Part Two: Understanding How Social Processes Contribute to the Concept of Selfhood
"[...] we think you're crazy to make us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us - in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions." - Brian Johnson, the Breakfast Club
What Makes You, 'You'?
The pursuit of personal validation is central to our understanding of ourselves and our place in society. We develop a sense of self not just through introspection but through our interactions with others. Our family, peers, and broader society all contribute to shaping our identity. A key part of this process is social validation.
When our actions, beliefs, or characteristics are affirmed by others, it strengthens our sense of identity. This need for validation can be a powerful force, influencing our decisions and behaviors.
As a reminder, Social Accreditation Theory (SAT) offers insight into how and why we seek and receive validation (see my previous post for more details.) The processes of social validation and sanctioning manifest through the interplay of implicit and explicit forms of accreditation and often appear as natural aspects of everyday life.
Just as our perception of life presents itself as objective, the norms, values, and standards established through social accreditation are perceived as givens or facts. To most US citizens reading this for instance, wearing formal attire like a suit-and-tie in a corporate setting seems like an 'obvious' expectation, but it's a socially accredited behavior that became normal over time as people began validating and sanctioning each other based on their ability to appear professional.
Once certain norms or values are legitimized, we as individuals internalize them, shaping our behaviors and self-perceptions. The concepts of selfhood and identity formation are also central to understanding Social Accreditation Theory because these foundational aspects of individual psychology directly influence how we navigate social environments, pursue validation, and respond to social norms and expectations.
The formation of our identities involves the development of a stable sense of self that incorporates personal values, beliefs, experiences, and social roles. People use their sense of self to navigate social norms, deciding when to conform to gain social validation and when to assert their individuality, potentially risking social sanction. Understanding how behaviors are accredited at an individual level necessitates exploring the Theory of Social Comparison processes, as posited by Leon Festinger in 1954.
Festinger proposed that individuals have an innate drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities. In the absence of objective measures, people compare themselves with others. This process is integral to forming understandings of the self. This idea resonates with the Social Accreditation Theory's emphasis on the human quest for validation and recognition.
Discrepancies between one's views or abilities and the collective's can exert pressure on the individual, nudging them towards conformity—a cornerstone in the realm of social accreditation that I will definitely have more to say about later. But for now, just understand that our behaviors, beliefs, and appearances often serve as conduits for seeking validation.
Festinger’s Two Types of Comparison:
Upward Comparison: Comparing oneself with those perceived to be better off or more competent. This can motivate self-improvement but may also lead to feelings of inadequacy.
Downward Comparison: Comparing oneself with those perceived as less competent or worse off. This can boost self-esteem but might also foster complacency.
These comparisons influence self-perception and identity. Positive comparisons (where we see ourselves favorably) can be a major source of validation and enhance our self-esteem. Whereas negative comparisons can cause anxiety, depression and even traumatic experiences. Festinger’s work shows how social comparison often involves seeking validation for our own self-assessment.
A fitting scene from John Hughes' "The Breakfast Club" that showcases this concept of social comparison and its influence on individual accreditation is the scene where the five main characters sit in a circle, opening up about the reasons they're in detention and discussing their fears about becoming like their parents.
During their intimate conversation, Anthony Michael Hall’s character Brian reveals the pressure he feels to achieve academically, which stems from both self-imposed expectations and external pressures from his parents and peers. Andrew talks about his father's expectations for him to succeed in sports, even if it means bullying others. Claire discusses the pressures of maintaining her popular status, Allison opens up about her family's negligence, and Bender gives a raw account of his abusive home life. Each character, in their own way, demonstrates the weight of societal and peer expectations.
Brian's character gets teary eyed when he realizes that his new friendships may not outlast their shared detention. His emotional response to Claire's charge that he doesn't understand the pressures that popular students face is one of the best moments in the film.
They all strive for validation, whether it's from their parents, peers, or themselves. The scene highlights how these teenagers, despite their diverse backgrounds, are united by a shared struggle for identity and validation. This moment in the film serves as a poignant illustration of Festinger's theory. Through their candid confessions, each character reveals how they compare themselves to societal norms and the lengths they go to achieve or rebel against these benchmarks. Their need for validation, their fears of rejection or failure, and their struggles with their individual identities all underscore the profound influence of social comparison on their lives.
