Contention on personal identity Essay Example

- something measurable and testable - following the principles of traditional social psychology. This approach considers consciousness a tangible fact that can ultimately be ascertained through experimental methods.The view that knowledge is biological and expressed through internal mental states suggests that personal development occurs through cognitive maturity and the integration of schemes (Piaget, 1985). Experimental psychology is the discipline that observes objective cognition through experimental methods (Brannigan, 2004), based on the belief in essentialism, pragmatism, and empiricist philosophy. Experimental psychologists use laboratory experiments and controlled observations to understand behavior and cognitive processes. The experimental method is replicable and can establish the cause and effect of behavior. In traditional social psychology, identity is discovered as a physical component through experimentation. Allport, Erikson, and Eysenck theorized identity as a cognitive development. Allport described the proprium as "all aspects of personality that contribute to a sense of inner coherence" (1968, p. 27).The kernel concept involves eight facets of internal development that lead to an individual's sense of identity and existence. The cultivation of bodily consciousness, self-esteem improvement, and defense mechanisms are essential in recognizing self-identity. Defense mechanisms were first developed by Freud in 1937 and involve the subconscious responding to events and experiences to meet internal demands. An example of this is an alcoholic's denial of their dependence to avoid anxiety. This change in behavior alters the individual's identity from internal to external, determined by the reactive subconscious rather than external cognitive control. Erikson's phases of development is a cognitive developmental theory that explains how identity formation occurs throughout an individual's lifespan.Throughout eight stages of growth, individuals must successfully negotiate internal crises brought on by various experiences to

develop virtuous qualities. If successful, they can form close relationships and establish a successful career. However, failure to do so can result in psychosocial upheaval. For example, during early adulthood, the crisis is intimacy versus isolation, where successful negotiation leads to closeness with others, while failure leads to social distance and lack of close relationships. Adolescence presents the crisis of identity versus role confusion, with successful negotiation leading to personal identity as a stable internal entity. According to Erikson, this identity maintains influence on future stages. Eysenck further suggests that personality has a genetic basis through the concept of a "biologically determined self." Thus, individuality is an unchanging part of the person, shaped by genetic and environmental factors.According to Eysenck's biological approach, an individual's personality can be measured experimentally on a two-dimensional scale that rates them as either introverted or extroverted, and stable or unstable. The classification you fall into is determined by your nervous system. For example, extroverts require less motivation to become excited as they are more sensitive to stimulation than introverts. Introverts, on the other hand, require more push to come out of their shell and express themselves. This theory views personality as something innate, measurable, and not influenced by social factors. It is a cognitive identity that is unaffected by societal changes, unlike critical social psychology that sees personality as constantly adapting to fit into society. This perspective offers a sense of constant individualism that is personal and private.Despite criticisms, traditional social psychology is seen as less credible than its opponents. Four theories challenge traditional social psychology by offering alternative views on how identity is formed and maintained. Cooley's Looking Glass

theory suggests that identity is shaped by how we perceive ourselves through the eyes of others. Social constructionism argues that all objective knowledge exists in discourse, leading to the production of social phenomena. Identity changes in response to feedback from others, allowing for a sense of freedom in behavior. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes the unpredictable nature of the self and the freedom to create one's own roles due to variable and unstable role performances. Behavioral expectations are absent, allowing for personal agency in creating one's own identity.According to the theory of ethnomethodology, people adjust their functions in order to portray a certain image of themselves. The feeling they give off plays a key role in forming individualities. Goffman’s (1956) theory adds to this by suggesting that individuals have control over their functions and can demonstrate varying degrees of commitment. These four theories highlight that biological determinism cannot fully explain individuality, as behavior can change depending on the individual and cannot be universally experimented on. Instead, the self is constantly changing and should be understood in daily life. Additionally, each person has a socially determined future rather than a pre-determined cognitive path or biological outlook. Cooley (1968) argues that individuality thrives in interaction rather than being limited to knowledge. This supports the main argument of my thesis, which identifies individuality as something we do.Discourse analysis originated during a time of crisis in societal psychology. Traditional positivist viewpoints were being challenged, leading to the emergence of critical societal psychology. This new approach rejected the experimental and cognitive premises of traditional psychology and instead emphasized the importance of interaction in the construction of societal reality. Discourse analysis posits that

psychological activity can be found in discourse and views discourse as a reality in itself that has its own influencing factors on social interaction. While acknowledging the existence of interior experience, discourse analysis does not assume that external expressions originate solely from internal mental processes. This theory was unconventional at the time and allowed for flexibility due to a shift away from viewing individuals as objects with biological determinism towards recognizing them as complex beings who must be studied naturally. (Wooffitt, 2006; McKinlay & McVittie, 2008)This text highlights the concept of homo bureau, which suggests that behavior cannot be predicted or measured. It also acknowledges the interconnectedness of social structure and discourse, with the former shaping the latter while also being influenced by it. Social psychologists who study discourse focus on language usage in natural social interaction to uncover psychological states. The text argues that language serves a function in constructing our understanding of the world and that there is no constant version of reality. The description of events depends on who is listening and the accuracy of the information shared, highlighting language's flexibility. As such, facts may not be indisputable, and this bending of language has become central to discourse analysis. People use language that is socially acceptable at the time and culturally, historically, and ideologically available to them.Discourse analysts do not focus on detecting societal systems or universal patterns, but rather examine the linguistic expressions and typical beliefs of individuals. Discourse analysis studies language patterns to investigate psychological subjects in social contexts, instead of assessing an individual's behavior in a specific setting. Identity, according to discourse analysts, is an act that is expressed

