A conglomeration of ideas built on top of one another, itself built on top of a set of biological imperatives, all collectively bent towards preservation. I have identified 9 “types” corresponding to the composition of being – the different levels at which identity is constructed or redefined, all of which can be examined in order to determine how they shape our identity.

The genotype is constructed from a blend of genes from two parents, the genes then expressed through probability by way of the phenotype. At some point during our early childhood we learn to distinguish ourselves from our external environment. We subscribe to the idea of “self”, which has both conscious and unconscious manifestations – together called the endotype. The advent of self also gives birth to the idea of “other”, the essential crisis of human consciousness.

Throughout the course of our lives, we are influenced in various ways by our external environment, our interactions with it providing positive or negative feedback. From there we start to form a growing understanding of the relationship between self and other, in places reconciling the two – as we do in forming bonds with other people, and in places maintaining a certain distance or dissonance, such as competition for resources or mates. The total effect of the external world on a being is its exotype.

As we interact with our external environment, developing impressions of other beings, those other beings also develop certain perceptions of us, either through direct interaction or filtered through pre-existent identification paradigms such as race, religion, gender, or nationality. Our identity as perceived by others, which is infinitely variable, is known as the ectotype. This also means that we construct an ectotype for every other being with which we interact. We integrate into our identity different ectotypes from individuals whose impressions we value for any reason, or that which is projected onto us from the greater society.

Ectotypes affect our interactions with others, that is, they determine how those others treat us, whether they accept us or reject us, like or dislike us, admire or scorn us. This in turn can have an affect on how we see ourselves, either validating and reinforcing our self-image or creating a disparity which puts the endotype into crisis. All of these interactions are a part of how the external environment influences our being, and so in this way there is a triangular interplay between endotype, ectotype, and exotype.

How this interplay shapes our identity is both conscious and subconscious. Sometimes we are not even aware of how we make changes to our identity in order to make ourselves more “fit” for the external environment. Physical adaptations are obvious, while cultural adaptations can take place on a level beneath awareness. Humans do of course on some level consciously choose how they will represent their idea of self to the world – by way of physical appearance and outward personality. Often this representation is genuine, while other times it is a facade. As we go through life, it is at turns fixed or changing, and some aspects are circumstantial while others are consistent. It is our conscious response to the interplay between endotype, ectotype, and exotype, and is called heretype.

As we establish our identities we adopt ideas about everything. Ideas about other people and our relationships with them. Ideas about our world, from our immediate surroundings out to the whole of planet Earth and the universe beyond, and how we fit within them. Our social consciousness, our politics, our religion, our morals, our ethics, our aesthetics, our membership within groups – all of these complexes of ideas collaboratively form our ideotype which we fix upon ourselves. We “identify” with them, which is to say that we affix them to our identities. Our ideas about ourselves and the world become as much a part of who we are as our physical bodies.

But what does any of this really mean? Is any of it substantial? At the very bottom of our identity is our physical body, which had it developed in a different place under different circumstances and had different interactions with different people, may have manifested as an entirely different person. It has already been established that at some point we choose who we are, or at least how we represent ourselves to the world. This ability to choose makes human being’s existential freedom unique amongst all other animals of the world – but only insofar as we are aware that we have this choice.

While we may say that so many variables “determine” our identity, the word determine connotes a lack of choice. Our sense of self is affected by others perceptions of us, but if we are of the right frame of mind we can reject those perceptions where they conflict with our sense of self rather than internalizing them. We have that freedom. We have the least control over our physical bodies, but even they are subject to change through choice of diet, choice of activities, and other factors. But even if our identity was grounded in our physical bodies, it certainly does not mean that we have to subscribe to any of the ideas attached to them by others. This means that whatever “meanings” are applied to the various sets of physical characteristics, such as body types or “race” can be accepted or rejected in how we conceive our sense of self.

Although sociocultural constructs such as race, ethnicity, nationality, family role, gender, religious affiliation, and political orientation are layered upon us to form our identity, we can at any time reject any part or the whole of that identity and reinvent ourselves as we so choose. The crisis of establishing one’s identity is called angst, and where there is a disparity between sense of self and how others perceive us (or how we think they perceive us) there is anxiety. The two terms share a common etymology, and are quite clearly intertwined.

Most people probably are not even aware of the freedom they have. For example, a woman gives birth to a child. Social norms and biological imperatives dictate that she should play the role of “mother” to this child. Built within these norms and imperatives are positive feedback mechanisms which only further incline the woman to sustain that role, to identify herself as a “mother”. She may affix this identity to herself so firmly it supersedes all other aspects of self, and were she suddenly to be wrenched from this identity it would put who she conceived herself to be into crisis.

But the truth is that this woman, social norms and biological imperatives aside, has the freedom to abandon that child, to renounce all responsibility and reject the role of mother. Now depending upon how she goes about this the consequences – emotionally, socially, or legally – may be more or less severe, but they do not affect her ability to free herself from her identity as a mother. So that it’s clear, I am not advocating the idea of women abandoning their children, but merely making the point that such freedom exists.

That to many people would be unthinkable. They may say that even if she put the child up for adoption she is still technically – by the fact of their biological connection – the child’s “mother”. But the role of mother, just like all other non-physical aspects of identity, is a construct, and as such it can be deconstructed and renounced. Imagine a hypothetical close-knit society where the children of any set of parents are treated as the children of every adult in the society. Perhaps the words “mother” or “father” do not even exist in this society. The child merely exists in a familial relationship with the entire community.

Certainly there will be different people who fall into different roles with respect to this child, but none of them may be exactly what one would classify as a “mother”. A woman who breastfeeds the child may not be biologically related to him at all, but merely another woman who was lactating because of her own recent pregnancy. This woman may then do nothing else for the child as far as nuturing or protecting him or even interacting with him. Perhaps her only job is to feed him. Is she his mother? Or does that title fall to the man who coddles, protects, and loves the child? It should be clear that the role of “mother” is not as substantial as we normally take it to be.

The person that I conceive of as my own mother is merely the ectotype for her that I have created through our interactions, but is not at all the whole of her identity. To think so is to place limitations on who she is and who she can be, and it is not my place to do so. Only she can choose to what extent she is my mother, and what that means for our relationship and how that contributes to her personal identity.

What the example of the mother is meant to demonstrate is that a person can deconstruct their identity – starting at any layer – and “rebuild” themselves as they choose. From renouncing one’s race or ethnicity to rejecting cultural norms or mores to abandoning one’s entire self-image. This can be beneficial in many ways. For example, if a person has been continuously rejected in their quest for romance for any number of reasons, they may internalize these rejections as meaning that something is wrong or undesirable about themselves. But the truth is that each rejection is an individual event, and not necessarily reflective of any global truth about the person.

Perhaps one person invalidated them for having what they saw as an unattractive body type.  Another because they weren’t of the same “race”. Yet another rejected them for their choice of fashion. We may be invalidated and rejected at anytime and for any reason, and if we were to internalize every single one of them, we would only be in constant crisis. But we don’t internalize them all. Which ones we reject and which ones we accept are all a matter of choice. This means that we also have the choice to reject them all, to not allow any of those external judgments to determine our sense of self.

The point of this essay is not to say that a person should necessarily abandon their entire identity, but to demonstrate that they have the freedom to do so. The only true identity is a divine nothingness – a rich soil in which we can plant any kind of seeds, a blank canvas we can paint however we wish and paint over again and again, a clay that we can mold and shape into any form, a void which can be filled with anything the free-thinker desires. As children we understand this freedom – if only subconsciously – more than we do by the time we become adults – since at that time we are likely to have become set within a certain identity.

But this freedom never leaves us, as evidenced by people who hold to certain ideas for the majority of their lives, only to come to some revelation and change their minds completely. This kind of revelation and change can come in youth, in middle age, in old age, or even on a person’s deathbed. But it is only a “revelation” after we’ve forgotten that we can change who we are, what we think, how we feel, and what we believe at any given time.

So in conclusion, if you find that your identity places you in some kind of crisis – either within yourself or with your environment, remember that you have the freedom to change, or the freedom to determine whether or not that crisis has to exist at all.

Physical bodies, ecosystems, ideas, personalities, cultures, communities, nations, worlds – and verily, the entire universe – are in flux. Should it be so strange that an individual identity is inconstant, deconstructable, and adaptable? Certainly not.

“Nonconformity is resistance to mindless autonomy, not simply rebelling against convention for its own sake; that is what I call reverse conformity. Living authentically 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.”

There are many reports on the social and psychological reasons people conform, but it seems clear that going against the mainstream is analogous to swimming against the current. The path of least resistance, so to speak, is simply to allow oneself to be swept along with it. These decisions are not always conscious, as people have been conditioned to recognize the payoffs of conformity – such as social acceptance and a sense of relatedness – but also to associate resistance with invalidation. However, there is validation to be found in the counter-culture as well, amongst people who find common ground in their mutual distaste for the mainstream. Both kinds of behavior are equally disingenuous.

With culture being such a massive, fluctuating, multi-faceted entity with countless branches, it is almost inevitable that a person will be swept up by one movement or another. One of the major tenets of existential philosophy is that a person should be able to establish themselves apart from their cultural context. In “Being and Growth” I also describe children as “born existentialists”, saying that:

“Having yet to claim any identity, they [children] 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.”

An important point here is that as a children, we lack a conscious understanding of our existential freedom, and often times we are unwittingly “imprinted” with culture. We learn early the punishments and rewards for subscribing to or resisting culture, internalize them, and out of this arises an identity. Sometimes, though, a person is punished by society for reasons beyond their control. In western culture in particular, standards of beauty and social propriety have been commercialized and marketed to us since birth; people are often ostracized for superficial reasons, such as physical appearance or “unorthodox” behavior. Many of these people, feeling invalidated, turn away from mainstream society to find their place, and often that means vehement rebellion out of spite.

For example, if a girl is made to believe she is unattractive, she may wear clothes or cosmetics that make her appearance even less desirable by mainstream standards. The reason for this is that it is much easier to handle invalidation for intentionally being “unattractive”, than it is to accept invalidation simply for being yourself. This behavior is inauthentic, because it still allows the person room to believe that “if they chose”, they could be accepted by the mainstream. What people need to realize is that the mainstream, despite comprising a social consensus, does not determine a person’s value. Wherever there are people who will reject a person, there are bound to be people who will accept them, and for being themselves. People should not hinge their sense of self-worth on the opinions of others so much as to change themselves whenever invalidation occurs.

With all of that said, the intention of this article is propose the idea of “Culture ZERO”, an existentialist approach to culture. Culture ZERO refers to the renunciation of all culture, a return to “nothingness” as existentialists call it. It is the ideal of freedom from cultural contexts, establishing oneself tabula rasa, not for its own sake, but to reinvent oneself along the lines of conscious choice. I acknowledge that this is an extremely difficult thing to do, particularly for people who have yet to even recognize their existential freedom. For this reason, there also varying degrees to which a person can re-establish themselves at “Culture ZERO”. Cultural paradigms such as “morality” (in its countless forms) are particularly hard to cast-off, and for practical reasons it isn’t even necessary to do so. The point is merely for one to recognize how they have been shaped by culture, not necessarily to resist it. Also, it is fine to consciously choose to subscribe to mainstream culture, just as it is fine to naturally gravitate towards a counter-culture trend. In either case, as long as a person is identifying with culture as an individual, and not as a follower, they are being authentic.

Choice itself, however, is a precarious thing; sometimes people “choose” to follow a movement consciously, not for its own sake, but because of its association with another movement. For example, at a party I attended recently, I noticed that a number of people seemed to have poor hygiene. Their hair was unkempt, their clothing was worn and tattered, and most noticeably, they had a prominent (and unpleasant) body odor. I asked a few people how it could be that so many people well…stunk. As it turns out, this was some form of counter-culture as a political statement against mainstream consumerism. They felt that by not using deodorant, by not washing their clothes or hair, that they were removing themselves from “the system”. The question that arose in my mind was: “What are they really accomplishing?” Are they really being true to themselves? Are they naturally predisposed to bad hygiene?

Just as I said with regards to morality, sometimes it simply isn’t practical to resist cultural paradigms. Perhaps it is true that the ideal of good hygiene has been stamped upon us, and strengthened to sustain the market for hygiene products. Good hygiene, however, is a natural evolution of culture, arising from our increasing understanding of being healthy, and exists independently of the market that advocates it. Being as though this bad hygiene trend was popular enough amongst the crowd at this party, it seemed to me to be another case of reverse conformity, and frankly, it was disgusting.

To understand how Culture ZERO works, consider a person who has been inundated with “hip-hop” culture. This may arise out of self-identification on the basis of race, as this culture is mostly associated with people who identify themselves as “black”. If this culture is the vernacular in this person’s environment, separation from it may lead not only to invalidation on superficial pretexts, but with respect to the more deep-seated concept of race, which may leave them scrutinizing their very identity. This is very unsettling, as I can attest, from personal experience.

However, at Culture ZERO, a person realizes that their identity is their own to shape, and that in spite of external judgment, they can exist in a way that is true to him or herself. This person may find themselves gravitating towards rock or metal music, “goth” or “emo” fashion trends, while at the same time speaking African-American Vernacular English. The whole ideal of Culture ZERO is that a person is free to pick and choose different elements from different sub-cultures as they see fit. They no longer have to buckle under social pressures or seek validation through conformity or reverse conformity.

The last important thing to understand about “Culture ZERO” is that it is a subjective movement. It is not a new trend. There can be no Culture ZERO labels or Culture ZERO products. At most, there could only be some kind of symbol showing that a person advocates the philosophy; from there it would be customizable, e.g. “Culture ZERO by {person’s name here}. There could and would be no market. After all, Culture ZERO is a state of mind, and how it unfolds varies on an individual level.

If Culture ZERO was achieved by individuals on a large scale, it would result in more responsible and authentic behavior amongst the mainstream, perhaps even so far as to eliminate the mainstream itself. Reverse conformists everywhere would no longer have a standard to rebel against, and would be free to express themselves in more authentic ways as well. As with many of my ideas, I realize that Culture ZERO is very idealistic and not likely to go too far beyond the few people who read this article. Still, I hope at least that it will spark new ways for people to think about themselves and their relationship to culture.

There are problems with both of these ideologies. The idea that larger government will better serve its people is entirely dependent on those people actively participating in that government. Unfortunately, as apathy increases, government no longer truly represents the people as a whole. Usually, this translates into representation for the wealthy and well-educated minority. Even the Democrats then must cater to these interests, as it is the basis for their power. On the other hand, while smaller government implies more power for the people, the ability to use that power requires knowledge. It also requires the actual inclination of the people to use that power. Again this implies greater representation for the wealthy and well-educated. Perhaps more significant is the new form of control that slips in through the backdoor of the conservative agenda – that of big business.

This modern situation is comparable to France in 1943, when Jean-Paul Sartre released his play “The Flies” as an allegory of resistance to German occupation. At the time, writers could not publish anything that explicitly criticized the Nazi regime, or that suggested any rebellion against it. Sartre, who became affiliated with the resistance movement, was quite critical of the French government, which practically collaborated with the Nazis through acquiescence, and the people who simply “allowed” the invaders to rule over them. Indeed one could say that the average person was helpless, that the French would’ve stood no chance in blatant opposition to the occupation. Sartre disagreed with that very concept of “helplessness”, believing that it was up to the people to take responsibility for their situation, even at the expense of their lives.

The people of 1943 France and their dilemma in World War II are analogous to today’s subjects of globalization and the invisible war in which big business is firmly entrenched in its battle with government. In general, the corporate goal is one of total consumer dependency. Clothes, food, private healthcare, entertainment – all the things people need – could simply be purchased. Why do anything for yourself when big business is there to lend a helping hand? Is this any different than “Big Brother”, i.e. large government, taking all responsibility? Both are inauthentic, because neither tends to represent the interests of the people, who sit complacently within one system of control or another rather than taking action for themselves, and being self-sufficient. The situation creates a rather formidable catch-22, in that dependency yields complacency, complacency leads to apathy, and apathy sustains the system of control that advocates dependency. The existentialist point of view, in staunch opposition, demands that one take control of and responsibility for their own lives.

Next let’s look at things from a social perspective. It seems common in the west, and increasingly throughout other regions of the world, that image is to be prioritized above substance. People’s value seems to be based on their purchasing power, as material wealth is reflected through image. This aligns with the aforementioned corporate objective as well; it does not take much deduction to come to the conclusion that a person has more value to a corporation if they can spend more. This idea has political ramifications as well; as mentioned earlier, those with money tend to be better represented.

However, this is a fallacy – inauthenticity in one of its ugliest incarnations. A person is not defined by the sum of their wealth and material possessions. A person’s value cannot be quantified. This insidious notion of image over substance is prevalent in western pop culture, which through its enviable fidelity as a meme-complex, has spread like wildfire, and become a medium for globalization. For example, many young people in Japan are obsessed with western culture, be it the music, the clothing styles, the associated attitudes, or even the language. There is also a biting irony in the fact that people in destitute countries can be seen wearing big name American brands, indicative of the corporate leash having a farther reach than the helping hand. The assimilation of western culture most often leads to displacement rather than blending, and through globalization, a homogenization is occurring. The movement is towards one worldwide monoculture, dominated by western ideology.

