An Understanding Of The Term Looking Glass Self

An Understanding Of The Term expression Glass SelfIn his book Human Nature and the affectionate Order (1902), the pi wizering Ameri basis sociologist Charles Horton Cooley introduced, somewhat incidentally, the limit looking- starter self-importance. This metaphor has since be stick with a standard concept in American sociology with a biggerr core than Cooley himself first implied or envisi matchlessd, and with important implications in psychology, ethical studies, theories of child rearing, and different(a) fields. Cooley meant by this term that to some degree individuals develop their identities or self-concepts, and come to understand and define themselves, by considering the ideas and reactions that they think otherwises arrive about them especially others who confabm significant in their lives. Thus, in the process of swell up-disposedization, which is especially minute at the earlier stages of life but is al federal agencys occurring, mass govern their natures a nd soulalities and assume their roles in response to their reactions to the other hatful in their complaisant contexts. In that sense, according to Cooley, nonp arils self whitethorn be said to hypothesize fond aspects that atomic number 18 outside angiotensin converting enzymeself it reflects ordination itself in many secernate ways. The concept actually implies an inter playacting pair of reverberates. First oneness imagines oneself pictured (and judged) in the mind of another then one reflects in ones mind those judgments that one imagines, thus regulating ones behavior and partially defining oneself.What is reflected in the mirror of ones own mind includes the value systems, self- explanations, and judgments of others in the surrounding society. In this view, ones self-development does not necessarily depend upon clinical affable realities rather, it comes about because one perceives or conceives of others responses in accepted ways. Thus the feedback that one thinks one is getting from society may actually be more important than any objective reality outside oneself. As sociologist George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons summarized Cooleys scheme in 1966, our imaginations of self reflect our interpersonal concerns. Patricia R. Jette, writing in The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sociology (1986), says that the looking-glass self theory distinguishes three separate components that contribute to the development of self the responses of others to the individual the individuals knowledge of what these responses are, were, or cleverness be (which may differ from the actual responses) and the individuals imitate internalizing of these perceived responses so that they become parts of his or her self-concept and behavioral makeup. In this latter stage, the individual molds a self that reflects the social environment and people in itas she or he has subjectively perceived them.Noting the precise way in which Cooley first used his term can garter one to apply it with its original subtleties. In Human Nature and the mixer Order, the term occurs in the chapter entitled The Meaning of I, one of two chapters about the social self. Cooley makes clear, in proposing the term looking-glass self, that it is not intended as an absolute definition of the nature of the self but is merely one very large and interesting category in which the self (or the I) is defined by its social surroundings. According to Cooleys original language, one imagines oneself step forwarding in some other mind, and then the kind of self-feeling one has is determined by the attitude . . . attributed to that other mind. A social self of this sort might be called the reflected or looking-glass self.Cooley goes on to quote an anonymous verse couplet Each to for each one a looking-glass/ Reflects the other that doth pass. Thus Cooleys first use of the term suggests that, in any social interaction, each of two minds is a mirror that of a self-conscious person, and that of another person who is a reacting mirror. In real life, one can imagine some interchanges, especially among social peers, as working both ways, in a balanced fashionwith each person at the same time being both a self-conscious actor and an evaluating judge. Young people in the earlier stages of socialization, however, or people lacking in social power, would be closely likely to function in the self-conscious roles, plot of ground those who are older, more powerful, or more authoritative would be most likely to be the self-assured judges whose opinions matter enough for the other person to take them into account and allow them (perhaps unconsciously) to govern behaviorSocial psychologists such as Tamotsu Shibutani emphasize the importance of Cooleys ideas in the socialization process. In Shibutanis view, the looking-glass self means simply that each persons orientation toward himself is a check of the manner in which he is treated. Cooley noted what Read Bain confirme d in the 1930sthat children know other people as objects, and call others by name, forwards they sense themselves as separate entities. Many experts agree that children see themselves as recipients of action before perceiving themselves as actors. Therefore, their evolving natures as active selves acquiring personalities go away be likely to mirror the way they have been treated by others they first gain self- individuation from social interaction.Cooleys metaphor, like any analogy, embeds both the sexual morality of vividness and the danger of distortion. Though McCall and Simmons call Cooleys looking glass a somewhat clouded concept, the term is commonly used by sociologists to help explain certain aspects of the process by which all people fulfil their identities, regulating and in effect fine- tuning and modulating them as they go. Most sociologists let that Cooleys idea contains an important truth.ApplicationsThe generalized examples that Cooley used when he first mentione d the looking-glass self in 1902 are good beginning points for illustrating how the concept works in real life. Cooley suggests, first, that as we pass a real mirror and see our face, figure, and dress reflected, we are naturally interested, and we are either pleased or not, depending on whether what we see measures up to what we would like to see. Similarly, when we meet another person, we right away imagine ourselves as mirror in that persons mindour appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on. In the next step, we find ourselves imagining what that other persons judgment of our reflected selves may be. The third stage triggered by this sequence is a reflective feeling in ourselves such as pride or mortification when we conceive of this judgment.Cooley himself admits that the metaphor of the looking glass is not adequate to explain the second of these three componentsthat is, the subjective military rank of the looker-on. The nature and role of the onlooker is strategic in any such hypothetical situation, because one will be concerned about the onlookers military rating only if that person seems somehow significant. Assuming the onlookers importance in ones life, Cooley says, one will be ashamed to seem reticent if one knows the onlooker is straightforward one will not want to seem white-livered if one knows the onlooker is brave and one will hesitate to appear gross if one knows the onlooker is refined. One may, in a certain social situation, boast to one onlooker about how one make a sharp business deal, but with some other person whom one perceives as having different social values one might try to hide the very same fact. In these senses, then, the outside mirror of the onlookers mind actually determines the nature of ones social self, generating ones behavior and role in a given setting.Though Cooleys examples do not imply that the satisfying of anyones self is determined by the process of such interactions, one can see how gen erally speaking, from earliest childhood onward one is likely to shape oneself to fit what one anticipates to be theexpected judgments of those with whom one is dealing. In individual situations throughout life, even after ones identity is rather to the full formed, one tends to adopt the contextual roles that one thinks of as suitable when mirrored in the minds of others. Thus in ones grandmothers living room or at a church service, one may in effect be one person, while at a basketball game one may reveal an entirely different self this is role-playing behavior. Proud parents may discuss their children freely with other parents, but, with some degree of consciousness, they may cease from mentioning their children when talking to someone who is childlessor who has recently lost a child in a car accident. In these cases, the looking glass of social surroundings and audience shapes ones perceived identity.Although Cooley illustrated only interchanges between two adults and did not specifically explore the implications that his concept has for childhood socialization, the looking-glass self helps to explain early identity development A young child tends to become a faction of the features that are approved and desired in society. Society always puts insisting on individuals to conform to its values and judgments in order to receive encomium thus humanswho generally seek acceptance and want to be well thought ofshape their social actions according to the signals they get from the social mirror into which they are always looking. Since children tend to internalize what they encounter outside themselves and to act as if it were valid and true, it is clear that those who are treated as worthwhile entities have a better chance of becoming socially productive than those who are treated with abuse or disregard. The development of negative self-concepts as children discourages individuals from acting later as if they have positive contributions to make to society.