"Be True to Yourself"? How?

What does “Be true to yourself” mean? And why do we seem to think it’s so easy to do? Can I really say that I “know” myself well? Can anyone? Isn’t finding ourselves part of our struggle? And do we really “find” ourselves or are we constantly creating, editing, revising ourselves? Do we choose our selves or do we find them? Or is there a fundamental self, a basic self, that we try to maintain and stay true towards while the surface changes? How and when did that "fundamental" self develop and can it be altered? Do we really only have one self? Or do we have several selves? And what does it mean to be “true” to oneself?

Isn’t self-knowledge the most difficult thing to know and doesn’t it require constant examination? The philosopher/economist Amartya Sen notes that there are “difficulties in obtaining self-knowledge that arise from the intricacies of our relations with other people.” Are we always the same around everyone? Sen continues: “We are influenced to an amazing extent by the company that we keep and the people with whom we identify, and our lack of clarity [about our selves] . . . may arise from the fact that” our selves may reflect the influence of others.

Don’t we often have a lot of identities? Consider yourself: List as many “identities” as you have. For example, here are some of my identities: Teacher, middle-aged, male, American, musician, hiker . . . . There are so many more. Consider the great American Paul Robeson: All-American athlete, scholar, lawyer, opera star, Communist . . . and there’s more. I left out a lot for Robeson and for me.

Sometimes these plural identities compete with one another for attention and priorities. Sen says, “The neglect of our plural identities in favor of one ‘principle’ identity can greatly impoverish our lives and our practical reason.” That seems inescapably true, but then it follows that “being true to ourselves” is hard unless we accept our plural “selves.”

Within reason, we can choose and work toward our chosen selves. And these chosen selves needn’t be permanent. Sen goes on to say, “To deny choice where choice exists . . . can . . . entail a moral and political failure since it denotes an abdication of one’s responsibility to face the fundamental Socratic question: How should I live?” With the help of Jonathan Glover’s new book, Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, Sen goes on to explain that “many atrocities in the world occur as a result [our] feeling compelled to act in particular ways, in line with [our] perceived identities, including” committing crimes against others who belong to a group that is perceived to have a hostile relationship with our own group. We are required to exhibit loyalty, etc.



We have all sorts of identities thrust upon us and all sorts that we try on for size. Some of our identities are a result of the cultures we live in and gravitate towards. Sen continues:

. . . a person may decide to seek identity with more than one of these predefined cultures or -- just as plausibly -- with none of them. Also, a person may well decide that her ethnic or cultural identity is less important to her than, say, her political convictions, or her professional commitments, or her literary persuasions.

It is also important to note that a “culture” isn’t monolithic. For example, being Catholic doesn’t make all Catholics the same.

So, we are told to “know yourself.” And to be “true to yourself.” But is it easy?

Is it even advisable? In "Hamlet," Shakespeare places this bit of advice in the mouth of his most foolish blowhard: "Above all else, to thine own self be true." If Shakespeare thought it was guffaw-worthy, maybe we should take another look.

See also David Brooks on this topic. And (thanks to Brooks) Paul Bloom.