The Sociology of the Self Author(s): Peter L. Callero Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 29 (2003), pp.

115-133 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036963 . Accessed: 12/05/2011 21:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003. 29:115-33 doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100057 Copyright 2003 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved Firstpublishedonline as a Review in Advance on June4, 2003

THE SOCIOLOGY THESELF OF PeterL.Callero

Departmentof Sociology, Western Monmouth,Oregon97361; OregonUniversity, email: Callerp@wou.edu

Key Words identity,socialconstruction, power,reflexivity

* Abstract An emergingsociologicalapproach the self reflectsnew emphases to

of The reflexivity, socialconstructionism. significance powerin shaping and on power, the self is centralto a new scholarship associatedwith Foucault.This body of work offersan important associated corrective traditional to with sociologicalorientations Mead and symbolicinteractionism. principleof reflexivityis at the core of the The Meadian and tradition providesa pragmatic foundation understanding for agencyand politicalactionmissing from much of the new scholarship. The principleof social sociologicalapproaches the construction commonto both new and traditional is to self and guides most recentempiricalanalyses.Promisingavenuesof researchare evidentin workthatexploresthe sociologicalcontextof self-construction, social the process,andthe growingimportance nonemployedin the construction of resources that humanobjectsin self-construction. limitation scholarship overemphasizes of The of products self-construction also examined. is the psychological

INTRODUCTION
The emerging direction of contemporarysocial theory is perhapsnowhere more evident than in the attentionit lavishes upon the nature of the self, self-identity,and individualsubjectivity. AnthonyElliot (2001, p. 8) The pasttwo decadesof the twentiethcenturysaw the conceptsof self andidentity move to the centerof intellectualdebatein the social sciences andthe humanities. This eruptionof attentionwas spurredby burgeoningdevelopmentsin poststructuralism,culturalstudies, feminism, and queer theory.Yet it is also the case that sociological forces outside of the academyhave contributed a growingconcern to with selfhood.As the globalizationprocesses of late capitalismcontinueto destabilize traditional practicesand culturalassumptions,the self is exposed in various see, for example, an increasingindividualization social life (Beck & of ways. We Beck-Gernsheim2002), a proliferationof roles (Frank& Meyer 2002), and the emergence of "identityprojects"(Giddens 1991), where personal meaning and social location become a matterof effort and conscious "choice."
0360-0572/03/0811-0115$14.00

115

116

CALLERO This widespreadconcernwith the self has lead to a new scholarshipthatis multidisciplinary, methodologicallyeclectic, andgenerallypostmodern orientation. in Thereare, for example, significantnew developmentsin both theoryand research history,political science, communications, on the self occurringin anthropology, and literarystudies. It is notable, however,that most of the new scholarshiphas sociology's dominanttheoretical not been influencedby symbolic interactionism, approachto the self. Lemert made this point more generally in 1992 when he observedthe following: Symbolic Interactionism, pragmatism like more generally,finds itself limited todayby its weirdirrelevanceto the debateover the postmoderncondition.SI with its decidedinterestin languageand pragmatism, with its deep structural commitmentsto view knowledge as always close to workings of the world, would seem to be the naturalkin to any postmoderntheory. This has not howeverbeen the case. CharlesLemert(1992, p. ix) Lemertis correctin noticinga surfacesimilaritybetweenpragmatism postand moderntheory.Thereis indeed a sharedappreciation the centralityof language of and communication,a common problematizingof symbols and objectivity, and recognitionof the socially contingentnatureof identity.In the time since Lemert's assessment,some intellectualcross-fertilization occurred(Denzin 1992), parhas ticularlyaround conceptof identity(Howard2000, Cerulo1997). Nevertheless, the it is still generallytruethatwithinU.S. sociology, mostresearchon the self remains the relatively localized disciplinaryconcern of those working in the traditionof symbolic interactionism(e.g, Gecas & Burke 1995, Gubrium& Holstein 2000, Burkeet al. 2003). There are certainlyinstitutionaland disciplinaryreasons for this divide. Postmodernism,after all, has its origins outside of sociology in the fields of art,philosophy, and literarycriticism.Yet the gulf between symbolic interactionismand academicboundaries. postmodernism reflectsmorethanintransigent Epistemological differencesand independentconceptualsystems have also been fundamental barriersto mutualelaboration. stance,symbolicinteractionism the pragmatist Froma postmodernist and tradithinking.Symbolicinteractiontioncanbe dismissedas merevestiges of modernist ism's commitmentto Enlightenmentvalues that privilege reason and rationality are in stark contrastto the postmodernbreak with the discourse of science. In fact, much of the postmodernscholarshipassumes a radicalanti-essentialism that rejects on philosophicalgroundsthe very concept of self. On the otherhand,fromthe perspectiveof many symbolicinteractionists, postmodernism offers little that is new or that has not already been said using an interactionistconceptual vocabulary.This is the position staked out by Maines is (1996), who arguesthatpostmodernism simply a weak approximation pragof work.Moreover, matistthoughtandis thereforelargelyirrelevant interactionist to

SOCIOLOGY SELF OF

117

Maines (1996, p. 335) believes that any theoreticalconvergenceis unlikely becould never be sustainedbecause it would cause a postmodernistinteractionism "deconstruct itself in termsof its own epistemologicalarguments." and Even thougha strictconvergenceof postmodernism symbolic interactionism is unlikely, there are nevertheless elements of the new literaturethat can interactionist understanding the self. Similarly,a serious enhancethe traditional of engagementof pragmatism help clear the muddiedconceptualpool surroundcan ing the new scholarship.In this review,I discuss an emergingsociological understandingof the self that draws from both interactionistand postmodernthemes. This developingperspectivecenterson three organizingconcepts: (a) power, (b) reflexivity,and (c) social constructionism. The significance of power in shaping the self is central to much of the new scholarshipand offers an important correctiveto traditionalsociological orientations associatedwith Mead, Goffman,and symbolic interactionism. principle The of reflexivityis at the core of the Meadiantraditionandprovidesa pragmatic foundation for understanding agency and political action missing from much of the new scholarship.Finally the principle of social constructionis common to both new and traditionalsociological approachesto the self and guides most recent empiricalanalyses.

