• Fr Jo Paul Kiriyanthan
• (Fr Jo Paul Kiriyanthan holds a doctorate in Psychology from the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome. At present he serves as the Dean of Studies at Niveditha, Institute for Psycho-Spiritual
  Formation and Fellowship, Chunangamvely, Aluva)

IPSOS, one of the largest research companies in the world, has conducted a ‘trustworthiness-index study’ globally in the last five consecutive years from 2018 to 2023. Each year they interviewed around twenty thousand adults from around 30 different countries, including India. Presenting 18 various professions they asked the participants to express their perception of trust on such people that they tell the truth or not. As per the results of the global trends of trustworthiness, over the years of 2018-2023; doctors and health-workers ranked on the top of the list followed by scientists and teachers. Politicians were on the last of the list and government ministers and advertising executives remained just above of them. Globally clergy/priests were on the 12th rank and ordinary men/women on 5th. Though there can be some limitations for every data, this research results are loud and profound. Insights from this research is an eye-opener to many and they demand respect, since they project the public perception about the people of each profession based on participants’ personal experiences.

Trustworthiness and truthfulness are directly correlated. The distance between words and deeds is a pivotal criterion of generating trust in relationships. One who lives less-divided in oneself or one who has more integrity in oneself would gradually develop a trustworthiness among the people who interact with that individual.

“Trustworthiness and truthfulness are directly correlated. The distance between words and deeds is a pivotal criterion of generating trust in relationships. One who lives less-divided in oneself or one who has more integrity in oneself would gradually develop a trustworthiness among the people who interact with that individual.”

However, developing an integrated self is not a simple task. St. Paul calls himself as a wretched man who does not understand his own actions since he doesn’t do what he wants and does the very thing he hates (Rom. 7, 14-24). Carl Rogers (1959) understood this phenomenon based on his understanding of the division of the self as ideal self and real self. According to him, the ideal self is the person that one would like to be and the real self is the person who actually is. The totality of one’s actual state might be different from the ideal state one dreams, demands and professes. Luigi M. Rulla (1986), a Jesuit psychologist named it as the basic dialectics between one’s ideal self and real self. It is basic since it is very much related with the nature of humanity. It is not easy for one to recognize and to be conscious about the distance between the two selves and it is further difficult for the individuals to address this distance. It demands a process of lifelong and continuous effort.

William Damon (2015), an American psychologist sheds further light on this process. According to him people sometimes fail to act on their moral beliefs because those beliefs are not really their own. They could be engaged in a process of making own those beliefs and this process would be different for every individual as well.

Motivational elements can influence this integration process of values. Herbert C. Kelman (1958), a social psychologist lists three possible motives such as compliance, identification and internalization. At times people adopt a behaviour or a value not because they totally believe in its content but because they expect to have a reward or approval and to avoid specific punishments or disapproval. Here a motivational element of compliance work in the mind of the individual. An identification occurs when a person accepts a value in order to establish or to maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or a group. If an individual is really motivated by the content of a value, Kelman describes it as internalization, since that content itself is intrinsically rewarding for him. Every person upholds some values as core to their self and to their life. Since those values are intrinsically rewarding, they make an internalization and personification of the same. Internalization reduces the distance between the ideal self and real self and speeds up the process of integration.

“Every person upholds some values as core to their self and to their life. Since those values are intrinsically rewarding, they make an internalization and personification of the same. Internalization reduces the distance between the ideal self and real self and speeds up the process of integration.”

There can be some emotional elements which hinder a process of integration between the ideal self and real self. Fear of being judged or anxiety about losing a good-image would unconsciously motivate a person to profess some values loudly even when one struggles to live those values. Even if one wants to face the truth of his false self, external pressures to be a model person silence the inner turmoil between two selves within and present a semblance of stability and normalcy (Sebastian, 2016). Shame would damage integration process as well. The etymology of the word shame traces to the tendencies to cover oneself when someone feels shame. An internal desire to cover would prevent any possibilities of addressing the truth. Excessive feeling of guilt also is an enemy. Normal guilt helps correction of the mistake, whereas excessive guilt creates opposite effect. It hurts the self-esteem and self-worth of the person and one loses the self-confidence even to initiate a process.

A fear-generating living-environment can damage the process of integration further. A social climate where people are eager to judge each other would create more fear among people. “The only environment that can lead to change and growth from self-division is one of unconditional acceptance” (Sebastian, 2016, p. 353). The presence of more empathetic people, who understand others rather than judge would reduce the struggles of integration process and would make the social climate more truthful and trustworthy. A culture of covering-up does not encourage or support either the individuals to open-up and deal seriously their internal divisions.

This article approached the crisis of living truthfulness as an insider. One who looks from outside might read the hypocrisy of a person who fails to live the truthfulness. But all those who fail to live truthfulness are not hypocrites in its true sense. None would consciously prefer to live a masked life. Some would fail to live what they profess even after they genuinely desire for the same. One who is less conscious about the process of basic dialectics between one’s professed values and lived values would helplessly continue with that even when there is a deep-seated craving to exhibit a trustworthy-image in society.