Self-integrity

“Integral Innovation” by opensourceway is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Self-integrity

The concept of Self-Integrity was adopted with Self-Affirmation Theory, by Claude Steele, in 1988. It is the global self-image of being “good, competent, moral, adaptive, and in control of life outcomes.”​

Definition

It is usually, not “I’m good at math”, which relates to a single domain that one might take into consideration, when assessing the personal measure of all domains; the measure of ones self-integrity, and also, perhaps self-integration. Instead, it is “Overall, I’m a worthy person who fits my culture’s standards.” This means that it also might include an assessment, and evaluation of other factors, such as self-confidence, self-esteem, and conditions of worth.

The concept encompasses moral goodness, competence across life, feelings of free will, and outcome control. It also bears comparison with notions such as personal resilience, and personal sovereignty.​

Why It Matters

The measure of self-integrity is critical to ones sense self-comfort. Self-comfort means that one is happy to exist in one’s environment. That the “list” of good and positive self-attributes and environmental benefits that lead to peace of mind, as collected and weighed by their ego function, is higher, and in fact, as high, as far as possible, away from that total stacked-list of challenges and other toxicities that they perceive in this particular “world-view”..

Ordinarily, a perfectly adjusted person, would be an authentic and fully functioning person, this would, and should be regarded as our social “norm”. However, for most people, as our theory of DNA-Self is helping to confirm, they are quite significantly dissociated from those innate genetic traits and qualities. Their childhood has had the impact of disconnecting them from their true genetic code.

In fact, we suggest, that often, even what is thought to be ones true self, is actually another masked façade.

Most people, then, have a significant lack of wholeness – that naturally provided sense of inner connectivity, and this has the potential to significantly undermine their self-integrity. This idea, that inner connectivity and wholeness can cause a significant challenge to an individuals self-integrity and confidence, we have also proposed, in the Wholeness Theory of Self-Esteem.

As we shall see, this concept of self-integrity, can be both a significant support, or reason for collapse of our window of tolerance, leading to existential panic, and crisis.

Threats to our sense of integrity, then, such as failure, criticism, bad news, serve to attack this global self-image, and can be therefore seen as toxicity.

Here, we can also introduce the idea that any disagreement, or interruption to ones intended flow, is a toxicity, one that even when slight, can be regarded as a micro-trauma.

Such micro-aggressions, we suggest, if they are a sufficiently dominant, and prolonged aspect of our lives, can add up to hidden complex trauma. This complexity, largely being due to its subtlety; the act of failing to defend that personal boundary, because we have learnt to, “just let it go”, and to “forget it” as an irrelevance.

What people have mostly, not been aware of, is that this act of self-ignorance, of failing to defend our natural propensity to assert our individuality, has had the effect of hiding those memories in our unconscious mind, as dissociations. Here they are able to expand out of that compartmentalised schema environment, and thereby influence our thinking. Not only that, but those memories themselves, they hold important information – they can tell us which part of out authentic self that we lost, by not defencing that particular boundary.

A very important point to make here, is that the sense of self-integrity, is a natural need, and much of what the individual is feeling inside, is a self-discrepancy issue. They sense that there is a “hole”, am emptiness, inside themselves – that old existential abyss, reminding them that it is still there.

Then you realise that it is this that we are now seeking from our environment. It is a need, a lacking, that we have ultimately convinced ourselves, can be provided by a relationship, a family, a home, car, best friend, community standing and success, etc. It is an existential need for personal wholeness, that has been projected onto the outside world. One that is often all too easily, but ultimately, temporarily, provided.

Top 10 External Reasons for Self-Esteem and Integrity

• High-status job or promotion: Signals competence and success to others.​
• Attractive spouse or family: Fulfills belonging, appearing stable.​
• Advanced education/degrees: Proves intelligence and discipline.​
• Wealth or luxury possessions: Buys prestige and security illusion.​
• Social media acclaim/likes: Delivers instant approval dopamine.​
• Professional awards/prizes: Validates effort publicly.​
• Large home or neighborhood: Projects achievement and safety.​
• Fitness or appearance: Gains admiration for self-control.​
• Travel or experiences: Flaunts freedom and excitement.​
• Volunteer/leadership roles: Feigns purpose through contribution.

​The process of converting these internal, and  genuine, organismic needs  into an externalised need or desire, can be thought of as one of rationalisation, based on an externally introjected false logic, based on false assumptions of what they think of, as human. These projections serve as a tokenised, or symbolic replacement, and is another clue to how we use our Human Symbolic Interface.​

Components of Self-Integrity

Below are the key components that have been identified as being major factors that affect a persons self-integrity:

• Moral adequacy: “I’m a good person.”
• Competence: “I can handle life.”
• Coherence/stability: “My life makes sense.”
• Agency/control: “I choose my path.”

​What needs to be understood, first of all, is that all of these measures are relative to the local environment, and, they are also subjective. And that we can adjust our internal model of self-integrity dynamically, depending on, for example, exactly who is in the “room”. A parent to their child may assume a moral high ground that may collapse the minute the vicar walks in.

We can suggest that this is all part of the process of masking; that the masking rules for “meeting the vicar”, will become active, and added to those rules currently in use. One of those prior rules set the parent as the moral authority, but now this has been over-ruled by the vicar’s rules.

We can also suggest, that there are rules, and there are rules “for show” only, and that the concept of Life Positions from Transactional Analysis would seem to explain this behaviour, and it is the difference as shown in the two possible rule functions on display:

• Vicar is undeniably the moral leader. An accepted self-truth.
• Vicar is to be acknowledged as the moral leader, but I have a secret life position, that I know better. This is a lie, projected as truth by that parent, who may have any number of reasons to hold that point of view.

Defence mechanisms

Clearly, a self-worth measure with as much potential for existential panic, if it were to become too undermined, will need to be protected by the organism. And defences typically come in two forms:

Reactive Defences

Reactive defences are needed for the first time a threat is encountered. Responding to these perceived threats usually involves a panicked selection of a coping response that has worked in a similar situation in the past. The organism will want the panic closed down before the awareness has grasped its true potentially devastating meaning.

One common response, is to reinterpret the situation before the information is passed to the individual, thus injecting a cognitive bias that blinds the individual to what may have actually happened, or been said.

Another, is to try to switch blame onto someone else. This is something that we have suggested seems to be a significant societal game.

Proactive Defences

Proactive defences are typically tried and tested defences that have worked time and time again, and can be  split into avoidances, incongruent acceptances, and vigilance based automatic panic avoidances.

Avoidances: These are coping behaviours that avoid the acceptance of the threat, to be a threat. A rationalisation, for example that is in itself, a circular argument. An actual belief, through knowledge and understanding reduced to “I’m not listening to you, I have labelled you to be a liar”. This outright denial means minimal effort is required to invalidate the threat. However, that threat has not been eradicated, and reminders of it may serve to trigger an upgrade to that coping response.

Incongruent acceptances: These may also be thought of as compliant, people-pleasing behaviours. This is where the individual prefers to accept a lie, or other boundary infringement, rather than risk threat exposure.

Vigilance based automatic panic avoidances: These are deeply programmed defences deeply embedded in the organismic system. Symbolic connections will have become their most abstract, and threat detection tuned to “resonances”; pattern matching based on colours, feel, emotional content, etc., the pattern being matched, no longer visible, or entirely comprehensible, to the awareness or the individual in question.

This is because, the mask rule is constantly in operation, and needs to be very light-weight. So the organism of the self, optimises the required data needed for a match to it’s absolute minimum. This is because every mask rule has an impact on an individuals processing time – the time it takes them to understand a given situation, and respond, as discussed in our article about overload and burnout.

Vigilance based masking rules are often closely linked to the “fight-or-flight”, panic set of responses. They usually get top priority, they can be, as a result, highly likely to result in a dram-based, and very damaging overall response.

We can also suggest, that it is here, in this highly abstract space of the mind, were patterns include resonant scratches from previous times. That we will find one home, at least, of the psychotic, or phenomenal, mystical experience.

All of the above strategies to defend one’s sense of self-integrity, and ability to feel free, while out in the world, can be thought of as incongruent coping styles that ultimately serve to prolong and sabotage our connection to out authentic, true self. All of them, will ultimately prove to be false, and to have made that final true sense of self-integrity, much worse.

The Flow Paradox

An interesting paradox, is that when one is furthest away from ones authentic self, then, they will see the most challenges to their “natural flow”. i.e., They will encounter most obstacles, and setbacks. These include meeting people that argue with and suppress their expression of self-truth.

If on the other hand, everyone around them, listened to them, without judgement as Rogers’ and other suggest would help, then, they continue to grow, through that verbalised self-exploration, and they would not need any of those incongruent coping strategies.

This suggests, that, if it were not for all of those interactive micro-aggressions and denials of expression. Which everyone seems to be inflicting on everyone else with increased rapidity. Then each of us would know our authentic self.

This was why, last Christmas I launched a plan to save the world, by teaching everyone person-centred listening. I still think that plan would work. But there has been no interest so far. The world may be not really that keen to be fixed.

Contrasting with other models

Rogers’ Personality Theory

This contrast between Self Affirmation Theory and Rogers’ theoretical model now looks very interesting, does it not? One speaks of maintaining those egoistic coping techniques in some kind of “happy balance”, the other, flagged by Rogers demands the authentic self.

I suggest that this aim of balancing ones ego, is an aim, that cannot be maintained, unless you are easily and, might I suggest, robotically pleased.

Further Reading​