Your answer is your ideal self (at least at this moment). Our ideal self is who we want to be. We typically describe our ideal self in terms of our goals and ambitions in life. However, this concept is not static, meaning it can change over time as we change and grow.
If you had no limitations (money, time, resources, etc.), who would you be and what would you do? Your answer is your ideal self (at least at this moment). Our ideal self is who we want to be. We typically describe our ideal self in terms of our goals and ambitions in life. However, this concept is not static, meaning it can change over time as we change and grow.
The ideas we have about who we are (our self-concept) is a mixture of many things. The way we see ourselves (self-image), the way we evaluate ourselves in terms of others (self-esteem), and who we want to be (ideal self), all contribute to our understanding of self.
Self-concept theories
A variety of scholars in psychology, sociology, and communication have researched self-concept. Their task is a difficult one because our self-concept is personal, dynamic and changes as we learn more about ourselves and the world around us. In this section, we will look at a few prominent theories and ideas from this area of research.
Johari window
What do we know about ourselves? What aspects of ourselves do we share with others? What aspects of ourselves are yet to be determined? In 1955 psychologists, Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham created a model known as the Johari window to visually represent the aspects of self that are known to us versus those that are unknown to us. Their model has four quadrants (Figure 2).
In the first quadrant (upper, left-hand corner) are those ideas that are known to self and others. This quadrant is considered the open area and likely includes ideas like your name, hobbies and other topics about yourself that you freely share with others. If you have a social media account, the messages you post publicly would fall into this quadrant.
In the second quadrant (upper, right-hand corner) are those ideas that are unknown to self but known to others. This quadrant is considered the blind area. This area might be easier to think about in terms of others. Do you have a friend, co-worker or sibling who comes off abrasive but doesn’t know it? Or maybe you know someone who’s a pushover but doesn’t see it. Do you think that their lack of recognition affects their understanding of self? Now, let’s think about it in terms of ourselves. What are our blind spots? These aspects of our personality (that others readily known) but escape our notice fall into this area of the Johari window.
In the third quadrant (lower, left-hand corner) are those ideas that are known to self but unknown to others. This quadrant is considered the (it is titled ‘facade’ in Figure 2) hidden area and includes things you known about yourself that you do not share with others (i.e., traumas you’ve experience, emotional insecurities, embarrassing situations, etc.).
In the fourth quadrant (lower, right-hand corner) are those ideas that are unknown to self and others. This quadrant is considered the unknown area. This area includes things you and others don’t know (yet). How will you cope with the loss of a parent (if both your parents are living)? What type of parent will you be (if you don’t have children)? How successful will your career be (if you’re in school and having started your career yet)? Because these things haven’t happened yet, the outcome is unknown.
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on meanings attached to human interaction, both verbal and non-verbal, and to symbols. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds.Charles Horton Cooley introduced the looking-glass self (1902) to describe how a person’s sense of self grows out of interactions with others, and he proposed a threefold process for this development: 1) we see how others react to us, 2) we interpret that reaction (typically as positive or negative) and 3) we develop a sense of self based on those interpretations. “Looking-glass” is an archaic term for a mirror, so Cooley theorized that we “see” ourselves when we interact with others.
Figure 1. In symbolic interactionism, people actively shape their social world. This image shows janitorial workers on strike in Santa Monica, California. A symbolic interactionist would be interested in the interactions between these protestors and the messages they communicate.
Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class difference, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message and to negotiate and thus develop shared meanings.
The focus on the importance of interaction in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922–1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis. Goffman used theater as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” Since it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, as we all occupy multiple roles in a given day (i.e., student, friend, son/ daughter, employee, etc.), one has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds (Goffman 1958).
Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.
Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have meanings which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the society.
Try It
WAtch It
The main tenets of symbolic interactionism are explained in the following video.
Criticism
Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths and generally use research methods that will allow extended observation and/or substantive interviews to provide depth rather than breadth. Interactionists are also criticized for not paying enough attention to social institutions and structural constraints. For example, the interactions between a police officer and a Black man are different than the interactions between a police officer and a white man. Addressing systemic inequalities within the criminal justice system, including pervasive racism, is essential for an interactionist understanding of face-to-face interactions.