Strategic Self-Presentation

[Animus]

Sociology of self-esteem, self-presentation, self-regulation.

What sociologists call "Strategic Self-Presentation" stems from a preoccupation with self-worth. Individuals, in the pursuit of self-esteem, define themselves relative to some "domain of contingent self-worth". For example; "I am an excellent father" suggests a relative identity in relation to one's offspring. The adverb "excellent" denotes a sense of superiority.

If this person desires to maintain their self-image as an "excellent father" and they encounter threats to that image, for example strong evidence to the contrary, they will engage in activities designed to repair or guard the self-image. A number of these behaviors, known as "Accountability Avoidance Stratgies", "Accountability Strategies" and "Apology Strategies" are outlined in the video. All of which, save a genuine apology motived by remorse, are strategies for protecting or repairing one's self-esteem in whatever contingent domain is being threatened.

This links closely with cognitive biases, as many of the strategies employed in the act of repairing self-image cross boundaries with "confirmation bias", "selection bias" and so on and so forth. This field of sociology can likely be thought of as mirroring Buddhist sentiments about the self and attachment, many of the researchers refer back to Buddhist concepts of self and "mindfullness".

Video Outline: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QfElEEQFqs

Also see the supplementary video "Example Strategic Self Presentation"

Sources:

Handbook of self and identity By Mark R. Leary, June Price Tangney
http://books.google.ca/books?id=vafgWfg ... pg=PA310&d...

Lies and Deception in Everyday Life
http://books.google.com/books/about/Lyi ... _life.html...

[Animus]

The Narcissism Epidemic
http://www.narcissismepidemic.com/

The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits:
Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan
Department of Psychology
University of Rochester
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/docu ... hatWhy.pdf

Rational Truth-Avoidance and
Self-Esteem
http://www.sfu.ca/~mongrain/self-esteem.pdf

[Animus]

The Pursuit of Self-Esteem: Contingencies of
Self-Worth and Self-Regulation
Jennifer Crocker, Amara T. Brook, Yu Niiya, and
Mark Villacorta
University of Michigan
http://www.scu.edu/cas/psychology/facul ... a_and_vill...

Why We Don't Need Self-Esteem:
On Fundamental Needs, Contingent Love, and Mindfulness
Richard M. Ryan and Kirk Warren Brown
Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology
University of Rochester
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/docu ... mentPI.pdf

PRESENTATION OF SELF IN
EVERYDAY LIFE
Erving Goffman
http://www.clockwatching.net/~jimmy/eng ... _intro.pdf

[Animus]

Contingent self-esteem and the interpersonal circumplex:
The interpersonal pursuit of self-esteem
Virgil Zeigler-Hill *
Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5025,
Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w535680/Zeigl ... (2006).pdf

The Totalitarian Ego
Fabrication and Revision of Personal History
ANTHONY G. GREENWALD Ohio State Uni v e r s i t
http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/G ... 80.OCR.pdf

Dramaturgy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramaturgy_(sociology)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Please write us a short introduction to these ideas in your own words, outlining why you're think they're relevant.

[Animus]

A wrote a short introduction and spoke it into youtube. You can view it here: Video Outline: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QfElEEQFqs

I can paste the script to the board later tonight.

[Animus]

If you don't want to wait; I can say this much. What sociologists call "Strategic Self-Presentation" stems from a preoccupation with self-worth. Individuals, in the pursuit of self-esteem, define themselves relative to some "domain of contingent self-worth". For example; "I am an excellent father" suggests a relative identity in relation to one's offspring. The adverb "excellent" denotes a sense of superiority.

If this person desires to maintain their self-image as an "excellent father" and they encounter threats to that image, for example strong evidence to the contrary, they will engage in activities designed to repair or guard the self-image. A number of these behaviors, known as "Accountability Avoidance Stratgies", "Accountability Strategies" and "Apology Strategies" are outlined in the video. All of which, save a genuine apology motived by remorse, are strategies for protecting or repairing one's self-esteem in whatever contingent domain is being threatened.

This links closely with cognitive biases, as many of the strategies employed in the act of repairing self-image cross boundaries with "confirmation bias", "selection bias" and so on and so forth. This field of sociology can likely be thought of as mirroring Buddhist sentiments about the self and attachment, many of the researchers refer back to Buddhist concepts of self and "mindfullness".

[Cahoot]

Howdy Animus. Hope you’ve been well.

From an artistic view, self-concept is the core of dramatic conflict.

A character has a self-concept. An external force causes something to happen that challenges that self-concept; the challenge may be so profound that the self-concept is shattered.

The resulting story is the character encountering the conflicts of one obstacle after another in the struggle to regain that self-concept and set the world right. In the course of the struggle the character gains deeper self-awareness, resulting in acceptance of a new self-concept. Thus, growth.

The story of life, one person at a time.

Preservation of self-concept is the most powerful motivator, even greater than preserving one’s own life, or love, or hunger. People will do anything to preserve and assert their self concept. It explains why a soldier will throw his body on a live grenade to save his mates. The soldier who does that has a self-concept of self-sacrificer.

Figure out someone’s self-concept and you have a good idea of what motivates them and how they are likely to behave in future situations.

[Animus]

Howdy Animus. Hope you’ve been well.

From an artistic view, self-concept is the core of dramatic conflict.

A character has a self-concept. An external force causes something to happen that challenges that self-concept; the challenge may be so profound that the self-concept is shattered.

The resulting story is the character encountering the conflicts of one obstacle after another in the struggle to regain that self-concept and set the world right. In the course of the struggle the character gains deeper self-awareness, resulting in acceptance of a new self-concept. Thus, growth.

The story of life, one person at a time.

Preservation of self-concept is the most powerful motivator, even greater than preserving one’s own life, or love, or hunger. People will do anything to preserve and assert their self concept. It explains why a soldier will throw his body on a live grenade to save his mates. The soldier who does that has a self-concept of self-sacrificer.

Figure out someone’s self-concept and you have a good idea of what motivates them and how they are likely to behave in future situations.

Thanks Cohoot. Yea, I've been doing well.

[Cahoot]

Self-concept isn’t required for life, yet self-concepts exist.

Since life does not require self-concept, then based on the premise that everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of self-concept?

[cousinbasil]

Self-concept isn’t required for life, yet self-concepts exist.

Since life does not require self-concept, then based on the premise that everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of self-concept?

Wherever did you get that premise, Cahoot?

[Cahoot]

Purpose, meaning functionality.

Thus the statement could also read:

Since life does not require self-concept, then based on the premise that everything has a functionality, what is the function of self-concept?

[cousinbasil]

Purpose, meaning functionality.

Thus the statement could also read:

Since life does not require self-concept, then based on the premise that everything has a functionality, what is the function of self-concept?

I have participated tangentially in several threads along these lines here. It kind of depends on what you mean by concept. Concept I take it implies consciousness, that if a living thing can have any kind of concept, it is necessarily conscious. Since it is therefore conscious and capable of having concepts, it is difficult to visualize it not also having self-concepts. So your question really becomes, what is the purpose - or function - of any kind of concept. Since not all living things are conscious, the presence or ability to have concepts is logically not required for survival of an organism.

[Cahoot]

Unless there is a fourth option, the function or purpose of anything, including self-concept and thus the capacity for conceptualization, is either to create, destroy, or preserve. Correct?

[cousinbasil]

Unless there is a fourth option, the function or purpose of anything, including self-concept and thus the capacity for conceptualization, is either to create, destroy, or preserve. Correct?

It is tough to argue with that. You can of course cut a loaf of bread into three pieces and correctly state "There are three pieces to this loaf of bread." But if you are restricting yourself to facets of living things, I have no problem going along with that idea that the function of something like, say, locomotion, is to assist in creating, preserving, or destroying. Same with the ability to self-conceptualize.

[Cahoot]

Then, since self-concept is not required for life, in order to consider what the purpose of self-concept is, self-concept should be considered in light of what it is that it creates, destroys, or preserves. A related consideration is to identify the factors that determine which of the disparate functions self-concept is fulfilling.

[cousinbasil]

Then, since self-concept is not required for life, in order to consider what the purpose of self-concept is, self-concept should be considered in light of what it is that it creates, destroys, or preserves. A related consideration is to identify the factors that determine which of the disparate functions self-concept is fulfilling.

Okay, but you are attributing to self-concept itself the ability to do something (create, preserve, destroy.) While it seems to me that self-concept is something used by whatever it is that does the creating, preserving, or destroying.

Self-concept itself is always being created and destroyed, and god knows a lot of effort goes into preserving it.

But a bird creates, preserves, and destroys. Are we saying a bird is conscious, and therefore can have a self-concept? Obviously the bird is able to distinguish between itself and something else. Does this qualify?

[Cahoot]

Destruction does not require self-concept, however if self-concept exists it has a function. Factors determine which of the disparate functions self-concept fulfills.

Destruction does not require a bird, however if a bird exists it has a function. Factors determine which of the disparate functions a bird fulfills.

Broadly speaking, the factors that determine the function of anything fall under the categories of relationship and situation.

The function of a self-concept, or the function of a bird, is defined by it’s relationship to something else, and a particular situation in which that relationship exists.

To a worm in the particular situation of crawling above ground, or near the surface of the ground, a bird is a likely destroyer.

This leads to the question that to what, and in what situation, is a self-concept a destroyer?

[cousinbasil]

This leads to the question that to what, and in what situation, is a self-concept a destroyer?

Since you are "broadly speaking," a self-concept can be maladaptive in the extreme. Let me give an example and then you can tell me if this is what you mean. Take a person who has an alcohol problem. Like most people, this person has at least one self-concept. This self-concept will include a self-image in which he may see himself as more attractive or witty or socially adept when he is drinking. The opposite may be the case - others may see him as a bothersome drunk. Yet considerable energy will go into maintaining this particular self-concept. He has to reinterpret the truth, hide things from himself and others. If he didn't have a self-concept, he could not maintain a self-image that is central to his set of behavioral routines he needs to operate under his burden. He has to keep track of the webs he weaves, in other words.

In a situation like this, this self -concept, which he must maintain, can destroy him and those around him.

If a self-concept is false, then, it can be destructive. But a fighter pilot may have a self concept of a highly-trained killing machine. This would be a true self-concept that is also destructive.

[Cahoot]

The actions of a drunk, or the actions of a fighter pilot can affect lives creatively, destructively, or the actions can preserve.

In relation to another, the drunk or the fighter pilot can exist as one of the three functions, the specific function determined by the relationship and the situation. If an untrained drunk has a relationship with a fighter jet to the point that he is piloting the machine, he is not likely to land safely thus he becomes a destroyer of his life, the jet, and anyone who gets in his path. Then again, he’s not likely to be in that situation unless his self-concept has taken that particular form of delusion, and if so then within that situation the self-concept has the function of destroyer, of the aforementioned things.

A trained pilot who is drunk and piloting a jet is more likely to land safely, thus being a preserver of his relationship with the jet, the jet itself and his own life, and the situation of his presence as military force in a particular region may make him a strategic preserver of peace in the relationship with aggressive forces. Trained pilots flying drunk are against regulations as far as I know, though it’s probably occurred more times than the other situation. And I’ve read that in certain situations fighter pilots are fed performance enhancing drugs.

A woman is a drunk and leaves her family. The husband, who also drinks, cannot work and drink and take care of the kids, so the court puts the younger kids in an orphanage. That particular family unit has been destroyed. However the kids grow up, they get married and have kids of their own, they have jobs and houses and cars and they live a full span of years, so their lives were not destroyed by the drunken woman or her self-concept. Her function may have been that of preserver, and by making herself absent she preserved their lives. Her function may have been that of creator, creating the lives of her children. In terms of destruction, she destroyed that family unit but not the lives of her family.

[cousinbasil]

In relation to another, the drunk or the fighter pilot can exist as one of the three functions, the specific function determined by the relationship and the situation.

Now we seem to be speaking of something else altogether, maybe something larger. I had been trying to zero in on the possible functions of self-concept. But here, self-concept is not mentioned. The drunk or the fighter pilot almost certainly has a self-concept, yet a self-concept would not be required for your statement to still be true, as I see it. Two things can can have this three-sided relationship to one another, or more precisely, it seems one can always look at two things and postulate one of these three functions to characterize the relationship between the two things, if a relationship exists. If one of the things is a person, or more generally a conscious being, self-concept would almost necessarily be a factor in that relationship. But again, I know plenty of people whose self-concepts are not that difficult to get a feeling for, and in many cases such people are deluding themselves rather spectacularly. Their self-concept tells them one thing, such as I am a competent parent; believing in this delusion of competency then permits them to continue cheating on their spouses, making more time for their secretaries than for their children, and so on.

[Cahoot]

That’s right.

Since self-concept is arbitrary, and since it is not required for life, can a person get along without a self-concept. More specifically, does awareness of the delusional nature of self-concept loosen or even break the bonds of attachment to self-concept.

[cousinbasil]

That’s right.

Since self-concept is arbitrary, and since it is not required for life, can a person get along without a self-concept. More specifically, does awareness of the delusional nature of self-concept loosen or even break the bonds of attachment to self-concept.

I think a person can get along without a fixed self-concept. If we agree on the delusional nature of self-concept, we might conclude a person would get along better without it. Yes, awareness can loosen or break the bonds of attachment to self concept, it's hard to imagine it doing otherwise.

The question remains, does no longer being attached to any particular self-concept mean a person no longer has one? Is he truly living without any self-concept?

[Cahoot]

Well, to do without something that is the most powerful motivator in so many people means letting go of a lot. Attention moves on.

Since life does not need self-concept, and continues without self-concept, and since continuing life does require action, if life is to continue by means of preserving, destroying, or creating then there must appear a new motivation for action other than the old way of linking self-concept with the energy of attention, to the extent that identity became self-concept.

[cousinbasil]

Let me tell you where I find myself personally regarding all this. I have never found a self-concept that seemed to fit, or that "felt like" it fit. Much like being uncomfortable with a hat, or never liking how I looked in one, I have lived without one. Yet individual situations have me donning this hat or that one - people seem to treat me readily as if I were the thing in the concept; in so doing, I find others supply me with a temporary self-concept, the one most agreeable to them. And this is not objectionable, given a little thought. Why would I force myself to decide on a particular hat, since they are all equally uncomfortable? Why not let it be decided for me, since I am not the one who has to see me in it? Somehow I think my hat analogy has not conveyed what I mean...