The Individual and the Self
Sociologists study individuals in general but rarely concern themselves with any particular individual. A primary sociological question is what, if anything, distinguishes humans as individuals from other animals. Some argue it stems from characteristics such as a larger brain or an opposable thumb. However, most sociologists believe the essential difference between humans and other animals is the human capability of having distinctive interaction with other humans.
An important source of this view is data about individuals who grew up in social isolation and did not experience normal human interaction during their development. For instance, we have information on cases in which children have been locked in closets or in single rooms for much or all of their childhoods (Curtiss 1977; Davis 1940, 1947). More recently, five children, ages 2 through 13, were discovered by authorities in York, Pennsylvania. They had lived their entire lives with their parents in a single room in a private home without any functioning utilities; their water source was rain dripping through the roof. The children had no birth certificates and had received no formal schooling, and there was no evidence that they had ever received any medical care, including vaccinations. They suffered from physical and mental health problems and were below average in terms of educational level (“Police Discover Five Children” 2010).
Of related interest is the existence of feral, or wild, children—that is, children who have been raised by animals in the wilderness (Benzaquen 2006; Dombrowski, Gischlar, and Mrazik 2011; Friedmann and Rusou 2015; Newton 2002). Oxana Malaya is from a small village in Ukraine (Grice 2006). In 1986, after being abandoned by her parents at age three, she crawled into a hovel that housed dogs. The “Dog Girl” lived there for five years before a neighbor reported her existence. When she emerged, she could hardly speak. Like the dogs she lived with, she barked, ate with her tongue, and ran about on all fours. Years later, when she was living in a home for the mentally disabled, Oxana was found to have the mental capacity of a six year old. She could not spell her name or read. She was able to communicate like other humans and talk because she had acquired some speech before she began living with dogs. She had also learned to eat with her hands and to walk upright (Lane 1975; Shattuck 1980).
The concept of feral children relates to the fundamental question of the relationship between nature and nurture. The “nature” argument is that we are born to be the kinds of human beings that we ultimately become; it is built into our “human nature” (Settle et al. 2010). The “nurture” argument is that we are human beings because of the way we are nurtured—that is, the way we are raised by other human beings who teach us what it is to be human. Of course, both nature and nurture are important (Eagly and Wood 2017). However, the cases of feral children indicate that nurture is in many ways more important than nature in determining the human beings we become.
Symbolic Interaction and Development of the Self
As the example of feral and isolated children suggests, development as a human presupposes the existence of other humans and interaction with and among them. This brings us into the domain of symbolic interactionism, which developed many ideas of great relevance to this view of humans. In general, the interaction that takes place between parents and children is loaded with symbols and symbolic meaning.
One early symbolic interactionist, Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929), explained how parents help children develop the ability to interact with others with his famous concept of the looking-glass self. This is the idea that as humans we develop a self-image that reflects how others see and respond to us. We imagine how we appear to others and how they evaluate our appearance. Based on that, we develop some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or embarrassment. Because children’s earliest interactions are typically with their parents, it is that interaction that is most important in the formation of a self-image. This helps explain why feral children and others who spend their formative years in prolonged social isolation are unlikely to form a fully developed self-image: There are no others to respond to them. It is as we interact with others, especially when we are young, that we develop a sense of our selves.
The major thinker associated with symbolic interactionism (see Chapter 2) is one of Cooley’s contemporaries, George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). Mead ([1934] 1962) was very concerned with the micro level (the individual, the mind, the self). He prioritized the social relationship, including interaction, and the importance of symbols in social interaction. In fact, it is this prioritization of the social that distinguishes sociologists from psychologists in their studies of individuals and interaction.
George Herbert Mead’s ideas strongly influenced the development of sociological theory, especially symbolic interactionism. His most famous work, Mind, Self, and Society, originated as lectures from his teachings at the University of Chicago.
Granger, NYC—All rights reserved.
Humans and Nonhumans
Mead distinguished between humans and nonhumans. However, both are capable of making gestures (e.g., by raising a limb). By gestures, Mead meant the movements of one individual that elicit automatic and appropriate responses from another individual.
Both animals and humans are capable of not only gestures but also conversations of gestures, whereby they use a series of gestures to relate to one another. Thus, the snarl of one dog may lead a second dog to snarl in return. That second snarl might lead the first dog to become physically ready to attack or be attacked. In terms of humans, Mead gave the example of a boxing match, where the cocking of one boxer’s arm may cause the other boxer to raise an arm to block the anticipated blow. That raised arm might cause the first boxer to throw a different punch or even to hold back on the punch. A less aggressive example can be found in the realm of flirting (Delaney 2012; Henningsen 2004), where one person’s prolonged eye contact (a subtle gesture) may cause another person to return the eye contact. The returned gaze might cause the first flirter to look away and, perhaps, quickly glance again at the other person. As in the case of animals, the gestures of boxers and those who flirt (among many others) are instantaneous and involve few, if any, conscious thought processes.
In addition to physical gestures, animals and humans are both capable of vocal gestures. The bark of a dog and the grunt of a human (boxer) are both vocal gestures. In both cases, a conversation of vocal gestures is possible, as the bark of one dog (or the grunt of a boxer) elicits the bark (or grunt) of another. However, when humans (and animals) make facial gestures (such as originating eye contact in an effort to flirt), they cannot see their own facial gestures. In contrast, both animals and humans can hear their own vocal gestures. As a result, misunderstanding is more likely when people rely on facial rather than vocal gestures. For example, men may be more likely than women to interpret making eye contact as sexual in nature.
Ask Yourself
In what ways do you interact with your pets in the same way you interact with humans? In what ways is the interaction different? Do you find it more satisfying to interact with people or with pets?
It is the vocal gesture that truly begins to separate humans from animals. In humans, but not other animals, the vocal gesture can affect the speaker as much and in the same way it does as the hearer. Thus, humans react to and interpret their own vocal gestures and, more important, their words. Furthermore, humans have a far greater ability to control their vocal gestures. We can stop ourselves from uttering sounds or saying various things, and we can alter what we say as we are saying it. Animals do not possess this capacity. In short, only humans are able to develop a language out of vocal gestures; animals remain restricted to isolated vocal gestures. Many sociologists have come to reject the clear distinction between the abilities of animals and those of humans (Greenebaum and Sanders