The Self In Modern Psychology

Who Am I?

If there was ever a question that collectively plagued human minds and resulted in the obsession of thinkers and scholars over millennia, it was the question of who we are as individuals. Humans have been blessed with an acute awareness of their own existence and the ability to reflect on their own thoughts and experiences, and a result of that is this fundamental question that has picked at our minds since the dawn of civilization.

Schools Of Thought

Ask any philosopher or psychologist, and not one single answer will seem satisfactory. Over the ages, thinkers and scientists have formulated several theories on what the self actually is.

• Socrates, often considered the father of ancient Greek philosophy, said that the Soul and the Self are the selfsame entity and that the immortal soul resides within the physical body.
• Plato divided the Self into three separate parts: Reason, Physical Appetite and Passion/Spirit. Reason is the rational part of the mind engaged in wise decision-making. Physical Appetite is concerned with fulfilling the basic necessities of life for existence and survival. Spirit/Passion is concerned with the basic emotional processes necessary to lead a fulfilling life.
• Aristotle’s ideation of the Self involved an orientation towards striving to live a flourishing life, rich in experiences.
• Rene Descartes, a French philosopher, conceptualized a dual theory of the Self. He separated the mental (rational) self from the physical body and declared that “I think, therefore I am.”
• According to German philosopher Immanuel Kant, there is no self but the one humans create for themselves to, in turn, construct a reality that the individual can predict and thus, survive in.
• The psychoanalytical perspective propounded by Sigmund Freud stressed upon a multi-layered approach to the Self. The contents of the self were divided as The Conscious, the Pre-conscious and the Unconscious.
• For Paul Churchland, the Self is nothing but the material neural activity in the brain, and can be reduced to neural processes without any additional factors.
• Humanistic psychologists like Carl Rogers stressed on the Self being our inner personality, built up through past experiences and interactions, and striving to reach its greatest potential, which is also known as self-actualization.

All these different schools of thought make it difficult to ascertain the characteristics of the so-called Self, and bring up another fundamental question.

Is There An Enduring Self?

To understand this question, let’s take a brief look at a well-known thought experiment, The Ship of Theseus.

If a ship sets sail from a port, and throughout its journey, each and every part of the ships, starting from its planks to its hulls and masts, is replaced by new parts, such that none of the original material remains over time, is it the same ship?

While the thought experiment simmers in our collective brains, let us try to apply the same logic to a person. If we argue that a person possesses a certain self at a certain point in time, can we argue that the self over time remains unchanged and intact despite the influence of all the intervening experiences that the individual undergoes?

Philosopher David Hume was of the opinion that the Self is not a permanent entity but a product of the mind and of the thoughts and feelings that cross it every second. Thus, there cannot be an enduring Self that is unchanging and permanent. This idea ties in with the concept proposed in eastern philosophical thought, which we will see in the next section.

Social influence is another big factor in the idea of self-concept. People often state that they aren’t the same person who they were a few months or years ago, and that is an observation based on their social experiences. According to the Social Identity Theory, the groups that we belong to at certain points in our life, can radically change our self-concept and behavior. This is a major discredit to the concept of an enduring self unaffected by social conditions and experiences.

Tied closely to this concept is another even more radical concept that is much different from how we normally think of the Self. That radical idea is none other than the idea of non-Self.

Is There A Self At All?

If you think you’re an individual, you may well be wrong. This is a fact that is fast becoming the topic of heated debate in the psychological community.

It all started with the second sermon delivered by the Buddha after he had achieved enlightenment. This sermon, delivered at a deer park in Isipatana near Varanasi, is known as the Anattalakkhanasutta in Pali, or The Discourse on the Not-Self, in English. The Buddha, in this sermon, outlined five elements of the so-called Self, namely, form, feeling, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness. He asked whether any of these elements possessed the attributes of permanence and controllability. The answer being no, the Buddha said it was unfair to call them elements of a permanent Self. He stressed on the impermanence of these elements, which is a hallmark of the eastern conceptualization of the Self, and agrees closely with that of David Hume from the West. This point is elucidated by the Buddhist scholar and monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi, who says, “The Buddha teaches not that there is no self, but that all of the objects of clinging are not self. The Buddha teaches that one should contemplate all the constituents of being as not mine, not I, not myself. But in the context of ethical action…the Buddha teaches again not that there is a self, but he will use the language of self-hood, saying that, for example, one is responsible for one’s self.”

How does this idea on non-self tie in with modern psychology? Research in the fields of neuroscience and psychology, have pointed to the fact that we may not be as much in control of our actions as we thought. Evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban has this to say on the matter: “I…think of the me that you think of…as a little bit more like a press secretary or the public relations department which are sort of broadcasting things out into the world that are useful for (you)…maintaining your reputation and so on, but really, there’s a lot of decision making going on that you have no conscious access to…what this means is that we don’t always understand the motives behind our own actions.”

Psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby are proponents of the modular theory of mind, which stresses on adaptations developed over millions of years, specialized to solve problems encountered in the ancestral environment. The modularity of the mind seems to essentially eliminate the need for a self in the classical sense of the term. The idea of a collection of modules which are, in essence, not the true self, ties back to the Buddha’s conception of the elements.

Conclusion

The Self is one of the most intriguing and controversial topics in the fields of philosophy and psychology. Starting from the ancient Greeks’ conception of the Self as the soul right up to the modern evolutionary psychological view of no-self, it is hard to deny that the theories on the Self have undergone major revisions and complete overhauls. Still there is little agreement amongst the schools of thought as to what the Self actually is. We humans like to believe there is a definitive answer to that question, “one answer to rule them all” if you will. For the present, however, we must contend with these questions and find a way to reconcile all the varying perspectives into a deeper understanding of who we are as individuals, and as a species that calls this planet our home.