ABSTRACT
Erich Fromm (1955) has pointed out that as human beings, we are the only animals capable of saying ‘I’ and thus being aware of ourselves as separate entities. He also adds that we are the only species finding our own existence a problem, presenting an inescapable demand for attention. Looking at the development of the human race, Fromm sees that the degree to which we are aware of ourselves as separate beings depends upon the degree to which we have emerged from the clan. In the medieval world, feudal lords and peasants were identified with their social roles in a hierarchy. One was not a person who happened to be a peasant; rather, one was his or her social station, thereby obtaining a definition of ‘I’. When, however, this social system broke down so that ‘lords’ and ‘peasants’ were no more, our forebears had a problem. A response to self-definition other than through prescribed roles became necessary, and the Renaissance brought great opportunities and newfound freedoms for individuals to create their own, unique personal identities. Over the next few centuries, however, people gradually found many different substitutes to solve the riddle of the ‘I’, for the act of self-definition did require some effort. Indeed, by the early twentieth century in the western world, totalitarian regimes were often welcomed. The thought did occur to some observers that maybe human nature was not really all that averse to tyranny – at least the problem of identity
was averted. Indeed, Fromm (1955: 63) sees self-definition through such identity substitutes as nationality, religion and social class to be ‘the formulae which help a man [and woman] experience a sense of identity after the original clan identity has disappeared and before a truly individual sense of identity has been acquired’. While no longer maintaining feudal structures, we nevertheless find identifications with social roles to be convenient, and conformity to norms of the surrounding clan is often the means by which the riddle of the ‘I’ is bypassed. Jane Loevinger (1976) offers us a hierarchical vision of solutions to the problem of ‘I’ in her model of ego development. Like Fromm, she finds conformity to be the most common means by which late adolescents and adults deal with the problem of identity; unlike Fromm, she bases this conclusion on data supplied by thousands of respondents.
