Socialization and Difference. We all pass through the same stages of socialization, and yet we all wind up somewhat different. How does this occur? In your post, discuss how either Mead’s socialization process or Cooley’s looking-glass self process could lead to behavioral differences among, for instance, women and men, or between members of different ethnic groups, classes, or subcultues. Be specific! For instance, might children experience different kinds of play and games, take different roles, and have different understandings of the generalized other? You may want to look at Schaefer’s discussions of differences in socialization found throughout Module 15 (e.g., “The Impact of Race and Gender” and “Child Care Around the World”)
Meads self is very important: it allows us to interact with others, to think and reason, and to
make plans. But there is another side to the self which Mead paid little attention to: the more
emotional aspects, including how we feel about ourselves. Luckily, this part of the self was
explored by another American sociologist and founder of interactionism, Charles Horton
Cooley, who lived at approximately the same time as Mead and was an influence on his work.
Cooley developed the concept of the looking-glass self to describe our self-image and selfevaluations, which are based on our interactions with others (this is a slight extension of the
Schaefer definition in Module 14). The concept is related to the more popular idea of selfesteem, which refers to our self-confidence or self-satisfaction. However, there are some
crucial differences: (1) self-esteem implies a positive self-evaluation, while the looking-glass
self does not; (2) self-esteem implies a quantity (it can be high or low), while the lookingglass self refers to qualities (we think of ourselves as nice or mean, smart or dumb, tough or
weak, etc.), and (3) the concept of the looking-glass self emphasizes that the source of our
self-evaluations is our interactions with others.
How do interactions result in the looking-glass self? Cooley described a three steps process,
which I will illustrate with an example (in parentheses):
First, we imagine how we appear to others. (As I get ready for a big party, I imagine
that I look really good in my new outfit.)
Second, we interpret others reactions to usespecially the reactions of significant
others, or people who play an important role in our lives such as parents and close
friends. (At the party I dont get any complements on my outfit and I suspect that my
so-called best friends are making fun of my appearance behind my back.)
Third, we evaluate ourselves based on how we understand those reactionsand our
evaluations, which may be positive or negative and center on a range of different
qualities, form the basis of our looking-glass self. (Based on my interactions at the
party, I evaluate myself in fairly negative terms; I feel that I am unfashionable and
frumpy.)
As was common in his day, Cooley summarized with a quote from a poemin this case the
poem Astraea by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1847): Each to each a looking-glass, Reflects his
figure that doth pass. A looking-glass is a mirror; essentially, Cooley (and Emerson) claim
that other people serve as our mirrors, reflecting back judgments that lead us to define and
evaluate who we are.
This concept of the looking-glass self has some interesting implications. First, our selfjudgments come from how we understand others reactions to usnot the reactions
themselves. Thus, in the party example above, my negative judgment of myself as frumpy
comes from my perception that my friends made fun of my outfit; that I may have mis-heard
them, and that they may not have been making fun of me at all, does not change the impact of
my perception on my looking-glass self. Perception is reality, as the saying goes.
Second, if our self-judgments and images come from interaction, that means that they are not
produced directly by objective facts or circumstances. As we saw with the concept definition
of the situation, we dont respond automatically to events; we must first interpret them in
conjunction with others. Back to the party example, whether or not my outfit was objectively
ugly makes no difference to my looking-glass self; it is the interactions and my interpretation
of those interactions that count, as it is from these that I construct my self-image.
(Sociologically, there is no way to objectively determine the beauty or ugliness of outfits
anyway!) To extend this to some more serious examples:
Grade example: The grade you get on a test, such as a C, does not directly determine your
academic self-image; instead, your self-image is shaped by the grade and the reactions that
others have to it, especially those of significant other such as parents, peers, and teachers. In
some circles, a C is passing and thats greatsomething to be proud of. In others, a C is two
notches below the only acceptable grade, A, and hence a source of shame. How your C
makes you feel is going to depend on which set of interpretations youve been exposed to in
the past. Your reaction is socially constructed, not automatic.
Race and self-esteem example: In the 1950s and 1960s, the overwhelming majority of social
scientists and policy-makers assumed that the racism prevalent in American society, coupled
with the poor economic status of many blacks, had a negative impact on black childrens selfesteem, causing it to be much lower than white childrens self-esteem. Then, a groundbreaking study (Rosenberg and Simmons 1971) showed that the opposite was the case: for the
most part, black childrens self-esteem was actually higher than that of whites. How could
this be the case? The studys authors used Mead and Cooleys theories to argue that
childrens self-esteem does not result from objective social conditions, such as poverty and
racism, but rather from how these conditions impact childrens interactions with others in
their immediate social environments. The extreme segregation that existed in the 1960s meant
that most black children were largely isolated from whites, and from direct experiences of
racism such as name-calling. Further, racial segregation also created economic segregation:
all but the very poorest black children could look around, see only others in similar
circumstances, and conclude that their families doing alright. Finally, the childrens families
were mostly warm and supportive, mirroring positive evaluations from which the children
could build positive looking-glass selves. Thus, although racism and poverty were real, poor
self-esteem was not among their consequences for most black children. The exception
another initial surprisewas economically well-off black children, whose self-esteem was
worse than both well-off white kids and poorer blacks. Why? Again, it is the immediate
environment and interactions that count. The better-off black kids were far more likely than
poor blacks to be in or near integrated neighborhoods and schools, and thus to have direct
interaction with whiteswhich included racism, name-calling, etc., and damaged their self
esteem. Thus, black kids self esteem was negatively correlated with their family economic
status, while the opposite was true for white kids, whose self-esteem rose with their family
income.
Reference
Rosenberg, Morris, and Roberta G. Simmons. 1971. Black and White Self-Esteem: The Urban
School Child. Washington DC: American Sociological Association, Rose Monograph Series.
