Integrity

Liliyan Hassan General Psychiatry Leave a Comment

Integrity is related directly to the self and, hence, it should also create a cycle in how it relates to people and their self (See my post, “WHO AM I?” for more info on cycle of self).

Integrity has three levels:

1st. Self in relation to the self: We call this authenticity of the self (authentic self).

2nd. Self in relation to others: We call this honesty/reliability/trustworthiness.

3rd. Society at large: We call this security/peace/quality of life.

Back to 1st. Self influenced by society in terms of values held.

Then on to 2nd. People influence each other through self with the addition of these values.

On to 3rd again. Values change to better fit people…

on and on and on.

I would like to add something else to this mix: God. In relation to integrity, god is the bases of what the self should be in relation to it self, god is the bases of what it means for people to be honest to each other, and god is the bases of what values we shall consider as giving us a sense of security. God and the ideologies held in his regards has been rigid as people continued to go through many integrity cycles. If our ideology in regards to god is flawed/not well understood, it acts as if one is tied to a rope and is being pulled away from reaching the place they should be at. We call the integrity one has in relation to god: reservation, piety, modesty.  If you do not believe in god, then this “god factor” is simply the moral conduct that one lives by.

Hence, in adding god to the cycle of integrity, we have the following:

1st. Self in relation to the self: We call this authenticity of the self (authentic self).

God Factor: How god wants us to be towards our own selves (What authenticity means).

2nd. Self in relation to others: We call this honesty/reliability/trustworthiness.

God Factor: What god expects from us towards each other.

3rd. Society at large: We call this security/peace/quality of life.

God Factor: What it means to be secure or what it means to have a good quality of life.

Back to 1st. Self influenced by society in terms of values held.

God factor pulling against change.

Then on to 2nd. People influence each other through self with the addition of these values.

God factor pulling against change.

On to 3rd again. Values change to better fit people…

God factor pulling against change.

on and on and on.

At its basic level, integrity is in regards to the idea that doing right is to do right towards my own self. This means that doing right by others is the same exact thing as doing right towards my own self.  And what this translates to is that if I am a “crook” and I make someone else do right by me at their own cost, then I am one of no integrity towards my own self (the cycle of integrity gets me right back).  Men have had questionable integrity when it comes to the demands they have made against women. When a person does right by you, they are doing it for their own integrity first.  Hence, it comes at no surprise that women have tried very hard to preserve their own integrity only for men to dismantle it by the abuses of their demands. Women have been judged for their “goodness” and their “purity” and their “moral standings” from a sexual point of view that cannot uphold more integrity than her sexuality allows for her to uphold towards the rest of herself. When women tried their best to be good people towards others and towards men, they were not driven by weakness but by the truth in what it means to have integrity. To abuse that feature of integrity is to attack the personhood of the woman.

Integrity means that one is true to the self. If I was to force women to stay home where I teach them that this is who they are; then in upholding my demands, women are not being true to themselves. Hence, it is no surprise that such abuses happened on a large scale in order to give the woman a sense of “self” in regards to these demands. And it is no surprise that the sense of self was mostly dependent on the way others viewed that women where, how they viewed her, demanded a form of violent threats in order not to make the woman associate the disassociation she may feel towards herself with the fear within those threats. Meaning that things went down this way: men wanted women to do something that they knew was wrong for them to do… then they thought, “what if she feels that this is not who she is?”… then they thought, “let fear be the thing that keeps her away from visiting that area”. Hence, if a woman felt that she wanted to leave the house she would see herself as bad first  …then she would look outside for that part of what she wanted only to fear how others will react towards her thereby feeling that what she wants is that which brings her danger where that danger made her feel bad in having to face it … this bad feeling from danger connected itself to how she felt for wanting to leave the house (associating fear which comes from outside with lack of ability to be one’s self)… hence, the woman became a danger onto her “bad” self (who she is becomes more of what others want);  thereby dismantling the integrity of the self to either numb that desire or forget it all together.

With love towards the self one cannot help but want to do right by others in relation to their own selves. Meaning that due to the fact that I care about my own desires, I do not want to get in the way of yours. And meaning that due to the fact that I appreciate the nature of who I am, I want to respect your nature. Hence, women could not just tell men, “screw you” when men expressed their “nature” and their “desires”. To assume ill-will from men towards women was not something that a woman was able to do without feeling that she is disrespecting the principles behind the self in general. Yet, time reveals the truth behind intent as we have been witnessing.

Integrity comes with the assumption that the self is good. Many want to test the integrity of others. To do so is to conclude that the person has no integrity. Here is why: Society at large influences the integrity of every single person in regards to themselves. Since the self is good, then how much of myself can I be towards myself in order that I have integrity towards myself? I may not be as true to myself as I would like to be due to the problems in this world. To put another person’s integrity to the test is to further attempt to invade the area of “person to his/her OWN self”. That is not for others to question. That area is preserved by the preservation of goodness in society not the other way around. Are there many so-called “crooks” in our world today? Yes! But they are not the cause of this lack of better conduct. They may be a product of our overall environment. This takes us to the area of responsibility where in looking at this world, we need to be held responsible collectively for the problems in it. We do not go to this person and hold him accountable for all the racism in the past! We do not go to that person who just stole and say, “YOU ARE FLAWED IN AND OF YOURSELF, DUDE!” To do so is to set-in-stone the problem for everyone else in this world as being correct and no longer wrong. Hence, when men tried to attack women individually as being the ones who are flawed in and of themselves, this only strengthened the falsehood of their claims, did it not?!  Doing so did not make the truth shine. Doing so did not make men appear as a falsehood. Instead of making men more questionable, it did the very opposite thing where it made them more right…only for us to see later that they are right to be seen as the ones who are just wrong at large in how they treated us (and still continue to treat us).

To test the integrity of another is to conclude that s/he has no integrity: when women were abused, they did not question the integrity of what a man wanted since she is not him. Who am I to say, “this is not you!” For life in and of itself is sometimes a revelation of who we are to our own selves. Yet, it is true that when one is not himself that he fails to change. And it is true that when one is not allowed to be herself, that she is the most eager to change. It is even more true that harm towards others is not consistent without deliberation in intent.

Integrity: it is the lack of abuse towards  the principles that are important to every single individual. This definition ties all parts of the integrity cycle together since it does not infringe on the integrity of the self and it preserves it for others.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *