, remember for Mead, he argued for an entirely social self-rooted in play and organized games. Mead’s theory of self revolves around how children practice “Self” as they play or act out a variety of roles such as mother, father, teacher, robber, cowboy and so on and so forth. In acting out these roles Mead develops the concept of the generalized other whereby through games one assumes the attitude of “others” involved in the game, and in this process one gains a unity of self.
LikeLike
-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on James’s view on self and how it relates to functionalist psychology. Your explanation of James’s theory of self and the I and Me components was very clear and helped me understand it better. I also appreciate your comparison of James’s theory to Cooley’s looking-glass self-theory and Meade’s theory of self. Your description of Cooley’s theory as being more focused on the social aspect of the self and how others perceive us, while Meade’s theory emphasizes the role of social interactions and experiences in shaping the self, was very helpful in understanding the differences between these theories. Overall, your post was very insightful and provided a good overview of these different theories of self. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
LikeLike
-
-
James believes that when we use the two different personal pronouns, we are or should be associating them with other things (discriminated aspects) rather than using them interchangeably. The use of “I” refers to our idea of ourselves and how we are self-aware of our being. The “I” is the subject of our experiences while “me” is the object of our experiences, meaning that “me” is what is shaped by our life and life experiences. The “me” is our physical bodies along with everything we have gained throughout life that has shaped our personality.
Cooley’s looking-glass self suggests that we our self is made up of the judgments of ourselves from the people we interact with. We see ourselves as how other people see us, whether that is a different personality with a different person or the same personality that we have with everyone. There is the imagination of our appearance to others, our judgment of said judgment, and then a self-feeling due to that judgment. The looking-glass self says that we would rely on other people to get a sense of self, that without our community or other people, we wouldn’t really know who we were.
Mead believes something similar to Cooley, he thinks that our sense of self is developed through interactions with other people, especially when we are kids and play pretend. The only difference is that in Mead’s theory, we wouldn’t judge our sense of self based on these other people, merely be influenced by interactions. Mead has three stages that develop the self: the preparatory stage, the play stage, and the game stage. These stages go throughout childhood while the child learns to interact with other people and role play as different people, and that develops the child’s sense of self. The play and games allow for the child to develop their sense of self because the child gets to learn about the other people around them and how to play those roles, and figure out what is themselves and what is the other.LikeLike
-
Awesome overview. However, I am a bit thrown off with how you describe James’s account. I think we are on the same page but I just wanted to outline that. James forwards a 2-part Self: one that has experiences and one that reflects on these experiences. James argued that when we think about ourselves, there is a source of that thinking called the “I” and the object of our thought which James called the “Me.”
LikeLike
-
This is a really great overview! Well done!
LikeLike
-
-
James’s empirical self refers to the subjective experience of being self-aware with a unique identity. This sense of self comprises two distinct components: the “I” and the “Me.” The “I” represents our active, spontaneous, and creative impulses, while the “Me” represents the more socialized aspects of our self that are shaped by the norms, values, and expectations of society. Cooley’s “looking glass self” theory suggests that our sense of self is formed through our interactions with others. According to this theory, we imagine how others perceive us, and then we use that imagined perception to shape our own self-concept. In other words, we see ourselves through the eyes of others, and their feedback helps us to form our own sense of self. Mead’s interacting self takes this idea one step further by suggesting that our sense of self is not just shaped by our interactions with others, but that it is actually constructed through those interactions. Mead believed that our self is constantly evolving as we interact with others and that we are able to take on different roles and perspectives depending on the situation. Overall, these three concepts are all related to the idea that our sense of self is not fixed or innate, but rather is constructed through our social interactions with others. By understanding these concepts, we can gain a deeper insight into the complex ways our sense of self is shaped by the social world around us.
LikeLike
-
William James splits the idea of self into two key components, the “I” and the “Me”. These components do not cut the self in half, but rather describe the dimensions and functions of the self. The “I” is described as the source of thinking. The “I” to the self is comparable to the nucleus of a cell, it stores the information to act on. But what does the “I” think about? The subject of our thoughts is the “Me”. The “I” does the thinking, and the “Me” what the “I” thinks about.
Cooley builds on this theory, stating that the “I” does think about the “Me”, but also uses the perspectives of others to form thoughts. This is called the “looking glass self”. This theory hones in on the idea that the self considers the thoughts and opinions of others in an imaginative way. Therefore, the reflections of ourselves in others affect the ever-changing self.
