A few days ago, I was trying to describe to a client an issue faced by many clients over the years, so I made up a new term for it: “situational identity.” In a way, the term makes no sense. A person’s “identity” can be defined as their “permanent sense of self.” If something is “permanent,” it must be independent of an isolated and temporary situation. So, situational identity is an oxymoron—it cannot exist because a true identity cannot be situational if it is permanent. Why create a term that by its own definition makes no sense? Because the problem clients bring into therapy that gave rise to this term also makes no logical sense, yet is a very real problem. Situational identity is often the root of the problem when someone is much more afraid of change in their lives than it seems they should be. In therapy, this can often lead to serious issues of anxiety and depression, and it can keep people stuck in their lives for a long time when none of these issues are really necessary, even though they are often very difficult problems for clients to solve without the support of others to help them see what is really going on.
Prior to or during transitions in a person’s life, change might be necessary and even very welcome. Take for example a woman who’s had her career on hold for several years while she’s been raising her children. Let’s call her Mary. Now Mary’s kids are grown to the point where she can begin to think about going back to work full-time. But, she’s really anxious about it, and doesn’t know why. The feeling of anxiousness seems to be more than just about what Mary will encounter; whether she will succeed in going back to her career. In fact, Mary feels pretty confident she’s got what it takes to be just fine going back to work. So, what’s really bugging her? Her fears are more about what she is losing. Facing this change means Mary fears losing a sense of her self, a way of defining herself. Realizing this, Mary also realizes she has become so immersed in the importance of being a “good mother” that when that role becomes a less prominent part of her daily life, she doesn’t know who she will be.
Of course, Mary will still be who Mary is at some core level. Mary’s fears about how she will define herself arises from not knowing how things will play out for her after she goes back to work and spends less time at home and less time with her kids. This fear is likely also based on her having placed more emphasis on her role as a mother as a defining characteristic of her identity than it can really have. This is the problem of “situational identity” in a nutshell. When we rely on the roles in our lives or the kind of relationships we have with others as a way to define who we are, we become so tied to those roles or relationships that any change, even positive change, can be really frightening because think we risk not only a change in the relationship but the potential loss of some aspect of ourselves. And then who will we be? Will we still be important? Will we still be able to feel good about ourselves? Will others still like us and want us to be around?
I should point out that I am not referring to “code-shifting” (talking or being one way with a group of friends of a particular ethnicity and talking or acting completely different with others). Sometimes, this can be a useful and beneficial skill for practicing cultural competence, if not taken too far. However, this blog isn’t about that issue. Nor is this blog intended to address the related issue of authenticity—what it is like to be “real” with others, so our self-image (how we think others perceive us) is consistent with our sense of who we are. This blog is about something more exclusively internal, which means the focus is on how we feel about our lives and ourselves rather than how we might look to others on the outside. For more thoughts on “authenticity,” please see my previous two blogs on that topic: Authenticity: Being with your-self and Authenticity- Part II: Why it is important
The issue of “situational identity” also comes up fairly often when someone is struggling with ending a long-term relationship, even if the client is the one deciding to end the relationship or marriage. Beyond dealing with the grief of losing their partner, which is always an important part of this process, there can sometimes be fear ending the relationship will end some part on their own identity. A client (we will call him Bill) considering this change, might ask himself: without the house, the garden, the wife, the daily interaction with the kids, what’s left of me, the person that was Bill, what am I without all of these other things? And then it might seem to Bill there is a big gaping whole, a void, an emptiness, and he can’t see what part of himself is left after the relationship or the marriage is gone. These are not actually identity questions, although they seem like they are. Are they necessary, well-directed, healthy questions? I would say no, not when they are asked within the framework of thinking that ending the relationship will cause an implosion of Bill’s identity. Bill’s identity is not really situational, even though it might feel this way to Bill. Bill’s identity is not actually dependent on the continuation of the marriage.
Rather than focusing on what part of himself he will lose, a more effective and less painful kind of question for Bill might be: what will stay the same within me if I end the marriage? Or, how will I be the same whether I leave or stay? This is a true identity question. Our identities are not dependent on where we live, whether we are married or not, which job we have, or whether we see our kids every day or half the week. We might even give this particular issue its own name: “relational identity” which is just as nonsensical as situational identity. It is not a good idea for us to let ourselves believe that we are important only because we are important to someone else.
The question of divorce or ending any kind of long-term relationship is not and should not be an easy decision. Too much is at stake for Bill, his wife, his kids, their families and others, but it can be even more detrimental to stay in a relationship because you incorrectly believe that some part of the very essence of who you are will come to an end if you leave. Again, this is simply not true. Once Bill learns this, he will be able to make a good choice about whether to stay in the marriage or not, knowing that what is essential about who he is will still be there regardless of what he decides.
Why do we allow ourselves to become so invested in a relationship or a way of living our lives that we begin to think of it as an essential part of what defines us a person? This is complicated, and varies quite a bit from person to person and differing situations. A common thread running through these scenarios, though, is that over time we can become convinced that the only way to be sufficiently invested in a relationship (like saving a marriage or raising our kids) is to compromise or give up some part of who we are. When we do this, we trick ourselves into thinking that we cannot be okay unless we are able to maintain the status quo (continue saving a marriage that might need to end or maintaining an equal investment in our children even though they are growing up and need more independence). There is no relationship, no matter how important, that should require us to believe it is necessary to compromise our sense of self, of wholeness, of security about who we are for the sake of the relationship. Any relationship that leads down that path is one that is destructive and taking from us much more than it is giving to us. That does not ever need to be the case in any relationship or role in our life.
Knowing who we are, what we need, what we want, and the ability to express these as clearly as possible as often as possible is an important part of avoiding the false belief in a “situational identity.” Choosing how to be involved in our relationships in a way that does not require us to compromise any of these things will help us to avoid allowing any relationships or roles in our lives to lead us to believe that we cannot be whole unless this relationship or role stays exactly like it is. Flexibility is a hallmark of mental health. Realizing that all of us have flexible yet strong identities, no matter how our lives or relationships change over time, will allow us to make the changes we need to make for our own benefit without having to fear that we will lose ourselves in the process.
Copyright, 2011, Michael Kinzer. Blog entries and other materials available on Jupiter Center’s website are intended to stimulate thoughts and conversations and to supplement therapy work with Jupiter Center clients already in therapy. If you or someone you know suffers from a mental illness, you are strongly encouraged to seek help from a mental health professional. For further information about this blog, or Jupiter Center, contact Michael Kinzer at 612-701-0064 or michael(at)jupitercenter.com.
Tags: anxiety, depression, existence, independence, meaning, self-awareness, well-being
