Benjamin K. answered • 03/15/22
French, English, Philosophy, History, Religion, and Humanities
Hi Erin!
I'd be happy to offer some support here.
Before diving in, though: it seems like this question has a few additional points that your posting does not address. Specifically: there are many perspectives on the self, some of which, I imagine, your course did not directly cover. Can you briefly enumerate the perspectives that your class has examined? Knowing this would allow me to address your question more effectively and concisely.
Though I'm not sure which perspectives your course has addressed (and therefore which perspectives are most relevant to your question) I'd be happy to break down some of the broad themes that often characterize the various perspectives on the nature of self.
- Generally speaking, perspectives on the self are often grouped into two basic categories: essentialist and constructivist.
- These perspectives can in turn be broken down into a number of sub-categories that further refine this distinction between essentialism and constructivism. Some of the major ones are phenomenological, relational, postmodern, and materialist.
It might be more accurate to say, actually, that these sub-categories are more like "approaches" (with their own research methods, models, theories, etc) through which to investigate the nature of the self. These approaches are not necessarily neatly grouped on either side of the essentialist/constructivist dividing line. For example, a phenomenological view might adopt an essentialist or constructivist position. However, there are definite tendencies. A postmodern view, for instance, by definition rejects essentialism, because it holds that it is inaccurate to speak of "one" or "a" self. Instead, from a postmodern perspective, there are multiple selves, each of which are formed through behaviors and circumstances. Unsurprisingly, postmodernists are pretty much always constructivists.
To return to the distinction between essentialism and constructivism: essentialism espouses the view that there is something like a core identity - an essential self - within each individual being, distinct from extrinsic (e.g. cultural) or intrinsic (e.g. neuro-biological) influence. Essentialism varies in the stance it takes with respect to the position. A "hardcore" essentialist might say that the essential self is totally independent from extrinsic or intrinsic factors, such that no factors causally contribute to the formation of the self. Instead, the self is prior to these factors and is that which organizes our experience of the world. These days, almost no one takes this extreme view, though there are many ways in which this position continues to shape the terms of the conversation.
By contrast, constructivism states that there is no core identity. Rather, "the self" is shaped and determined (constructed) by a combination of extrinsic or instrinsic factors. As with essentialism, constructivists vary with respect to the radicality of their position. A radical constructivist would say that there is no such thing as an essential self. Rather, there are only extrinsic or intrinsic factors that combine to form, at best, the impression of a self. Beyond these factors, nothing like "a self" can be said to actually exist. "Softer" constructivist views abound: for example, from a relational perspective, there is such a thing as a self, but this self is always at east partially shaped through our interpersonal connections and social experiences.
From this basic distinction between essentialism and constructivism, many further distinctions follow. Beyond this point, however, I'm not sure I can add a whole lot more, as I can't be sure whether this would actually bear on your question. I hope this much has helped! Do let me know if I can be of further support.