Mead holds social interaction as the most important aspect of self. He sees thinking as internal conversation and speaking with others as external conversation. Both are social in essence. Mead believes that there is no line between inner-life and social interaction as they are both expressions of communication (17). Mead disagrees with Cooley and James as he argues that neither approaches account for “the origin of the self”. The origin of the self, drawing on Mead’s interactive self, is in communication. Mead’s interactive self says that you are not born with a self, but your self is formed through social interactions. Essentially, self is a product of society.LikeLike
-
This was really well done! Great analysis!
LikeLike
-
Your observation on what Cooley argues is very good. His idea might have been my favorite because he really does argue that our self image has a kt to do with the way others see us. This concept is very important since we are very social creatures always interacting with one another.
LikeLike
-
-
William James introduced the two distinctions of our empirical self which are “I” and “me”. These are his explanations of the functions of our self. The “I” reflects the self as a subject of experience. It represents our individual existence and provides us with personal awareness and is seen as more of a spiritual part of ourselves. The “me” represents our physical bodies in a self-as-object manner and corresponds to the self as an object of experience. The “me” is easier for me to understand because of the materialistic aspect of it. Our “me” can include our cars, homes, and other human objects. The “I” is subjective and the “me” is objective. Both the “I” and the “Me” are complimentary images of self and aid us in evaluating our self-awareness.
Charles Cooley’s “Looking Glass Self” kind of sounds like what it is. This method of thinking explains that our notion of “self” is constructed by how we think people surrounding us view us. He puts emphasis on our social environment and interactions. We tend to use social interaction as a type of mirror by using the judgments we receive from others to measure our own worth, values, and behavior.
Mead’s “interacting self” interprets our “self” slightly differently. He stated that we build our sense of self through interactions with other people. He also emphasizes the importance of what we grasp from the experiences we have throughout our life. He states that our “self” is subject to change depending on our settings or role in our current environment. Our self is very sensitive to social experiences.LikeLike
-
William James’s empirical self defines the source of our thinking to be called the “I” and the object of our thinking to be called the “me”. This refers to the idea that when we think about ourselves, the main source or focus of that thought is known as the “I’ aspect. On the other hand, the actual object that we are thinking of is what James explained as the “me”. This concept stems from one’s awareness of themselves. James also depicts the concept of the self that is engraved into everyday life. This indicates that the self that is experienced in everyday life has a daily awareness that is developed in reflection to itself.
Charles Cooley’s concept of “The looking glass self”, is portrayed as the reflection of what or how we think that we appear in front of others. This can also highlight how one is perceived by others. This concept helps one indicate their understanding of their self by observation and perception through other people. Cooley emphasizes that the self or sense of identity is formulated from not only one’s personal characteristics and perception, but also by the interaction to the social world and the larger aspect of the environment. Social interaction can display a sense of reflection that may allow one to depict their own sense of self and who they really are in relation to the world.
George Herbert Mead emphasizes the concept of the interacting self. This view is also understood as the social self. Mead’s approach highlights the sociological approach of interactionism. This concept explains that the individual self is also a social self which is developed through the process of interaction within society, and the environment. Mead believes that in order to understand one’s Self, socialization is essential.
LikeLike
-
Great overview!
LikeLike
-
Hi dominicanstar,
I think that you did a great job explaining the difference between William James’ concept of Empirical Self through the “I” and “Me.” Your interpretation gave me a better understanding of what James was trying to say, especially when you stated that the self and experiences are a reflection of one another. Through your explanation I was also able to clearly see the connection between William James’ Empirical Self and Charles Cooley’s Looking Glass Self due to the reflections among one another.LikeLike
-
-
James had these two concepts that he separated the self as being. We have the “I” and the “me”. From this perspective what I got from the reading is that the “I” is more of the individual’s self identity. One’s internal being so to say. The “I” is more self aware in the sense that it is based on the response of others in the real world and their expectancy. The “I” has free will. The “me” on the other hand is described as more of what can be described. It is more of the learned behaviors and the things that can be described based on our actions and experiences. Now looking at Cooley’s “looking glass self” concept. This concept from my understanding was basically the description of how we think we look to others. It has to do more with the social interactions we have and how those might be what we think others perceive as. Cooley argues that our self concept that has been learned from past experiences, can influence our decisions. This concept shows that we are easily influenced by society because based on how we think we are viewed this might lead us to measure our own worth and behavior. For Meads interacting self concept his theory states that our interactions shape our “self’. This explains that our self is always changing and we are always interested in different people because our experiences socially are constantly changing. This process starts as soon as childhood and constantly is evolving.
LikeLike
-
Hello! I liked what you had to say about James’ concept of the “I” and “Me.” I agree, it all has to do with our own experiences. In relation to Cooley’s concept of the “looking-glass self,” he and James believe our sense of self is created through interactions with others.
