One of the few bloggers that I enjoy reading consistently these days is Renee over at The Feminine Woman. While her topic is obviously geared towards women, I think she consistently puts out content that is beneficial to anyone who reads it, no matter what their situation is. Every time I read something she writes I walk away with a piece of advice that would be worth its weight in gold.
Recently I learned something important from her: “being yourself” is bad advice because there are several versions of “you.” She meant this in a dating or relationship kind of way. But it certainly could be applied to anyone in general. I had an ‘aha’ moment after reading that simple sentence. Now, before I sound like I have multiple personality disorder – which I don’t … I don’t think so – let me clarify.
The Hollywood Invasion
We are basically all actors. We act differently in different situations and around different people, even if we’re not aware of it. Even so, we always think that we’re just being ourselves across the board.
Actually it’s like that there is no such thing as “yourself.” What matters is what ‘hat’ you’re wearing (or what role you’re playing) at the moment. Most people tend to wear the same 3 or 4 hats the most and on a regular basis – and that specific mixture of roles can be contrived as one’s “self.”
The truth is, you are free to abandon any role you don’t like and create a new role. You can increase or decrease the occurrence of any role as well. Of course, this is easier said than done. But the fact that you can do this means that the concept of “being yourself” isn’t static at all and, on it’s own, doesn’t really mean a lot.
I guess Hollywood isn’t limited to a specific location, after all.
It’s Drama all day, every day
When I’m by myself, I tend to play a few specific roles limited to when I’m alone. But I also have a specific, dominant role that I like to use around specific friends. I’m sure you notice that pattern in your life as well. For example, one of my friends tends to be dominant and set in her ways. So when I’m around her, I’m usually more submissive and just go with the flow. Another one of my friends likes to take on a helpless, “damsel-in-distress” persona. So, around her I am more nurturing and decisive.
I know a few people who are quite forceful and uncompromising. Around them, I sometimes get equally uncompromising and take the opposite stance. A lot of people get this way unconsciously, so I’m not alone there. I know I have a low tolerance for totally uncompromising people since I try to be compromising myself. I like people who stick up for themselves but I refuse to be the only one who is compromising all the time. In other words – reciprocity is the name of the game.
However, I don’t necessarily prefer the roles where I’m wearing the pants, making all the decisions, and being argumentative. Yes, I can be opinionated and I can make decisions. Sometimes those roles are fun. I just don’t like doing it all the time. So I interact less with friendships where I have to take on that specific role more often. It’s no wonder that I’m closer to the dominant friend than I am to the damsel-in-distress friend. I don’t notice I’m doing it, but that’s what happens.
Role-playing in your life
There definitely is an individual element here that could be labeled as one’s “self”: different people have different preferences for what roles they like to be in.
However, we don’t like being locked into a single role, even if it’s the preferred role. We all have roles that we’re unaware of, or roles that are so underdeveloped that we don’t know how to act them out. Some of us may have 10+ roles “on file,” but we forget about them because we rarely use them. You just never know: you might like those roles and get a new favorite! One thing that Renee tries to do is show people how to learn new roles and embrace them.
Some common roles that I’ve played or seen people play are:
- Dominant – like a traditionally masculine, man’s man.
- Submissive – like a traditionally feminine woman
- Creative / spiritual – I think these roles are one and the same
- Adventurous / curious – can you say adrenaline junkie?
- Caring / nurturing – like Mother Teresa or Princess Diana
- Mediator / cooperative – like a judge
- Class clown / goofy – can put a smile on anyone’s face
- Nerd / bookworm – likes to stay at home reading a book
- Jock / popular person – we all know examples of these, right?
- Analytical / objective – like a scientist
- Emotional / subjective – like a talk show host
- Mister or Damsel-in-distress / woe-is-me – the world is out to get them, literally
- Wallflower / introvert*
- Social butterfly / extrovert*
(*Note: I personally believe ‘introvert’ and ‘extrovert’ are roles – everyone has a little of both, some people express one of them more than the other. But that’s just me.)
This list isn’t inclusive, of course. So, readers: feel free to add roles that you’ve seen in your life.
Related posts:
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
This is interesting, and maybe a bit depressing as well. If we are always the role player, and never the person, then who are we? In other words, I am Eli, JohnQ, Detective Alzono Harris, and JAke Shuttlesworth, but never Denzel Washington. I’m the character, and never the actor. So then how do you determine who you are if we’re just an amalgamation of characters.
I think that one of the “characters” is really the true us. It may not be the one we like the most, but it is the one that defines us best.
Valerie M: Interesting perspective. I personally don’t see it as depressing because it shows you can improve or change the aspects of yourself that are not benefitting you and your growth. The alternative (to me) would be refusal or reluctance to improve oneself, feeling hopeless to do so, and delegating your personality to genetics alone. We all know that is not true.
However, I did mention my observation that we tend to stick to the same 3-4 roles consistently and to a specific degree. This could actually be defined as one’s “self” rather than associating “self” with one specific role only. Humans are too complex for that, in my humble opinion. Looking at it from that way, the concept of “self” wouldn’t totally be destroyed.
ForNot´s last blog ..Stepford-Stuyvesant
