How Seeking Identity Sucks

While the push for individuality is prevalent and seen in diverse media throughout daily life, it is juxtaposed with the fundamental refusal of self-reflection within the U.S. culture. Briefly, this refusal is demonstrated by the constant blame of "others", denial of wrongdoing by "me" (whoever is speaking), and lack of transparency in discourse or dialogue. This dynamic becomes an inauthentic parade to display for others rather than actually express ones' individuality. Without the ability to find and accept who one is, the result is the suppression of self and taking on of roles. This can be seen in the way people talk about each other, as family, friends, coworkers, etc. Labels like "my rock", the "fun friend", "Blanche to my Dorothy" (substitute your own pop-culture reference), or the "go-to guy" are prevalent. One may seek to 'live up to' a reputation, or to use one of the above labels in order to be unique or, more precisely, to have value. Believing one only has value as an individual because of being witnessed and judged as being an individual does not indicate a healthy self-image.

 

A part of the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is the futile flight from conformity. Individuality can be an internalized form of domination when people are trapped by thinking that their value only has to do with money. The fear of being seen as the same as everyone else (especially potent in an individualistic society) means that wealth is the only way to be oneself since the wealthy are the ones seen as expressing individual flair (and deserving of the label 'iconoclast'). The Lego Movie shows us the danger of conforming, and how forgettable Emmet is before becoming 'The Special'. Even Wyldstyle disdains him openly for not being a Master Builder. The initial message is that anyone who has no discernible outward or visible difference is nothing. It is only at the end of the movie that we find the concept that every individual has something to offer as themselves. This mirrors the reality that people can feel and see, where social media and popular culture are filled with sensational, odd individuals and stolid, sensible people are dismissed.

 

The question of self can also be found when I blend in to various groups and don't seem to have a solid "me"-sometimes people will say they are a 'chameleon'. This is actually an example of humanity, universality, and commonality amongst all of us. It is not a problem or suspicious to be able to relate, since we are all more alike than we are irretrievably different. It also relates to the concept of code-switching, an important ability to act appropriately in different situations.

 

Finally, what would it mean to have an identity? If I do accept myself, does anyone else? Is the essence of who I am only valid without influence from anyone else or despite those around me? We are a social species, and depend on the social environment we swim through everyday to offer cues as to "how we are". What this means is that prejudice is learned through our surroundings, just as oppression is internalized. Contrarily, celebration of differences and equity for all can be learned through exposure to others. My ability to find and celebrate myself is a prerequisite for doing the same for others, so I hope we can make this process less daunting with time.

Do what you want to the girl...

I know that many people say they wish that their kids' lives will be better than their own, that their children should have all the opportunities possible. They say, "I want her to have all the things I never did"...not me. I want my own life to be the best and certainly to be better than it was growing up; my kid can fend for himself, it's alright if I let him do without a few things. I should get all the treats and gifts because, really, I'm who is important in this world; I count for more since I'm older and have more to offer than a child who can't do anything on his own. Not that I want him to have a horrible life, or plan on creating drama, or trauma, for him-all I'm saying's that me and my life are what matters. Besides, it'll be good for him in the long run: it will give him more character and provide great "life experiences". In fact, allow me to explain more fully my attitude, and say that the same reasoning applies to my wife. She's on her own when it comes to what she wants; I'm not here to provide, to be her supplier of joy or support-she should be happy just to have me in her life. Yes, sir, I'm out for myself, only looking out for my needs, and not to worry about anyone else's. No one else is going to do it for me, that's for sure, and why should I do it for anyone else?

This is all farce, of course, I don't believe in this attitude, nor do I think anyone would say they do subscribe to it. On hearing it, I think most people would say it sounds completely ridiculous: that is backwards, we cherish our children and need to protect them, to provide for and enrich the lives of children; we are even willing to give our lives for them if necessary. Yet for all this lip-service a lot of people actually apply the attitude I outlined previously when it comes to their lives, and act as though it were what they truly believe. Since it is the actions that count, rather than what we claim we will do, then it is our actions which indicate who we truly are (though that is a topic for another time). So these people behave as though their selves and their own lives are more important to them than those who they "care most about" and "love", showing who and what is truly important to them. They will treat their intimates as if only their own needs and desires matter, and that others should accommodate this attitude; as though those around them should somehow serve them. I've seen it and experienced it myself, with intimate relationships in particular: no matter how much I could give, it would not be enough because I still want to be treated as a human and live my own life according to what works for me and makes me happy. Another way this attitude can play out is if the first person tries to give and do "all" for the second, making themselves the "willing servant". This is actually another form of control, as it allows the subservient person to manipulate others by pointing out their own sacrifice and how much it takes for them to do so. Thusly, the child or spouse becomes a pawn, rather than an individual, just another means to their own needs. The needs that will be filled are those that the "subservient one" feels like allowing.

So now we've explored this issue and seen behind these attitudes a little, we find we're talking basically about two sides of the same coin. We know that we cannot give all of ourselves for any other individual, it is not a rational means of obtaining our own or others' fulfillment. Moreover, it leaves only a shell of a person with no means of provoking true challenge to and reward for others. Neither should we be so careless and selfish as to wish for others to react this way. Else we risk becoming entirely self-centered and attempting to be self-sufficient all alone. We should have care for those around us and their individuality, as we expect them to do for us. Somewhere between these two extremes we can find a balance, without feeling we have to sacrifice ourselves or others to achieve happiness.

The Difference Between “Artist” and “Entertainer”

I am not trying to compare these two types, or to detract from what either of them does, or say that someone is "just" an entertainer, even though many times someone may say as much. That one is not as "intellectual", or on as "high a plane" as the other; it isn't that artists are better, or entertainers are "sell-outs" who have no morals left. An artist does what she does because she has to, it is for herself, her own joy/enrichment that she makes her art; many have expressed that they are driven to do what they do, something compels them to, irregardless of whether it is lucrative or not-I imagine this is where the "starving artist" stereotype comes from. It all stems from a complex of urges that we all share: the basic drives to connect, express, understand, and be understood. In the artist, however, it is amplified in some way and brought to the center-the spotlight, if you will-so that it is a more integral part of the character of the person. It may consume the individual, leaving little room for anything else, which most people may think I mean. Yet this also applies to the person with a consuming hobby, and it is this person who toils in obscurity and without reward that I think of. Those who, even after a long day's work will be "out in the work-shed" grinding away at some project. On the other hand, an entertainer does what he does because he wants to bring happiness or joy to other people, and feels better for having made you feel better. A strong empathy is needed, and an ability to connect, this is the basis for entertainment. Although some buffoons seem only to want to be celebrated for entertaining people, the true value of being entertained can be appreciated by anyone, and I'm sure goes back nearly as far as artistry. It is the hallmark of a society which has overcome the basic subsistence problem and thus has time for recreation that art and entertainment exist. One (or both) may seem more peripheral, unnecessary, or nonessential, but life encompasses all types, and self-expression is only one avenue; we can certainly also value that which is done for the enjoyment of others. It is in some way two sides of the same coin, one directed inward and one directed outward. Artistry is self-expression for the sake of yourself, and Entertainment is self-expression for the sake of others.

Dis-connection

Going back to an earlier topic, why is it that we are encouraged to specialize in particular areas, and to be completely ignorant of others? Should we not be able to do things for ourselves; are we so limited that we can only grasp a small portion of what makes up our world? Isn’t being alive all about making connections, about having relationships with others? Doesn’t it seem ridiculous to hear about a doctor who can’t do laundry, a mechanic who doesn’t know to cook, or a Chemistry teacher who can’t answer simple questions about History-to carry it further, what about not having friends that are different? Who decided that we should not know people who don’t have as much money, or have backgrounds removed from our own? Aside from a question of the quality of our education, this is about the focus of our knowledge, or the restrictive nature of focus. Having a specialty is great, especially one that grows out of a true passion, it allows for the immersion into a subject that few people choose to explore. This seems increasingly important as there grow to be more and more people; for example, if only .001% of the population enjoys swimming, how crowded are swimming spots if there are 60 million of us, and how about when there are 6 billion? As the sheer number of people competing for the same resources grows, the same percentage of the population cannot get that same experience as they jostle amoungst all the new people who share that interest. In response, there need to be new experiences that open up so that we don’t get the intense pressure to compete more fiercely within those old practices. Otherwise we will end up fighting each other over whose turn it is to fly their kite at the beach while timing people as they stroll down the road in the woods. There may be a drive or need to funnel enjoyment into activities or narrow categories because of population pressure, but this should not lead to the exclusion of all other pursuits. It should never be necessary to limit ourselves so severely just so that we still have fun. We should always be having fun, in everything we do there should be some enjoyment. After all, if we aren’t having fun, what is the use in living?