Theory Behind Self
There are many theories that explain the evolution of identity. The identity is something that is not set in stone, but rather it is something that is constantly re-purposing itself and changing. According to the skeptical post-modern theories, the self cannot be based on a foundation of mere experiences because a constant flow of information is streaming through the mind and changing the very way people identify with themselves and their environment. To remedy this, post-structuralist theorists expanded on this because of the infinite way significance can be perceived by way of knowledge in language. The relationship between words and what they symbolize is constantly evolving which creates the notion that identity and the self is "a product and effect of competing, fragmentary and contradictory discourses." This leads to the comparison of the self to a crystal. Crystals are multidimensional much like identity. No matter the condition, crystals are still able to exist in different states, sizes, and colors. The more the crystal endures throughout its existence, the more complex and unique it becomes. Identity, on the other hand, becomes more complex and unique by way of discourse and language-base, thus leading to the metaphor known as the "crystallized self".False and True Self
This concept expounds off the idea of "true self" and "false self." The "true self" is described as being authentic or vulnerable. The "false self" is mostly described as an idealized self. The idea is categorizing what reactions people reveal depending on who they are talking to, what environment a certain individual is in. This idea was introduced by Dr. Donald Winnicott in 1960. The "true self" is the product of an individual's feelings, desires, and thoughts. Different environments and meeting numerous people have an effect on the self. These factors can cause someone to hide their feelings, desires, and/or thoughts. This creates a "false self" that is more or less the self that is shaped by one's environment and relationships. This "self" is also formed by expectations that are held towards a certain individual. An alternative metaphor is the "crystallized self", a notion that pulls from Laurel Richardson's (2001)Criticism of Academia
The concept of a Crystallized Self as established by Sarah J. Tracy is in large a criticism of the common academic approach to identity in psychology. The basis of this criticism is that research does not challenge the real-self/fake-self dichotomy enough and take into account the multiplicity of identity.The Crystallized Self in Indian psychology
In Indian psychology, the idea of the crystallized self refers to enlightenment and a loss of the self that is opposed to egoism.See also
*References
{{reflist *Deetz, S. (1998). Discursive formations, strategized subordination and self-surveillance. In A. McKinley & K. Starkey (Eds.), Foucault, management and organizational theory (pp. 151–172). London: Sage. *Foucault, M. (1980b). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books. *Jackson, N., & Carter, P. (1998). Labour as dressage. In A. McKinley & K. Starkey (Eds.), Foucault, Management and organizational theory (pp. 49–64). London: Sage. *Mumby, D. K. (1997a). Modernism, poststructuralistism, and communication studies: A rereading of an ongoing debate. Communication Theory, 7, 1–28. *Mumby, D. K. (1997b). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343–375. *Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923–948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Trethewey, A. (1997). Resistance, identity, and empowerment: A poststructuralist feminist analysis of a human service organization. Communication Monographs, 64, 281–301. *Tracy, S. J. (2005).External links