Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct: A Meta-Ethnography Study

. The development of identity theories in psychology tends to be partial and incoherent, and are followed by various problems. This study uses meta-ethnography to deconstruct theories of self-identity in order to ﬁnd common threads and relation between theories, including main theories on identity (Erikson’s; Marcia’s), and other related theories (Berzonsky’s, Grotevant’s, Waterman’s, McAdams’s), This study uses Hofstede’s view on identity theories, and formulates a fundamental and comprehensive conceptualization of identity theory. This study formulates a model of the layers of identity which includes the identity of (1) human nature, (2) personal, and (3) social. This study also explains the dynamics of the self as ‘I’ and ‘Me’ in the formation of identity. This study discusses human nature in the discourse of identity and this provides further implications in the ﬁeld of developmental psychology and educational psychology.


Introduction
The topic of self-identity has become a topic that has received great attention in psychology, especially related to discussions regarding the development of adolescents in preparing for adulthood (Crocetti, 2017;Erikson, 1956;Hoare, 2002;Marcia, 1980;Schachter & Galliher, 2018). The image of self that was previously possessed by individuals, both from self-knowledge and from interactions with parents, becomes challenged or shaken by the existence of various alternative identities faced during adolescence (Becht et al., 2016). Adolescents who are able to achieve successful self-identity formation are associated with various positive psychological conditions, such as self-esteem (Luyckx et al., 2005a;Ryeng et al., 2013), self-efficacy (Lam & Tam, 2011), social adjustment and academics (Luyckx et al., 2005a), life satisfaction (Skhirtladze et al., 2015), and personality maturity (Hill et al., 2013;Klimstra, 2012;McAdams & Olson, 2010).
The development of self-identity is also an important part of the learning and education process (Wenger, 1998). The implementation of identity development in educational practice is carried out in various forms, for example through developing identity as a learner (learning identity) (Kolb & Kolb, 2009) Theoretically, there are many studies that attempt to explain self-identity (M. R. Leary & Tangney, 2012), such as offering definitions of identity (Erikson, 1956;Lounsbury et al., 2005;Lounsbury et al., 2007;Waterman, 1984Waterman, , 1990, the content of identity (McLean et al., 2016), the process of identity formation (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986;Kroger, 2007;Lam & Tam, 2011;Luyckx et al., 2005aLuyckx et al., , 2005bLuyckx et al., 2008;Luyckx et al., 2009;Marcia, 1980;Nair et al., 2015;S. J. Schwartz, 2005;Zimmermann et al., 2013), identity style (Berzonsky, 1989), social identity (Stryker, 2007;Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and identity function (Serafini & Adams, 2002;Serafini & Maitland, 2013). Doeselaar et al. (2018) summarized the existence of several intrapersonal component similarities in various theories regarding self-identity, such as self-uniqueness, self-coherence, and self-sustainability. In addition, just as humans are inseparable from cultural influences (Dewantara, 2013;Hofstede et al., 2010;Lubis, 2019), self-identity also has two other levels of analysis that are social in nature, namely the interactional and sociocultural domains (S. J. Schwartz, 2001). Doeselaar et al. (2018) states that the existence of various theories of self-identity also implies that the studies that have been carried out tend to be partial and there is a possibility that each researcher does not know the results of research between researchers, thus allowing for a reduction in the definition of self-identity constructs (Glas, 2006). "To what extent have self-identity theories explained the complexity of human self-identity? Is there a fundamental and comprehensive theory of self-identity?" are some follow-up questions related to the possibility of a partial self-identity study.
To answer this question, an evaluation of the theories of self-identity needs to be done.
One theory that can be used as an analytical framework for self-identity theories is the mental programming theory of Hofstede et al. (2010). This theory was chosen because it explains that cultural processes can influence individual thoughts and actions in a comprehensive manner, including how individuals view themselves, through three factors, namely (a) human nature, or the universal nature of all humans, (b) culture, or influence from the social environment, such as the family environment, neighborhood environment, or other social environment; and (c) personal (personality), or unique traits that are owned by individuals and not shared by other people. Based on this framework, self-identity theories are only limited to explaining personal and cultural or social factors in the formation of self-identity, while universal factors are not included in it (S. J. Schwartz, 2001), so that the theory can be used to provide a broader perspective for the development of identity theory. Markus and Kitayama (1991) explain that the perspective of human nature influences self-conceptualization, including self-identity. The emphasis on discussing self-identity on personal traits tends to be influenced by the perspective that humans are independent and autonomous beings, who have unique internal attributes (eg traits, abilities, motivations, and values), and their behavior is determined by internal attributes only, which tend to be influenced by by Western culture. Meanwhile, self-identity as a social construct developed from the field of social psychology which discovered the influence of interactional processes on individuals (Hogg et al., 1995;Howard, 2000). Personal identity 2 BULETIN PSIKOLOGI Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct and social identity are important findings in constructing self-identity (Nario-Redmond et al., 2004) to optimize the development of self-identity (Schachter & Galliher, 2018).
Nonetheless, self-identity that only emphasizes personal and social identity or one of them can also raise problems, for example stereotype problems between certain social groups (Haslam et al., 1999) or excessive feelings of uniqueness (Doeselaar et al., 2018). In addition, various problems due to partial identity are also found in cases of development, for example the development of self-identity in adolescents. Fuadi et al. (2019) found that the emphasis on social identity in the 'klithih' group (juvenile delinquency gangs in Yogyakarta) is a strong determining factor in this form of juvenile delinquency. In addition to these examples, a psychological experiment from Zimbardo (1971) also shows the negative impact of fabrication on social identity (as a prison warden) which leads to brutal acts against prisoners.
These problems provide reinforcement regarding the absence of discussion of more basic self-identity. The existence of human nature has been mentioned by the United Nations (2015) through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 1 which states that every human being has certain basic characteristics that are universal. This basic nature is inherent in and also influences the individual's perspective on himself and others. The existence of discussions about this (human nature) has also become an important issue in the history of human thought, such as by philosophers, religionists, and scientists, including in the scientific field of psychology (Akash et al., 2019). Watanabe (1998) states that there are several basic concepts regarding human nature in psychology, such as those based on psychoanalytic, behavioral, and humanistic perspectives. Nevertheless, human nature is not specifically and explicitly discussed in the topic of self-identity, which is often narrowed down in the context of ethnicity (Gichure, 2015), nor is it reflected as the understanding behind the theory of self-identity (Rosenau, 1992).
Based on these conditions, this study aims to answer the research question in the form of, "What is the essential psychological construct of self-identity that is fundamental?". This study seeks to find common threads from various theories of self-identity to be integrated into a more comprehensive and coherent model, and tries to consider the existence of human nature factors in human self-identity.
The existence of a more comprehensive theory of self-identity can then be used as a theoretical basis for interventions in the development of self-identity, for example regarding the problem of the low number of adolescents who have succeeded in forming self-identity (Kroger, 2007;Muttaqin & Ekowarni, 2017;Yatim, 1982) and the factors that influence it (Arnett, 1998;Becht et al., 2016;Kroger, 2007;Luyckx et al., 2008;S. J. Schwartz, 2005).

