06.09.2021 Views

Interpersonal Communication- A Mindful Approach to Relationships, 2020a

Interpersonal Communication- A Mindful Approach to Relationships, 2020a

Interpersonal Communication- A Mindful Approach to Relationships, 2020a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The final characteristic of Rogers’ three parts <strong>to</strong> self-concept is the ideal-self. 10 Theis the<br />

version of yourself that you would like <strong>to</strong> be, which is created through our life experiences, cultural demands,<br />

and expectations of others. The real-self, on the other hand, is the person you are. The ideal-self<br />

is perfect, flawless, and, ultimately, completely unrealistic. When an individual’s real-self and ideal-self<br />

are not remotely similar, someone needs <strong>to</strong> think through if that idealized version of one’s self is attainable.<br />

It’s also important <strong>to</strong> know that our ideal-self is continuously evolving. How many of us wanted <strong>to</strong><br />

be firefighters, police officers, or astronauts as kids? Some of you may still want <strong>to</strong> be one of these, but<br />

most of us had our ideal-self evolve.<br />

Three Self’s Working Together<br />

Now that we’ve looked at the three parts of Carl Rogers’ theory of self-concept, let’s discuss how they<br />

all work <strong>to</strong>gether <strong>to</strong> create one’s self-concept. Rogers’ theory of self-concept also looks at a concept we<br />

discussed in Chapter 2 when we discussed Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Specifically, the idea<br />

of self-actualization. In Rogers’ view, self-actualization cannot happen when an individual’s self-image,<br />

self-worth, and ideal-self have no overlap.<br />

As you can see in Figure 3.1, on the left side, you have the three parts of self-concept as very distinct<br />

in this individual, which is why it’s called incongruent, or the three are not compatible with each other.<br />

In this case, someone’s self-image and ideal-self may have nothing in common, and this person views<br />

themself as having no self-worth. When someone has this type of incongruence, they are likely <strong>to</strong> exhibit<br />

other psychological problems. On the other hand, when someone’s self-image, ideal-self, and self-worth<br />

overlap, that person is considered congruent because the three parts of self-concept overlap and are<br />

compatible with each other. The more this overlap grows, the greater the likelihood someone will be able<br />

<strong>to</strong> self-actualize. Rogers believed that self-actualization was an important part of self-concept because until<br />

a person self-actualizes, then he/she/they will be out of balance with how he/she/they relate <strong>to</strong> the world<br />

and with others.<br />

In 1902, Charles Hor<strong>to</strong>n Cooley wrote Human Nature and the Social Order. In this book, Cooley<br />

introduced a concept called the looking-glass self: “Each <strong>to</strong> each a looking-glass / Reflects the other that<br />

doth pass” 11 Although the term “looking-glass” isn’t used very often in <strong>to</strong>day’s modern <strong>to</strong>ngue, it means a<br />

mirror. Cooley argues, when we are looking <strong>to</strong> a mirror, we also think about how others view us and the<br />

judgments they make about us. Cooley ultimately posed three postulates:<br />

1. Ac<strong>to</strong>rs learn about themselves in every situation by exercising their imagination <strong>to</strong> reflect on their<br />

social performance.<br />

2. Ac<strong>to</strong>rs next imagine what those others must think of them. In other words, ac<strong>to</strong>rs imagine the<br />

others’ evaluations of the ac<strong>to</strong>r’s performance.<br />

3. The ac<strong>to</strong>r experiences an affective reaction <strong>to</strong> the imagined evaluation of the other. 12<br />

In Figure 3.2, we see an illustration of this basic idea. You have a figure standing before four glass<br />

panes. In the left-most mirror, the figure has devil horns; in the second, a pasted on a fake smile; in the<br />

third, a tie; and in the last one, a halo. Maybe the figure’s ex sees the devil, his friends and family think<br />

the figure is always happy, the figure’s coworkers see a professional, and the figure’s parents/guardians<br />

see their little angel. Along with each of these ideas, there are inherent judgments. And, not all of these<br />

judgments are necessarily accurate, but we still come <strong>to</strong> understand and know ourselves based on our<br />

perceptions of these judgments.<br />

Ultimately, our self-image is shaped through our interactions with others, but only through the<br />

mediation of our minds. At the same time, because we perceive that others are judging us, we also tend<br />

<strong>to</strong> shape our façade <strong>to</strong> go along with that perception. For example, if you work in the cus<strong>to</strong>mer service<br />

77<br />

<strong>Interpersonal</strong> <strong>Communication</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!