Looking-glass Self Theory

 1) The Theory: 

American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley coined the phrase “looking glass self” in 1902 and used it in his book Human Nature and the Social Order. It is defined as a reflection of how we believe others perceive us. Cooley uses “the looking glass self” while taking into account three steps. The first step is to consider how one would appear to others. The second step involves how one imagines others judging them based on how one believes they see them. The third step involves imagining how the other person sees them based on their prior evaluations. 

2) Identity as a personal construct: 

There are three basic parts to the looking-glass self that are specific to humans. (1) We consider how others could see us in a social setting. (2) We envision their assessment of that appearance and respond to it. (3) Through these apparent evaluations of others, we form our sense of self and our responses. As a result, people will alter their conduct according to what they believe other people think of them, even if that perception isn’t always accurate. Social connection thus serves as a “mirror” or “looking-glass,” since one’s self-esteem and sense of self are derived from others. 

3) Its Application in Daily Life: 

For instance, a person might enter a job interview with confidence and make an effort to project that confidence. Most frequently, a person in this circumstance looks at the interviewers’ responses to see whether they are positively or adversely responding to it. A person’s sense of self-confidence may grow if they observe supportive responses, such as nodding heads or smiles. Even if the perceived assessments were not necessarily accurate, if the person experiences unfavourable reactions, such as a lack of interest, this confidence in oneself frequently becomes undermined and reformed in order to better oneself. 

4) Its Criticisms: 

It has been suggested that the conceptualization of the social self through the looking glass is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the contrasting roles that ingroups and outgroups play in self-definition. In other words, it has been shown that while people tend to converge toward the attitudes and behaviours of their ingroup, they also tend to diverge from those of their outgroup. 

The implicit emphasis on ingroup member evaluations in the looking glass approache is blamed for the later scenario’s omission. This alternate viewpoint resulted from an investigation of social impact using the self-categorization theory. In fact, it is further argued that the metaphor of the looking glass self ignores the reality that impact results from the classification of other people as parts of the self. In other words, rather than being shaped by the reflections of “others,” people are shaped by the development of a social identity that pits “us” against pertinent “others.” As a result, the idea of self-identity could be viewed as an illustration of a social construction.