Even now I am lying to you,
I have seen my life through a pane of glass,
and in seeing,
have felt nothing.
I feel dusty inside.
Perhaps it is cold in the winter.
I have read it in a book,
I have seen it on television,
but when my hand is against the glass,
the warm mark of my presence fades to nothing within moments of its passing.
If there indeed exists a thing which we can term the “core self, “ then that self must be said to have certain unchanging characteristics, characteristics which not only affect the presentation of the self to others, but that also define the self through their consistent opposition to the contextual notion of self which it defies. In other words, in order for any part of you to be static and unchanged, there must be parts of you which can be defined by the core as “other” which are malleable and contextual. Just as the notion of sickness relies on a favored idea of health to conceptually exist, if we are to say that there is a core self, we must concede that there must be parts of the self which are outside of this core; parts of the self that seem to be less a part of the true nature of self, and more temporal. Without this competing concept, we would only say self, and it would be understood that the self is whole and undivided. Through accepting the modifier “core,” we immediately create a conceptual opposition. There are parts of us that are within this core, and parts that are then outside of it. This sets the stage for an internal dichotomy between the constant self and the inconstant self, both of whch are identified and defined by their relationship to each other.
Were this true, the core self would stand in opposition to the inconstant self, always seeking to achieve dominance through invalidation of the other. The core self would then attempt in all situations to assert itself through whatever internal psychological means possible to it, thus undermining the contextual self’s attempts to adapt to social change. The assumed dominance of the core self rejects change and therefore stifles adaptability, a fundamental trait for human survival.
I contend that there is a struggle between what we have here termed the “core self” and the inconstant or contextual self, but I assert that it is contextual self who is the higher up on the internal hierarchy. Based on millenia of human existence, the adaptability of humanity has proven to be its primary strength. Humans are the only single species to have independently invaded and established colonies on every surface of the earth. This remarkable achievement cannot be attributed to humankinds thick skin, impressive teeth or claws, armored exoskeleton, thick fur, great speed or strength. While it is true that our intelligence is part of what makes us who we are, earlier versions of human beings are thought to have had brains every bit as large and complex as our own; some early versions of man may have had even larger brain size. It is not intelligence which has marked humankind as remarkable, it is the use of that intelligence to adapt, to change the self to match environment. I contend that it is this very biological attribute of humankind which proves that the core self is the smaller self, that it is the contextual self which holds sway and has power. It is the contextual self that allows for greater adaptation and therefore allows a greater chance of survival regardless of situation.
While it is possible that the core self may indeed adapt, any change or adaptation to the core self must temporary in order for the core to be structuarally maintained. This means that any adaptations that the core makes are false and can be readily forgotten or discovered as lies. The strength of the contextual self is not that the personality appears to change in a situation, but that the contextual personality actually does change. The malleable nature of this self allows for greater internal flexibility and consistencey because it is not lying when it changes. The contextual self is the self created anew from the situation, whereas the core self is the self in a situation, struggling to appear adaptable without changing. Clearly, if the core self exists, it is the weaker of the two. It is stiff, brittle, perhaps even vestigial.
