Authenticity and Identity: What Does it Mean to Find One's 'True' Self?

Jack Cummins

This is an area which I have been thinking about, especially in relation to modernity and postmodernism, and reading, 'Modernity and Self-Identity in the Late Modern Age', by Anthony Giddens. He argues that this involves self-knowledge and that,
'To be true to oneself means finding oneself, but since as an active process of self-constuction it has to be informed by overall goals_ those of becoming free from dependence and achieving fulfilment'. He points to the rites of passage in social life and the sense of meaning, including honesty and integrity. He looks at the way in which identity became mobilised through modernity and how bodily appearance became more significant, including lifestyle regimes.

Giddens draws upon the ideas of RD Laing's, 'The Divided Self'. I have reread this recently and while it was important in relation to the antipsychiatry movement, which has faded to a large extent, this work stands out for me in the way in which it looks at the existential aspects of the self and being a person. One aspect of the idea of the 'true' self and the 'false' self. The false self is connected to the idea of the persona, which is the front or way a person projects themselves in social life. Laing says,
"A man without a mask" is indeed very rare." One even doubts the possibility of such a man. Everyone in some measure wears a mask...'

Laing also looks at the idea of 'ontological security', and he argues that a 'basically ontological secure person will encounter all the hazards of life, social, ethical, spiritual, biological from a centrally firm sense of his own and other people's reality and identity. He draws upon the idea of the imaginary self and the real, developed by Sartre. Laing argues that, 'Without an open two-way circuit between phantasy and reality anything becomes possible in phantasy'.

I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. It is a fairly complex question because it involves the social and existential sense of selfhood? How important is the idea of a 'true' self? To what extent is the self bound up with relationships with others, or as being, alone, in relation to the wider cosmos, and making sense of this?

Pantagruel

I think that you have already answered your own question: authenticity. This is both an intuitively and comprehensively satisfying concept. If your thoughts and actions are in perfect accord, then you live authentically, and in so doing, can be said to be your true self. Of course, there are innumerable twists and turns to being actually able to do this. Self-knowledge, self-deception, knowledge in general. Still, it would be my chosen port of embarkation.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Pantagruel

Or it may mean your ego* is completely satisfied. — ArielAssante

If living in accord with the constraints of external reality without any kind of internal or external deception or equivocation is egoistic. In the pejorative context you suggest, doesn't ego usually imply some kind of falsity or error?

Jack Cummins

↪Pantagruel

It is difficult to know to what extent the ego is or isn't involved in finding oneself. It may depend on the criteria used, and values of what matters or is is meaningful. Some may judge themselves on social roles, successes and outward achievements. Others, on the basis of inner qualities and it may be a mixture of all these in many instances. Conscience may be one aspect and others' opinions, although some may be less influenced by others' perceptions.

Tate

Laing also looks at the idea of 'ontological security', and he argues that a 'basically ontological secure person will encounter all the hazards of life, social, ethical, spiritual, biological from a centrally firm sense of his own and other people's reality and identity. — Jack Cummins

People who are on shaky ground in terms of survival will find they have to morph into whatever they need to be to gain security.

Once one finds some measure of security, this tendency to live out society's expectations will probably continue out of habit. It takes some courage to step beyond what others want you to be into a form that expresses your own deeper imperatives. There are real risks involved in doing this, in some cultures more than others.

For instance, if you're in Portland, Oregon, you'll find others actually encouraging you to become who you really are. If you're in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, it will be made very clear to you that you need to conform, or you'll be punished.

So the whole issue can become moot depending on your circumstances.

Pantagruel

↪Jack Cummins

Academic writing aside, where the term is (I won't say arbitrarily but) specifically defined, I think that ego is a pretty nebulous concept, and, in my opinion, not the best one to use, for that reason. If ego is going to be used in the (most common) negative sense, it indicates an overinvolvement of self at the expense of other and often truth. Then I would say it is just self-deception and self-aggrandizement. On the other hand, if it means the sum total of what takes place at the conscious level (ala Freud) then really, it is just synonymous with consciousness (I would personally unite id/ego/superego under that heading). I'm just not sure it is a productive term.

