A definition of self-identity: transversal analysis of the philosophical problematic of the self and the quest for self-acceptance and happiness.
If there is a pertinent question to be asked, as many times as a mind gets lost in the world of ambivalent feelings, decisions, choices, vices, uncontrollable passions, deep boredom, despair and fears, as well as excitement, pleasure and joy is this one: «Who am I?». It is not an innocent question and it does not allow an innocent answer, as all possible paths leading to it are rooted in the most important quest any human being can go in search of: the quest for self-acceptance and happiness. It is a long expedition to the roots of any life, involving the past (infancy, and adolescence) and parental influence, cultural and religious bonds and the individual own hard process of growing, acquiring experiences of pain or pleasure, punishment or reward, which are a frame of self-reference and may influence all his future decisions and choices . This long journey to self-discovery involves a heritage of experiences that form the foundations of who we are, but most important, of whom we may become in result of what we were at a special moment in our past. However, the process is not static, as self- identity evolves as we grow older. In fact, self-identity construction is a non-stop-process, including processing information and reorganizing it in new behavioral responses, based on past and present experience. Every person’s life is like a book, every page is part of the story, but not the complete story, so only the outcome, the portrait of who you have become at the end, allows a final conclusion. Till then the book is written and re-written, through scratches and continuous reviews. In order to approach the subject of self-identity in a transversal way, one must enroll on this long journey, through countless philosophical, sociological and psychological approaches, until we reach modernity. In academic terms, our perspective of self-identity today is wider and more pertinent than ever, but the final answer to the quest remains open to further premises and, therefore, to further development.
According to Giddens A., (1991) in his book “Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age” (p2), a complete reflexion of self-identity ought to be seen not only through the magnifying glass of all social sciences, but also with the aid of “all manner of manuals, guides, therapeutical work and self-help surveys”. Thus, the concept of self-identity touches all fields of human behavior, allowing questions like: “Who am I?”, to seek answers in Philosophy, Sociology and Religion, but also common sense and personal experience, because until man understands who he is and why he is the way he is, he may get lost among a lot of unanswered questions, a deep existential anguish expressed in errant behavior, extreme emotions, unwise choices and self-denial. The question “Who am I?” is probably the most important one can ask himself, as it correlates to how an individual chooses to live his or her life.
Is our self-identity simply determined by what we learn when we are young or can it evolve as we grow older? Is man’s nature, man’s essence the same – and therefore possible to study in terms of similar behavioral responses to the same stimulus – or are there differences dictated by culture, education, beliefs, even time, all of which might change the concept of the essence of man along his own history ? Is man’s essence today what it used to be in ancestral times? An interesting answer to these basic questions can be found in the work of Erich Fromm, “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness” 1973, where it is stated that this vision of sameness concerning man’s essence is questioned. According to Fromm, any study of the history of man will prove that there is not any “human nature”, common to all men since the beginning of time. Anthropological studies of ancient tribes and cultures, have shown that there are so many different customs, feelings and values as well as lines of thinking that “anthropologists arrived at the concept that man is born as a blank sheet of paper on which each culture writes its text” (p295). However, there is something specifically human that distinguishes men from animals. Men’s capacities are unique: reason, creativity, imagination, feelings, and self-awareness. These capacities, being traits only owned by man in the realm of nature, build his self-identity (“character”), but they are also the reason why man often feels an outcast in the world. Knowledge and self-awareness push man to a permanent search for his own identity and place in the world. Man has no choice: although he may not feel integrated in the world, which is natural habitat, he is unable to escape his destiny – he must live. As Fromm referred, man is the only “ animal for whom his own existence is a problem that he has to solve and from which he cannot escape.”Fromm (p303).
This “disequilibrium” so specifically human is what makes man fight to find equilibrium. And Fromm arrives at the core of the problem when he concludes (p304) man continuously tries to finds a new equilibrium, by trying repeatedly to arrive at a new and better outcome. The process is painful and quite often man does not achieve the sought results. This struggle to find a new equilibrium is somehow the foundation of progress, as all the advances as well as all the retreats and setbacks the process involves, force man to keep trying to find new solutions for old problems. But new solutions create new problems and man must risk choosing a path that is not always free from dramatic consequences, as science and technology have been proving along the history of mankind, leading to what Fromm defines as “regressive developments”. Maybe without mistakes, solutions cannot be achieved and lessons cannot be learnt. Therefore the construction of self-identity, achieved through innumerable failed attempts, is neither a blessing nor a hindrance. It is part of man’s natural disequilibrium in search of equilibrium and is always at stake in any human’s life.
And this conclusion leads us to another pertinent question: can we overcome our past and make our future better? Is that really possible for every man, every individual, and every society? We have to believe it is, or there would be no hope for humanity. Mistakes, extreme and destructive passions, masochism, sadism, wars, lies, hate, jealousy and all the atrocious horrors we are capable of, are just one possible answer – certainly the least desired one – to existential necessities. The other possible answer to man’s quest for happiness and fulfillment stands on the other side of the chasm, building the bright side of man’s character or self-identity: his craving for justice, kindness, altruism, independence, sacrifice, truth, fairness and love. There is always a possibility to improve, to learn, to use resilience to face life’s setbacks. One thing is certain, though, every man, even if he is unaware of it, desperately needs passions to satisfy his hunger for a life’s purpose. However, only his freewill can dictate which side of the bridge will be his choice and fate. An abused child does not necessarily evolve to a criminal, just as a well-raised child may not evolve to an integrated human being. Our self-identity is certainly shaped by what we learn and experience when we were young, but there are many other factors that influence and dictate the path of a life.
Human nature seems to be seen, as most theoretical studies and reality can show, as a dichotomy by most of us. Everything seems to be coupled, having two obligatory opposed sides. This dichotomy can be felt each time you divide good and evil, right and wrong, love and hate and it is a clear sign of a tendency in western cultures, influencing religion and philosophical concepts in general. There is a greater existential anguish when this model prevails, as moral an ethic were formulated to dictate all behavioral premises of human conduct, not necessarily to satisfy man’s real needs and lead man to happiness and self-discovery. The more an ideology promises to give all answers, the more appealing it becomes and this can explain man’s adherence to all sorts of fundamentalisms. The price to pay for this comfort model of behavior, however, is terribly high: man’s freedom was given to him fastened with chains that restrain freewill. And man became entrapped in countless moral duties, codes of conduct, rules, laws, formatted but strict existential answers, all of them primarily necessary to the smooth control of society, but hardly ever able to create a real sense of happiness or fulfillment. Therefore, trapped between right and wrong, duty and pleasure, man has learnt to lie, to cheat, to conceal, in order to do what he cannot do openly.
All this reinforces the concept of permanent dichotomy as the fate of humanity. Common sense can easily demonstrate that you can do what is «right» but still feel «wrong» about it. You can follow along the «right path» of life feeling miserable or you may choose to follow the «wrong path» and feel a great satisfaction mingled with guilt or regret. There is no escape from this maze. A question remains open to discussion: is this human dichotomy born with you or is it external to you and, therefore, a seed that was sown into your mind and soul, developing until it takes possession of your own self?
Babies are born free of guilt or prejudice, but as they grow up their culture and conduct codes twist their nature until a pattern is established. It is undeniable that our childhoods influence a lot who we will be as adults. If you are born in a Muslim, a Jewish, or a Christian family, just to name some of the best-known world religions, your future will be greatly shaped and influenced by the beliefs, concepts, rules and behavioral codes transmitted to you. One example concerns the concept of monogamy. Western cultures developed a model of unquestionable monogamy, which does not admit any exceptions. However, reality is very different and often what you cannot do openly, you do in secrecy. This way affairs and love-triangles were invented, because sometimes the temptation to live – to feel alive and happy, no matter how morally wrong or condemned it may be – is stronger than any moral patterns, fear of punishment or sensibleness. Some eastern cultures, though only males can use the privilege, base their social structure admitting polygamy and live peacefully with it. Which model is the right one, if both claim to be right? Can social laws of conduct and morality, created by religion and anthropological or sociological principles be absolute truths? These ambiguities allow us to arrive at the conclusion that most social and moral codes are simply imprinted in your character, and shape men in a myriad of possible answers to the same problem. This heritage can never be denied, above all because ideologies are a closely organized system of values, ideas and beliefs forming the basis of any social, political or economic philosophy. But there is another premise that must never be forgotten. Man is not solely a product of education and culture. Even religion, as already mentioned, may not be strong enough to tame his inner search for a personal answer to his primordial quest: “Who am I?”, and all the panoply of questions that stem from this one: “What is the purpose of my life?”, “Why do I feel so often unable to control myself?”, “Where did I come from and where will I go after living my life?”, “Is it a sensible choice to live expecting tomorrow’s reward (for example a promised eternal life) and forget living the only real life I am living right now?”, “How do my own choices and acts influence the course of my life and other peoples’ lives? “ and finally , not always confessed but always felt by any intelligent human being, the underlying question : “Do I have the right to be happy my own way if my choice implies hurting other people? ”. There is no map to guide man here. Around this private sphere gravitate all human, lonely inner fights. Deep, deep inside you, if you dig deep enough, you will meet another entity usually named «soul» that is there as a silent but omnipresent part of yourself. No matter if you believe in it or not, it is irrelevant. The soul can be defined as the nonphysical aspect of a person, including the complex of human assigned qualities like will, feelings, thought and consciousness. It is the receptacle of your struggles and victories. It is what makes you a unique creature in the realm of nature.
Any individual who seeks to live an authentic life cannot peacefully be an outsider in what concerns his own soul and its relation to other souls. As a matter of fact, in order to remain sane, man builds his own identity – the book that tells the story of his soul – relating to strong affective ties that shape his sense of personal value. Most of the time man assesses his own value based on the feedback he gets from other people. There is a collective human urge to feeling loved, desired, admired and most relationships – love or even professional ones – are based on a strong necessity to show the best side of who we are – or pretend to be. Without these bonds to his fellowmen – most of them connected to the nonphysical part of the self – man would feel lost, isolated and would become insane. Most psychopaths are men deprived of this soul or humanity. Indeed, and technically speaking, psychopaths are people affected with a personality disorder who display aggressive, antisocial and violent behavior without any sense of remorse of empathy. They are not able to fit in a normal pattern of behavior connected to positive bonds. Therefore if you use this term to refer to someone, it is an insult and means simply that you consider that particular individual an antisocial person lacking empathy, lacking a «soul»
Most people seek the opposite: they need to feed on love and tenderness and empathy. Human communication is embedded with this urge to share your inner side (your soul, your heart, your self, in a word) with someone and reaching acceptance. Feeling accepted means feeling integrated, having a home, a place, a sense of belonging. An authentic life must not lack on some basic ingredients, one of them is this one: I love myself more if I feel loved. I trust myself more if other rely on me. I am able to surpass myself if people see the best in me. So, I am never what I am without the assessment of other people I relate to. I can only live an authentic and fulfilling life if this inner part, or soul, or self-identity is cared for and is integrated in the world.
We have brushed the western approach to the concept of self-identity (dichotomy) and need to complete these analyses by doing the same with the eastern one. To do so it is important to engage in a short journey through some concepts, essential to the understanding of self-identity or simply self. In her article “What is the Self? The Buddhist teachings of Self and no-Self”, Barbara O’Brian states: “fully perceiving the nature of self” is one way to define enlightenment.” And goes on explaining that “an individual is a combination of five aggregates of existence, also called Five Skandhas or the five heaps.” These are: 1st Form; 2nd Sensation, 3rd Perception; 4th Mental Formation; 5th Consciousness. These five «stages» include man as a whole, beginning with his body (Form), his feelings and senses (Sensation), thinking (Perception), mental formations (including feelings, emotions, thoughts and concepts) and finally Consciousness. “The fifth skandha is explained in some schools as the base that ties the experience of life together.” But the really interesting idea behind this doctrine, so different from the western concept of self, is that instead of a pompous self, this doctrine defends the concept of “no-self”, also called “anatman” or “anatta”. And this no-self is empty, open to the whole universe, instead of an isolated, self-sufficient entity. Most Buddhists preach that if man is able to see, to really understand there is no separateness in the universe and that the concept of an autonomous self is nothing but a false belief, man may be able to release himself from the burden of desire and suffering, from the chains of a selfish, demanding and consuming ego and experience a sort of inner freedom that suppresses all understanding. There is no duality here, just unity. For a Buddhist the core of the universe is your own core. The universe and you are the same reality. There is a universal intelligence that is present in all there is.
This vision of no-self is, therefore, very different from the western idea of self and deserves further analyses. While western cultures promote the self, eastern cultures consider it a setback. The two main Buddhist schools, Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism do not envision “anatman” the same way, being precisely the idea of self that separates them. While the first one advocates that the concept of self is an illusion man must get rid of in order to reach spiritual enlightenment (nirvana), Mahayana supports the idea there is no self at all. This absence of a basic self leads us to a concept of "emptiness". But only this void provides man with the capacity to find a common sense of enlightenment. You, I and the universe are all the same, we are part of the same indivisible source, not isolated, autonomous entities.
And that brings us to the core of this argument. To the question «Who am I?», eastern thinkers may reply saying we are all part of the same «book», the same tapestry. There is no self- identity separated from the whole. There is no «you» or «I». There is a concept of life as a whole. There is no existential split in man, so man has a sense of unity within himself and also with the world around him and the other men which enlarges his capacity to feel empathy and compassion and, at the same time, provides you with a meaningful existence. In other words, man does not need to seek anywhere else, does not need to experience extreme and so many times destructive states of trance (for example drug abuse) to achieve a state of happiness and fulfillment, this universal concept of no-self allows man to feel integrated, one with the universe. What all religions seek is precisely an experience of oneness, where you and I are us, where love is at the same time the way and the goal to be reached in the quest for your self-identity. Finally man is at home in his world.
A conclusion would not be complete without a reference to two strong voices in the world of Philosophy. We have already analyzed the man’s quest for self-identity, connecting him to his personal past and background, his culture, religion and beliefs. But what can be said in a world where technology and science seem to be the only masters and the concept of «God» as a nest to the soul has been greatly destroyed? Can man fill his existential void without leaning on a power greater than himself? Is self-identity possible in a word devoid of strong moral and religious orientation? In his article «Kierkegaard and Nietzsche: Contrasts and Comparisons» Christopher T Altman presents the ideas of the two philosophers, who agreed on the “irrational nature of life, the moral decline of society, and the corruption of religion”. Nietzsche defended the concept of individualism and autonomy – “will to power” – and considered that “true freedom is the freedom to grow”, defending that when a belief does not fit you anymore, it should simply be rejected. This idea is probably a mirror of modernity. Man has rebelled against all sorts of fundamentalisms, taboos and religious chains. Man proclaimed the death of God and the beginning of a new era, but in the process created new, minor and impersonal gods, new dependencies and new setbacks that isolated him more and more from his fellowmen and his true self. Instead of feeling free, man strangely and sadly feels lost again, with just technological guides to enlighten a path he is unable to follow peacefully. Man today is as lost as he was in the beginning of time in his quest for self discovery.
On the other hand, Kierkegaard believed in Christianity and believed in a return to a “living faith” as a cure to the existential problems of mankind. God is not dead, instead men have killed the original idea behind the doctrine, twisting and deforming the core of Christianity, which advocates universal principles that might lead men to happiness: love and brotherhood, compassion, virtue and innocence. Altman concludes his article stating that all the challenges that must be faced in the 21st century, should make us consider the questions posed by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Science seems to have all answers or at least a potential to find them. Is this process irreversible or is there still a place for God or any spiritual and mystical entity that fills the void left by most traditional religious beliefs? Is a return to “living faith”, as strongly defended by most Christian Humanist philosophers like Kierkegaard, a realistic possibility? What will happen if mankind is left alone, naked, without any religious blankets to warm his soul and give support to all the existential problems that must be faced along the narrow path of existence? Or as the author inquires: “In the absence of a religious model to explain the universe, can those who do not possess such a faith in God construct their own moral standards to fill the void? This issue poses an imminent crossroads, reaffirming the importance of both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in modern-day society.” Nothing could make more sense than these final statements, to help us reach a conclusion. These open questions correlate with all possible studies, researches and personal discoveries that man has been making along his path in the history of the world. The dichotomy seems to be always present, the only thing that changes is the form challenges take, but the original questions, as the original quest for a sense and a purpose in life, remain open. And it is logical to assume that as long as man exists, they will probably remain open
“Who am I?” maybe we can simply and humbly answer: a page of the universe, a moment in time, a drop of water in the ocean of history, a brushstroke in the picture of mankind. A single stitch in the tapestry of life. True, just one, a single one, but one that really matters and, thus, makes all the difference as far it allows each of us to go, our own way, in search of this thrilling quest for self-identity and happiness!
References
Giddens Anthony, “Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age “, Stanford University Press – Stanford, California 1991. Retrieved from:
http://books.google.pt/books?hl=pt-PT&lr=&id=Jujn_YrD6DsC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=self+identity+philosophy&ots=pXULy-qvL3&sig=_svphqLHPbVy98ULXAlerrJYIr4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=self%20identity%20philosophy&f=false
O’Brien Barbara, “What Is Self?” The Buddhist teachings of self and No-Self, About.com.Guide . Retrieved from: http://buddhism.about.com/od/whatistheself/a/skandhasnoself.htm
Altman, Christopher T.” Kierkegaard and Nietzsche: Contrasts and Comparisons. “ Pierre Laclede Honors College. Retrieved from: http://altman.casimirinstitute.net/kierkegaard.pdf
Fromm Erich, “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness”, PIMLICO - 1973
