In 1739, David Hume performed an experiment that required no laboratory equipment -- only a willingness to look inward with honest attention. He entered what he called "himself" as closely as he could and searched for the self. He did not find it. What he found instead were perceptions: heat or cold, light or shade, pain or pleasure, love or hatred. "I never can catch myself at any time without a perception," he wrote in the Treatise of Human Nature, "and can never observe any thing but the perception." The self was not there. There was no continuous, unified, persisting entity behind the stream of experience -- only the stream itself, a bundle of perceptions succeeding one another with "inconceivable rapidity."

This observation is either deeply disturbing or deeply liberating depending on where you stand. It is disturbing because the self is the foundation of virtually everything we care about: moral responsibility, personal identity through time, the legitimacy of promises, the meaning of suffering, the point of planning for the future. If there is no self, what holds any of this together? It is liberating because the desperate project of securing and enhancing a fixed self -- which Buddhists had identified as the root of suffering more than two millennia before Hume -- may be based on a fiction. The cage might be made of something less solid than it feels.

What makes the question of the self particularly fascinating at the present moment is that it is no longer purely a philosophical problem. Neuroscience has developed tools for investigating the neural substrates of self-experience, and what those tools reveal substantially complicates the picture of a unified, continuous personal identity that ordinary life takes for granted. The brain constructs the self the way it constructs color -- as a model of something useful for navigation that does not correspond to a fixed feature of the world. Understanding how that construction works, what it gets wrong, and what happens when it breaks down turns out to be one of the most illuminating investigations in contemporary science.

"I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe any thing but the perception." -- David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)

Key Definitions

Default mode network (DMN) -- A network of brain regions that activates during rest, mind-wandering, self-referential thought, and social cognition. Primary nodes include the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), posterior cingulate cortex, angular gyrus, and hippocampus. The DMN is implicated in autobiographical memory, future simulation, theory of mind, and the construction of a continuous self-narrative.

Phenomenal self-model (PSM) -- Thomas Metzinger's term for the brain's real-time model of the organism itself: the neural representation of one's own body, mental states, and perspective that generates the subjective experience of being a self. The PSM is "transparent" -- we do not experience it as a model but as direct contact with who we are.

Theory of the Self Core Claim Implication
Stable self (essentialist) A core, fixed identity underlies all behavior Self is discoverable and knowable
Narrative self (McAdams) Self is the story we construct about our life Identity is created, not found
Social self (Cooley, Mead) Self emerges from social interaction and reflected appraisals Who we are depends on who we interact with
Minimal self (Zahavi) A pre-reflective, embodied sense of being a subject Self is not a narrative but a basic phenomenal given
Bundle theory (Hume) No unified self — just a bundle of experiences What feels like "self" is a constructed illusion

Narrative identity -- The theory, associated with philosophers Paul Ricoeur and Marya Schechtman and psychologist Dan McAdams, that personal identity is constituted partly by the life story one constructs and inhabits: a selective, organized, continuously updated narrative of past, present, and anticipated future.

Bundle theory -- Hume's position that the self is nothing more than a bundle or collection of perceptions. There is no underlying "owner" of experiences, only the experiences themselves. The illusion of unity and continuity is generated by memory and association, not by the existence of a persisting self.

Personal identity -- The philosophical question of what makes a person at one time the same person as a person at another time. Standard accounts appeal to physical continuity (the body), psychological continuity (memories, personality, beliefs), or some combination.

Psychological continuity -- Parfit's criterion for personal identity: what matters in survival is the right kind of overlapping chain of psychological connections -- memories, intentions, beliefs, desires -- between earlier and later stages of a person. This criterion can come in degrees and can hold between different persons.

Anatta (no-self) -- The Buddhist doctrine that there is no permanent, unchanging self underlying personal experience. The appearance of a self is generated by the interaction of five aggregates (skandhas): form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. The belief in a fixed self is a cognitive illusion that generates craving and suffering.

Self-construal -- An individual's mental representation of the relationship between the self and others. Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama distinguished independent self-construals (self as autonomous, bounded, unique) from interdependent self-construals (self as connected to and defined partly by relationships and social roles).

Independent vs interdependent self -- Markus and Kitayama's 1991 distinction between Western and East Asian cultural models of the self. Independent selves define themselves through personal attributes and internal states; interdependent selves define themselves partly through roles, relationships, and social context.

Hume's Bundle Theory vs Descartes: What You Find When You Look

The contrast between Descartes and Hume defines the terms of the modern debate about the self.

Descartes, writing in the Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), subjected his beliefs to systematic doubt, stripping away everything that could conceivably be false. He found one thing he could not doubt: that there was a thinker performing the doubting. Even an evil demon deceiving him about everything required him to exist in order to be deceived. Cogito ergo sum -- I think, therefore I am. The self was the one fixed point, the one thing that doubt could not touch, the most certain object in his entire metaphysical system.

Hume took the same method -- introspection, the direct examination of mental life -- and came to the opposite conclusion. When he looked for the self, he found no fixed point, no continuous entity. He found only the succession of particular perceptions. His bundle theory proposed that what we call the self is not a substance or an entity but a collection of experiences bound together by relations of resemblance, contiguity in time, and causation -- and by the further operation of memory and imagination that creates the impression of continuity where there is only succession.

The self, on Hume's account, is a fiction -- not in the sense of being nonexistent (the perceptions are real) but in the sense of being a construction that does not correspond to any single underlying thing. We create the self the way a film creates the impression of continuous motion from a sequence of still frames. The motion is not in the frames; it is in the processing.

Parfit's Reasons and Persons: What Matters in Survival

The most influential modern treatment of personal identity is Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons (1984), which transformed both the philosophy of the self and the ethics that depends on it.

Parfit's central argument begins with a thought experiment. Suppose your brain could be divided and each hemisphere transplanted into a different body. Both resulting persons would have memories of being you, would have your personality, beliefs, and intentions. Which of them is you? Both cannot be you -- they are different people who will diverge from the moment of the operation. If both are equally continuous with you psychologically, there is no principled reason to prefer one claim over the other. But if neither is you, then you have ceased to exist even though there was no death in any ordinary sense.

This fission case reveals something important. Our ordinary concept of personal identity -- the notion that there is always a fact of the matter about whether a later person is the same person as an earlier one -- is undermined by cases where psychological continuity branches. Parfit's conclusion was that personal identity is not what matters. What matters in survival is not being the same person but rather having successors who are psychologically continuous with you. In the fission case, you get what matters twice over.

This conclusion has profound ethical implications. If personal identity is not a deep metaphysical fact but a practical concept that breaks down at the edges, the sharp distinction between self-interest and the interests of others becomes less metaphysically grounded. The person I will be in twenty years is, in a precise philosophical sense, a different person from the one I am now -- connected by overlapping psychological continuities, but not identical. Parfit drew the ethical consequence explicitly: recognizing the weakness of personal identity removes a glass wall between self and other, making concern for others a more natural extension of concern for one's own future self.

The Neuroscience of the Self: Default Mode Network and PSM

Neuroscience has provided independent tools for investigating the self, and the picture that emerges substantially supports the philosophical skepticism of Hume and Parfit.

The default mode network -- identified through neuroimaging work in the late 1990s and early 2000s, with key contributions from Marcus Raichle and colleagues -- activates specifically during self-referential processing: thinking about one's own past and future, assessing one's own traits, imagining how others perceive one, and mental time travel. The primary nodes include the medial prefrontal cortex (associated with self-relevant evaluation and social cognition), the posterior cingulate cortex (associated with autobiographical memory retrieval), the angular gyrus (associated with integration of self-relevant information), and the hippocampus (essential for episodic memory).

The DMN is notably disrupted in several conditions that alter the sense of self. In major depressive disorder, the DMN shows pathological overactivation and reduced connectivity with regulatory prefrontal regions -- consistent with the ruminative, self-focused nature of depression. In experienced meditators, DMN coherence is reduced during meditation states, correlating with the subjective experience of reduced self-referential thought. In psychedelic states induced by psilocybin, DMN connectivity drops substantially -- a finding documented by Robin Carhart-Harris and colleagues at Imperial College London -- and subjective reports of ego dissolution correlate with the magnitude of DMN disruption.

Metzinger's Phenomenal Self-Model

Thomas Metzinger's theory, developed in Being No One (2003), provides the most systematic account of how the brain generates the experience of being a self without there being a self in any metaphysical sense.

The brain maintains a real-time model of the organism as a whole -- the phenomenal self-model (PSM). This model integrates information about bodily state, sensory input, memory, and current context into a unified representation experienced as "me." The model is what you experience as yourself; there is no layer deeper than the model, no observer behind it examining it from outside.

The critical feature of the PSM is its transparency: we do not experience it as a model. It is experienced as direct access to the self. This is why the self feels so solid and immediate -- not because there is a substantial self underlying the experience, but because the model is so seamlessly embedded in experience that its nature as a model is invisible to the very system it is modeling.

When the PSM is disrupted -- by neurological damage, anesthesia, dissociative states, or high-dose psychedelics -- the result is disorientation, terror, or in some cases liberation, depending on the person and context. Out-of-body experiences, experimentally induced by Olaf Blanke and colleagues through vestibular stimulation, result from disruptions to the integration of bodily information into the PSM -- the self-model detaches from its normal anchor in the perceived body.

William James: The I and the Me

William James, in The Principles of Psychology (1890), made a distinction that anticipated both the phenomenological and neuroscientific approaches.

James distinguished the "I" from the "Me." The I is the self as knower -- the continuous stream of consciousness, the active subject of experience. The Me is the self as known -- the empirical self that one can observe and describe. James divided the Me into three components: the material self (the body and its possessions), the social self (how one is perceived and related to by others -- and he noted that a person has as many social selves as there are people who recognize them), and the spiritual self (one's psychological faculties and dispositions, felt as the innermost center of experience).

James's distinction anticipates the neuroscientific finding that self-experience is not unitary. The brain constructs different aspects of the self using partially separable systems: the sense of body ownership, the sense of agency, the autobiographical self, the minimal phenomenal self of moment-to-moment experience, the narrative self of remembered personal history. These systems can dissociate -- disorders of body ownership, loss of autobiographical memory, depersonalization -- confirming that the self is a composite rather than a unity.

Buddhist No-Self: Anatta, Skandhas, and Nagarjuna

The Buddhist philosophical tradition arrived at a conclusion similar to Hume's more than two thousand years earlier, embedded in a comprehensive psychological and ethical account.

The doctrine of anatta holds that what we take to be a permanent, unified, independent self is in fact a flowing process -- a continuously changing collection of five aggregates (skandhas): form (the physical body), sensation (raw hedonic quality of experience), perception (recognition and categorization), mental formations (intentions, emotions, habitual tendencies), and consciousness (awareness itself). None of these aggregates, individually or collectively, constitutes a self in the sense of a persisting, independent entity.

Nagarjuna, the second-century philosopher who founded the Madhyamaka school, extended this in the doctrine of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada): nothing exists independently; everything exists only in relation to other things. The self exists conventionally -- as a useful label for a continuity of experience and action -- but not ultimately, not as a self-subsisting entity distinct from its relations.

The ethical implications in Buddhist teaching are direct: clinging to a fixed self is the root cause of suffering (dukkha) because the fixed self it defends does not exist in the way it appears to. Recognizing no-self is not intellectual entertainment; it is the basis of liberation. The convergence between ancient Buddhist phenomenology and modern philosophy and neuroscience is one of the most striking intellectual convergences of the past century.

Culture and the Self: Markus and Kitayama

One of the most important empirical contributions to the science of the self came from cross-cultural psychology. In their landmark 1991 paper in Psychological Review (doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224), Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama proposed that Western and East Asian cultures transmit fundamentally different models of selfhood with measurable effects on perception, cognition, and behavior.

The independent self-construal, predominant in North American and Northern European cultures, represents the self as a bounded, autonomous agent whose traits, abilities, values, and preferences are internal and define the person across contexts. Self-esteem in independent cultures is tied to expressing and asserting these internal attributes.

The interdependent self-construal, predominant in East Asian, South Asian, Latin American, and many African cultures, represents the self as defined partly by relationships, roles, and social context. The self is not fundamentally bounded from others but is constituted through connections to specific others -- family, group, community. Self-worth in interdependent cultures is more closely tied to fulfilling obligations and maintaining harmonious relationships.

