Activity 1 (Reading assignment)

Read McVittie, Chris and Andy McKinlay (2017). “The Self in Part V Social Identities/Relations/Conflicts”
in Gough, Brendan (ed.). The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Social Psychology. Pp. 389-408. Use the study
questions below as a guide to understanding key points made in this reading material.

1. In William James’ conceptualization, what are the two elements of the self?

One aspect, termed the I, was for James the person as the centre of introspection and reflection on
experience. James’ second aspect, termed the me, comprised the self as known through his/her
interactions with others.

2. What do the authors mean when they aver that James’ conceptualization lead to a dualist and
essentialist understanding of the self?

The two approaches provide different accounts of the self. On the first view the self is a combination of
self-related dispositions and potential actions, whereas on the second view the self is a whole but one
that plays a minor role when compared with social groups and social identities. Notwithstanding the
differences between those approaches, these and other mainstream social psychological approaches to
the self share two central elements. First there is the dualist quality of the explanations provided. In
mainstream approaches, individuals and society fall to be treated as separate and distinguishable entities.
Second, the accounts provided are essentialist in treating the psychological processes and properties
involved as essential features of the individual. These two core assumptions, introduced by James mark
the point of departure for critical approaches to understanding the self. For critical theorists, the dualist
and essentialist elements of mainstream theorising are neither sustainable nor borne out by careful
examination of how people act in social life.

3. In what the authors describe as a more critical approach to understanding the self, how are individual
and social action conceptualized?

From a critical perspective, the focus of social psychological work lies not in the study of individuals and
society as separate entities each with its own properties but instead on how people live their lives in a
social world (Gergen, 2009; Sampson, 1993). The aim is to understand people in social life instead of
attempting to separate and then somehow recombine the two. At the same time, the topics of interest
to social psychology are viewed not as properties either of individuals or of society but instead as products
that emerge when people live and act socially. In adopting this perspective, the emphasis is on social
interaction, in particular how people use language to negotiate and construct the meanings of everyday
life as they engage as social beings.

4. Goffman’s work show how the self is performed through social interaction at the micro level. How is
this understanding of the self different from William James’ conceptualization of the self?

According to James, The self continues to be viewed as comprising two elements, individual and social,
and the emphasis lies on the individual as the site of encounters with the social world. For Goffman, self
was not a property of the individual but rather something that the individual performed in interaction
with others. Goffman’s statement was different to as James since instead of attempting to theorise what
happens inside people’s heads and tries to reconnect it with the social world, In Goffman, one can instead
examine social life as it unfolds and see how people make sense of it. In short, it gives emphasis on social
interaction and on the outcomes that flow from it.

Activity 2 (Reading assignment)

Read DeLamater, John and Janet Shibley Hyde. 1998. Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism in the Study
of Human Sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research Vol 35, No. 1, pp. 10-18. Use the study questions below
as a guide to understanding key points made in this reading material.

1. What is essentialism? What examples of essentialist frameworks, both biological and cultural, were
discussed in the article?

2. Why is essentialism not useful in understanding the self, as exemplified in the study of human sexuality
as discussed in the article?

3. What is social constructionism? What are its strengths and weaknesses as a framework in
understanding the self?