Conceptualizing the Self Across Four Paradigms: Substantiality vs. Processuality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i29.365964Keywords:
Self, multiplicity of the psyche, subjectivity, identity, pre-modernity, modernity, post-modernity, meta-modernity, ethnocultural psychology, Internal Family Systems (IFS)Abstract
Purpose. The article aims to conduct a philosophical and comparative analysis of the conceptualisation of the Self in premodern, modern, postmodern and metamodern intellectual traditions through the prism of the dichotomy between multiplicity and wholeness, as well as to identify the internal logic of their transformations in relation to the type of sociality. The theoretical basis is grounded on a synthesis of classical and contemporary concepts of subjectivity: from C. Taylor’s "porous self" and P. Ricoeur’s narrative identity to the reductionist models of D. Parfit, P. Churchland, D. Dennett, T. Metzinger, the embodied Self in cognition, which views the mind as embodied, embedded, extended and enactive (F. Varela, E. Thompson, S. Gallagher), and the integrative approaches of K. Wilber, H. Hermans and R. Schwartz. Originality lies: firstly, in the definition of the logic of the fractal reconstruction of transformations in the concept of the Self – from the ontological multiplicity of premodernity, through the autonomous rational subject of modernity and the deconstruction of the unified Self in postmodernity, to the integrative-oscillatory model of metamodernity; secondly, in the introduction of an analytical model of the phases of circular causality between the Self and sociality; thirdly, in the inclusion of the Buddhist concept of the non-self and approaches of embodied cognition in the comparative analysis as non-classical precedents of the processual Self; fourthly, in the argumentation of the integrative nature and thinking of the Self in a mode of openness to its further transformations. Conclusions. Analysis shows that transformations in conceptions of the Self were accompanied by corresponding changes in the nature of sociality through a mechanism of circular causality. In pre-modern cultures, the Self emerged as the spiritual centre within the sacred cosmos, where inner multiplicity was considered ontologically normative. Modernity established the autonomous rational subject, pathologising multiplicity. Postmodernity deconstructed the monolithic Self, revealing the contextual nature of identity, but giving rise to the risk of total fragmentation. Contemporary integrative approaches form a metamodern paradigm, where multiplicity is a necessary condition, and wholeness is understood as dynamic oscillatory integration rather than static unity. Consequently, the Self emerges as a processual, relational subject, open to interaction between its own parts, with other subjects, and with the cultural and social environment. One might hypothesise an approach to a bifurcation point, where the accumulated complexity of previous forms of thought opens up the possibility of a transition to new configurations of understanding the Self and openness to subsequent forms of subjectivity.
References
Albahari, M. (2006). Analytical Buddhism: The two-tiered illusion of self. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230800540 (in English)
Buys, M. E. (2025). Exploring the evidence for Internal Family Systems therapy: a scoping review of current research, gaps, and future directions. Clinical Psychologist, 29(3), 241-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13284207.2025.2533127 (in English)
Churchland, P. M. (1995). The engine of reason, the seat of the soul: A philosophical journey into the brain. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2758.001.0001 (in English)
Dennett, D. C. (1992). The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity. In F. Kessel, P. Cole, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Self and Consciousness: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 103-115). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (in English)
Eliade, M. (1959). The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Harcourt Brace. (in English)
Gallagher, S. (2023). The self and its disorders. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198873068.001.0001 (in English)
Hermans, H. J. M. (2018). Society in the Self: A Theory of Identity in Democracy. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190687793.001.0001 (in English)
Hermans, H. (2024). Count your Contradictions: Finding Richness in the Maze of Your Mind. Woodbridge Publishers. (in English)
Hodgdon, H. B., Anderson, F. G., Southwell, E., Hrubec, W., & Schwartz, R. (2022). Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among survivors of multiple childhood trauma: A pilot effectiveness study. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(1), 22-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.2013375 (in English)
Liakh, V. V., & Lukashenko, M. V. (2020). Philosophical analysis of a person’s self-reflection in the context of internal dialogue (based on "The dispute of a man with his Ba"). Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (17), 18-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i17.206671 (in English)
Metzinger, T. (2024). The elephant and the blind: The experience of pure consciousness: Philosophy, science, and 500+ experiential reports. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/15196.001.0001 (in English)
Ong-Van-Cung, K. S. (2014). Chy ototozhniuvav Dekart subiekt i substantsiiu v ego? In O. Khoma (Ed.), "Medytatsii" Dekarta u dzerkali suchasnykh tlumachen: Jean-Marie Beyssade, Jean-Luc Marion, Kim Sang Ong-Van-Cung (pp. 93-113). Kyiv: Dukh i Litera. (in Ukrainian)
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press. (in English)
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as Another. University of Chicago Press. (in English)
Schechtman, M. (2024). The self: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198835257.001.0001 (in English)
Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Internal family systems therapy. New York: Guilford Press. (in English)
Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Belknap Press. (in English)
van Loon, R. E. J. P., & Buster, A. S. (2025). Understanding dialogical leadership: Conscious conversations for navigating complexity. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003592327 (in English)
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001 (in English)
Vermeulen, T., & van den Akker, R. (2010). Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v2i0.5677 (in English)
Wilber, K. (2019). Trump and a post-truth world (M. Klymchuk, Trans.). Lviv: Terra Incognita. (in Ukrainian)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 V. V. Liakh, M. V. Lukashenko, A. V. Usyk

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).





