Influence

I am what I experience.

The sociologist George Herbert Mead wrote about The Self and coined what he termed the "I" and the "Me". When I was first introduced to Mead in Sociology, I found this concept utterly fascinating. The Self is essentially a socially-constructed entity created from the values, norms and beliefs of society which manifest within ourselves via agents of socialization, people whom we come into contact with. What this means is that our Self, what defines who we are, is really the sum of all that there is in our culture, the part that was transmitted to us. We are simply a reflection of our society and not an inherent Self. Therefore, there is not really an "I" as much as a "We", for I am Society.

"I" and "Me" takes a little abstraction to understand. The Me is the body in which other people are able to see and respond to. The I is the reaction and thoughts to a social situation which surrounds the "Me". For example, when someone insults you ( the "Me"), "I" will feel offended and will want to retaliate. However, "I" will then think about how will "Me" be perceived by others. Will Me be perceived as rude? Will "Me" be portrayed as sensitive? What should "Me" do then? "I" then chooses what "Me" should do so that "Me" can be portrayed as the best of what "I" wants. The constant interaction between the I and Me creates the person's Self. However, because the eventual conception of the Me is the direct response to the perception of others, thus the Self is really a manifestation of our surrounding culture. (Charles Horton Cooley had another interesting theory called "The Looking Glass Theory". What I am, is what I think you think I am.")

Socialization
Influence is everywhere. As long as you are in contact with someone or something man-made, you are in a sphere of influence. Research have shown that people who spend more time watching television will perceive reality more akin to the television world. Similarly, having different types of friends results in a person adopting different attitudes and habits which in turn, shapes their own decisions. So, how much influence does the people we come into contact with influence us? Based on Mead, they influence us totally. But why are people so different then? One possibility is that each one of us experience different agents of socialization. As mentioned before, agents of socialization are any people whom we come into contact with. The most influential agents of socialization are what Sociologists term as our Primary Groups; our families, school, peer groups and workmates. Our families for example, are our first introduction to Society, our first agents of socialization. They inform us about how people behave in the society. In a way, they also transmit their own interpretation of society to their children which are different than other families.

This have important consequences. In McIntyre's The Practical Skeptic, she mentioned that families also tend to pass down their idea of where they belong in the society as well. For example, researches have shown that parents of working class backgrounds prioritise "obedience" and "respect" in their children. This may be a reflection of their own personal experience of subjugation in order to be the best in their social class. On the other hand, parents of upper class backgrounds prioritise "intellectual curiosity" which may be important traits for management or positions of upper class in society. Thus, parents are teaching their children how to remain in their social classes irrespective if that was their intention or not! Our parents are huge influencers of our destiny.

The closer you are, the closer your Selfs will be
In schools and peer groups, the kid will also experience the Socialization process. For example, the School is where different pre-existing cultures first interact. A curious phenomenon social scientists tried to uncover is why do people gravitate towards people of roughly similar backgrounds. In the symbolic interactionist hypothesis (Mead and Cooley's hypothesis), people do so to prevent a personal culture shock and the shaking of one's existing Social beliefs. Sociologist Donna Eder even uncovered the interesting perpetuation of existing social classes in school. For example, "Rich kids are snobs while poor kids are dirty" are just some myths or prejudice which exists in the schools she studied which divides the school environment into different social classes. This phenomenon also affects the individual in choosing their social friends. For example, sometimes they mix with people who are "jocks", "slackers" or "nerds". In retrospect, the closer one gets with another person, the more closer one will see from the point of view of the other. "Rubbing off on one another" is an apt phrase to describe this Socialization process. Thus, whoever we meet and interact with and share our minds, perspectives or actions with, we internalise or recognise a little of what they bring and encode it into our Selfs.

A question can be posed then. Shouldn't siblings then have similar behaviors? It is true that some siblings do share similar idiosyncrasies found only in the family. However, firstly, the parent may not transmit the same culture, norms, beliefs and values to each children due to different amount of contact and the spontaneity of interactions and secondly, they will encounter other agents of socialization elsewhere. Thus, no two human is alike. The more time you spend with another person, in really understanding and interacting on a daily basis, the more you align your Social Self with the other person. Those who are closer or have similar social networks will tend to have closer norms, values and beliefs.

The further apart you are, the more different your Selfs will be
The opposite notion holds true when we compare between societies. The further away one is and have lesser contact with, the less the Society will resemble the other. Culture is after all, man-made. For example, a villager in a rural village in Vanuatu will have different norms, customs and beliefs than say a cosmopolitan in New York City. We even find a difference in culture between different ethnic groups and even between occupations. A drastic example would be a cannibalistic tribe, if there still is one, which most likely should have close to no contact with the outside world or they would have adopted the global norm/belief that cannibalism is taboo. However, when these cultures come into contact with other cultures, a process of cultural levelling occurs. We see adoption of other cultures into another culture. For example, we find Sushi Bars in New York. The more one culture have contact with another culture, the more their behavior, norms and values will converge. That is why we have almost universal values in which we have all agreed upon such as slavery or incest being not right.

Isolation
However, a more contentious argument may be found in Mead/ Cooley's idea. If the Self is an actualization of society, if a person does not interact with society, it means that the person does not have a Self. In other words, babies cannot be considered to be "human" or have "humanity" until they come into contact with people. Two examples can be brought up from this notion. The case of Isabelle and the case of Anna, both feral children. Both were brought up in isolation and hence, when suddenly reintegrated back into society, both displayed non-human characteristics and behavior. They behaved like "wild animals". Isabelle was able to reintegrate back into society after a couple of years but Anna didn't. One explanation provided was that Anna had less contact with human during her isolation years because Isabelle at least had her mother who nurtured her although minimally. Humans have a tendency to socialize and this tendency is innate. People go mad with lack of socialization and the renowned Sociologist Emile Durkheim wrote an entire thesis on the relation of Suicides with Egoism (A lack of social integration).

Deviance
Other interesting aspects about this theory is how people of differing cultures are able to interact with one another and what happens when your perspective is largely against your society's. In this hypothesis, people who have differing cultures from the main society will be ostracized or negatively sanctioned. E.g: Cannibal, criminal. The difference must be therefore little and able to be adopted or assimilated into general society. E.g: Religion abiding to state marriage regulations for marriage registration. However, as norms, beliefs and values are man-made and ever changing depending on the mindset and influence of every single individual in the community, a deviant can technically influence society to his or her way of thinking if he ir she can convince enough people. Durkheim even instigated this notion by adding that today's deviance may be tomorrow's hero. Honestly, most of Sociology lessons was like brain porn to me and I loved it because it helps me explain the many uncertainties surrounding myself. Or, like most science, at least gave me a reason as to why things are as they seem, eventhough it may not be true. See "Faith in Reason".

Individual Experience
On a personal scale, I am the embodiment of all the cultural attributes of my society. My viewpoints should reflect mainly my agents of socialization. However, due to the increasing availability of connections brought about by globalisation, I will be able to tap upon vast experiences of different cultures and agents of socialization. People say that travelling will widen one's view of the world. Cooley and Mead's Symbolic Interactionist Theory confirms this. The type of people I choose to be with will eventually shape and orient my own mindset.

I control my influences
Strangely, this also means that I am given the personal freedom to at least choose how and to whom I will be influenced by. Whether it is fate or predestination which led me to meet different people, or whether the world is an immensely complicated algorithm which made me meet someone because of what I already am, that can be a whole new topic on it's own. For now, in my obviously insanely limited sight, I am, in essence, who I choose to want to be.