GE1716

Different Models of the Self

Differentiated Self
It is the ability to separate feelings and thoughts. Undifferentiated people cannot separate feelings and thoughts;
when asked to think, they are flooded with feelings, and have difficulty thinking logically and basing their
responses on that. Further, they have difficulty separating their own from other's feelings; they look to family to
define how they think about issues, feel about people, and interpret their experiences.

Differentiation is the process of freeing yourself from your family's processes to define yourself. This means
being able to have different opinions and values than your family members, but being able to stay emotionally
connected to them. It means being able to calmly reflect on a conflicted interaction afterward, realizing your own
role in it, and then choosing a different response for the future.

The term self-differentiation was first introduced by Murray Bowen; whose ideas are the basis of family systems
therapy. There are two (2) aspects to self-differentiation: intrapsychic differentiation and interpersonal
differentiation. Intrapsychic differentiation is when we can tell apart our thoughts from our emotions. In other
words, it’s self-awareness. On the other hand, interpersonal differentiation is when we can distinguish our
experience from the experience of people we are connected to. Both aspects of self-differentiation are important,
as they empower us to be aware of our current state and the influence of different interactions and environments
in our state so we can take action.

What makes the concept of self-differentiation so important? Bowen’s systems therapy was revolutionary in the
field of psychology because it was a pioneer in considering individuals’ symptoms as a byproduct of, and
interrelated with, the dynamics and structures of their family. We do not exist in isolation, nor are we immune
from the interactions and emotions of the people around us. Instead, our emotions and sense of self are shaped
by, and a part of, an emotional system created by the family.

Studies on emotion transmission (the “contagious” result of emotions in a system) and emotion convergence
(the idea that people living together can become similar emotionally over time) offer support for Bowen’s
systems theory. Interestingly, emotion convergence was found not only in romantic relationships but also in
studies of platonic relationships among roommates.

Excitingly, research in the fields of affective neuroscience and interpersonal neurobiology is also finding
evidence for the influence people have on each other’s psychophysiological well-being. However, while clearly
important for our health and wellness, not all forms of social engagement are conducive to our health. In fact,
poor forms of social engagement can lead to adverse results.

For instance, the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) study discovered that adverse early childhood
experiences – which are largely relational – were correlated with increased risk for many health and
psychosocial problems later in life. This includes, but is not limited to, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
liver disease, heart disease, obesity, cancer, anxiety, depression, poor academic achievement, and poor work
performance.

Interestingly, emotion transmission research found a greater level of the “contagious” effect from negative
emotions than from positive emotions. In other words, if our partners or roommates are feeling upset or down,
the degree to which we may start to have similar emotions is greater than when they are feeling happy.

While it may be easy and somewhat straightforward to consider that exposure to a volatile or aggressive
environment will activate stress response in your own system, subtler, less overt influences are also being
discovered. For instance, one study looked at the physiological impact couples have on each other by
measuring their cortisol level at different times of the day. Interestingly, a higher level of association was found
in cortisol level between spouses during times of the day they shared the environment (i.e., in the morning and
evening) as compared to times of the day when they were apart (i.e., at work).

01 eLMS Handout 1 *Property of STI

Page 1 of 4
 GE1716

Evidently, we influence each other’s emotional and physiological health. The takeaway from this can be twofold:
(1) just as we are wired for co-regulation, the flip side is we are also wired for co-dysregulation; and (2) time
apart can allow our system to shift states and find our own homeostasis.

One way to think of this is that, to be there for your friend, partner, or family during difficult times, it’s important
to make sure your system continues to be regulated and resourced. Basically, “in an emergency,” make sure
you put your oxygen mask on first before helping others. And make sure to frequently check your own oxygen
supply and resources to be able to stay healthy and be giving the love and support you want to give while getting
through the turbulence. To be able to do that, it helps to have some self-differentiation.

False VS True Self

The true self is the core of you who are, the original you, unshaped by upbringing or society. This is the state
you were born in and it is a state that still exists inside you.

This doesn’t mean that finding your true self means regressing back to childhood – just as you have grown
physically, your true self has grown too. However, it is usually strongly guarded by the false self and, at first,
might be difficult to reach.

Your false self can also be called your adapted self. This is the part of you that have altered behavior, repressed
feelings, and pushed your needs aside to fit in with others.

Each of us creates a “false self” to protect our “true self” when it feels frightening to be genuine in the world. If
our false self becomes dominant, it begins to bury the very qualities it was originally designed to protect. These
buried qualities often hold the key to deeper love, creativity, and meaning in our lives. How can we free them?

The great psychoanalytic theorist D.W. Winnicott used the term “false self” to describe the defensive structure
a young child creates when his or her mother can’t respond to him or her with empathy and care. No parent is
perfect, but if this lack of empathic response is chronic, the child is forced to create a false self that meets the
mother’s needs, not its own. The more the child comes to feel that his or her true self isn’t appreciated or
cherished, the more the false self becomes dominant. Winnicott describes a terrible poverty of an inner life that
arises from the ascendency of the false self, a loss of our innate vitality, joy, and creativity,

This principle help explain how people seem at ease or are constantly in tension and so act in dysfunctional
ways. It also indicates how treatment is not about exposing the fragile true self, which most of us naturally fear,
but helping the individual move on, both letting go of the unhealthy portions of the false self and building a
healthy replacement.

Multiple VS Unified Self

Is there just one ‘self’ in each person or do we really consist of many different selves? When faced with this
question, most people respond initially that there is just one “self” and that is the ‘me’.

Assuming that there is a single self, this position can initially be justified by the basic observation that we inhabit
one body. The body can be conceived of as an object and like most “normal sized” objects, it exists in one
location in space and time and in that sense it is singular. But deeper reflection reveals that we are not usually
talking about the physical body when we are talking about the self. If so, the ‘self’ would still be there if the body
had a heart attack and fell to the floor and died. But most people would say that a dead body does not contain
the self; the self resides in the dimension of the mental and cultural and is not really reducible to the physical
and biological.

That raises the question, what does the ‘self’ consist of? The human self is described as consisting of three (3)
related, but also separable domains. The first domain is the experiential self. This is the ‘theater of
consciousness’ and the first person felt the experience of being. In this context, it includes the felt consistency
of being across periods of time. In that sense, it is tied very closely to memory. This is the part of you that
“disappears” when you enter a deep sleep, flickers on and off as you dream, and then comes back on as you
wake up. In a TED Talk, the famed neuropsychologist, Antonio Damasio shares his thoughts on this portion of
the self – and he appropriately notes that it is a portion that relates very directly to experiential consciousness,

01 eLMS Handout 1 *Property of STI

Page 2 of 4
 GE1716

it also relates deeply to your core drives/needs and emotionally organized feeling states. This level of self is a
mental capacity we share with other animals, and it presumably forever disappears when we die.

A second portion of the human self is called the private self-consciousness system. In more common parlance,
we can call this the “narrator” or “interpreter”, because it is the portion of your being that verbally narrates what
is happening and why and tries to make sense of what is going on. It is also the part that includes your reportable
self-concept and explicit beliefs and values about the way the world works (e.g., your religious and political
beliefs). This portion of the self is what Damasio calls the “autobiographical self.”

The final portion of the self is the public self or persona. It refers to the public image that you attempt to project,
which in turn interacts with how other people actually see you – the crucial element of this portion of the self is
referenced in the James quote above.

Mapping these three (3) parts of “the human self” let us become aware that although we tend to experience a
sense of continuity and unity of the self, the fact of the matter is that it is much too simple to say that we have
one self and be done with it. If you have ever been surprised by how you acted, or felt confused, conflicted, or
uncertain about who you truly are, or realized how dramatically different you feel in different situations or in
different moods, then you know that this thing we call the ‘self’ can have many different and often competing
facets and states.

Real VS Ideal Self

In psychology, the real self and the ideal self are terms used to describe personality domains. The real self is
who we actually are. It is how we think, how we feel, look, and act. The real self can be seen by others, but
because we have no way of truly knowing how others view us, the real self is our self-image.

The ideal self, on the other hand, is how we want to be. It is an idealized image that we have developed over
time, based on what we have learned and experienced. The ideal self could include components of what our
parents have taught us, what we admire in others, what our society promotes, and what we think is in our best
interest.

Humanistic psychologist, Carl Rogers, believed that we all own a real self and an ideal self. The real self is what
we are intrinsical. It`s the self that feels truest to what and who we really are; the honest self that leaves us most
comfortable in our skin. It may not be perfect, but it`s the part of us that feels most real. And it`s the one we
need to learn to love the most.

The ideal self, on the other hand, is the self that we think we want to be, that we strive to be and that we feel
we are expected to be. This self is borne out of influences outside of us. It is the self that holds values absorbed
from others; a culmination of all those things that we think we should be, and that we feel others think we should
be. We want to accommodate those expectations because we believe we will be more loved and accepted if
we do. Holding the values of others is not a conscious decision, but rather, a process of osmosis. For the most
part, we are not even aware of it.

The “I” and The “Me”

Although the self is a product of socio-symbolic interaction it is not merely a passive reflection of the generalized
other. The individual's response to the social world is active; s/he decides what s/he will do in the light of the
attitude of others but his/her conduct is not mechanically determined by such attitudinal structures. There are
two (2) phases of the self – that phase which reflects the attitude of the generalized other and that phase which
responds to the attitude of the generalized other. Mead distinguishes between the 'Me' and 'I'. The 'Me' is the
social self and the 'I' is the response to me. The 'I' is the response of the organism to the attitudes of the others;
the 'Me' is the organized set of attitudes of others which one assumes. Mead defines the 'Me' as a conventional
habitual individual and the 'I' as the novel reply of the individual to the generalized other. There is a dialectical
relationship between society and the individual and this dialectic is enacted on the intra-psychic level in terms
of the polarity of the 'Me' and the 'I'.

The ‘Me’ is the internalization of roles which derive from such symbolic processes as linguistic interaction,
playing and gaming whereas the ‘I’ is a creative response to the symbolized structures of the ‘Me’. The 'I'

01 eLMS Handout 1 *Property of STI

Page 3 of 4
 GE1716

appears as a symbolized object in our consciousness of our past actions but then it has become part of ‘Me’.
The ‘Me’ is in a sense that phase of the self that represents the past. The ‘I’ which is a response to the ‘Me’
represents action in a present and implies the restructuring of the ‘Me’ in a future. Because of the temporal
historical dimension of the self, the character of the ‘I’ is determinable only after it has occurred; the 'I' is not
therefore subject to predetermination. Particular acts of the 'I' become aspects of the 'Me' in the sense that they
are objectified through memory but the 'I' as such is not contained in the 'Me'. The human individual exists in a
social situation and responds to that situation. The situation has a particular character but this character does
not completely determine the response of the individual there seem to be alternative courses of action. The
individual must select a course of action and act accordingly but the course of action he selects is not dictated
by the situation. It is this indeterminacy of response that gives the sense of freedom of initiative.

The action of the 'I' is revealed only in the action itself; specific prediction of the action of 'I' is not possible. The
individual is determined to respond but the specific character of the response is not fully determined. The
individual's responses are conditioned but not determined by the situation in which s/he acts. Human freedom
is conditioned freedom. Thus the 'I' and the 'Me' exist in dynamic relation to one another. The human personality
arises in a social situation. This situation structures the ‘Me’ by means of intersubjective symbolic processes
language, gestures, play, games, etc., and the active organism as it continues to develop must respond to its
situation and to its ‘Me’. This response of the active organism is the 'I'. The individual takes the attitude of the
'Me' or the attitude of the 'I' according to the situation in which s/he finds him/herself. For Mead, both aspects of
the 'I' and the 'Me' are essential to the self in its full expression. Both community and individual autonomy are
necessary to identity. The 'I' is the process of breaking through the structure. The 'Me' is a necessary symbolic
structure which renders the action of the 'I' possible and without this structure of things; the life of the self would
become impossible.

References:
Braime, H. (04, March 2010). True self/false self part 1: what and why? Retrieved from
http://www.becomingwhoyouare.net/true-selffalse-self-part-1-what-and-why/
Heberle, M. (n.d.). Ideal self vs. Real self: definition & difference. Retrieved from
https://study.com/academy/lesson/ideal-self-vs-real-self-definition-lesson-quiz.html/
Henriques, G. (25, April 2014). One self or many selves? Understanding why we have a multiplicity of self-
states. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201404/one-self-
or-many-selves/
lthibault11. (31, March 2012). The real vs the ideal self. Retrieved from
https://listentomethunder.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/the-real-vs-the-ideal-self/
Page, K. (17, December 2013). The power of the gifts we hide the power of the gifts we hide: our true self and
our false self. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-love/201312/the-
power-the-gifts-we-hide/
PsychPage. (n.d.). Bowenian family therapy based in part on Nichols and Schwartz book on family therapy.
Retrieved from http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/counseling/bowen.html/
Sociology Guide. (n.d.). The “me” and the “I”. Retrieved from http://www.sociologyguide.com/george-herbert-
mead/me-i.php/
Takieddine, N. (31, August 2017). Self-differentiation and why it matters in families and relationships. Retrieved
from https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/self-differentiation-why-it-matters-in-families-relationships-
0831174/

01 eLMS Handout 1 *Property of STI

Page 4 of 4