POWERAND THE SELF

The individualis not the vis-a-vis of power;it is, I believe, one of its prime effects. MichaelFoucault(1994, p. 214) For well over two decades, an expandingchorusof postmodernandpoststructuralcriticshas proclaimedthe deathof self. Fortheoristssuch as Derrida,Laclau, the and Baudrillard, idea thatindividualsarein possession of a core, rational,unitary self, endowed with an essential natureand an independentconsciousness, is simply a political artifactof the EuropeanEnlightenment.No single theoristhas had a widerinfluenceon this understanding the self thanFoucault(1979, 1980, of 1988, 1994). ForFoucault,the self is the directconsequenceof powerandcan only be apprehended in terms of historically specific systems of discourse. So-called regimes of power do not simply control a bounded,rationalsubject,but ratherthey bring the self into existence by imposingdisciplinarypracticeson the body.Throughthe of assessment,andclassificationof the "technologies" surveillance,measurement, body, technocrats,specialists, therapists,physicians, teachers,and officers serve as vehicles of power in diverse institutionalsettings (prisons, schools, hospitals, social service agencies). In this way, practicesthatarenormativelyrepresentedas in humaneinterventions supportof communityhealth, safety,and educationactually serve as mechanismsof domination.Thus, rationality,reason, and scientific

118

CALLERO Instead,these valknowledgearerejectedas progressivesourcesof emancipation. projectareunderstoodto be the discursivefoundationof ues of the Enlightenment control and dominationin modem society. From Foucault'sperspective,the self is coerced into existence, not to become an agent but as a mechanismof control where systems of discoursework from the inside out by creatinga self-regulating subject. Following Foucault,StuartHall (1996) stresses that there can be no true self hiding "inside"or behind the artificialor superficialbecause self and identity are constructed"within,not outside discourse."The analyticalproject, therefore,is not one of discovery but deconstruction.To deconstructthe self is to challenge essentialist assumptionsand lay bare the mannerin which the self is wholly dependentupon discourse.ForHall, this means analysis shouldfocus on the specific historicaland institutionalsites of "discourseformation." Rose (1996) also addresses the alternativemethodological strategies of the He of Foucauldiantradition. notes thatthe deconstruction the self does not lead to a social structureand personalityapproachthat investigateshow "differentages differentemotions, producehumanswith differentpsychological characteristics, beliefs, pathologies."This is because "suchanalysespresupposea way of thinking thatis itself an outcomeof history,one thatemergesonly in the nineteenthcentury" Rose advocatesa "genealogyof subjectification" that (p. 129). As an alternative, would be concerned with localized attemptsto produce meaning, especially as professionalvocabularies the technologiesandpracticesof and this occursthrough and science, medicine,government, theworkplace.A relatedstrategyis evident,for example, in Cushman's(1995) historicalanalysis of psychotherapy the United in States. Althoughprovidinga fascinatingdescriptionof the institutional,political, and economic forces shaping our culturalunderstanding the self, his work is of self, only premisedon the assumptionthat "Thereis no universal,transhistorical local selves; thereis no universaltheoryaboutthe self, only local theories"(p. 23). The primarycontributionof the new scholarshipis that it has connected the that study of the self to the historicaldeploymentof power. It has demonstrated the self is constitutedwithin relationsof control and is deeply embeddedwithin development,one that systems of knowledge and discourse.This is an important has contributed new directionsin the studyof identitiesassociatedwith gender to and sexuality. There is, however,a critical limitationof the Foucauldiantradition.The radical break with Enlightenmentideals has dissolved the foundationof a universal self and eliminatedthe assumptionof an agentic and knowledgeableactor(Elliot 2001). This is problematicin that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to theorize the possibility of emancipationthroughorganizedresistance and political interventionif actors are conceived to be mere subjectsof discourse.In the view reducedconsciousness and identity formationto of Best (1994, p. 46), "Foucault coercive socializationand failed to grasp the individualizingpossibilities created by modernity.. .this radicalantihumanism posed the obvious problemof seeking social changewithoutfree and active agents."AlthoughFoucaultdid not rejectall

SOCIOLOGY SELF OF

119

claims to truthor the possibility of resistance,his workteeterson a slipperyphiloto sophicalslope, andcriticshaveforcedFoucaultandotherpostmodernists defend the subject against charges of moral relativism (Levine 1992), neoconservatism (Habermas1983), and political inaction(Gitlin 1995). ForNicholson & Seidman(1995, p. 35), a solutionto this politicaldilemmacan with positive where critiqueis supplemented be found in a social postmodernism, of action and where "the problematizingof essentialized identities, possibilities the de-centeringof the subject and society, the re-centeringof the social around regimes, aremajorresourcesfor criticalanalysis and analyzingpower/knowledge a democraticpolitics." Consistentwith this strategy,Mouffe (1995) does not beof lieve, for example, that the deconstruction gender as a featureof the self must necessarilyrob feminism of a coherentidentity.On the contrary,she proposes a politics where the aim is to "constructa 'we' as radicaldemocraticcitizens" and where politicalmovementsassociatedwith identitycategoriesareenableddespite their tentative,discourse-dependent nature.Yet to accomplishthis importantand requiresa conceptualizationof the self as an embodied necessary reformulation agent, a knowledgeable,problemsolving actorratherthanan amorphous "subject In otherwords, it requiresan appreciation the reflexiveprocess of a of position." social self, a foundationmissing from the new scholarshipbut well establishedin the philosophicaltraditionof Americanpragmatism.

PROCESS AS THE SELF REFLEXIVE

It is a mistaketo say thatidentitiesare trans-historical universal,but it is and also a mistaketo say thatpersonhoodand selves are not. NorbertWiley (1994, p. 2) Most theoristswho have criticizedthe essentialist assumptionsof the modem self havedone so withoutreferenceto Mead'ssocial psychology.As a consequence, error," the failureto disthe new scholarship the self is trapped a "category by or on tinguisha generic self from particular identities(Wiley 1994). For symbolic interThe actionists,the self is firstandforemosta reflexiveprocessof social interaction. uniquelyhumancapacityto become anobjectto one's reflexiveprocessrefersto the self, to be both subjectand object. Reflexivity is not a biological given but rather emerges from the social experience.Accordingto Mead (1934, p. 134), "It is by means of reflexiveness--the turning-back the experienceof the individualupon of himself-that the whole social process is thus broughtinto the experienceof the individualsinvolvedin it."Wiley's neopragmatism extendsthis basic principleand of mergesthepragmatism MeadandPiercein arguingthatthe self, definedin terms of a basic semiotic process of interpretation, a definingfeatureof humannature is andis thusbothtranshistorical universal,a qualitythatdoes not extendto idenand tities, which aretakento be the social productsof the self process.This is a key disabsentin arguments problematizethe self. that tinctionandone thatis surprisingly

