Independent vs. Interdependent Self-Concepts

The nature of each culture is contingent upon the culture being described. Various attitudes and practices are vastly different across a wide range of cultural contexts, and are representative of the collective intentionality predicated upon that culture. Likewise, it should be of no surprise to learn that the self-concept differs among individuals of distinct cultures. Though nothing in this regard is truly dichotomous, as shades of grey always exist, the self concept can be considered one of two types, independent or interdependent selves.

An independent self-concept is more commonly found in western culture. The nature of this self view is that one defines themselves in terms of internal characteristics. Though one may identify with others for regulation of the self concept, this appears to be more an identification with similar traits within another. Be that as it may, others are regarded as distinct from the self, despite relations with significant others. As such, the boundary between self and non-self is rigid, and does not allow others to enter the self concept, instead regarding them as non-self. Despite this, one with an independent self experiences a fluid nature between internal and external groups. In other words, others are more welcome to enter and leave the individuals life as they please. It is no coincidence that this concept emerges in western culture, as these cultures are individualistic, and encourages more focus on the individuals goals as a result.

In contrast, an interdependent self-concept is characterized by a self that is defined in relation to others. Though those with this self concept do identify with internal characteristics, they do not do so to the same degree as one with an independent self. Instead, they identify themselves in their relationships with others. Relationships are of significant importance with an interdependent self. Unlike the independent self, interdependent selves have porous boundaries and are subject to change via relationships and situations. As such, they are not affected by contradictions in the self and are less prone to cognitive dissonance. However, the boundary between ingroup and outgroup appears to be more rigid. In other words, others are less likely to enter or leave the individuals social life, yet the relationships which one has are of more emotional significance, as they are viewed as extensions of the self concept. This self view is more common in eastern culture, where collectivist mentality is more common.

As in my posts on analytical and holistic thinking, I do not believe that one self view is correct while the other is not. Both exist in response to differences in environment and collective intentionality of the culture. However, because of this distinction, it blurs the line between self and non-self. Normally, others are not perceived as part of the self, yet this is exactly the case with interdependent selves. What I speculate is whether either of these self views is more related to happiness, life satisfaction and a subjective sense of purpose. I would imagine that those with an interdependent self experience stronger emotion towards those they care about, and have more satisfying relationships overall. Nevertheless, this dichotomy is interesting, and researchers should expand on this further.