 Friends, the today's topic for discussion is about a very significant aspect of life. It deals with self. All of us have a notion of self and we use that notion to relate to our environment. In fact, we consider ourselves as an agent and we use that notion of agency to organize our behavior. This kind of dialogue which occurs between me and I is a continuous process and throughout the day, we engage with others using self as an anchor. Today's discussion will focus on how culture shapes the notion of self. The agenda for today's discussion is one which deals with the relationship between culture and psychology. What are the cultural roots of self and its psychological implications and the Indian perspective on self? Let us begin with three important submissions. I propose that for any culture, the way we consider a person as an agent and the way we consider a person in relation to other fellow beings in community are two important tasks. They may be considered as the notion of agency and the notion of communion. One has to resolve how we structure the notion of agency and how we structure the notion of communion. I also propose that the notion of self becomes a bridge between self, between the individual and society. Now, individual and society are important components in any kind of conceptualization of social behavior. The notion of individual as a separate entity and the notion of society as a collective are important ingredients in thinking about social behavior. As we will examine the two notions are considered quite differently in different cultural contexts. The third important point that I want to share with you is that emotional experiences and expressions are very intimately related to self and shape our social interaction. In recent developments in the study of self and emotion, it has become quite clear that the way we conceptualize our self is very closely related to the moments in which we are emotionally engaged. We become aware about our self when there is some kind of emotional involvement. It is an important proposition in some form or the other. It has been with us in theorizing about self. If you remember, the psychoanalytic thought very clearly implicates the emotional changes upheavals in relation to thinking about self. The further development that has taken place in humanistic psychology which takes another dimension. They are also self transformation is considered quite relevant, where emotional change is very crucial. Now, we would like to see how self has been treated within the mainstream psychology. I would like to begin with the proposition by William James, who happens to be the senior most psychologist in American tradition. He has treated self as a puzzle of puzzles. According to him, self is the central concern in our behavior. As you can see, he treats self as the center of the psychological universe and it works as a lens through which other aspects of the world are perceived. So, how we organize our self concept? What are its elements? What are the boundaries of this self? All these things are going to shape the way we relate to others, the way we conduct ourselves and treat various aspects of social environment. The notion of self and the division between the individual and society have a tradition in the Euro American thought and the key features include a kind of dualism between mind and body known as Cartesian dualism. There is emphasis on ability to reason and free will and finally, a kind of capitalist spirit, where individual is considered to be an agency to achieve its goals and realize its aspirations as an independent entity is central. If you read the literature, examine the various ways in which self has been conceived, you will see that it has a peculiar structure. It is a unified, causally active, integrated, bounded, autonomous and objective structure. All these terms are very crucial. They tell that self is an integrated structure and it is related to activities in a causal fashion. It has a definite boundary which separates self from other things or the others and it is autonomous in terms of ability to initiate action. You will recollect that self-efficacy appears to be a major concept in social psychological tradition which talks about one's ability to perceive one's capacity. How you think that you can perform in various situations, your perception of self-competence is very crucial in directing your behavior influences your motivation and action. This kind of notion which considers human action as authored by the self is very familiar in the Euro-American thought and it has been considered to be a kind of a prototype to think about self and it has become naturalized that is this is the objective nature of self. We forget that this kind of proposition which is the proposition shared by most of the theories is one which is contributed by a particular kind of cultural discourse. If you go to psychological literature, you will notice that there has been considerable change in interest in the notion of self while William James did talk about self and particularly attended to issues of self esteem and the way we think about different kinds of self all those things are there. But after that we find that with rise of behaviorism self became a theme of very little interest because it did not provide opportunity to examine behavior in objective way and it was more philosophical than psychological. Very recently perhaps in 80s the interest in research the interest in self has revived and today at least there are 40-50 terms where self is used an epithet you have self determination you have self efficacy you have various notions like self esteem. I have checked in American psychological abstract that there are about 50-60 terms where self is used. So, different facets of self are being examined very seriously and people are looking at self as a cognitive structure the way we represent self and the way we organize ourselves usually psychologists ask the question who are you and a person has to respond to that and whatever reflections are given they are used to describe self there are majors of self concept there are also attempts to look at specific aspects of self functioning and as you must have seen the interesting review by Marcus and Kitayama how the notion of self varies across cultures and how the variation in the notion of self relates to cognitive and affect to functioning. When we talk about culture we need to recognize that as Hofstede has mentioned quite interestingly that culture acts like a collective programming of mind how people in a particular culture share certain notions certain ideas certain meaning systems certain practices and according to that we organize our behavior our thoughts perceptions motives emotions are organized according to the notion of self. The systematic investigation of self that has taken place in recent years has shown that there are many more dimensions for instance Marcus and Nureus has talked they have talked about the notion of possible selves that how you think about your future how you organize your thoughts about future and I think the engagement in thinking about your future self becomes a motivating force I just wanted to share that self has returned to the scheme of psychological thinking in a big way and it is now related to almost all cognitive and motivational processes. Self is not a biological phenomenon self is not something which can be reduced to neurological activity self is a phenomenon which is organized around the discourse to which we are exposed in the course of our early life the kind of activities the kind of arrangements the kind of stimuli which are present in our immediate social environment help us to develop a notion of self. I remember an interesting notion which was given by Cooley and that was about the notion of looking glass self we see our self as others tell the significant others informers they tell that who are we so what are the characteristics that are present in us they are identified with the help of this kind of learning so self is something which is acquired from various kinds of experiences that take place in our life. It has been reported that human beings have this peculiar capacity to make the self as an object and this is possible because of the capacity of reflection and this capacity is missing in animals there are some reports about chimpanzees that they do have some kind of notion but the full-fledged notion of self is missing in their behavior it is around one and half years that a child starts recognizing his own body and thinking that he is the self if the child looks into the mirror and recognizes the self accurately before that they do not recognize themselves when they look into the mirror. So the point is that early in during early years children start recognizing themselves as a separate entity and formation of this self in a particular direction is guided by the opportunities for learning which are available in family in school and in community settings. So culture develops through membership in some local cultural community and through a history of symbolically mediated experiences in that context I have already explained this point that you participate in the activities of a group or community and through that you identify yourself with certain features certain characteristics the cultural practices are not only sources of personal and social identity but they also operate as strategies for managing self and its relationship with the rest of the world. The cultural practices not only describe the self and its properties but they also provide certain ways techniques methods to arrange the relationship to regulate the relationship between self and others. Finally our perception and experiences of self are colored by cultures that we inhibit this summarizes the cultural perspective which recognizes the necessity of cultural learning for formation of the notion of self. Let us see cultural variations in self. Now before we come to examine the various types of self construals that are observed in different cultural contexts it is important to realize that cultures help us to organize the world of our experience. We as human beings try to reduce the complexity in our environment. Cognitive psychologists say that we are cognitive misers and in order to reduce the complexity of the world of experience we use categories we make distinctions on the basis of categories. We divide the world between the self and the other and how this partitioning takes place in other words what will be included in the category of self and what will be included in the category of other is provided by the cultural background the cultural experience of a particular individual. So we form boundaries between me and rest of the world in different ways and the boundaries of psychosocial self are functional boundaries. They are functional boundaries in the sense that they allow you to relate to others and they also help you to create a definite structure called self. They are like doors they join and separate it is through self that you relate to others and you also distinguish yourself with others from others. The boundaries that do not act as bridges become barriers there are different ways of creating the boundary. The boundary between self and other may be a permeable boundary where others have this possibility that they can become members of yourself or boundary may be a solid one which maintains a clear separateness and the self and other are put in two distinct categories. I would like to mention here an interesting proposal by professor Arsith R. Patti and professor Sinha. In an interesting analysis they have proposed that here the individual and family they are referring to the Indian context individual and family form a kind of permeable boundary and there is a possibility of exchange the elements within the self can go to the family or the elements in the family can come to the category of self. So, there is a possibility of movement or exchange between these two categories. Now it is very important to recognize that a boundary can become a barrier or it can be a bridge which allows for movement. The barrier like line of control L O C does not allow others to come. Finally it is important to recognize an assumption by the cultural perspective that the notion of self cannot be context free you define self in a particular context. You have various notions of self there is an interesting analysis by Ulrich Nyser who talks of different kinds of self and it is very interesting. He says that there is an ecological self as a physical entity you are a person in flesh in bones and that is an objective reality which can be seen and which can be recognized then there is a self which is available to you only your personal self which is based on your memory. There is a social self which emerges in the context of relationship with others and finally he says that there is a conceptual self that what we mean by self we also learn what is the meaning of self that is conceptual self. So, self can be understood in many ways and there are different contexts in which self can be understood. So, one of the learning that comes from the cultural analysis of self is that the way we consider our selfhood the way of being a person is not a natural category, but depends on cultural models of personhood and person's role in personal and social life. Cultural models are very crucial in the sense that they provide a kind of space to recognize yourself and articulate the notion of self. We will respond to this challenge after a few minutes when we will examine the Indian context of selfhood, but it is important to see that there is a model which consider self in terms of search for a deeper reality like Brahman which is something non-objective in the sense that it can be conceptualized, but it cannot be experienced like a physical entity it is a continuous search for higher reality or consciousness. So, that is one kind of model or when you think of the notion of self and if you use a psychological test of self concept you have a definite set of qualities and you identify that you are high on this quality or low on this quality and the answers that are obtained provide one picture of self fine you may be happy with that. So, there are different kinds of models which are available one which goes beyond the objective reality or one which identifies self with certain features which can be described which can be identified. So, there are different models which are available we also propose that ontologies and ideologies of self vary across cultures we will examine it more seriously in the next few minutes that what constitutes self, what is the reality of self its ontology and the movement of self in terms of certain ideological preferences vary across cultures. The self use that we have they are shared by the culture and they guide the child reading practices we treat children we tell them how to behave how to act how to distinguish how to relate in the Indian context a child has to learn different kinds of brothers and sisters and uncles there are specific names for all the relationships and they have to retain that as compared to many other cultures where such sophisticated relational network in the family is missing. So, the ontologies and ideologies vary and cultures provide certain practices certain kinds of guidelines for child rearing modes of relating to environment and community they are embodied in the practices institutions and public symbols. Now, this point reminds us that the notion of self is reflected at the level of social functioning it is also reflected in terms of various kinds of representations which are found in artifacts. Let me mention that the notion of self which is prevalent in the Euro American context is an individualized self by individualized I want to emphasize the fact that the goal of development is individuation becoming more and more distinct creating an image where self is independent from others and it is unified we have mentioned these terms earlier and it is an indivisible entity. I am reminded of the notion which is contrailed to this individual unit the notion is one given by an anthropologist Maki Mariot who says that Indians are d visuals they consist of different elements they are constituted by various elements it is not individual entity it is divided. So, it is structured by relationships it is a composite of various kinds of inputs objects relationships. Another important feature of this self is that it has capacity to choose an influence choice is a very powerful concept in western psychology. If you have choice then you have control if you have choice then you have freedom and the development of individual growth of an individual is treated in terms of increasing capacity to choose and control the entire system of motivation is rooted in this kind of philosophy choice and control. In fact many studies in the western world indicate that even maintaining an illusion of control is good for health. So, internal control being independent and influencing the environment is a big challenge in this kind of notion. If you look into the literature you will see that the notion of competence is defined in terms of one's ability to influence the environment white who has studied the notion of competence he uses the word effectiveness that if you are able to influence if you are able to change then you have competence. So, this kind of notion which is separate which is independent which is able to influence others which is able to create and which is able to perform things according to one's own characteristics and features is one trend. In the review of Marcus and Kitayama these features are put together under the title of independent self and that independent self is one which is bounded separate and provides different way to look at the reality different way to feel motivated different way to engage in emotional relationships. So, there is emphasis on efficacy self esteem power it is self centric and as one researcher has termed it has a transmitter orientation it goes towards others it goes towards environment and tries to influence. So, this is one model of self which is reflected in most of the prevalent psychological notions in literature to summarize this perspective we find a model of selfhood where individuation is the chief characteristic of maturity if are independent different you do not try to be dependent on others then you have developed there is strong need for internal control choice based on preference experience of influence is beneficial and it is lack is pathological the contrast which is made in various constructs that we have created in social psychology in psychology of motivation provide this kind of perspective self interest is central and emphasis on efficacy and self esteem is something which is central to effective functioning of a person. Now in a simplified manner if we look into many non western settings there are studies from China from Japan from Korea from India from Indonesia which provide a picture which offers a different perspective oneself here we find a kind of group orientation sensitivity to the goals and needs of others readiness to cooperate and maintain permeable boundaries. We also notice that there is more emphasis on duties than rights more emphasis on the roles obligations and adjustment and here there is recognition that there is a social and spiritual or divine component of self and self is located in that context. In contrast to the transmitter orientation that we noted in the independent self here we notice a receiver orientation where the emphasis is more on an inner directed discipline. Let me make it clear that the portrayal of the independent and interdependent self or as I have presented here the notion of self in the two contrasting categories is a kind of statement to recognize cultural differences. It does not imply that everyone who belongs to one kind of cultural setting has the imprint in the same manner and everybody shares all these characteristics in the same way and the same is true about the western notion that I have presented. You will find cultural variations, variations within culture and there is a possibility and yes there are findings where these elements are present in both kinds of cultural settings perhaps the degree of availability of these models is relatively different in the two kinds of cultural settings. A notion which has been popularized by Hofstede and Triandis and several other colleagues in India Professor J. B. P. Sinha has initiated a number of studies in that context and that deals with individualism and collectivism as a cultural dimension and the kind of correspondence between interdependent self and independent self and collectivism and individualism is quite interesting. We find considerable similarity in the characterizations, one follows one method and orientation and the other approach follows a different orientation but they do meet in certain ways. So, the collectivist relational self which is prevalent in the non-western setup is found to share certain features and I think it will be useful to briefly refer to those features. Here self is defined in terms of membership in in groups. So, one person may introduce that I belong to a particular family or a particular community. I remember some researchers have used the phrase indexical self that you have to understand in terms of the features of that group to which you belong. The referential self is one where you tell that I am intelligent, I am bold, I participate in activities that is referential notion of self which comes very close to the independent notion of self often found in the western context and here it is the indexical self which is more prominent. So, sharing of resources within group members, maintaining normative orientation and feeling interdependence and involved in the activities and lives of fellow beings that becomes very central. Achieving the goal of interdependence is something which is very important. We often go together, we try to perform various things. However, it is a complex challenge that in spite of collectivist orientation, team work is quite problematic in the Indian context. Cooperative activity is quite difficult. So, one has to see how this puzzle can be solved, but it is there that on the one hand there is collectivism, there is recognition of others as important component in our life at the same time there are difficulties in relating to others. Control is self directed discipline and tolerance instead of ability to influence others. I think that the kind of cultural learning that takes place has greater emphasis on shaping self, looking into the inner features and doing some activity which deals with self transformation or self realization and movement towards higher goals in the inner journey. This does not mean that the cultures live in separate words. There is cultural cooperation, there is a culture ration and there is influence of different cultures on other cultures and the more recent developments through globalization have brought different cultures closer to each other. So, culture should not be considered at very tightly organized categories. So, there is variation within cultures. In fact, I think I forget the name, but it is interesting work which talks about moving cultures that how people move across cultures and how cultural changes are taking place and shaping themselves in ways which are very different. There is interesting work by Roland which talks of bicultural self. People from India living in United States how they are developing certain features from the other culture and maintaining certain features of their original culture. Such situation is quite common in many countries. Let us examine some of the key distinctions which provide a perspective represented in the Indian context. These include the first is self is inseparable from the surrounding context and people. This has a very interesting kind of backdrop in various kinds of philosophical treatises in folk mind. There is recognition of how one person thinks and how other person thinks. These two can be connected on the assumption that self is one which is shared by both. At one level, people talk that the atman is same for everyone. A ground is created that people share the same atman. The notion of purush or jivatma provide a kind of orientation to recognize similarity across individuals. Then there is another orientation which is very central and that is that the constituents, the elements, the Panchamahabhutas are the same which constitute the external physical environment and the person, the individual. So, there is a kind of continuity between the self and not self or the other. The goal of self development is another important feature and at least ideologically it is considered desirable that one should move towards the notion of self which is increasingly more and more encompassing. So, one has to move forward in the direction of dissolving the