The Relational Self

Reading time: 7 minutes

For Psychology, the Self does not have a universal definition, due to the immense complexity involved in explaining such a concept. The most accepted understanding, however, is that the Self is an active and multi-faceted construction, which has given rise to many other terminologies and concepts to be explored (such as self-perception, self-images, self-schemas, etc.). All of these terms are studied together, all being part of the “umbrella” of identity. In other words, the self is usually addressed as the set of perceptions, opinions, and narratives that an individual constructs about themselves throughout life. Nevertheless, this seemingly stable definition is challenged by the question: does the Self actually exist on its own, or does it exist only because it is recognized and addressed by the Other? That is, do we individually exist as autonomous entities, or do we only exist insofar as we are recognized, interpreted, and responded to by other people?

An important contribution to this discussion lies in the theory of social psychologist Brian Lowery, especially in his book Selfless: The Social Creation of “You”. In it, the Stanford professor argues that there is no essential “self,” and that, in reality, our selves are social creations shaped by those with whom we interact, going against the idea that the self is something fixed. We tend to interpret our identity as stable because our contexts are “fixed”: we live with the same people, repeat routines, and frequent the same spaces. However, if and/or when these conditions change, what we understand as “ourselves” would also be modified.

But how, then, do social interactions shape what is understood as the self? One of the main mechanisms of this process is metaperception, which refers to the beliefs about how other people perceive the self, and serves as a way people navigate complex social environments. In other words, it is the way we imagine ourselves being perceived by others. Without realizing it, we are constantly adjusting our behaviors and actions according to a reading and anticipation of what others are thinking. In this way, there is a context of social feedback, since identities may be reinforced, modified, or even abandoned based on the responses we receive (or expect to receive) from those around us. Therefore, metaperception functions as a bridge between the Other and the Self, highlighting the process through which the self is constructed – not in isolation, but in constant interaction with other social beings.

Having established that the self is not and cannot be understood as something fixed and isolated, the perception that the social environment merely influences the individual perhaps carries more weight than one might imagine. In the context in which we define it as something constantly shaped by social interactions and metaperceptions, the external factor ceases to be only an influence that comes after the existence of an autonomous entity, and instead becomes the entire web that forms and also sustains the knots within this complex network of interactions. That is, the individual is no longer seen as a separate entity that later comes into contact with others, but rather as a knot in this web, whose form depends primarily on the connections that link and sustain it. The social environment and other people cease to be merely external factors and become the raw material in the construction of the subject’s existence.

It is within this context of ideas, therefore, that the perspective of psychologist Kenneth Gergen emerges, especially in his books Relational Being: Beyond Self and Community and The Saturated Self. In them, Gergen argues that the self does not precede relationships, rather, it is constituted within them. Thus, thoughts, emotions, and everything that is part of our identity are not exclusively ours nor inherent to us, but instead emerge through the relationships we build with others throughout life. He reverses the Cartesian logic of “I think, therefore I am” and proposes instead “I am linked, therefore I am” – suggesting that the qualities and flaws we perceive in ourselves only exist because we are in contact with other people. It is not possible to be considered a funny or beautiful person, for example, if there are no other people to whom these qualities can be demonstrated. In this sense, characteristics we judge to be intrinsically personal are now interpreted as relational achievements or performances. Identities, emotions, and characteristics only make sense within social contexts that render them recognizable. To be is, fundamentally, relational – it is to be connected to others.

Once again, Gergen’s perspective is questioned by the feeling of continuity we experience. That is, how can one say that the self depends on social relationships if we feel like the same person across different contexts (or change very little from one context to another)? Gergen’s concept expands, then, by stating that the self is multifaceted: what we may call identity (our self-concept) is actually composed of many ways of being – ways that are constantly changing and taking shape according to the environment in which one is inserted at a given moment. All of these facets represent different versions of the self, without invalidating the version of ourselves that exists when we are with friends, with family, or at work. There is not a single version of the Self that exists, but rather several coexisting facets, all genuine and in constant movement.

Therefore, for the field of Psychology that is interested in the initial question, the Self is always in relation. We exist insofar as we are seen and recognized by other people – and identity is formed through the bonds and social situations that cross the individual’s life. Just as we needed another person to care for us and teach us a language, just as we needed another person to give us a name, just as the recognition of our own image also depends on a reflection. However, affirming that the Self is always constructed under the condition of the Other’s existence does not imply the loss of individuality. Rather, it is a call to understand that what is believed to be fixed and destined is, in reality, a matter of possibilities. In practical life, understanding this fluidity may allow us to live relationships more flexibly, being less rigid with ourselves and with others. It also allows us to recognize the impact that the Other has on us: how they affect us, shape us, and make possible any first idea of a Self.

“There is no man or woman who has not accidentally looked at themselves in the mirror and been surprised by their own reflection. For a fraction of a second, we see ourselves as an object to be looked at. This might perhaps be called narcissism, but I would call it: the joy of being. The joy of finding in the outer image the echoes of the inner image: ah, so it’s true, I didn’t imagine myself, I exist.” – Clarice Lispector

By Daniele Pincinato
daniele.pincinatosouza01@icatt.it  

Bibliography

Hards, E., Rathbone, C. J., Ellis, J. A., & Reynolds, S. (2024). “What is the self anyway?” Towards a more parsimonious conceptualisation of the self: A review. New Ideas in Psychology, 74, 101080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101080

Savchuk, K. (2023, June 23). A provocative theory of identity finds there is no “you” in self. Stanford Graduate School of Business. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/provocative-theory-identity-finds-there-no-you-self

Schalk, S. (2011). Self, other and other-self: Going beyond the self/other binary in contemporary consciousness. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 2(1), 197–210. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267919463_Self_Other_and_Other Self_Going_Beyond_the_SelfOther_Binary_in_Contemporary_Consciousness

Gergen, K. J. (2011). Relational being: A brief introduction. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 24(4), 280–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2011.593453

Gergen, K. J. (2013). Technology and the tributaries of relational being. In R. W. Tafarodi (Ed.), Subjectivity in the twenty-first century: Psychological, sociological, and political perspectives (pp. 66–84). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035217.005