Integr. J. Soc Sci., 2015, 2(1), 20-22 . Article . INTEGRATED JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Concept and construction of Self: Role of the context Meeta Virmani * University of Delhi Received: 7-May-2015 Accepted on: 30-Oct-2015 Published on: 25-Nov-2015 ABSTRACT The study of self has taken an important position in the recent context. The difference between the ‘Non-Western’ and the ‘Western’ self has played its role and we have ended up by putting nomenclatures of individualistic societies to some nations, and collectivistic to others. But is the discussion of self only limited to the notion of individualism and collectivism, and if not, then what are the other implications on the study of self? This paper talks about how self has been talked about in theory, how temporally a shift has happened in the notion of self and the factors that have an impact on the construction of self. Keywords: Self, context, culture, socialization, environment Introduction When talking about self in an Indian context, one often takes a leap in defining oneself as an individual or in relation with ‘others’. The others here have been put under commas due to a special regard that we give to the people around us. The recent emphasis on techniques of self-appraisal and analysing ones strengths and weaknesses has given an edge in understanding of our own self. Even though these nomenclatures are relatively new, the core essence could be traced back to our writings of Vedas, Upanishads, and Epics by usage of a simple phrase ‘Atmanam Viddhi’; which translated into English means to know oneself in order to attain freedom. This notion reflects the idea of freedom as not something out-there, but in-here. Quoting another ancient phrase, Swami Sivanand 1 talks about ‘tat twam asi’, one of the four mahavakyas in Upanishads, a reference has been made where a Guru wants his disciple to understand that he exists only by being the part of the other, that is the supreme being, God. It focusses that although we all have different selves but we are all unified and integrated into one self of the supreme being. The relevance that is being talked about here comes in two dimensions: who am I for myself and who am I for others. When asked about describing oneself, a simple question of ‘who are you’ opens a plethora of answers to be given and numerous questions to be asked because it is not just being the question of oneself in isolation, but in relation to others. As Paranjpe 2 (1998) opines, ‘all of us must have different selves depending upon whom one is dealing with; and despite the radical changes that naturally occur in ones understanding of oneself throughout the lifespan; one rarely doubts that one and the same ‘I’. This analysis of self by Paranjpe again brings us to two important dimensions of self. First, how is self sustained in relation with others, does it become different with different people, or does some part of it remain constant. Second, what is the temporal aspect of self and how does self change over time. Now what do we call that self which will always remain same, and on the other hand what is that self which is at our disposal, which is in the other words, contextual. Turner (as cited in Demo 3 , 1992) distinguishes between “self-image”, which refers to the individual’s self picture at a given moment, and “self-conception”, which refers to ones relatively enduring and stable sense of self. Theoretical perspective on self Tracing back to 18 th and 19 th century, the work of theorists like William James, Charles Cooley, G.H. Mead and Baldwin, has helped us in gaining insights into study of self. James has been phenomenal in bringing out the classification of self into the ‘I’ self and the ‘Me’ self; I self being the knower and Me self being the known. Given the potential diversity of others’ opinions, James concluded that ‘a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him in their mind’ (as cited in Harter 4 , 1999, pp 15). For Cooley again the ‘other’ was very important in the formation of oneself. He emphasized the social nature of self by noting that, ‘there is no sense of ‘I’ as in pride and shame, without its correlative sense of you or they (as cited in Paranjpe 2 , 1998, pp 83). Building on the same ground, Mead explained the pivotal role of society in building one’s sense of self. As he says, ‘we appear as selves in our conduct insofar as we ourselves take the attitude that others take towards us; we take the role of what may be called the ‘generalized other’ (as cited in Harter 4 , 1998, pp19). Thus an individual first becomes the member of society, and then an individual. Address: Meeta Virmani University of Delhi. E-mail: meetavirmani88@gmail.com ----------- Cite as: Integr. J. Soc. Sci., 2015, 2(1), 20-22. ©IS Publications IJSS ISSN: 2348-0874 http://pubs.iscience.in/ijss Integrated Journal of Social Sciences Integr. J. Soc. Sci., 2015, 2 (1), 20-22 20