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

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

What Needs to be Said about the Gaza Massacre

It has been a tumultuous week that has passed. Ever since seeing the soul-crushing news of 61 (SIXTY ONE) Palestinians murdered as they were protesting their rights to be free from the open-air prison of Gaza, I've been sick to my stomach and heartbroken. The blood of my brothers and sisters spilt over the sands of the Gaza Strip ran aplenty as if it were cheap. Men, women, children, journalists, and medical personnel were slaughtered in cold blood with live ammunition from guns fired by Israeli terrorist soldiers hundreds of yards away overlooking the "border". What did the shameful Western media do about it? CNN claims "dozens die at the border". The NYT published multiple sham propaganda attempts disguised as "opinion pieces" blaming the Palestinians for their deaths, even going as far as to dehumanize them and negate their suffering. Even the BBC had the gall to call them "clashes". "Clashes"?! It was a massacre! Murde...