boundaries between self and other or increasing the range are becoming one with the entire world. The term Brahman refers to a broader reality which includes everything. So, the goal is to become Brahman. The goal is to recognize the entire world in terms of one entity. So, ideologically particularly the Vedantic thought emphasizes this kind of notion that one should dissolve the boundaries between the limited self and others and move towards a higher inclusive or encompassing self. And individual is an open system which communicates with the other selves. This simply refers to the notion of permeable boundaries that there is an exchange relationship between the individual and the other person. To realize oneself is not to express the internal attributes as we find in the case of independent self. Instead there is emphasis on becoming part of the group or community or divinity. So, the movement of self growth or change or transformation of self is in the direction of moving towards a higher entity, a broader goal is there rather than enhancing the self. In almost all traditions available in the Indian thought, a distinction is made between the bodily self which is often termed as ahankar or ego and a higher self atman. The atman is considered as transpersonal, collective, spiritual and it is often considered that the real self is one which is inherently blissful, conscious, existence or satshit or nand. And the spiritual training is for the purpose of recognizing this kind of self. Now, there is an important commentary on this whole thing from the school of Vedanta. It is proposed that the difficulty in life is because we do not recognize the true nature of self and the true nature is satshit and ananda. We recognize the limited self as the real self and the moment we recognize that that is the false self. When the avidya is gone, when ignorance is gone, then the person will realize his or her true nature which is blissful, conscious, existence. Now, this kind of proposal is not present in the western kind of analysis of self, particularly the way we analyze the notions within the psychological research. Now, the spiritual self, the different layers of self which have been talked about in the Panchakosha idea, provide multiple facets of self and recognize that the element of spirituality is an integral part. So, this provides a challenge before humanity that how one can transform. There are methods and techniques for that. Now, this kind of approach has yet not received attention in psychological literature because of the limitations of the paradigm within which we work. There is another important feature which needs to be recognized that as an individual, we live in a world and we perform different roles like spider's web where the individual has a particular identity and then he belongs to a particular age group or gender or ethnicity and region, social class, the various kinds of socialization practices, the status of that individual. Here, in this pictorial presentation, we see that we are connected with all these. The Vedantic view says that search for individual identity is important and that identity is distinct from the identities which are given, which are available from the social and cultural context. It is important to recognize the difference that these are the identities which are attached. They are not true identities and if you realize that these are the specific roles that we perform. They are not stable. They are not permanent. These are like attachments. We use these. So, the focus remains on understanding and evolving a notion of self which goes to a higher level of self. This kind of emphasis is given in different traditions. So, it is not denial of the social context. It is not denial of the membership of the group, but there is a constant reminder that that is not the true self and one should attain to the higher level of self. So, it may be proposed that spiritual self is one which offers an expanded view of self, where autonomy is available in a different way, where we see a kind of relationship with a very broad range of concerns and in order to organize life, it is crucial that the broader goals, they may be the societal goals, they may be the goals for the ecology. One needs to relate to those goals. Gandhi is one example of such kind of spiritual self, where an individual participates in various social activities, performs individual activities and at the same time maintains a higher goal. So, there should not be a conflict between the pursuit of higher self and performing everyday activities, performing the requirements based on role expectations. Balancing the two is a difficult job. The traditional view of life, if you look at the Ashram system or the different life stages or stations in life, there is a notion that people must move gradually towards renunciation. They should move towards detachment. This kind of arrangement provides a space for spiritual discipline and it helps to get rid of various attachments and obligations. So, the movement in the spiritual sphere of life was given an important space. The Ashram system, where Brahmacharya, Greyasth, Vanprasth and then Sannyas provided gradual change in the degree of attachment, relationship with people, society and environment and gradually people moved across these stages. That system may not be very pertinent in today's life, but to recapitulate the notion of self, we need to recognize the fact that engaging with selfhood is a demand of everyday life. We reflect about self and we develop a notion of self in the social context, but the content of selfhood can vary and the way we organize our self, the way we derive our motives and emotions from the notion of self give different directions. In today's world, the egoic self has become central concern and its problems are also obvious. The kind of conflict, the kind of hatred, the kind of violence that we see in domestic life, in social life demands that we rethink about the notion of self and there is need to expand the notion of self. This is a big demand as a matter of fact, the various kinds of pathologies which are being recognized in life particularly those which deal with depression and anxiety disorders, they really reflect the problems of selfhood.