IDENTITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF SELF

FROM A CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Stephen J. Sills
Department of Sociology
Arizona State University

Sociology 591
Social Psychology
Dr. Miller-Loessi
February 20, 2003
Identity and Development of Self from a Cross-Cultural Perspective

SOCIAL psychology has, as a rule, dealt with various phases of social experience from
the psychological standpoint of individual experience. The point of approach which I
wish to suggest is that of dealing with experience from the standpoint of society…
Social psychology, on this view, presupposes an approach to experience from the
standpoint of the individual, but undertakes to determine in particular that which
belongs to this experience because the individual himself belongs to a social structure,
a social order.
Mind, Self and Society from the
Perspective of a Social Behaviorist

The true test of a theory is its universality. While, George Herbert Mead’s concept of self does

prove to be universally applicable and explains well the influence of the social structure on the

individual’s perspective, I will argue that it must undergo some alteration to account for the

role of culture in shaping the individual. Moreover, the stages of development of self proposed

by Mead must be amended in order to account for the cultural dimension of Individualism vs.

Collectivism noted by Hofstede, Swartz, Triandis, Kagitcibasi & Berry and the Chinese Cultural

Connection (as cited in Miller-Loessi, 1995).1 Additionally, the centrality of the concept of self

as an autonomous unit with individual agency in the developmental theories of Mead and

others (i.e. Kohlberg, Erikson, Piaget, etc.) exposes the ethnocentric importance of

individualism in post-industrial Western societies.

Western Ethnocentrism in the Concept of Self

The importance of the role of the individual has occupied the social science literature for some

time. Relying on anthropological data from as early as 1906, Margaret Mead noted the varying

degrees of individual agency and the role of the individual as a member of the collective in

various cultures from Burma to the Palau Islands (Mead 1953/ 1955). Within social psychology,

the development of the individual self as it relates to the social structure has also been central.

1
Smith & Bond (1998) note that the terms individualism and collectivism are overly simplistic, but admit the
lack of empirical studies necessary to create a more refined model and thus use the terms collectivistic and
individualistic throughout their discussion.

1
In Mind, Self and Society, Mead explains, “The self, as that which can be an object to itself, is

essentially a social structure, and it arises in social experience. After a self has arisen, it in a

certain sense provides for itself its social experiences, and so we can conceive of an absolutely

solitary self” (Mead 1934/1962; 140). Accordingly, while there cannot be a 'self' without social

interaction, the self, once formed, in Mead’s model, exists independently of the structure. While

this conception provides for a great deal of humans agency at the individual level, it tends to

neglect the continuing role of the social group and its influence on self-identity especially in

non-Western or non-industrialized cultures. Smith and Bond (1998) note the tendency of social

psychology in general to be “largely the product of individualistic cultures, especially that of the

United States. In consequence, certain topics become the focus of psychologists’ attention to

the relative exclusion of others” (98).

Mead does account for the long-lasting structural influences on the individual self in his

discussion of the “I” and the “me.” However, he gives greater importance to the concept of

“I” as the element that is the essential agent “which does the thinking, the knowing, the

planning, the acting” (McCall & Simmons, 1978; 53). The “I” then is the self as actor and the

“me” the self as audience influenced by the perspective of the society. Importantly, George

Ritzer points out that “Mead sees an evolutionary process in history in which people in

primitive societies are dominated more by “me” while in modern societies there is a greater

component of “I” (1992, Ritzer; 378). We may interpret this as meaning that those collectivistic

societies, in which self-as-part-of-social-group holds more importance that self-as-independent-

entity, are thought by Mead to be less advanced than those in which self is presented as unique,

distinct, and self-directed. In this way, the ethnocentric view of the individual is inherently a

part of Mead’s theory.

2
Stages of Development

Mead’s stages of development further demonstrate a culturally biased viewpoint.2 These stages

progress in complexity of social interaction from the imitation stage (in which the child mimics

actions of others), to the play stage (in which the child learns to take the role of one significant

other at a time), and finally to the game stage (in which the child internalizes the societal

structure in the generalized other) (Charon, 1979; 67-71; Ritzer, 1996; 374-379). Of particular

interest is the idea that the generalized other of the game stage simply represents a perspective or

reference from which we view our potential actions and ourselves. We do not find our sense of

self in the generalized other, but rather a perspective of ourselves.3 In this way we only internalize

a societal view of self when we reflect upon other’s reactions to our own, self-directed actions.

