10. Symbolic Learning (II)

Ego and Worldview

In the previous post introducing the unique aspects of the Culture level of complexity, where Symbolic Learning occurs, I noted the three claims Henriques makes:

(1) the evolution of propositional language generated question–answer dynamics framed as the adaptive problem of justifi­cation, and this in turn shaped both the evolution of human self-consciousness and human culture such that; (2) the nature of human consciousness can be framed by the “Updated Tripartite Model” that differentiates it into three different domains of (a) the experiential self, (b) the private ego, and (c) the public persona; and (3) humans are transformed into persons as a function of being socialized into systems of justification, such that, relative to other animals, human persons operate in a new complex adaptive plane that can effectively be framed as Culture with a capital “C.”

The previous post tackled claim 1. Let’s turn to the two others.

Claim 2: the nature of human consciousness can be framed by the “Updated Tripartite Model” that differentiates it into three different domains of (a) the experiential self, (b) the private ego, and (c) the public persona.

Human linguistically-mediated meaning-sharing places a new burden on the individual, for it demands that they first be sufficiently self-conscious of their own internal cognitive processing and personal meanings if they are to properly translate them into language for others. That is, I must develop a self-reflective stance towards my own internal cognitive experience and decision-making—a higher-order perspective on my own intentions, wants, desires, etc.—if I am to model them to others using language.

With this demand, a new kind of individual had to develop: the self-conscious person. If consciousness emerged when animal value systems became integrated under a higher-order organization of a singular “I” that could recursively relate to itself through self-modeling, then self-consciousness emerges when that conscious totality loops back yet again on itself to model itself through language.^[i] So out of the unreflective experiential self is born the “ego.”

Henriques’s model of the human psyche emerges from this crucial insight. Each person has a pre-linguistic subjective experience like other animals who operate on the plane of Mind. But language affords us the means of rendering this experience communicable, both to ourselves and to others, in pursuance of our normative goals. Doing so leads to the production of a personal ego, which is that private, internal “voice” continually narrating and justifying our experience to ourselves in linguistic terms.

Such egos are inherently linguistic in nature—an internal narrative of self-justification continually translating raw emotional experience into the language of symbolic speech. I do not just feel hungry and eat. I think, “I’m hungry. I’m going to get something to eat.” More than that, I engage in an ongoing internal monologue of justifications in such terms: “Should I eat the last slice of pizza in the fridge? I think my brother was saving it, so I probably shouldn’t. Then again, maybe it’s not that important to him? Plus, he wouldn’t know it was me… No, I’ll leave it for him. He seemed interested in it. Besides, he’d definitely assume I did it and get mad at me and then it’d be a whole thing. I’ll just make a sandwich.” In pursuing my own goals, it is as though I have an internalized other person continually demanding justification for my actions—an enculturated voice in my head asking how my reasons and meanings mesh with others’.[ii] The stories I tell myself about myself to organize and justify my behavior, that’s my ego.

For many reasons, however, individuals do not communicate to others the full contents of their egoic thoughts. Individuals’ goals, including maximizing social influence and prestige, are often better pursued by selectively filtering publicly communicated thoughts from privately held ones. The strategic version one presents of themselves to the world, then, is their persona.

The resulting three-part conception of the human individual is thus composed of (a) an experiential self (the conscious animal mind), (b) an ego (a linguistically-mediated narrative reflection on the experiential self), and (c) a persona (the self-concept one projects to others in an effort to maximize success in their social context). Henriques calls this an “update” to the older “tripartite self” (cf. Freud’s id, ego, and superego), and one that does justice to insights from both folk and academic psychology by placing all within a metatheoretical framework rooted in the planes of complexity that have emerged over cosmic evolution (Figure 1.12).

Figure 1.12. Dynamics of the Human Psyche in Culture[iii]