Written for Anthro 305, 10/29/1998
The most basic assumption that Mauss makes in this essay is that all peoples at all times have had a notion of the self. He has no proof of this except in current societies, and those that have left a written record such as ancient Rome and Greece, and societies which may no longer exist but of whom ethnographies have been written. After this theory he assumes that the concept of the self is a social construct. Without societies we would have no reason for a concept of the self because if there wasn’t a society all there would be was the self, one person alone. This concept of the self as social construct is also a changing concept, neither universal nor constant. All present societies have this idea of the ‘person’, which changes as new ideas and concepts come out in the general population. But not all societies have the same ideas of what the self is. Many share similar aspects but no two are the same.
The method he uses to explore the concept of the self is a comparison of several societies, based both on original research and on data collected by others. He claims to analyze societies from ‘extremely ancient history’ but really only uses the Roman and Greek societies. One could argue that it would be impossible to evaluate the ideas of now extinct societies who have left no written records, no oral histories upon which to base any theories, and so the ancient Roman and Greek civilizations are probably one of, if not the very earliest examples from which he could draw. He gives examples from several societies, past and present, and from the Christian concept of the self, comparing and contrasting them to illustrate the differences in his chosen category. He focuses on the naming traditions of various societies and their influence on the concept of self. He also spends some time discussing masks, the roles a person plays in society, how they change and how they restrict a person to his lot in life.
In analyzing these cultures’ concepts of the self it is impossible to ask about extinct cultures who have not left written records or oral histories. It is also difficult to know if the information upon which these analyses of the ‘person’ are based is completely accurate. It is difficult to gauge whether the writer was representing the consensus of the general population, that of the wealthy and prominent, that of the intellectual community, or his own personal ideas. It is important to remember that before the printing press came around, not just anyone could be a published author. One had to have friends in high places, or an influential patron, and frequently one had to write as the ruling parties dictated. It would not, for example, have been wise to write what a fool Caligula was while he was in power. The records that have survived are for the most part those that were socially acceptable. Mavericks and loose cannons didn’t get anyone to read their ideas before they were killed by those they offended. It is also possible that Mauss misinterpreted the data he had. Some of it was second-hand, from what he considered reliable sources. But it is very difficult to read a translation of what someone said and be able to know exactly what he meant. Many things are left out of transcribed reports: body language, inflection, and most importantly firsthand knowledge of the subject matter. He also ignored, ostensibly because of time restrictions, the concept of the deep-down internal person.
Mauss could analyze current societies in a fairly in-depth manner, and by personally asking his test subjects he could better understand their idea of the self. He dealt with the outer, societal manifestation of the self because it was more readily discernible, and easier to make generalizations about. He was also concerned with the ‘role’ a person played, whether that role defined the person or was simply the part they played in society. Is the role of a person a social construct? How connected is it with the inner self? How much of an individual’s outer persona is an element of his/her role, the mask they must wear? Mauss also wondered about the implications of the modern idea of a conscious, moral self on the juridical conception of law. If everyone is deep-down the same moral beings, we are responsible for our actions at all times. He also asked if all societies had the concept of free will in their idea of the self. Are all peoples free to be what they desire to be, to rise above the circumstances of their birth, or are they stuck with the role assigned to them based on who their parents were and where they were born. How big a part does genetics play in the idea of self?
Mauss’s purpose in his work was to bring more interest to the study of this category of psychological anthropology, to urge the next generation of scholars to continue the study of the ever-changing ideas among human peoples. ‘With us this idea could disappear’, he says, trying to spur on his audience not to let the idea die, but to advance the study, keep it going and analyze its change, the path it takes in its evolution. He also believed it was possible to write a history of the concept of the self.