Method
This study uses a qualitative approach using meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988) in order to be able to carry out a synthesis analysis to find the common threads and essence of self-identity theory (Britten et al., 2002). Operationally, this study deconstructs psychological constructs to be reconstructed as done by Riyono (2011).
Data source. The data in this study are in the form of research journals and books related to the BULETIN PSIKOLOGI 3 Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct concept of self-identity. The types of articles collected can be in the form of theoretical propositions, exploratory studies, and correlation studies. There are three main identity figures who are the source of data for this study, namely (Erikson, 1956(Erikson, , 1963a(Erikson, , 1963b(Erikson, , 1968(Erikson, , 1973(Erikson, , 1975(Erikson, , 1997Evans, 1981), (Kroger & Marcia, 2011;Marcia, 1966Marcia, , 1980Marcia, , 1989Marcia, , 2002Marcia, , 2006Marcia, , 2009Marcia & Friedman, 1970;Marcia & Josselson, 2013;Marcia et al., 1993) and (Hofstede, 2001). Erikson and Marcia are the most influential figures of self-identity in the development of self-identity theory, while Hofstede is the originator of the theory of mental programming as the analytical framework of this study. In addition, this study also uses the work of other self-identity figures who enrich the theoretical propositions of self-identity, such as Berzonsky (1989Berzonsky ( , 2004Berzonsky ( , 2011, Grotevant (1987Grotevant ( , 1997, Waterman (1990, 1993), and McAdams (1985), McAdams and Cox (2010.
Data collection procedures. Data searches are carried out with keywords related to 'identity', but are not rigid as long as they remain relevant. The data was searched based on figures who sparked the theory, literatures on self-identity, as well as educational and development textbooks that contain discussions on self-identity, until the data reaches saturation.
Data analysis and interpretation. Noblit and Hare (1988) formulated seven main stages in the meta-ethnographic method, namely: (1) identifying "intellectual interest" or certain concepts to be studied, namely identity, (2) determining matters relevant to intellectual interest, (3) examining the texts of research results, (4) determining the interrelationships between research results, (5) translating back and forth from one research result to another, (6) synthesizing the results of the mutual translation, and (7) formulate the results of the synthesis. Construct validity is carried out through sequential and back and forth analysis and triangulation of data on the works of the same figures, internal validity is developed through coherent and logical explanations, logical validity is developed from re-confirmation of self-identity theories, and interpretation validity is developed using consensual expert validity.

Result
Erikson and Marcia as originators of the basic theory of self-identity

Erik H. Erikson
Discussion of self-identity is a complicated and complex discussion because it needs to touch on the essence or core of the individual as well as his communal culture and is related to the discussion of self, both in the form of self-concept, self-system, and self-experience (Erikson, 1956(Erikson, , 1968. The complexity of discussions related to self-identity often creates a tendency to interpret it broadly or narrowly, including by reducing meaning due to practical purposes in the form of measurement (Erikson, 1968).
Erikson's theory (Erikson, 1963a;Evans, 1981)  At first, Erikson (1968) mentioned self-identity with the term 'ego identity' because it is closely related to ego function, but then it was revised to 'identity' to accommodate other discourses related to the comparison between ego and self. Self-identity processes an individual's image of himself (self), while self is a reflection of what 'I' witnesses to himself in various forms (selves), which are synthesized into a composite self-image (Self). A healthy self-image is a cohenerent one. It is integrated with each other and forms a complete picture of oneself, so that individuals are able to recognize themselves, their position, nature, and purpose in life, in the midst of various self-experiences in various situations (Erikson, 1997). Erikson (1956Erikson ( , 1963aErikson ( , 1968Erikson ( , 1973 describes self-identity as the result of self-definition that is coherent and consistent, thus giving rise to an awareness of self-sameness that continues between different situations and times (continuity) to be a complete self-definition and affirmed by the surrounding social environment. 'Coherence' includes all the results of identification that occur in individuals since childhood. Meanwhile, 'similarity' is not only to oneself, but also certain similarities to groups, for example similarities in race, intelligence, values, culture, physical form, language, and various other characteristics. Self-identity emphasizes three meanings, namely (1) uniqueness, (2) continuity of experience, and (3) similarity with the group. Self-identity as self-uniqueness requires a long process and efforts to achieve and maintain the continuity of self-uniqueness in different situations and times (continuity). Every individual has two types of self-identity, namely personal identity and cultural or group identity. Personal identity is a unique individual characteristic of an individual and becomes a differentiator between individuals, for example physical condition, personality and intellectual ability. Meanwhile, cultural or group identity is the similarity and adjustment of individuals to certain cultures or groups, for example ethnicity and race (Erikson, 1968;Evans, 1981).
There are several principles emphasized in the process of forming self-identity from Erikson (1963aErikson ( , 1968Erikson ( , 1985, namely (1) the ego as an inner agency that synthesizes self-identity, (2) the formation of self-identity based on the principle of sociogenetic evolution, (3) a strong self-identity is the unique one, and (4) the development of self-identity is psychosocial. The formation of identity is determined by the quality of the ego in carrying out the functions of selection, integration, synthesis, up to the reconstruction of existing identification, both existing and newly existing, into a new 'unique' identification. The identification process takes place from the time an individual is born and interacts with others, until it becomes diverse as the individual experiences and interactions with his social environment increase (Erikson, 1956;Evans, 1981).
The environment and social institutions play a role in the development of individual self-identity as a provider of means to learn and try various roles and positions, or what is called a moratorium. The moratorium period is needed for adolescents because it provides an opportunity to BULETIN PSIKOLOGI 5 Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct find the most appropriate and specific position for them (Erikson, 1956(Erikson, , 1968. The many choices of roles allow adolescents to be unique, but often also cause problems in the form of confusion due to role uncertainty (Erikson, 1968;Evans, 1981). Success in undergoing the moratorium is determined by the dynamics between fidelity (loyalty, loyalty, commitment) and a sense of diversity (differences in choice) so as not to experience confusion of values (Erikson, 1963a(Erikson, , 1968, and is marked by a new identity configuration based on identifications that have been exist (Erikson, 1956).
The process of diffusion between self-identifications is a normal process, but under certain conditions it can take place abnormally or is called identity confusion which is characterized by discontinuities in the development of self-identity. Identity confusion can be followed by neurotic and psychotic disorders when they are severe (aggravate or malignant) (Erikson, 1968). Some of the characteristics of identity confusion are (1) feelings of self-alienation towards the nature of oneself and the social environment, as well as an inner vacuum, (2) intolerance of differences, (3) inability to commit to something and make decisions, (4) moratorium extended, (5) conflict in identity selection (Erikson, 1956(Erikson, , 1963a(Erikson, , 1968. James E Marcia's explanation of self-identity was developed based on Erik H. Erikson's theory (Marcia et al., 1993) by focusing on the task of ego development (Kroger & Marcia, 2011). Nonetheless, Marcia (1980) narrowed her perspective on self-identity as a self-structure that organizes various components within, including drives, abilities, beliefs, and individual experiences, which are dynamic and can change gradually (Marcia, 1980). Self-identity is also explained as an intrapsychic process in organizing and constructing self-identification, which is experienced by individuals with a certain style that can be observed by others. Marcia uses a status approach in self-identity theory (Marcia & Josselson, 2013), although Erikson disagrees with this approach (Marcia et al., 1993). The development of a good self-identity is determined by ego strength and is characterized by self-coherence, unique feelings, not experiencing confusion in self-definition, and freedom from adaptation anxiety (Marcia et al., 1993).
The process of forming a good self-identity is the result of active construction, not just a gift, so that it involves a process of exploration, self-reflection, and integration between individual abilities and the roles provided by the environment (Marcia, 2002). This process lasts a lifetime, but is more crucial in adolescence because of physical, psychological, and social changes (Marcia, 1980(Marcia, , 2006(Marcia, , 2009). Every teenager can show a certain style (style) in the process or referred to as 'status', which is determined by the presence or absence of 'exploration' and 'commitment' components on a continuum (high-low). Exploration aims to determine choices that will be lived in adulthood, such as in the form of vocational, ideological, and interpersonal relationships, while commitment is to determine a choice from various alternative choices and direct individual behavior according to the choices that have been made. Exploration and commitment are at the cognitive and behavioral level (Marcia, 2002;Marcia et al., 1993). These two components must exist in two main issue areas faced by adolescents, namely occupational issues or work problems, and ideology or problems related to perspectives on life (Kroger & Marcia, 2011;Marcia, 1980). Based on the presence or absence and high or low of these components in adolescents,