Jack Cummins

↪Tate

It is true that social and material circumstances affect what potential there is. Also, it may vary at different stages of life. In particular, there may be more options early on and they may narrow down once a particular pathway has been chosen, or open up wider for those who have achieved, especially in careers. However, it is not just about work but the whole range of options.

As far as others' opinions, it may vary how much one can step outside of social expectations. However, part of who one is may be about choices of moving outside specific circles, including family or communities, such as those of a church. Often, to break with certain social ties can involve courage as most people rely on a certain amount of social support.

Tate

As far as others' opinions, it may vary how much one can step outside of social expectations. However, part of who one is may be about choices of moving outside specific circles, including family or communities, such as those of a church. Often, to break with certain social ties can involve courage as most people rely on a certain amount of social support. — Jack Cummins

Absolutely. And breaking from family expectations may dredge up psychic drama you didn't even know was there. Suppose your family's religious identification demands an ongoing war with some other religious group. Dropping that might mean letting go of the ancestral continuum, or at least it may seem so.

All that said, I think there are people who just can't live inauthentically. If they don't find a way to survive without the social facade, they'll just die.

Once again, the type of society you're in plays into this. Some societies will become havens for those who need to be authentic. Some societies will just kill them.

Jack Cummins

↪Pantagruel

Yes, I am not sure how helpful the term ego, and I guess this may depend on how ego and egoism is defined. It also, may vary at different stages in terms of the importance of goals. For example, in Eastern traditions there was more of an emphasis on the spiritual aspects of oneself later, after worldly goals had been achieved. It may be more fluid in Western culture and following ideas of truth may be an ongoing quest, involving religious, political or other aspects of life. However, truth as conscience may be about following certain moral codes, such as what was oneself spoken of as selling or losing one's own soul when people turn aside from their innermost values to gain popularity or worldly success.

Alkis Piskas

↪Jack Cummins

Hi Jack.

I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. — Jack Cummins

Where does the idea of "true self" come from? What is it based on?
How can it be considered as "true"? As opposed or compared to what? False, fake, divided, imagined, idealized?

"True" indicates something absolute, but can there be such a thing in this case? And if there existed such a thing, how could one recognize it? How could one be absolutely certain about such a thing? Because, if a self could not be recognized as such, it couldn't be called "true", would it?

Jack Cummins

↪Tate

The effects of family and community are profound. For example, gay and transgender people may sometimes try to deny this side to their lives out of pressure, especially if they are from religious backgrounds. In particular, I have met people who were gay and of African descent and they told me how to be open about themselves was a likely means of being ostracized from the community. Also, in Muslim culture, people are often forced into arranged marriages under extreme pressure.

Generally, there is more opportunity for stepping outside of social groups and backgrounds in Western culture, in the context of liberal values. However, people who challenge the social norms of social groups may experience certain costs, such as rejection.

Jack Cummins

↪Alkis Piskas

RD Laing spoke of the idea of the true and false self, but I believe that the actual idea was developed by the psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott. However, going back to ancient times, Plato spoke of being true to oneself.

Pantagruel

How can it be considered as "true"? As opposed or compared to what? False, fake, divided, imagined, idealized? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I'd agree with this. If your true self is in bad faith, that is still your true self. Maybe what @Jack Cummins is describing is the best self?

Joshs

I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. It is a fairly complex question because it involves the social and existential sense of selfhood? How important is the idea of a 'true' self? To what extent is the self bound up with relationships with others, or as being, alone, in relation to the wider cosmos, and making sense of this? — Jack Cummins

The self IS its relationships. The concept only makes sense as a comparison that simultaneously defines the ‘I’ and the not-I. I dont think the masks we wear and the roles we play are necessarily an impediment to a true self. On the contrary , the self is nothing but its
creative possibilities. The more audaciously and aggressively we try on new masks the closer we get to our ‘true’ self. The only sorts of masks that hinder the development of self are those that we adopt mechanically and superficially. An inauthentic self is a fragmented self , one that reacts rather understands, that copies without embracing. The self isnt any particular content or identity. It is a way of moving forward that is integrated.

