Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Looking-Glass self

Thelooking-glass self suggests that identity is informed, in part, by our impressions of how other people perceive us. The primary idea is that we see ourselves mirrored in the eyes of the world around us. As a reflection in the looking-glass, the self emerges in response to a generalized other, which is represented by relational and communal attitudes. Essentially, the looking-glass self sees itself mirrored on the eyes of persons, cultures, systems, and structures—which in turn affect the formation of identity.

Located between social construction theory and symbolic interaction theory, the looking-glass self speaks to the ways in which our social interactions and societal roles are influenced by the world around us. Here, identity is the result of perceived interactions between self and others. Essentially, with every interaction, three things occur: (1) We imagine our appearance, (2) we imagine judgment about that appearance, and (3) we respond according to our perceptions about the judgment. Put another way, social symbols, knowledge, and resources constitute reality; and through interaction, interpretation, definition, and appropriation, we insert ourselves into that reality.

My looking-glass self is concerned with how other people view me. As a result, I view myself according to how I think I am seen. Thus, when I view myself in the eyes of others, I locate an image of self. The looking-glass self is a complex way of seeing and being seen. Frantz Fanon argued that descendents of the African diaspora struggle within societal conditions that impose a culture that has erased many of the customs and sources on which African culture is based. According to Fanon, any attempt to understand this complex ontology requires understanding a particular location: “Not only must the Black man be Black—he must be Black in relation to the White man” (p. 257). Consequently, for Fanon, there is an ongoing dialectic between the Black man's perceptions of self and the perceptions concerning how others view him.

Mark C.Hopson

Further Readings

BergerP. L., & Luckmann, T.(1967).The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Albany: SUNY Press.
Blumer, H.(1969).Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cooley, C. H.(1902).Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner.
Fanon, F.(2000).The fact of blackness. In L. Back & J. Solomos (Eds.), Theories of race and racism: A reader (pp. 257–266). New York: Routledge.
Gauntlett, D.(2002).Media, gender, and identity. New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203360798
Hecht, M. L., Warren, J. R., Eura, J., & Krieger, J. L.(2005).The communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kellner, D.(2003).Cultural studies, multiculturalism, and media culture. In G. Dines & J. M. Humez (Eds.), Gender, race, and class in the media (pp. 9–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wood, J. T.(2004).Communication: Theories in action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Yeung, K.-T.Martin, J. L.The looking glass self: An empirical test and elaboration. Social Forces81(3)(2003). 843–879. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0048
  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading