Introduction
The superego refers to an internal standard that evaluates one’s own actions and state by comparing them against internalized ideals and norms, even without any external orders.
This concept was proposed by Sigmund Freud.
The superego does not only function as a set of prohibitions that says “you must not do that,” but also as an ideal image that says “you should be able to do this” or “this is how you ought to be.”
For that reason, the superego is often described not so much as an entity that gives commands or punishment, but as an internalized set of judgment criteria or an internal “evaluation rubric.”
Also, the superego’s evaluation is not limited to after an action is completed. It can also extend to earlier stages such as choosing an action, avoiding one, or considering possibilities. In this sense, the superego can be positioned as an inner structure that continuously evaluates a person’s actions and decisions.
The Superego as an Evaluative Structure (The Case of Benjamin Franklin)
To illustrate the evaluative structure of the superego, here is one example in which the structure is easy to see.
In the 18th century, the American statesman Benjamin Franklin defined thirteen virtues (such as temperance, industry, and silence) for self-improvement and kept a daily record of whether he had upheld them. This was not something anyone forced him to do, and there were no penalties or external supervisors. It can be seen as a concrete historical example of how an internalized ideal becomes a standard for evaluating oneself and functions as a form of self-monitoring.
At the same time, it is said that fulfilling all of these virtues was impossible and that his tracking chart was constantly filled with marks indicating unmet standards. Franklin himself also remarked, in essence, that carrying them out perfectly was difficult. What this example suggests is that once you place the standards of evaluation inside yourself, a state can arise in which you continue to evaluate yourself regardless of whether any tangible “result” has been produced.
The Effects of Internalized Standards
The superego does not change the events of reality themselves. What it changes is the evaluative framing of those events. Because internalized ideals and norms function constantly as standards, the very same situation can be judged as either “sufficient” or “insufficient.” This judgment is not made intentionally, but emerges as a result of the evaluation criteria being applied automatically. As a result, even if external circumstances have not changed, internal evaluation can reposition only one’s own situation into a worse place.
In other words, even if the situation itself has not deteriorated, having the standards of evaluation inside you can lead you to interpret your situation as “insufficient.” This also means there is a risk that, regardless of the outcome of events, internal standards can repeatedly reframe your situation into a more disadvantageous position. For example, even when things appear to be going reasonably well from the outside, if your ideals are set too high you may not feel satisfied with the results. If that state continues, you may keep rating yourself low, and as a consequence you may feel unnecessary shame or interpret yourself as being unhappy.
—
However, having relatively high ideals in itself is not a problem. In many cases, it becomes a driving force for growth.
On the other hand, if you keep pursuing goals that are simply unattainable, those ideals can stop functioning as indicators of growth and instead become standards that easily generate “failure experiences.”
A failure experience does not necessarily deny a person’s ability or judgment, but it can discourage them and lower motivation to act. As a result, even if the situation has not objectively worsened, only one’s perceived state can come to feel worse.
In principle, there is no rational necessity to make one’s own situation worse in this way.
What matters is not lowering ideals, but setting goals after determining what level is actually achievable. Placing goals at the borderline of “barely achievable,” and continuing to meet them at a high standard, may be a realistic way to sustain both growth and long-term consistency.
Conclusion
I wrote this article because I felt this is exactly the kind of problem I tend to fall into. I wanted to put it into words as part of my own self-analysis, so I did some research and came to suspect that this mechanism of the superego may be contributing to the issue.
This article ended up being fairly abstract, but thank you for reading to the end.
Top comments (0)