Is there such a thing as a true self?
If so, can we ever truly know who our true self is?
These are questions that I’ve been pondering since reading Rob Henderson’s Substack article on the nature of the true self, which proposes that the true self is an ideal vision of who we could be rather than who we actually are. The article goes on to say that we judge ourselves as being authentic when we behave in a way that reflects our ideal, implying that the true self is nothing more than a rosy picture of our identity that leaves out all of the unsavoury parts.
The notion that the true self doesn’t exist seems inaccurate to me. I think we need to decouple our true self from our perception of our true self. To borrow terminology from self-discrepancy theory, let’s call the former our actual true self and the latter our ideal true self. We might expect to see a mismatch between our ideal true self and our actual true self given the many factors which bias our perception in one direction or another. We might also expect that some people will demonstrate less of a gap between their ideal true self and their actual true self compared to others.
Two questions arise for me:
How narrow of a gap between our ideal true self and our actual true self can we achieve?
Can we objectively measure a person’s actual true self?
To answer the first question, we would need to confirm that the actual true self can indeed be measured objectively.
To confirm that the actual true self is objectively measurable, we need to define it.
My search for a definition of the true self unearthed the following two candidates:
The total of an individual’s potentialities that could be developed under ideal social and cultural conditions.
Ryan and Rigby (2015)1
The conceptions, images, roles, statuses, and attributes associated with an identity.
What do these two definitions tell us? First, neither definition explicitly states that the true self is made up of uniquely positive attributes. Second, the true self may not be fully actualized, but rather may represent a potential future state. Third, the nature of the true self may change as one’s identity changes. How, then, do we solve the puzzle of objectively measuring the actual true self using the above definitions? Is a new definition in order, and should authenticity or morality factor into it?
I’ve been puzzling out the relationship between authenticity, morality, and the true self as scrutinized in Henderson’s article. Like with the true self, our perception of our own authenticity may need to be decoupled from our actual authenticity. If our perception of our own authenticity stems from behaving in line with our ideal true self, then actual authenticity should stem from behaving in line with our actual true self, flaws and all.
Consistent with this line of thinking, Susan Harter’s definition of authenticity doesn’t exclude negative aspects of the true self:
Owning one’s personal experiences, be they thoughts, emotions, needs, preferences, or beliefs, processes captured by the injunction to ‘know oneself’ … one acts in accord with the true self, expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings.
Empirical definitions of authentic leadership stem from this definition of authenticity and include self-awareness as a key element, meaning that authentic leaders recognize and acknowledge both their strengths and their weaknesses, as well as their motives, good and bad. In other words, authentic leaders understand that their true self is multifaceted, and arrive at this knowledge by examining how others see them and how their behaviour impacts those around them.2 Perhaps one way to narrow the gap between our ideal true self and our actual true self is to seek feedback from others on who we are. After all, we negotiate our identity through our interactions with others.
Interestingly, when authenticity is defined as involving self-awareness and self-acceptance, it is associated with advanced levels of moral development.3 There appears to be a genuine relationship between authenticity, the true self, and morality, whereby knowing who you are and acting accordingly leads to a morally anchored self.
Further evidence for this relationship comes from self-determination theory, which suggests that morality is intrinsic to the self. When our basic psychological needs are supported, we experience autonomous motivation - in other words, we feel that we are acting of our own free will when engaging in a behaviour. When we’re autonomously motivated, we feel as if our actions reflect our true self, and we engage in more instances of moral behaviour. Yet, is it the perception that our behaviour reflects our ideal true self that drives us to behave morally, or does behaving like our actual true self produce this effect?
If the true self represents our maximized potential, does that mean that we are all inherently good and will behave morally under the right conditions? I’d like to think so, but I might be suffering from a beautiful illusion.
Is there such a thing as a true self?
If so, can we ever truly know who our true self is?
Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2015). Did the Buddha have a self?: No-self, self, and mindfulness in Buddhist thought and Western psychologies. In K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 245-265). The Guilford Press.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126.