UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 4.7 Free with a free account
Shaped by the World Around Us: How Social and Cultural Systems Define the Self
Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 4: The Self and IdentitySection 4.7 · lesson 24 of 8512 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Advanced Social Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Advanced Social Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Labels, Bias, and Exclusion: Understanding Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotypes →← Looking Inward: Self-Awareness Theory and the Power of IntrospectionNext lesson: Labels, Bias, and Exclusion: Understanding Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotypes →
In this lesson
The self as constituted by social and symbolic systems, not merely influenced by them.
- State the symbolic-interactionist claim about the self's origin
- Apply social identity theory to the self-concept
- Evaluate cultural neuroscience and intersectional analysis
- Analyze hybrid, bicultural, and digitally mediated selves
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,519 words). Read along, or search it.
The Self and Identity
Shaped by the World Around Us
Everything so far in this chapter has looked at the self from inside. Its cognitive structure. Its evaluative dimension. Its strategic display. This section reverses the direction of analysis entirely. It asks how the surrounding social and cultural order gets into the self. We move from symbolic interactionism to social identity theory. Then to cultural neuroscience, which locates some of this in the brain. Then to intersectionality, which insists the axes do not simply add up. And finally to hybrid selves, formed across more than one cultural frame. The argument gets stronger as it goes, so watch how the claim escalates.
Direction Reversed
Not Influence. Constitution.
Start with the thesis, because the wording is doing a lot of work. The weak version says environments influence selves. Almost nobody disputes that. The strong version is what this section actually argues. The self is, in a non-trivial sense, constituted by social and symbolic systems. Constituted by the systems within which it develops. That is a much stronger claim, and it changes what counts as an explanation. Here is the consequence that follows directly. If the self is constituted socially, then stripping away the social context does not help. It does not reveal a truer self underneath. There is no self underneath, on this account. There is only the assembly.
Symbolic Interactionism
Taking the Role of the Other
Two classical figures supply the foundation, and you have met them before. But their load-bearing claim is not about socialization content. It is about what makes reflexive self-awareness possible in the first place. Cooley, in nineteen oh two, described the looking-glass process. A person imagines their appearance to another. Then imagines the other's judgment of that appearance. Then forms a self-feeling from that imagined judgment. Pride, or shame. Mead extended this in nineteen thirty-four, with the generalized other. In mature socialization, the relevant audience is not one specific person. It is the internalized perspective of the wider community. The community whose norms, language, and roles the individual has acquired. Now the claim that actually matters. For Mead, the capacity to take the role of the other is what makes reflexivity possible. First specific others, then the generalized other. Without that capacity, there is nothing to turn attention back with.
Markus And Kitayama
Two Construals, Five Consequences
Markus and Kitayama's nineteen ninety-one framework is still the most influential one. And it works across five dimensions, not one. The independent construal is defined by internal traits, abilities, and preferences. The interdependent construal is defined by roles, relationships, and group obligations. Self-descriptions follow. Independent construers describe trait-centered, decontextualized selves. Interdependent construers describe role-centered, relational, contextual ones. Motivation splits too. Independent contexts foster self-enhancement, and uniqueness. Interdependent contexts foster self-improvement, and fitting in. Cognitive style varies accordingly, following Nisbett's two thousand three synthesis. Independent attention is more analytic, and focused on the focal object. Interdependent attention is more holistic, and more contextual. Even emotion focus differs. Ego-focused emotions like pride and anger. Versus other-focused emotions like shame and sympathy. The independent construal is more characteristic of Western, industrialized societies. The interdependent is more characteristic of many East Asian, South Asian, African, and Latin American ones.
Read It Correctly
Dimensional and Contextual, Not Categorical
Now the single most common misuse of this framework. Students treat it as a classification of people. It is not one. The framework is dimensional and contextual, not categorical. Any individual carries elements of both construals. One becomes chronically accessible, given a person's socialization. The other becomes temporarily salient, given priming. That last word carries a serious methodological consequence. If a construal can be primed in a laboratory, it is a state as well as a trait. Which means any cross-national difference you measure is partly something else. Partly a difference in what the research setting happened to make salient. Design your comparison badly and you will measure your own procedure.
Tajfel And Turner
When a Group Becomes Part of the Self
Tajfel and Turner published social identity theory in nineteen seventy-nine. Turner and colleagues extended it into self-categorization theory, in nineteen eighty-seven. Together they make a structural claim about the self-concept. The self-concept is not exhausted by personal identity. People also categorize themselves at the social level. As members of meaningful groups. Nation, profession, gender, religion, fandom. And here is the link that makes this psychological rather than merely descriptive. A portion of self-esteem is derived from the perceived value of those groups. From their standing, as the person perceives it. Which is why an insult aimed at a group registers personally. It is not a metaphor. Part of the self really is located there. This is also the bridge to chapter five. There, the same mechanism gets taken up as a theory of intergroup conflict.