These are not merely attitudinal differences. Markus and Kitayama documented downstream effects on cognition: independent self-construal is associated with more analytic, object-focused attention and context-independent judgment; interdependent self-construal is associated with more holistic, context-sensitive attention. Differences in autobiographical memory structure have also been documented: people with independent self-construals tend to remember autobiographical events in ways that center their own role and internal states; those with interdependent self-construals more often remember the social context and the roles of others. The self-model shapes not just self-description but the architecture of memory.

Narrative Identity: Schechtman, McAdams, and the Personal Myth

The narrative identity tradition offers a third perspective, complementing philosophical skepticism and neuroscientific modeling by foregrounding the role of stories in constituting the self.

Philosopher Marya Schechtman's The Constitution of Selves (1996) argued that persons are constituted by the narrative they construct about their lives. Personal identity is not a matter of strict psychological continuity in Parfit's sense -- it is a matter of the coherent, self-authored story that organizes experience, gives events meaning, and connects the person's past, present, and projected future into an intelligible whole. The self is not found by introspection but constructed through narration.

Dan McAdams developed the most extensive empirical research program attached to this idea. His personal myth research proposes that personal identity, in psychologically healthy adults, takes the form of an internalized, evolving self-story -- a personal myth -- that integrates memory, values, and imagined futures into a meaningful account of who one is. In his 2001 Review of General Psychology paper, McAdams reviewed evidence showing that the specific structure of one's personal narrative -- whether it is primarily contamination-sequence (good things turning bad) or redemption-sequence (bad things turning good) -- predicts mental health outcomes independently of the actual events the narrative describes. Redemptive narratives are associated with greater psychological wellbeing, higher generativity (concern for future generations), and greater civic engagement.

The clinical implications are significant. Narrative coherence can be disrupted by trauma, by depressive episodes that impose negative interpretive frames, or by life transitions that make the old story no longer adequate. Narrative-based therapies help clients reconstruct self-stories in ways that expand possibility and reduce entrapment in constraining identity narratives.

For the neuroscience of consciousness underlying self-experience, see what is consciousness. For phenomena at the edge of self-experience, see what near-death experiences reveal. For cultural variation in self-experience and cognition, see why cultures think differently.

References

  • Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. John Noon.
  • Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
  • Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. MIT Press.
  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
  • McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100-122. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100
  • Schechtman, M. (1996). The Constitution of Selves. Cornell University Press.
  • James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt.
  • Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. (English translation by John Cottingham, 1996, Cambridge University Press.)
  • Carhart-Harris, R. L., Leech, R., Hellyer, P. J., Shanahan, M., Feilding, A., Tagliazucchi, E., Chialvo, D. R., & Nutt, D. (2014). The entropic brain: A theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00020
  • Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003

Tags

philosophy neuroscience identity consciousness psychology Buddhism self Parfit Hume narrative identity

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the self actually exist or is it an illusion?

This question requires unpacking what we mean by 'exist' and what we mean by 'illusion.' If we mean a unified, unchanging Cartesian substance that persists identically through time as the locus of all our experiences, then both philosophy and neuroscience give strong reasons to doubt this entity exists. Hume famously reported finding no such thing when he looked inward — only a stream of perceptions. Parfit argued that personal identity over time is not a further fact beyond psychological and physical continuity. Neuroscientist Thomas Metzinger argues that no one has ever been or had a 'self' in the philosophical sense — the self is a phenomenal model, a representation the brain generates of itself.But 'illusion' can be misleading. Saying the self is an illusion does not mean your experiences are not happening, that there is no difference between you and someone else, or that you should stop planning for your future. What is illusory, in Metzinger's account, is the sense that this self is a thing that exists independently of the brain processes generating it — the sense that there is an inner observer looking out through the eyes. This is a transparent representation: you look through it without being able to see it.The question has practical stakes. If the self is less fixed and less unified than we ordinarily assume, this has implications for how we understand responsibility, punishment, long-term planning, and the weight we attach to self-continuity. Parfit argued that recognizing the less-than-substantial nature of the self should make us both more generous toward others (the gap between self and other narrows) and less gripped by self-interested prudence in the extreme forms it takes in rational choice theory.

