Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept

Pg 100 – “This chapter has its origins in several general assumptions that derive from psychology’s two basic paradigms – the person as constructor of external reality and the person as constructed by external reality…”

~ I didn’t know these were psychology’s two basic paradigms…but that’s what I’ve been lead to think by all the research I’ve found. I hope to incorporate it into my theory.

Pg 100 – “From our perspective, the self-concept governs one’s perception of reality. It is an important mediator and regulator of thoughts, feelings and actions. Furthermore, both the structure and the function of the self-concept will vary according to the nature of the social environment. The nature of the social environment is determined by its structural features and also by the theories and assumptions of the individuals (including the individual herself or himself) who create this environment.”

~ Self-concept regulates actions. It varies according to social environment. The social environment varies based on who is in it. Or, as I’ve been writing about…identity regulates actions. Actions vary according to culture. Cultures vary depending on who’s in it.

Pg 101 – “A schema here is an affective/cognitive structure that is created to lend meaning and coherence to one’s experience. In a connectedness schema, relations with others are the basic elements.”

~ Definition of schema.

Pg 101 – “We assume that connectedness and separateness self-schemas influence thinking, not just about the self but about all objects, events, and situations. This assumption is compatible with a variety of theoretical perspectives (Baldwin, 1902; Erickson, 1968; Fast, 1985; Jacobson, 1964; Kernberg, 1976) yet it seldom finds expression in studies of social cognition.”

~ So how connected or separate you are influences thinking, but is rarely in studies of social cognition.

Pg 101 – “A sense of self as separate, individuated, and autonomous gives rise to the normative task of knowing, expressing, or realizing this “true” or unique inner self regardless of the constraints of the current social environment. Conversely, a sense of self as interdependent, embedded, and continuous with others is linked with the normative task of being carefully attuned to the immediate social environment and of coming to know and understand the other (for further discussion of the importance of normative life tasks, see Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987; Erikson, 1968; Veroff, 1983).”

~ So according to this, individualization of identity leads to expression while interconnectedness of identity leads to oppression.

Pg 101 – “Self-schemata deriving from a sense of self as connected have a different structure and determine different patterns of perception and through than those deriving from a sense of self as separate. Connected selves should not be viewed as less “good” because they are responsive to the social environment.”

~ Can’t say one is better than the other (separate or connected selves.)

Pg 102 – “The second aspect of our argument derives from the growing literature on culture and selfhood (Geertz, 1975; Harding, 1987; Heela, 1980; Kelly, 1987; Marsella, De Vos, & Hsu, 1985; Shweder & Levine, 1984). This literature claims that different cultures or different social environments may well create and foster the development of divergent idioms and bedrock assumptions about the nature of the self and the nature of others.”

~ I think this is what I’m doing.

Pg 102 – “From this literature comes the idea that individuals can be mutually dependent and that this interdependence or sense of community with others can be a central organizing reality. Individuals thus can develop self-structures in which the primary referent is not the individual himself or herself, but instead the self-in-interpersonal relationships.”

~ Individuals can change to where their global self isn’t their main concern, but how they relate to others they associate with is. (higher level of development)

Pg 102 – “Markus and her colleagues, for example, suggest that individuals develop a system of distinct self-schemata. These schemata are theories about the self – derived from the repeated categorizations and evaluation of behavior by oneself and by others (Markus, 1977; Markus, Crane, Bernstein & Sialdi, 1982; Markus, Smith, & Moreland, 1985). These self-schematas enable perceivers to detect features and higher-order thematic structure in their own behavior and in that of others to which they otherwise would be insensitive. These schemata are focally active in the interpretation and comprehension of the social world (for a review of schema functioning, see Markus & Zajonc, 1985).”

~ So people eventually make a system of schemas based on how they are categorized and behave by themselves and others. (misplaced modifier, I know).

Pg 103 – “All individuals establish some structure in which they conceptualize the self as distinct from others (Hallowell, 1955). An understanding of how the self is different from others (i.e., of one’s “individuality”) is assumed to be essential to healthy functioning. One’s understanding of and participation in the social world depends on this differentiation.”

~ Everyone understands himself as unique. How one knows himself to be unique is how he functions in society.

Pg 106 – “Instead, recent theorists of selfhood stress the influence of culture on perception and thought, where culture is defined as a shared set of meanings that structure one’s perception of the self and the world (for recent discussions, see Cousins, 1987; Miller, 1984; Shweder & Bourne, 1984). From this view, “self” can have multiple conceptual representations depending on the assumptions that are used to create it.”

~ Definition of culture. Also, culture does influence perception and thought. And the self does have multiple conceptual representations.

Pg 106 – Talks about difference between Western men and women, and Western and Eastern trains of thought.

~ I think that this is just kind of interesting.

Pg 109 – “A basic assumption common to these varied perspectives is that all individuals need to define themselves and will naturally look to their ongoing experiences for self-definitions. Where these perspectives differ is in which aspects of the social environment they claim as critical or essential for self-definition. However, self-definition in all these frameworks involves some assessment of similarity with others and difference from others.”

~ Self-definition helps on to understand themselves which helps them to rank their identities and cultures which helps their development which helps them to self-define themselves better.

Pg 120 – “Because the view of the self-as-separate, bounded, and autonomous has been the model for the ideal self in virtually all of Western psychology (Lykies, 1985), it is relatively easy to characterize this model and to speculate about the nature of self-as-separate representations. Much less consideration, however, has been given to the form of the interdependent self or to the nature of self-as-connected representations.”

~ I’m interested in the self-as-connected or interdependent to other selves.

Pg 120 – (about Hamaguchi (1985)) “He describes the Japanese self as being constantly redefined and as including one’s share of the lifespace that is commonly shared by both oneself and other actors. In this theory of “relational” selves, as in all analyses of non-Western selves, however, no separate attention is given to describing the self-structures of women.”

~ Sharing of lifespace is like our society in which cultures and individuals mix. Need to research more on this.

Markus, H., Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept. In Crawford M., & Gentry, M. (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (100-127). New York: Springer-Verlag.