What Makes Me a "Me"?

The Nature of Self

Nathan Richardson

In a previous post, “There Are No One-ended Sticks,” I quoted Gerald N. Lund saying, “Our metaphysics (our view of reality) influences our epistemology (the way we gain knowledge), and together the two determine our axiology (our values).”1 Researcher Renée Beckwith expands on this idea when she discusses two major and conflicting currents or paradigms in psychology. Both currents can be traced back to a few basic assumptions that determine our perception of the nature of self, how we know things, our definitions of autonomy and freedom, our concept of morality, and our primary intents in life. Whether our perception jibes with revealed truth will greatly affect our development and eternal destiny. (The following discussion of these five areas relies heavily on Beckwith’s thesis, and I am indebted to her for her insights.)

The first current of psychology can be called a lot of things, depending on what field of study is addressing them. For our purposes, we will use Beckwith’s focus: Self-interest and Other-interest.2 Both paradigms can be traced back to their concept of selfhood.

Self-interest

In the first paradigm, “everyone … is not seen as related to others in inextricable or intrinsic ways. … Every person is individualistic … and atomistic.”3 That is, a “self” is by definition detached and separate from other selves. A self, by nature, is completely distinct from other selves, and in a way, is only coincidentally inhabiting the same universe as other selves. “These conceptions of the self isolate the individual from personal relationships and larger social forces.”4This paradigm not only sees “the individual as a free and rational chooser and actor—an autonomous agent,”4 it also views “one’s detachment and separateness from others as a necessary precondition in doing so.”2

Other-interest

In the second paradigm, one self is created by the presence of the other. In a way, a self cannot be unless there is another self that it is not. Thus, all selves inherently imply the existence of another self, and thus all selves are intrinsically part of each other, on at least that level. Nancy Chodorow, for example, “focuses on challenging the self-subsisting self with its sharp self-other boundaries. Chodorow’s claim that the self is inextricable from interpersonal relationships calls into question … decontextualized individualism.”4

Some philosophers have used, as a hypothetical illustration, a parable of a person in the jungle prior to any experience of another human being. As he forages for food, he has no consciousness of self, for he has met no other. It is only in the encounter of another person that the self comes into being, and thus it comes into being in a relationship of some kind. Because self only appears in the presence of the other, there is no such thing as a self that is not in relation to others. Emmanuel Levinas argued that this primordial relationship is not defensive or self-interested, but rather a relationship of ethical obligation to the Other, who is now the well-spring of your personhood. Dr. Gantt and Dr. Williams explain:

Levinas suggests that our beings, our identities as individuals, are emergent in the concrete relation with the other. In other words, our life comes to have meaning and take on character only insofar as we first respond to the other and our fundamental relatedness to him or her. Furthermore, this relationship is immediately, and primordially one of obligation. Life is a being-for-the-other.6

Thus, when asked the question, “What makes me a ‘me’?” from this perspective, the answer is “You.”

Our relatedness is reflected in the moral sense selves have toward others. “What I do for my own good is necessarily also good for my unit. . . . In respecting the other, the self is simultaneously respected.”5 Thus, what is (genuinely) good for another is good for me, and one self’s (genuine) happiness does not require that another self’s happiness be diminished.

Discussion

The most immediate and practical application of this second paradigm of the self can be summarized in six words: joy is not a finite commodity. We are not required to contrast our self-interests against the needs of others, as we would be in an egocentric worldview. In an egocentric worldview, service to another is profitable only insomuch as they reciprocate in some way by serving you. This egocentric assumption can be seen in social scientist’s search for the motivation of altruistic behavior; they most often look for benefits reciprocated by the other person as the primary source of motivation. Thus, an egocentric worldview automatically reduces genuine altruism to a sophisticated kind of self-interest. However, in an other-centered worldview, this reduction of altruistic behavior is not necessary—we can act out of genuine interest for others, and that interest can be even more primordial than self-interest.

On an eternal scale, consider the nature of the ultimate fulfillment: eternal life. As our deepest individual needs do not conflict with those of others, it makes sense that one person’s eternal life does not rule out or limit another’s eternal life. Exaltation and eternal life can be extended to as many people as desire it, without ever reaching a shortfall. Contrast this with Lucifer’s plan. He considered the highest state of fulfillment to require that he be exalted above everyone else; his paradigm made no allowance for sharing his fulfillment with others. Another’s exaltation necessarily diminished his own, and it chafed him to think that he could never experience a uniquely solitary kind of eternal life unavailable to anyone else. If only he had accepted the truth that, since his existence and fate were inextricably bound up in the existence and fate of others, their joy did not compete with, but rather augmented his own.



Notes

1. Gerald N. Lund, “Countering Korihor’s Philosophy,” Ensign, Jul. 1992, p. 16.
2. Renée Beckwith, “Exploring Maternal Ambivalence: Comparing Findings with Two Opposing Paradigms of Intent,” master’s thesis (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2003), p. 28.
3. Chou Wah-Shan, Tongzhi (Binghamtown, NY: Haworth), p. 280.
4. Diana Meyers, “Feminist Perspectives on the Self” (1999), in Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 11 Jul. 2003, from plato.stanford.edu.
5. D. Lee, Valuing the Self: What We can Learn from Other Cultures (Illinois: Waveland Press, 1986), p. 12.
6. Richard Williams and Ed Gantt, “Pursuing Psychology as Science of the Ethical: Contributions of the Work of Emmanuel Levinas” (Brigham Young University).

14 comments

  1. Nathan: “It is only in the encounter of another person that the self comes into being, and thus it comes into being in a relationship of some kind.”

