Self-Esteem Research, Theory, and Practice Toward a Positive ...

The Crucial Issue of Defining Self-Esteem 11maintained that self-esteem is understood as a function or component ofpersonality. In this case, self-esteem is seen as a part of the self-system,usually one that is concerned with motivation or self-regulation, or both.There are other well-accepted ways to approach making sense out ofthe definitional maze. Instead of looking at types, for instance, Smelser(1989) seeks to identify the “almost universally accepted components ofthe concept.” He began by presenting three of them.There is first, a cognitive element; self-esteem means characterizingsome parts of the self in descriptive terms: power, confidence, andagency. It means asking what kind of person one is. Second, there is anaffective element, a valence or degree of positiveness or negativenessattached to those facets identified; we call this high or low self-esteem.Third, and related to the second, there is an evaluative element, anattribution of some level of worthiness according to some ideally heldstandard. (p. 10)He went on to note that definitions vary as to whether they focus onself-esteem as a global or situational phenomenon. That is, some definitionssee self-esteem as being reasonably stable over time, whereas othersregard self-esteem as being responsive to situational and contextual influences,which means that it fluctuates. Today, this aspect of self-esteem isseen in such phrases as “trait versus state” self-esteem (Leary & Downs,1995), “stable versus unstable” self-esteem (Greenier, Kernis & Waschull,1995), or “global versus situational” self-esteem (Harter, 1999).In fact, neither developing typologies nor identifying basic elementscan offer us the one thing that is needed most: a clear statement concerningwhat self-esteem is as it is actually lived by real human beings in reallife. Although typologies of self-esteem reduce the number of definitionswith which we must contend, they offer us no criteria for identifying oneas being more valid than another. Similarly, although identifying commonelements is a necessary step toward developing such a definition, it is alsonecessary to work them into an integrated, comprehensive form; otherwise,the elements simply constitute a list. Clearly, then, we are in need ofanother method. The approach that we use to reach this goal consists ofmoving in two steps. First, we examine three definitions of self-esteem thatseem to run throughout the depth and breadth of the field. This activityinvolves analyzing the theoretical strengths and weaknesses of each one toassess their potential usefulness. The second step takes us into the livedcharacter of self-esteem, or how it is actually experienced by real people inreal life, particularly in terms of what phenomenological psychologistscall the “general structure” (Giorgi, 1971) of the experience. At this point,we will be able to evaluate the definitions and find out whether one ofthem turns out to be superior to others empirically, as well as theoretically.