Brian, as the group's recognized "brain," keenly feels his place within the high school pecking order, and his actions throughout the film reflect this self-awareness. When engaging with Andrew or Claire, the more socially adept members of the group, Brian's interactions are permeated by upward comparisons. He views them as the high school elite, and while he sometimes admires them, this often results in him feeling overshadowed or inferior. His attempt to hide his virginity stems from a fear of further sidelining by those he sees as having more social experience.
Conversely, his exchanges with Allison bristle with elements of downward comparison. Brian perceives Allison as even more of an outsider than himself, momentarily boosting his own self-worth. Yet, as the narrative unfolds and their understanding deepens, this initial binary of superiority and inferiority becomes more nuanced, culminating in mutual appreciation.
Brian's arc in the movie illuminates the complex interrelation between social comparison and social accreditation. It underscores how societal labels can mold our behaviors and self-view. However, the film also posits a hopeful message: these dynamics, while powerful, are not set in stone, and authentic human bonds can indeed reshape prevailing norms.
Having seen himself through the eyes of his peers in a different light, and having compared himself across various dimensions beyond academics, Brian's actions and self-esteem begin to reflect an altered self-perception.
Festinger's observation that individuals tend to lessen comparisons with those markedly different from themselves underscores the pivotal role of in-groups and out-groups in social accreditation. This gravitation towards like-minded individuals reinforces the importance of shared norms in shaping behaviors and beliefs. The quest for validation is a fundamental human inclination, transcending time and culture. While the essence of this pursuit remains consistent, the markers of validation and the mediums through which it's sought have evolved in tandem with societal shifts, technological revolutions, and cultural metamorphoses. In the realm of modern media; television, films, music, and, notably, social media, wield considerable influence in sculpting societal perceptions of desirability.
Festinger's social comparison theory shows that people have an inherent drive to evaluate themselves, often through comparison with others. Such comparisons can significantly influence an individual's self-esteem and self-perception, playing a crucial role in how they seek and perceive validation.
In tandem with Festinger's theory, another foundational concept in understanding self-evaluation and social accreditation at the individual level is Charles Horton Cooley's "Looking Glass Self." This theory suggests that our self-concept is significantly shaped by how we believe others perceive us. We constantly reference society's metaphorical mirror, assessing how our actions, behaviors, and appearances might be received. This ongoing process of reflection and perception forms a dynamic balance between our individual self-awareness and the societal interactions that contribute to our sense of validation. Unpacking Cooley's theory, we find three primary stages:
1. We imagine how we must appear to others in a social situation. We often project how we might appear to others, especially in distinct scenarios. This could range from our clothing choices for an event to our demeanor in a group setting.
2. We imagine and react to what we feel their judgment of that appearance must be. Anchored in our self-projected image, we then hypothesize others' judgments of us. These judgments could span the spectrum from admiration (e.g., they might perceive us as articulate) to criticism (e.g., they might interpret our silence as indifference).
3. We develop our sense of self and respond through these perceived judgments of others. This hypothesized judgment invariably evokes an emotional resonance within us—be it pride, mortification, elation, or discomfort. It is this emotion that cements our self-perception and feeds into our self-concept.
Cooley's insights spotlight the inherent sociability of self-conception. Rather than being an insular exercise, our self-awareness is deeply tied to societal feedback. This mirrors the principles of social accreditation, wherein individuals, while charting their path through societal norms and validation quests, are perpetually referencing this "looking glass".
Brian is acutely aware of how others, particularly his peers, might perceive him. He internalizes the view that others see him as smart but socially awkward, amplifying his feelings of being an outsider.
Despite Brian's academic prowess, he feels ostracized from the social groups at school. This highlights the complex facets of social capital, indicating that his scholastic achievements, though commendable, don't always correlate with high social stature, especially within a high school's social parameters. Brian's good grades certainly endow him with a form of recognition. Teachers laud him, adults respect his intelligence, and his future prospects seem bright. Yet, within the school's broader social environment, such accolades pale in comparison to athletic skills or sheer popularity, epitomized by characters like Andrew and Claire.
While Brian boasts considerable academic capital, his social capital seems scant and peer feedback, both positive and negative, deeply impacts his self-perception. The overt label of "The Brain" creates an expectation, and its weight becomes palpable when he discloses the reason for his detention: an 'F' in shop class. His distress over a shop class failure illustrates this pressure. He took the shop class thinking it would be easy, because of downward comparisons feeding his perception of the types of kids who took shop. But when he struggled with the lamp and failed the class project, his sense of self was shattered. It's more than just academic disappointment; it's about not meeting an expectation in a domain he hoped might also boost his social standing.