    This reminds me of Genesis 2:18. The creation of woman (as a symbol for the Other) becomes a way of helping man (as symbol for the Self) truly realize its full potential as Self.

    That makes me want to change the way I think about my marriage. Not that my current thoughts are bad; just that this makes me think a different mindset would be even better.

    “Thus, an egocentric worldview automatically reduces genuine altruism to a sophisticated kind of self-interest. However, in an other-centered worldview, this reduction of altruistic behavior is not necessary—we can act out of genuine interest for others, and that interest can be even more primordial than self-interest.”

    I think the alterocentric worldview still reduces altruism to a kind of self-interest, but the self-interest becomes the interest my hand has in stopping the bleeding in my leg. You help the Other because the Other’s welfare actually is your welfare just as much as it is his.

    This reminds me of how Joseph Smith once said that self-aggrandizement was a correct principle and that we should live it, but that true and permanent self-aggrandizement could only happen when we aggrandize others.

    Very interesting stuff. I still want to see, though, how these two major theories affect each of the six areas you mentioned in the earlier post. Hopefully in upcoming posts you’ll have time to address that.

    Thanks for this, though!

  2. Wesley: You help the Other because the Other’s welfare actually is your welfare just as much as it is his.

    Indeed, we do most often help others out of self-interest. However, the difference between an egocentric worldview and an alterocentric worldview is that the alterocentric world allows for the possibility of genuine altruism. Genuine altruism is when we help others for the sake of the other. Self-benefit certainly ensues, but in genuine altruism that isn’t the reason the individual acts. I’m not saying this happens often; just that an alterocentric worldview allows for this possibility, while an egocentric worldview does not.

    Thanks for the comment!

  3. “Indeed, we do most often help others out of self-interest. However, the difference between an egocentric worldview and an alterocentric worldview is that the alterocentric world allows for the possibility of genuine altruism. Genuine altruism is when we help others for the sake of the other. Self-benefit certainly ensues, but in genuine altruism that isn’t the reason the individual acts. I’m not saying this happens often; just that an alterocentric worldview allows for this possibility, while an egocentric worldview does not.”

    I guess wasn’t clear.

  4. Wes: The creation of woman (as a symbol for the Other) becomes a way of helping man (as symbol for the Self) truly realize its full potential as Self.

    Wow, that is a great example! Man was not fully himself as long as he was alone.

  5. Great article and excellent discussion. This causes me, as well, to look at my marriage in a different light. I am also reminded of John Donne’s famous quotation: No man is an island. And even if we might live relatively isolated from other mortals, our relationship with God and Jesus Christ define our “self”—perhaps more than any other earthly relationship ever could. I’m not sure how, really, as I type this; I just know I feel an urge to strengthen those relationships in my life as I think about these concepts. Joseph Smith talked about needing to understand the nature of God if we were to truly understand ourselves. We also know that lives eternal “is to know [God] and Jesus Christ.” Thanks for the post. It has me pondering positive, uplifting things for the day.

  6. Very interesting discussion. These are things that we don’t think about very often in our busy world, but we should.

    I think I have consciously/subconsciously been fighting against the connection and obligation to others, to community, because of negative distortions of the idea: save the earth through peace & love, etc. As I write that, I realize how convoluted those words have become. In reaction to those ideologies, I have viewed the world very individualistically. At the same time, in my life, there is no bond, connection, or obligation than that of family. The reality is that we are all family, children of God.

    But even if you disregard that, I have been thinking about how your well-being is in reality improved when you help strangers, those to whom we don’t readily consider being connected. With the recent snow we’ve had, I think about my neighbors and shoveling snow off the sidewalk, even going the extra mile and shoveling their drive. Good will, a more attractive neighborhood, a safer environment, exercise, an example to my children, to the community, etc.

    I ran across your blog searching for a Joseph Smith quote. There’s a lot of negative out there and it’s good to see people contributing positively to the discussion.

  7. I totally know what you mean about resisting an idea, not because it isn’t true at its core, but because it has been so distorted by society at large (environmentalism is a good example). Discounting the idea is often the easier route; it takes real mental and spiritual effort to sort out the distortions and find the kernel of truth behind them instead. Sometimes I’m up to the task, sometimes I’m too lazy. 🙂 This site has helped me be better about doing it.

    By the way, what Joseph Smith quote were you looking for?

  8. Here is the quote I was looking for:
    “Joseph Smith said that some people entirely denounce the principle of self-aggrandizement as wrong. ‘It is a correct principle,’ he said, ‘and may be indulged [in] upon only one rule or plan—and that is to elevate, benefit, and bless others first. If you will elevate others, the very work itself will exalt you. Upon no other plan can a man justly and permanently aggrandize himself.'” (quoted in Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, comps., They Knew the Prophet [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1974], p. 61).

  9. That’s a cool quote. It reminds me of Abraham, when he asked his wife to do him a favor that would benefit him. “That it may be well with me for thy sake” (Gen. 12:13). He only sought his own protection as a means of blessing her life.

  10. Well in that case, Nathan, would you please wash the dishes, do the laundry, sweep the floor, and go grocery shopping for me? I wouldn’t want me to miss asking you to do me favors that benefit me. Oh wait … you already do all those things. 🙂 Well, I’ll see what I can do to add to the list.

  11. An interesting addendum: I was reading in C. S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain and I found a paragraph that shares an idea similar to Levinas’s regarding the nature of self:

    There is no reason to suppose that self-consciousness, the recognition of a creature by itself as a ‘self’, can exist except in contrast with an ‘other’, a something which is not the self. It is against an environment and preferably a social environment, an environment of other selves, that the awareness of Myself stands out. (ch. 3, ¶ 7)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *