Reflected Sense of Ourself

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

When someone says to you “who are you” what do you say? Once you are past describing your gender, demographic data, career and family history how do you describe who you really are? Obviously you are more than a category, or psychological profile, or even your work life. Rather, I suggest that as a means to understand how to develop a deeper understanding of who you are, you include into your assessment the idea that you define who you are through the interactive process of looking into the face of another fellow human.

We are to a large extent “interactive” image-bearers that learn who we are through the intricate process of social interaction. In essence, instead of just looking inward we also look outside ourselves to discover who we are. Identity in other words is not something that is fixed or static rather it is fluid and dynamic.

In the field of developmental psychology this interaction is what is referred to as a “reflected sense of ourselves.” To obtain a view of ourselves, we look into another human’s face as if it were a mirror. Infant development is especially dependent upon this interaction. When a mother "oos" and "aaws" at her child, she is reflecting a pleasurable expression toward the infant, and at a certain but crucial level of awareness the infant develops a sense of wellbeing, leading to the conclusion, I am loved, I am significant, and what I am doing is good. When a person or persons give another praise, that experience in some respect can act like a guidepost to direct the individual to pursue a particular course of action that provides greater fulfillment.

When we become transfixed through the interactive process of romantic love by staring into the eyes of another, we are attempting to simulate the experience of gazing at the affirming expression which we received as children through the reflected affirmation upon the other persons face (which includes the relative beauty of the other; the mirror by which we judge ourselves). In other words when we find ourselves profoundly engaged in this process of seeking out that mirror we find that this kind of interaction reinforces an internal set of mechanisms that gives meaning, significance, and purpose to our lives. In other words, I am good, I am significant, I have meaning and purpose because I am desirable.

Out of this kind of interaction an identity begins to form. An internal mechanism triggers a set of resources (mirror neurons) that network together to create basic building blocks toward self assessment. Thus when a child experiences appropriate forms of healthy interaction over a period of time the “self” or one’s identity develops and eventually if balanced with appropriate boundary setting a “resiliency” is created leading toward a differentiated stance or the realization that their self expression or performance is not dependent upon the acceptance or approval of others. There are other aspects of development that needs to occur to round off a healthy identity, like the freedom to risk, explore, and yes even to fail, to name just a few, but be as it may the basic and most needed building block to develop a healthy self identity is the ability to validate the self which involves the interaction described above.

This transaction of interactive reflective image bearing, as wonderful as it is in helping to develop a healthy self identity in infants and children, can also by this same interaction through abuse or neglect be turned in a direction where the individual experiences a reflection of the negation of the self. In other words the reflected message to the one experiencing abuse is, you are no good, you are not significant, you have no purpose other than to meet the abuser’s need.

Sadly, if not identified and interrupted, this kind of interaction creates an interpersonal dynamic where the individual may develop a need to pursue a self reflection by either embracing a self defeating negativism and approval seeking or by the projection of a grandiose opportunism where the boundaries of others are violated. In both of these unfortunate circumstances the person can develop what Boszormenji-Nagy calls a “destructive entitlement" and become transfixed with the continual endeavor of searching for the “perfect mirror” upon whose reflection he / she thinks will give them their ultimate delight. The degree to which these cognitions and behaviors are utilized to manage anxiety will determine the degree of dysfunction that is present. Little does the person realize that the mirror they seeks is one that cannot be found on earth or embodied by any human being. Thus the ancient myth of Narcissus is instructive.

Incidentally, the process described above is not only expressed though adult peer to peer interaction, it can also occur between parent and child, boss and employer, politician and voter, professor and student, actor and audience or any two kinds of interpersonal systems where the need for a reflected sense of the self is in demand.

When disfunction in interpersonal relationship develops the demand for a reciprocal validation dominates. In Family Therapy this is called “borrowed functioning” and according to Bowen will help indicate the level of fusion that exist in the individual. The degree to which this interaction is depended upon the individual’s reciprocal response will correlate to the degree of dysfunction. Thus a psychological disorder becomes apparent and the pursuit becomes an obsession, fixating in a dependent way upon the “earthly” resource usually the other person as the means to stabilize the emotional vacuum of the individual. This is why the pursuit for validation of one’s beliefs or activity through the process of demanding another's approval can become so devastating, and why a relationship built around a differentiated stance is seen by the obsessed person as unsatisfactory but absolutely necessary in the long run if that individual wants to change and grow. The current practice on college campuses of creating “trigger rooms” for example may actually be more devastating to the coed in that it teaches them to expect others to meet their emotional needs rather than doing the more difficult work of self validation through internal resource building and cognitive restructuring.

Suffice it to say, one’s identity whether functional or dysfunctional is formed through and dependent upon this interactive process. If this is true and identity development occurs through this interactive process then exposure to standards that help guide that development in a healthy way are essential to lead away from a posture of interpersonal interaction that leads to fusion and lead toward a posture that embraces a differentiated stance. Even though we experience the world through the prism of mind and body and an internal, subjective consciousness we call the self, we nevertheless find meaning and purpose, the way we define ourselves, through the objective interaction that occurs as we reveal our selves to others.