I found this play very intriguing, and one question out of all of this really came forward:
Aren't we all "characters" in a play?
The father points out that our roles in life have been assigned by others and ourselves. According to him, each of us has many "possibilities for being within us", but we live with the illusion that we are the same for everyone. Namely, society judges us by a couple of acts that we once have done, and has assigned us a "character role" based upon those acts. Once we have our role and others are aware of it, we begin to act as our assigned character would, and feed others' perceptions that we fit a certain role. Although we may be multiple, as the father points out, we have been assigned character roles that we consciously or unconsciously act out during our life.
We've heard of these roles before, or rather labels. "Jock", "prom queen", "goth" are but a few of the roles that others are assigned. One of the father's points that keeps coming back to me is that we can feel caught and suspended by an act we once did and the character role we were then assigned.
Remember when Mr. Lazarow discussed the term, "terrorist"? Isn't calling someone a "terrorist" basically assigning him the "character" role of a terrorist, leading the new character to commit acts that agree with his role?
The father's explanations for his behavior toward his stepdaughter interest me. The father argues that he cannot be held completely accountable for his behavior toward his stepdaughter because it was just a "fleeting, shameful moment" in his life that did not truly represent his character. Basically, he's stating that this depraved and shameful character that his stepdaughter describes is not who he truly is, and that based upon a single action, the stepdaughter is unfairly imposing a character and reality upon him.
Are we defined simply by how others treat us, and the character that has been imposed upon us? Whenever we act outside of our assigned roles, awkwardness results. One the flip side, within our roles, we have a tremendous amount of power.
For example, if Chris Rock told us a black racial joke, we might simply laugh, because it is within the role we have assigned him. If someone like George Bush said that, we would immediately criticize him. We let some people get away with whatever offense they commit because "that's just the way they are", or rather their offense still matches with the character role we have assigned them.
Is there any way to break these molds?
(Eric Wei)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, I think that the characters that people impose on others are kind of like the words we use. We do it because of our viewpoint, what we received from our semantic environments. Therefore, I don't think that others necessarily mold us into what we are. We have our own minds and are able to decide for ourselves. For example, just because someone calls me a nerd doesn't mean I'm going to study any harder just to 'fit my mold.' I think that even most of the time, people are aware of how general these stereotypes, these labels, and these forced character roles are, that we usually don't take them to heart.
However, I do realize that I am talking about a situation that would involve some degree of intimacy. If I were to tell my friend that you were a nerd, and my friend didn't know you, I bet that the stereotypical nerd personality would pop into her head. So I guess that it does have some sort of power, but only to a certain degree.
Just one last comment. I don't think that it is possible to break these molds. They are almost like symbols. They stand for something that is accepted by a large number of people, and it is impossible to just get rid of that symbol from everyone's minds.
This actually brings to mind the concept of the separation between "private" and "public" images. Most people tailor their behavior and speech to the environment that they are in ("When in Rome, do as the Romans do") or rather, the expectations that they project upon others present. What I'm trying to suggest is perhaps part of the "character role" is created by us.. After all, everything is subject to our own interpretation, and thus what we think is someone else's perception of us may in fact be a projection of our own expectation.. of someone else's "expectations".
Most of us are, however, definitely constrained by these "molds", so to speak. It would be a bit too final to say that such molds cannot be broken. Just as others' perceptions of us are shaped by our actions and speech, they can easily be changed in the same way. Would most people able to look at Senator Craig the same way after the scandal he was involved in hit the newsstands?
For the most part, humans are mostly creatures of habit - we seem to like patterns and things that fit together. Yes, one can do things that are outside of the "role" that he/she has acquired over the years and it will surprise most people. If it is repeated, however, does it not become part of your role? Would that be considered as breaking outside of your "mold"? Or would it just speak to the infinite flexibility of your mold?
We are indeed characters in a play, conducting our performances on our personal maps and territories. The "mold" seems to be set in some type of unbreakable stone; not even King Arthur would be capable of withdrawing Excalibur from its sturdy clutch. (Beyond cheesy, I know..)
In response to Eric's question ("Are we defined simply by how others treat us, and the character that has been imposed upon us?"):
There is no way an individual may be defined by someone else's terms. If everyone possesses a degree of bias, what makes Jimmy's evaluation of Susie more plausible than Sydney's evaluation?
A few posts back, Paige cited a quotation from Lucille Clifton’s speech at the Dodge Poetry Festival. This poet defined herself in her own terms, and thus whatever was said about her by others seemed rather insignificant and irrelevant if the opinions did not correlate with her own.
Now think figuratively with me here… Stereotypes are conveyed in word form, and words are independent from their symbol, are they not?
(Sam Maliha)
I think that we generally formulate opinions about people based upon their actions over a long period of time. Father was right when he said you can't judge a person by one specific event, however, the longer you know someonethe more accurately you can place judgment on that person. To err is human, we all make mistakes and do things that we should not do. Therefore, it is important not to look at a person's character soley based on one instance, but to formulate solid opinions after getting to know someone well.
(Kevin Trainer)
Post a Comment