Brian's character illuminates the tension between maintaining personal ambition while also seeking broader social validation. This tension emerges as he contrasts his standing with other characters. He perceives Claire and Andrew as socially affluent, a status he aspires to, whereas he views Allison, and to some extent, Bender, as fellow outsiders. Yet, their shared detention experience enables Brian to recalibrate his social capital. As the group connects, revealing vulnerabilities and forging genuine bonds, the social landscape begins to shift. By the end of the film, Brian’s understanding of his own identity has expanded beyond just being the 'brain'. He begins to see himself as a more multifaceted individual, capable of forming meaningful connections outside his academic achievements. This change is a result of both how he perceives others viewing him and how he compares himself to his peers.
Throughout the film, Brian attempts to alter his behavior to fit in better with the group, indicating his internal struggle with the perceived image others have of him. His interactions with the other characters challenge his initial self-perception and the stereotypes he had about himself and others.
Festinger's theory and Cooley's framework both serve as as a foundational lens, highlighting the continuum between individual self-perception and collective societal norms. The two theories intersect where social comparisons feeds into our "looking-glass self".
We gauge others' perceptions partly through comparisons - how we stack up against them in terms of abilities, achievements, and qualities. But the specific social environment and context influence both the comparisons we make (Festinger) and the way we think we are perceived by others (Cooley). Different social settings can therefore lead to different self-perceptions and identity aspects. Mark Snyder's concept of self-monitoring integrates and builds upon foundational ideas in identity formation, reinforcing those developed by Cooley and Festinger.
Understanding how self-monitoring relates to their theories can deepen our grasp of social behavior and the processes underlying social accreditation. Snyder's Self-Monitoring Scale, often referred to in discussions about personality and social behavior, is a psychological tool designed to measure an individual's self-monitoring capacity. Self-monitoring, according to Snyder, refers to an individual's ability to adjust their behavior according to the social cues and situational contexts they find themselves in. This concept highlights how people differ in their sensitivity to social cues and their ability to modify their expressions and behaviors in response to these cues. The Self-Monitoring Scale includes a series of statements that respondents rate, indicating the degree to which these statements apply to them. Through these responses, the scale assesses individuals on a spectrum from high self-monitoring to low self-monitoring.
High self-monitors are adept at reading social cues and adjusting their behavior accordingly. They are often seen as versatile, adaptable, and capable of presenting themselves in ways that are socially appropriate or advantageous in different contexts. High self-monitors tend to value social harmony and are skilled at managing how they are perceived by others. However, they might also be viewed as less authentic or consistent in their personal identity across different social situations. High self-monitors might more actively engage in behaviors that align with the prevailing norms and expectations of their social networks, effectively navigating social accreditation processes to gain validation and avoid sanctions.
In the Breakfast Club, Bender exemplifies high self-monitoring, but in a way that challenges social norms rather than conforms to them. He navigates his social world by adopting a rebellious persona, seeking validation not from authority figures but from peers who recognize the authenticity of his defiance. Bender's interactions, particularly with Claire and Mr. Vernon, highlight the conflict between seeking accreditation through conformity (accepting the role society has assigned him) versus maintaining his authentic self (resisting and questioning those expectations). His macho bravado and drive to conform to his "criminal" label initially causes him to act out and tease Claire, but as they interact, his authentic feelings for her conflict with these tendencies and his attraction to her allows him to adapt and alter his social behavior.
Low self-monitors, on the other hand, are more likely to behave consistently across different social contexts, largely disregarding the social cues that might suggest a need for behavioral adjustment. They prioritize being true to themselves and their internal states over conforming to external social expectations. While often perceived as more authentic and genuine, low self-monitors may sometimes appear socially awkward or insensitive due to their lesser focus on social adaptability.
Based on his interactions and behavior throughout the film, Principal Vernon's character in "The Breakfast Club" can be interpreted as displaying characteristics of low self-monitoring. Throughout the film, Vernon appears relatively insensitive to the social cues and emotional dynamics among the students. He consistently maintains his stern demeanor and disciplinary tactics even when they prove ineffective or escalate conflicts. This lack of responsiveness to the social environment further supports the idea of him being a low self-monitor. Low self-monitors might engage with social accreditation processes more selectively, prioritizing authenticity over conformity. Their approach to social validation and sanctioning may reflect a stronger adherence to personal values and beliefs, even at the risk of facing social sanctions.
