Self-Respect and Identity

Web This Site

<-- Entities and People
--> Power and Empowerment

JOURNAL OF METAPSYCHOLOGY
431 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025

Article 83
November 15, 1991

Self-Respect and Identity

Everyone seems to agree that self-respect or self-esteem is a Good Thing. But do people really know what self-respect is? It is a peculiarity of human nature that we can agree with concepts even when we don't fully grasp them.¹ But it is useful, sometimes, to reflect on what, exactly, we have agreed to and to see whether we should really be agreeing to it. What is self-respect, then, and is it really a Good Thing?

The Nature of Respect

Before tackling the issue of self-respect, let's first take a look at what respect is. Other words for respect are "admiration" and "esteem", and we know that having respect for someone means making a sort of positive judgment about them. But here, right away, we run into a puzzle: one of the basic ideas that comes out of metapsychology (though it originated with Carl Rogers) is that a person is, at the core, a perfect being who is using imperfect coping strategies to deal with an imperfect world.² So should we not always respect, admire, and esteem people, regardless of what they are doing or being? The whole question of whether or not people are worthy of respect should never arise, apparently, because all people should be respected as the basically perfect beings they are. Yet in another sense, some people seem to be more worthy of respect than others. We would like to think we had more respect for an honest doctor than for a perverted dictator. What is going on, here?

The problem is a perennial one: a confusion between the person himself and the identities he may assume from time to time. It is possible to have respect or lack of respect for identities, but one can truly have nothing but respect for people in their essence. Where it is possible to decide whether or not to respect someone, what we are actually talking about is respect for an identity.

Given that respect is respect for an identity, there are three necessary and sufficient components of respect:

Value:: I value an identity when I agree with the ruling intention that lies behind it -- that is, when the identity is dedicated to furthering an intention with which I agree, one that is in harmony with my value system. A doctor is supposed to have the intention to help people. I also have that intention, so I agree with it. Therefore I look on doctors as valuable. I don't agree with the intention to take valuables away from people, which is the ruling intention of a thief, so I place a negative value on that identity.
Ability:: I view an identity as able when, given a reasonable opportunity, it can fulfill its ruling intention. Even if a person is being something I value, such as a doctor, I still may not respect that person if he is incompetent as a doctor. Such an identity means well but is not worthy of my respect because it cannot produce the desired effects.
Integrity:: I see an identity as having integrity when its characteristics, activities, and sub-intentions are well aligned with its ruling intention. A person who takes on the identity of a doctor, when his real intention is to make money or seduce women, has an incongruity between the ruling intention of a doctor and the intentions this "doctor" identity actually has. Even if such a doctor were competent, he would not be worthy of respect. I would despise him as a "phoney".

So we can define respect as follows:

Definition: Respect for an identity is an awareness of value, ability, and integrity in that identity.

The Confusion Between a Person and an Identity

So far, so good, but a major problem arises when (as we are wont to do) we start confusing people with the identities they assume when we are around. Suppose I say, "I respect George Bush." But what do I mean by that? I only see Bush in his identity of "politician", and I don't really ever see him as a "family man", "musician", or "motorist". For all I know, he may be mean to his family, unable to sing in key, and hell on wheels. In actual fact, the person who carries the label "George Bush" is not visible to me, and unless I'm careful in my thinking, I tend to confute George Bush the person with George Bush the President. I forget that Bush is a multifaceted being and mentally "lock" him into his presidential identity.

We all tend to do that with our parents because when we are little, we almost always see them in their parental capacity. Even when we grow up, we tend to see them as parental authorities, not as lovers, conversationalists, or students. It isn't until many years later that most of us can view our parents as other identities or simply as people.

Respect, then, is generally respect for an identity. When you respect someone, you respect him as a _______ (insert identity). It follows, therefore, that you can respect someone as certain of their identities but not as certain others. I respect Richard Wagner as a composer of great operas, yet I despise him in his capacity as a sexual partner. As a composer, his purpose was to produce beautiful music -- a purpose of which I approve -- so, as a musician, Wagner had value. Further, Wagner's activities and intentions as a composer were conducive to that purpose. He was not just a phoney, not just pretending to compose. So he had integrity as a composer. And he composed beautiful musical works, so there is no question about his abilities. On the other hand, as a sexual partner, he didn't do so well. In my view, the purpose of sexual relationships is to initiate, preserve, and enhance communion with an intimate. So in my view the identity of a sexual partner has value. But since Wagner (apparently) had multiple unfaithful and promiscuous relationships, his actions and related intentions (to satisfy sexual whims and the desire to dominate others, perhaps) were not well-aligned with that purpose, so Wagner lacked integrity as a sexual partner. And Wagner was unable to form stable and satisfying relationships, but remained alienated instead of achieving communion or sexual fulfillment, so his competence was low. Hence my lack of respect for him in that capacity.

The common confusion between a person and one of his identities, and the failure to make the distinction between one identity and another, are shamelessly exploited by advertising and marketing experts. A famous quarterback like Joe Montana is used to sell trousers. People assume that since Joe is worthy of respect as a quarterback, we should listen to his opinion as a connaisseur of fine clothing. But Joe the football player is not the same as Joe the clothing expert. And neither of these captures the essence of Joe the person.

Respect for others can mean respect for them as beings (in the Rogerian sense). In this sense, one can (and should) have "unconditional positive regard" for others. But it usually means respect for them as the identities they are being. Again, respect is usually respect for an identity.

Self-Respect

What, then, is self-respect? When you have self respect, who or what are you respecting? Well, again, respect for self can mean respect for oneself as a person (unconditional positive regard for self), but it usually means respect for oneself as an identity. So long as one does not get these two confused, self-respect can indeed be a Good Thing. The ability to distinguish between oneself and each of the identities one can assume for different purposes betokens a high level of awareness. It is quite possible to have respect for oneself as a person but not respect one's identity as a piano player. All too often, however, a person confuses himself with one of his identities and then has respect for that identity but thinks of this respect as self-respect. I have referred to this elsewhere as the Great Man Syndrome.³

Suppose I am a Chess Champion. I have great respect for the value, integrity, and competence of this identity I have assumed. And so long as I hang onto this identity, I feel good about myself. So I allow myself to start thinking I am that identity -- a fatal error. Now the "Chess Champion" identity becomes fixed. I can no longer not be a Chess Champion without starting to feel that I lack ability, value, and integrity. I develop fixed ideas that serve to preserve that identity -- and keep me fixed in it. These ideas make me right for being a Chess Champion and others wrong for not being one. They help me be "one up" on others and keep others in a "one down" position. Now I have done myself a disservice by developing the sort of "pride" that "goeth before a fall". I am now very vulnerable because I cannot easily shed the identity of a Chess Champion and do not feel comfortable not being one. If I start losing chess matches, I can go into a very deep depression because I feel annihilated as a person. Furthermore, there are many situations for which the identity of a Chess Champion is inappropriate. It is hard to have a fulfilling sexual relationship when one is mentally calculating chess moves. So I will accumulate losses in other walks of life, and these losses will compel me to cling even more desperately to the Chess Champion identity. Now, if I have a few more losses, I may become a good candidate for suicide, because I am so stuck in that one identity that I cannot conceive of being anything else, and I conclude that if I can't be a Chess Champion, I might as well be dead.

The plight of the aging motion picture beauty is an almost stereotypic example of the devastating effects of having a fixed identity. In the prime of her youth, she is fantastically successful as a femme fatale in the movies, so she becomes that on a full-time basis. She has great difficulties in her personal and family life, with multiple unsuccessful marriages. She exercises bad judgment in other areas of life because the femme fatale identity is not appropriate (for instance) to making sound financial decisions. Eventually, as she gets older, she has multiple facelifts, trying to hang onto that identity, but eventually she has to cope with the fact that she can't make the femme fatale identity work anymore, and she feels annihilated. At that point, she is a serious suicide risk.

I imagine you could prevent many suicides by using viewing procedures to find out what the viewer thinks he is -- the fixed identity -- and improving that individual's versatility by helping him realize that he can be any number of other things. If you succeed in doing this, the viewer can find an identity with which he can be successful.

The safest attitude to have towards yourself is to embrace the truth: you are no particular identity. You can and do assume different identities for different purposes, but you are not any of those identities in any permanent sense. You are a perfect being and should have unconditional positive regard for yourself as such. On the other hand, you can also have respect for various of the identities you can assume. You can feel competent as a mother and as an executive and not be too disturbed about your incompetence as a painter or a pianist. And even if you are not particularly good at anything, you can still respect the fact that you are an omnipotential being, and start working on those identities at which you want to become more competent.

An Ideal and Non-Ideal State of Being

A basic ability of any being is the ability to create and then assume whatever identities are needed to play the game of life. If you can respect yourself as a creator of identities, maybe you can relax a bit and not worry too much about your performance as any one identity.

Then, too, if you embrace the attitude given above, you will tend to have good judgment about the value of your identities because you will not be invested in having to think of any of them as "the greatest". And you will not be so shocked at the setbacks your identities have from time to time that you will render too negative a judgment either.

The ideal state, then, is:

Being aware of yourself as a perfect being, separate from any identity you might assume at any time.
Being fully aware of your potential to create and animate identities at will, or to shed them.
Knowing which specific identities have integrity, value, and ability, and when to use them.

The non-ideal (and unfortunately more common) state is:

Not being aware of self as a being separate from any identity.
Judging yourself (positively or negatively) based on the qualities and performance of an identity.
Being fixed in an identity because it is relatively "safe" and because you cannot conceive of not being it.

"Letting Go of the Ego"

Traditional mystical and religious disciplines have spoken of "letting go of the ego" as a virtue (also known as "humility") and of arrogance (or "pride") as a cardinal vice. Now we should be able to see that "ego" is not a single thing, as Freud thought. There are potentially as many "egos" as there are identities. The "ego" one needs to let go of is simply the particular identity in which one is currently fixed. "Letting go of ego", then, is not letting go of self but simply having a purer conception of what you really are, seeing that you are not any particular identity. This is not really a form of "ego death", as it has sometimes romantically been described, but rather a form of awakening. You are dreaming that you are immersed in the identity, say, of a stockbroker, and all of a sudden you awaken with the realization that that identity is not really something you are but something you have, like a suit of clothes you can take off when it is no longer needed. You can still be a stockbroker whenever you want, so there is really no loss. But now you can comfortably not be a stockbroker, which means you can now be all kinds of other identities -- or nothing in particular, if you don't want to be anything at the moment.⁴

Power and Self-Respect

Without respect for at least some of one's identities, one is powerless to act. Power is the capacity to intend, as I have said elsewhere.⁵ An intention is a desire plus an ability (at least a felt ability). Power is therefore composed of drive (the capacity to desire) plus ability. You have the power to do something if and only if:

You desire to do it.
You are able to doing it.

As we have seen above, respect involves a positive judgment regarding:

Value
Integrity
Ability

You cannot and do not desire something unless you value that thing. Further, you cannot accomplish something unless you are able to accomplish it. And there must be a match between what you intend and what you are able to do, or else there is a lack of integrity and genuine effective action cannot ensue.

In fact, all action starts with a desire to bring something into existence (or to keep it in existence). Given a desire, I search in my world to find whether I have an identity whose abilities can lead to the fulfillment of the desire. Or, if no such identity exists, I may strive (by training, etc.) to create such an identity. Once the identity exists and I judge it able to fulfill the desire, then and only then does true intention come into being, in the very act of assuming the identity in question. An identity that has a ruling intention corresponding to what I desire is judged to have value. If the actions and intentions of that identity are truly directed toward the fulfillment of that ruling intention, that identity has integrity. Finally, that identity should be able to get the job done. If all of these three components of respect are present, then that identity will be empowering to me and I will feel good about assuming it. If not, I won't want to be that identity; I won't respect myself as that identity.

The more identities you can respect, then, the more identities are available to be assumed and used as tools, and the more powerful and versatile you will be.

Frank A. Gerbode, M.D.
Director, IRM

¹ See JOM Article 39, "Quasi-Entities" for a fuller discussion of this tendency to go into agreement (or disagreement) with "conceptoids".

² See JOM Articles 77 "The Perfect Being" and 81 "Personal Labels" for a further discussion of the true nature of a being.

³ See Beyond Psychology, pp. 24, 284.

⁴ This raises another interesting and somewhat speculative point: is there any limit to one's ability to shed identities? Can one really be nothing, or is there some high-level identity that remains after all the other identities have been shed? If there were such a "higher self", it would have to be a very general form of identity, ruled by a very general kind of intention, the highest-level intention a person can have. I have elsewhere opined that the highest purpose that exists universally in people is the purpose of establishing communion (communication, comprehension, and affection) with other beings. Conceivably, then, one could ask the question: "Who or what would have the goal "to commune with other beings"? The fullest answer might be something like "God", or "the Higher Self". Perhaps this is the "perfect being" that inheres at the core of each of us. And is the perfect being that is me in the truest sense the same as the one that is you in the truest sense? Perhaps we are not so separate as we might seem. And perhaps the search for communion is the same as the search for the highest truth about ourselves -- the search for unity of being.

⁵ See JOM Article 37, "Affinity, Desire, and Intention".

Entire page contents copyright (c)2005 AMI/TIRA, a non-profit 501(c)3 corporation.
To contact us write to info@tir.org for fastest response.
Phone: +1 800 499 2751 (Toll-free USA/Canada) or +1 734 761 6268 (elsewhere)