Self-accountability is justice to the Self

The self and its nature has been a primary focus in Western philosophy. Modern philosophy from René Descartes to David Hume to John Locke argue that self-reflection is key to understanding the self. But the self itself is a fluid concept eventually evading the definitions– philosophers and thinkers have been assigning it. Carl Gustav Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist, divided the self into two–Shadow and Persona for comprehending the self and its nature.

Jung envisioned individuation as the self’s journey to wholeness, where one transcends the masks of persona to uncover the true self. Unlike individualism, which adepts to superficial identities for societal approval, individuation seeks the essence of self. This process may begin with self-accountability, embracing both one’s strengths and limitations, as the path to genuine self-realization—the ultimate purpose of life.

This brings us to one central question about human nature pertaining to whether humans are inherently good or bad, or more profoundly, whether human nature itself is transcendentally virtuous or corrupt. Unlike material realities, human nature is immaterial and elusive, resisting precise quantification. We can only offer predictions and approximations. This suggests that the predisposition of human nature depends on the existing archetypal eco-systems of which the human self is either a product or a resistant product.

These ecosystems are not only confined to contestations between material and immaterial culture but also influence ‘human condition’ in multifarious ways . The stories we plough through and the characters we wrestle within literature can influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. For example, reading dystopian novels can evoke the feelings of fear and uncertainty about the future, whereas reading romantic literature can foster feelings of love which makes human self– the heap of morbid in/sensitivities. The themes, narratives and characters in literature often serves as a mirror, reflecting and shaping our inner world.

Consequently, the eco-system shapes or un-shapes the human self and it is like flowing water resisting every attempt of containment in the very bid to retain its own course. Humans are inherently creative. To truly embrace their craft, they must let go of the constraints of the eco-system and dive headfirst in the boundless realm of their creativity. As the quote goes that “pain is inevitable and suffering is optional”, the suffering of craftsmanship should stem from- not by feeling trapped and overwhelmed by relentless emotions–individualism, leaving the self, deflated and lost. Rather from self-accountability that could mean to accommodate something new—a practice, a person, a way of being that obviously it is not an easy task.

The more transformative the addition, the harder it is to weave it into the fabric of our existence, a fabric intricately woven with our deepest beliefs about being in the world, the very threads of our soul. In the very process of authoring the self, Individualism and Individuation–come head to head putting the self in the battle field which at once becomes both its victim and its warrior. In essence, whether in nature, personal life, societal structures or historical contexts, the principle remains the same: persistence through time is achieved not by remaining in the court of fate but by embracing and owning the agency–self accountability–which is justice to the self.

The human self can be differentiated on three fronts– individual self, social self and ideal self. Individual self is the actual understanding of the self at that moment of present situation. Social self is an extension of the individual self–adjusting to the social requirements, and the ideal self is the imagined self–individuated self. Therefore, Individual self becomes the current self and ideal self becomes the future self while the social self is contingent on the existing archetypal eco-system. We all are ethical beings and we think of good and bad, however, others disregard this concern succumbing to self-centeredness. This is where the human nature becomes dissimilar and complex, and understanding this reality requires a broader reflection on its purpose.

So if one is having an acute inability to play in the battle field of individualism–this inability is informed by the possible individuated self, which makes a person stay away from the very battle field of individualism but instead the forces which are at play in the eco-system divert them there. Though we can spare ourselves of the responsibility to lay ball in the court of fate, it is essentially our own decisions– the choices taken or choices not taken? This is also a choice by virtue of being default that brings the most profound changes.

Life sweeps us off course—a storm of diagnosis, a beacon of opportunity, an un/charted love—and suddenly, we find ourselves authoring the architecture of our existence on this new and unexpected terrain. We still retain the choice of owning the responsibility of authoring the self by not putting things in the realm of fate but in our own agency–individual or collective to author our own self and destiny thereof. Self-accountability-the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own life–is the source from which craftsmanship flows, this way we will be doing justice to the self which deserves it before our society or culture does.

There comes the courage to do without, because anything worth having or not having has its price. Self-accountability should be like a ritual reminding us of what and who we are! If we lack self-accountability it would mean to getting locked in one’s own self while throwing keys in thrall of fate and paradoxically searching it, which will generate perpetual despair. which would ultimately result in the alienation of the self-form the self.

Theologically, God created universe and bestowed humans with the rationale of authoring their self and destiny thereof–accordingly. Let us imagine that we are being driven by the forces of individualism. In one instance, let us imagine that one friend is ditched by the other because the latter chooses the individualism as a driving force.

However, to the friend being left behind, it may not be a very pleasing experience, but instead such an experience may lead to mental agony and this person might be forced to rely on “acceptance” and “fate” as a coping mechanism. In theological perspective, some of us are bound to think whether God will be forgiving us for the torment we face because of our failure to play the game of individualism. To my perspective, it’s a certain no–because we are the authors of the self–individual and collective and onus lies not in the fate but in the agency–ability/inability and responsibility/irresponsibility thereof. If we are putting things in the realm of fate we are blinding us to big opportunity–individuation–individual or collective.

 Mohammad Asif, scholar at Department of History and Culture, Jamia Millia Islamia–New Delhi.

Haider Ali is Masters from Jamia Millia Islamia.