Self: Institution vs Impulse

The paper “The Real Self: From Institution to Impulse” by Ralph Turner (1961) delves into the varying interpretations of the “real self ”. Turner identifies and juxtaposes two important perspectives: the “institutionalist” view, where the real self is seen as aligning with social and cultural norms, and the “impulsivist” view, which regards the self as real for its authentic and uninhibited display – notwithstanding the institutional prescriptions. This paper is motivated to illuminate this useful distinction and examine how the increasing prominence of the impulsive notion of the self imperils traditional social theories that predominantly adhere to an institutionalist understanding of the self. To that extent, I find the paper well-motivated and well-intentioned; it draws attention to meta-theoretical inconsistencies that plague our understanding of the social phenomenon and impels scholars to reflect on the ontological bases of our theories to remain timely and relevant. Theory : Turner objectifies the self. This is consistent with Stone’s conception of identity – which entails conscious objectification of the self in a pursuit to establish oneself as similar to some and distinct from others in a social system. He further contends that by treating the self as an object, one can distinguish between a part of them that is real and personal and one that is not. Consequently, what is regarded as the true self may vary across individuals and is a matter of where their sense of self is located or anchored.

Individuals with an institutional focus recognize and uphold normative standards to define and project their true selves. This could mean doing things to comply with the ideals of being noble, courageous, altruistic, or even self-sacrificing.

On the other hand, individuals centered around impulsive focus are moved by their inter- nal desires as opposed to some external social pressures. They are predisposed to act spontaneously in ways that may or may not be socially acceptable. An interesting analogy here would be to characterize individuals with institutional focus to emphasize and prioritize their public self and individuals anchored in impulsive self as more in touch with their private self. Another useful way to think about the institutional-impulse divide would be to invoke the sub-Kantian externalist and sub-Humean internalist perspectives to human action. The institutional focus is analogous to acting in ways motivated by external standards, whereas the impulsive focus accords primacy to internal desires over external standards.

While the discussion on institutional and impulsive self is certainly fascinating, I do not find it necessarily very productive because of the reasons below:

• The presumption that institution and impulse are antithetical to each other is question- able on multiple grounds. Here I can think of many plausible scenarios where both are coincident: first, a person being impulsive but within permissible institutional bound- aries; second, impulse reflecting embodiment of institutional norms and beliefs to the core – for example, as an Indian I tend to touch elder people’s feet to seek their blessings and many times I have actively desisted myself from doing that after having moved to America; and third, contexts where being impulsive is encouraged as an institution – for example, meeting a doctor or psychiatrist or even when surrounded with close friends.

• There is no proper explanation about what really constitutes an impulsive real self. The way Turner presents it, impulse comprises uninhibited actions that defy or denigrate institutions. But that may not always be true. On the contrary, I argue that impulsivist self could lead to the creation of institutionalist self. As a case in point, think of uncon- ventional social actors such as Donald Trump who have openly deviated from the norms and by Turner’s definition are supposedly anchored in their impulsivist self. But should their behavior be construed as the display of their impulsivist real self? I do not think so. I say this because the seemingly impulsive behavior is also a well-thought-out and reasoned strategic scheme to deviate, stand out, and manipulate institutions. What this means is that impulsion does not substitute institutionalization but leads to modification and even the formation of new institutions.

Therefore, theories anchored in institutional focus are likely to remain relevant even if the implusivist self becomes more prominent.

According to Turner, a display of impulsive behavior has grown over the years, undermining the institutional underpinnings of social theories. He is primarily concerned about the deeply entrenched institutional focus of our social theories that may render them conceptually inadequate to explain the evolving social reality. However, I believe Turner is being overly cautious and a large part of his skepticism is unwarranted. First and foremost, he is speculative in his approach as no supporting empirical evidence is presented in the paper. Second, he treats institutional and impulse-led behaviors as substitutes, which can very much be characterized as complements based on our discussion above. This explains why more than half a century has elapsed since this piece was written and despite that social theories rooted in institutional logic are still as prevalent as back in the day. However, I still appreciate the read and consider it an insightful take as it advances our understanding of two distinct perspectives to conceptualize the self