Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the chapter, you should be able to:
• recognize what the field of anthropology can contribute to the understanding of the
self;
• understand how culture and self are complementary concepts;
• discuss the cultural construction of the self and social identity; explain the concept
of identity struggles; and
— Kilroy J. Oldster
Practices among different societies reveal ways how societies conceptualize what the
self is and how it relates to culture. Anthropology considered as one of the most
complex areas of discipline, has explored various meanings of culture, self and identity
in the desire to come up with a better understanding of the self. Some anthropologists,
however, arrive at a conclusion that there is no simple definition.
Anthropology is concerned with how cultural and biological processes interact to shape
human experience. Contemporary anthropologists believe that culture and self are
complementary concepts that are to be understood in relation to one another.
Compared with other disciplines, anthropology possesses a holistic and integrated
approach in examining human nature. According to a distinguished anthropology
professor, James L. Peacock ( 1986, p. 10), "anthropology encroaches on the territory
of the sciences as well as the humanities, and transcends the conventional boundaries
of both while addressing questions from the distant past and the pressing present—
perhaps with implications for the future." This definition of anthropology emphasizes
that it is an academic field for understanding the interconnection and interdependence
of biological and cultural aspects of the human experience at all times and in all places.
Employing an anthropological perspective, that is' perceiving holistically, what could be
the answer to the question: "Who am I?"
Anthropology considers human experience as an interplay of "nature," referring
to genetic inheritance which sets the individual's potentials, and "nurture,"
referring to the sociocultural environment (Haviland, Prins, Walrath, & McBride,
2013). Therefore, it could be understood that both biological and cultural factors
have significant influence on the development of awareness among individuals
within society. In addition, the field of anthropology has contributed indirectly to
the understanding of the nature of self through ethnographic investigations (e.g.,
sampling method, sentence completion, interviews) which discuss that cultural
variations may affect one's mental state, language, and behavior (Triandis,
1989). Perhaps, the most important contribution of anthropology is providing
insights into the nature of self based on continuous understanding of the basic
elements of culture (Peacock, 1986).
Yet, only a small number of anthropologists tackle the concept of self (van
Meijl, 2008). In effect, self is one of the most taken for granted products of culture
(Robbins, 2012). German anthropologist Martin Sökefeld ( 1999) believes that the
concept of self is a necessary supplement to the concept of culture in anthropology
and should be regarded as a human universal, Culture and self thus become
complementary concepts that have to be understood in relation to one another.
In the social anthropology, concept of identity was used mostly in the context
of "ethnic identity," pointing out the sameness of the self with others, that is, to a
consciousness of sharing certain characteristics (e.g., language, culture, etc.)
Identity is understood as a disposition of basic personality features acquired mostly
during childhood and, once integrated, more or less fixed (Sokefeld, 1999). This
identity therefore makes a human being a person and an acting individual. Peacock
(1986) believes that the individual is neither a robot nor an entirely independent
self-willed little god but a cultural individual existing in freedom but also embodying
that cultural mold in which he is cast in his particular society and historical epoch.
There are two ways in which the concept of self is viewed in different societies: egocentric
and sociocentric. In the egocentric view, the self is see as an autonomus and distinct
individual. Each person is defined as a replica of all humanity but capable of acting
independently from others. While in the sociocentric view, the self is contingent on a
situation or social setting. This is a view of the self that is context-dependent which
emphasizes that there is no intrinsic self that can possess enduring qualities (Robbins,
2012).
For anthropologist Christie Kiefer (Robbins, 2012), the Japanese possess a
sociocentric view of the self in which the membership of a person in a particular
social group defines the boundaries of the self. Interdependence between the person
and the group is more valued than independence. For the Japanese, social
interaction should be characterized by restraint. Likewise, Chinese American
anthropologist Francis Hsu attributes a sociocentric view of the self to the Chinese.
He explains that the Chinese prioritize kin ties and cooperation. For them, the very
essence of interpersonal relations is mutual dependence. Hence, they do not value
self-reliance but put importance to compliance and subordination of one's will to the
authority figures in the family. In contrast with the Japanese and the Chinese, the
Americans are egocentric. They believe that they should be assertive and
independent (Robbins, 2012).
From the similarities and differences in characteristics among individuals,
people construct their social identities. The identity toolbox refers to the features of a
person's identity that he or she chooses to emphasize in constructing a social self.
Some characteristics such as kinship, gender, and age are almost universally used to
differentiate people. Other characteristics, such as ethnicity, personal appearance,
and socioeconomic status are not always used in every society. Family membership
could be the most significant feature to determine a person's social identity. Another
important identity determinant that is often viewed as essential for the maintenance of
a group identity is language. In other societies, religious affliation is an important
marker of group identity (Robbins, 2012). In Mindanao, being a Christian or a Muslim
is possibly the most important defining feature of one's social identity.