Skip to main content

The Conflict Within: How To Be Yourself in a World of Copies

The World is full of interesting people, of many shapes, sizes, cultures, religions, races, and personalities. The many possibilities within each and more categories that define us as human beings multiplied together only allude to the many combinations that spring out of this, thus giving us an impression of how different people tend to be, and how we as people try to be ourselves in society.

However, this is not the case today. While variation tends to be more pronounced within societies than among societies when it comes to genetics and appearance, among many other genotypic traits (1), there also seems to be a control beyond the grasp of genetic factors that limits the variation of such personas. In English, this means that your genes really don't have any control over who you are more than other things.

The majority of such factors tend to be social, or, for lack of a more sensical term, sociological, meaning that they are controlled not by one's genetic disposition or individual psychological preferences, but rather by the social setting that the person tends to be in. Contrary to what many people believe, political freedom is not as much a factor in my most humble opinion than is what the dominant ideology and the trends that have been set as norms and values in the society itself, rendering the political power as (in)effective as, say, marketing ads, which play a rather vital role in suppressing variation and encouraging social homogeneity. Fashion is one example. Even the skimpiest outfit can be somewhat "enforced" by ads in such a way that a substantial portion of the populace purchases and dons such a certain outfit, which could be one out of a set of other skimpy outfits. The attitude reflected in such an ad may also be emulated, leading to even more similarity within the populace. This applies to all items of clothing, whether they be athletic, "gangsta" or just plain trademarks of the people of "Lala-land" (2).

Television is another suppressor of individuality. I've noticed that many shows on T.V. are encouraging a naive and unbelievably snobbish, arrogant behavior by expressing such traits in "popular" people, of whom many might already be so full of themselves (the social "ladder" is another topic I'd like to discuss, but not in this post). Granted, they may be "free" to broadcast this, but the apparent lack of cultured and decent programming raises my concern over such a gap. But eventually, this attitude crossed over from the T.V. screen into reality, as many people have taken on such behaviors and expressed them while hoping that they would get the same attention as those whom the T.V. depicts as "popular" or "sexy" or "cool", thus rendering such people too good for those who are supposedly "below them", as again dictated by media. While many shows seem to discourage such an attitude, their mere portrayal of it only serves to encourage it even more, sad to say.

Another suppressor of individuality is one's "conviction" in one's supposed "lack" of individuality. This is of course a farce, as everyone is an individual in his/her own right. The problem, however, is if one is confident enough to express that individual within. There are many obstructions to that, but the main one comes from human nature. By nature, unless learned otherwise, humans crave attention, it seems. And this crave for attention is in and of itself selfish, which is also by and large one of humanity's most repulsive innate characteristics that many, but not most, of us tend to thankfully wrench ourselves free from. In a way, we abandon our old egoes, and strive to please those who are depicted as popular or people who are by virtue popular. Granted, it's nice to emulate good deeds, but it must come from oneself's intentions, not from others. But many times, our effort in being ourselves is wasted on copying others, mainly because we are too foolish to decide for ourselves or think for ourselves, let alone build ourselves into becoming better people. At the same time, we don't just abandon our egoes, but at times we also abandon those who truly deserve our respect and devotion, whether it be our closest friends or even our parents, and pursue lives that have already been scripted by others, whether it be media (as mentioned above), or those in control, even the polity (political power).

In the end, the social world is trying to change us from who we really are, as suggested by E.E. Cummings (3). Even though the social world "creates" human beings, let's not forget that it was man who first created the social world, meaning that while the social world does control our personalities to an extent, we can control ourselves and create our own selves from within. Trust me: this is not all emotional mumbo-jumbo that I'm throwing at you. This is real life, and these are facts. Do you know how it is to follow someone or something and lose yourself while you're at it? I've been in this situation for a while, but I realized that if I have to do something that will benefit me as a person and give me a better standing amongst others, and, most importantly, suit me personally, I have to do it myself without imitating others. The individuality in me has awaken, and it can in yours. If it doesn't, what have you accomplished? Why follow what someone else is doing when you can do it yourself? Sure, there might be people who get higher grades than you, have more work experience than you, etc., but what good is it if you don't at least sincerely try to do all that on your own? Nothing. That's why the individual within you must be express, as you might fail in your endeavor should you emulate someone or something. Moreover, when it comes to making friends, why care about what people are pushing you into talking or wearing or doing something in a certain way when what they're talking about or wearing or doing really doesn't suit your personality? You do what pleases you, because if you don't, that is lack of originality.

For those who follow a stereotype, face it: you are unique, no matter how much you try to suppress that individual spirit within you. I'm not telling you to wear certain clothing, or talk in a certain way, or do a certain thing. Do whatever you want, but ask yourself: does it suit you as a person? Is it you who wears that skimpy outfit, or that purple robe? Is it you who likes to play Chess more than Basketball? Is it you who likes to play video games when other guys are going out with girls? There's nothing I have against any of the above as long as it is a product of individual expression, not from stereotypes. The social world has its rights when it comes to the media, and people have the right to emulate it, but you have the even better and more important right to be yourself without others bossing you around and without the media constantly pressuring the public into following certain trends. And be confident about it, because your confidence is the battery that charges your individuality (4).

All in all, there's no one else who's going to live your life but yourself. There's no use living the lives of others or the lives that have been scripted by others. But don't take my word for it alone, for many people have already spoken out against the suppression of the self (5). I leave you with my most favorite quote on this matter by John L. Mason, an author who wrote one of the best quotes I have ever come across, and I'm sure you will like this one as well: "You were born an original. Don't die a copy."

Salaam, from Saracen

DISCLAIMER: This post is not directed at any race, culture or religion whatsoever, but directed solely on individual social expression and "stereotyping".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un