Reading Discussions for DISTANCE EDUCATION Days:
1 February 2005: Charles Horton Cooley views the self as a product of the environment and not something that one is "born" with. He sees the self as a reflection of how others react to us and what our corresponding reaction is. This is seen in his "Looking Glass Self" that is defined as we see our selfs in others reactions to us as if we were looking in a mirror. There is a sort of imaginary adoption of other's perspectives into how we feel about our persona. In a way, Cooley is saying something special about the individual in that we all have felt this reaction to how others view us many, many times. How often have you said something or done something in front of others and their reaction to you has been of utmost importance. We have been "judged" by the social climate and adjust accordingly. We may accept other's reactions to us, resent them, or make no issue at all. In this manner, Cooley is suggesting who we are is dependent on others and thus personality is also dependent. The Looking Glass Self is generally accepted as a fundamental shaper of the social self, but has some sound criticism. Most social scientists do not deny that those about us have a great influence in respect to who we are. Look at children and how they sometimes look like "miniature parents." Nevertheless, there is still the notion that we are born with certain characteristics and general attitude through temperament that determines in no small matter how one deals with the world. There is a confluence here of learning factors that is very difficult to assess. Still, Cooley's Looking Glass Self is regarded as a fairly interesting idea of how the self comes about from day one. This "self" is thought to last up to the later years of a person's twenties, but does not entirely stop throughout life. Here, however, the Looking Glass Self must diminish after the twenties or one is then talking about one's over-concern with other people's opinions which could be neurotic behaviour. I think most of us start leaving the Looking Glass Self in the late teens and get to the point, later in life, that other's reactions to us may have some validity, but we are secure enough in "our selves" to say, "Yea, I agree, but the heck with it anyway!" What is important with Cooley is how he proves the self is not just born in to us, but is strongly a development of social interection. Language is so important here because it gives us the ability to be in and make contact with others. Without language, the Looking Glass Self would be strongly diminished, non existent or behaviour with be simply "instinctual". As it says in the book: "Each to each a looking glass reflects the other that doth pass."  George Herbert Mead does not deny Cooley's suggestions, but feels the self is an on-going continual process that is in dialogue with the singular person. In other words, the individual has the ability to step back and look at their self and to make a judgment concerning the quality of it. We kind of "place the self under a microscope" and see how it is put together. In other words, we keep redefining the self through social interaction and our stepping back from it in a judgmental sense. For example; if a person comments on how they like or dislike the way we are dressed, the person receiving the comment will mentally make a note of this, judge whether they like it or not and then decide to incorporate that style of dress the next time in a similar situation. It is as if we all kind of "step out of ourselves", consider our self as an object and then evaluate that self as one would do with an object like a table, chair, automobile, etc.. After we make this evaluation, we "jump back into our self" and continue along our merry social way.  This "self as object" is a facet of personality that we are born with - what we do with that facility determines who we become as a continual process. Still we see that Cooley and Mead are coming from two different directions (Cooley - self as totally social. Mead - the self as a process predicated with a structure inherent at birth.) and converging on the fact that one can not deny personality as something always dependent on the social order of the day. How these kind of processes work in fashioning us as males and females is left up to the next author - Spencer Cahill.... Questions/comments? E-mail Dr Jack.
3 February 2005:  From the start of life, society begins and continues throughout the years to define us as either male or female with attached roles. Consider the color of ribbon medical people put on the newborn in the nursery. Certainly The Looking Glass Self and Mead's thinking play a large part in sex roles, but so too does who or what one identifies with as they grow. Often one has little choice in this identification for the very fact that boys and girls tend to be kept in different groups in the school years. A child observes the clothes and behaviour of the mother and father drawing them a clear picture of what men and women do as to their social responsibilities. Strength and violence is often associated with men and caretaking with women. The fact is, in the United States, agenda groups have not really made a significant in-road to gender differences even though they publicize great changes in sex roles with exceptions. Women still bear the brunt of child raising and men are still supposed to "bring home the bacon". Certainly things are changed, but fundamentally they have not. Consider the women who enter the "liberated" job force and still. in many instances, dress and attempt to act like the man. In the reading by Cahill, note the factors he describes as common to men and women in the area of attitude, dress and demeanor. Then, think to yourself how many examples in your everyday experience substantiate these factors. Be prepared to discuss them and/or write a paper concerning these issues.  Questions/comments? E-mail Dr Jack
25/27 January 2005. Readings 2 and 3 are discussions concerning not only how we become who we are, but more the establishment of the human being as a social creature as opposed to other animals that, although they may be social, have these tendencies born in and are generally referred to as "instincts". There is no doubt that the human experience has "pre-programmed instincts", but it is generally argued that the social aspects of who we are are more important. That is debatable, but not terribly significant for our purposes at this time. Perhaps the more interesting of the two readings is Zeruvabel, although the most difficult. His arguments is that the experiencial world is meaningless to us until we "break it up" into specific parts that are socially significant to us and thus become meaningful in experience. A tough concept, but the discussions indicate that the reading leads to significant understandings on personality.
8 February 2005    2-10-05 Apologies: These notes (only this date) are for Social Problems class. Just click on Problems Assignments for the "right" notes. I suppose the important idea from today's class is the nature of communication between the boys and girls and the suggestion that possibly men have just as great a difficulty with their sex roles as women do and possibly more. In term of communication and the difficulty between the sexes coming to some understanding concerning the mode of how each talks; women tend to work through their emotions in discussions with others (particularly women) and often the formation of a social order is more important than the actual topic of conversation. Men tend to be problem solvers and "one-uppers" in their conversations with other men. These distinct styles of communication are often the source of difficulty between the sexes because they are really different playing fields and can lead to frustration and consternation on both side. Women, however, have a greater chance of organizing themselves for whatever reasons because they are already in that social arena, whereas men tend to be solitary and find that group organizing may be very difficult if not impossible compared to what women do. These differences suggest that  there is much to learn concerning how men and women communicate and the roles they play along with inherent difficulties in the two styles of communication.
10 February 2005 Fun discussion, but still has its serious points, i.e., personality is a complex blend between attitudes and dispositions we are born with and those environmental influences (especially parents) that shape the way we "attack" life. It is Thorne's contention that these influences create barriers, particularly ones related to sex. Sex here is that which is created in terms of world acquisition rather than body structures given at birth. In a sense, one can never be free of the notion that boys are different from girls! How this manifests itself is another story and to what degree one accepts it is also contentious. What can not be denied is that sex and its accompanying roles and stereotypes is a powerful shaper of personality. As an addenda: If we agree that women's conversation involves more working through emotions and men's tends to be a "one-upping" process - could there be such a situation that there is a right and wrong way to implement it? In other words, men who tend to "one-up" too much or all the time are seen as imposing and/or on the verge of, if not already, being a bully! Is there a similar instance for women? E-mail me or discuss in class.
17 February 2005 Exam 1.
22February 2005 Both readings today clearly illustrate the nature of dependency and some ways to deal with the experience. The point is, however, that Goffman, Cooley and Mead are not just theorizing, but are quite applicable to understanding dependency from a theoretical and pragmatic level of reality. This means that these ideas cross specific boundaries and can be universally applied to many phenomena. It also suggests that personality is malleable and has the possibility of being changed, although this is a rare occurrence. The other concept is the social fabrication of the self and critiques of AA which were important in the discussion.
24 February 2005 Once one gets a generic "feel" of their self, one has to face the idea that they are a social creature with emotions and feelings that have to be modified for public consumption. In today's reading, the business of medical students spotlights this aspect of the self. Emotions must be managed and "professionalism" is the key to social success in the contemporary social order. Detachment aids one in solving problems, yet the development of this facility is not easy. Any form of self development requires a certain "hands on" experience, but this approach may be too bold for its creation. Here is where Mead's ideas about the self as object are important. Perhaps we all spend a great deal of time fantasizing who we are and what we want to be in a manner of rehearsing social behaviour. This then gives us the opportunity to preview possible experience before it actually happens and to alleviate the anxiety that comes with it before the actual encounter. Each one of us then interacts with others and it becomes common that we act in a nonemotional way so as to "test the waters" of interaction and get a feel of our social strengths and weaknesses before we actually commit to a particular way of reaction in a specific social situation. The management of emotions is one of the most reoccurring facets of personality and one of the most difficult to get right in one's eye!