120

CALLERO Just as the acceptanceof language as a culturaland historicaluniversaldoes not mandatethe emergenceof a common humanlanguage,the contingentnature of identity does not rest on the universalityof the reflexiveprocess. It should also be noted thatan acceptanceof the self process as universaldoes not mean thatthe self can simply be reducedto language. This is because interactionistsstress the primacyof social action. Dunn (1997, pp. 695-96) builds on Wiley's neopragmatism, arguingthatpoststructuralists suchas Butler(e.g., 1990) offer a limitedconceptualization agency of to appreciatethe prediscursivecapacityto act that is so central because they fail to Mead's theoryof the self. "Farfrom being merely a word,in the Meadianview the 'I' is an internalexperienceof reflexivitythatprecedesthe sense of linguistic reflexivity impartedby signification."Dunn shows how the pragmatistposition in allows for an understanding the self "as structured and throughdiscourse of withoutbeing reducedto it." Using a somewhatsimilardistinction,Schwalbe(1993, p. 334) defends the self asserting that the self emerges and takes form in the "againstpostmodernism," corporalbody of individualsand is a "psychic process wherein signs and other formsof imageryanswerto biologicallyrootedimpulses,"a pointthathas also been well developedby Joas (1983, 1996). In otherwords,the self at its most basic level is a reflexiveprocessthatregulatesthe acting,agenticorganism.Unlike most other acting organisms,humanshave a sophisticatedsystem of signs and gestures that enable and constrainperception,reflection,and action (Perinbanayagam 1991). and For Schwalbe, Dunn, Wiley, Joas, Perinbanayagam, most other symbolic of interactionists,a full understanding the self begins with the Meadian notion of reflexivity.The self conceived in this way allows for agency, creative action, and the possibility of emancipatory political movements.It does not precludethe very real possibility that the self-regulatingprocesses of reflexivitywill come to be colonized by forces of dominationandcontrol,butit does show how resistance this is is always on the horizonof the possible. Justas important, configuration not inconsistentwith new, postmodernapproachesto self andpower.In fact, Antonio prefiguremuch of & Kellner(1994, p. 136) show thatMead and otherpragmatists the postmoderncritiqueof the Enlightenment in that self they attackedthe tendency to treat the rational capacities of the self as an imperviousruler over human activities and experiences. For example, they held thatthoughtfollows as well as leads practices.And they did not privilege cognitive capacities at the expense of sensuousness, emotion, sympathetic identification,and otherfeelings. Yet,despitethe earlypoliticalconcernsthatmotivatedMeadandotherProgrestradition (Shalin 1988), the symbolicinteractionist has, for the sive erapragmatists most part,failed to develop a sophisticatedconceptualunderstanding the self in of which relationsof power arepresumedto be constitutive.A recentadvancein this directioncan be foundin the workof Callero(2003), who mergeselementsof critical theoryand symbolic interactionism the conceptualization a political self. of in

SOCIOLOGY SELF OF

121

Although sharp differences between pragmatistsand postmodernistswill no doubt remain, and the ontological status and essential origins of self-meanings will continueto be debated,there is today a consensus within the discipline that the self is at some level a social construction.Whetherphenomenalor discursive, fragmentaryor unitary,stable or transitory,emotional or rational, linguistic or embodied,the self is assumedto be a productof social interaction. is this fundaIt mentalprinciplethatframesmost contemporary researchon the sociological self.

THE SELF SOCIALCONSTRUCTION AS

For manyconstructionists hope has been to build from the existing rubble the in new andmore promisingdirections.The postmodernarguments indeed are significant,but serve not as an end but a beginning. KennethJ. Gergen(1999, p. 30) It has become common in reviews of the sociological self to arguethatthe self is both a social productand a social force (Rosenberg1981). In the firstinstance,the self is examinedas a bounded,structured object-Mead's "me"-whereas in the second instance,the self is examinedas a fluid, agentic, and creativeresponseMead's "I."The distinctioncapturesthe core principleof a socially constructed self, namelythatthe self is ajoint accomplishment, neithercompletelydetermined by the social world nor pregivenat birth. Following Cooley and Mead, most researchin the symbolic interactionist traself-meanings,and self-conceptsas the dition has focused on self-understandings, social productsof interest. The emphasis has in other words been on the social productionof the personal self. Yet the social constructionof selfhood is also about the meanings and understandings associated with the public self, the self that is visible and known to othersand encompassedby what we come to accept within the culturalcategory of personhood.Cahill (1998) recognizes this bias in the literature makes a compellingcase for a "sociology of the person."(Cahill and offers a conceptualdistinctionbetween person, self, and individualthatis helpful but unlikely to overcome the momentumof currentusage. I use the term public self in place of Cahill'sperson.)Drawingon the work of Durkheim,Goffman,and the Foucaulthe proposes a frameworkfor understanding collectively instituted conceptionsof the public self, the meansby which these conceptionsareproduced and the disciplinarytechniquesof powerthataredeployed in the process.Cahill's work offers an importantcorrectiveto approachesto social constructionismthat tend to psychologize the subject.As he notes, "the public person is not made in pictureof a unique self is made the image of a unique self; rather,an interpretive in the image of the public person"(Cahill 1998, p. 131). of This suggests thata full understanding self-meanings,self-images, and selfconceptsrequiresa broadconceptualization context,one thatextendsbeyondthe of immediatedefinitionof the situationto include the historicaland culturalsettings where unarticulated assumptionsaboutthe natureof the personhave their origin.

122

CALLERO

The SociologicalContext of Self-Construction

Taylor(1989) offersno less than In anambitiousandimportant piece of scholarship, a history of the modem self. Althoughhis primaryconcernis with demonstrating therelationship betweenchangingsenses of the self andchangingmoralvisions, his workalso examinesthe sociological contextwithinwhichthe modem assumptions of regardingself andidentityemerged.For Taylor(1989, p. 111), the partitioning the world into the innersphereof privateexperienceandthe outerworld of public it experience is not a culturaluniversalbut "rather is a function of a historically one limitedmode of self-interpretation, which has become dominantin the modem West.... but which has a beginning in time and space and may have an end." Taylor(p. 206) is clearthatthe modem approach identityarosebecause a "wide to rangeof practices-religious, political, economic, familial,intellectual,artisticconvergedand reinforcedeach otherto produceit." to In contrast,sociologistshavegenerallytakena morelimitedapproach context whenpursingthe social construction self. The dominant tendencyhas been either of to focus on the immediatesituation,as evident in Goffman'swork, or to examine contemporaryshifts in cultureor social structure.The latterperspectiveis often categorizedas the social structure personalityapproach is associatedwith a and and long list of monographs addressing changesin a generalizedcommunalself orcharacter.Notable sociological statementsinclude TheLonelyCrowd(Riesman 1950), Man (Whyte 1956), OneDimensionalMan (Marcuse1964), The TheOrganization Pursuit of Loneliness (Slater 1970), The Fall of Public Man (Sennet 1977), The Cultureof Narcissism(Lasch 1979), Habits of the Heart (Bellah et al. 1985), and The SaturatedSelf (Gergen 1991). Taviss Thomson (2000) and McClay (1994) have both producedexcellent criticalassessmentsof this literature. The value of these efforts is that they provide a perspectiveof distance that directsour attentionto common sociological forces thatcontrol,limit, and define the constructionprocess in common ways. At their best they can offer insight into the changing definitionsand meaning of the public person. Yet there is also a danger in that the wide generalizationsof these analyses can sweep over the multidimensional,overlapping,and shifting culturalmeanings of self. We know that critical featuresof self-constructionvary over the life course (Demo 1992) and across racial, ethnic, class, and gender categories (e.g., Owens 2000, Frable 1997). For this reason,the most enduringandinformativeanalyses are often those that link togetherhistoricalshifts in the political economy, changes in particular social settings,and criticalalterationsin self-experience.The work of Hochschild (1983, 1989, 1997) is particularlystrong in this regard.Drawing from macroeconomic indicators,structured questionnaires,and in-depthinterviews, she has producedinsightfuldescriptionsof workerswho strugglewith new andambiguous and self-understandings self-meanings that are being constructedin response to powerful changes in the capitalistlabor process. A similar positive contribution can be found in the recentwork of Sennett(1998). A relatedavenueof researchdeals with globalizationand the self. The process of globalizationis a highly contestedtopicwithinsociology andthereareimportant