The self is not viewed as an interdependent part of the whole of society, but rather an entity

that acts and reacts under the influence of the social structure.

Similar to Mead, Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg saw development of self as

occurring in a progression of stages that required social interaction and showed evidence of the

social structure on the individual identity. Piaget, focused on cognitive development and

revealed the importance of the social interaction required for each stage of development,

ending with an autonomous self, capable of abstract thought (Popenoe, 2000; 122-123).

Kohlberg, while including stages that defined social consciousness and interest in the wellbeing

of others (Stage 5: Contractual Legalistic Orientation), explained that the pinnacle of moral

development is a self-consciousness that supplants social rules and obligations (Scheibe, 1995;

65-69). Yet, not all Western models of personality development favor the individual so strongly.

For example, Erik Erikson proposed a model in which, the individual would first find

2
It may be argued that the view of “stages” is in itself a cultural object as many societies view processes in
more cyclical or holistic terms.
3
Cooley’s notion of the “looking Glass Self.”

3
themselves and their role in the social structure (ego-identity vs. role-confusion), then loose and

rediscover themselves in another (intimacy vs. isolation), and finally consider the future

generations over self (generativity vs. self-absorption) (Boeree, Personality Theories).4 Each of these

stages incorporated an element of social interaction.

I propose that in order to analyze non-Western or non-Industrialized cultures an

amending of Mead’s stages that incorporates Erikson’s concept of self as member of

community is necessary. This amendment would be universally applicable and would better

explain the roles that one plays following the game stage. In this way, the individual, through

mature interaction with others, and more importantly through the process of acceptance of

greater interpersonal responsibilities (partner, parent, worker, teacher, leader, etc.) achieves a

higher stage in the development process (Figure 1). This stage would be more than the

acknowledgement of self from the perspective of the generalized other, but an internalization of

the identity of self in relation to other (horizontal collectivism) and to the social hierarchy

(vertical collectivism) 5

Application of Self as Interconnected Member of Society

This concept of self as member of society would have far greater utility in cross-cultural studies

on development of identity. Within Chinese society, for example, the conception of moral

responsibility of self to family and society and the interdependence among members of social

group has long been central. Citing Newhouse-Maiden (1995), Ying Lu notes that “children are

taught that the needs of Chinese society are more important than the needs of individuals and

they often have strong commitment to their [families] and motherland” (Parental Involvement,

1999). It is hard to imagine that this is simply the overly proscribed mechanizations of a

4
It must be noted that in the ultimate stage of Erikson’s model one transcends one’s own life and thereby
gains wisdom to come to terms with one’s own life and death: an individual act.
5
Horizontal collectivism vs. vertical collectivism, see Triandis 1995 & Singelis et al. 1995.

4
 Preparatory Stage
Pre-symbolic, no awareness of self as object, imitation

“Me” Stage
Language learning, emergence of self-awareness
Perspective of only one significant other taken at a time

“I” Stage
Perspective of several others considered at one time (Generalized Other),
Self as object defined by self and others, internalization of societal perspective

“Us” Stage
Self as member of society
Internalization of Generalized Other in the self-concept

Figure 1 – Revised Stages of Development of Self-Concept

simplistic society as Mead would define it, but rather the socialization process by which the

individual learns of “place” within society. Chinese philosophy has long taught the principle of

social place and responsibility. For instance, the Analects of Confucius 6.22 (circa 500 BC) has

been interpreted as, “one should define oneself by one's relationships with others and one's

duties to them” (Confucianism, 2001).

In recent articles on Asian identity, autonomy vs. interconnectedness, collectivism vs.

individualism, internal control vs. external control, and other dichotomous cultural attributes of

East vs. West have been studied. Lin, Huang and Lieber (1999) discuss the fact that the

bounded internal (self) vs. external (social structure) distinction made in Western social sciences

is in fact not so clearly demarcated in the Taiwanese psyche. Their study illustrates internal and

external attributes of culture may co-occur without conflict in the Asian self. Similarly, in their

twenty statements tests contrasting responses of Canadians to Japanese, Leurs and Sonoda

(1999) find that Japanese respondents show a higher number of statements that place self

5
within the social structure.6 In contradiction to Western ideas of individualism, they point out

that “Westerners seem to make claims of individuality which are contradicted by their

homogeneous conformity to social norms” as there was far more similarity of responses among

the Canadian respondents than the Japanese (101). Finally, Liu & Liu (1999) point out that the

cultural importance of interconnectedness may even be incorporated into a more Asian (emic)

epistemological approach to social psychology. They explain:

In Eastern traditions of scholarship, what is valued most is not truth. In

broad outline, the pursuit of objective knowledge is subordinate to the
quest for spiritual interconnectedness. Interconnectedness is a more
difficult concept to pin down compared to truth. It’s value lies in its
ability to synthesize opposites; a scholar well-versed in the ways of
spiritual interconnectedness should have the ability to manage
contradictions, tolerate, deeper elements of paradox, and see and
synthesize the beauty of complex patterns. He or she should be able to
draw insight from complexities and act on them in a way that cultivates
society in self and self in society. (Liu & Liu, 1999; 10)

Conclusions

Thus, we have seen that while the conception of the individual as an autonomous entity

influenced by yet independent of the social structure is a culturally relativistic construct that has

been largely the product of Western cultures. George Herbert Mead’s concept of self in

particular while explaining the importance of the social structure in the development of the

self, lacks that which is necessary to be universally applicable; namely an stage beyond the game

stage that explains the self as interconnected with other selves. By simply incorporating

Erikson’s concept of self as member of community, Meads theoretical construct would have

far more utility in explaining identity cross-cultural contexts. Yet, it must be noted that the

utility of this theory is that of a heuristic tool as such a linear model of development also belies

a Western cultural bias.

6
Note - I tested the TST on my wife. While a study of one, her answers still represent the importance of place
within the social order as 50% of her responses were relational.

6
REFERENCES

Boeree, George (1997). Personality Theories: Erik Erikson. Accessed online Thursday,
February 20, 2003: http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/erikson.html

Charon Joel(1979). Symbolic Interactionism, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Confucianism(2001) Accessed online Thursday, February 20, 2003:

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/EPhil/Confuc.htm.

Leuers, Timothy R.S. & Sonoda, Naoko (1999). Independent Self Bias Pp. 87-104 in Progress in
Asian Social Psychology, Volume II: Theoretical and Empirical Contributions, edited by Toshio
Sugiman, Minoru Karasawa, James H. Liu and Colleen. Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa
Publishing Company, Korea 1999.

Lin, Yi-Cheng, Huang, Chin-Lan, & Lierber Eli (1999). Are Internality and Externality
Exclusive Causes? A Chinese Point of View. Pp. 63-74 in Progress in Asian Social
Psychology, Volume II: Theoretical and Empirical Contributions, edited by Toshio Sugiman,
Minoru Karasawa, James H. Liu and Colleen. Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa Publishing
Company, Korea 1999.

Liu, James H. & Liu, Shu-hsien. (1999). Interconnectedness and Asian Social Psychology. Pp.
9-32 in Progress in Asian Social Psychology, Volume II: Theoretical and Empirical Contributions,
edited by Toshio Sugiman, Minoru Karasawa, James H. Liu and Colleen. Kyoyook-
Kwahak-Sa Publishing Company, Korea 1999.

Lu ,Ying (1999) Parental Involvement in Chinese Children’s Education. Accessed online

Thursday, February 20, 2003: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~bpayne/ying.htm

McCall, George J. & Simmons, J.L. (1978) Identities and Interactions: An Examination of
Human Associations in Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press.

Mead, George Herbert (1962) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mead, Margaret Editor (1995).Cultural Patterns and Technical Change: United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Paris 1953: Reprinted as a Mentor
Book by New American Library.

Miller-Loessi, Karen. "Comparative Social Psychology: Cross-Cultural and Cross-National." Pp.

397-420 in Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan
Fine, and James S. House. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.

Newhouse- Maiden, L. (1995) Reflections on gifted education in China – with a particular

focus on provisions for science and technology, and cultural creativity. Gifted
Education International, 10, 90-94.

7
Popenoe, David (2000). Sociology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Ritzer, George (1996). Classical Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scheibe, Karl E. (1995). Self Studies: The Psychology of Self and Identity. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and
vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement
refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.

Smith, Peter B. & Bond, Michael H. (1998) Social Psychology Across cultures Boston, MA.
Allyn and Bacon.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

8
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com.
The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.