Why is this a bad thing, if it implies a sense of unification? It is bad because it suggests a growing worldwide trend of inauthenticity. To further examine this point, let’s take a closer look at some aspects of western culture, again noticing the emphasis on image over substance. On a certain website, I discovered the way in which a person can become “Emo”. Emo is a type of music with roots in punk, rock, and alternative styles, which seems to highlight a sense of grief or anguish, usually with regards to [the failure of] romantic relationships. From the music arose a “lifestyle”. According to the site, there is a set of criteria one must follow if they are to be “truly emo”. These include:

* Dyed black short hair with a very specific style
* Body piercings and jewelry – “the more the better”
* Horn-rim or thick black framed glasses
* Tight faded shirts meant to look as though they were bought in a thrift store
* Tight pants – “sometimes cuffed once or twice but never more”
* Black or blue Converse shoes

The specificity of these criteria is alarming. It seems that people have no sense of individuality, and as a result seek to validate themselves through their ability to be categorized – on the basis of physical appearance, no less. It is not enough to simply share an interest in music; one must identify with the very “lifestyle” associated with it in order to be accepted as genuine. All of this plays right into the hands of corporate control, as subscription to “the they” creates new markets. Another quote from the same site states: “If you are not skinny, you have to lose weight before you can officially be emo.” One can just imagine the kind of self-esteem issues this kind of ideology induces – in young women in particular – as image becomes the yardstick for measuring self- worth. This isn’t exclusive to one “lifestyle” or another, but seems to be the view highlighted by mainstream media.

Simone de Beauvoir, an existentialist author and pupil of Jean-Paul Sarte, wrote about how women in the 1950s needed to claim their own identity, apart from the contexts of their relationships to men and their designated “role” in society. Today, it seems that is not as much of an issue as is it that a woman claim a distinct identity vs. the mainstream-defined “ideal”. As another example, consider the fact that in no television commercial for GAP, Inc. will you see an overweight person, nor is there one to be found anywhere on the corporation’s official website. Even the pregnant women somehow all maintain their figures, discounting of course their enlarged stomachs. In a particularly absurd display, GAP.com once even used fake models, ones that defy the human anatomy, to showcase certain maternity products – and all to sustain that “ideal” image.

(Author’s Note: Sometime after the original writing of this article, the fake models were replaced with idealized real models)

These days, “the they” takes many forms, appearing wherever there is a market. On the flip side of the mainstream “GAP” image, there is the counter-establishment image as seen in the fashions of stores like “Hot Topic”. Their motif seems to be setting the mainstream image as a benchmark, then rebelling against it as vehemently as possible. While I can respect the desire to be “unique”, as it insinuates authenticity, the truth is that people are only trying to be “different”, by creating one standard in opposition to another. Mainstream and counter-establishment are equally inauthentic in that they aim to group and categorize people through common image, in effect suppressing the identity of the individual. Sartre and de Beauvoir must be rolling in their graves. Meanwhile, the business entities all aim to sustain this bureaucracy, because as long as it creates a stable market, who cares about the individual?

Just so I make myself clear, this essay is not about “fighting the power”, nor is it meant to be leftist anti-corporate propaganda. For that reason I will also cite examples of how globalization, and through it the proliferation of the western mindset, may allow for existential freedom. There are many other cultures, where people do not have the luxury of being able to concern themselves with image. In third world societies in particular, a person may simply “be”. They do not have the freedom to “reinvent” themselves, or to transcend the context of mere survival. Where government oppression is the norm, ideals such as freedom of speech and religion are nonexistent. As speech is overt thought, the inability to speak freely may cultivate the disinclination to think freely. How, then, does the one stand distinct amongst the many, if they lack the awareness that they even exist as such?

In this way, communism (as an example) does not lend itself to freedom anymore than capitalism. Communism emphasizes equality, but by way of the idea that all people are the same, i.e. part of one giant puddle of miscellany. Since communism usually runs hand in hand with some form of extreme governmental control, people only know themselves within the context of “the they” as defined by regulation. If through globalization, the western ideals can be adopted by those who have never known such freedom, then that is one positive aspect. However, while western capitalism does suggest freedom, and indeed stresses the idea that life is what one makes of it, it is all for nothing if a person fails to recognize their freedom and yields it to a different form of control. After all, the capitalist bureaucracy is quick to take that same people-soup, and run it through a strainer, to sift out those who “don’t matter” , i.e. those who have no bearing due to their apathetic political non- participation or lack of purchasing power.

In conclusion, it must be said that every person has a right and a duty to exercise their existential freedom, as it is one of the greatest things about being human. I am not so pretentious as to believe this essay will have any lasting impact on anyone, or influence people’s way of thinking at large. If I could convey one message to everyone, however, it would simply be for them to be aware, think for themselves, take responsibility for their lives through action, and above all to matter…

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.