SOCIOLOGY SELF OF

123

debates aboutits origin, scale, and trajectory(Guillen 2001). In general,it refers to the increasing dispersion of capital, people, information,and culture across international borders,a process that has been acceleratedby advances in travel and communication technologies (Held & McGrew2000). The effectsof globalizationon the self areseen primarily throughthe disruption, elaboration,and colonization of local cultures.According to Arnett (2002), the most prominent changes areevidentin adolescentsandyoung adultswhere an self increasein identityconfusion has been recorded.Identityconfusion occurs when of practicesandperspectivesresultsin a loss of meaning the disruption traditional (Tomlinson 1999) and the erosion of tradition.Stevenson & Zusho (2002), for example,reportedthatcollectivist values andpracticesareon the decline in Japan and Chinaas a consequenceof Westerninfluences. Global media culture and increasingrates of migrationalso expose actors to a wider set of meanings for the constructionof identity.This has resultedin the formationof biculturalidentities, where the self defined by local meanings and practicesis maintainedalongside a self definedby global culture more traditional (Arnett 2002). Others see the process as more complex and have advancedthe notion of a hybrididentity,where local and global meanings are not segregated but exist in a multiple,dynamic,and conflictedrelationship(Hermens& Kempen researchin this areais beginningto explorethe mannerin which 1998). Important global culturalmeanings and new ways of living are negotiatedat the local level (e.g., Derne 2002). Still, not all culturaldisruptionsare integratedinto an adaptive self-system. Resistanceto the forces of globalizationhas been manifestedin the construction of a wide range of oppositionalidentities. This can be seen, for example, in the growth of religious fundamentalisms(Marty & Appleby 1993, Swatos 2001), a resurgenceof nationalistidentityprojects(Barber1996), and the emergenceof globalprotestmovementswherethe exploitativeeffects of capitalismarecontested by diversepolitical groups (Elkins 1992, Russell 2003).

Resources for Self-Construction

A considerablebody of researchis concernedwith the symbols and communication strategiesemployed in the constructionof individual self-meanings. These resourcesfor self-constructionare conceptuallydiverse and include storytelling, political ideologies, roles, identities,and featuresof the corpoculturalnarratives, ralbody.Althoughresourcesareoften invokedin the questfor personaldistinction and individuality, they should not be thoughtof as a privatesymbolic cache, nor should they be considereduniversalqualitiesof the self. Rather,they exist as part maintained of a cultural"toolkit"(Swidler 1986), areinterpersonally within various culturalspheresof meaning,and are deployedin social settingsto accomplish social objectives.This is particularly evidentin the case of storytellingandcultural narratives. Maines (2001, p. 177), who has been instrumental developing a "narrative in sociology,"offersa useful distinctionbetweenstorytellingandnarratives. Whereas

124

CALLERO storytelling "an conversational activity canvary is overt, according anumber to that narrative of factors, and audience competence," including structures situation, are somestories." "cultural and frames ideologiesthatprefigure with Consistent this we storiesthatdraw distinction, can thinkof self-narratives autobiographical as frames. on cultural Although in evidencesuggeststhatthe use of narratives the processof self1989),the narrative occursearlyon in life (Bruner Lucariello & construction is formof cognition. nota natural Research Nelson(1997)supports ideathat the by is product language learned structured of use relatively the narrative a culturally earlyon in thesocialization process. Brunner to of the (1997)pursues larger question whywe arecompelled develop self-narratives the firstplace.His answeris found in extended autobiographical a in the observation self-narratives and that function sustain senseof stability to in predictable understanding the world.Whendisruption perceived mustbe it is provide framework. explained, narratives a Narratives thuselaborate acand are countings by to from designed dealwiththetroubles created departures legitimacy, socialchange a during whichsuggests greater of narratives use timesof dynamic of (Hart Fegley1997). orin settings socialdiversity & Snow& Anderson's support (1993)classicstudyof thehomeless provides also as in social environfor the use of narratives resources defenseof an unstable ment.As conventional identities challenged economicand social excluby are Snow & Anderson sion, of foundthatthe subjects theirstudywouldresortto in aneffortto sustain positive a self-understanding. dif"fictive storytelling" The ference between fictivestorytelling cultural narratives key.Becausefictive is and storytelling not sustained community, is withina larger othersarenot likelyto acceptthe explanation legitimate. a consequence, actorusing fictive As as the bolstered publicly excluded ridiculed. this may or but In storytelling be privately a of collective to way,coordinated actionis essential thepower narratives,principle thathasbeenempirically demonstrated Mason-Schrock (1996)in a study by of the narrative, subof transsexuals. Despitethe absence anestablished cultural jects of his studyavoidedthe isolationof fictivestorytelling cooperating by to Onceestablished, was groupaffirmation stories that shared produce it stories. of of the "cemented interpretation gendernonconformity" 186). Relatedsup(p. (2001)andHolstein& Gubrium portcan also be foundin Loseke& Cavendish (2000). bodycanalso serveas a resource self-construction. Thecorporal Through for ongenitalia 2001),cosmetic (Davis1995), art(Phelan (Preves surgery body surgery & Hunt 1998), and fashion(Crane2000, Guy & Banim2000), the body can meanings self. Onceagain, particular to of be shapedin an attempt construct thesecreations notsimplyindividual products. however, Gagne& Tewksbury are that (1999)showforthecaseof transsexuals themeanings areeither or that sought through of alterations thebodyarethemselves contested influenced dominant by and social discourses politicalideologies,a themewell developed Denzin's in interactionism cultural to as (1992)approach symbolic studies.

SOCIOLOGY SELF OF

125

Denzin emphasizesthe political natureof stories and texts as culturalproducts consumption,and exchange of signs and shows how the production,distribution, within systemsof discourseare a key to understanding how we become the self of the stories we tell. In his researchon the alcoholic self, he illustratesthis process by showing how the stories that are told in groups like Alcoholics Anonymous are based on culturalunderstandings often drawon media representations that of alcoholics thatmay or may not reflectactualexperiences.Denzin's contribution is important thatit moves us closer to linking self resourcesto largerinstitutional in forces, political ideologies, economic interests,and the so-called going concerns of social life (Gubrium& Holstein 2000). It is here thatpower is often hiddenin momentumof tradition,popularculture, and interpersonal the taken-for-granted relations. The relatively stable set of social meanings and social relations is the focus those within the so-called structural of traditionof symbolic interactionism.Researchersin this traditionhave producedan impressivebody of empiricalwork in supportof a bounded set of hypotheses and relationshipscenteringon the use of social roles (Callero 1995, Collier 2001) and identities (Stets & Burke 2003) as resourcesfor self-construction.Stryker's(1980) identity theory has fundamental been most influentialin establishingthe frameworkfor this project.For Stryker, identities are distinct parts of the self defined by the meanings and expectations associated with network positions and role expectations. Positions are defined as elements of a social structureand have associated with them behavioralexpectations that emerge from patternsof interactionand remain relatively stable over time. When the meanings of social roles are internalized,they are said to have become a partof the self. Social interactionthus producesthe resourcesfor constructingthe self (role identities),which, in turnguides and patternsbehavior definingsocial structure. Although the structuralapproachto symbolic interactionrecognizes the dynamic and open-endednatureof self-meanings,little attentionis devoted to the culturalconstructionof identity categories or the historical context of the constructionprocess. Instead,two distinctbut complimentaryempiricalprojectsare underway(Stryker& Burke 2000). The first closely follows Strykerand focuses on how social structureinfluences self structureand how self structureaffects behavior.In this programof research,evidence suggests thatcommitmentto relationshipsthatshapeidentityaffects the cognitive salience of the identity,which in turninfluencesbehavioralchoices (Stryker& Serpe 1982, Owens & Serpe 2003). The second projectfocuses attentionon the internaldynamicsof self, concentrating on the cognitive and behavioralprocesses that work to align the meanings of identity with self and action. Burke and colleagues have developed a cybernetic control model that demonstratesconsiderablepower (Stets & Burke 1994, Cast et al. 1999) and has been used to explain how and why the meaningsof personal identitieschange (Burke& Cast 1997). Togetherthe researchtraditionsestablishedby Strykerand Burke have had a wide impactandhave influencedresearchon emotions (Smith-Lovin1995), social

126

CALLERO movements(Strykeret al. 2000), groupconflict (Trew& Benson 1996), education (Collier 2000), and altruism(Piliavin & Callero 1991).

Nonhuman Objectsas Apparatusesof Self-Construction

In a provocativereview essay, Knorr Cetina (2001) examines the sociological process of implicationsof a postsocial environment,where the individualization modernityemptiesouttraditional formsof socialitybutcreatesspacefor nonhuman social resources.It is her position that "themodernuntyingof identities has been which situateand accompaniedby an expansionof object-centered environments stabilizeselves, defineindividualidentityjust as muchas communitiesandfamilies used to do" (p. 525). Althoughthereis little empiricalresearchassociatedwith this claim, some studieshave examinedthe mannerin which objectscome to serve as a resourceforidentity(e.g., Sliver 1996), anda growingfieldof researchis concerned with the impactof new communicationtechnologies on self-construction. Cerulo (1997) argues that new communicationtechnologies have expanded access to a wide rangeof "generalized others,"thus altering"thebackdropagainst which identity is constructed"(p. 397). This is a point developed more fully by Altheide (2000), who notes thatthe influenceof technologicalapparatuses be can seen in the establishmentof "mediacommunities"that add a new dimension to the physical and symbolic environment our everydaylives. of The evidence suggeststhatmediaapparatuses workto assist in the construction of a self that is less place bound and thereforeless dependenton "the definition of the situation"(Meyrowitz1997). It also shows how new media technology can both separatethe body from the self and hide it (in the case of the Internet)or create a detachedviewing that highlights the body in the case of video (Waskul 2002). In both instances,we see important implicationsfor self-construction.For some, this can takethe formof a "parallel life," as in the case of Internetusers who engage in extensive, online role-playinggames (Turkle1996), where actors feel to liberatedin theiropportunity expressdifferent"aspectsof the self." Also, in the case of some television talk shows, participantscan producesurprisingfeelings of empowermentand self-worth as they reveal intimate details of their lives to millions of viewers and receive a uniqueform of notoriety(Priest 1996). However,the use of new communicationtechnologies is far from positive for most people. Of particularsociological interest is the mannerin which the new technology assists in dominationand control of the self. This is the case for the expandingtechnologies of surveillance(video, lie detectors,drug tests, etc.) that work as mechanismsof induced self-regulation(Staples 2000). It is also evident when mass media, especially throughcommercialadvertising,creates and comthat modifiesidentityimages thatconstructthe self in a manner benefitsa consumer economy (Ewen & Ewen 1992) and serves the interestsof a decidedly conservative political agenda(Giroux 1997). Still, researchby Milkie (1999) suggests that throughsocial comparisons even thoughmedia images affect self-understandings and reflectedappraisals,some actors do find ways to resist their influence.More researchis neededto exploreif andhow suchresistanceoccursat a collective level.

OF SOCIOLOGY SELF

127

Whetherwe are moving towarda culturethatplaces greaterauthorityandtruth in online relationsand onscreenimages, as suggested by Baudrillard(1983) and the otherpostmodernists, uncertain.Nevertheless,it is clear thatunderstanding is in role of nonhumanapparatuses the constructionof the self is an emerging and important topic of study.

Products of Self-Construction
In the fourthedition of the two-volumeHandbookof Social Psychology (Gilbert et al. 1998) thereis, for the firsttime, a separate chapter(Baumeister1998) devoted exclusively to the self--covering 60 pages and containing over 300 references. Clearlythe explosion of interestin the self so evidentin the humanitiesand social sciences is also occurringin psychology.Althoughpsychologistsaremoving away fromanemphasison biologicallybaseddispositionstowarda moresocial model of the individual(e.g., Walsh& Banaji 1997), they arestill muchmorelikely to focus on individual"products self construction." thisI meanthe qualitiesof the self of By observedat the level of the subjectandconceptualizedas a variablein the explanation of individualbehavior.For example, Baumeister's(1998) review of the field contains discussions of self-enhancement,self-deception, self-monitoring,selfefficacy, self-regulation, self-handicapping,self-presentation,self-guides, selfverification,self-knowledge, self-control, and self-image. As these productsof the self-construction processcome to be employedas predictorsof behavior,there is a tendency to focus on stability,unity, and conformity and de-emphasizethe sociological principlesof social construction.The self thatis socially constructed may congeal arounda relativelystable set of culturalmeanings,but these meanings can never be permanentor unchanging.Similarly,the self that is socially constructed may appearcentered,unified,and singular,butthis symbolic structure will be as multidimensionaland diverse as the social relationshipsthat surround it. Finally, the self that is socially constructedis never a bounded quality of the individualor a simpleexpressionof psychologicalcharacteristics; is a fundamenit are tally social phenomenon,where concepts, images, and understandings deeply by determined relationsof power.Wherethese principlesare ignoredor rejected, the self is often conceptualizedas a vessel for storing all the particularsof the person. Takethe case, for example, of self-esteem. When the concept of self-esteem enteredpopularcultureit was loosened from its sociological and scientificmoorings to become the "entrepreneurial" object of educators,parentingexperts,pop psychologists, managementgurus, hip televangelists, and personalpower hucksters. Hewitt's(1998) aptlytitledbook TheMythof Self-Esteemserves as a timely such as self-esteem,often sociological reminder productsof self-construction, that serve as conceptualresourcesfor an entire culture.In a mannerconsistent with Giddens'(1991) notionof a "doublehermeneutic," see in self-esteema concept we thatbegins to shape the very behaviorit was designed to explain. Recognizing self-esteem as a culturalartifactdoes not necessarily mean it is irrelevantto sociological analysis. I agree with Hewitt that the self, defined in

128

CALLERO terms of reflexivity (the capacity to reflect on one's actions, thoughts, and feelings), is a universalhumanexperiencethatserves as a phenomenalbase. Products of social constructionare built on top of the psychic and corporalexperience of reflexivity.Self-esteem is best understoodin this context as a named emotion or mood that has been elaboratedwith diverse culturalmeanings and uses. Understandingthe historical,political,andculturaldevelopmentof the namingprocesses is an importantsociological task, one that should extend to otherproductsof the self. Recent attemptsto move the study of self-esteem in a more sociological direction can be found in studies of the relationshipbetween self-esteem and identity theory (Ervin & Stryker2001, Cast & Burke 2002), the use of cultural narratives (Statham& Rhoades 2001), and beliefs regardingsocial inequality (Hunt 2001).

CONCLUSION
[T]he postmodernists'most pessimistic view of the demise of the self has not been born out; rather,the core self has adaptedto contemporary conditions and thrived. PatriciaA. Adler and PeterAdler (1999, p. 54) The quote from Adler & Adler is in reference to a study of transientresort workers who live an unconventionaland fragmentedlifestyle of temporaryand depthless relationships,yet have been able to maintaina core understanding of theirown centeredselfhood.It could, however,serveequallywell as an assessment of the self as a sociological concept. At a time when many poststructuraland postmodernscholarshave declaredthe end of the self as a political,philosophical, and scientific concept, the self continues to thrive in academiaand is especially vibrantin sociology. Admittingto the constructivistnatureof the self, recognizing its culturaland historical origins, and accepting the self as a product of power relations does not necessarily remove the self as an object and force in society. At its core the self is defined by the reflexive process, the universalhumanexperience of selfYet objectification. even at the level of self-meanings,self-image,andself-concept, where the historical,cultural,and political particulars identityare exposed, the of self continuesto prosperas an important conceptualtool. In much the same way thatthe conceptof identityhas become centralto a wide range of substantiveconcerns (Howard2000, Cerulo 1997) so too has the self expandedbeyond the traditionalboundariesof symbolic interactionism.Indeed, in many ways the self has been resurrected.In its new form we find a deeper appreciationof the historical, political, and sociological foundationof selfhood and a more sophisticatedunderstanding the relationshipbetween the self and of social action.

OF SOCIOLOGY SELF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

129

Thanksto ViktorGecas andMichael Schwalbefor helpfulcommentson an earlier draftof the manuscript. The AnnualReviewof Sociologyis online at http://soc.annualreviews.org CITED LITERATURE
Adler PA, Adler P. 1999. Transienceand the postmodernself: the geographicmobility of resortworkers.Sociol. Q. 40:31-58 Altheide DL. 2000. Identityand the definition of the situationin a mass-mediatedcontext. Symb.Interact.23:1-27 Antonio RJ, KellnerD. 1994. The futureof social theory andthe limits of postmoderncritique. In Postmodernism Social Inquiry, and eds. DR Dickens, A Fontana, pp. 127-52. New York:GuilfordPress Arnett JJ. 2002. The psychology of globalization. Am. Psychol. 57:774-83 BarberBR. 1996.Jihadvs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World.New York:BallantineBooks BaudrillardJ. 1983. Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e) BaumeisterRF. 1998.The self. See Gilbertet al. 1998, pp. 680-740 Beck U, Beck-Gernsheim 2002. IndividualE. Individualismand ization: Institutionalized its Social and Political Consequences.London, UK: Sage Bellah RN, MadsenR, Sullivan WM, Swidler A, Tipton SM. 1985. Habits of the Heart. Berkeley,CA: Univ. Calif. Press postmodernism, soBest S. 1994. Foucault, and cial theory.In Postmodernism Social Inand quiry, eds. DR Dickens, A Fontana,pp. 2552. New York:GuilfordPress Bruner J. 1997. The narrativemodel of selfconstruction. In The Self Across Psychology: Self-Recognition,Self-Awareness,and the Self Concept, eds. JG Snodgrass, RL Thompson,pp. 145-61. New York:Ann. NY Acad. Sci. BrunerJ, LucarielloJ. 1989. Monologueas narrative of the world. In Narrativesfrom the Crib, ed. K Nelson, pp. 73-97. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press BurkePJ, CastAD. 1997. Stabilityand change in the genderidentitiesof newly married couples. Soc. Psychol. Q. 60:277-90 BurkePJ, Owens TJ, Serpe R, Thoits PA, eds. 2003. Advances in IdentityTheoryand Research. New York:Kluwer-Plenum Press Butler J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversionof Identity. New York: Routledge CahillSE. 1998. Towarda sociology of the person. Sociol. Theory16:131-48 Callero PL. 1995. Role as resourcein a prison uprising. In Advances in Group Processes, ed. B Markovsky,K Heimer,J O'Brien, pp. 221-47. Greenwich,Conn.:JAIPress CalleroPL. 2003. The political self: identityresources for radical democracy.In Advances in Identity Theory and Research, ed. PJ Burke,TJ Owens, R Serpe, PA Thoits. New York:Kluwer-Plenum Press. In press Cast AD, Burke PJ. 2002. A theory of selfesteem. Soc. Forces 80:1041-68 CastAD, StetsJE,BurkePJ. 1999. Does the self conformto the views of others?Soc. Psychol. Q. 62:68-82 new CeruloKA. 1997. Identityconstruction: issues, new directions.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23: 385-409 Collier PJ. 2000. The effects of completing a capstone course on studentidentity. Sociol. Educ. 73:285-99 Collier PJ. 2001. The differentiatedmodel of role identity acquisition.Symb.Interact.24: 217-35 CraneD. 2000. Fashionand Its Social Agenda: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

