Join our monthly discussion group on Guaranteed Livable Basic Income
February 17, 2025
How we think about ourselves has major implications for how we live our lives, what we assume is possible, what we consider ethical, and so on. That makes this a high-stakes topic!
The philosopher Charles Taylor contends that there have been two main ways that Western philosophers have tried to understand the self. You’ve had plenty of exposure to both of these ancient models: self-control and self-exploration.
Self-control
The concept of self-control has changed dramatically over time. Taylor explains that, for Plato, it meant putting one’s reason in control of one’s desires. But “reason” meant the ability to grasp the inherent order of the universe. So self-control meant being in harmony with the ordered world outside of oneself, not a control originating within.
By the time of Descartes, self-control had morphed into a will that one exerted over their own thoughts, drives, and emotions. The self was seen like an instrument that one could use in whatever way they wanted. The focus was on a self-enclosed state where people should exert their wills over their inner lives. This ability to control came to be seen as the self, which was distinct from the body.
Self-exploration
In ancient Greece there was self-exploration, but it was assumed that people knew what their own nature was. They only needed to turn inward to discover this already existing knowledge.
Self-exploration was further popularized following St Augustine, who instructed people to turn inward to reflect on the workings of God, which he said the self depends on.
Self-exploration has since expanded to the idea that each human being has their own particular way of being human, and so each one needs to become familiar with their own true inner self.
The West has assumed that self-discovery and self-expression happen best through the arts, which are often given an almost sacred cultural significance. You can find your true self through artistic activities like abstract painting, dance, or writing poems based on the contents of your dreams.
The two in debate
Taylor explains that self-exploration and self-control are in some ways at odds. These different ways of understanding the self contribute to bitter cultural clashes.
Consider an example: how clean should you keep your home? This is the source of many disputes!
In an essay praising cluttered spaces as joyous and full of vitality, author Matt Alt describes how he tried to keep his place minimal and tidy but it never seemed to last long. “Yet I don’t feel oppressed by my clutter, because it is clutter with which I have chosen to surround myself. My clutter is me.”
This seems like a battle between self-control (to keep his space clean) and self-expression (to understand his clutter as a positive expression of his true self).
It’s easy to see many arguments about which of these models is “the right one.” They have elements in common too. Both view what makes a person who they are as originating within, and both elevate the value of freedom (either to be in control or to be authentically who you are).
Another possibility: the self in relationship
Yet, as much as we might imagine that we exist as “ourselves” continuously and independently, much research has undermined the premise that there’s one true self that exists due to having control or that’s simply there waiting to be expressed.
In fact, much of how we understand ourselves changes depending on the situations we’re in. How we think, act, and feel typically arises in relationship with the people around us.
We’re deeply connected with each other.
We depend on each other for our understanding of ourselves and of the world. Loneliness harms our physical and mental health. Shaming someone—undermining how they understanding themselves by threatening their status in a group—is likely to escalate conflicts. And even just sitting silently together with someone can reduce their stress and pain.
Here’s one powerful illustration of this point. Since 1948, researchers have been collecting information from thousands of people in Framingham, Massachusetts.
In 2008 a team decided to dig into these heaps of data to see what they could find about the health, emotional wellbeing, and social networks of 4,739 residents of the town.
Exploring who each person was connected to every few years over a thirty-year period led to a remarkable discovery. Picture your closest friend. Now picture who their friends are. Next, try to imagine the friends of those friends. The finding was that the happiness of the friends of the friends of your friends has a measurable impact on your happiness!
Because data was collected from the same individuals over time, the researchers were able to determine that, “clusters of happiness result from the spread of happiness and not just a tendency for people to associate with similar individuals.”
The effect sizes here were small and decreased with each degree of separation. Still, this is one among many clear illustrations of the faults with seeing your true self as existing in some isolated way.
What if there is no one “true self” because the self comes into being in large part through interactions that are always changing?
It’s already been understood for some time that self-control is much more limited than Descartes thought (scientists continue to debate the details of the construct of “will-power”).
The research in Framingham suggests that, like a belief in total self-control, self-exploration too may be misguided as long as it tries to find the one self that you possess and that isn’t changed by the situation you’re in or the people you’re with. Such a self might not exist.
While this idea may seem shocking to some, a big part of that shock likely comes from the history of Western thought about the self. Readers from many cultural backgrounds, especially more collectivist ones, may find this idea easy to accept, even obvious.
When you see yourself as both deeply influenced by, and influencing those around you, how does it impact your outlook on disagreements and conflicts? Join a free workshop group or request a presentation today to discuss these issues in detail.
A version of this post originally appeared on Psychology Today.
