The study of self-concept involves a very complex process that does not only involve the contrast between actual and ideal beings. There is always a thought on what one would like to be and achieve at a personal level, but on the other hand, it remains that external factors determine, in reality, the decisions and achievements one makes in life. This, at this moment, creates a very thin line and very delicate balance between the ideal person and the actual person; the ideal person is the conceptual person whole of perfection, quality, virtues full of admiration, and desire, while in a real sense, everyone ought to be unique in their allotment. Another layer peels off when scrutinizing my actual self versus my ideal self: the “ought self.”
The “ought self” corresponds to the unique features and characteristics that a person perceives are expected of him by others. This perception primarily reflected paternal expectations, and from within a close circle of friends, there was desire. Mainly derived from the social customs, standards set by the education domains, and cues for behaviors, these are expected ways of being (Huber et al., 2018). Therefore, should-self incorporates factors like defined career paths to be followed, superior performance in the academic realm, and behaving socially permissible.
Parents, being the primary caregivers and moral guides, play the decisive role in forming the “ought self”; their aspirations stamp upon children, which leads to idealization. Being like all other parents, I, too, got brought up with the values of success and responsibility with compliance with society. Therefore, those values uphold my “ought self,” where expectations must relate to professional success and abiding by social standards about personal behavior. On the other side comes the impact of friends on the “ought self.” Formative relationships with peers play significant roles in influencing social norms (Huber et al., 2018). They help build popularity, acceptance from the other parties regarding the issue for them, and group conformity among those with similar concerns. My “ought self” characterizes special features with a lot more emphasis on social entities and connections, whereby it reveals the general views as to what friends believe to be correct.
It implicitly involves similarities and differences in characteristics connected to the “ought self,” specifically referring to an actual individual- unveiling a hidden interaction. Some details coincide, such as the craving for intellectual achievement and interest in self-perfection; however, other crucial differences become visible. These variations might be due to the transformation of specific values, shifting priorities, or a natural drift away from outside demands. The gap between what the individual should be and who they are can cause deep guilt when social values differ from what an individual desires. Conforming to external standards can spark a contradiction inside this corresponding me, questioning if I do the will of my parents, counterparts, or society. As I see it, guilt remains when I step out of my “ought self” and consider how well my behavior is associated with external demands.
The research of such a notion as “ought self” helps to comprehend in more refined terms what the conceptualization is and how rather complicated it is, yet there exists an interlink between individual desires and forced standards. The “ought self” traits are implicated by parental wishes, the dreams of friends, and even broader societal hopes. To uncover oneself, there is a need for an individual who would learn the discrepancy between “ought self” and real life. Social paradigms that address personal development and authenticity or living by actual values should be chosen to live a fulfilling life. By recognizing and discussing these differences, people can start a path to an honest self-identity that reflects their true character.
References
Huber, F., Eisele, A., & Meyer, F. (2018). The role of actual, ideal, and ought self‐congruence in the consumption of hedonic versus utilitarian brands. Psychology & Marketing, 35(1), 47- 63.
write