The self-made myth is both popular and seductive because we are attracted to the idea that each of is the master of our own destiny. There is something comforting in believing that you can be whoever and whatever you want to be.

Sociologists are less likely to endorse this perspective because we recognize and acknowledge the power of the social world in shaping individual lives. The sociological position does not negate or deny that each of has some agency or individual initiative that we may wield; however, we are cautious to not to swing the balance too far to the individual-only side.

Whether one is a suspected terrorist, a billionaire, or a recent college graduate, I would resist the moniker “self-made” and instead speak of the socially-made person. It’s not as convenient, catchy, or snappy as self-made but it is definitely more accurate.


http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2013/05/the-myth-of-the-self-made-person.html

I doubt that Collectivists could understand the Concept of "Self Made"!

Collectivism, the opposite if individualism...

and it's entirely Unselfmade too!

I doubt that Collectivists could understand the Concept of "Self Made"!

I would be happier than a June bug on a tomato plant if I was the only person on Earth.

I would be happier than a June bug on a tomato plant if I was the only person on Earth.

Just playing with words.
A society-made person would be more like a puppet: Someone put in a certain position to do what society has told/is telling him to do.
Self-made doesn't mean you never got any help or support. Give a 100 people the same help and support and maybe one will make it to become what is called self-made. That's the one with the skills, the drive, the ideas etc. That's why it's 'self-made' as he's the one with the vision. Mostly those ppl have an inner drive, hence "self".

Of course there's always other ppl involved. Even a hermit couldn't and wouldn't be a hermit if there were no other ppl.

to clarify the semantics,,,

its not self made(entirely),, if you didn't make it yourself,,,and its not society made(entirely) if self was involved

but its gonna be more leaning towards SOCIETY MADE,, (more of it is gonna be a result of the circumstances , culture, society), than it is going to be purely from ones own 'natural' being and existence

We are a product of our environment. But each individual is different and learns differently from our environment.
So I would say that society does have some part. But it's the individual themselves that makes them who they are.

our environment impacts us all, no one is the 100 percent 'self made' being many like to think they are,,,

If you use this logic, that we are all a part of society and thus impacted by the environment, therefore we can't be just self made and must be society made, then couldn't you also use that same logic to say the reverse? That we are all 100% self made because regardless of the environment, we must rely on ourselves to deal with what life hands us and the only person who decides what to do is the individual. We may have to take into consideration what society will think, but ultimately we are responsible for our actions and the consequences of them, hence self made.

Seems to me like the old nature vs. nurture debate, just phrased differently. It's really not a debate anymore. Both play a role. The debate now is about which is more important, and that will go on forever. I like to think that nature, biology and genetics, gives us the raw material with which to work, and the environment molds us into what we become. Nobody is 100% self made or society made. I put a bit more emphasis on self than society, but that's just me because I've studied this stuff pretty extensively.

Good topic MsHarmony.