Self Identity: Extroversion and Introversion
Friday, August 29th, 2008C.G. Jung finds new, healthier egress into the territory of self identity by presenting extroversion and introversion side by side; as two empirically observable types of personality.
Religious, and to some extent, philosophical inquiries tend to favor a hierarchical relationship between introversion and extroversion. Introversion is the road to self knowledge. The source of identity found in the self is the cornerstone on which the concept or value of God the creator is laid. We understand the relationship between creator and created via direct experience.
The extrovert projects their identity outwards onto objects in the outside world. The resulting inability to take responsibility for the source of identity (since it is external to oneself) precludes understanding the relationship of oneself to God. God becomes completely externalized and separate from our sense of identity.These views of the relationship of self to God are so antithetical that conflict and misunderstanding are inevitable. From the introvert’s point of view, the extrovert is superficial and unable to take responsibility. They project everything onto “Others” whose decisions and actions the extrovert can’t control. From the extrovert’s point of view, the introvert arrogantly claims the source and genius of creation as their birthright. Narcissistically they take the rights of ownership for what belongs to God alone.
I admire Jung for placing this dilemma between introverts and extroverts into an empirical setting where it’s unavoidable and fully accepted that these types by necessity and by right exist side by side. Value judgments aside, these types are the building blocks of any social activity and order in our world. If they are always at odds with each other, quashing each other in the attempt to gain supremacy, then what does our social activity look like? Are peace, equality, brotherhood etc. possible as long as there is the need to resolve this polarity by opposing the rightness of one side over the other?
Stubbornly, analysts of history, religion, psychology and every field that attempts to describe human behavior argue for one approach or the other. The personality type of the analyst wins the day as the mode whereby identity is properly approached. Nietzsche claims the ultimate reality of identity through the eyes of an introvert where Aristotle views the same ground through the eyes of an extrovert. Ironically each type draws heavily on the other type’s approach in order to make sense of their lives.
The external arena where all the manifestations of our world are visible are intricately tied up with the tenets of science and commerce, both highly extroverted activities. Our alarm clocks, our beds, the cozy comforter, our clothes, coffee pots, computers, drugs, cars and tennis shoes are all dependent on an extroverted reality. A little of our identity is embedded in each of these objects. The deluded deny it. Our goals, aspirations and often our sense of purpose is bound up with these objects, and how we interact with them. In fact, this world of objects and our interactions with them can seem much more relevant and solid than our internal sense of identity.
Again, Jung placing introversion and extroversion side by side gives either side the potential to approach the intersection of both types with less fanaticism and superiority; with an open eye towards dealing with facts, harsh though they may be.
There is something both ruthless and good about approaching our understanding of the world, not from the strength of our own type, but by temporarily resigning the strength of our own position so that we can see a broader picture, not limited by our own idiosyncratic type. The reality is that we share our lives with personality types who may contrast radically from our own and that as little as we can accept being placed below on the hierarchy – those others who so fundamentally differ from us can’t accept the lower place either. Nor should they.
As long as it is impossible for the two approaches – introversion and extroversion to learn to view each other dispassionately the very chaos each side attempts to dispel will reign.
Like Jung we can look without prejudice at the reality of the predominant types of personality and recognize that hiddent in our opposite type is the other half of ourselves.
As a race we repeatedly fall for the “security” of bonding only with those who see the world as we do and intolerance towards everyone else. History shows how this ends over and over again in dissatisfaction and further seeking. Whether it be better objects or better ideas – neither seems ever to answer the real question we struggle with. Are we capable and flexible enough to look at the question in a new way? Can we acknowledge the interweaving of the spiritual and material worlds and the diverseness, richness and subtlety brought to fruition by the intercommunication of exploring life through turning inwards and outwards?
