The two following papers were required written assignments for Essentials of Sociology at Ashworth College. Although I retain the copyrights to both papers, I do this simply to protect my right to use these works as my own. My only wish is that these written works can be of some value to whomever reads them. If you have found something essential in them, then please, pass them on to others who might also benefit from them.
Theories on the Development of Self-Identity
Undoubtedly everyone at some point in their life has posited the question “Who am I?” This, along with “Why am I here?”, “What is the purpose of life?”, and other seemingly transient questions, has been a query that has puzzled philosophers throughout the ages. Individuals and cultures alike have tried to render a verdict for the evidence that has been presented. Although the glut of answers that has been given throughout history has varied tremendously both in scope and nature, they can all be condensed into two basic viewpoints: atheistic and theistic. In the atheistic view, which tends to be the leaning of most modern philosophers, is that we are here, just like everything else - by accident. Over the course of billions of years of evolution, humans, somewhere in the last few million years have developed a conscience – a self-realization. What it is really, is anyone’s guess, but it somehow puts us a little above the plants and flowers, which although are alive, growing, and reproducing, have in themselves no concept of being; they just simply exist, and nothing more. Neither do they care. In this scenario, we really have no existence or purpose in life; we just have a few overdeveloped brain cells that are firing erratically causing us to temporarily become somewhat aware of our existence. When we die, it is all over and we, conscious of our being or not, simply cease to exist. On the other hand, in the theistic view, humans were created by God with a set purpose in life. We are created with a mind (νοῦς nous, understanding), a body (σῶμα, soma, the physical body), and a soul (ψυχή,psuché,breath of life). Following are brief synopses of three prominent sociologists.
Charles Horton Cooley was a professor at the University of Michigan from 1892 until his death in 1929. Dr. Cooley set out to theorize human self-awareness by postulating three elements that define our awareness based on our relationships with those around us. He believed that we first imagine how we appear to those around us, then we interpret the reactions of others based on their perception of us, and finally we develop a self-concept based on how we interpret the reactions of others. He called this theory the “looking-glass self”. He felt that we perceive in our minds how we look or seem to those around us. Regardless of how we feel about ourselves, we often worry about how others regard us. In middle school, we all hope that everyone will think we are cool. In high school we can’t fathom the thought that we won’t be found attractive. In college and throughout life we constantly worry that others will look down on us for some unknown reason. We often evaluate the responses we get from those around us to determine how they feel about us based on how they see us. Do they think we are weak because we are nice? Perhaps they see us as cool because we speak condescendingly to others. If we are quiet by nature, do they perceive us as intelligent, or simply unfriendly? After we have evaluated the reactions of our friends and acquaintances, we will begin to develop ideas about ourselves. He believed that the idea of self was a lifelong, constantly changing, process.
George Herbert Mead also used a three-step process to explain the development of self, however, his steps differed from those proposed by Dr. Cooley. The first of his steps was what he called imitation. In this stage, which begins at an early age, we begin to imitate the actions and words of those around us. We don’t really have a true sense of being; we simply view ourselves as an extension of those around us. In the second stage, called play, we begin the process of learning our self-identity by no longer simply imitating others, but rather by pretending to be them. Although we haven’t fully realized ourselves as being a total and separate entity, we are realizing a step in that direction by showing that we understand that others are individuals who are different from one another. In the final stage we begin to take on the roles of others when we play team sports. In these situations we must learn to play as a team by not only playing our part, but by also knowing the roles that other people play so that we may anticipate their moves. In some cases we might also be required to actively take on their role, such as when a player is hurt and we must substitute for them. It is in these three steps, according to Dr. Mead, that we each develop our own individual identity.
