Thursday, November 13, 2008

Who Am I?

This is a question that’s been haunting humans since the dawn of time. How it has been answered has varied over the years and though I am far from well educated in what people have said I have some ideas of my own. Perhaps they can’t even be called ideas so much as a response to a certain viewpoint I’ve encountered. Really I don’t know what the “I” is or even how I would respond if someone asked “who are you?”. Perhaps there is no answer, but I think there are things that dictate just who we are.

The psychological idea of “roles” has always seemed natural to me, even before I knew the term “roles” or what the idea behind it was. I guess I always had this sort of thought in my head. I am a son, a friend, a lover, a student, a worker, a stranger, a boy, a citizen--both of the world and my country -- a human, and a million other things that I can’t name right this moment. The thing I’m responding to I’ve encountered twice so far, it’s the thought that says “There are no roles. I’m the exact same person to everyone, everywhere.” Now I can almost understand not wanting to admit your personality is dictated by those around you, but this form of egotism is ridiculous to me. I realize that many of the roles that we live each day are almost one in the same, but even yet there are enough differences between any two that it’s impossible to say you’re the same person around everyone. For example, you chat and laugh and joke around with your friends, sure you can do all those things with your parents, but it’s significantly different. You won’t go telling your mom about the crazy sex you had with your girlfriend last night or your dad about how much you drank the previous night. Even the way you act around people changes depending on the role you’re in. It’s a happy little thought that you control how you act in any circumstances, but to those egotists out there, you don’t control your actions nearly as much as you so pompously think. The very nature of roles are so deeply ingrained in our heads that it’s just not something you can control. Sure you can have a certain degree of freedom in your actions, you can whisper sweet nothings into your friend’s ears if you wish, but you’ll be criticized for it. Now from what I understand of egotism, albeit not much, they take great offence to the above example. “You’re actions should be done for you and no one else” is the main idea I gather. I agree, what you do should be entirely on your own personal set of morals, but as much as you despise it the fact is humans are social creatures.

The worst form of punishment, no not death, but the form of punishment that will break anyone no matter their philosophy, their nationality, their race, their age, nor their gender is isolation. The human brain has evolved in such a way that it thrives on interaction; it works its best being presented with new ideas, new viewpoints, and new people. The very act of speaking to another human being stimulates the brain in many ways. To think that any human can be so self assured, so self centered, to bypass millions of years of evolutionary hardwiring is idiotic. Granted, there are social hermits out there, people that despise all form of interaction, but sadly for those egotists, it’s not them. I’ll even be generous and say that even if you’re the exception and treat everyone the exact same way in every situation you wouldn’t be looked on with any bit of admiration. Like it or not, even if you’re so all mighty and great, the rest of us aren’t. Being a functioning member of society means you have a certain set of obligations to people, those obligations dictate how you should act in certain instances. So if you go telling your parents how hard you fucked some girl last night, or tell your boss to go screw off like you would one of your friends, you’re going to be an outcast. Sure you’ll be self righteous and almighty knowing that you broke social code, but what will your life be like? A year of that and what job would you have? What friends? What lovers?

Now, even if you can accomplish this feat and keep any sort of social contact outside of yourself, you’re going to be one bland, wretchedly boring person. Perhaps you’ve read this far and said “I don’t tell my friends about the crazy sex I have, or any of the examples you’ve given Ryan. I’m confident in who I am and I don’t do anything to hurt anyone’s feelings.” Okay, perhaps you have accomplished this, but what kind of personality is that? Humans are meant to be different, are meant to have a will. There’s two ways the above can be accomplished. You can be a complete arrogant ass and truly say whatever you want to say to whoever you want, but keep it toned down enough that it doesn’t get you in trouble. Or you’re the most boring person in the world because if you treat a three year old the exact same way you treat your boss, your friends, and your lover, you have no personality. MacIntyre said our lives are the stories that we tell, what kind of story is going to be told that has not differences, no interactions. Part of what makes us human is all the characters we play, all slightly different, yet all wrapped up in this indivisible thing called “I”.

Who I am depends greatly on who I’m with, but yet I feel that there is indeed some deep down thing that links all of the different roles. Maybe they’re just fleeting similarities or even just something my human-ness needs in order to try and understand the world around me. Either way, to me, being the exact same person around everyone is impossible, no matter if you like it or not situation dictates who you are. Perhaps only in such a small way that you think you’re being the exact same, but really there’s something different. The vocabulary you use, the emotion you show—or don’t show for that matter—your body language, any number of things. It isn’t a bad thing, it’s a wonderful thing in my opinion. On the flip side, there is some truth to the egotistical argument. To be completely and utterly different solely based on who your with is hypocritical. To be a devout catholic in church and a horrible person on the street is just wrong. There exists, at least in my opinion, a balance of the two that make humans great.

1 comments:

shemit said...

I find it slightly humorous that you take on a polemic tone of voice all the way until the last paragraph, where, in a sweeping umbrella statement, you choose a more moderate stance. Apparently, you agree that both have their own valid points, but that you agree more strongly with one point of view. Perhaps your argument would be stronger if you displayed this temperate attitude throughout the piece. Otherwise, the last paragraph seems like either a cop-out, or a pity concession to a reader that has been thoroughly beaten with your arguments.