Before looking into how the self develops in its quest for actualisation it is important to first consider the structural features of the personality as purported by Rogers. There are essentially four structural elements present in Rogers’ perspective of the self, namely the
18
outside world or physical environment, the organism, the self-concept and the phenomenal field. The physical environment refers to the individual’s immediate environment and consists of people, objects and events. This structure exists independently of the individual but is experienced in a manner subjectively interpreted by the individual (Meyer et al., 1997:467).
The organism refers to the individual as a whole on a physical and psychological level. It is the central entity that occupies and interacts with the physical environment, motivated by subjective perceptions and meanings. The phenomenal field consists of two parts relating to the perceptions and meanings attached to factors external to the individual and those directly related to the individual (Cervone & Pervin, 2008:170). The factors within the phenomenal field related to the individual are collectively known as the self or self-concept and consist of patterns of perceptions that the individual would refer to as “me” or “I”. These perceptions are comprised of objects and experiences external to the individual, but within the phenomenal field, that the individual attaches meaning. The perceptions then create an image of the individual that is constantly evaluated in terms of criteria developed, from various significant sources, over the lifespan to strive for that, which is perceived to be ideal and good by the individual (Cervone & Pervin, 2008:170). The self-concept is not an independent or unconscious entity that controls individual’s behaviour but rather a conscious and dynamic perception of individuals within their specific contexts. Therefore, changes in one aspect of the self will have an effect on the entire self (see also 1.2.2).
The self-concept can be further divided into two subcategories, namely the real and ideal self.
The real or actual self is the current image individuals have of themselves. It is the present state of the self and a product of individual’s self-perceptions and evaluations within their current contexts. The other subcategory is the aspirational perception of the future self or alternatively known as the ideal self. This ideal self is a representation of what individuals are striving to become as it encapsulates all the aspects necessary to be perceived as ‘good’ and
‘desirable’ by others and thereby the self. Needless to say, it is the nature of the discrepancy between these two concepts that forms the basis of much of Rogers’ explanation of pathologies and undesirable behaviour (Cervone & Pervin, 2008:171; Meyer et al., 1997:467).
Another influential psychological theorist who identified the presence of a real and ideal self is Karen Horney. Horney’s understanding of these factors is similar in definition to Rogers,
19
with the real self representing perceptions of individuals current states which include the potential for “self-realisation” and the ideal self characterised by perceptions of perfection which individuals strive for (Friedman & Schustack, 2012:123). However, the definitions do differ in certain regards. The ideal self as purported by Horney is developed through the identification of perceived inadequacies or “shoulds”. It therefore acts as a constant reminder to the individuals of what they should have done, but did not. Horney furthermore includes another category known as the despised self that, through the negative evaluations of others and parental negligence, creates a perception of personal inadequacy and helplessness. This estrangement from the real self is believed to result in the manifestation of neurotic tendencies (Friedman & Schustack, 2012:123). These neurotic tendencies are characterised by an over identification with either the ideal or despised self, or a need to overcome the despised self without the personal belief of ever achieving the ideal self. These tendencies manifest in behaviour similar to individuals with overly high or low levels of self-esteem and can thereby be linked to offending behaviour (see 3.2.5).
The criminological implications of this discrepancy between ‘real’ and ‘ideal’ factors can be deduced from consideration of the structural or process approach of integrated criminological theory. This approach is defined by the integration of theories purporting a link between the development of criminality due to factors related to strain, social structures and social learning (Bernard & Snipes, 1996:332). Offenders are seen as being as ‘normal’ as non- offenders in terms of their behavioural motives and that behaviour is learned by both parties in the same way, thus denying individual differences as causal attributes of deviant behaviour. Criminality is therefore seen as a response to the accepted and available means of goal attainment prescribed by the immediate environment that reflects the structural features of social organisation (Bernard & Snipes, 1996:333). Among other structural theories, reference is made to Robert Merton’s version of the anomie theory to illustrate society’s role in influencing criminal behaviour.
Merton states that when society places emphasis on certain goals, it often also prescribes the acceptable means for achieving them. This creates a potentially difficult situation as the goals and acceptable means are often generalised throughout society regardless of individual circumstance. These goals are then considered the ideal outcome for peoples’ lives but the acceptable means are not always provided resulting in individuals having to find their own means to achieve them. Although this behaviour is not necessarily criminal, Merton states
20
that due to its difference to what is considered the norm, such behaviour is often considered deviant (Bartol & Bartol, 2008:3; Williams & McShane, 2010:79). Much like Rogers’
concept of the real and ideal self, Merton illustrates the role of society in prescribing to its inhabitants that which is considered good or ideal as well as the behavioural implications associated with the inability to achieve this ideal state.
Now that the general personality structure as purported by Rogers has been outlined and placed into the context of the current study, it becomes important to consider how this structure develops from birth and continuously develops throughout the lifetime of the individual.