BULETIN PSIKOLOGI
Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct Marcia (1980) categorizes identity status into four groups, namely Identity Achievement, Foreclosure, Moratorium, and Identity Diffusion. Identity Achievement and Foreclosure have a high level of commitment, in which Identity Achievement has explored or experienced a crisis so that its identity is constructed, while Foreclosure has not experienced it and its identity is a gift. Meanwhile, Moratorium and Identity Diffusion both have low levels of commitment, but Moratorium shows concern and effort to increase its commitment, while Identity Diffusion ignores and shows no interest in increasing its commitment. In addition, Moratorium is also facing a crisis and is exploring, while Identity Diffusion may or may not experience a crisis. In an effort to increase the validity of the self-identity construct, (Marcia, 1980(Marcia, , 1989Marcia & Friedman, 1970) found a link between identity status and various other psychological constructs, such as family characteristics, anxiety, cognitive abilities, conformity, locus of control, moral development, autonomy, authoritarianism, ego development, and self-esteem.

Another Theorists
Michael D. Berzonsky Differences in identity status according to Marcia are influenced by differences in the processing of self-relevant information based on a constructivism perspective or individuals who actively play a role in themselves and their lives (Berzonsky, 1989). Self-identity is explained as a cognitive 'structure' or framework used in interpreting self-related information, solving problems, and making decisions, as well as a 'process' that regulates cognitive-social strategies in constructing, maintaining, and reconstructing self-identity (Berzonsky, 2011). Self-identity is also called self-theory, which is a certain cognitive conceptual structure that is formed by individuals towards themselves, which consists of various constructs, assumptions, hypotheses, beliefs, schemes, and postulates related to oneself in interacting with the social environment (Berzonsky, 1989(Berzonsky, , 2011. Self theory is said to be effective when it can solve individual problems pragmatically because it cannot be ascertained whether it represents the real self (Berzonsky, 1989). The optimal self-theory construction process is one that carries out cognitive processes in the form of assimilation and accommodation in a balanced way (Berzonsky, 1989). The process of assimilation takes place when the information that comes becomes a positive feedback to the existing identity structure, whereas accommodation takes place when there is a negative feedback to the individual in adapting (Berzonsky, 2004). Cognitive processes in self-construction theory are carried out by the brain automatically, which naturally has the ability to organize and synthesize various self-constructs into higher cognitive structures (Berzonsky, 2011).

Harold D. Grotevant
Grotevant (1997) introduced a process model of identity exploration as a framework for understanding the process of self-identity. There are four themes in the framework, namely individual characteristics that influence the process, process context, process identity, and the interrelationships between process domains. Individual characteristics that influence the process of self-identity are personality factors (self-esteem, self-monitoring, ego-resiliency, and openness to experience) and cognitive abilities (formal operational skills). These individual characteristics interact with the social context, including BULETIN PSIKOLOGI 7 Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct the culture of society, family, peers, and the environment. The self-identity process then takes place involving six domains, namely orientation to engage in exploration, exploratory processes, affective outcomes, cognitive outcomes, identity consolidation, and identity evaluation. The exploration process is triggered by identity disruption when interacting with the social environment (Grotevant, 1997).
Alan S. Waterman Waterman (1990Waterman ( , 1993  James, who explained self as a combination of 'I (I)' or self as a subject and 'about me (Me)' or self as an object. The self as 'I' (I) learns about self as 'about me' (Me) through self-perception. Self can also play a role in three forms, namely as an actor (actor), or self who does something to interact and adapt to the social environment; as an agent (agent), or self who has desires, plans, and tries to achieve something in his social environment; as well as being the author, or the self that determines the story of his life, regarding how he was in the past and what he wants to be in the future.

Mental Programming Theory as An Analytical Framework
Every human being has certain patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting. Hofstede et al. (2010) introduced a mental program construct to make it easier to understand human behavior patterns tendencies. These behavior patterns tend to be stable in various situations, although they are not 8 BULETIN PSIKOLOGI Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct completely predictable (Hofstede, 2001). There are three levels of mental programming based on Hofstede's level of uniqueness and programming process (Hofstede et al., 2010;Hofstede, 2001), namely: (1) individual level or personality level, namely programming that is the least inherited between individuals, so it is very unique and distinguishes one person from another, for example the personality factor as a genetically inherited trait, which can also be learned from experience; (2) collective or cultural level, namely programming that is shared with several people in a group and can be learned through social interaction, including attitudes and behavior in social interaction, language, and ethics, and is usually related to intergroup culture (Hofstede et al., 2010); and (3) universal or human nature level, namely programming that is owned by everyone, and is inherited through genetics that determines certain biological conditions and physiological processes, such as laughing, crying, aggressive behavior, or other behaviors that are also found in animals, and not studied.

The Interrelationships Between Self-Identity Theories
The theory of self-identity has developed since the 1950s until now, namely since Erik H. Erikson Erikson (1956) raised the discussion of self-identity using a psychoanalytic approach. Various figures then continued to discuss self-identity (Berzonsky, 1989;Grotevant, 1987;Marcia, 1980;McAdams, 1985;Waterman, 1990). Apart from these figures, there are also several other figures who have consistently conducted studies on self-identity (Adams & Marshall, 1996;Chen et al., 2006;Co & Levine, 1988;Doeselaar et al., 2018;Guardia, 2009;Kroger, 1988;Lounsbury et al., 2005;Luyckx et al., 2005b;Oyserman et al., 2004;S. J. Schwartz, 2001;Serafini & Adams, 2002;Stryker, 1968;Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The forms of self-identity theory development vary, showing two patterns of development, namely extension or studies that complement the self-identity theory rather than reconceptualizing it, as well as expansion or studies that make Marcia's identity status theory a component of the discussion but the theories put forward tend to closer to Erikson's original ideas (S. J. Schwartz, 2001). Conceptualization of self-identity needs to consider the foundational ideas of Erikson and Marcia. Meanwhile, other theories have a position as a complement, organizer, as well as a critic who dialogues with the initial idea of self-identity. There are a number of similarities stemming from the similarity of the theoretical foundations for self-identity from Erikson and Marcia, but there are also several points of ideas that do not show coherence, so further discussion is needed in order to find more coherent and comprehensive ideas to understand self-identity.
The similarities between self-identity theories include (1) the meaning of identity as an individual's attempt to define himself into a definition that represents himself consistently and coherently across time; (2) the process of forming self-identity lasts a lifetime, with the adolescent stage as a more crucial period; (3) inter-theory of self-identity implies the existence of 'something' that actively processes, integrates, and synthesizes self-identity, and (4) self-identity includes things that are 'personal' and 'social', both as levels of identity and factors influencing identity formation.
The ideas that do not show suitability and coherence raise further questions, namely, (1) there is an inconsistency in human nature, in the form of claims that humans do not have universal similarities but the discussion of the process of forming self-identity explains a condition of similarity which BULETIN PSIKOLOGI 9 Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct everyone has, for example Erikson's idea that individuals do not have anything in common, but his explanation of the process of forming self-identities also implies that there are certain basic conditions that allow individuals to form their own identities, as well as the views of constructivists who explain that humans have the same potential to actively construct themselves; (2) inconsistency regarding 'something' that plays a role in the synthesis of self-identity, which is referred to as ego by Erikson, brain by Berzonsky, and self by McAdams, in which these three things are out of sync in explaining the part of the self that acts as main regulator of human psychological processes. This inconsistency is fundamental because it is related to the basic human condition and the basic process of forming self-identity. Incoherence between theories that are not discussed and criticized will lead to difficulties in drawing common threads and conclusions and become separate and unrelated discussions which can eventually lead to confusion in theoretical developments and their practical implementation.
This study continues with a critical study of each of the causes of differences between theories in order to discuss and position each theory appropriately. The differences that are criticized are those that are fundamental and have major implications for the main ideas of each theory. There are four points of ideas that are criticized, namely (1) there is no similarity or human nature in self-identity, (2) the ego as the main synthesizer of self-identity, (3) the brain as the main synthesizer of self-identity, and (4) self as the principal synthesizer of self-identity.

Criticism of The Absence of Human Nature in Self-Identity
The view that humans do not have a universal identity or a fundamental similarity in discussing self-identity originates from the idea of pseudospecies by (Erikson, 1968). Humans survive by being part of certain groups and being superior to other groups (survival of the fittest), which is then manifested based on religion, social class, nation and state. Nevertheless, (Erikson, 1985) later realized that, in fact, humans are the same species based on genetic integrity (genetic integrity). This view indicates the existence of Erikson's thought journey on whether or not there is a universal similarity in humans. Erikson's journey of thought led to the conclusion that there are certain universal similarities between humans, even though in reality humans behave as pseudospecies so that similarities between humans are very difficult to recognize. This idea is clarified through Hofstede's view (Hofstede et al., 2010;Hofstede, 2001), that there are elements of universal / human nature in humans, although limited to biological factors. Similarities at the biological level are not enough to explain the psychological conditions needed in the process of self-identity, for example the freedom to choose in exploring, willingness, awareness, learning ability, ability to organize oneself, and hope), as explained by self-identity figures (eg Marcia and McAdams) that each individual can actively construct his own identity.

Criticism of The Ego as The Main Synthesizer of Self-Identity
The explanation that the ego is the main synthesizer of self-identity uses the psychoanalytic approach by Freud (1923). Erikson emphasized that the ego is the main synthesizer of self-identity by referring to the function of the ego as an organizer of mental processes. Nonetheless, these explanations apply 10 BULETIN PSIKOLOGI  Ellenberger (1970), Sulloway (1979), Grünbaum (1984), and Oliva et al. (1992) (in Crews (1996).
This criticism highlights a number of things, such as the philosophical basis for the emergence of psychoanalytic theories that do not meet the principles of falsification and are epistemically flawed, not supported by scientific evidence, studies that cannot be replicated, and fact fabrication to support the theory. In addition, Crews (1998)  Over time, Freudians have responded to criticisms of psychoanalysis, although they have failed to touch the heart of the matter, namely problems related to the epistemology used, the methods and results in the theory put forward (Crews, 1996). This condition also has an impact on the theory of 'ego' which has a large portion in the whole theory, which is not supported by scientific evidence, including in the process of self-identity synthesis. Erikson also did not conduct studies using the scientific method to prove that the ego is the main synthesizer of self-identity, but only used the idea of 'ego' in explaining the formation of self-identity. By considering these criticisms, the explanation that the ego is the main synthesizer in the formation of self-identity is weak and fragile, and does not yet accommodate other factors in the process of self-identity, such as awareness in thinking, freedom in making choices, motivation, and will (willingness).

Criticism of The Brain as The Main Synthesizer of Self-Identity
The explanation of the brain as the main synthesizer of self-identity is influenced by materialism or physicalism, namely the understanding that nothing plays a role in an individual's mental condition other than the brain (Levin, 2018). Materialism emphasizes that everything is physical, and all events can be explained as physical phenomena (Pandora, 2019). There are various criticisms of the view that the brain is the determinant of every human experience, in which these various criticisms lead to a consistent conclusion, namely that the brain does not work alone, so that explanations about individual experience cannot be reduced to the condition of the brain alone.
The first criticism came from Wilder Penfield (Penfield, 1975) who carried out electrode stimulation to make individuals do something, such as turning their heads, raising their arms, speaking, or swallowing, but failed to influence 'willingness', so it was concluded that the mind or mental (mind) is not the brain, but something else that has its own existence. The second criticism

BULETIN PSIKOLOGI 11
Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct comes from John C. Eccles (Eccles, 1994), namely that the brain cannot explain the process of unification (unification/synthesis) of various human experiences (binding problems). Humans experience various experiences throughout their lives, of which these experiences need to be considered, selected, ignored, analyzed, and synthesized into a unified experience and individual uniqueness. 'Something' that can unify various human experiences is referred to as psyche, self, or soul, namely as the essence or nature of an individual that makes him unique and influences the brain in processing information or experience, and cannot be explained through genetics alone. The next criticism is that the mind (mind) affects the brain. The study of Jeffrey M. Schwartz (J. M. Schwartz & Regley, 2002) regarding brain plasticity shows changes in the brain that are influenced by mental (mind). A study by Hans Strausburger (Strausburger & Baldvogel, 2015) on patients with Dissociative Identity Disorder also found that mental personality can affect the condition of brain areas. The next criticism came from Roger Sperry who conducted a study on split brain in the 1950s and found that damage to the corpus collosum had no effect on consciousness or an individual's perception of the world and himself. Consciousness is found as something unique and transcends neurological processes in the brain (Lestienne, 2013).
The studies above explain that there are conditions that cannot only be explained by the brain, such as those related to awareness, sense of self, will, attention, decision, as well as experience unification. This is the basic process that occurs in the formation of human self-identity, because the formation of self-identity requires the process of collecting, sorting, synthesizing (unifying) experiences or identification that has existed before to become a certain identity that distinguishes itself from other people. The process also requires a will, for example in exploring and receiving experience; aware of what is happening, choose events that get attention, to determine the experience to be synthesized. Thus, the study of the brain can describe the cognitive processes that occur in processing information related to self-identity, but the brain is not the sole synthesizer of self-identity.

Criticism of The Self as The Main Synthesizer of Self-Identity
Discussion of the self has a long history in the discourse of psychology (Swann & Bosson, 2010).
Initially, James (1890) raised the subject of self as the core of discussion in psychology which was eventually ignored by the development of a positivistic view, as well as the influence of the views of social psychology which explained self as a self-image that can change in order to gain social acceptance (social self). The view that leads to the absence of coherent awareness of self has reduced William James' explanation of self, because self is not only social but also should also be able to provide a sense of connectedness and unity (Swann & Bosson, 2010). In addition, individuals also have enduring self-schemas, which include a unit of self-information that also functions as a determinant of the relevance of other information. The inability of individuals to integrate themselves and form self-unities is one of the unhealthy personal characteristics, for example in the form of personality disorders (Oppenheimer, 2002).

The important role of the self in the formation of self-identity is stated by (McAdams, 2011)
based on James (1890) view of the self. William James's theory of self is a theory that has been developed by many subsequent researchers in defining self (Mullane, 1983). James' conception departs

BULETIN PSIKOLOGI
Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct from a radical experientialism approach by viewing the self as a stream of thought or awareness (stream of consciousness; stream of experience) that exists in everyone (D. E. Leary, 1990). James (1890) mentions two dimensions of self that are interdependent, namely self as I (I; the knower; the judging thought; subjective dimension) and About Me (Me; the known; the empirical person; objective dimension). Self is conceptualized not as a substance, but as an activity (a doing, not a being) that is carried out by individuals so that self has an active nature and is not only explained based on human physical (material). The connection between the concept of self and the process of forming self-identity is through the existence of consciousness or thought that works actively and freely in selecting experiences related to oneself. Self-identity is conceptualized as a feeling of self-similarity by thoughts based on current self and past self (I am the same self that I was yesterday). The The idea of the self as a synthesiser of self-identity provides a clearer picture of the process of self-identity formation. The process of forming self-identity involves oneself as a synthesizer (I) and a synthesized self (Me). The self as a synthesizer (I) has the characteristics of being active, able to organize and unify, involves awareness, accommodates motivation, will, and freedom in choosing and determining the dynamics of self-identity. Meanwhile, the synthesized self (Me) includes everything related to oneself, such as the physical, social, and psychological characteristics of the individual. The concept of self from James (1890) provides an explanation of some of the limitations of the idea that the brain and ego are the main synthesizers of self-identity, namely (1) I (I) is conceived as a free and independent role in determining self-identity, (2) self describes the position and the interaction between 'something within oneself that knows about self' (ie I or I) and 'something within oneself that is known by oneself' (ie About Me or Me), namely I (I) has a central position in determining 'about me' (Me) actively; (3) self accommodates the motivation and will (willingness) of individuals to form, maintain, or change their identity.

The Self-Identity Layer Model: A Synthesis Formulation of The Theory of Self-Identity
The formulation of a synthesis of self-identity theory was developed based on pre-existing theoretical reviews regarding self-identity as well as relevant criticisms. Definitively, various theories of self-identity show a common thread in the definition of self-identity, which is about how a person can recognize and define himself. While the discussion regarding the types and processes of self-identity formation still indicates opportunities for conceptual development. The formulation of the synthesis of self-identity theory focuses on discussing the development of human nature in self-identity.
Human Nature in Self-Identity The definition of human nature in self-identity adapts the mental programming framework by Hofstede et al. (2010), namely as a basic condition that exists in everyone (is universal) that influences

BULETIN PSIKOLOGI 13
Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct individual patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting. Human nature becomes the basic human potential that allows humans to have and carry out the process of forming self-identity. Self-identity will not be formed without a certain human nature in humans. Human nature has existed within the individual since birth and continues to exist along with the development of the individual. Human nature describes the conditions of basic similarities that have existed between humans from birth. Since birth, humans carry two types of characteristic attributes of themselves, namely those that are the same between humans (human nature) and those that distinguish between humans (individual differences).
Examples of human nature attributes are awareness, freedom to choose, will, and the potential to learn.
These various examples are psychological factors needed in the process of forming self-identity. In the formation of self-identity, every individual basically needs awareness to actively construct his own identity, has the freedom and will to determine the process and identification that will be constructed into self-identity, and can carry out the learning process during the process. The process of forming self-identity which tends to be passive is a representation of the condition of not recognizing various attributes of human nature so that one cannot make optimal use of them, for example, unawareness of freedom of choice. In other words, even though human nature exists as individuals develop, the level of recognition and awareness and how individuals utilize these attributes may or may not be in accordance with existing human nature.
As for examples of self-characteristics that are more personal and differentiate between individuals (individual differences) are physical characteristics, personality, and intellectual abilities.
These various characteristics are categorized into personal characteristics because the introduction of these factors aims to discover the uniqueness and differences between individuals. These characteristics are not included in the discourse on human nature in this study, because the definition of human nature does not only explain the attributes that are inborn, but also emphasizes the similarities in the basic conditions that humans have. For example, individuals are born with certain intelligence abilities that can be optimized through stimulation and learning processes, but still have certain limitations that differentiate between humans, so optimization efforts remain within these limits. As for human nature, it is the basic condition that is the same between humans, although how individuals realize these attributes may vary, these differences are not fundamental in nature, for example, there is a potential for learning, so that awareness and identification of the potential for learning can always be carried out without certain limitations.
Human nature in self-identity is not only at the level of biological or genetic similarities between humans, as is the case with Hofstede et al. (2010) who cite examples in the form of laughing, crying, and aggressive behavior, as well as Erikson (1985) who cite examples in the form of the mother's instinctive response when the baby cries. This considers the existence of certain psychological conditions and variables needed in the formation of self-identity, for example the existence of awareness, will or motivation and freedom to choose. The results of the synthesis that has been carried out show that there are several characteristics of self-identity that are human in nature, namely: (1) as a form of basic similarity between humans that allows the formation of self-identity, (2) determines the continuity of the process of forming self-identity, (3) includes something in self that can synthesize and unify various 14 BULETIN PSIKOLOGI Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct experiences about oneself into a self-identity, (4) accommodate the process of forming self-identity through awareness, freedom to choose, will, and motivation that regulates and directs the active formation of self-identity.
Based on these four characteristics, human nature in self-identity can be described as a similarity of basic conditions between humans to form self-identity. The results of a critical study that has been carried out on the process of forming self-identity, especially based on the view (James, 1890), shows that self-identity is formed through interactions between self (self) as a synthesizer (I) and self that is synthesized (Me). The interaction between I and Me continues as long as humans live and is dynamic. I is an essence in human beings that can 'manage', 'control', and 'master' various forms of Me. James (1890) explained I as an awareness or thought activity (stream of consciousness or stream of thought) that exists in every person. While Me is everything that can be identified with oneself. In the discourse of self-identity, self-identity theory explains the types of self-identity as part of Me, especially those in the form of personal and social self-identities. Personal identity includes a variety of physical, psychological, personality, emotional, and intelligence characteristics. Whereas social self-identity includes the interaction and connectedness of individuals with other people, such as through the identity of ethnicity, race, religion, citizenship, social status, or other group categories.

Figure 1
The Self-Identity Layer Model Based on the existence of human nature in self-identity, as well as the existence of two types of self-identity in the existing discussion of self-identity, self-identity can be described in a 'self-identity layer model' that accommodates both (Figure 1). Human nature's self-identity becomes the basis (core) of other self-identities so that it is fundamental in the formation of self-identity. Human nature self-identity has existed since humans were born, while personal and social self-identities are formed along with individual growth and development and the results of interactions with other people. The placement of human nature, personal and social elements in self-identity takes into account the nature of the interactions needed to form it, ranging from intrapsychic to social.
Human nature's self-identity can be included in I and Me. Human nature as I means leading to the existence of the essence or basic human nature that forms self-identity. Discussion of human nature as I is inseparable from the basic human concept which leads to activities of thinking (James, 1890), self (self) and soul (soul, psyche) (Eccles, 1994). Human nature as I is a central discussion in psychology, complex, and has a high level of abstraction that often causes debate (Baumeister, 1987).
Human nature as I is the self that is capable of supervising, controlling, and evaluating Me. The existence of I allows individuals to change and construct their identity. Based on Eccles' explanation, self I is something in the form of psyche or soul, which influences various dynamic processes that occur within the individual. The complex nature of "I" implies that the conceptualization of human nature as "I" needs to be studied as the basic concept of human development in psychology. Whereas I in this study is reviewed based on the characteristics needed in the formation of self-identity.
This research focuses on the study of human nature as Me. Human nature as Me means the introduction of the individual to the basic condition so that he can optimally support the process of forming his identity. When individuals know and are aware of the potential within themselves to form self-identities actively and make optimal use of it, then the development of personal and social identities can also take place optimally because individuals can use the psychological modalities that already exist within them. Based on the characteristics of human nature self-identity that has been mentioned, there are several things that individuals need to recognize and be aware of in order to be able to develop their own identity, namely: (1) each individual can actively form his own identity, (2) the formation of self-identity requires awareness to manage and direct efforts to form self-identity, (3) there is freedom in choosing, accepting, disposing of, organizing, evaluating, and building self-identity, (4) self-identity formation needs to be accompanied by willingness, (5) identity formation The self takes place continuously and as a lifelong process In addition to the recognition of the potential and basic conditions that support the development of self-identity, human nature as Me also includes recognition of the essence of self (I). This kind of recognition is the goal of basic questions related to self-identity, such as, "Who am I?", "What is my purpose in life?", and "What do I need to do for the rest of my life?" (S. J. Schwartz, 2001). This recognition can only be achieved when the individual is able to understand and accept his essence as a human being (I) through the process of forming a dynamic self-identity.

The Dynamics of Self-Identity
The previous explanation shows that there is an interaction between I and Me in the formation of self-identity that lasts a lifetime and is dynamic. Individuals can experience changes in the attributes of self-identity along with their life journey. Under certain conditions, these changes are needed in order to strengthen the self-identity that is being formed. However, there are also certain conditions that indicate unhealthy changes in self-identity for individuals, for example reflected in the phenomena

BULETIN PSIKOLOGI
Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct of culture shock, racism, feelings of alienation, crime, and other problems that reflect a weak human nature self-identity. With these problems, the discussion regarding the process of forming a healthy self-identity by considering the existence of human nature self-identity becomes important. There are several conditions that characterize the formation of a healthy self-identity, namely: (1) there is recognition and acceptance of human nature self-identity, (2) there is congruence between self-identity as Me and self as I, (3) the process of forming self-identity takes place continuously.
The process of forming self-identity begins with the existence of I as a human nature that has been possessed by humans as a potential in dealing with various kinds of experiences since the individual was born. Along with increasing experience and starting to interact with other people (the nurturing process), the Me attribute in individuals is also growing. I begin to recognize anything that can be identified with him, for example physical characteristics such as one's limbs, or personal characteristics such as his tendencies, or based on his social relations such as family and friendships.
Not only that, individuals also begin to be able to Second, this effort requires individual openness to always learn to understand yourself throughout his life. A sense of contentment in learning about oneself indicates an unhealthy process of forming self-identity. Third, the purpose of establishing self-identity is to achieve congruence and integrity towards human nature's self-identity. Human nature's self-identity as I becomes a benchmark in determining the selection and formation of self-identity, including those that are personal and social.
If there is incongruence towards human nature self-identity, then the individual needs to reinforce awareness of his human nature, namely that he has the potential to learn and form a more congruent self-identity.

Discussion
This study discusses the fundamental and comprehensive conceptualization of self-identity by developing a layered model of self-identity that involves the human nature of self-identity. The element of human nature in self-identity is a form of self-identity that is shared between humans and becomes the core of the development of a strong self-identity. Human nature in self-identity explains the individual's awareness and recognition of the basic conditions of one's human nature which supports the formation of one's identity as a whole, including personal and social self-identity. Based on the results of the study, self-identity is defined as recognition and awareness of one's condition, which includes the nature of oneself (human nature), personal characteristics, and social characteristics of oneself.
This research departs from the inconsistencies in the discussion of self-identity, which originates from the idea (Erikson, 1956) that humans do not have universal similarity characteristics (pseudospecies), even though the discussion of the process of forming self-identity basically emphasizes the existence of certain characteristics or conditions. Which allows the process of forming self-identity to take place, such as the potential for an active attitude in forming self-identity (Berzonsky, 1989;Grotevant, 1987;Marcia, 1980;McAdams, 1985;Waterman, 1990). Human behavior in the personal and social contexts also involves the existence of human nature, although the discussion is limited to genetics (Hofstede, 2001), which ultimately was also affirmed by Erikson (1985).
Discussion of human nature in the form of genetic or biological influences is not sufficient to explain all of the dynamics of human psychology (Eccles, 1994). Such a conception is not comprehensive and tends to be followed by various problems, for example by making biological and genetic factors the main benchmarks of human quality, through studies that compare moral and mental functions between groups of people based on IQ levels between ethnic groups, until then such research received rejection in academic discourse (Wade, 2004).
The existence of human nature in self-identity through this research has become a novelty in the discourse on self-identity which previously tended to focus on personal and social identities (S. J. Schwartz, 2001). This novelty can be used in examining problems that arise as a result of an emphasis on self-identity which tends to be partial, for example racism and discrimination (Pinker, 2002). Based on this self-identity layer modeling, racism and discrimination are consequences that arise when individuals only see differences between humans and do not accept the existence of identity similarities between humans. As is the case with the racial ideology sparked by (Hitler, 1939) which then triggered various racist and discriminatory actions against certain groups of people who were considered not to be part of their best race. This view only emphasizes identity that is social because it only accepts the similarities between groups and rejects the differences that belong to other groups, which also gives rise to feelings of superiority due to comparisons between these groups. This view ignores the existence of fundamental similarities between humans, namely that humans are not superior to one another because basically they have the same human nature. It is this fundamental similarity that is emphasized by the United Nations (2015) through the statement, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood.
Human nature as certain basic conditions that already exist in humans are also explained through various literatures. Riyono et al. (2012) explained that one form of human nature is the 18 BULETIN PSIKOLOGI Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct freedom to choose. This freedom is not only manifested through the activity of making a major decision, but also takes place intrapsychically in the form of a process of choosing and regulating mental processes that occur within oneself, for example the ability of individuals to manage sources of motivation within themselves. A study by Fachrunisa and Chizanah (2020) also found freedom to choose as a characteristic of human nature, which then supports the willingness to choose, evaluate, and direct human thoughts, feelings, and behavior. The existence of freedom and will as characteristics of human nature in I is also a modality for individuals in the process of paying attention to existing experiences and self-identification to be reconstructed into a self-identity.
This study does not make a dichotomy between explanations regarding human nature as nature and nurture. The process of forming self-identity involves both of these processes, because individuals are born with the same human nature between individuals, along with the personal characteristics they are born with, for example their physical condition, which will then interact with the environment along with their development through the nurturing process. This view is in line with James' idea of self, namely that every person is born in a state of awareness (consciousness) as one's human nature (I), but the form of the Me dimension can be influenced by interactions that occur with the environment.
Human nature in humans explains the interaction between I and Me in the process of forming self-identity. Human nature as I is the self that controls and controls Me. The interaction between I and Me is known through the psychological activity of I in individuals to recognize, test, and evaluate self experiences. An explanation of these activities was raised by Wilhelm Wundt and William James through a process of introspection or observation of mental processes that occur within oneself (James, 1890;Wundt, 1904). In addition, this process is also demonstrated through reflection; reflexivity, or the ability to recognize and understand one's own thoughts, feelings, and behavior (Fook, 2007), thus enabling oneself to become 'the one who recognizes' as well as 'the one who is recognized'. The ability to reflect is needed in the process of learning from experience, because individuals can form meaning or complete connections from their experiences (Boud et al., 1985;Moon, 2004).
This study also emphasizes the explanation of the active and dynamic formation of self-identity with the interaction between I and Me in the process. This explanation also complements Grotevant (1997) explanation regarding the factors that trigger individuals to explore identity, which are not only influenced by identity disruption caused by social interaction factors, but also intrapsychic factors that determine whether or not there is an exploration process in individuals, for example factors willingness to think reflectively or awareness of inner freedom. Based on the explanation of human nature in the framework of interaction between I and Me, differences in intrapsychic factors that influence the formation of self-identity are influenced by two things, namely (1) potential I which is not realized optimally, namely due to weak I function, and (2) individuals lacking recognize and identify himself with I so that there is incongruence between human nature as I and Me.
Discourse about the universal nature of human beings and the existence of a self that has dual conditions ('I' and 'About Me') in discussions about self is not only found in literature with a Western perspective, for example James (1890), but also in scientific literature from non-Western psychology.
One of the figures who explains it is Ki Ageng Suryomentaram (Jatman, 2021;Suastika, 2002Suastika, , 2021), Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct as a figure in the science of soul science from Indonesia who has an Eastern perspective in explaining human self-concept and found some similarities with the Western perspective (Widyarini, 2008). His perspective on the existence of two self-conditions as 'I' and 'About Me' is in line with the perspective of fundamental self-identity, or human identity, which is self in the fourth dimension, or a soul that has been able to research and master its kramadangsa. The human soul is categorized into four sizes, namely (1) the first size, namely the size of plant life, (2) the second size, namely the size of animal life, (3) the third size, namely the size of human life, and (4) the fourth size, namely the size of a 'featureless human'. The feeling of kramadangsa is a sense of self in the third dimension and is formed from various 'records' of experiences throughout life. Kramadangsa needs to be recognized in order to become a human without characteristics by doing 'introspection'. The process of introspection is successful when the individual does not reject himself (feeling right; rightly happy) and when the individual finally realizes that the sense of 'I' is not his true self ('I am not permanent'). Meanwhile, true self-identity is about 'I' which is universal and free from its own record and can control itself ('I am still').
A similar view is also found in the view of Imam Al-Ghazali (Bilal, 2001), a thinker who has influenced many discussions of psychology with an Eastern perspective. Fundamental self-identity is awareness of the essence of human beings, including answers to questions such as, "What is human?
What distinguishes humans from other living things? who am i? Where did I come from and where will I go after I die? What is the reason behind my life in this world? What is my life goal? What things are good for me, and what are bad for me?". These questions naturally arise in every human being, and have answers that are essential and universal. Meanwhile, other attributes about oneself, such as physical condition, psychological response, and social characteristics of humans are not fundamental self-identities, but can help individuals to achieve fundamental self-awareness. Self-knowledge is successful when there is self-awareness that is transcendental and includes recognition of the existence of God.
This research has several limitations. First, this study does not aim to specifically study human nature as an I, because the discussion of self-identity places more emphasis on the Me dimension of self.
Future research can develop an explanation of human nature as I by accommodating various related literature which can be sourced from the fields of psychology, philosophy, education, anthropology, sociology, and religion. Second, the validity test conducted on the self-identity model was carried out based on a qualitative approach. Future research can also develop model tests using a quantitative approach and develop measurement tools for the model.