130

CALLERO
individualroles andidentitiesin the postwar period.Sociol. Theory20:86-105 R. Gagne P, Tewksbury 1999. Knowledge and power, body and self: an analysis of knowlself. Soedge systems andthe transgendered ciol. Q. 40:59-83 Gecas V, Burke PJ. 1995. Self and identity. In Sociological Perspectiveson Social Psychology, ed. KS Cook, GA Fine, JS House, pp. 41-67. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon Gergen KJ. 1991. The SaturatedSelf: DilemLife. New mas of Identityin Contemporary York:Basic Books GergenKJ. 1999. An Invitationto Social Construction.London:Sage GiddensA. 1991. Modernityand Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G. 1998. The Handbook of Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill,4th ed. GirouxHA. 1997. ChannelSurfing:Race Talk and the Destruction of Today's Youth.New York:Saint Martin'sPress Gitlin T. 1995. The Twilight of Common Dreams: WhyAmerica is Wrackedby Culture Wars.New York:HenryHolt Gubrium JF, Holstein JA. 2000. The self in a world of going concerns. Symb. Interact. 23:95-115 Guillen MF. 2001. Is globalization civilizing, destructiveor feeble? A critiqueof five key debatesin the social science literature. Annu. Rev.Sociol. 27:235-60 Guy A, Banim M. 2000. Personal collections: women's clothinguse andidentity.J. Gender Stud.9:313-27 HabermasJ. 1983. Modernity: an unfinished project. In The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on PostmodernCulture,ed. H Foster,pp. 3-15. PortTownsend,WA:Bay Press Hall S. 1996. Who needs 'identity'?In Questions of CulturalIdentity,ed. S Hall, P Du Gay, pp. 1-17. London:Sage HartD, Fegley S. 1997. Children'sself-awarein ness and self-understanding culturalcontext. In The Conceptual Self in Context:

CushmanP. 1995. Constructingthe Self, ConAmerica:A Cultural structing HistoryofPsychotherapy.Cambridge,Mass: Perseus Davis K. 1995. Reshaping the Female Body: The Dilemma of Cosmetic Surgery. New York:Routledge Demo DH. 1992. The self-concept over time: Annu.Rev.Soresearchissues anddirections. ciol. 18:303-26 and Denzin NK. 1992. SymbolicInteractionism CulturalStudies: The Politics of Interpretation. Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell Deme S. 2002. Globalization and the reconstitution of local gender relationships.Men Masc. 5:144-64 Dunn RG. 1997. Self, identity and difference: Sociol. Q. Mead and the poststructuralists. 38:687-705 Elkins P. 1992. A New WorldOrder: Grassroots Movementsfor Global Change. London: Routledge Elliot A. 2001. Conceptsof theSelf. Cambridge, UK: Polity ErvinLH, StrykerS. 2001. Theorizingthe relationshipbetween self-esteem andidentity.In Self-EsteemTheory Research: and Extending ed. Sociological andPsychologicalCurrents, TJ Owens, S Stryker,N Goodman,pp. 2955. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Ewen S, Ewen E. 1992. Channels of Desire: Mass Images and the Shaping of American Consciousness. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press FoucaultM. 1979. Discipline and Punish. New York:VintageBooks FoucaultM. 1980. TheHistoryof Sexuality,Vol. VintageBooks 1,An introduction. New York: Foucault M. 1988. The Care of the Self. New York:Vintage Books Foucault M. 1994. Two lectures. In Culture, Power,History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory,ed. NB Dirks, G Eley, SB Ortner, pp. 200-21. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press FrableDES. 1997. Gender,racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities.Annu.Rev.Psychol. 48:139-62 FrankDJ, Meyer JW. 2002. The profusion of

SOCIOLOGYOF SELF Culture, Experience, Self-Understanding, eds. U Neisser, DA Jopling, pp. 128-53. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Held D, McGrewA. 2000. The greatglobalization debate: an introduction.In The Global Reader:An Introduction to Transformations the Globalization Debate, ed. D Held, A McGrew, pp. 1-45. Maiden, Mass.: Polity Press HermansHJ, KempenHJG. 1998. Moving cultures: the perilous problems of culturaldichotomies in a globalizing society.Am. Psychol. 53:1111-20 Hewitt JP. 1998. The Myth of Self-Esteem: Finding Happinessand Solving Problemsin America. New York:St. Martin'sPress Holstein JA, GubriumJF. 2000. The Self We Live By: NarrativeIdentityin a Postmodern World.New York:OxfordUniv. Press Hochschild AR. 1983. The Managed Heart: of Commercialization Human Feeling. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press HochschildAR. 1989. TheSecond Shift:Working ParentsandtheRevolutionat Home.New York:Viking Hochschild AR. 1997. The Time Bind: When WorkBecomes Home and Home Becomes Work.New York:Metropolitan Books HowardJA. 2000. Social psychology of identities. Annu.Rev.Sociol. 26:367-93 Hunt MO. 2001. Self-evaluationand stratification beliefs. In ExtendingSelf-Esteem Theory and Research:Sociological and Psychological Currents,eds. TJ Owens, S Stryker, N Goodman, pp. 330-50. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Joas H. 1983. The intersubjectiveconstitution of the body-image.Hum. Stud.6:197-204 JoasH. 1996. TheCreativity ofAction.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press KnorrCetinaK. 2001. Postsocialrelations:theorizing socialityin a postsocial environment. In Handbookof Social Theory,ed. G Ritzer, B Smart,pp. 520-37. London:Sage LaschC. 1979. TheCultureof Narcissism.New York:Norton Lemert C. 1992. Series Editor's Preface. In Symbolic Interactionand CulturalStudies:

131

ThePolitics of Interpretation, vii-xi. Oxpp. ford:Blackwell Levine G. 1992. Introduction:constructivism and the reemergent self. In Constructions of the Self, ed. G Levine, pp. 1-13. New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniv. Press Loseke DR, Cavendish JC. 2001. Producing institutional selves: rhetorically constructing the dignity of sexually marginalized Catholics.Soc. Psychol. Q. 64:347-62 Maines DR. 1996. On postmodernism,pragmatism, and plasterers:some interactionist thoughts and queries. Symb. Interact. 19: 323-40 Maines DR. 2001. TheFaultlineof Consciousness: A Viewof Interactionismin Sociology. New York:Aldine De Gruyter Marcuse H. 1964. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press Marty ME, Appleby RS. 1993. Fundamentalismsand Society. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Mason-Schrock D. 1996. Transsexuals' narof rariveconstruction the 'trueself. Soc. Psychol. Q. 59:176-92 McClay WM. 1994. The Masterless: Self and Society in Modern America. Chapel Hill: Univ. NorthCarolinaPress Mead GH. 1934. Mind Self and Society. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Meyrowitz J. 1997. Shifting worlds of strangers: medium theory and changes in 'them' versus 'us'. Soc. Inq. 67:59-71 Milkie MA. 1999. Social comparisons, reflected appraisals,and mass media: the impact of pervasivebeautyimages on black and white girls' self-concepts. Soc. Psychol. Q. 62:180-210 Mouffe C. 1995. Feminism, citizenship, and radical democraticpolitics. In Social Postmodernism:Beyond IdentityPolitics, eds. L Nicholson, S Seidman, pp. 315-31. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Nelson K. 1997. Finding one's self in time. In The Self Across Psychology: SelfRecognition, Self-Awareness,and the Self Concept,eds. JG Snodgrass,RL Thompson, pp. 103-16. New York:Ann. NY Acad. Sci.

132

CALLERO
Sennet R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character New York:Norton Shalin D. 1988. George HerbertMead, socialism, and the progressiveagenda.Am. J. Sociol. 93:913-51 Silver I. 1996. Role transitions, objects, and identity.Symb.Interact. 19:1-20 Slater PE. 1970 The Pursuit of Loneliness: American Culture at the Breaking Point. Boston: Beacon Press Smith-LovinL. 1995. The sociology of affect andemotion.In Sociological Perspectiveson Social Psychology,ed. KS Cook, GA Fine,JS House, pp. 118-48. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon Snow D, Anderson L. 1993. Down on Their Luck.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press StaplesWG. 2000. EverydaySurveillance:Vigilance and Visibility Postmodern in Life. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield StathamA, RhoadesK. 2001. Genderand selfesteem: narrative efficacy in the negotiand ation of structural factors.In ExtendingSelfEsteem Theoryand Research: Sociological and Psychological Currents,eds. TJ Owens, S Stryker,N Goodman, pp. 255-84. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge Univ. Press StetsJE,BurkePJ. 1994.Inconsistentself views in the control identity model. Soc. Sci. Res. 23:236-62 Stets JE, Burke PJ. 2003. A sociological approach to self and identity. In Handbook of Self and Identity, eds. M Leary, J Tangney,pp. 128-52. New York: Guilford Press Stevenson HW, Zusho A. 2002. Adolescence in China and Japan:adaptingto a changing environment.In The World'sYouth: Adolescence in EightRegionsof the Globe, eds. BB Brown, R Larson,TS Saraswathi,pp. 14170. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press Stryker S. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism:A Social StructuralVersion.Menlo Park,CA: Benjamin/Cumings StrykerS, BurkePJ.2000. The past,presentand futureof an identitytheory.Soc. Psychol. Q. 63:284-97 S, Stryker OwensTJ,WhiteRW,eds. 2000. Self,

Nicholson L, SeidmanS. 1995. Introduction. In BeyondIdentityPolSocial Postmodernism: itics, eds. L Nicholson, S Seidman,pp. 1-35. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Owens TJ, ed. 2000. Self and IdentityThrough the Life Course in Cross-CulturalPerspective. Stamford,CT:JAIPress Owens TJ, Serpe R. 2003. The role of selfevaluationin identity salience and commitment.InAdvancesin IdentityTheoryandResearch,eds. PJBurke,TJOwens,R Serpe,PA Thoits. New York:Kluwer-Plenum Press. In press Piliavin JA, Callero PL. 1991. Giving Blood: The Development of an Altruistic Identity. Baltimore,MD: JohnsHopkinsUniv. Press PerinbanayagamRS. 1991. Discursive Acts. New York:Aldine de Gruyter PhelanMP, Hunt SA. 1998. Prison gang members' tattoosas identitywork:the visual communicationof moralcareers.Symb.Interact. 21:277-98 PrevesSE. 2001. Sexing the intersexed: analan ysis of socioculturalresponses to intersexuality. Signs 27:523-56 PriestPJ. 1996. 'Giltby association':talk show participants' televisuallyenhancedstatusand self-esteem. In Constructing Self in a Methe diated World,ed. D Grodin,TR Lindlof, pp. 68-83. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Riesman D. 1950. The Lonely Crowd. New Haven, CT:YaleUniv. Press Rose N. 1996. Identity,genealogy, history. In Questions of CulturalIdentity,ed. S Hall, P Du Gay, pp. 128-50. London:Sage Rosenberg M. 1981. The self-concept: social productand social force. In Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives,ed. M Rosenberg, R Turner, 593-624. New York:Bapp. sic Books Russell JW.2003. Landandidentityin Mexico: peasants stop an airport.Mon. Rev. 54:1425 Schwalbe ML. 1993. Goffinan against postmodernism:emotion and the reality of the self. Symb.Interact. 16:333-50 Sennet R. 1977. The Fall of Public Man. New York:Knopf

SOCIOLOGYOF SELF

133

IdentityandSocialMovements. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minn.Press StrykerS, SerpeRT. 1982. Commitment,identity salience, and role behavior: a theory and research example. In Personality, Roles and Social Behavior, ed. W Ickes, ES Knowles, pp. 199-218. New York:Springer Verlag Swatos WH. 2001 Globalizationand religious fundamentalism. IlluminatingSocial Life: In TheoryRevisClassical and Contemporary ited, ed. P Kivisto, pp. 361-84. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge in SwidlerA. 1986. Culture action:symbolsand strategies.Am. Sociol. Rev. 51:273-86 TavisThomsonI. 2000. In ConflictNo Longer: Self and Society in Contemporary America. Lanham,MD: Rowen & Littlefield Taylor CT. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modem Identity.Cambridge, Univ. Press Mass.: Harvard TomlinsonJ. 1999. Globalizationand Culture. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Trew K, Benson DE. 1996. Dimensions of social identity in NorthernIreland.In Changing EuropeanIdentities: Social Psychological Analyses of Social Change, ed. GM Breakwell, E Lyons, pp. 123-43. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann TurkleS. 1996. Parallellives: workingon identity in virtualspace. In Constructing Self the in a Mediated World, ed. D Grodin, TR Lindlof, pp. 156-75. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Walsh WA, Banaji MR. 1997. The collective self. In The Self Across Psychology: SelfRecognition, Self-Awareness,and the Self Concept, ed. JG Snodgrass,RL Thompson, pp. 193-214. New York:Ann. NY Acad. Sci. Waskul DD. 2002. The naked self: being a body in televideo cybersex. Symb.Interact. 25:199-227 Man. GarWhyteWH. 1956. TheOrganization den City, New York:Doubleday Wiley N. 1994. The Semiotic Self. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press