Jean Piaget was a Swiss psychologist who noticed that children often make the same wrong observations in similar situations. He deduced that all children used the same reasoning when presented with a problem, regardless of their background. At the conclusion of years of studying them, Dr. Piaget determined that children go through four stages in the development of reasoning skills. The first stage, which he called the sensorimotor stage, lasts until about the age of two in most children. All of our ideas about self are limited to direct physical touch. We have yet to develop the idea of abstract thought or the ability to realize that actions have consequences. The preoperational stage, which lasts from about age two to age seven, is the period of time where we begin to learn about what he called symbols. That is, anything that we use to represent something else. This terminology not only applies to concrete symbols, such as the male/female silhouettes on bathroom doors, but also to more abstract symbols such as language and counting. Although children begin to use and realize the use of these symbols, they don’t always fully understand their complete meaning. For example, a child may be able to comprehend the difference between one cookie and two cookies, but they would have no concept of the difference between a car that cost $400 and another that cost $40,000. In the third stage, the concrete operational stage which lasts from roughly 7-12 years of age, older children are beginning to grasp the overall meanings of concrete symbols such as numbers (even if they are very large numbers), yet still have difficulties understanding abstract ideas such as love and honesty. In the fourth and final stage of our development, the formal operational stage, we now are beginning to understand abstract ideas. We can now answer not only questions about who, what, where, and when, but we can also begin to answer questions related to why something is right, wrong, beautiful, kind, etc.
Although Charles Cooley and George Mead differed in their approach to the development of self (Cooley’s was more mental in aspect, whereas Mead’s was more physical), their ideas were the same in that their approach was the idea that we look to others to determine our idea of self. Regardless of whether it is our thoughts or actions that are based on those of others, we can’t develop the idea of self without the presence of others. On the same hand though, those we are looking at are also looking back at us to make their own determinations about them selves. What we wind up with then is a case of the blind leading the blind. Jean Piaget on the other hand tended to see us as relying on symbols that help us explain and identify those things around us that in turn are our guide to the development of self-identity. These all, of course, differ from the theistic view which states that we should look to God (Hebrews 12:2, KJV). The Bible recounts a story of the Apostle Paul debating with the philosophers in Athens. In brief Paul says to them, “…as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein…neither is worshipped with men's hands…he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things…they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us…for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said…” (Acts 17:15-34)
© 2016 Stephen Moore. All rights reserved.
Charles Horton Cooley was a professor at the University of Michigan from 1892 until his death in 1929. Dr. Cooley set out to theorize human self-awareness by postulating three elements that define our awareness based on our relationships with those around us. He believed that we first imagine how we appear to those around us, then we interpret the reactions of others based on their perception of us, and finally we develop a self-concept based on how we interpret the reactions of others. He called this theory the “looking-glass self”. He felt that we perceive in our minds how we look or seem to those around us. Regardless of how we feel about ourselves, we often worry about how others regard us. In middle school, we all hope that everyone will think we are cool. In high school we can’t fathom the thought that we won’t be found attractive. In college and throughout life we constantly worry that others will look down on us for some unknown reason. We often evaluate the responses we get from those around us to determine how they feel about us based on how they see us. Do they think we are weak because we are nice? Perhaps they see us as cool because we speak condescendingly to others. If we are quiet by nature, do they perceive us as intelligent, or simply unfriendly? After we have evaluated the reactions of our friends and acquaintances, we will begin to develop ideas about ourselves. He believed that the idea of self was a lifelong, constantly changing, process.
George Herbert Mead also used a three-step process to explain the development of self, however, his steps differed from those proposed by Dr. Cooley. The first of his steps was what he called imitation. In this stage, which begins at an early age, we begin to imitate the actions and words of those around us. We don’t really have a true sense of being; we simply view ourselves as an extension of those around us. In the second stage, called play, we begin the process of learning our self-identity by no longer simply imitating others, but rather by pretending to be them. Although we haven’t fully realized ourselves as being a total and separate entity, we are realizing a step in that direction by showing that we understand that others are individuals who are different from one another. In the final stage we begin to take on the roles of others when we play team sports. In these situations we must learn to play as a team by not only playing our part, but by also knowing the roles that other people play so that we may anticipate their moves. In some cases we might also be required to actively take on their role, such as when a player is hurt and we must substitute for them. It is in these three steps, according to Dr. Mead, that we each develop our own individual identity.
Jean Piaget was a Swiss psychologist who noticed that children often make the same wrong observations in similar situations. He deduced that all children used the same reasoning when presented with a problem, regardless of their background. At the conclusion of years of studying them, Dr. Piaget determined that children go through four stages in the development of reasoning skills. The first stage, which he called the sensorimotor stage, lasts until about the age of two in most children. All of our ideas about self are limited to direct physical touch. We have yet to develop the idea of abstract thought or the ability to realize that actions have consequences. The preoperational stage, which lasts from about age two to age seven, is the period of time where we begin to learn about what he called symbols. That is, anything that we use to represent something else. This terminology not only applies to concrete symbols, such as the male/female silhouettes on bathroom doors, but also to more abstract symbols such as language and counting. Although children begin to use and realize the use of these symbols, they don’t always fully understand their complete meaning. For example, a child may be able to comprehend the difference between one cookie and two cookies, but they would have no concept of the difference between a car that cost $400 and another that cost $40,000. In the third stage, the concrete operational stage which lasts from roughly 7-12 years of age, older children are beginning to grasp the overall meanings of concrete symbols such as numbers (even if they are very large numbers), yet still have difficulties understanding abstract ideas such as love and honesty. In the fourth and final stage of our development, the formal operational stage, we now are beginning to understand abstract ideas. We can now answer not only questions about who, what, where, and when, but we can also begin to answer questions related to why something is right, wrong, beautiful, kind, etc.
Although Charles Cooley and George Mead differed in their approach to the development of self (Cooley’s was more mental in aspect, whereas Mead’s was more physical), their ideas were the same in that their approach was the idea that we look to others to determine our idea of self. Regardless of whether it is our thoughts or actions that are based on those of others, we can’t develop the idea of self without the presence of others. On the same hand though, those we are looking at are also looking back at us to make their own determinations about them selves. What we wind up with then is a case of the blind leading the blind. Jean Piaget on the other hand tended to see us as relying on symbols that help us explain and identify those things around us that in turn are our guide to the development of self-identity. These all, of course, differ from the theistic view which states that we should look to God (Hebrews 12:2, KJV). The Bible recounts a story of the Apostle Paul debating with the philosophers in Athens. In brief Paul says to them, “…as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein…neither is worshipped with men's hands…he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things…they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us…for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said…” (Acts 17:15-34)
© 2016 Stephen Moore. All rights reserved.
Sociological Perspectives of Religion
In the study of sociology, we are presented three varying perspectives concerning our interactions with the world and those in it. Although parts of all three contain some bits of truth, it is this author’s opinion that the structural-functionalism perspective is more in line with that held within the sphere of religion. When discussing our roles in this life, the bible clearly states that there are “diversities of gifts…differences of administrations…and diversities of operations”. (I Corinthians 12:4-6, King James Version) It is unfortunate, however, that many people tend to focus on what others should be doing, and not on their own responsibility. The problem with Karl Marx’s conflict theory is that it focuses solely on one aspect of a problematic situation. In his view, all the rich are evil, and all the poor are good. By his thinking, if you have nothing, it is because those who are wealthy are hoarding it from you, and are by any means possible shielding the wealth, and the means to it, from you. Your only recourse is to rebel and steal what is “rightfully yours”: the Robin Hood complex, so to speak. While this author would never argue that all the wealthy have accrued their riches through just means, he too would never suggest that all the poor are thus, simply because they are being held back by the powerful. Marx fails to take into account that many of the rich have gotten that way through hard work and smart use of their money, and that many of the poor have also entered their state, or remained there, through an irresponsible lifestyle. In the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we are presented with the idea that the symbols, or labels, we place on people determine how we act toward them. The drawback to this theory is that throughout the world, different peoples and cultures will have contradictory symbols when compared with those from other cultures. Even within a culture, these symbols may change in meaning over time. This fact stems in part from the fact that we are taught that there are no absolutes. Thus, we wind up concluding that something is right, only to change our mind about it when in a different place, or even time. Biblically speaking, right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of where or when you are.
