Know Your Selves And Do Not Merge With Any

Many theories of social psychology have tried to define what is the I / I’s. From Williams James at the end of the 19th century, who distinguished between the “me” as an object of experience and the “me” as an observer, to the most orthodox psychoanalysis. The self is that self-referential part of our being. It supposes the sense of our identity and depends on our seeing ourselves as protagonists of our life experiences.

Although the human being has a unique essence, it is not made up of a single self. Within his person, there are a multitude of roles and facets, present, past and future selves. A good way to keep our self-esteem optimal is to be aware that all these roles exist, value them, accept them, but not merge with them. Not merging into a role implies that the person understands that none of them begins and completes their definition at the same time.

This means that, if in my life, due to different experiences, one of my played roles is diminished in some way, I do not have to feel completely unhappy. The rest of the selves, which have not been damaged, can largely compensate for that pain.

However, if I merge too much with one of the I’s and I find myself with some disturbing circumstance for that role, my whole self will be threatened and then it will be more difficult for me to function in my day to day life. We now present some of the theories that have emerged in psychology that show an interest in defining the self and its relationship with affect and self-esteem.

The Self Discrepancy Theory of I’s (Higgins)

Higgins’ theory of self-discrepancy focuses on the theme of selves as guides to the self. This author argues that the self is not a unitary concept. In this way, to define the different components of the self, it refers to two parameters: the domains of the self and the points of view of the self. In this last criterion we find the perspective of the person on himself, as well as the one that he believes that significant people have.

The real me for Higgins would be the basis of our self-concept : what we know about ourselves, as well as what others know. The rest of I’s would constitute the guides of the I or where I am moving or wanting to go.

Self-esteem would remain optimal as long as there is not too much discrepancy between selves. Also, if we attend more or merge more with one self than with another, we are likely to experience certain emotions.

For example, if the self that I should be is too relevant and I feel fused with it, when some circumstance truncates it, I will feel too guilty. If I become obsessed with my ideal self and find it difficult to achieve the goals that guide me toward it, I can end up frustrated.

The Theory of Self-Complexity of I’s (Liville)

Linville formulated a model that relates the multiplicity of the self or self-complexity with affective variability, and that consists of four assumptions:

The first assumes that the self is cognitively represented in terms of multiple aspects. These aspects depend in part on the number of social roles that a person has in his life (for example, wife, mother, lawyer), but also on the type of interpersonal relationships that he establishes (of colleagues, rivalry, supportive, maternal), of the activities that she carries out (playing the mus, swimming, writing), or of superordinate personality traits (ambitious, creative).

Each of these aspects of the self organizes a set of propositions and characteristics about oneself (personality traits, physical characteristics, abilities, preferences, goals, autobiographical memories), in such a way that the aspects of the self differ between them to the extent that they encompass different sets of characteristics.

In this sense, it is normal for people to feel good about some of the roles we play and not so much about others. For example, a person may feel proud of herself as a mother, but feel ashamed of how she has performed in her role as a worker.

If I maintain high self-complexity, that is, many well-differentiated selves, my affective reactions will be less extreme when one of the selves is “punished.” What affects me as a mother does not have to influence me as a worker, daughter, sister or friend.

conclusion

It is healthy that throughout our existence we maintain certain guides of the self, as proposed by Higginis, that allow us to set challenges or vital goals. Also that they help us to maintain coherence and to work for what I want to become and what I think I deserve. On the other hand, as Liville argued, it is desirable to have several selves without merging with any of them, this is maintaining a high self-complexity.

In this way, the ups and downs of life will affect us much less. It’s about not putting all your eggs in the same basket. Whatever happens that may affect any of our roles, there will always be a self that will remain intact and that will be able to mitigate the consequences on mood and self-esteem. In Linville’s words, ” High self-complexity protects you in bad times but also keeps your feet on the ground in good times.”