Being and Growth
The existentialist, Jean Paul Sartre, speaks of the “freedom” to reinvent one’s self, to negate one’s identity (Sartre – Being and Nothingness, 1943). Even before I knew the formal term for it, I subscribed to existential thinking for the sake of opposing conformity, complacency, and stagnation. However, following existentialism to a conceivable end leads to nothing, i.e. awareness of freedom and “being as what we are not” seems to serve no purpose. It is as if existential awareness is an end in itself, rather than the means to one of personal growth. Sartre says the essence of being human is “nothingness”, or rather, being without any set identity. I would counter that claim by saying that being human is instead endless growth potential.
It is “inauthentic” in Martin Heidegger’s terms, or “bad faith” in Sartre’s terms, to simply become rooted in whatever identity one has chosen for him or herself, justifying it through “obligation” or conformity to social norms. The freedom to withdraw from these identities is useless if not put into some kind of proactive movement. So that my point is not misinterpreted, I should clarify something. Nonconformity is resistance to mindless autonomy, not simply rebelling against convention for its own sake; that is what I call reverse conformity. Living authentically (i.e. as a nonconformist) is being aware of the movements of society and culture, the directions they’re taking, and making a conscious decision of whether to support those movements, or to go against them.
It’s fine and well to choose to be a member of the mainstream – to take on the responsibilities of self-sustenance and independence. It is fine to fit within certain societal niches, as long as you are conscious of those choices, and that those roles don’t comprise the gestalt of your identity. More importantly, commitment to a certain identity should not yield stagnation. The freedom to be human mandates an ever-accumulating growth. A person should always strive to be more than they are; to be human represents the ability to self-improve, and it is that which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Other animals are incapable of growing outside of their context, that of nature as a whole, which itself is a mere circulation of matter through transition from one form to the next. With our ability to grow also comes the inclination to do so, even if only subconscious. Far too often, however, ability and inclination are not supported by the will to improve, to grow beyond a set identity.
For example, many people come to college simply to gain a degree, a mere piece of paper which modern society deems indicative of qualification for skilled labor. In other words, people come to school “to get a good job”, rather than simply for the sake of personal enrichment. To that avail, they may simply memorize facts, learn just enough to attain that degree, and subsequently to get that better job. They cheat themselves out of what could be one of the most rewarding experiences in life.
Once the degree is attained, and they’ve secured that better job, then what? What was the purpose of it all? Was it to be able to amass material possessions? Was it simply to be able to survive? Perhaps it was to be able to support a family? What is a person’s purpose beyond these things? Where does will and conscious choice come into play if their end is to simply raise a family? The desire to procreate and then to nurture one’s young is biological – and does not differ too much from one species to another. What then, separates us as humans, if our only goal is the perpetuation of the species? Worse yet, if we subscribe to selfish gene theory (Richard Dawkins – The Selfish Gene, 1976), then our actions may not even be altruistic, but simply for the propagation of genes. Is our will bent to the “inclinations” of mere chemicals to replicate themselves?!
Consider children for a moment. They could be described as “born existentialists”. Having yet to claim any identity, they are open to all possibilities, and are continually actualizing their growth potential. Through enculturation and social assimilation, however, “self” as an individual often yields to “self” as defined by its niche within a societal or cultural framework. Adulthood or rather, “maturity” seems to suggest a loss of passion, or enthusiasm, or idealism – all of it flatlining in stagnation as the person adopts a mundane acceptance of whatever life they have created for themselves.
Just as physical growth over time can be represented by a downward slope, so too can a person’s sense of idealism, their inclination to self-improve superceded by an even greater inclination to conform to the drab normalcy of daily life. Why does idealism have to be associated with impracticality? Idealism is potential, and can be actualized through practical application.
The humanistic psychologist, Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), devised what he called the “hierarchy of needs”, which explains how certain needs take precedence over others. The hierarchy is traditionally diagrammed as a pyramid; moving from the base to the spire represents the shift from what Maslow called “Deficit Needs” to “Being Needs”. At the bottom of the pyramid are a person’s physiological needs, such as requiring oxygen, water, food, and rest. The next tier is comprised of “safety needs”, such as stability and order in one’s life, reliable circumstances, and protection from harm. Third are the “belonging needs”, i.e. a need for interpersonal connections between an individual and others, be they kinships, friendships, romantic relationships, or a sense of community.
The fourth level of the pyramid represents “esteem needs”, which Maslow says take two different forms. First there is the need for recognition and appreciation from others, to validate one’s actions, or even their very being. Given humans’ tendencies towards hierarchal behavior, this may even include a need for dominance or superiority. Second there is self-esteem, a sense of one’s merit as per their own standards – manifesting as confidence, dignity, and freedom. There’s that word again!
The peak of the pyramid represents “self-actualization”, which Maslow also referred to as “growth motivation”. It differs from the other needs, which stem directly from some physical or emotional deficit. It is a person’s need to evolve beyond their current “identity”. Sartre says that we who seek the authentic life have an obligation to “reinvent” ourselves. With each evolution of self along the path of self-actualization, the need reestablishes itself, and is thus insatiable. This is what I mean when I say that humans are defined by their endless growth potential.
Humans can develop an awareness of their own various contexts, be they cultural, religious, or socio-economic, and thus as Sartre would say, they are beyond them. But so what? What will we do with that freedom, with that raw potential? If the answer is nothing, then we might as well not have it at all and resign ourselves to meaningless roles within nature – or in the face of booming industry, our roles in destroying it.
People should refuse to settle into complacency, to be mired in mediocrity. They should be advocates of change and of variety; they should shatter stereotypes, exceed standards, and continuously set new ones. Whether or not the unforeseeable ideal we strive for is something substantial but presently inconceivable, or exists merely as a projection of potential future self meant to rationalize feelings of incompleteness – is entirely irrelevant. Just as it is inauthentic to live in mundane conformity and complacency, so is it inauthentic to stop growing simply because the limit seems set at infinity.