4.2.1 - The Self, Identity and Difference

Identity, culture and the socially caused self

Sociologists usually separate personal identity from social identity. Personal identity refers to the features that make someone feel distinctive as an individual. Social identity refers to the categories, groups and statuses through which people are recognised by themselves and by others. In practice, these two overlap: people build a sense of uniqueness using the language, values and roles provided by society.

Identity also involves both sameness and difference. We identify with some groups, but we also define ourselves against people seen as outsiders, strangers or opposites. Culture matters here because it supplies the meanings that tell people what counts as respectable, masculine, feminine, successful, normal or deviant. Through socialisation, these meanings become part of the self.

Structuralist perspectives stress that identity is largely socially caused. They argue that people do not invent themselves from scratch. Instead, identity is strongly shaped by the social positions they occupy and the expectations attached to those positions.

Marx — argued that class relations shape consciousness. Under capitalism, workers may develop false consciousness, meaning they understand themselves through ruling-class ideas rather than through their real class interests. A more critical class identity develops only when workers recognise their shared exploitation and gain class consciousness.

Parsons — saw identity as formed through socialisation into social roles and shared values. For functionalists, stable identities help social order because people learn what is expected of them as children, partners, workers and citizens.

Feminist writers — argue that identity is also shaped by patriarchy. Gender identities are not neutral; they are formed in a society where power is distributed unequally, so expectations about femininity and masculinity often reproduce male dominance.

A simple comparison shows what each structuralist view adds.

The main strength of these views is that they explain why identities are patterned rather than random. Working-class, middle-class, male, female and ethnic identities are not just personal choices. They are connected to unequal life chances and to wider systems of power.

How interaction builds the self

Interactionists agree that society matters, but they focus on the processes through which the self is built in everyday encounters. From this view, identity is not simply imposed from above. It is produced and reproduced through interpretation, role-taking and presentation of self.

Mead (1934) — argued that the self develops through social interaction. He distinguished between the I, the active and spontaneous side of the self, and the Me, the social self shaped by the attitudes of others. Identity develops because people learn to see themselves from other people's point of view.

Cooley (1902) — described this process as the looking-glass self. People imagine how they appear to others, imagine how others judge them, and then develop feelings such as pride, embarrassment or shame in response.

Goffman (1959) — pushed this further with his dramaturgical model. He argued that social life is like a performance. People engage in impression management, presenting a suitable version of themselves for a particular audience. The front stage is where the performance happens in public, while the back stage is where people can step out of role and drop the performance.

Berger and Luckmann (1966) — linked these micro-level processes to a broader theory of social construction. They argued that reality feels objective because people repeatedly create meanings, routines and categories until they come to seem natural. Identity categories therefore look fixed, but they are built through human interaction and then reinforced by institutions.

This perspective is valuable because it explains why the same person may appear differently in different settings. A student may perform confidence in class, deference at work and informality with friends. Identity is therefore something people do, not only something they have.

Power, stigma and difference

Sociology is interested not only in how identities are formed, but also in why some identities are privileged while others are devalued. Difference is never just neutral diversity. It is often organised through power.