through language, social action, and interaction, not just knowledge. They argue that there is no singular concept of self, but rather that individuals occupy a diverse range of "selves" that are socially constructed and assign people to various societal positions or categories. Additionally, people express their classification in discourse and may associate themselves with a certain group based on it. To illustrate this point, individuals might discuss dresses enthusiastically and be labeled as speaking "like a woman," putting them in a particular category. People can also use language intentionally to be associated with a specific identity category.According to Davis & Harre (1990), individuals may assume a temporary identity to fit into a certain speech community. However, this does not mean that individuals have complete freedom in choosing their linguistic identity, as identity must align with what is socially, culturally and historically available. Identity will conform to social norms and values, and even if an individual's identity goes against societal norms, that excluded identity is still being judged in relation to what is accepted (Taylor, 2010). Cognitive psychology argues that while there is a personal feeling of self, identity is socially constructed through context and classification. Identity is an active and social construction through cognitive means rather than a pre-determined temperament. For instance, the relationship between a teacher and their pupils in the educational system relies on consistent interaction.Respectful interaction between the student and teacher is crucial for effective knowledge transfer. This mutual respect allows for the stability of their individual identities and is expressed through discourse. The concepts presented by Potter, Wetherell, and Wittgenstein further explore this idea. In their book 'Discourse and Social Psychology:

beyond attitudes and behavior', Potter and Wetherell challenged the traditional view of identity being a reflective state of mind that could be experimentally discovered. Instead, they viewed identity as a social construction that is created through discourse. The concept of identity only comes into existence when articulated through discourse, not predetermined in the brain or elsewhere. Therefore, nothing exists until it is conveyed through discourse.Potter and Wetherell (1996) argued that individuality is socially constructed, shaped by societal positions and roles. This means that a person's personality is not unique but rather a representation of their function. Individuals are not confined to a single role, as they can alter their identity in different contexts. Thus, the basis of identity is created through 'doing', such as discourse or the adoption of roles.

Wittgenstein (Kripke, 1998) contends that private language cannot exist because language is a social product. Meaning is a shared event between language users, and individual users cannot create meaning in isolation. Private language, which speaks of things known only to the user, cannot establish meanings for different terms without reference to universal terms. Therefore, private language lacks intelligibility.In addition, the author discusses Wittgenstein's consideration of language games and their impact on word meaning. The meaning of a word is contingent upon the language game being played; for example, "H2O!" could be an exclamation, command, request, or response. These language games must conform to certain rules based on the expectations of the specific context in which they are being used. Following rules is a social activity. Wittgenstein also notes a problem with the example of sensation. For instance, trying to record every time one experiences the sensation

of "T" creates difficulties in establishing standards for accuracy because one's memory may be unreliable. To use language effectively, there must be a shared understanding of public standards for communication. Misunderstandings can arise from this, and Wittgenstein uses the metaphor of the beetle to suggest that everyone has their own understanding of reality that is not accessible to others.The utilization of the word "beetle" by people to encapsulate what is in their own box is subjectively misleading, as one presumes that the contents of others' boxes are the same as their own. This illustrates the critical role that communication plays in creating room for misunderstandings. It highlights how once something is articulated, it is no longer private, rendering some topics off-limits. Essentially, this means that a private identity cannot exist without public and social interaction. To put it differently, if language cannot be comprehended independently, expressing individuality in language is meaningless outside of a social context. Therefore, we must cultivate our identity in a social language to provide meaning. However, discourse analysis overlooks cognitive processes that exist before and outside of language, including infant knowledge prior to language assimilation. Thus, discourse alone cannot be regarded as the sole source of knowledge, suggesting that individuality may not solely be a communicative act but one based on a cognitive foundation.Throughout this essay, I have explored the notion of individuality within traditional societal psychology. Specifically, I examined how cognitivism and experimental methods have conceptualized individuality as an internal development that can be measured. Drawing upon the work of Allport, Erikson, and Eysenck, I showcased how this theory has been practically applied to individuality. In addition, I critiqued this

theory using postmodern perspectives on individuality before transitioning to my main argument of critical societal psychology with references to Potter, Wetherell, and Wittgenstein. Ultimately, it appears that the argument in support of individuality as something we do is stronger than the argument against it. From my personal viewpoint, I also believe this to be true, as individuality is a dynamic entity that develops, thrives, and adapts to social situations. It does not seem to be a static property of consciousness, but rather constantly shaped by one's interpretation of what is socially available.

Bibliography

• Allport, G. (1968). Is the concept of self necessary? In C. Gordon & K. Gergen (Eds.), The Self in Social Interaction (pp. 27-32).

The following texts contain various references on social psychology and discourse:

(1994). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W.W. Norton ;A ;Company, Inc.

The following books are cited in the text, each with their respective author(s) and publication details included within : Gergen and Gergen's "Social Construction: A Reader," Goffman's "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life," Harre's "Personal Being: A Theory for Individual Psychology," Johnstone's "Discourse Analysis," Koch, Bendicsen, and Palombo’s "Guide to Psychoanalytic Developmental Theories," Kripke's "Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language," Magnavita's "Theories of Personality: Contemporary Approaches to the Science of Personality," McKinlay and McVittie’s "Social Psychology and Discourse," Piaget's "Equilibration of Cognitive Structures," Potter and Wetherell’s "Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour," and Rogers' "Social Psychology, Experimental and Critical Approaches."The following list includes two books with their respective authors and publication information:

• Taylor, S. ( 2010 ) .Narratives of Identity and Place. London: Routledge.
• Wooffitt, R. ( 2006 ) .Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis- A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage Publications.