Vernon exhibits a consistent behavior pattern, adhering to his authoritative and disciplinarian role regardless of the context. He does not adjust his behavior or approach to connect with the students on a more personal level, even when such an approach might have been more effective. This rigidity and lack of adaptability in social situations are indicative of low self-monitoring.
Self-monitoring effectively bridges the ideas of Cooley and Festinger by providing a framework for understanding how individuals navigate the social world.
Recalling Cooley's processes, our concept of self emerges from how we imagine how we appear to others, how we imagine their judgment of that appearance, and how we develop our self through the judgments of others. High self-monitors, who are particularly adept at adjusting their behaviors based on social cues, can be seen as actively engaging with the looking-glass self process. They continuously assess and reassess how they are perceived by others and modify their behavior to align with desired social outcomes. Low self-monitors, while still influenced by perceptions of how others see them, may prioritize their internal self-concept over these external assessments.
Festinger's Social Comparison Theory highlights the role of social context in shaping our self-evaluation and behavior. Self-monitoring can also be seen as a mechanism through which individuals engage in social comparison. High self-monitors may use social comparisons more strategically, seeking out comparisons that enable them to adapt and present themselves favorably within a given context. Low self-monitors may engage in social comparison more for self-verification purposes, seeking out comparisons that affirm their self-concept rather than for adjusting their behavior to fit social expectations.
I hope that it is becoming more evident how understanding our self-monitoring tendencies can provide valuable context for our social interactions and strategies for managing social relationships. It can explain the variance in our responses to social norms, the efforts we make to achieve social validation, and our reactions to social sanctions. High self-monitors exemplify the dynamic interplay between the looking-glass self and social comparison processes, using both to adeptly navigate social contexts and manage their social accreditation. Low self-monitors, while also influenced by these processes, might prioritize authenticity and consistency in their self-concept over the fluidity of social adaptability.
Understanding self-monitoring in the context of identity formation emphasizes the complexity of social accreditation processes. It suggests that a person's strategies for seeking validation, avoiding sanctions, and managing their social capital are deeply influenced by their self-monitoring tendencies, as well as by their ongoing engagement with looking-glass self and social comparison dynamics.
Combining the work of Mark Snyder, Charles Horton Cooley, and Leon Festinger provides a compelling narrative for understanding the pursuit of personal validation and identity formation through the lens of Social Accreditation Theory. Each theorist contributes a distinct perspective on how individuals navigate social environments and develop their sense of self, offering rich insights into the processes of social validation and identity construction.
Together, the theories offer a multidimensional understanding of how personal validation and identity formation are influenced by social interactions and perceptions.
Personal validation is sought through a dynamic interplay of adapting to social expectations (Snyder), which involves reflecting on how we are perceived by others (Cooley), and comparing ourselves to those around us (Festinger). Each of these processes contribute to social accreditation, with individuals navigating between adapting to external validations and affirming their internal sense of self. Identity is thus formed at the intersection of self-monitoring adaptability, the reflective process of the looking-glass self, and evaluative social comparisons.
AI Generated Image visualizing the interconnected dynamics of identity formation.
SAT underscores the role of social accreditation in this process, with identities being shaped and reshaped through continuous interactions with and feedback from our social environment. This integrated approach illustrates how we strategically navigate our social worlds, balancing between conformity and authenticity, to achieve social accreditation (obtaining validation or avoiding sanctions) and construct a coherent sense of self.
Next time, I'm going to explore how insights from theories on conformity and normative social influence, in-group and out-group dynamics, and labeling theory can help further our understanding of social accreditation processes.
If you like this blog, buy me a coffee! https://ko-fi.com/callmebryy
References/Further Reading:
Hughes, J. (Director). (1985). The Breakfast Club. A&M Films; Channel Productions.
Cooley, C. H. (1983). Human nature and the social order. Routledge.
Festinger L (1954). "A theory of social comparison processes". Human Relations. 7 (2): 117–140.
Fuglestad, P. T., & Snyder, M. (2009). Self-monitoring. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 574–591). The Guilford Press.
The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. (2012). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, USA.
Comentários