Contents
Personal Multiplicity
The Polytheistic Architecture of the Human Psyche
Part I – The Plural Psyche
Chapter 1 – The Ordinary Experience of Multiplicity
Human beings commonly speak as though more than one position can exist within them at the same time. Someone facing a difficult decision may say that part of me wants to do it, but another part thinks it would be a mistake. A person trying to end a relationship may know that leaving is sensible while still wanting to remain. Someone considering a new opportunity may feel excited by what could be gained and frightened by what could be lost. None of these expressions ordinarily causes confusion. We understand them as descriptions of one person experiencing more than one psychological position.
Such observations do not, by themselves, prove that the mind contains distinct psychological persons or autonomous internal agents. Everyday language is not a neurological map. Nevertheless, the language is informative because it allows a person to make two statements at once: this position belongs to me, while also saying this position does not represent everything that I think or want. The phrase part of me therefore identifies a degree of internal differentiation without requiring the speaker to deny their continuing identity as one person.
The possibility that a single person may be represented through distinguishable aspects is not foreign to psychology. William James, writing in The Principles of Psychology, distinguished material, social and spiritual dimensions of the empirical self. His treatment of the social self was particularly plural: he argued that a person may have different social selves in relation to the different people or groups whose recognition matters, and may show different aspects of themselves in different social contexts (James, 1890, pp. 294–295).
James was not proposing the theory developed in this thesis, nor was he claiming that these social selves were autonomous internal personalities. His relevance is more modest but important: a continuing human identity did not require, even in this early psychological account, one completely uniform representation of self.
Later cognitive approaches made this differentiation more explicit. Markus defined self-schemata as cognitive generalisations derived from experience that organise and guide the processing of self-related information, and proposed that these structures may develop in particular domains of a person’s life (Markus, 1977, pp. 63–64).
Linville subsequently modelled Self-knowledge in terms of multiple cognitive self-aspects, with individuals differing both in how many self-aspects they represented and in how differentiated those aspects were from one another (Linville, 1987, pp. 663–664). McConnell’s later Multiple Self-Aspects Framework similarly begins from a self-concept composed of multiple, context-dependent selves, with different regions of self-knowledge becoming relevant under different conditions (McConnell, 2011, p. 3).
These theories differ considerably in purpose and construction, and none should simply be renamed Human Multiplicity. What they collectively demonstrate is considerably narrower: psychological science already possesses several established ways of representing the self as internally differentiated rather than cognitively featureless or indivisible.
This distinction between one person and one homogeneous psychological process is fundamental to the argument that follows. A statement such as I decided to stay is a perfectly accurate description at the level of the embodied person. It identifies who made the decision and who will live with its consequences. It does not follow, however, that the decision emerged from only one evaluation, motive, emotional system or source of information. Unity at one level of description does not logically require uniformity at every level beneath it.
Differing positions need not imply irrationality
The significance of this becomes clearer when a person experiences apparently contradictory motives. Consider someone who wants to spend a substantial amount of money on something enjoyable while simultaneously wanting to preserve their savings. Described simply as two conclusions – spend and do not spend – the person appears inconsistent. Yet the apparent contradiction diminishes once we examine the questions being considered. One position is evaluating present pleasure or value; another is evaluating future security. The recommendations differ because the concerns differ.
The same structure appears in more emotionally consequential situations. A person may desire intimacy while fearing loss of autonomy. They may love a parent while resenting aspects of the relationship. They may want recognition while finding exposure frightening. They may feel sympathy for someone and still want distance from them. These positions can coexist because each may be responding to a different feature of the same situation.
For the purposes of this thesis, it will sometimes be useful to describe such a psychological concern as legitimate. The word requires care. A legitimate psychological position is not necessarily factually correct, morally preferable or appropriate to enact. It is legitimate in the more limited sense that it genuinely belongs to the psychological organisation of the person and carries information relevant to the matter being considered.
A fear can therefore have legitimate standing while being based upon an obsolete prediction. Anger may legitimately indicate that some boundary is perceived to have been crossed while still producing an excessive behavioural response. Desire may belong legitimately to the person without acquiring an automatic right to govern behaviour. Legitimacy means that the information deserves identification and consideration; it does not confer truth or authority.
This distinction matters because internal disagreement is easily treated as evidence of psychological failure. Sometimes conflict certainly is disabling. Competing motives can produce indecision, anxiety or prolonged distress. But disagreement itself does not demonstrate that one side is meaningless or that the person has failed to reason. In some circumstances, differing evaluations may improve judgement by preventing one narrow concern from representing the whole problem.
Research on mixed affect provides a useful, if limited, empirical parallel. Larsen, McGraw and Cacioppo tested whether apparently opposing emotions such as happiness and sadness could be experienced concurrently. After the emotionally complex film Life Is Beautiful, 44 per cent of their participants reported feeling both happy and sad, compared with 10 per cent before the film; in a separate study, 54 per cent reported both emotions on university move-out day compared with 16 per cent on an ordinary day (Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001, pp. 689–691). Their experiments concern the organisation of affect, not psychological parts, and it would be inappropriate to make them evidence for an internal society of agents. They do establish something much more basic that this thesis requires: apparently opposed evaluations do not invariably exclude one another merely because they occur within one person.
The same caution applies to the cognitive literature discussed above. James’s social selves are not Linville’s cognitive self-aspects; Markus’s self-schemata are not McConnell’s context-dependent selves; none of them can simply be declared identical with the parts or thought-forms developed later in this thesis. Their value at this stage is not that they prove our proposed architecture, but that they remove an unnecessary assumption. There is no requirement to begin the study of a person by assuming that all psychologically meaningful differentiation must be superficial, pathological or ultimately reducible to one homogeneous internal perspective.
We can therefore begin from a comparatively modest position: a person may be singular as an embodied individual while remaining psychologically plural in the information, motives, emotions and self-representations contributing to their experience.
Psychological plurality does not require inner people
This qualification is particularly important because the word multiplicity can easily evoke much more dramatic phenomena than are needed for the present argument. Some people experience highly personified inner figures, voices or identities. Those phenomena deserve careful examination later, but they should not determine our starting definition.
A person can experience psychological plurality without encountering anything resembling another inner person. The differentiation may be as slight as a reluctance that contradicts a conscious intention. Someone may have decided to attend an event while finding themselves repeatedly delaying preparation. Another may say that they know a relationship is safe while nevertheless experiencing an immediate bodily tension when closeness increases. A third may find an unexpected objection forming only when they attempt to act on a decision they thought had already been settled.
At this stage, there are many possible explanations for such experiences. The reluctant response might result from learned association, competing goals, automatic appraisal, memory, bodily state or processes we have not yet considered. It would be poor method to introduce a preferred architecture merely because it could explain the observation. The relevant fact is simply that the person’s consciously stated intention does not always exhaust the psychologically active information contributing to their behaviour.
That observation also helps distinguish what we will call psychological plurality from the stronger theoretical claim of psychological multiplicity.
Psychological plurality is the relatively neutral observation that distinguishable motives, evaluations, affects, self-representations or perspectives can coexist within one person. Psychological multiplicity is the stronger proposition investigated by this thesis: that at least some of this plurality reflects organised and differentiated psychological processes rather than merely transient fluctuations in one homogeneous mechanism.
The distinction prevents us from proving the theory by definition. Chapter 1 does not establish Human Multiplicity Theory. It establishes the phenomenon for which that theory will eventually attempt to provide an architecture.
Awareness of an outcome is not awareness of its construction
A second everyday observation takes us slightly further. Psychological events often become conscious without the person having consciously witnessed their construction. A forgotten name suddenly comes to mind. A solution appears after someone has stopped deliberately working on a problem. A person hears themselves formulate an argument that had not previously been stated in words. An emotion becomes noticeable before its cause is understood.
Again, none of these experiences requires us to imagine a separate internal person doing the work. There are well-established reasons to expect substantial processing to occur without concurrent conscious access.
Nisbett and Wilson’s influential 1977 review argued that people may have little or no direct introspective access to some of the higher-order cognitive processes connecting stimuli with judgements and behaviour (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977, p. 231). Their strongest interpretation should not simply be accepted as settled fact.
Smith and Miller challenged both the methodology and the breadth of that conclusion, arguing that evidence existed for at least some genuine access to cognitive processes and that Nisbett and Wilson had formulated their position too strongly (Smith & Miller, 1978, pp. 355–362). The disagreement is useful here because this thesis does not require the extreme position. It requires only the more defensible conclusion that conscious access to psychological processing is incomplete.
Subsequent research gives ample reason to retain that narrower distinction. Kihlstrom’s review of the “cognitive unconscious” drew together evidence from automatic skills, implicit memory, subliminal perception and other areas showing that nonconscious mental structures and processes can influence conscious experience, thought and action (Kihlstrom, 1987, pp. 1445–1452).
Bargh and Morsella likewise reviewed unconscious perceptual, evaluative and motivational guidance systems and described multiple sources of behavioural impulses that can occur in parallel before overt behaviour requires selection among them (Bargh & Morsella, 2008, pp. 73, 77).
This evidence is significant, but its significance must be kept within bounds. Nonconscious cognition does not establish the existence of autonomous psychological persons. An unconscious behavioural impulse is not thereby a part, much less a GOD or daimon. What the evidence does undermine is the simpler assumption that the consciously observing person must have direct access to every operation contributing to their own thoughts, feelings and behaviour.
We can therefore distinguish three events that ordinary language often compresses into one. A psychological process may occur; that process may produce an output; and the output may become available to awareness. The person may experience the third event without having observed the first.
This is easier to see in highly practised behaviour. An experienced reader does not consciously reconstruct every letter before recognising most familiar words. A skilled driver does not ordinarily verbalise every minute correction required to remain within a lane. The absence of conscious access to all component operations does not make the behaviour mysterious; it means that competence can depend upon processing that is not represented in conscious experience at the same level of detail.
The same possibility matters psychologically. If someone becomes aware of anger, the conscious recognition of anger does not by itself reveal every process contributing to it. The anger may depend upon perception, prior learning, expectation, bodily regulation, memory or another emotional evaluation. The conscious experience is real, but it is not necessarily a transparent report of its own complete causal history.
This gives us a methodological principle that will become increasingly important:
the point at which information becomes conscious should not automatically be mistaken for the point at which that information originated.
The present chapter cannot yet tell us what lies behind that distinction. It simply establishes that there is something to investigate.
The apparent unity of “I”
The ordinary pronoun I conceals much of this complexity because its function is not to provide a complete theory of cognition. When someone says, I walked to the shop, the sentence does not enumerate the interacting processes required for locomotion, visual guidance, orientation, intention, balance and memory. Nor should it. It identifies the embodied individual performing the action.
Similarly, I decided to leave usefully identifies whose decision entered the social world. It does not necessarily describe the internal history of the decision. Perhaps the person considered several competing outcomes. Perhaps an initial emotional reaction changed after reflection. Perhaps information came to mind that shifted the balance. Whatever occurred, the final use of I compresses that history into the level at which one person acts.
This is not an argument against the reality or importance of personal unity. Quite the opposite: the distinction allows us to preserve unity where it is observable without forcing it onto every underlying process as an unsupported assumption.
James’s treatment of the social self provides an early example of the same general problem. A person could present different “sides” to different social groups while still remaining the person to whom all those social selves belonged (James, 1890, pp. 294–295).
Contemporary self-representation models similarly allow different regions or aspects of self-knowledge to become active in different circumstances without treating contextual variation as the disappearance of the individual (Markus, 1977, pp. 63–64; McConnell, 2011, p. 3).
The important question is therefore not whether the human being is “really one” or “really many” as though only one level of description may be valid. A city can be one city and contain many neighbourhoods; a body can be one organism and contain many specialised systems. Those comparisons do not prove that the psyche has the same architecture, but they illustrate the logical error in assuming that unity and internal differentiation are mutually exclusive categories.
The more useful question is empirical and theoretical:
What kind of unity is the psychological unity of the person, and what kinds of differentiation exist within it?
At this stage we know only that psychological science has repeatedly found it useful to model self-related information as differentiated; that opposite or competing evaluations can sometimes coexist; and that Conscious awareness does not enjoy complete access to all of the processes influencing conscious experience and action. None of those observations alone is Human Multiplicity Theory. Together, however, they provide sufficient reason not to dismiss internal plurality before investigating it.
From plurality to a theory of multiplicity
The distinction can now be stated more precisely.
Psychological plurality refers to the observable fact that a person may experience or exhibit distinguishable psychological positions, motives, affects, self-representations or contributions.
Psychological multiplicity, as developed in this thesis, is the hypothesis that some of this plurality reflects organised differentiation within the psychological organism.
The direction of inference matters. We do not begin with internal persons and reinterpret every hesitation as evidence for them. We begin with phenomena already familiar in ordinary experience and recognised in neighbouring psychological research, then ask what degree of organisation is actually required to explain them.
Several possibilities remain open.
One possibility is that all apparent plurality can ultimately be explained through one essentially homogeneous cognitive system taking different states at different times. Another is that some plurality reflects specialised but impersonal processing systems. A stronger possibility is that at least some psychological domains become sufficiently organised, information-rich and relatively autonomous to behave as distinguishable centres of perspective. Later chapters will consider each step rather than assuming the strongest version at the outset.
That caution is essential because the thesis will eventually move into territory where psychological phenomena are experienced through parts, persons, symbolic figures and archetypal imagery. If those later claims are to be taken seriously, they must not rest upon an unnoticed change in the meaning of multiplicity. The path from competing motives to personified psychological domains must be argued, not merely named.
For now, the conclusion is deliberately limited.
Human beings experience themselves as continuing individuals, yet their psychological lives contain differentiated and sometimes simultaneous motives, affects and self-representations. Established psychological models have represented self-knowledge in multiple domains or self-aspects, empirical work demonstrates that opposing emotional evaluations can sometimes coexist, and a substantial literature shows that psychologically consequential processing may occur without complete conscious access to its operation.
These findings do not establish a society of minds. They establish that the simpler assumption – a single conscious, homogeneous process transparently producing the whole of psychological life – cannot simply be taken for granted.
The ordinary phrase part of me therefore deserves neither immediate literalisation nor immediate dismissal. It identifies an observation whose architecture remains unresolved.
The next task is historical. If psychological differentiation is not merely an artefact of the present theory, we should expect earlier psychologists to have encountered more organised forms of the same problem. Some did so through ideas of divided consciousness and psychological automatism; others through models of internal conflict, complexes, dialogical positions or parts.
The question for the next chapter is therefore not whether earlier theories already discovered Human Multiplicity Theory. They did not.
The more useful question is:
When psychology encountered organised psychological difference within one person, what did it think it had found?
References
Bargh, J. A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00064.x.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company. Chapter X, especially pp. 294–295.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237(4821), 1445–1452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3629249.
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.684.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.663.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63.
McConnell, A. R. (2011). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310371101.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
Smith, E. R., & Miller, F. D. (1978). Limits on perception of cognitive processes: A reply to Nisbett and Wilson. Psychological Review, 85(4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.4.355.
0 Comments