I am, not me but you

I am, not me but you

C. H. Cooley (1902) postulated that the conceptualization of “I” is a social process; the attributes of “I” is derived from the social entities in the continuous process of socialization or symbolic interactions, using perceived feedback from the social environment as a reference point in the development of the concept of self and its attributes.  The existence of the self is dualistic, dependent on the perceive existence of others. We evaluate ourselves based on how we perceived others perceives us.

Who are we actually? Are we really unique individuals or are we just projections of the sociocultural environment that we live in, similar to everyone else in the environment? Most, if not all of us are always in this struggle to be unique or special individuals, eschewing commonality and yet, at the same time, desires  to be similar to those we live with in this sociocultural environment. Ultimately, we still derive our self-concept from the social conditions in which we are exposed to. We strives to be unique, perhaps as a form of resistance to the commonalities found in the social conceptualization of self. Sociocultural conditions are, in this context, used as reference points for us to evaluate our sense or concept of uniqueness. Perhaps we, are more similar then we would like to think; eventually, our concept of self is well, normative. The desire for differentiation of self-concept is not unique; and when more of us deviate from the normative aspects of our sociocultural environment, similar salient deviations over time, replaces the norms that we tried to differentiate ourselves from. We, are now, the norms.

In the development of self-concept, we may underestimate the influences of others on us. We are all, interdependent.  In the words of John Donne (1624), “No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.” The reason which brought me to think about this conceptual construction came from a perception that others had of me, and which I had been struggling to come to terms with for the past few years. Individuals, even those whom I have just met, had this impression that I am this knowledgeable, understanding and friendly individual; initially, it was a ego-booster but over time, it became a source of pressure. I was constantly asking whether I am living up to the “standards” that others had of me; the “standards” or “perfect qualities” that is embodied by this perception of others of me. There was this initial period of time, I was afraid to make any mistakes and for every small mistake whom I perceived to “tarnish” this perception, it was a series of serious self-beating.  Dissonances with my immediate perception of self and the “ideal” concept of self seems intolerable. Over time, it slowly dawned to me that I wasn’t what I want to be but what others want me to be. Who, exactly am I or becoming?

We can’t run away from socialization which contributes to this construction of self-concept; but what can we do to allow ourselves to be at ease with the flow of the interaction process? How can we take advantage of this flow to enhance ourselves, our spirituality and at the same time, be at ease, at equilibrium with oneself. Analysing the pros and cons of the social construction of the self may aid in the reduction of dissonaces (if any); there are perhaps a few points to take note: (a) acceptance of self in the immediacy time frame; we recognize and accept the fact that we are not what others perceived us to be or want us to be in the current moment, (b) perceived social pressure can always be taken as a source of motivation in the short-term; the long term motivation should be the continuous desire to improve oneself over time and (c) the courage to make allowance, accept responsibility and learn from mistakes (if any); by allowing ourselves the room to make mistakes and improvements, we allow ourselves to know our blindspots and eventually by overcoming all these blindspots or weaknesses, we gradually, without forcing ourselves to maintain “by force”, we have truly reach the “pinnacle” of the perception that others have of us. One important point to take note is the perception must be valuable i.e. in terms of its value to the self for enhancement of personality, values and others, for benefit of others. Suffering, is reduced through the reduction of constant fear in trying to maintain an image or perception in which one is not and the constant possibility of dissonances between expectations and “reality”

I am not knowledgeable, but I would want to, for my own benefit as intellectual knowledge aid in affirmation of experiences and introspection in the spiritual practice.

I am not friendly, but I would want to, for it brings happiness to me and others and aid in my spiritual practice and goal to bring happiness to all.

I am not understanding, but I would want to, for my own benefit as empathy for others aid in my spiritual practice as it allows me to transcend the concept of self i.e. ego and for others, it brings happiness to others.

May all be well and happy always.

With Metta,

Simple Bear 22.11.2012.

References

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's.

Donne, J. (1624). Devotions upon emergent occasions and seuerall steps in my sicknes - Meditation XVII. London.