“I-concept”: characteristics, features, meaning

The term “Self-concept”, which can be heard today from psychologists of various directions, sociologists and other specialists in the field of the personal sphere of a person, is interpreted as a system of ideas of an individual about himself. These ideas can be perceived by a person to varying degrees and be relatively stable. This concept is the result of a person’s self-knowledge and self-evaluation through individual images within various real and imagined situations, as well as through the opinions of others and a person’s correlation of himself with them.

It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that a person's self-image is very important and has a direct impact on his personality and life. Taking into account the relevance of this topic, we want to talk about the “I-concept”.

The emergence of the “I-concept”

As an independent concept, “I-concept” began to take shape at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, when ideas about the dual nature of man as a subject of the knower and the known were actively discussed. Then, already in the 50s of the last century, it was developed by phenomenological and humanistic psychological science, the most prominent representatives of which were Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. They viewed the single human “I” as the fundamental behavioral and developmental factor. Thus, having appeared in foreign literature on psychology, in the 80s and 90s of the 20th century, the term “Self-concept” became part of domestic psychological science.

Despite this, it is quite difficult to find any precise and unified interpretation of the term in question, and the closest to it in meaning is the term “self-awareness”. The relationship between these two terms is not precisely defined today, but quite often they are considered synonyms. However, in some cases, the “I-concept” is considered separately from self-awareness, acting as a finished product of its processes.

How this happens in practice

I don't know why, but the vast majority of copywriters have very low self-esteem. Moreover, I observe this phenomenon among many Slavs. Most likely, this has historically developed since the times of the USSR, when everyone had to be like everyone else, the same, without any special achievements. I think this is where low self-esteem comes from.

- Do you think you’re better than others, or what? - No, no, what are you, what are you. The same gray mass as you.

Newcomers often approach me with a request of something like this: “Well, I’m just starting out, I don’t know anything, I can’t do anything, and most likely I wrote a heresy, and you are an expert, can you look at my text?”

Now explain to me why if a person does not respect his work, I should waste my time on it? The saddest thing is that such people most often remain “chronic newcomers” and then work for pennies for a very, very long time.

The same applies to exchanges. Each person has a minimum price for which he is willing to work. If a person’s internal concept tells him: “So, listen here: we work for food or for pennies 12 hours a day,” then the person will work like that. That's how his brain is programmed. This, one might say, is his nature.

What is “self-concept”?

So, what exactly is the “I-concept” and what psychological meaning should be given to it?

If we turn to psychological dictionaries, then “I-concept” is defined in them as a dynamic system of ideas of an individual about himself. English psychologist Robert Burns in his work “Development of Self-Concept and Education” speaks of “Self-concept” as the totality of all ideas a person has about himself, interconnected with their assessment.

“I-concept” arises in an individual during social interaction as an inevitable and always unique result of mental development, as well as as a relatively stable and, at the same time, subject to internal transformations of mental acquisition.

The initial dependence of the “I-concept” on external influences cannot be disputed, but as it develops, it begins to play an independent role in the life of all people. The surrounding reality and ideas about other people are perceived by people through the filter of “I-concept”, which is formed in the process of socialization and at the same time has specific individual biological and somatic prerequisites.

Workshop

The following exercise will help you learn more about yourself and your emotional reactions, as well as the role of self-concept and belief systems in shaping your emotional reactions.

Select the triggering event that caused your destructive experiences. Remember what happened. You can close your eyes. Recreate that situation as completely as possible: imagine that you have a video recording of that scene and you are watching it. When you see yourself and other people in that scene, remember that you are now a spectator and are seeing what is happening while looking at the screen. Now you really are not there, nothing can harm you! You see yourself and your opponents from the outside: what did you say and what did they say to you? How did you feel then? Remember this and “turn off the TV.”
Take a piece of paper and write down twenty different answers to the question “Who am I?” so that your descriptions reflect how you thought about yourself when you were in that situation. Strive to ensure that these are your ideas about yourself as they were in that situation, and not now. Remember that you are answering to yourself, not to someone else. Place the descriptions in the order in which they come to mind. Don't worry about their logic.
Now give twenty characteristics of your opponent: describe how you perceived him in this scene; “who” was he/she?
Evaluate each judgment that characterizes you. If it reflects the intention “I believe that I am okay with myself,” then mark it with a “+” sign. If the intention is: “I am not okay with myself,” Fr. If the intention is not clear, put “O”.
Discuss your definitions of opponent. If the intention in the assessment is “He is not OK towards me” - put “-“. Put “+” or “O” if the intention, respectively, is “He is not OK towards me” or is neutral.
Determine the existential position in which your interaction took place. Did she change in that situation? If so, how? Do you have a “favorite” position?
What feelings did you experience and what tendencies in your behavior characterized them?
Which of the identified beliefs in relation to your partner and yourself contributed to the development of destructive experiences?
What were you aiming for, what position were you trying to “place” your opponent? Successful? What could be changed now so that the situation can be resolved more successfully?
Note the severity of each position in your behavior. To do this, make notes that reflect your intuitive assessment of the time you spend in each position.

How is the “I-concept” formed?

The connections of each person with the outside world are extremely wide and rich. It is in the complex of these connections that a person is forced to function in different roles and qualities, being the subject of all kinds of activities.

Any interaction with the material world allows a person to create an image of his own Self. Through introspection and division of different images of himself into separate formations (both external and internal), a person’s so-called study of his nature and its “discussion” is carried out. According to the Soviet psychologist and philosopher Sergei Leonidovich Rubinstein, the image of the personal Self is constantly integrated into ever new connections, due to which it begins to appear in new qualities, fixed in new concepts. This image, so to speak, constantly shows its new side, each time showing new properties.

In this way, over time, a generalized idea of one’s self is formed, which is, as it were, an “alloy” of individual elements, which is formed in the process of self-perception, self-knowledge, introspection and introspection. This generalized idea of one’s own self, formed from disparate images conditioned by situation, includes the basic ideas and traits of a person about his own nature, which is expressed, in fact, in the “I-concept”. And the “I-concept,” in turn, forms the individual’s sense of self-identity.

Along with all of the above, the “I-concept” formed in the process of a person’s cognition of himself can also be called something that is characterized by constant internal changes - it is not permanent and is not something that is given to a person once and for all. With practice, i.e. real life, both its adequacy and its maturity change. Based on this, the “I-concept” has a huge impact on the individual’s psyche and his worldview, and also serves as a basic factor in the formation of his behavioral type.

A little scientific background

In principle, the three previous paragraphs are more than enough to understand the main idea. If you do not want to delve into the psychological subtleties, just skip this block and continue reading from the next subheading.

In your subconscious there is your own image (it is also called self-esteem, self-perception, etc.). Your brain is a computing system that transfers your image into the world around you using tracing paper. Moreover, this happens both explicitly - your decisions, actions, etc., and implicitly - in the form of hidden processes that you do not control (emotions, metabolic processes, etc.).

The structure of the “I-concept”

The above-mentioned Robert Burns, along with many domestic psychologists, defines three elements that make up the “Self-concept”:

The cognitive component is a person’s self-image, which contains his ideas about his personality
The evaluative component is self-esteem based on an affective assessment of the self-image
The behavioral component is behavior consisting of behavioral reactions or specific actions caused by self-image and self-esteem

The presented division of the “I-concept” into individual elements is conditional, because it itself is an integral formation, each of the elements of which, although distinguished by some independence, is in close relationship with each other.

There are many more examples

Self-concept can also be called self-positioning. How you position yourself is how everything will be in reality. I was lucky in this regard. When I started writing this blog, I didn’t know a lot. Yes, my brother and I had our own small store, and we often had to write texts and sell: products, ideas, collaborations, etc., but I was a layman when it came to copywriting. This is to be honest.

But I initially positioned my blog as a professional resource, and presented myself as a professional in my field. This, in fact, was my self-concept (which I knew nothing about at that time). The result was not long in coming: my brain itself made me the way I saw myself. Now many people consider me an expert, although in fact this is just the result of an inner vision and corresponding behavior. No more, no less.

The impact of “I-concept” on a person’s life

In the life of each of us, the “I-concept”, by and large, has a triple meaning.

First of all, the “I-concept” ensures the internal consistency of the personality and relative behavioral stability. In the case when the new experience that a person receives does not diverge from his vision of himself, it is easily accepted by the “I-concept”. But if this experience is not consistent with the existing image and contradicts it, psychological defense mechanisms are activated, helping the person either somehow explain the negative experience, or simply reject it. Thanks to this, the “I-concept” remains balanced, even if real experience puts it at risk. According to the idea of Robert Burns, this desire of the individual to protect himself and avoid destructive influences can be called one of the foundations of normal behavior.

The second function of the “I-concept” can be called determining the nature of a person’s understanding of the experience he receives. Self-vision is a specific internal filter that determines the characteristics of an individual’s perception of any event and any situation. When events and situations pass through this filter, they are reinterpreted and given meanings that correspond to the self-concept.

And finally, the third on this list is that the “Self-concept” serves as the basis of a person’s expectations, in other words, his ideas about what should happen. People who are confident in their importance always expect that others will treat them accordingly, and those who doubt their worth tend to believe that no one needs them and no one likes them and, as a result, try to limit them as much as possible. your social contacts.

Hence the conclusion that the development of each person’s personality, as well as his activities and behavior, are always determined by the influence of the “I-concept”.

FINALLY: As you may have noticed, the topic of “Self-concept” is closely related to the process of self-knowledge, which means that if a person understands the characteristics of his personality and is aware of his own “Self-concept”, he can function in the world, interact with others, achieve success and development will become much easier and even more interesting for him. So we suggest that you do not put off working on yourself “on the back burner” and start getting to know yourself now (or at least in the near future) - especially for you, we have created a very interesting and effective course on self-knowledge, which can perhaps reveal to you almost all facets of your “I-concept”. You will find the course here.

We wish you success and productive self-knowledge!

We also recommend reading:

Storytelling
How to get to know yourself better?
Theory of knowledge
Vygotsky's concepts: contemporary relevance and actual modernity
Personality criteria
The influence of social roles on personality development
Business Ethics: The Triple Criterion Concept
Six Sigma
Linguistic concept of Ferdinand de Saussure
Lean concept. Lean
Philosophical foundations of the linguistic concept of Wilhelm von Humboldt

Key words:1Psychoregulation

Existential position

A person chooses script themes in accordance with decisions made in early childhood, and the most fundamental of these themes are feelings of self-worth and well-being. Berne drew attention to the fact that a person’s life position consists of a set of attitudes towards oneself (I am OK or I am not OK) and a set of attitudes towards an interaction partner (You are OK or You are not OK). OK in Bern's terminology can mean: “good”, “valuable”, “prosperous”, “at peace with oneself”. The combination of these attitudes defines four main existential positions:

I - OK (+); You are OK (+).
I - OK (+); You are not OK (-).
I am not OK (-); You are OK (+).
I am not OK (-); You are not OK (-).

When a child accepts one of these positions, he adjusts his early decisions, and then his entire script, to it.

All children begin life from the position “I+, You+”. When the baby feels that he lives in harmony with the world and that everything in the world is in harmony with him, this position becomes the foundation for his decisions. The child changes his position only if something interferes with his interdependence with the mother, for example, when the child feels that the mother ceases to protect him and take care of him, as she did before. In response to these inconveniences, the child may decide that he is not OK or that other people are not OK, and move from a state of “basic trust” to a state of fundamental distrust. In accordance with this fundamental idea of \u200b\u200bhimself and those around him, the child begins to write his own script.

Every adult is not in a chosen position all the time; we can change these life positions in different situations. However, each of us has a favorite existential position that we adopted in childhood, into which we enter when experiencing frustration. Each of the four existential positions is characterized by a certain set of emotions.

Position “I+; You+" is healthy and consists of cooperation with other people in solving life's problems. While in it, we act with the goal of achieving the desired results, and this position is the only one based on reality.
Position “I+; You-" - defensive. While here, a person tries to rise above other people. At the same time, others will perceive him as suppressive of others, insensitive and aggressive. This position is characterized by a set of aggressive emotions and the desire to get rid of the opponent.
Position “I-; You+” makes you feel inferior to other people. In it, a person most likely experiences unpleasant feelings of a depressive nature and seeks to move away from “good” people, whose company he is “unworthy.”
Position “I-; You are called barren. The person is convinced that the whole world and all the people in it are bad, just like he himself. He feels tired and depressed. The theme of the main action is waiting.

A person's beliefs that influence his emotional problems usually contain many layers.

The earliest and most profound is the decision regarding one's own well-being and trust - the existential position. It can play the role of a filter that organizes the perception and evaluation of experience. To justify and confirm it, under the influence of parental instructions, an early decision is made about oneself, people and life, which can become a central belief. This belief, in turn, influences worldview, forms private beliefs regarding specific life circumstances and a set of attitudes.

Advertising

The problem of determining one’s own identity “I”

Posted on https://www.stud.wiki/

Subject

The problem of determining one’s own identity “I”

INTRODUCTION

IDENTITY (from Latin identicalcus - identical, identical), identity, coincidence of something with something.

Each person has an image of his inner world. But the fact that we have it does not automatically mean that we know about it. The topic of the human “I” (self) for science has always been and remains the most mysterious place where, as it sometimes seems, no human has ever set foot. And no matter how deeply science has advanced in understanding this mystery, researchers think that there, beyond the horizon, the most interesting and still unknown remains.

Looking into the inner world of a person, analyzing the subtle structures of the human soul hidden from the eyes of human and experimental instruments, conveying them in the language of observable variables, is not an easy task.

Identity is an individual’s perception of himself and his thoughts about his “I,” collected together and representing a kind of control center within a person.

DEFINITION OF YOUR OWN IDENTITY

The human "I" is just the scientific name for what used to be called the human soul. True, not all authors agree that a complete analogy can be drawn between the “I” and the soul. They argue that there is something else in our “I” that is not included in the classical ideas about the soul, in particular the social and reflexive components of consciousness. Indeed, the soul cannot reason or put on social masks. She only feels, although she is capable of expressing the most intimate corners of our “I”. In addition, psychologists as part of the human personality, i.e. of our “I”, there are two components, namely “I-concept” (thoughts about oneself) and self-esteem (feelings towards oneself and evaluation of oneself), which do not exist in the soul. The commonality between the soul and our “I” is expressed in the fact that both of them are able to control the movements, movements and self-expression of our body - in posture, movement, gestures, facial expressions, speech, etc.

“is an important factor in the organization of the individual’s psyche and behavior, since it determines the interpretation of experience and serves as a source of the individual’s expectations. In the field of theoretical psychology, the first works containing ideas about the “I” belong to James, Cooley and Mead. The first of them postulated the difference between two aspects inherent in the integral “I”: “I-conscious” - reflexive-processual and “I-as-object” - the content of consciousness, in which, in turn, we can distinguish such aspects as the spiritual “I” ”, material “I”, social “I”, physical “I”. American sociologists C. Cooley and J. Mead emphasized the leading role of social interactions as the source of the individual’s “I-concept”. E. Erikson proposed a genetic theory of the formation of ego identity.

It should immediately be noted that the term “self-conceptions” is ambiguous. In English literature, where this term actually arose for the first time, it can be formulated in Russian not in one, but in two terms: the concept of “I” and the theory (concept) of “I”. There is a huge distance between them. It’s one thing to have a simple and clear concept of your “I”, which can be expressed in two or three words, a sentence, a paragraph. A completely different matter is the concept of “I,” which, like any theory, includes many levels, elements, and ramifications. We always imagine a scientific concept as a grandiose structure that requires many years of work, large reserves of data and resources, experimental confirmation, justification, evidence, hypotheses, etc. Figuratively speaking, a scientific theory resembles a small city, and a separate concept that is part of the theory can be likened to a separate building.

Sometimes two components - thoughts about oneself and self-evaluation - do not separate, but are brought together. The resulting whole is called the self-concept. In this regard, in the psychological literature one can find a definition of this phenomenon, which has already become classic:

“Self-concept” is the totality of all an individual’s ideas about himself and includes beliefs, assessments and behavioral tendencies. Because of this, the “I-concept” can be considered as a set of attitudes characteristic of each individual, aimed at oneself.

In the above definition, let us pay attention to this: here there are heterogeneous wholes - sensory (evaluation, attitudes). rational (beliefs) and behavioral. Combining two of them is already a problem for any scientist, and one can only dream of three. Each part is built from completely different material, for example, feelings never get along with thoughts, and behavior contradicts our plans and promises. As soon as an architect brings together such different elements, he instantly gets a structure that cannot be called harmonious, coherent, or consistent. But the human “I” is in fact not a harmonious whole, and if we take into account that within us there is not one, but many “I”s, then the general choir cannot be called perfect. Each “I” sings its own melody with its own voice and performs functions that are different from others.

If this is so, then the “I-concept” can be understood only in one sense – as a heterogeneous formation, formed from a variety of elements within our consciousness and governing our behavior. In short, it is a theory, not a concept.

The importance of the “I-concept” for understanding human personality cannot be overestimated. The bipedal creature that emerged during multimillion-year evolution has become so rational that not a single behavioral act breaks out without prior censorship of the mind. A person is used to thinking about everything, evaluating everything and passing it through the prism of his own benefit and his interests. Anthropo-sociogenesis could not have created any other creature. So, for Homo sapiens, the idea of oneself, reflection on oneself precedes and serves as the motivational basis of the entire behavioral complex. A huge number of scientific studies have been carried out to prove that the “I-concept” is the motivational basis of human behavior. People who know themselves well are able to build a strategy of behavior that is very flexible and adapted to a wide variety of circumstances, knowing exactly what they can do and what they cannot do.

It turns out that the heterogeneity of the “I-concept” is not a figment of the imagination of scientists and not a mistake of evolution, but a necessary and completely objective prerequisite for the existence of ourselves. We cannot do without it. Indeed, a person needs emotions to begin any behavioral action, we need reason to purposefully control the action that has begun, and the action itself serves as a prerequisite for further reflection on oneself, analyzing one’s actions and making the necessary adjustments to them. The formula I feel -> I think -> I act serves as the anatomical structure of the “I-concept” and reveals its essence. When we perform actions, we evaluate their effectiveness and moral side, and listen to how the people around them evaluate them. Having summarized the information, we make changes to our own line of behavior.

We think about what we do and what we could do, comparing both with our own plans (expectations, goals, attitudes) and the opinions of other people. And besides, with actions committed by people similar to us in similar environments. The success of others' actions in comparison with one's own success. Both sides

“I-concepts”—reflection and evaluation—are closely linked to each other.

“I-concept” is the totality of all an individual’s ideas about himself, coupled with their assessment. The descriptive component of the self-concept is often called the self-image or self-picture. The component associated with the attitude towards oneself or one’s individual qualities is called self-esteem or self-acceptance. It determines not only what an individual is, but also what he thinks about himself, how he looks at his active beginning and possibilities for development in the future7. Isolating the descriptive and evaluative components allows us to consider the “Self-concept” as a set of attitudes aimed at oneself.

Most definitions of attitude emphasize three main elements:

A belief that can be either justified or unjustified (the cognitive component of the attitude).

Emotional attitude to this belief (emotional-evaluative component).

An appropriate reaction, which, in particular, can be expressed in behavior (behavioral component).

In relation to the “I-concept”, these three elements of attitude, according to R. Burns, can be specified as follows:

“I-Image” is an individual’s idea of himself.

Self-esteem is an affective assessment of this idea, which can have varying intensity, since specific features of the “image of myself” can cause more or less strong emotions associated with their acceptance or condemnation.

Potential behavioral response, e.g. those specific actions that can be caused by self-image and self-esteem.

A number of studies in personality theory are based on the concept that a person always follows a path to achieve maximum internal consistency. Beliefs, feelings or ideas that conflict with other ideas, feelings or ideas in

dividual, lead to personality disharmony and a situation of psychological discomfort. Following Festinger (1957), psychologists call this state cognitive dissonance. Feeling the need to achieve internal harmony, a person is ready to take various actions that would help restore lost balance.

It’s good if a person decides to harmonize his feelings and thoughts through internal work. Clearing the soul of excess “noise”, removing unnecessary “files” and harmonizing the spiritual world is just one of the strategies. And not all people adhere to it. A certain category of people, we call them outstanding personalities, strive to adapt the world around them to their thoughts and desires. They are dissatisfied with many things in this world, including wars, injustice, alienation and mercantilism. Lenin, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hitler and many others considered their thoughts to be correct, but the structure of the world to be incorrect. It was necessary to bring into agreement both factors influencing the “I-concept”. Weak individuals change themselves, strong ones change the outside world. Psychologists are more interested in the former, sociologists and historians in the latter. The former solve the problem of cognitive dissonance in a psychotherapist's waiting room or in a hospital bed, the latter - on the battlefield, in class clashes, operating on a global map of the world and involving millions of people in action.

In Plato’s famous dialogue “Symposium,” Aristophanes told the myth of androgynes—whole individuals, whom Zeus divided into halves, doomed to eternally seek each other—men and women. Finishing the story, he mentions another threat of Zeus: if people do not pacify their violence, he will cut them into smaller parts than halves of androgynes. Apparently, if you follow the logic of Aristophanes’ story, people did not reform and were punished. True, the small fragments did not crumble, but remained inside each of us...

Many famous psychologists, when creating their theories, necessarily took into account such versatility of any human personality. 3. Freud calls one voice “super-ego”, the second - “It”, F. Perls, founder of Gestalt therapy, respectively - “Dog on top” (dominant side) and “Dog below” (weak, obviously doomed to defeat side ), and E. Bern - “Parent”, “Adult” and “Child”. In the concept of the Italian psychologist R. Assagioli, our “internal opponents” are called subpersonalities. There are subpersonalities for the roles we play in life: Parent, Child, Wife, Boss, Teacher, Patient, Doctor, Pedestrian, Driver, etc.

In sociology, E. Goffman is considered the creator of the theory of “multiple selves,” each of which corresponds to a particular situational role. Behind every role there is certainly a performer who embodies it.

Social roles, which in the Middle Ages seemed to be simply different hypostases of a face (more precisely, the face itself was a set of roles), in the era of capitalism acquire a kind of independent existence. To answer the question “who am I?”, a person must first “unmask”, take off his social attire. L.M. Batkin successfully illustrates this problem of Renaissance thought with Sacchetti’s famous short story about a miller who disguised himself as an abbot and deftly answered the sovereign’s difficult questions; in this novella, individuals are separated from their social roles, which turn out to be “removable” and therefore susceptible to change31.

Medieval people, performing many traditional rituals, saw their true life in them. A person of modern times, on the contrary, shows increased sensitivity and even hostility to what seems to him “given” from the outside. This makes his “I” much more significant and active, but at the same time much more problematic. Montaigne's reasoning is characteristic in this sense. Repeating Petronius’ verse that “the whole world is engaged in acting,” Montaigne tries to separate his “I” from the “given” social role: “We must conscientiously play our role, but at the same time do not forget that this is just a role that we have been assigned. A mask and external appearance cannot be made into an essence, and something else cannot be made into one’s own. We don't know how to distinguish a shirt from leather. It is enough to sprinkle flour on your face without sprinkling it on your heart at the same time... Monsieur Mayor and Michel Montaigne were never the same person, and there was always a clearly defined boundary between them.”

The polyphony of our “I” was well expressed by Henry Murray: “Personality is a whole congress that brings together orators, behind-the-scenes magnates, children, demagogues, nobles and swindlers - here Caesar and Christ, Machiavelli and Judas coexist.”

Our behavior in accordance with a particular role does not exhaust the content of the personality. The social role is the manifestation of the external, or official “I”. Besides him, there is an inner “I”. This is the thesis about the duality of human nature, which is most clearly manifested in total organizations (prison, psychiatric hospital), where the world is split into two hostile camps, subject to different restrictions and rules of behavior.

In our outer behavior we are exemplary subordinates and law-abiding citizens; in our inner world we are rebels, deviants, disobedient. Our external “I” is formed by society, social hierarchy, numerous institutions and organizations. It is forcibly imposed on us, often against our wishes. Our inner “I” is a refuge of unrealized desires and possibilities, what we would like to become if there were no forced circumstances.

Thus, the external “I” is the image that others would like to see us, and the internal “I” is the image that we would like to see ourselves. They both oppose and complement each other. What was taken away and not realized in the first is replenished and realized by the second. How often do we mentally replay what happened and wish it had happened differently? We are ashamed of our actions. The inner self does not approve of the outer self's plan of action. They come into conflict. In other situations, we justify our course of action by convincing ourselves that it was impossible to do otherwise, that others in my place would have done the same. In this case, the inner “I” comes to the aid of the outer “I”, although deep down it understands that both are wrong.

There are also more fundamental differences between the inner and outer “I”. The inner “I”, or what is called in English

Self, i.e. the self, I myself, consists of stable elements that form the character of a person. This is the inner core of personality. On the contrary, the external “I” is more like a painted actor who is forced to perform plays in front of an audience and who understands that it is all “make-believe.” E. Goffman came up with a special name for him - “impression maker.”

The core of the human “I,” according to E. Goffman, is Self, which is always covered with a social mask appropriate to the occasion. Hiding our true face under the mask of a social role, we ourselves sometimes forget what we really are, not to mention outsiders who have never seen our inner “I” at all. Very few people know the truth about themselves, although most people question themselves about who they really are. A significant part of people disappear into their stage image - they forever remain an official, a soldier, a salesman or a ladies' man. Those who at first performed their role forcedly, over time get used to it, voluntarily and quite consciously taking upon themselves all the troubles, responsibilities and consequences associated with the social role. They grow together with her like their second skin, and it is no longer clear who is playing who.

If the inner “I” constitutes what can be called the moral core or core of personality, then it must represent something holistic, unified. At the same time, the external “I”, constantly adapting to changing situations, rules of the game, fashion and tastes, must represent the performer of many roles that a person has to play at a given time - returning home or leaving guests, entering public transport or rocking child. Such is the dual nature of man - character and performer, personality and player.

The human “I” can be not only a holistic entity, but also consist of several “I”. The process of splitting a single “I” into many “I” is called the split “I” in psychology. Most often it is the result of a mental disorder, rather than an indicator of a normal state, and is expressed in the following forms.

Psychogenic escape consists in the fact that a person abruptly breaks with his previous way of life in order to start a new life in another place as a different “I”. When, after some time, a person restores his former “I”, the entire episode of “escape” falls out of his memory.

Multiple personality is characteristic of a person who, at different periods of time, appears to have different personalities with high complexity and integrity. Each of these “temporary” personalities allows a person to experience feelings and impulses that his “main” personality rejects and constantly ignores. There are cases when more than 20 different personalities alternated in one person.

A dual personality can have not only a psychological, but also a physical and physiological component and manifest itself in detachment from one’s body, thoughts, feelings, even in the ability to observe oneself from the outside as another person. These phenomena are called depersonalization - changes in the perception of oneself, and derealization - changes in the perception of the environment. Depersonalization is a state in which an individual experiences a “split” in consciousness between the “participating self” and the “observing self.”

Psychologists are sure that every person has at least two “I”s, which are either in harmony or in conflict with each other. Philosophers argue that there may be more. Each “I” is an integral system of principles, judgments, moral standards, goals, motivation. Perhaps each “I” even has its own language in which it is expressed. These languages include languages of movements, gestures, meanings, and inner speech. Have you often caught yourself in the fact that, while judging others for using obscene expressions, at the same time you sometimes use them yourself, although then you condemn yourself. What is this? It is inside you that two “I”s are arguing among themselves - two systems of moral principles. How many of them can a person have?

1. “Subjective (biased) I” is the level of aspiration, motivation for achievements, the desire to realize one’s potential, as well as an exaggerated assessment of one’s abilities. A subtype of this self is the “Beloved Self.” What it is? Many, if not everyone, considers himself an unrecognized genius, or at least a person who deserves a better fate. We love ourselves very much. This is where “Loving Self or Beloved Self” comes from.

Each person plays himself, but in different circumstances. The “subjective self,” and especially its small part “Beloved self” (though for some it is incredibly large), like an obsequious servant, is always in a hurry to whisper: “You are the best, and others are not worth your attention.” The husband quarreled with his wife. The cause of a quarrel always lies in the wrong actions of two people. However, our little “Beloved Self” will always justify one and put the other in a bad light.

The “Beloved Self” has one innate trait - to misinterpret the actions of others, to exaggerate one’s own qualities and abilities. This is where the feeling of resentment towards others takes root, when these others do something not your way. Feeling offended, left out, unrecognized is a function of the “Beloved Self.”

The flip side of cultivating a “Beloved Self” in yourself is the lack of a critical attitude towards yourself. The more inflated our “I” is, the less critically we look at ourselves, and therefore, the more mistakes and blunders we make. Only if we are able to look at ourselves from the outside can we find a solid point of reference for the objective, i.e. critical attitude towards oneself.

However, the “Beloved Self” is trying with all its might - of course, for the sake of its own good - to isolate us from the outside world, to isolate us within ourselves, and not to give us the opportunity to impartially understand the mistakes we have made. If it is very difficult or almost impossible to convince someone that he is wrong, if he is not able to openly admit his mistakes, then know that he has an inflated ego, i.e. expanded “Beloved Self”. The symbol of such an “I” can be a person in a case, a caterpillar in a cocoon, etc.

2. “Reflected Self.” It arises in the process of socialization. It is a collection of ideas about what others think about us. What they think is not in general, but in our opinion. Thanks to the presence in us of the first - “Subjective Self”, each person very selectively listens to the opinions of others about himself. Usually he ignores what he doesn’t like, what he doesn’t want to hear, what could harm him, or what won’t bring him anything at all. A selective, or selective, attitude towards information coming from others is based on great love for oneself or on the desire to weigh everything objectively and avoid mistakes.

Thus, the “Reflected Self” can be overly subjective, biased, or it can be quite objective and balanced. As a rule, the more educated and cultured a person is, the greater the likelihood that in his “Reflected Self” the second component outweighs the first.

Focusing on others, the individual constantly makes certain adjustments to his actions. Others serve as a social mirror for him. It functions as a kind of controller that monitors the reactions of those around us.

3. The “ideal self” is what a person would like to be. Not everyone around you is taken as a guide, but only a selected part of them. They are called the reference group. This group includes those people we would like to be like. For some, Einstein is the ideal, and for others, Michael Jackson. Since the ideal is never fully realized, the individual experiences constant tension that arises from the fact that the “Real Self” diverges from the “Ideal Self.” The general tendency is this: the larger this gap, the greater the psychological stress and dissatisfaction with oneself.

4. “Others' Expected Self” is what others would like to see in you, what they expect from me, in my opinion. It is important to emphasize dual reflection: not what others actually want to see in me, but what they want to see in me. That is why this phenomenon belongs to an integral part of our inner “I”.

5. “Exhibition Self”, or “Demonstrative Self” - resembles ceremonial clothes, which are worn on the occasion of large celebrations in order to show others one’s status, well-being, and somehow look special. The “demonstrative self” is a set of behavioral acts intentionally displayed to others so that they have a better impression of us than we actually are. This should also include views, ideas, behavior patterns, etc. that we express or express regardless of our status or social role. The content of the “Demonstrative Self” can be the main status or the status with which we primarily identify ourselves. Many generals or important commanders carry their status characteristics into an environment where they are completely out of place. Thus, the classics of Russian literature described in abundance social types that symbolize the “Demonstrative Self”: these are inflated police chiefs, and St. Petersburg dignitaries, and district mayors, who in any situation behave in a pointedly arrogant manner (in accordance with their main status).

6. “Home Self.” It manifests itself when a person takes off his formal clothes and showmanship and relaxes. The arrogant general turns into an obedient puppet of his wife, who constantly commands him and even shouts at him. On the contrary, a quiet, intelligent-looking engineer turns into a domestic despot, tormenting both his wife and children. It is perhaps more correct to judge what a person is really like based on what he is like at home, i.e. what his “Home Self” is like.

7. “Intimate Self” is an even more secret part of the “Home Self”, which is hidden even from the closest and dearest people. This is the last line of defense of the individual. Each of us has something to hide even from our closest people, which is an untouchable secret. It is formed from bad habits that we allow to be discovered only when we are alone with ourselves, mistakes made once and considered unforgivable, subconscious desires condemned by others (especially sexual desires in relation to relatives, friends, teachers, etc.).

In other words, this is a storehouse for such actions or traits that we condemn in others, but manifest ourselves. We consider meanness or betrayal to be an unforgivable flaw in another person.

These are the moral standards

civilized society. And certainly in our lives there will be actions that others could interpret as meanness, cowardice, or betrayal.

Although we ourselves know that this is far from true, we do not admit it so as not to receive condemnation from others, especially significant others.

CONCLUSION

Thus, a person's perception and interpretation of himself, or his self-concept ("self"), reflects those characteristics that a person perceives as part of himself, how he sees himself in relation to the various roles he plays in life. The self-concept includes not only our perception of who we are (the “real self”), but also who we believe we should be and would like to be, that is, the “ideal self.” The “Ideal-I” reflects those attributes that a person would like to have, but does not yet have, it is the “I” that a person values most and to which he strives.

The self-concept is an organized, logically consistent and integrated system of perception of the “I”. "I" symbolizes the main part of a person's conscious experience. To a large extent, the content of the “I-concept” is a product of socialization and is formed gradually under the influence of other people’s assessments.

Typically, a person's behavior is consistent with his self-concept, so experiences that are in accordance with the person's self-concept can be recognized and accurately perceived.

But those experiences that are in conflict with the “I” and its conditions of value constitute a threat to the self-concept, and they are not allowed into consciousness and accurate perception. A person's reaction to a state of self-concept discrepancy is usually tension, confusion and guilt, and anxiety.

personality identity human

LIST OF SOURCES AND REFERENCES USED

1. Stolyarenko L.D. Basics of psychology. Third edition, revised and expanded. Series "Textbooks, teaching aids". Rostov-on-Don: “Phoenix”, 2000. -672 p.

2. Dobrenkoe V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Fundamental sociology: In 15 volumes. T.7: Man. Individual. Personality. —M.: INFRA-M, 2005. — 960 p.

3. Nemov R.S. Psychology: Textbook. for students higher ped. textbook establishments:

In 3 books. — 4th ed. — M.: Humanite. ed. VLADOS center, 2003. - Book. 1: General

basics of psychology. — 688 p.

Rean A. A., Bordovskaya N. V., Rozum S. I. Psychology and pedagogy. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002. - 432 p.: ill. — (Series “Textbook of the New Century”).

Posted on stud.wiki