Cultural And Historical Variations in Selfhood 345exposed to and thus your individual characteristics. Western
culture’s dominant ideas about selfhood have changed and
evolved dramatically over the past few centuries (see
Baumeister, 1987; Twenge & Campbell, 2001). Thus, the
special nature of the modern Western form of selfhood can
be understood in a historical context as well as in the context
of cross-cultural comparisons. These changes are important
for the interpersonal self because many of these trends have
affected personal relationships and the independent-
interdependent nature of the self. Just as some cultures (such
as the West) are more independent, so are some time periods
(such as 1970–2000). In addition, shifts in self-views due to
societal trends demonstrate the inherently social nature of the
self: It changes in response to the larger society and one’s
generational peers.
Medieval Times to the Twentieth Century
During medieval times, people did not have identity crises the
way we do today (see Baumeister, 1987, for a review). In ear-
lier times, age, gender, and family were the decisive determi-
nants of life outcomes and thus of identity. There were set
patterns for life, depending on the constraints of these ascribed
attributes; if you were born a peasant worker, you remained a
peasant worker. Upward mobility was almost nonexistent, and
most men entered their father’s professions or were appren-
ticed to professions chosen by their parents. Religion dictated
strict standards for behavior and worship. Many marriages
were arranged. To put it crudely, a rigid society told our an-
cestors who they were, and there was not much they could do
about it. In general, these societies were tighter and more col-
lectivistic than Western societies are today.
Over the course of several centuries, Western societies be-
came looser and more individualistic. For example, modern
selves are based on changing rather than stable attributes.
Gender and family background slowly became less important
than more changeable attributes such as ability, diligence,
and personality. The modern Western self can be defined and
redefined much more than the self of earlier eras. This greater
freedom has also shifted the burden of defining the self onto
the individual; today everyone can choose from a wide spec-
trum of possible identities. This freedom can cause anxiety,
however, because these choices can be overwhelming in their
scope and direction. It also requires great self-knowledge,
because decisions about careers and romantic partners are
based on suitability (What is the best job for me? Is this per-
son the one I’m supposed to marry?) The burden falls most
heavily on adolescents, because adolescence ends with the
formation of adult identity (e.g., Erikson, 1968). Hence, in
the twentieth century adolescence has become a period of in-
decision, uncertainty, experimentation, and identity crisis
(see Baumeister & Tice, 1986).The 1960s to the PresentThe trend toward greater focus on the self has accelerated in
recent decades. Over the last 30 years, the self has become
increasingly more individualized and autonomous. During
the late 1960s and 1970s, popular culture promoted self-
fulfillment, self-love, and “being your own best friend”
(Ehrenreich & English, 1978). Pollsters noted that “the rage
for self-fulfillment” had spread everywhere (Yankelovich,
1981). At one time, duty and modesty were the most favorable
traits; during the 1970s, however, self-help books advised
“a philosophy of ruthless self-centeredness” that informed
people that “selfishness is not a dirty word” (Ehrenreich &
English, 1978, p. 303). The preoccupation with self so perme-
ated the society that Lasch (1978) called it “The Culture of
Narcissism”; L. Y. Jones (1980, p. 260) spoke of the decade’s
“orgy of self-gratification”; and the young adults of the 1970s
acquired the label “The ‘Me’ Generation.” Increasingly, pro-
claiming that you loved, cherished, and valued yourself was
no longer an immodest proposition (L. Y. Jones, 1980; Rosen,
1998; Swann, 1996). By the 1980s, Whitney Houston could
sing (without irony) that “the greatest love of all” was for
oneself.
This emphasis on individualism had specific consequences
for many interpersonal relationships. Because spouses and
children necessarily hindered the expression of unfettered
individualism, writers and commentators increasingly por-
trayed marriage and children as “a drag” (Ehrenreich &
English, 1978, p. 295). For example, if there was a conflict be-
tween what is best for the marriage and what is best for the
self, earlier generations often placed the obligation to mar-
riage as the supreme duty, but more recent generations placed
the self higher (Zube, 1972). “From now on, Americans
would livefor themselves,” notes David Frum in his cultural
history of the 1970s (2000; p. 58). “If anyone or anything else
got in the way—well, so much the worse for them.” It is prob-
ably not a coincidence that divorce rates began to rise sub-
stantially during the late 1960s and early 1970s, just as this
new individualism was taking hold (Frum).
In addition, many authors have argued that the 1970s
promoted negative attitudes toward children—what the
Germans call Kinderfeindlichkeit, or hostility toward
children (see, e.g., Holtz, 1995; Strauss & Howe, 1991).
According to some authors, the growing emphasis on indi-
vidualism tended to decrease the priority parents placed on
children’s needs as opposed to their own (Ehrenreich &
English, 1978). At the same time, the birth rate declined