Acceptance has a two-fold definition that interacts with fundamental human problems. On one hand, acceptance deals with the internal process of identity: “am I accepted by myself and others?” On the other hand, it deals with the external process of events: “something has happened— do I accept or reject it?” The perfect standard of acceptance is complete acceptance of self, free of judgment, and complete acceptance of external events: I am who I am and what will be is what will be.
The struggle for acceptance is ongoing. Social norms, tribal thinking, and popular culture all intersect on top of a personal, internal sense of identity. The tension between external circumstances shaping choices, habits, and thought-processes and internal, in-born influence plays out in daily life. A conditioning process started before you were born that has, at least in part, shaped who you are today. In this is the struggle for acceptance. “Am I doing enough to fit into this group?” and “will this group accept the ‘real’ me?”
But who is the ‘real’ you? Is there an inner person that is you, regardless of external conditioning? Or do you only exist as a product of your environment, your experiences, and your tribe? These questions have formed the center of the Nature vs. Nurture debate for decades, and answers are slow-coming. Unsurprisingly, the current consensus is that it’s a combination of both. We operate both as internal beings with our own tendencies and thought-processes and we reflect the external factors that surround us.
Now, acceptance. Part of acceptance in a social group is conforming to that group. This can mean sacrificing some portions of your identity to reap the benefits that the group brings. These differences will result in cognitive dissonance, where two conflicting thoughts are vying for dominance, and result in a shift of values, beliefs, or behaviors. Is the victor the ‘truth’ of who you are? In many ways, yes.
Although no one can see your internal identity, it exists in the here and now. Today, you are a different person than you were yesterday, and tomorrow you will be different yet again. Each day brings new information, new challenges, further nuance. To change is to live. The inner self will determine values that form the core of who you are, but even those are not immutable.
This is not a bad thing. It’s scary to think that all things are subject to change, but isn’t it scarier to conceptualize the opposite? As Marcus Aurelius puts it:
Frightened of change? But what can exist without it? What’s closer to nature’s heart?
If your selfhood is locked in place, you lose the possibility of deeper understanding, of finding your truer self— and you pull yourself out of alignment with nature, which consists only of change.
That is not to say that we should be perfectly malleable to outside pressures. It is in our power to accept or reject the identity of the group, no matter what that group is. Our feelings about these things occur within us. Opposition, in itself, is not dissonant. One can be a part of a group but not identify with that group. The difference between external and internal rests at this line.
It is important to be cognizant of the pressures social groups, circumstances, and events exhibit upon you. Identity is both innate and learned through experience— the truth lies in that tension. We are all, at the same time, products of external and internal factors that comprise our true selves, our identity.
Edited by Jeremy Harr and Abigail McKay Cherry
Thank you for reading Two Minute Treatise, a weekly essay newsletter focusing on one philosophical topic, two minutes at a time.
First time reading? Subscribe here and view the archive.