Why did Sigmund Freud and Michel Foucault not trust the notion of the self - Essay Example

? Why did Sigmund Freud and Michel Foucault not trust the notion of the self? Why did Sigmund Freud and Michel Foucault not trust the notion of the self? Introduction Philosophy as a sphere of knowledge has undergone various transformations over time. This is attributable to the facts and information that is added to this body of knowledge by a host of emergent philosophical thinkers. Nonetheless, the initial facts and issue act as a basement upon which new knowledge is based. Thus emergent thinkers simply contribute new ideas to the body of knowledge. To a great extent, such ideas are reflective of the modern day experiences and way of life. One of the philosophical concepts that have been accorded great attention by a significant percentage of the philosophers pertains to the concept of self. Notably, this has undergone various transformations and has been shaped and molded by varied perceptions that were put forth by the philosophers. Seemingly, the most important contribution to this notion was made by the two great thinkers; Sigmund Freud and Michael Foucault. Although their approaches differed considerably, their critical approach to the notion of self was not only insightful but also very informative. It is against this background that this paper explains why the two great thinkers did not trust the notion of the self. To enhance a harmonic consideration, it begins by explaining the notion of self and the developments that it has undergone since its suggestion. Essentially, the notion of self concept is all encompassing and comprises of dynamic and organized attitudes, beliefs and opinions that an individual perceives to be true about his or her self. These from a philosophical view point are also imperative in defining one’s personal existence as well as history. In essence, it seeks to explain how or what an individual considers himself to be. It is an objective standpoint that goes a long way in defining who a person is in light of his past as well as present experiences. It differs considerably from the concepts of self esteem and self report. While the former underscores feelings related to enhancement of personal worth and attainment of self fulfillment, the latter constitutes the amount of information that an individual may be willing to disclose about the self. Foucault at this point refers to the concept of self as ‘life being aware of it self” (Foucault, 1979, p. 54). Historical evidence ascertains that the concept of self was put forth by Rene Descartes in 1644 (Ryan, Short & Weed, 1986, p. 527). In this text, he argued that the aspect of doubt was an important principle of self inquiry. For an individual to attain an objection perception of one self, he needed to doubt the self. Doubt in this respect would enable him to understand his strengths, weaknesses and make an objective evaluation of his capabilities. Using it, individuals would be able to understand and appreciate themselves. Existence according to his point of view was greatly influences by perception. This knowledge was later extended by Freud who explored the aspect of internal mental processes. In particular, he detailed the importance of the individual internal thinking processes and further analyzed the aspects of self interpretation. As indicated earlier, Foucault perceived the concept of self in light of being able to understand and appreciate the abilities and capabilities of one self. Understanding these required a critical evaluation of all the aspects of an individual. In essence, it entailed a full understanding of oneself and relative capabilities, strengths and weaknesses. Of great importance to self understanding however was to know the meaning of living. Previous philosophers have in some cases related this to the spiritual notion of Christianity. At this point, it cannot be disputed that some Christian concepts greatly advocate for the practice of self renunciation. The individual in this regard is able to understand oneself from an external and objective review that s/he makes about this concept. Besides having undergone the abovementioned developments, the concept of self has equally been criticized in different ways. The most common and pronounced criticisms about this concept pertain to the contributions of Foucault and Freud. In particular, these two philosophers did not completely trust the concept of self. This is attributable to a host of factors. According to Freud the self concept is an aspect that is learnt during the development process. The process of its attained starts during the early stages and it is generally personal (Lecky, 1995, p. 53). It is widely agreed that no particular individual is bone with the notion of self. Having emerged during the very first months of an individual’s life, this concept is shaped and reshaped during his lifetime. This process is occasioned by repeated and perceived experiences that the particular individual has with his significant others. The recognition that the self concept is a dynamic and learnt process greatly influenced the decisions and perceptions that the two philosophers had regarding the notion. In his research, Rogers (1997, p. 359) cites Freud who believes that since the concept is not instinctive, and since it can be considered a product of wide ranging social practices, its bound to be developed and actualized by an individual. In this respect, it is worth appreciating that the concept of self is subjective. This is attributable to the fact that it is developed through experiences with diverse backgrounds and in varied environments. This also implies that the concept is very confidential and through it, each individual perceives life and experiences differently. For this reason, the concept cannot be trusted. This is further compounded by the realization that this particular concept can be developed accordingly. In this regard, it can be ascertained that it is dynamic as opposed to being static. For this reason, it does not have a particular distinctive pattern or nature. Thus it cannot be relied upon in all situations. Notably, the concept is also characterized by “previous experiences and present perceptions” (Raimy, 1998, p. 156). Likewise, this has diverse implications on its credibility. According to Foucault, this concession undermines the ability of individuals to understand and perceive things and situations in one distinctive manner. Put differently, it makes individuals to view things and situations differently. The varied viewpoints contribute significantly to incidences of conflicts that undermine harmonic living. In this respect, it is widely agreed that any contention that is inconsistent with the perceptions of an individual is likely to threaten the holistic wellbeing of the particular individual. For this reason, individuals perceive opposing threats to be difficult to address and also self demeaning. Such a situation has adverse impacts on the psychological wellbeing of an individual. Specifically, it makes an individual to develop measures to protect him or herself. Gradually, this leads to rigidity that undermines the receptivity of the individual to any ideas. The resultant clash in views and beliefs compromises health living. Again, this reason makes Foucault and Freud to challenge the trustworthiness of the concept of self. In his review, Patterson (1991, p. 420 indicates that individuals tend to perceive different aspects regarding themselves differently and at different periods of times. Furthermore, relative perceptions are done with varied degrees of clarity. This implies that individuals perceive similar things differently. Certainly, the decisions that they make regarding a similar situation or issue are also different. These inherent differences made it difficult for Freud and Foucault to trust the concept of self. The characteristic consistency and orderliness also makes it difficult for Freud to trust the concept of self. The self concept is considered by various researchers to be characterized by orderliness and harmony. This is instrumental in according an individual’s personality the important element of consistency. This has various implications to the concept of self. The inherent stability and consistency of change makes an individual to be resistant to change. In his review, Hamacheck (1978, p. 56) believes that “if self concept is changed readily, the individual would lack and consistent and dependable personality”. This contention indicates that the concept of personality is critical and its consistency needs to be ensured. The fact that this is directly related to the aspect of self concept makes it difficult for an individual to assume multiple selves. Arguably, this has the ability to limit the performance of an individual under varied circumstances. Undoubtedly, the characteristic stability and expected consistency discourages flexibility that is vitally important for dealing with emergent challenges. This can be used to explain why people find it difficult to change perceptions and ideas that they consider central to their self concepts. Also worth appreciating is the impact of the perceived failure and success on the aspect of self concept. Notably, the growth and development of an individual is greatly depended on the manner in which s/he perceives failures and successes. From a psychological standpoint, failures in areas that are highly regarded by an individual have adverse impacts on the performance of other areas. The affected individual would probably find it difficult to perform optimally in other areas. This can culminate in total failure because all facets of an individual’s life are likely to be affected. On the other hand, success in areas that are highly prized enhances evaluations in other areas of the affected individual. This indicates that perceptions have a direct impact on the self concept as well as performance of an individual. According to Jourard (1991, p. 61), this close connection compromises the independence of an individual. Most importantly, it increases the vulnerability of an individual to the negative implications of failures. The role of self concept in influencing behavioral growth and development cannot be understated. In this respect, it is agreed that individuals tend to behave in ways that are consistent with their self concepts regardless of the implications of these to the others (McAdam, 1996, p. 7). Thus they would not want to know whether the impacts of their behaviors affected others negatively. They would only place great emphasis on enhancement of their self concepts. At this point, it is worth noting that humans are social individuals who relate with others in different ways and at varied levels. They need other people to survive as well as thrive. Their peers provide the social networks that they require to cushion themselves against the negative implications of their interactions. The insensitivity exhibited by the tendency to place undue emphasis on the wellbeing of oneself is therefore socially counterproductive. It encourages incidences of conflicts that undermine effective and sustainable social growth and development. Rogers (1997, p. 361), indicates that “self concept does guard itself against loss of self esteem”. Loss of esteem is triggered by instances that literarily assault self concept. The consistent protection of self concept limits the ability of the self concept to grow and explore opportunities that the society offers. To a great extent, this compromises the ability of a person to face scenarios or situations that would offer growth oriented challenges. Conclusion In sum, self concept is a dynamic and all encompassing aspect that is intrinsic to human growth and development. It is useful in enabling one to understand and appreciate his or her origin as well as present way of life. As it has come out from the review, the notion of self dates back to 1966 when it was put forth by Descartes. It has undergone various developments over time with different philosophers contributing their perceptions to this notion. Sigmund Freud and Michael Foucault made significant contributions to this body of knowledge. As aforementioned, they did not trust this concept because of various reasons. These range from the dynamic nature of the notion that compromises its credibility to its influence on human behavior that undermines its ability to enhance sustainable growth and development. Seemingly, the concept is intrinsic to human behavior and goes a long way in influencing the nature and adaptability of humans. The preceding weaknesses however greatly compromise its effectiveness. They thus explain why the two philosophers found it difficult to trust it. List of References Freud, S 1963, Civilization and its discontents, London, Hogarth. Foucault, M 1979, Discipline and punish, Harmondsworth, Penguin Hamachek, E 1978, Encounters with the self 2nd ed., New York, Rinehart and Winston. Jourard, S 1991, Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self, New York: Wiley-Interscience. Lecky, P 1995, Self-consistency, A theory of personality, New York, Island Press. McAdam, E 1996, Cognitive behavior therapy and its application with adolescents, Journal of Adolescence, 9, 1-15. Patterson, C 1991, The self in recent Rogerian theory, Journal of Individual Psychology, 17, 5-11. Raimy, V 1998, Self-reference in counseling interviews, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12, 153-163. Rogers, C 1997, Some observations on the organization of personality, American Psychologist, 2, 358-368. Ryan, E, Short, E & Weed, K 1986, The role of cognitive strategy training in improving the academic performance of learning disabled children, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 521-529. Read More