The etiology of inner-directed can be traced to the Western European Renaissance and Reformation, with its emphasis not only on individualism but also exploration and expansion (resulting in colonization and exploitation) (Riesman, 1950/1961, p. 14). As one might expect, Riesman considers the inner-directed person to be particularly vulnerable to loneliness. In keeping with a propensity to push rather than pull this person is directly aligned with an Introverted personality trait.
This embedment of inner-direction as a personality trait is aligned with Riesman (1950/1961, p. 15) proposal that the inner directed orientation is formed (or at least nurtured) early in life: “. . . .the source of direction for the individual is ‘inner’ in the sense that it is implanted early in life by the elders and directed toward generalized but nonetheless inescapably destined goals.” As a sociologist, Riesman is situating an inner direction in a Gesellschafts society and perhaps even a disengaged family structure.
Riesman doesn’t leave his analysis of inner directed at this rather superficial level. Even in offering a seemingly obvious contrast between tradition directed and inner-directed orientations, Riesman (1950/1961, p. 15) notes the “complexities”:
“. . . in societies in which tradition-direction is the dominant mode of insuring conformity, attention is focused on securing strict conformity in generally observable words and actions, that is to say, behavior. While behavior is minutely prescribed, individuality of character need not be highly developed to meet prescriptions that are objectified in ritual and etiquette-though to be sure, a social character capable of such behavioral attention and obedience is requisite. By contrast, societies in which inner-direction becomes important, though they also are concerned with behavioral conformity, cannot be satisfied with behavioral conformity alone. Too many novel situations are presented, situations which a code cannot encompass in advance. Consequently the problem of personal choice, solved in the earlier period of high growth potential by channeling choice through rigid social organization, in the period of transitional growth is solved by channeling choice through a rigid though highly individualized character.
This rigidity is a complex matter. While any society dependent on inner-direction seems to present people with a wide choice of aims-such as money, possessions, power, knowledge, fame, goodness–these aims are ideologically interrelated, and the selection made by any one individual remains relatively unalterable throughout his life.”
Embedded in early life, the inner-directed orientation yields a rigidity of choice that might in its own way be comparable to that found in a tradition-based society. Furthermore, because of this early installment, the inner-directed person might have grown accustomed to their relative isolation and even loneliness (Riesman, 1950/1961, p. 158):
“The inner-directed person, reading a book alone, is less aware of the others looking on; moreover, he has time to return at his own pace from being transported by his reading—to return and put on whatever mask he cares to. The poker game in the back room, with its praise of masks, fits his habituation to social distance, even loneliness. His successor, dreading loneliness, tries to assuage it not only in his crowd but in those fantasies that, like a mirror, only return his own concerns to him.”
If the inner-directed person can habituate to their loneliness – and seek out external interpersonal relationships that are primarily transactional then who is the “successor” that Riesman mentions? This person is outer directed. It is this person who is “lonely in a crowd.”
