Understanding of the Self Essay -- Compare Contrast Psychology Essays

Understanding of the SelfINTRODUCTIONThe hearty constructionist perspective holds the view that the egotism is go on shaped and reshaped through interactions with others and involvement in social and cultural activities (Wetherell & Maybin, 1996, p 220). accessible constructionist is concerned with explicating the processes by which people come to describe, explain, or other than report for the world (including themselves) in which they live (Gergen, 1971). Thus, the social constructionist approach implies that the self is shaped by social interaction within historical, cultural and social contexts. Social constructionists take hold an analysis of societal level which explain the self through social relations. Conversely, the psychodynamic perspective approach emphasises that much of the self of what we are driven by is mysterious away in the unconscious and a battle for control takes place between the id, ego and superego. It is a very important point as it suggests that ou r inhering representations of the world could be based on some innate propensities and these of course are unconscious. This interrelationship between world and the unconscious seek to apologise that a self is produced through the infixedization of the introjections of out-of-door people (Thomas, 1996). The essay entrust provide a brief introduction to the theory of the self as presented by both perspectives, then compare and evaluate the explanation offered by them. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST AND PSYCHODYMIC PERSPECTIVEEthnographic accounts of incongruent cultures as provided by anthropologist are apply to moderate the argument that the self is socially constructed through socialisation processes (Sapsford, 1996). For example, Markus and Kitayama proposed that with the existence of social influence, there is a greater sense of autonomy in western cultures as compared to the eastern (Wetherell & Maybin, 1996). Therefore, the social constructionist point of view is that our perso nal private worlds are fuse with our external environments social contact. On the other hand, the self will address to develop through the utilization of multiple internalizations of social identities. Harre believes that this internalisation can occur through language, linguistic practices and conversations. Language can be used for internal symbolisation. (Wetherell and Maybin, 1996). In ... ...y. The different levels of analysis require different methods the social constructionist emphasizes on cultural studies of anthropologists whereas the psychodynamic focuses on psychoanalysis to explain subjective experiences. Both views throw that internalisation of others is a vital aspect for the development of self identity, which in actual fact is not a unitary self but the buildup of the fragments of others. The social constructionists postulates that others are internalised through conversations and language influences, which leads to the generalization of others, to become interna lised as our self identity. Mead and Vygotsky, however do not propose that self identity is totally developed from the external society, but instead attributes its development to the varying degrees of people interactions with the wider society. As such, our inner world is converged and dispersed to the wider society. On the other hand, the psychodynamic view recognizes that fragmentation of i self is unavoidable, which will stimulate unconscious disagreement, only to be dealt with defence mechanisms within. This will eventually produce a self identity which is either partial or distorted. Understanding of the Self Essay -- Compare Contrast Psychology EssaysUnderstanding of the SelfINTRODUCTIONThe social constructionist perspective holds the view that the self is continuing shaped and reshaped through interactions with others and involvement in social and cultural activities (Wetherell & Maybin, 1996, p 220). Social constructionist is concerned with explicating t he processes by which people come to describe, explain, or otherwise account for the world (including themselves) in which they live (Gergen, 1971). Thus, the social constructionist approach implies that the self is shaped by social interaction within historical, cultural and social contexts. Social constructionists apply an analysis of societal level which explain the self through social relations. Conversely, the psychodynamic perspective approach emphasises that much of the self of what we are driven by is hidden away in the unconscious and a battle for control takes place between the id, ego and superego. It is a very important point as it suggests that our internal representations of the world could be based on some innate propensities and these of course are unconscious. This interrelationship between world and the unconscious seek to rationalise that a self is produced through the internalization of the introjections of external people (Thomas, 1996). The essay will provide a brief introduction to the theory of the self as presented by both perspectives, then compare and evaluate the explanation offered by them. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST AND PSYCHODYMIC PERSPECTIVEEthnographic accounts of incongruent cultures as provided by anthropologist are used to defend the argument that the self is socially constructed through socialisation processes (Sapsford, 1996). For example, Markus and Kitayama proposed that with the existence of social influence, there is a greater sense of autonomy in western cultures as compared to the eastern (Wetherell & Maybin, 1996). Therefore, the social constructionist point of view is that our personal private worlds are fused with our external environments social contact. On the other hand, the self will continue to develop through the utilization of multiple internalisations of social identities. Harre believes that this internalisation can occur through language, linguistic practices and conversations. Language can be used for inter nal symbolisation. (Wetherell and Maybin, 1996). In ... ...y. The different levels of analysis require different methods the social constructionist emphasizes on cultural studies of anthropologists whereas the psychodynamic focuses on psychoanalysis to explain subjective experiences. Both views concur that internalisation of others is a vital aspect for the development of self identity, which in actual fact is not a unitary self but the buildup of the fragments of others. The social constructionists postulates that others are internalised through conversations and language influences, which leads to the generalization of others, to become internalised as our self identity. Mead and Vygotsky, however do not propose that self identity is totally developed from the external society, but instead attributes its development to the varying degrees of people interactions with the wider society. As such, our inner world is converged and dispersed to the wider society. On the other hand, the psychodynamic view recognizes that fragmentation of one self is unavoidable, which will stimulate unconscious disagreement, only to be dealt with defence mechanisms within. This will eventually produce a self identity which is either incomplete or distorted.