I had the opportunity to rediscover myself through Social Psychology:
“Who am I?” This was the question I asked myself when I pretended to like wrestling because all my classmates did in grade 6, again when I shaved off all my hair before high school, and, more recently, when I arrived in Middletown, CT, USA, in 2022 to begin my college career. Simply put, I am no stranger to this question. However, on that day, as I touched down at Bradley Airport to begin a new life, suddenly, this question felt heavier to me.
Although I previously struggled to navigate multiple answers, I had constants I could always fall back on. At the forefront of my identity, I was a sister to my four siblings, a daughter to my parents, and a member of the Ashanti tribe, the Agona clan, and the Tuffour family. Even if what came next was somewhat vague, I was primarily defined by these social ties. However, here was the case where, for the first time in my life, I had been pulled away from all of these connections. As cliché as it sounds, I felt like a fish out of water. Who was I now?
I was excited to find out that this question is apparently a pretty popular one in the field of social psychology as well. Multiple theories help us understand the concept of the “Self” and how that is formed. One of these is the Self-construal theory. It asserts that there are two types of self-construal: independent and interdependent, and we fall under either category depending on our cultural contexts: collectivist or individualistic. The general assumption is that people from Western societies and cultures are more individualistic and thus have an independent self-construal. People from Eastern societies and cultures would be more collectivist and hence have a more interdependent self-construal. We define our identities differently based on our self-construals.
This explains my feelings of alienation in American society. My cultural context is heavily collectivist. Social relations and roles almost completely defined my identity. We live by “Ubuntu,” which translates to “I am because you are,” and this value is reinforced every day of our lives. It was so interesting to me to learn that in American culture, the integral part holding the Ubuntu equation together, the “because” is removed, hence it becomes “I am, you are,” which is symbolic of an independent self-construal. People are defined not by who they are to others but by their personal attributes and characteristics. It is an ongoing struggle to adjust my framework to accommodate a society like this one, without compromising my cultural identity.
I’m grateful that this theory has given me the vocabulary to describe my struggles as a good starting point; however, I do not fully agree with the polarization of categories. It argues that although we may be able to switch between types of self-construal, there is always a baseline we default to. I’ve noticed that younger generations have much more exposure to different cultures growing up through television and social media. I believe that through globalization, our social relations, be they individualistic or collectivist, have shifted toward a spectrum, with room for overlap. I wonder if they would reconsider their theory if they took into account the influence of globalization.