1 March 2005 Because so many students were absent today, I felt it best to cancel the class until a full complement returns to let everyone have a chance to hear the lecture in Goffman. In some places, the reading is difficult, however, so here are some preliminary notes. Goffman is interested in the external, he does not get into the deep reasons why a person does what they do. His process is defining that which a person presents as their self and the pragmatic effects or the success of the presentation one wants to make. This involves impression management or fabricating a self that one believes will set them in the best light with those that they are confronting. If it does not work, then Goffman says simply to not do it and fabricate another impression that does. This makes sense because we are always concerned with what people think of us and our standing in the immediacy of the human experience. In a way, life is like a theatrical performance, because we can never see into another's mind and know their real self, so we put on stagings and presentations that are like the theatre. And as is in the theatre, what we come to know is what we come to observe!

3 March 2005 Erving Goffman is one of the more provocative theorists in social science. The Presentation of Self gives a lucid description of interaction utilizing the theatre metaphor. Goffman is always interested in the reciprocal influences on performance, but he is never interested in the deep, psychological reasons of behaviour. His rationale is that we can never know the internal mental workings of another person so we must focus on the external cues of the "why". Ultimately he suggests that a good character creates a self in the image that the audience will attribute to him and is creditable. Yet, it is not a self that the performer has in them , but one that has been created by their performance. The main problem we all face with our "selves" is whether our performance is credited or will be discredited. The key to a credited self is a consistent definition of the situation or impression management that is believed.
8 March 2005 The Gloried Self has two aspects of importance. 1. It is not a schizophrenic entity, but the product of celebrity that is simply another level of reality that, if left to fester, could turn into a neurotic phenomena. 2. Adler and Adler point out the intersection of Goffman, Cooley and Mead that illustrates social experience is analyzed not by one theory, but several in accord with each other to build an understandable analysis of the human experience.
10 March 2005 2d Exam Due.
15 March 2005 Today the discussion centered on the salvaging the self of transexuals and the homeless self. The interesting notion here was that the homeless self was one of establishing identity, but an identity that was of a fantasy nature because the homeless could not have access to any other. As far as the transsexual self is concerned, it differs from the alcoholic and gloried self in that it tends to be unknown while the other selves are there and it is  matter of getting back to them. The idea that there are distinct selves is one most do not consider. We may not realize that the quest for "self" may be a quest for a certain stereotypical one rather then one that we fabricate on our own.
29 March 2005 Excusing the company we keep was a fascinating reading leading to some deep questions about our self's and the motives behind saving "face". The class tended to agree that, whatever the social circumstances, the definition of the situation fell to those who had the social command of the interaction. This meant that there is less freedom than one would imagine in interaction and that "face" was an important construction in the presentation of self and maybe the most important!
31 March 2005 Body language and conversation are so important in constructing the level of interaction between people. As we discussed, this creates a ritual that not only is adhered to, but people look for and, if it is not present in some context, may be considered a social affront.
7 April 2005 Status means much to most people not only in the things it may socially bring to one, but also in terms of the self. Most fail to see that they are socialized to a certain point of view dependent on status in their lives and they generally act this out - to their advantage or disadvantage. There is no doubt, however, that status plays a significant role in the formation and continuance of the self.
12 April 2005 Exam 3.
14 April 2005 I have no idea what was going on today!
19 April 2005 One's Reality Profile is defined by how one and what one gathers as information about themselves. There are certain characteristics that are important here in terms of this information. The social situation will set the limits to what one's personality can pragmatically handle or "does it work"? If so, then one begins to believe in their routines and also realizes that some work in certain situations, while in others, they do not. This is gained knowledge about the self and the society about one. Cahill then goes on to explain that we can clearly see this in the restroom interaction - perhaps more clearly than everyday interaction because of the scenario starkness. 
21 April 2005 Think of "what is common" in this way; to use a metaphor. "What is common among a person, wolf and porpoise?" Answer - They are all mammals, warm-blooded and placenta bearers. In similar fashion, try to employ the same reasoning in the Final.
26 April 2005 The "rest room" reading reminds us of how ritual laden the human experience is. One can not get away from this facet of interaction and Goffman clearly points this out in the front and backstage areas. The "restroom" reading is presented in this fashion to clearly delineate the fact that one "prepares", in certain social areas, for the "performance" of interaction whether it be a restroom or an entrance door mirror that we adjust our clothing to the proper "set".
28 April 2005 The two realities of wife abuse focused on definitions as realities. In other words what is understood by one, may not be understood in the same manner by another and this may bring serious consequences on the self.