Salience Shifts
From Interpersonal to Intergroup
The theory's real force is in what happens when a social identity becomes salient. Behavior does not simply intensify. It changes register. Behavior shifts from interpersonal to intergroup. Three things increase together, and they always travel as a set. Ingroup favoritism increases. Outgroup differentiation increases. And intra-group conformity increases. You start treating your own side as more similar to you than it is. And the other side as more different than it is. Now the finding that made this genuinely urgent. Even minimal, arbitrary group assignments produce these effects. You do not need history, or grievance, or resources in dispute. The implications reach prejudice, cooperation, and political behavior alike.
Cultural Neuroscience
Where the Represented Self Ends
Cultural neuroscience asks whether any of this shows up in the brain. Han and Northoff opened the question in two thousand eight. Kitayama and Uskul developed it further in twenty eleven. The field studies how cultural experience shapes neural systems for self-relevant processing. One finding has been consistent, and it is genuinely striking. Consider self-referential judgments about close others, especially the mother. Those judgments activate the medial prefrontal cortex. And they do so to a greater degree in interdependent participants than independent ones. The reading is that the close other is included within the represented self. The boundary of the self is drawn in a different place. Not merely described differently in a questionnaire. Drawn differently. The broader claim follows from that. Culture is not a layer sitting on top of universal cognition. It is a tuning of neural systems, through sustained engagement with cultural practices.
Beyond A Binary
The Dichotomy Fragments
Now the correction, and it is a substantial one. The independent and interdependent dichotomy has been productive scaffolding. So has individualism versus collectivism. Both are increasingly recognized as too coarse to carry the weight put on them. Vignoles and colleagues ran a fifty-five country study, published in twenty sixteen. They found that individualism versus collectivism fragments. It splits into multiple dimensions that do not always move together. Self-reliance. Harmony. Consistency. Self-direction. A society can be high on one and low on another. And within any society, further variation is systematic. Class, religion, urban or rural status, and migration history all produce it. So advanced theorizing treats the cultural self differently now. As a multidimensional, situated, and contested construct. Not as a national average you can look up.
Intersectionality
Positions That Do Not Add Up
Intersectionality pushes that point further, and from a different tradition. Crenshaw articulated it in nineteen eighty-nine. It has since been developed right across the social sciences. The claim is that selves are positioned within multiple intersecting systems of power. Gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, citizenship. And here is the technical core of the argument. Their effects cannot be analyzed by summing single-axis variables. The combination is not the addition. It is its own position. For self-concept research, this directs attention somewhere specific. To how structurally situated identities are negotiated, performed, and revised. In contexts of stigma, of privilege, and of surveillance. Empirical extensions include stereotype threat across intersecting identities. And work on identity safety in evaluative settings, following Steele in twenty ten.
Hybrid Selves
Frame Switching, Migration, and Platforms
Contemporary selves are increasingly formed across multiple cultural frames. Not within one frame, which is what classical models assumed. Biculturals exhibit what is called cultural frame switching. Hong, Morris, Chiu, and Benet-Martinez demonstrated it in two thousand. Cultural primes activate the corresponding construal patterns. They also activate corresponding attributions, and self-descriptions. The same person, primed differently, produces a different self-report. Migrants live this routinely. So do third-culture children. So do members of diasporic communities. Digital environments add another layer on top of that. Platforms enable selective disclosure across asynchronous audiences. They allow stigmatized aspects of identity to be expressed where face-to-face is closed. And they aggregate self-relevant feedback into quantified signals. The advanced reading refuses the obvious conclusion here. Such selves are not less cultural. They are differently cultural. Produced in the intersection of overlapping symbolic systems, rather than inside one.
Consolidate
What This Chapter Built
Step back and look at what this chapter actually built. It opened with a self that infers its own attitudes from its own behavior. It closes with a self assembled out of systems it never chose. Both are true, and the tension between them is the point. Five terms to fix from this final section. The looking-glass self, running on imagined judgment. The generalized other, the community's perspective, internalized. Independent and interdependent self-construals, dimensional rather than categorical. Social identity theory, where part of self-esteem sits in a group. And intersectionality, where the axes of power refuse to add up. One question to carry into chapter five. If part of the self is a group membership, what happens when that group is threatened?
About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology
Why take it here
Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Shaped by the World Around Us: How Social and Cultural Systems Define the Self
What is the looking-glass self?
What is the difference between independent and interdependent self-construal?
What is cultural frame switching in bicultural people?
What does cultural neuroscience reveal about the self?
About the Advanced Social Psychology course
How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.
85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →