The idea of a split between the “I” and the “Self” is most closely associated with **George Lakoff**, particularly in his work with **Mark Johnson** in _Philosophy in the Flesh_. ### **Core Idea: The Divided Self Metaphor** Lakoff argues that we habitually understand ourselves through metaphor. One of the most pervasive metaphors in English (and many other languages) is that the self is divided into two parts: - **The “I”** – the conscious, rational subject; the one who decides, controls, judges. - **The “Self”** – the body, emotions, impulses, habits, or social identity; the part that can be disciplined, improved, indulged, or restrained. This division is not a literal psychological claim but a **conceptual metaphor** embedded in everyday language. --- ### **Linguistic Evidence** Lakoff points to common expressions such as: - “I pulled myself together.” - “I lost myself.” - “I’m not myself today.” - “I need to control myself.” - “I told myself to calm down.” In each case, the speaker treats themselves as if there are two entities: a controller and something being controlled. --- ### **Variations of the Split** Lakoff identifies different versions of this metaphor: 1. **The Subject–Self metaphor** The “I” (subject) governs or manages the “Self.” 2. **The True Self metaphor** There is a “real” or authentic self beneath social roles or external pressures (“Be true to yourself”). 3. **The Essential Self metaphor** One’s identity is something stable and discoverable. These metaphors shape moral thinking, therapy culture, political rhetoric, and ideas about discipline and authenticity. --- ### **Why It Matters** Lakoff’s broader argument is that: - Human reason is **embodied**, not abstract and detached. - Even our most intimate sense of identity is structured metaphorically. - The idea of a purely rational, unified self is itself a conceptual construction. The split between “I” and “Self” reveals how deeply metaphor structures our understanding of mind, morality, and personhood. ## Morality and Politics For **George Lakoff**, the split between “I” and “Self” does not remain a private psychological metaphor; it extends into morality and politics. The way we imagine inner authority shapes the way we imagine social authority. --- ## **1. The Moral Self: Inner Authority as Discipline** In Lakoff’s model, especially developed in _Moral Politics_, moral systems are structured by family metaphors. If the “I” governs the “Self,” morality becomes a matter of: - **Self-control** - **Discipline** - **Restraint of impulse** - **Character formation through effort** Here, the rational “I” must control the undisciplined “Self.” Failure to do so is a moral failure. Virtue equals self-mastery. This internal metaphor scales upward into political thought. --- ## **2. From Inner Control to the “Strict Father” Model** Lakoff argues that many conservative worldviews mirror this structure. In what he calls the **Strict Father model**: - Authority is legitimate and necessary. - Discipline builds character. - Those who lack discipline are responsible for their condition. - Moral strength comes from overcoming internal weakness. Just as the “I” must control the “Self,” authority must control disorder in society. --- ## **3. The Alternative: The Nurturant Model** In contrast, Lakoff describes a **Nurturant Parent model**, more common in progressive politics: - Morality is about empathy and care. - People flourish through support, not harsh discipline. - Internal conflict is not weakness but part of human complexity. Here, the self is not primarily a battleground of control but a relational being shaped by connection. --- ## **4. Why This Matters Politically** Lakoff’s deeper claim is that political disagreement is not mainly about policy details. It reflects: - Different metaphors of selfhood. - Different moral psychologies. - Different models of authority. If one sees the self as something that must be governed firmly, one is more likely to favour strict law, punishment, and hierarchical order. If one sees the self as relational and shaped by care, one is more likely to favour social support and systemic reform. --- ## **5. Implication for Identity** The split between “I” and “Self” thus becomes foundational: - It structures ideas of responsibility. - It informs attitudes toward poverty, crime, welfare, and education. - It shapes whether moral failure is seen as internal weakness or structural injustice. Lakoff’s larger thesis is that politics is not fundamentally about logic, but about deeply embedded metaphors of personhood. ## Resonance of political worldviews Extending **George Lakoff** further, the resonance of political worldviews is not primarily intellectual but temperamental. People are not persuaded into moral frameworks so much as they _recognise themselves_ within them. --- ## **1. Temperament and Moral Framing** Lakoff’s models in _Moral Politics_ rest on the idea that moral systems grow out of embodied experience — especially early experiences of authority, care, and discipline. Different temperaments incline individuals towards different moral metaphors: - Those who value order, clarity, boundaries, and self-discipline often find the **Strict Father** model intuitively right. - Those who value empathy, nuance, and relational understanding often gravitate towards the **Nurturant Parent** model. The attraction is pre-rational. Arguments then follow to justify what already _feels_ morally coherent. --- ## **2. The Inner Split and Personality** Returning to the split between “I” and “Self”: - A person who experiences the self as something that must be controlled may see strength as moral virtue. - A person who experiences the self as something to be understood or integrated may see compassion as moral virtue. Thus, inner psychological style maps onto outer political conviction. Some people feel most secure when impulse is mastered. Others feel most secure when complexity is acknowledged. Neither orientation is simply “more rational.” Each reflects a deep-seated orientation toward authority, vulnerability, and human nature. --- ## **3. Why Debate Often Fails** If political differences arise from embodied moral metaphors: - Evidence alone rarely shifts allegiance. - Appeals framed in the “wrong” moral language fall flat. - Each side hears the other as morally misguided, not merely mistaken. Lakoff therefore argues that effective persuasion requires speaking within the listener’s moral frame — or reshaping frames over time — rather than presenting detached facts. --- ## **4. A Broader Reflection** The implication is subtle but profound: politics is, in part, an outward projection of how we experience our own divided selves. How we manage our impulses. How we relate to authority. How we understand strength and care. These inner narratives quietly become public philosophy. `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`