What is Parfit's argument about personal identity over time?

Derek Parfit's 'Reasons and Persons' (1984) is among the most influential works in twentieth-century philosophy, partly because of its sustained argument that personal identity over time is less determinate and less important than we ordinarily assume.Parfit's central move is to ask what personal identity actually consists in. The traditional view is that there is some further fact — a Cartesian soul, a biological organism, a persistent psychological substance — that makes it true that the person who wakes up tomorrow is the same person who went to sleep tonight. Parfit argues that personal identity just consists in psychological continuity and connectedness: overlapping chains of memories, intentions, beliefs, desires, and personality traits that connect person-stages over time. There is no further fact over and above these connections.He illustrates this with thought experiments about fission (your brain is divided and transplanted into two bodies, both of which survive) and teletransportation (your body is destroyed and perfectly replicated elsewhere). In fission, both resulting people have equal claim to be you — but they cannot both be you in the strict identity sense, because they are not identical to each other. Parfit concludes that what matters in survival is not identity per se but psychological continuity and connectedness, which admits of degrees.The ethical implications are significant. If I am not strictly identical to my future self — if the connection is a matter of degree rather than all-or-nothing — then extreme self-interested prudence (sacrificing everything now for future gain) is as rationally questionable as extreme self-sacrifice for strangers. The metaphysical asymmetry between self and other, which grounds much of our ordinary moral psychology, is less secure than it appears.

What does neuroscience say about the basis of the self?

Neuroscience has identified a network of brain regions consistently activated during self-referential processing: the default mode network (DMN). The DMN — including the medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, angular gyrus, and hippocampus — is most active during mind-wandering, autobiographical memory retrieval, thinking about the future, and evaluating social information about oneself and others. It is sometimes called the 'resting state' network because it activates when external task demands are absent, but 'self-referential processing network' is more accurate.The DMN is disrupted in characteristic ways in depression (rumination involves pathological self-referential processing), meditation (experienced meditators show decreased DMN activity, correlating with reduced self-referential thought), and psychedelic states (classical psychedelics such as psilocybin and LSD markedly reduce DMN coherence, correlating with the dissolution of ordinary self-experience that users report).Thomas Metzinger integrates neuroscience with philosophy through his Phenomenal Self-Model (PSM) theory. The brain generates a model of the organism it is running — a representation of the body, its states, its location, and its causal relationship to the environment. This model is 'transparent': we do not experience it as a model but as reality. We do not feel that we have a body-representation; we feel that we are a body. We do not experience a self-model; we experience being a self. When the PSM is disrupted — in out-of-body experiences, depersonalization, or certain neurological conditions — the seamlessness of ordinary self-experience breaks down, revealing the constructed nature of what ordinarily feels immediate and given.

What is the difference between the 'I' and the 'me' in psychology?

William James introduced this distinction in 'The Principles of Psychology' (1890), and it remains foundational in self psychology. The 'I' — sometimes called the subjective self or self-as-knower — is the self as the experiencing subject: the one who perceives, thinks, acts, and is aware. It is the perspective from which experience occurs. The 'me' — sometimes called the objective self or self-as-known — is the self as an object of reflection: the content of self-knowledge, everything one thinks of when one thinks about oneself.James subdivided the 'me' into three components. The material self includes the body, possessions, and close family members — things we experience as extensions of ourselves. The social self is the recognition one gets from others; James famously noted that a person has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize them. The spiritual self is the inner subjective life — character, values, intellectual and moral dispositions.This distinction maps onto important distinctions in later psychology and philosophy. The 'I' corresponds roughly to what Metzinger calls the phenomenal self-model as it is experienced — the transparent sense of being a subject. The 'me' corresponds to the self-concept in social and personality psychology: the organized set of beliefs, evaluations, and self-descriptions that constitute a person's identity in the third-person sense. Much social psychological research concerns the 'me' — self-esteem, self-concept clarity, self-schemas, self-serving bias — while consciousness research tends to concern the 'I.'

What does the Buddhist concept of no-self mean?

The Buddhist doctrine of anatta (Pali; anatman in Sanskrit) holds that there is no permanent, unified, independent self. This is one of the three marks of existence in Buddhist teaching, alongside impermanence (anicca) and suffering or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). The teaching does not claim that you do not exist, or that there are no differences between people. It claims that what we take to be a stable, unified, independent 'I' is actually a collection of interdependent, constantly changing processes.The Pali Canon describes experience as constituted by five aggregates (skandhas): form (the body and its sensations), feeling-tone (the pleasantness, unpleasantness, or neutrality of experience), perception (recognition and categorization), mental formations (intentions, emotions, volitions, habits), and consciousness (awareness itself). None of these aggregates, examined closely, contains or constitutes a self. They arise and pass away in dependence on conditions.The philosophical elaboration of this was taken furthest by Nagarjuna (c. 150-250 CE), whose Madhyamaka philosophy argues that all phenomena lack inherent existence — they exist only in dependence on other phenomena and on conceptual designation. The self is not absolutely nonexistent (that would be nihilism) but is dependently arisen: a functional designation on a stream of processes, not a metaphysical entity.The reason this matters practically, in Buddhist teaching, is that clinging to a fixed self is the root of suffering. If the self is a construction rather than a given, our identification with it — our sense that it must be protected, enhanced, and made permanent — is based on a misapprehension. Loosening this identification, through meditation and philosophical insight, is part of the path to liberation. Contemporary research on mindfulness and self-transcendence has begun to examine these claims empirically.

How does culture shape the self?

One of the most influential findings in cross-cultural psychology is that the very structure of selfhood — not just the content of self-beliefs but the form self-conception takes — varies systematically across cultures. Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama's landmark 1991 paper 'Culture and the Self' proposed a distinction between independent and interdependent self-construals.The independent self-construal, prevalent in Western individualist cultures, defines the self as bounded, unitary, and stable — a set of internal attributes (traits, abilities, preferences, values) that are owned by the individual, persist across contexts, and distinguish that individual from others. This self-concept prioritizes autonomy, individual achievement, and self-expression. Internal states like emotions and attitudes are taken as primary data about who one is.The interdependent self-construal, prevalent in many East Asian, South Asian, Latin American, and African cultures, defines the self in terms of relationships, roles, and contexts. The self is not a bounded container of fixed attributes but a node in a network of relationships. What one is changes appropriately with context and relationship — behaving differently with one's parents and one's friends is not inconsistency but appropriate responsiveness. Others' needs and group harmony are more salient in self-regulation.These are not simply different attitudes; they appear to shape basic cognitive and perceptual processes. Research using visual attention tasks finds that East Asian participants show greater attention to contextual and relational information, while Western participants focus more on focal objects. Memory tasks show corresponding differences in what is recalled. These findings suggest that culture shapes not just the content but the architecture of self-experience.

What is the narrative self and how do stories constitute identity?

The narrative theory of personal identity holds that selfhood is not a metaphysical substance or a set of neurological processes but a story — or more precisely, the story we tell about ourselves, integrating past experiences, present circumstances, and anticipated future into a coherent autobiographical narrative.Philosopher Marya Schechtman argued in 'The Constitution of Selves' (1996) that what makes a person the same person over time is not biological or psychological continuity in the abstract but the existence of a self-constituting narrative: a coherent first-person account that incorporates past experiences as one's own and projects a future that follows from them. This is not merely a story we tell to others; it is partly constitutive of who we are.Dan McAdams developed this into a full psychological research program. He argues that personal identity is a life story — what he calls a 'personal myth' — that begins to form in adolescence, when the cognitive capacity for autobiographical reasoning matures, and is revised throughout life. The life story has recognizable narrative features: characters, setting, episodes, turning points, themes of agency and communion. People who construct coherent, complex, redemptive life narratives — who can see suffering as leading to growth, failures as leading to insight — show better psychological wellbeing and more generative relationships with their communities.This theory has clinical implications. Many therapeutic approaches — narrative therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, EMDR for trauma — involve revising the narratives through which people understand their past and anticipate their future. The self, on this view, is both constituted by and revisable through storytelling.

Share this article