Conclusion
This study attempts to find a fundamental and comprehensive concept of self-identity by using Hofstede (2001) view of the existence of human nature elements as an analytical framework for developing self-identity theories. The discussion about human nature in self-identity has become an important implicit discussion, but does not get special recognition in the development of optimal 20 BULETIN PSIKOLOGI Fachrunisa & Riyono Human Nature in Self-Identity Construct self-identity. The results of the research show the existence of human nature self-identity as a fundamental element of self-identity and formulate a layered model of self-identity which consists of three layers of self-identity, namely (1) human nature, (2) personal, and (3) social. In addition, this study also explains the process of forming a dynamic self-identity as a result of the interaction between self as I (I) and About Me (Me), including regarding the formation of a healthy self-identity based on this framework. This study provides an explanation of the fundamental self-identity model and enriches the idea of the theoretical development of self-identity theory in order to respond to criticism about self-identity theories that are partial and less comprehensive.

Recommendation
This research provides several implications for the study of self-identity. First, the process of developing self-identity needs to pay attention to and strengthen the self-identity of human nature in individuals. This can be done in several ways, namely (1) optimizing function I, for example through honing reflective thinking skills and increasing literacy regarding human nature and nature, (2) periodic evaluation of the congruence between human nature as I and Me by doing introspection.
The development of self-identity needs to be supported by a nurturing process, for example through education, which accommodates efforts to strengthen the human nature self-identity, such as by (1) conducting learning that emphasizes understanding of human concepts based on scientific, philosophical and religious insights as a field of knowledge that discussing this, (2) improving self-reflective thinking skills at least through learning that emphasizes thinking and feeling, (3) providing assistance to individuals in order to align what is known about oneself with the nature of oneself so that self-identity congruence occurs. In addition, the existence of human nature self-identity can also reduce problems that arise as a result of partial self-identity, for example discrimination and bullying, namely by emphasizing the similarities that exist between humans, so that differences do not become a single benchmark for humans. The formation of a comprehensive self-identity will bring about mutual respect and acceptance of the differences and uniqueness of each individual. This study provides a strategy for implementing character education in Indonesia. Strengthening the human nature aspect of character education will strengthen the formation of a whole self-character. This means that aspects of faith and relationship with God are the foundation of the next five characters.
Strengthening this aspect should be the main focus in character education in order to the developing other characters that are personal (independent, critical thinking, and creative) and social (appreciating human differences and being able to work together). Strengthening this aspect needs to be conducted comprehensively, not only in a ritualistic way, but more fundamentally to self-awareness as a servant of God.