Structural-functionalism is, according to dictionary.com, “a theoretical orientation that views society as a system of interdependent parts whose functions contribute to the stability and survival of the system.” (“Functionalism”) By system, it is meant any number of organizations that have multiple groups or individuals, who by necessity, must act and interact in a specific manner in order that the organism may survive. The use of organism here is in reference to the fact that some sociologists, such as Auguste Comte, saw the interactions of people in a society working much the same way as the different parts of a living organism work together. Although sociologist Robert Merton didn’t view people’s roles in society as being synonymous with the interactions of a living being’s organs, he did believe that each being has its own important role to play. Those who fail to play their part are no longer contributing to the functions of a society. They are, rather, adding dysfunctions, which damage the equilibrium of a society. In religion, as in society, members must act in accordance with their assigned or chosen roles if it is to survive and perpetuate. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to the human body, where each individual member of the church has a specific function. “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?” (I Cor. 1:12, 14, & 15)
Karl Marx believed that “society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources” (“What is”, 2016). He believed that this conflict was the result of the wealthy and powerful (the bourgeoisie) hoarding their wealth and oppressing the poor (the proletariat). Marx separated his view of society into three parts: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. In his model, the thesis was the act of the rich controlling the means of production and wealth, the antithesis was the laborers rebelling against the overlords, and the synthesis was the final society formed. However, this would not be the end, for once the synthesis had formed, it would in turn create another thesis which would eventually lead to another antithesis, and so on. Marx felt that if all conflicts eventually resolved themselves, then the perfect society would have been formed, as everyone would now be equal. Religion touches upon this conflict when the bible discusses the proper relationships between those of different stations. Although the bible does indicate we are all equal in the aspect of our righteousness when it says “…there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalm 14:3), it does indicate that in our situation in life we may not necessarily be peers with those around us. “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.” (II Timothy 2:20) What Marx called the antithesis; the bible refers to as rebellion. We should learn to appreciate where we are and what we have. “…for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” (Philippians 4:11) That isn’t to say that God requires us to be perpetually in a state of ruin. If we apply ourselves, it is possible to dig ourselves out of our unfavorable estate. “If a man therefore purge himself from these (iniquities), he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work” (II Timothy 2:21). What those in power must also realize, the impetus to create a better society isn’t just on the workers; those in charge also have a responsibility. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal…” (Colossians 4:1).
The symbolic interactionism perspective states that we view those people and things around us based on what symbols we have attached to them. We view people differently based on whether they are our sister or girlfriend, uncle or father, or any other number of symbols we have assigned to those around us. One caveat of this perspective is that meanings of symbols will change over time. One example is marriage and divorce. The meaning of marriage has changed from two parties uniting in mutual feelings of what they can do for each other to “what can the other do for me?” Divorce is no longer looked down on as a sign of failure, but rather as a symbol of freedom. In the last few years the rate of divorce has skyrocketed, splitting families and even friends. In religion, these same symbols are used; however, because they are designated by God, there is no allowance for change. “I change not.” (Malachi 3:6) In the area of divorce the bible says, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)
So when considering these three perspectives from the viewpoint of the bible, which one should we concentrate on? When considering the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we must keep in mind what the bible says about our relationships with others. “…whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them…” (Matthew 7:12) “…an elder, but treat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren…” (I Timothy 5:1) In a direct clash with the conflict theory, we are commanded biblically to “obey them that have the rule over you…salute them that have the rule over you…” (Hebrews 13:17 & 24), and “…Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.” (I Peter 2:17) When considering the structural-functionalism perspective, it is very important to keep in mind that our most important concern should be to fulfill our own responsibilities. After he had assigned roles to his disciples, and one of them had confronted him wanting to know what another disciple was going to do, Jesus said to him, “…what is that to thee? follow thou me.” (John 21:22)
© 2016 Stephen Moore. All rights reserved.
Structural-functionalism is, according to dictionary.com, “a theoretical orientation that views society as a system of interdependent parts whose functions contribute to the stability and survival of the system.” (“Functionalism”) By system, it is meant any number of organizations that have multiple groups or individuals, who by necessity, must act and interact in a specific manner in order that the organism may survive. The use of organism here is in reference to the fact that some sociologists, such as Auguste Comte, saw the interactions of people in a society working much the same way as the different parts of a living organism work together. Although sociologist Robert Merton didn’t view people’s roles in society as being synonymous with the interactions of a living being’s organs, he did believe that each being has its own important role to play. Those who fail to play their part are no longer contributing to the functions of a society. They are, rather, adding dysfunctions, which damage the equilibrium of a society. In religion, as in society, members must act in accordance with their assigned or chosen roles if it is to survive and perpetuate. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to the human body, where each individual member of the church has a specific function. “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?” (I Cor. 1:12, 14, & 15)
Karl Marx believed that “society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources” (“What is”, 2016). He believed that this conflict was the result of the wealthy and powerful (the bourgeoisie) hoarding their wealth and oppressing the poor (the proletariat). Marx separated his view of society into three parts: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. In his model, the thesis was the act of the rich controlling the means of production and wealth, the antithesis was the laborers rebelling against the overlords, and the synthesis was the final society formed. However, this would not be the end, for once the synthesis had formed, it would in turn create another thesis which would eventually lead to another antithesis, and so on. Marx felt that if all conflicts eventually resolved themselves, then the perfect society would have been formed, as everyone would now be equal. Religion touches upon this conflict when the bible discusses the proper relationships between those of different stations. Although the bible does indicate we are all equal in the aspect of our righteousness when it says “…there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalm 14:3), it does indicate that in our situation in life we may not necessarily be peers with those around us. “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.” (II Timothy 2:20) What Marx called the antithesis; the bible refers to as rebellion. We should learn to appreciate where we are and what we have. “…for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” (Philippians 4:11) That isn’t to say that God requires us to be perpetually in a state of ruin. If we apply ourselves, it is possible to dig ourselves out of our unfavorable estate. “If a man therefore purge himself from these (iniquities), he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work” (II Timothy 2:21). What those in power must also realize, the impetus to create a better society isn’t just on the workers; those in charge also have a responsibility. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal…” (Colossians 4:1).
The symbolic interactionism perspective states that we view those people and things around us based on what symbols we have attached to them. We view people differently based on whether they are our sister or girlfriend, uncle or father, or any other number of symbols we have assigned to those around us. One caveat of this perspective is that meanings of symbols will change over time. One example is marriage and divorce. The meaning of marriage has changed from two parties uniting in mutual feelings of what they can do for each other to “what can the other do for me?” Divorce is no longer looked down on as a sign of failure, but rather as a symbol of freedom. In the last few years the rate of divorce has skyrocketed, splitting families and even friends. In religion, these same symbols are used; however, because they are designated by God, there is no allowance for change. “I change not.” (Malachi 3:6) In the area of divorce the bible says, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)
So when considering these three perspectives from the viewpoint of the bible, which one should we concentrate on? When considering the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we must keep in mind what the bible says about our relationships with others. “…whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them…” (Matthew 7:12) “…an elder, but treat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren…” (I Timothy 5:1) In a direct clash with the conflict theory, we are commanded biblically to “obey them that have the rule over you…salute them that have the rule over you…” (Hebrews 13:17 & 24), and “…Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.” (I Peter 2:17) When considering the structural-functionalism perspective, it is very important to keep in mind that our most important concern should be to fulfill our own responsibilities. After he had assigned roles to his disciples, and one of them had confronted him wanting to know what another disciple was going to do, Jesus said to him, “…what is that to thee? follow thou me.” (John 21:22)
© 2016 Stephen Moore. All rights reserved.
References
Functionalism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionalism
What is the Conflict Theory? (2016). Investopedia. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionalism
What is the Conflict Theory? (2016). Investopedia. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp