Inner-self versus outer-self is a debate that has been dwelling in the hearts and minds of people since their inception. However, keeping aside the validity of this argument’s conclusion, its legitimacy itself is questionable. This argument poses a zero-sum game for an individual. There are far greater returns and external benefits in the collusion of inner and outer-self than in their competition and, in some cases, rivalry. Lives spent garnishing the outer-self without the satisfaction of the inner-self end up tarnishing both and vice versa. The inner-self is beyond ‘I’ and outer-self is not limited to ‘they’; instead the inner-self shapes the outer-self and the outer-self contours the inner-self, bonded by a cyclical connection. Taking ownership of both by individuals as a representation of their identities and personalities is central to the state of their existence.
Personality differences are common. Born in different circumstances with varied DNAs, diverse exposures further differentiate people. There exist no ideal personalities. Instead of terming certain personality types as ideal and pursuing the inner versus outer-self conflict, coherence of both can form a new ideal. Just like an organisation needs demarcation of roles and varied types of people for matching these roles, personality differences are naturally conditioned for this globe to function. Ideal leaders and ideal followers exist simultaneously. Discovering one’s own optimal role must be an individual’s target and not mimicry of other outer-selves. Following a leader chosen in coherence with the features of one’s inner-self prevents the conflict.
Undoubtedly, exposure is capable of gradually blending and shifting personality types. However, this should not occur without the approval of the inner-self, or else two different personalities are bound to escort the person towards confusion and depression. Ever-growing psychological syndromes arise from identity delusions mapped through the self-identification of preferential human traits and characteristics.
The frequency of digital human interaction is surging. Use of social media is trending but users possess complete control over their revelations and exercise selective exposure resulting only in exchange of fanaticism. Far from reality, develops a strong tendency to exhibit an outer-self that is shiny and glittery but only superficial. This attitude develops a consistent appetite that looks to seek praise and the like. The more an individual lives for a gleaming outer-self, the more distant the inner and outer-selves become. The failure of filling this appetite leads to self-pity and misery. Even if mass following and appreciation keep on filling the gap, the distance created between the inner and outer-self leads to contradictions, thus cultivating a potential breeding ground for depression.
This conflict breeds a society with fake standards. From emotions to actions, honesty gets compromised and an unsustainable lifestyle develops. This behaviour can be categorised into ethical and manipulative engagements. In an ethical engagement, a person’s outer-self mimics an ideal person’s outer-self intending to create positive externalities but, in the long run, this person faces self-exploitation due to the conflict’s inherently unsustainable nature. On the other hand, manipulative engagements are deceptive as their benefits are sourced from morally corrupt and criminal actions conflicting with the intentions radiated by the inner-self. This is wholly damaging.
On the other hand, evolution suggests negative life experiences mould inner-selves to exhibit manipulative behaviour. Undeniably, negative traits and genetic tendencies exist and impact an individual’s actions. For such inner-selves, surrounding evil outer-selves reinforce their bad behaviours. However, the existence of positive inner-selves leads to conflict. This time, the universal acceptability of moral behaviours favours this transition and engulfs the person in praise and satisfaction. Every positive step cements an inner-self’s addiction for positivity. The cycle continues as an evil inner-self transforms into a virtuous one.
Weighing returns and rewards in the ultimate mode of the inner-self’s satisfaction stands as the key. Monetary stature’s failing to translate into internal peace and satisfaction is useless. The greater an individual maneuvers through the inner versus outer-self conflict to achieve monetary advancement, the higher will become their dissatisfaction level and heavier the burden of sustaining the conflict state. Piling up debt without building assets invites bankruptcy; likewise, polishing the outer-self while ignoring the inner-self seeks grievance.
As widely perceived, contentment does not limit an individual’s goals and pursuit for them but is timely acceptance of the pursuit’s results and a promise and commitment by the inner-self to help the outer-self in exerting for the next pursuit even harder and more steadfastly than before. The inner-self and outer-self collaboratively bury the ‘versus’ argument. The purpose of marking the conflict as irrelevant is not to block the pursuit of brilliance but to inculcate individuals who optimally idealise and remain robustly resistant to confusion and depression. A society raising satisfied souls and aligned bodies is accustomed to developing coherence and contentment. It is bound to protect collective rights and accomplish overall welfare.
The writer is a Lord Dahrendorf Scholarship holder and a Pakistani Young Leader for a Comparative Public Policy program at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst