Identity Formation, Metaphors, and Values

Abstract

Waterman's (1986) contention that his views on identity, self discovery, and personal responsibility are not accurately represented by Berzonsky (1986) is examined. Two types of responsibility are distinguished: (1) being responsible for the underlying identity that is assumed to emerge (constructivist) or preexist (discovery), and (2) acting responsibly in attempting to construct or discover that identity. I show that an individual cannot be held responsible in the first sense if a true self is assumed to preexist. Second, I show that there is no objective scientific basis for confirming or invalidating claims about self discovery. Therefore, the need to rely solely on an individual's self reports allows for the possibility that irrefutable claims about self discovery can be made without responsible personal involvement, effort, and dedication.