LikeLike
-
-
William James introduced a two-part self-concept; one which experiences and one that reflects on those experiences. What James called the “I” is referred to when we think about ourselves, and the “me” is the object of our thought. William James believed that the self stems from everyday experiences and proposes a self shaped by social life. James’s concept became most influential in the sociological view of self. Cooley bounced off of James’s idea that the self could reflect on itself and identified that we also reflect using the perspectives of others, which created the concept of the “looking-glass self”. Mead incorporated James’s idea of the two-part self while emphasizing Cooley’s “looking-glass self”. Mead explained that our development of self derives from interaction and those interactions begin during childhood. The interactions we follow shape ourselves and the knowledge we use. All three of these pragmatists achieved their concepts through the knowledge of everyday life.
LikeLike
-
Great overview! This was really well done. Have you decided what you will be writing about for final paper?
LikeLike
-
Hello Aramoto, I really enjoyed reading your reflection and I feel as if we have some similarities in ideas. I like the way you described the meanings of both “I” and “Me”. I feel like if you were to tell someone that has no idea about sociology they can still understand what you are saying. I also like your definition of “self” and I feel like we are talking about the same thing. I also agree that the “self” is viewed and portrayed by the descriptions people give you in society.
LikeLike
-
-
William James’s empirical self focuses on two aspects of life that he believed were very important. The two aspects of one individual that he mentions are “I” and “Me”. James believed that “I” and “Me” worked together but were two separate aspects of life. James believed that “I” focuses on the idea that the individual has complete awareness and freedom. James also believed that “I” is what initiates a person’s behavior, this can also be described as the “Knower”. The second aspect of life that James focuses on is “Me”. This aspect of life focuses on three different dimensions of life, material, physical, and social. The aspect “Me” is quite different from”I” as it focuses on how the outside world views us. This is different from “I” because we have no control over “Me” because it is based on outside factors of the world. Moving on to George Mead’s “Interacting self”. Mead theory focuses on the idea that the interactions we have with people will shape our “self”. Mead shows us the importance of this because our interactions with society can help teach us a lot about ourselves. I feel like this theory best relates to younger children. The reason I say this is because young kids will always look at what you’re doing and want to do it themselves. Our actions influence the possible actions they may take or consider taking.
LikeLike
-
This is a great overview. However, I do not see a overview Cooley’s looking glass self.
LikeLike
-
I enjoyed reading your overview of James theory on empirical self when looking at the “I” and the “me”. It seems like we both put the same thing which is that the “I” is based on how you have been influenced in your life which has led you to your certain opinions and the “me” is the side that looks at your experiences.
LikeLike
-
-
William James separated the empirical self into two concepts, the “I” and the “Me.” In the reading, it mentions how when an individual is aware of themselves (our thinking) it’s called the “I” and the object of (our thinking) is the “me.” James also mentions that “I” and “me” are not separated, they are called “discriminated aspects” because the “I” identifies with “me.” Also, according to James, our self is not to be objectified. We must experience life daily before we realize what is self. He also suggests that when we are thinking, we are thinking of our mind doing the thinking; therefore making us (we) objects to ourselves. Charles Cooley’s “looking glass self” concept is that our sense of self is what we think others have to say about us. For example, your imagination (your mind) tells you how others perceive you. You’re looking through the other person’s eyes rather than your own. Socializing with society is a major factor in Cooley’s theory. We take in other people’s feedback and feel to reflect on it to help us form our sense of self. In Mead’s theory of the “Interacting Self,” he shares a similar view to James and Cooley. James and Cooley both mentioned the self-being found through interaction with others, Mead believes our sense of self is constructed through the process of interaction. Mead stated the self is constantly changing because people change every day, therefore we are able to interact with others and their different roles. Our self-consciousness helps us with our external consciousness.
LikeLike
-
This overview is well written! Great Job!
LikeLike
-
-
William James defines the empirical self by dividing it into two separate components. Within the empirical self, there is the “I” as well as the “me”. While they both are thought to be the same thing, they are very different according to James. The “I” is what does the thinking within the self through its free will, while the “me” is what is being thought about. Another way to look at it is that the “I” is where all of the thoughts within us originate while the “me” is what we think about. These observations led to James concluding that our awareness comes from the reflections of our own experiences.
James Cooley’s concept of the “looking glass self” revolves around how individuals imagine how they appear to others based on their actions, physical appearance and such. That imagination and the simple thought of how we appear to others meaning something to us and our own interpretation of our “self” is Cooley’s “looking glass self.”
Mead’s concept of the interacting self concept argues with Cooley and James and states that the self is a concept originated from organized games and play from a young age. He explains by stating that children begin initiating their sense of self at a young age when they play pretending to be someone else such as moms, dads, babies, grandparents, etc. Another example is when children play organized games such as cops and robbers, they begin getting a sense of their self as well as what is right and wrong within society. The organized games and play are what lead to children learning from socialization as well as their experiences.LikeLike
-
What James is saying when he talks about the empirical self is that it is made up of two different parts the “I” and the “me”. The “I’ is based on how you have been influenced in your life which has led you to your certain opinions, this is the part of the self where you are continuously changing. This is the part that goes through things in life and will change and make you smarter. The “me” part of the self is the side that looks at you experiences and compares them to everyone else through social norms and standards crated by society today. Cooley’s “looking glass self” is how we think other people perceive us. The way I like to think of this is what we imagine we look like, and act like through a mirror. Based on what we think we are like according to others and then we think of how other people judge us based on our “looking glass self”. This is part of the process of getting our full “self” based on how other people perceive us. Our “looking glass self” can be anything and everything as long as it is something we believe other people can think if yourself. Mead’s interacting self is very similar to Cooley’s “looking glass self” but his theory looks more at our interactions with others which determines how perceive ourselves. He believes that we find our self-based off our interactions with others and feedback we get with others through interactions and encounters with different people. Cooley and James see the “I” and “me” in the same way.
LikeLike
-
Great work start here. Yet, your overview of James and Mead needs more attention. Remember: James forwarded a 2-part Self: one that has experiences and one that reflects on these experiences. James argued that when we think about ourselves, there is a source of that thinking called the “I” and the object of our thought which James called the “Me.” Mead criticized both James and Cooley for positioning the social self as a secondary process of mind. Mead argued for an entirely social self-rooted in play and organized games. Mead’s theory of self revolves around how children practice “Self” as they play or act out a variety of roles such as mother, father, teacher, robber, cowboy and so on and so forth. In acting out these roles Mead develops the concept of the generalized other whereby through games one assumes the attitude of “others” involved in the game, and in this process one gains a unity of self.
LikeLike
-
-
William James Thought that self begins with people. His two ideas of thought were what he called the “I” and the “Me”. starting with the “me”, the “me” is a very objective thing. It is something that you can easily observe. The “me” can be things like your physical appearance, such as the clothes you wear or your hairstyle. Your “me” can also be how you interact with other people. The “I”, on the other hand, is more subjective. The “I” talks about an individual’s understanding of themselves in the world. This portion takes a look at an individual’s beliefs and ideals. This could be something along the lines of religion and political views. Charles Cooley had an interesting idea, about how we looked at ourselves, called “looking glass self”. In this ideal, we imagine how we appear to our peers that are around us, people like friends and family, and then we determine how we appear to others by how our peers interact with us. In short terms we observe our peer’s observations of us. Then what we do after that is make changes to how we appear to those other people in order to try and achieve what we want other people to think of us. Mead’s interacting self is very similar to Cooley’s where your “self” is being affected by others except his ideal has an emphasis on how exactly your self changes. Mead’s ideal is that your self changes to the environment of people that you surround yourself with, and the person you are will change if the people around you change.
LikeLike
-
Hello Rhino, I really liked your responses to the theories of these three persons. Asking you personally, which one did you like the best? which one did you enjoy learning about? In my opinion, I think Mead’s theory was better since it connects both of these theories in a way.
LikeLike
-
-
William James believes that there are two different parts of a person, in fact, he calls these “Discriminated aspects”. The first one is “I” and the second part is “me”. The “I” according to James would be how it refers to our idea of ourselves and how we are aware of our being. Also, the “I” is what does most of our thinking in other words it has free will. The “Me” on the other hand represents how it is the socialized aspects of our self that are shaped by the norms, expectations, and values of society. Cooley’s “Looking Glass Self” is portrayed as how it sounds, looking at a reflection of ourselves of how we view ourselves in front of others. We usually tend to social interactions to see how we “mirror” ourselves with others. What I mean by this is how Cooley mentions how with “looking glass self” we are looking at how others view us almost as if we’re testing and scoring ourselves. Mead’s “Interacting self” is slightly different because he believed that our self is constantly growing or changing as we interact with different people and try to usually change the roles depending on the situation. Mead mentions how inner life and social interaction are both very important and they are both forms of communication. With this being said Mead is also testing how oneself is being tested and how our self is being tested by social interactions. Also, interacting with others helps us learn more about ourselves which is another purpose for meads theory.
LikeLike
Sociology Of Health and Illness 
Leave a comment