Jack Cummins

↪Joshs

I agree that the self IS in relationships and it can be hard to stand back from it and, here, may a lot of blindspots. It is not as if everyone analyses themselves. The most obvious problems are when someone has such problems that the self fragments, which can lead to some kind of breakdown, especially in the form of psychosis. Laing's writing was important in this respect, showing how people are given confusing messages. This involves double binds and it has also been looked at in the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson. A double bind can be a person being told that they should seek happiness, but, at the same time being given loads of restrictive rules.

Jack Cummins

↪Pantagruel

I am not necessarily referring to the 'best' self because that may be about the ego ideal, almost with a moralistic overtones. However, it may be about bringing out potential, so it is about some kind of reaching for the heights, but this is where it gets complicated because it is not about morality as such, but about finding one's calling in life and some have spoken of finding vocation. As far as I can see, the quest for authenticity involves juggling of all of these and it is likely to be a difficult quest for some. It may be that it is hard to achieve, like the U2 song title, 'I Still Haven't Found What I Am Looking For'.

One writer who Laing draws upon is Lionel Trilling, who looked at the difference between sincerity and authenticity. Trilling suggests that there has been a move from the value of sincerity to authenticity. With the idea of sincerity there was an emphasis on trustworthiness and being true to one's word. Authenticity is more about finding oneself through experimentation.

Trilling and Laing were writing in the twentieth century and identity and meaning have probably shifted. There may be a greater degree of fragmentation of identity, especially in the context of online communication often replacing face to face interaction. Individualist values may be strong but probably with a greater degree of anonymity and amidst the masses there may be often the feeling of being a number; with this depending a lot on the community in which one lives and whether one has quality relationships.

180 Proof

↪Joshs

:up:

I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. It is a fairly complex question because it involves the social and existential sense of selfhood? How important is the idea of a 'true' self? To what extent is the self bound up with relationships with others, or as being, alone, in relation to the wider cosmos, and making sense of this? — Jack Cummins

To my mind, in sum, each one of us is a heteronomous¹ (e.g. natal-embodied, socialized, historicized ...) being who, at best, strives for integrity – to do what one says and say what one does – in living according to one's ability to keep one's expectations aligned, or consistent, with reality.

¹ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronomy

Pantagruel

↪Jack Cummins

Interesting. If you would like to read about the idea of the "calling" it was important in Calvinism, where it reached a very material form. Weber looks at it closely in the third chapter ofProtestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

The idea of heteronomy is interesting because as the opposite of autonomy it is worth thinking about the forces which impact on human beings and choices.

Also, since discussion on a previous thread I have read Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou'. It does have bearing on the this thread because how one sees the 'thou' influences the nature of subjective reality and identity. What I thought about was how when I was a teenager I used to pray a lot and I often thought of myself in communication with God. That didn't mean that I didn't care about the opinions of others as much as later. So, in some ways the loss of God as the significant other may lead to a far greater narcissism, with the opinions of others often being the significant mirror, although that doesn't rule out the idea of self in relation to the wider nature of reality, whether it is seen as the divine or, the realm of the intersubjective, or however, reality itself is understood.

Jack Cummins

↪Pantagruel

I haven't read Weber but I learned a little about Calvinism in history. One aspect which I do think comes into play is the context of values related to the basic economic structure of social life. In particular, this relates to consumer materialistic society. Baudrillard spoke of the way in which images of consumerism affect the nature of human identity, with people buying products which include status symbols, such as property and cars. These all affect the sense of self in the way of being tokens of 'happiness' and he points to the shopping mall as being seductive in the pursuit of finding pleasure and contentment, in the context of individualism and materialistic values.

180 Proof

in some ways the loss of God as the significant other may lead to a far greater narcissism — Jack Cummins

Insofar as "God" is a three-letter swear word for ego, I believe my own "loss of God" made me less ego-centric rather than more, though not nearly as other-centric as Buber seems (or, even moreso, Levinas). The I-Thou relationship without "the eternal Thou" (or thou separate from the I-Thou encounter) speaks morally and existentially to me; and so, paraphrasing the famed Cartesian bumpersticker, You (We) are, therefore I am. :smirk:

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

It is interesting to hear how loss of belief in God made you less egocentric. I am sure it can go in many different ways. Belief in God can lead to some forms of dogmatic arrogance and inflated sense of oneself in the relationship with the divine.

Narcissism is in itself a complex topic because it comes in various forms, and one book which I read on it is, 'The Fragile Self: The Structure of Narcissistic Disturbance', by Phil Mollon, which looks at disturbances in the sense of self. This traces it back to childhood and some of the ways one develops a core sense of self. Mollon explores Freud's idea of religion as playing a role in illusions rather than reality. Of course, the reality of social life in itself may be a source for the need for comforts of many kinds, including escapism, including addiction as well as religion.

Religious ideas may involve guilt and its management and suffering itself may be one of the biggest existential problems, and one of the most helpful forms of coping with the subjective sense of self may be the arts, including listening to music.

Tom Storm

I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. It is a fairly complex question because it involves the social and existential sense of selfhood? How important is the idea of a 'true' self? To what extent is the self bound up with relationships with others, or as being, alone, in relation to the wider cosmos, and making sense of this? — Jack Cummins

I don't think there is a true self. But people do live lives based on what they think others or 'society' or belief systems expect from them. Often it is a projection, a ghost driven narrative. "I should be more like..." everyone knows variations of this. The stories people tell themselves about themselves are critical and I have lost count of how many ostensibly successful people I have met who are filled with self-loathing and insecurities about their identify and who make a great effort to project a compensatory confidence. I generally hold that it is best not to be driven by expectations and not judge yourself against others or against impossible standards. How this looks depends on what you are a slave to and especially upon how much insight you have.

180 Proof

I don't think there is a true self. — Tom Storm

:up:

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

It may be that there is no 'true' self and it is a mythic concept. The problem may be more where people have developed such a fragmentary or fragile self that it becomes unstable. However, this may not be a fault of finding the self but a variety of factors involved biological and social circumstances, including trauma, especially in the early years and the damage done to the internal structure of object relations.

Tom Storm

↪Jack Cummins

I'm not big on attachment theory but I appreciate the dominant nature of this narrative in theories of trauma. Judith Herman has a lot to answer for.

a fragmentary or fragile self that it becomes unstable. — Jack Cummins

'Fragmented' people in a post-traumatic sense don't necessarily benefit from a more stable self - they tend to respond to clear boundaries set by others and some skills development in emotional regulation DBT, etc. But of course, only a small percentage of this seems to work. We're heading down the murky road of psychology and therapeutic interventions.

The search for a 'true self' as you put it is generally a search for a better way of coping. But how do you identify 'better' if it is one's inadequate or 'lesser' self selecting the frame of reference?

180 Proof

t may be that there is no 'true' self and it is a mythic concept. — Jack Cummins

... ergo anatta. :flower:

NB: Hume's "bundle", Nietzsche's "competing drives", Parfit's "continuity", Metzinger's "phenomenal self model", embodied cognition,
etc.

Agent Smith

We can be as evil as the devil; we can't be as good as god. Still wanna find your true/authentic/whatever self?

Agent Smith

there is no 'true' self — Jack Cummins

Raise the bar and there's no self; lower the bar and there is a self. Clearly the Buddha was bang on target, vita is dukkha - we're obviously dissatisfied with who we are!

Alkis Piskas

↪Jack Cummins

Yes, I read that, but shouldn't you question Laing's idea of the true and false self? This is what I did.
I also read "being true to oneself". It refers to a person's integrity, honesty, etc., which is quite different from the concept of "true self" (as one could possibly imagine it). And, as I explained it is impossible to define or describe. It was on this that I would like to have your say.

Authenticity and Identity: What Does it Mean to Find One's 'True' Self?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions