The Narrative Self: A Multidisciplinary Literature Review

TL;DR

• The “narrative self” theory posits that personal identity is an ongoing story we construct about our lives, rather than a fixed entity.
• Key proponents include Dennett (self as “center of narrative gravity”), Ricoeur (narrative identity), McAdams (life story model), Bruner (narrative mode), and Gazzaniga (left-brain interpreter).
• Neuroscience suggests the brain’s left hemisphere and Default Mode Network are involved in generating these self-narratives.
• Memory is seen as a reconstructive process that serves the current narrative, aiding self-continuity but allowing distortion.
• Critiques, notably from Galen Strawson, argue that not everyone experiences life narratively (“Episodic” vs. “Diachronic” individuals) and the theory shouldn’t be universalized.
• The concept impacts understanding of identity, agency (potentially illusory), memory, consciousness, and has applications in therapy.

Introduction#

In recent decades, many scholars across philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and literary theory have converged on the idea that the self is fundamentally a story or narrative that we construct about our lives. In this “narrative self” view, personal identity is not a fixed essence but an ongoing autobiography – a coherent story woven from our experiences, memories, and interpretations. As cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner put it, “Self is a perpetually rewritten story” and ultimately “we become the autobiographical narratives by which we ’tell about’ our lives” . Philosopher Daniel Dennett echoes this, claiming that “we are all virtuoso novelists… who make all of our material cohere into a single good story. And that story is our autobiography. The chief fictional character at the centre of that autobiography is one’s self.”  This literature review surveys the development of the narrative self concept across disciplines – its definitions and theoretical foundations, key proponents (e.g. Dennett, Ricoeur, McAdams, etc.), variations and critiques (e.g. Galen Strawson’s opposition), empirical findings, and the broader implications for understanding identity, agency, memory, and consciousness.

Philosophical Foundations of the Narrative Self

Early Philosophical Insights#

The notion that identity is tied to narrative has philosophical roots reaching back centuries. John Locke (17th c.) proposed that personal identity is grounded in continuity of consciousness and memory – essentially the ongoing “story” one can recall of themselves. David Hume (18th c.) went further, arguing there is no fixed self beneath our perceptions; instead, the self is a “bundle” of perceptions linked by the imagination . We create a fictive continuity – an early hint that the self might be a kind of narrative construction. In the 20th century, philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre argued that “the unity of a human life” takes the form of a narrative unity – to ask what is the good or meaning of one’s life is inherently to ask for the story of that life (the narrative quest one is living out). Such perspectives set the stage for explicit narrative self theories in late 20th-century philosophy.

Narrative Identity and Hermeneutics (Paul Ricoeur)#

The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur developed the concept of narrative identity in the 1980s, bridging phenomenology, hermeneutics, and literary theory. Ricoeur argues that our identity (“who we are”) is not a static being, but is constituted through the stories we tell about ourselves. All self-knowledge, in his view, is an interpretative act that “finds in narrative… a privileged mediation” . He hypothesized that personal identity emerges at the intersection of history and fiction: we weave real events and imagined interpretations into a coherent life story . As Ricoeur writes, “Do not human lives become more readily intelligible when they are interpreted in the light of the stories that people tell about them? … self-knowledge is an interpretation; self-interpretation, in its turn, finds in narrative… a privileged mediation… turning the story of a life into a fictional story or a historical fiction, comparable to those biographies of great men in which history and fiction are intertwined.” . In short, for Ricoeur the self is narrative by nature – we make sense of our existence by casting ourselves as protagonists in an ongoing story. This view has influenced literary theory as well, validating the study of autobiographical literature and storytelling as keys to understanding selfhood.

The Self as a “Center of Narrative Gravity” (Daniel Dennett)#

In cognitive philosophy, Daniel Dennett is a leading proponent of the narrative self. Dennett rejects the idea of an internal “immutable soul” or a single metaphysical ego; instead, he likens the self to a fictional center of gravity in our narrative interpretations . Just as the center of gravity of an object is a useful abstraction (not a tangible thing, but a point defined by the object’s mass distribution), the self is an abstract center of narrative gravity defined by the story of one’s experiences . We project a coherent protagonist – “a theorist’s fiction” – to make sense of the multitude of perceptions, memories, and actions that occur in the brain  . Dennett explains that “what you are is that rolling sum of experience and fantasy … bound together in one brain and body and called by a given name. The idea that there is, in addition, a special indissoluble nugget of you… is an attractive fantasy, but nothing that we need in order to make sense of people” . In Dennett’s famous formulation, the brain is the author and “the protagonist – the self – is a fictional character” that the brain narrates . Thus, from Dennett’s perspective, the self exists as an abstract story that provides a useful explanatory center for our behavior, rather than as a concrete entity .

Narrative Self-Constitution (Marya Schechtman & Others)#

Modern analytic philosophers have built on these ideas. For example, Marya Schechtman’s narrative self-constitution theory holds that personal identity is essentially created by the autobiographical narrative one constructs. A person “creates his or her identity by forming an autobiographical narrative” that links their experiences in a meaningful way . In this view, to be the same person over time is to weave your experiences into a continuing story with yourself as the main character; the narrative provides psychological continuity and explains (to oneself and others) why one’s present self follows from their past . Similarly, philosopher J. David Velleman asserts that “we invent ourselves… but we really are the characters we invent,” emphasizing that the stories we make up about “who we are” become our reality .

Moral and Existential Narratives (MacIntyre and Others)#

In moral philosophy, narratives have been seen as essential for agency and ethics. Alasdair MacIntyre argued that living a good life is akin to authoring a coherent narrative: “the unity of a human life is the unity of a narrative embodied in a single life.” We can only make our actions intelligible, and assess our lives ethically, by seeing life as a story with narrative continuity (with goals, turning points, and a telos or purpose). In existential philosophy and literature, too, there’s recognition of the self as narrative – for instance, Jean-Paul Sartre described people constantly weaving stories to define themselves (though often in bad faith), and novelists like Marcel Proust illustrated how identity unfolds and is revised over the course of a life story.

Table 1 – Representative Thinkers on the Narrative Self (across disciplines)#

Table 1: Thinkers from various fields who assert (in diverse ways) that the self is story-like in nature.

Psychological Perspectives on the Narrative Self

Narrative Identity in Personality Psychology#

In psychology, the narrative conception of self has become highly influential, particularly in personality and developmental psychology. Dan McAdams, for example, developed a model of identity in which the “life story” is a central level of personality (above traits and motives). According to McAdams, by early adulthood individuals internalize a personal myth or life narrative that knits together the past and anticipates the future, providing a sense of unity and purpose  . He writes that narrative identity is an “internalized story you create about yourself – your own personal myth,” complete with settings, scenes, characters, and plot, which evolves over time. In McAdams’ words, humans are “storytelling creatures who live by the stories we tell about ourselves” . This life narrative gives people a framework to interpret their experiences (e.g. seeing a hardship as “the challenge I overcame in Chapter 3 of my life”). Research by McAdams and others finds that the themes of a person’s life story relate to their well-being – for instance, redemptive narratives (stories that frame suffering as leading to growth or good outcomes) are associated with higher life satisfaction and generativity, whereas contamination narratives (good times turning bad) correlate with poorer mental health. Such findings support the idea that how one narrates their life can significantly shape their identity and well-being.

Cognitive and Developmental Psychology#

Cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner was a pioneer of narrative psychology. He argued that humans have a fundamental mode of thought he called the narrative mode, which we use to make sense of the world by constructing stories (distinct from the “paradigmatic” or logical-scientific mode of thought). Bruner suggested that from childhood onward, people organize their memories and understand their lives in narrative form – “We seek to provide our scattered experiences with a sense of coherence by arranging the episodes of our lives into stories” . Developmental research supports that children begin to form autobiographical memories and simple life narratives in early childhood (around age 3-5, as language and self-concept grow). Parents’ storytelling with children (recounting past events) helps youngsters string events into causal sequences, effectively teaching the narrative construction of self. Over time these narratives become more complex, integrating broader life periods (e.g. “when I was in school,” “after I moved to the city”) into an overarching story. By adolescence and adulthood, most individuals can tell a reasonably coherent narrative of their life, which psychologists see as a hallmark of healthy identity development.

Narrative in Memory and Self-Continuity#

Psychologists also note that memory is an active, reconstructive process – not a perfect record of the past, but more like a storyteller continually editing the “memoir” of one’s life . Frederic Bartlett’s classic experiments (1932) showed people naturally reshape recall of events to fit their existing schemas or storylines, “making sense” of odd details by subconsciously altering them . This suggests our memory system strives for a coherent narrative. Autobiographical memory in particular is biased and selective: we highlight landmark moments that fit our self-image, forget or distort things that don’t, and even unconsciously invent explanations to connect the dots. This storytelling memory helps maintain a sense of continuity – it’s as if we’re constantly revising the personal history section of our self-story to keep it consistent with who we think we are. Research has found that having a more coherent life narrative is linked to greater psychological well-being . One study confirmed that “constructing coherent autobiographical narratives is related to psychological well-being”, especially when those narratives provide meaning and integration of life’s episodes . In contrast, fragmentation in one’s story (difficulty making sense of past events or seeing continuity) is associated with identity confusion and even mental distress. This line of evidence in psychology lends empirical support to the narrative self model: viewing one’s life as a story (and being able to articulate that story coherently) appears to be an important part of a stable, positive identity .

Clinical and Social Psychology – Narratives in Healing and Culture#

The narrative approach also appears in clinical psychology and therapy. Narrative therapy, developed by Michael White and David Epston, explicitly treats the self as a story: clients are encouraged to “re-author” the narratives they live by, opening up possibilities for change. For example, a person stuck in an identity of “I’m a failure” can be helped to rewrite their story in a way that highlights successes or resilience, thereby changing their self-concept. Similarly, in trauma therapy, constructing a coherent narrative of the traumatic experience is often healing – turning a chaotic memory into a structured story can reduce symptoms (as seen in James Pennebaker’s writing therapy research ). On a broader social level, cultures provide master narratives – shared story templates (such as a religious redemption story, or the “American Dream” rags-to-riches story) – that individuals internalize. Sociologists and cross-cultural psychologists have observed that narrative modes of self may vary: Western cultures tend to foster more individualist autobiographical narratives (seeing one’s life as a unique personal story), whereas some non-Western cultures emphasize collective or interdependent narratives (defining the self through family or community stories). Nonetheless, the act of making a life story seems to be a human universal, even if the content and style of those stories differ across cultures.

Cognitive Science and Neuroscience: The Brain’s Storytelling#

Figure 1: The brain’s left and right hemispheres. Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga’s split-brain studies revealed a “left hemisphere interpreter” that fabricates narratives to make sense of a person’s actions and feelings  . This suggests the left side of our brain is constantly generating explanations – effectively, a storyteller creating our sense of a unified self.

Modern neuroscience provides fascinating evidence that the brain literally constructs a narrative to create the sense of self. Michael Gazzaniga, known for split-brain studies, discovered what he calls the “left-brain interpreter.” In patients whose cerebral hemispheres were surgically separated, Gazzaniga observed that the left hemisphere (which controls language) would invent explanations for actions initiated by the right hemisphere – essentially confabulations that form a plausible story . For example, if a patient’s right hemisphere (which cannot speak) was instructed to do something (like walk out of the room) and then the patient’s left hemisphere was asked why they did it (unaware of the true reason), the patient might spontaneously create a reason (“Oh, I felt like getting a soda”) that fits into a narrative of rational action . The left hemisphere thus acts as an on-line narrator, taking whatever bits of information it has and imposing order and meaning: “It is the left hemisphere that… tries to fit everything into a story and put it into a context. It seems driven to hypothesize about structure… even in the face of evidence that no pattern exists.”  In Gazzaniga’s words, “this is what our brain does all day long. It takes input… and synthesizes it into a story. Facts are great but not necessary. The left brain ad-libs the rest.” . This neurological evidence strongly supports the narrative self idea: our feeling of being a single, coherent self may be an ongoing storytelling process in the brain, primarily in the left hemisphere language centers. We carry around an interpretative narrator that explains our own behaviors and weaves a continuous sense of “I” out of many modular processes . Intriguingly, this interpreter can even create a narrative of agency where none exists – as in experiments where people are convinced they chose to do an action which was actually induced by the experimenter, yet they confidently narrate a reason for it. Such findings highlight that the brain is a compulsive meaning-maker, generating a personal narrative to maintain the illusion of a coherent self in charge.

The Brain’s Default Mode Network and the “Internal Narrative”#

Neuroscience of resting-state brain activity also implicates storytelling in our self-concept. When we are not focused on an external task – for instance, during idle daydreaming or reminiscing – the brain’s Default Mode Network (DMN) becomes highly active. The DMN is a set of interconnected midline regions (including medial prefrontal cortex and posterior cingulate/precuneus) associated with self-referential thinking, memory retrieval, and future envisioning . Notably, researchers have characterized the DMN as creating an “internal narrative” that is crucial for maintaining a sense of self . During rest or mind-wandering, people often mentally project themselves into past or future scenarios – essentially, they generate narratives (e.g. rehashing an event, imagining conversations, scripting future plans). This has led scientists to suggest that “the DMN creates a coherent internal narrative that helps construct a sense of self.”  In other words, the brain’s default activity is to weave a story integrating memories of the past and simulations of the future with our current self-image. This aligns with cognitive theories that autobiographical memory and future planning are integrally linked: we use the same narrative faculty to remember who we have been and to imagine who we will be, thus extending the self across time. Studies also show that the DMN is engaged when people are asked explicitly to think about their personal identity or characteristics, and when they recall life episodes – supporting the idea that the physical substrate of the narrative self may lie in these brain networks. Damage or disruption to parts of this network (as in Alzheimer’s disease) often leads to confusion in one’s narrative continuity (e.g. loss of autobiographical memory, or difficulty imagining one’s future), which further suggests the DMN’s activity is tied to our capacity to maintain a narrative self.

Neuroscience of Memory and Imagination#

Other cognitive neuroscience research has found that memory recall is not a literal playback but a reconstructions that often serve the current self-narrative. Elizabeth Loftus’s work on false memories, for instance, shows how easily people can be led to “remember” events that never happened if those events fit their self-story or expectations. Also, neuroimaging reveals that when we recall an event and when we imagine a hypothetical event, many of the same brain regions activate – we are effectively story-building in both cases. This has led to theories that memory is future-oriented: we maintain a library of narrative fragments (memories) not just to know our past but to help predict and guide our future actions by story-making. Thus, from a cognitive science standpoint, the narrative self emerges from the brain’s efforts to make sense of its own activity over time. It is a kind of user-illusion or interface: a simplified story of “me” that allows a massively parallel, distributed neural system to treat itself as a single entity with continuity and purpose.

The Self-Model Theory (Metzinger) and Illusion of Self#

Philosopher and neuroscientist Thomas Metzinger offers a theoretical framework that dovetails with the narrative self – while also challenging our intuitions about having a self. In Being No One (2003), Metzinger argues that no actual self exists in the way we think; instead, the brain generates a phenomenal self-model (PSM), a kind of simulation that integrates sensory, cognitive, and memory information. This self-model is “transparent” – we do not realize it’s a model, we just experience being a self. Within the layers of the self-model, what others call the narrative self can be seen as the high-level portion that integrates experiences across time (often linguistically and conceptually). Metzinger distinguishes between the minimal self (the immediate, pre-reflective sense of “I” at any moment, closely tied to consciousness) and the narrative self (the extended self-model that includes one’s history and plans) . The narrative self is essentially the story the self-model tells itself about who the organism is. According to Metzinger and colleagues, this narrative layer helps provide cognitive control and coherence: it allows the organism to plan, to maintain goals, and to present a stable identity to others. However, Metzinger warns that because the self (including the narrative self) is a kind of constructed illusion, we must be careful not to reify it – the “story” feels real, but it is a tool our brains evolved. His stance is summarized as: “no such things as selves exist in the world… all that exists are phenomenal selves”, i.e. the selves we experience are appearances generated by the underlying organism’s information processing . This aligns with the Buddhist-influenced idea (and some Eastern philosophies) that the self is maya (an illusion) – a view which intriguingly resonates with the narrative model, since a narrative is a representation, not the actual thing itself.

Phenomenology: Minimal vs Narrative Self#

Phenomenologists like Dan Zahavi and Shaun Gallagher add nuance by distinguishing a minimal or core self from the narrative self. The minimal self is the raw experience of first-personhood – the feeling of being a subject here and now. It does not require language or memory (even a newborn or an animal has a minimal self in this sense). The narrative self, by contrast, is the self concept we construct through time, requiring memory, social context, and imagination . Gallagher likens the narrative self to the “autobiographical self” (akin to Damasio’s term) and suggests that it arises later in development and can be disrupted independently of minimal self (for example, in certain brain injuries patients may lose their autobiographical narrative while still having a basic sense of self in the moment). This distinction is important in debates about the narrative self’s scope: it’s possible to grant that our sense of personal identity over time is narrative, while also recognizing that there is a rudimentary non-narrative self (the “I” of the present moment or the bodily self) that underpins consciousness. Indeed, critics caution that not all aspects of self are narrative – some are somatic or experiential. We will explore such critiques next.

Variations and Critiques of the Narrative Self Model#

While the narrative self theory has been influential, it is not without detractors and caveats. Several thinkers have argued that the “self as story” idea, if taken too far, can be misleading or over-generalized. A chief critic is philosopher Galen Strawson, who famously wrote “Against Narrativity” (2004). Strawson distinguishes between two claims: a psychological Narrativity thesis (that humans naturally see or live their lives as a narrative) and an ethical Narrativity thesis (that we ought to live our lives as a narrative to be fulfilled or moral). He forcefully rejects both  . Strawson contends that it is simply “not true that there is only one good way for human beings to experience their being in time.”  Not everyone conceives of their life as a story, and lacking a narrative does not mean one’s life is poor or incoherent. He introduces the idea of individual differences: *“There are deeply non-Narrative people and there are good ways to live that are deeply non-Narrative.”  Some people – whom Strawson labels “Episodic” – do not have a strong sense of themselves as the same person across time and do not naturally construct a grand story of their life; they may experience life in more discrete episodes, without weaving them into a unified tale. Other people – “Diachronic” types – do see their present self as tightly linked to their past and future and readily narrativize their lives . Strawson argues that narrativists (many of whom are probably strongly Diachronic personalities) have wrongly assumed everyone is like them, “generalizing from their own case with that special, misplaced confidence… when [they] take elements of their own experience that are fundamental for them, [and assume] they must also be fundamental for everyone else.” .

Strawson further warns of potential downsides to the narrative fixation: it may “impoverish our grasp of ethical possibilities” and “needlessly distress those who do not fit the model,” even becoming “destructive in psychotherapeutic contexts.”  For instance, telling someone who doesn’t naturally story their life that they must do so or else lack true personhood might make them feel deficient. Or in therapy, overemphasizing a “coherent story” might lead to confabulation or oversimplification of one’s genuine feelings. In short, Strawson believes narrative self theory, as a universal claim, is empirically false and potentially harmful: some people are profoundly non-narrative and yet live fully human, morally sound lives. He himself even declares “I am not a story.” This critique has sparked much debate. Some have responded that even Strawson likely relies on narrative more than he thinks (the act of describing oneself as episodic could itself be seen as part of a narrative identity). Others grant his point that narrative is not an across-the-board requirement for personhood, but maintain that it is still a common and useful framework for many people.

Another angle of critique comes from those who agree the self is a construction, but not necessarily a narrative one. For example, phenomenologist Zahavi (2010) argued that the narrative self model should not eclipse the minimal self – the basic sense of “I am here” that does not depend on stories or reflection . If we focus only on narrative, we might ignore the pre-verbal, embodied aspects of selfhood. Additionally, some cognitive scientists caution that much of our mental life is non-narrative: procedural memory, habits, moment-to-moment perceptions do not take story form. The narrative emerges when we step back and reflect or communicate. Thus, narrative self theories might be addressing the reflective or social self more than the totality of selfhood.

Multiplicity and Postmodern Challenges#

There are also variations that complicate the idea of one single narrative. Postmodern and feminist scholars have suggested that a person may encompass multiple narratives or self-stories that shift depending on context, rather than one master narrative. For instance, one might have a professional self narrative, a family-role narrative, an online-avatar narrative, etc., which are not entirely consistent. Some narrative psychologists acknowledge this and see identity as a collection of stories one tells in different contexts – with a healthy self being able to flexibly negotiate these (what’s sometimes called a multivoiced or dialogical self). In literature, the notion of unreliable narrators and fragmented storytelling has been used to illustrate how identity can be discontinuous or self-contradictory. These perspectives critique any overly neat, heroic life narrative; real lives can be messy, and insisting on a tidy story might silence the ambiguity and inner conflicts that truly exist in people.

Despite these critiques, even many skeptics concede that narrative is one important mode of self-experience – they just resist making it the only or necessary mode. Strawson, for example, allows that many people are indeed “Narrative” in temperament, just not all. Some philosophers (like** Søren Kierkegaard** or Nietzsche) might agree that life can only be understood as a story looking backwards, yet they worry that actively scripting one’s life might lead to inauthenticity (living by a script rather than spontaneously). There are also ethical critiques: a narrative can become a “single story” that traps a person (e.g. someone who cannot get past defining themselves as a victim of some past event may be constrained by that narrative). In response, advocates of narrative self often emphasize that narratives themselves can be revised – the self-story is not carved in stone; we can re-narrate and in doing so, change who we are.

Implications of the Narrative Self Theory#

Viewing the self as fundamentally a narrative has far-reaching implications for how we understand identity, agency, memory, and consciousness:

• Identity and Continuity: The narrative self model reframes identity from being a fixed core (like a soul or immutable ego) to being an ongoing process. Identity becomes a story of becoming rather than a static being. This explains how we maintain continuity through change: even as our bodies and preferences change over the years, we preserve a sense of being the same person by weaving a continuous life narrative. It also sheds light on cases of identity crisis or transformation – these can be seen as instances of “revising the narrative.” For example, a person might reinterpret their rebellious youth as a necessary chapter that led to their current wisdom. Identity is thus dynamic and interpretative. It also implies that personal identity has an inescapably social and linguistic dimension (since narratives draw on language and cultural story formats). Who I am is in part the stories I have heard, the roles I’ve been ascribed, and the autobiography I’ve shared with others. This perspective can foster empathy: understanding someone is akin to listening to their story, and conflict between people can be seen as clashes of narratives.
• Agency and Moral Responsibility: If the self is a story, what does that mean for our sense of authorship over our actions? On one hand, the narrative self reinforces a sense of agency by literally casting the person as a protagonist making choices. People often construct narratives that depict themselves as having intentions and reasons, which supports the feeling of being an agent (“I decided to do X because…”). Narratives can thus bolster a sense of coherent agency and purpose: my life story is leading somewhere, guided by my values and goals. However, neuroscience findings (like Gazzaniga’s interpreter) suggest much of this agency narrative might be post hoc fiction – our brain sometimes acts and then our narrative faculty fabricates a reason  . This raises the possibility that our cherished sense of being a conscious agent is, at least partly, an illusion created by the narrative module. Psychologist Daniel Wegner famously argued that the feeling of conscious will is the brain “telling a story” to explain behavior, not the actual cause of the behavior. If this is so, narrative self theory could prompt a more humble view of agency: we are in some ways storytellers after the fact, taking credit for actions that arose from subconscious processes. Nonetheless, the narrative we create can influence future actions – e.g. if I narrate myself as “a diligent student,” I may act in accordance with that story. In ethics, narrative thinking suggests that living a good life is about authoring a good story, one you can be proud of and that respects the stories of others. It may encourage seeing life in terms of themes, character development, and narrative coherence (e.g. making sure one’s actions are consistent with the kind of character one wants to be in their story).
• Memory and Learning: The narrative perspective highlights the crucial role of memory as the archive of self. Remembering is not just storing data, but actively constructing a past that makes sense for our present identity. This explains why memory is often self-serving: we emphasize memories that support our current narrative and downplay or forget those that don’t. It also suggests therapies for memory issues: for example, helping someone with fragmented memories (like in PTSD) to narratively integrate those memories can reduce their disruptive power. Education can leverage narrative by having students place new knowledge in story contexts, which tends to improve understanding and retention (since our brains naturally latch onto stories). On the downside, because we prioritize narrative coherence over accuracy, our memories are susceptible to distortion – we might “rewrite” history to fit our preferred self-image. This has legal and personal consequences (e.g. false memories can feel true if they fit one’s narrative). Understanding the narrative self can encourage us to be more critical about our own remembered life story: we might ask, is this exactly what happened or am I narrativizing? And it acknowledges that different people may have different narratives of the same events (e.g. family members recalling a shared incident differently in their autobiographies).
• Consciousness and the Sense of Self: Perhaps the deepest implication is for consciousness itself. Many researchers now view the stream of consciousness as, in effect, a stream of narrative. Our awareness doesn’t passively receive an objective reality; it actively interprets and edits experience to fit a coherent ongoing story (a narrative centered on “me”). In this sense, consciousness is narrative production. As Gazzaniga put it, consciousness results from the brain’s modules competing, and the “interpreter” integrating the winning outputs into a storyline that becomes our moment-to-moment conscious experience . If the narrative self theory is correct, then what it feels like to be “me” is essentially to be a storyteller and the story simultaneously. It dissolves the traditional dualism of a self watching mental events – instead, the self is the narrative construct emerging from those events. This can align with Buddhist or Humean ideas that recognizing the self’s constructed nature might lead to liberation or at least a healthier relationship with one’s thoughts (seeing them as just parts of a story, not absolute reality). On the other hand, it raises existential questions: if “I” am just a story, who is telling the story? Is there an I outside the story? Narrative theorists would say the story and the storyteller are one process, reflexively creating each other. Consciousness, then, could be seen as the brain’s storytelling theater – and disorders of self (like dissociative identity disorder or schizophrenia) may be seen as disturbances in narrative integration (multiple competing stories or incoherent narratives).

Interdisciplinary Synthesis#

The narrative self concept has thus become a rich meeting ground for different disciplines. Philosophers provide conceptual clarity on what it means to have a “self” that is narrative (e.g. distinguishing personal identity from mere continuity of memory, raising ethical dimensions of self-storying). Psychologists supply empirical research on how humans actually develop and use narratives in self-construction, and how this relates to well-being and cognition. Neuroscience offers mechanisms by which the brain might implement a narrative process (e.g. through memory systems and the DMN’s integrative activity). Literary theory contributes an understanding of narrative structure, plot, and perspective – which can be metaphorically applied to life stories (for instance, the roles of narrator, hero, antagonist in one’s self-concept). Even artificial intelligence and robotics have dabbled in narrative models of self (for example, designing AI that maintains a kind of “self story” to predict its future actions).

In summary, the proposition that the self is fundamentally a narrative has gained wide traction because it resonates with our introspective experience (we do often feel like we’re spinning a story about ourselves) and is supported by many converging lines of theory and evidence. It offers a powerful framework for explaining how we achieve a sense of unity over time, how we find meaning in life events, and how we communicate who we are to others. Yet it is also tempered by cautions that not every aspect of self is narrative and not everyone relies on narrative to the same degree. The narrative self, then, is best seen as a compelling model for understanding identity – one that highlights the storytelling mind and opens up new questions. Are we the authors of our narratives or unwitting characters? How flexible is our story? And to what extent can we rewrite the narrative of self? These questions continue to inspire research and debate across the humanities, social sciences, and neurosciences, ensuring that the narrative self remains a vibrant interdisciplinary topic.

Conclusion#

The narrative nature of selfhood, with its multifaceted interpretations across fields, enriches our appreciation of human identity. It suggests that to know oneself (or another) is, in large part, to understand the story being told. Our memories, personalities, and even brain processes all participate in an act of narrative construction that gives our lives shape. Whether one embraces this idea or challenges it, the dialogue it has generated – from Dennett’s and Ricoeur’s affirmations to Strawson’s skeptical eye – has undeniably deepened contemporary understanding of who we are. In the end, the narrative self is both a theory and, fittingly, a story: a story that scholars are collectively writing about how we become and experience the persons we are.

FAQ #

Q 1. What is the core idea of the “narrative self”? A. The core idea is that personal identity isn’t a fixed thing but an ongoing story or autobiography that we construct, revise, and tell about our lives, integrating experiences, memories, and interpretations to create a coherent sense of self over time.

Q 2. Who are some key figures associated with this theory? A. Important thinkers include philosopher Daniel Dennett (“center of narrative gravity”), philosopher Paul Ricoeur (“narrative identity”), psychologist Dan McAdams (“life story”), psychologist Jerome Bruner (“narrative mode”), and neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga (“left-brain interpreter”).

Q 3. What’s the main criticism of the narrative self theory? A. Philosopher Galen Strawson is a major critic. He argues against the universality of the narrative self, positing that some people (“Episodic”) don’t experience their lives as a continuous story and live perfectly valid lives without a strong narrative framework, unlike “Diachronic” individuals who do. He cautions against imposing narrativity as a requirement for personhood or well-being.

Q 4. How does neuroscience support the narrative self idea? A. Studies like Gazzaniga’s split-brain research suggest a “left-brain interpreter” constantly creating explanations (narratives) for our actions. Research on the Default Mode Network (DMN) indicates it’s active during self-referential thought and memory recall, potentially generating an “internal narrative” that integrates past, present, and future self-concepts.

Q 5. What are the practical implications of this theory? A. It impacts understanding identity as dynamic, agency as potentially constructed, and memory as reconstructive. It has therapeutic applications (e.g., narrative therapy encourages “re-authoring” life stories) and implications for ethics (living a good life as authoring a coherent, moral story).

Bibliography#

1. Dennett, Daniel C. (1992). “The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity,” in F. Kessel, P. Cole, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Self and Consciousness: Multiple Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Philosophy / CogSci). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28762358_The_Self_as_a_Center_of_Narrative_Gravity
2. Ricoeur, Paul (1991). “Narrative Identity.” Philosophy Today 35 (1): 73–81. (Philosophy / Hermeneutics). https://archive.org/download/paulricoeurtheconceptofnarrativeide/Paul_Ricoeur_the_Concept_of_Narrative_Ide.pdf
3. McAdams, Dan P. (1993). The Stories We Live By: Personal Myths and the Making of the Self. New York: Guilford Press. (Psychology). https://www.amazon.com/Stories-We-Live-Personal-Making/dp/1572301880
4. Bruner, Jerome (1987). “Life as Narrative.” Social Research 54 (1): 11–32. (Psychology). https://ewasteschools.pbworks.com/f/Bruner_J_LifeAsNarrative.pdf
5. Schechtman, Marya (1996). The Constitution of Selves. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Philosophy). https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Selves-Marya-Schechtman/dp/0801474175
6. Strawson, Galen (2004). “Against Narrativity.” Ratio 17 (4): 428–452. (Philosophy). https://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/against_narrativity.pdf
7. Gazzaniga, Michael S. (2017). “Interaction in Isolation: 50 Years of Split-Brain Research.” Brain 140 (7): 2051–2053. (Neuroscience). https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/140/7/2051/3892700 (Note: See also Gazzaniga’s books like The Consciousness Instinct (2018) or Who’s in Charge? (2011) for broader discussion of the interpreter).
8. Buckner, Randy L.; Carroll, Daniel C. (2007). “Self-Projection and the Brain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 49–57. (Neuroscience). https://www.prospectivepsych.org/sites/default/files/pictures/Buckner-and-Carroll_Self-projection-and-brain-2006.pdf
9. Damasio, Antonio R. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace. (Neuroscience). https://ayanetwork.com/aya/psyche/The%20Feeling%20of%20What%20Happens%20Body%20and%20Emotion%20in%20the%20Making%20of%20Consciousness%20by%20Antonio%20Damasio%20%28z-lib.org%29.epub.pdf
10. Metzinger, Thomas (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Philosophy / Neuro). https://skepdic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BeingNoOne-SelfModelTheoryOfSubjectivity-Metzinger.pdf
11. Bartlett, Frederic C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Experimental Psych). https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/item/item_2273030_5/component/file_2309291/Bartlett_1932_Remembering.pdf
12. Wegner, Daniel M. (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Psychology). https://archive.org/details/illusionofconsci0000wegn
13. Pennebaker, James W. (1997). Opening Up: The Healing Power of Expressing Emotions. New York: Guilford Press. (Clinical Psych). https://nwkpsych.rutgers.edu/~kharber/healthpsychology/READINGS%202024/Pennebaker.%20Opening%20Up.pdf
14. White, Michael; Epston, David (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. (Therapy). https://josefaruiztagle.cl/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Michael-White-David-Epston-Narrative-Means-to-Therapeutic-Ends-W.-W.-Norton-Company-1990-1.pdf
15. MacIntyre, Alasdair (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Philosophy / Ethics). https://epistemh.pbworks.com/f/4.%2BMacintyre.pdf
16. Locke, John (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. (Philosophy). https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10615 (See Book II, Chapter XXVII).
17. Hume, David (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. (Philosophy). https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4705 (See Book I, Part IV, Section VI).
18. Gallagher, Shaun; Zahavi, Dan (2008). The Phenomenological Mind: An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science. London: Routledge. (Phenomenology / CogSci). https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files/45cd446f868f4230dc4e3546e97a5df7.pdf
19. Velleman, J. David (2005). “The Self as Narrator,” in Self to Self: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. (Philosophy). https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/VellemanSelfAsNarrator2005.pdf
20. Sacks, Oliver W. (1985). The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales. New York: Summit Books. (Neurology / Lit). https://web.arch.virginia.edu/arch542/docs/reading/sackspdf/sacksvl.pdf (See Preface).