Thoughts on the place of acting in society and personal identity

 

Some thoughts on the place of acting in society and personal identity

The question of acting in society is one that has been treated in some notable French productions such as “Les Enfants du Paradis” (which also explores love, morality and responsibility), and “Kean” (which explores the place of acting in the nature of social interplay), but also “Le Misanthrope” (which investigates the consequences of refusing to act in society), and more recently “Oui, mais …” (which invites viewers to consider the ways in which we all seek to manipulate others).

As I thought more about this question of acting in society (by which I mean the ways in which we adapt our manner, tone and attitude to suit the circumstances and the company in which we find ourselves), it struck me that it is quite difficult to think of a time or occasion when we DO NOT act, at least to some degree - how often are we completely open and unguarded in our dealings with others?

Do we not often consider what we say and how we say it in order to protect ourselves or consider others?

Do we not adopt certain attitudes or even personas when dealing with different people, altering vocabulary and tone to suit different situations and to adapt to our perceptions of others?

Surely we adapt our behaviour and gauge what we do and say to suit our purpose – in some situations we adopt an attitude of appeasement while in others we may be aggressive. We may be reasonable or determined, frank or manipulative – all depends on our circumstances and the people we are dealing with, but the point is we modify our conduct and speech and so, in a sense, we act.

When addressing people, we take account of a whole gamut of factors which reflect socialisation, culture, religion (or not), confidence, faith, purpose and sensitivity (protecting ourselves and/or others by choosing our words and tone with care).

All of this begs questions about identity and the extent to which socialisation affects or even creates that identity.

In the film “The Matrix”, Neo’s every move and reaction are tracked and fed into a programme through which everyone’s moves and reactions are monitored and are subtly influenced or directed by way of meetings and exchanges of ideas. In fact, it could be argued that society is not so far removed from the science-fiction world of “The Matrix” as individuals are profoundly influenced, pressured and “socialised” by the other individuals around them whose positions, feelings and ambitions we are encouraged to take in to account as we deal with them.

Although we all desire freedom and independence, we are all, somewhat paradoxically, social creatures and are dependent on one another for contact, education, care, entertainment and especially productivity. In terms of professionalism at work, one is expected to conduct oneself in a certain manner. Essentially, one fulfils a role which should not necessarily be impinged by personal feelings, conflict or questions. This may even extend to being forced to apply policies one finds lacking, unreasonable or unacceptable, but defiance of which would cost valuable employment. Again, in a sense we act.

Imagine the consequences if an individual did not take others in to account and behaved in a selfish or arrogant manner to the detriment of others. Might he/she not be considered bizarre or even a deviant and be rejected by society? Or might he/she be considered a leader? This may well depend on the degree of deviant behaviour and the consequences for others.

“Success” in society is essentially about balance – most of us want to feel valued and validated, but to have value the “I” or the individual must have a degree of confidence, self-respect and ambition, yet he/she must also display a level of sensitivity and social consideration toward others, and compliance in the workplace. If the ego is too strong and refuses to recognise the needs and position of others, the result is likely to be rejection and failure. Yet if there is a lack of confidence, self-respect and ambition in the individual, this may lead to over-compliance to others who are willing to assert themselves, and perhaps even mental health problems.

In order to cope with some of the stresses which can result from daily life, some may even resort to adopting a persona, distancing themselves from direct and open contact with others by adopting a set of desired and considered responses they would like to produce by nature, and with time this persona may even become the norm. After all, was it not Aristotle who pointed out we are what we do habitually, so if we set out to adopt habits, we will eventually become that which we do habitually.

Of course, there are those who act consciously, deliberately and professionally, and they also have a role in society. Authors and actors may work to distil, capture and encapsulate human experience, emotion, ambition, fulfilment, morality, religion, social pressure, respect etc., etc., and at their best, these authors and actors help us recognise human nature and characteristics, revealing the workings of the human mind and the workings of the society we unite to create. Artists of this type can achieve their aims while being entertaining, thrilling and amusing, or while inviting us to reflect on ourselves.

 

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

YouTube                                             Blog

 

 

 

Personal thoughts on Christianity, religion and fate.

 

Some personal thoughts on Christianity, religion and fate.

  

Many years ago, I remember asking my father what he believed in terms of God and religion. He pondered for a while and then said he wasn't sure exactly, but he did believe in something. Perhaps because I was a teenager at the time, I found that answer woefully inadequate and I remember being quite short with him, though pursuing the matter did no real good as I got no better an answer. This question of God, religion and belief has always fascinated me, so, many years later, I set out to try to clarify my own thoughts and feelings:

I was brought up in a society which was profoundly influenced by Christian values and principles and, although I am not religious, it seems to me that Jesus was a great thinker and philosopher whose life and teachings contrasted with the relative brutality, aggression and oppression of his time. He taught, or set out to influence, by means of social persuasion and reason, using stories or parables to illustrate the points he wanted to make, appealing to reason and common experience, and encouraging people to show humanity towards one another.

It is relatively easy for us in the present day to accept Christian ideals as something reasonable and perhaps even obvious, but at the time of their first pronouncement this was far from the case. Order through brutality and fear were the norm and Jesus offered a brave alternative – a society based on mutual respect and consideration.

The fact that his “teachings” were based on social philosophy and appealed to common sense or experience is important – it seems to me that his teachings were not dependent on divine or spiritual authority but on human understanding and seeing the advantage of showing consideration toward others. His philosophy of social justice, fairness to all, and selflessness may be viewed as a sort of manual for the survival of society.

A common core of humanity whereby you treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself borders on the ontology of the Enlightenment Movement and even Existentialism. Can the early Christian era be likened to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment Movement? Both encourage consideration of others and demand accountability, and both threatened the established religious and political orders of the day. There may be parallels to be drawn.

With the passage of time and the development of the Church and its influence, conclusions or inferences drawn from the teachings of Jesus became commands and edicts. Faith (with the suggestion and mystique of a higher power) became more important than reason, and moral authority was created by those who had a vested interest in religious and political influence, two fields of interest so often combined by those in ecclesiastical authority, especially in the period of the crusades and in medieval times.

Jesus’s teachings were originally based on reason and the notion of equality and compassion, and the way the conclusions of his teachings were reached is at least as important as the edicts/conclusions themselves, if man is to learn to think for himself rather than simply follow commands. However, in my view, claimed divine and moral authority based on faith, deference or position steadily did away with reasoning and appeals to social justice.

Now let us consider the Question of God…

Do I believe in God and His influence? I don’t know – that is not rejection, but a personal reaction to what I have experienced. I think I may believe in some form of fate or destiny where some sort of influence is exerted and a balance is produced in the long term, but that influence and balance need not be attributed to the orthodox understanding of what constitutes God.

Use of the terms “fate” and “destiny” does not mean I believe that whatever happens is what is “written”, and neither does it mean I believe that whatever happens, happens for the best. I believe we can make the best of whatever happens, but the circumstances leading to choices we make can often seem “influenced” through apparently chance meetings, events or situations that arise. Naturally, this view of things depends on the individual’s perception of circumstances and I can quite understand people claiming this is entirely due to happenstance or coincidence, but so often things can appear to “work out” in the longer term due to exceptional conditions or situations and choices made as a result of these situations, as though an influence is being exerted in a certain direction. At least that is my perception or take on how events can unfold.

That said, when we perceive a pattern, does that prove the pattern exists, or does it merely prove that the perception of this pattern exists? Does perception of a pattern suggest existence of intelligent influence, or does it simply imply intelligence (or imagination) on the part of the perceiver? Is it possible that the pattern observed is just as random as any other occurrence, but its perception appeals to or is the result of man’s desire to render chaos manageable?

It is in man’s nature to seek order and try to make sense of apparent chaos. Providing an explanation or imposing order does not, however, mean that this order truly exists, merely that the explanation fits the evidence or circumstances as we perceive them.

My perception of direction or guidance in my life does not necessarily mean it is there, though inductive logic may lead me to conclude it is there and it is undoubtedly emotionally appealing and comforting to think that some influential force is indeed at work.

Even if we were to accept the existence of some form of influence over events, the perceived nature of the supposed instigator would have to be in keeping with the perceived nature of the influence.

Balance may be confused with justice. If a lie catches up with you, or you suffer as a result of an action you committed in the past, this is not evidence of an all-seeing and infinitely wise God. It may be, however, evidence of some form of balance, equilibrium or karma whereby one may suffer the consequence of one’s own actions, or indeed be rewarded for them, even if this takes place over a long term.

Is there intelligence at work in this scheme of things? I don’t know. Is God responsible? I don’t know. Is it purely down to coincidence? My desire to see a pattern and make connections between events says no, but I do not know.

To attribute these patterns and connections to an omniscient and omnipotent being goes far beyond the premise of the supposed evidence. Having said that, I think I am satisfied that I have seen too many coincidences for there not to have been some form of influence over events. That is my explanation of my perceptions – this is a conviction, not a truth and I can say no more, but no less.

It appears that man feels the need to believe in something other than (and presumably greater than) himself. Religion will usually involve belief in a superior being who may offer guidance and wisdom. However, as the result of the development of various philosophies, some questionable ethics and general scepticism, there has been a turning away from the traditional values of the church and religion in general in the West, but there remains the fundamental need of a role-model or a source of inspiration to provide hope and guidance. It also appears that this need, in an age where celebrity is confused with worth and wisdom, can be fulfilled by a book or its author, a film (or one of its characters), devotion to a sport, a particular team or a gifted practitioner, or the advice of a doctor or a teacher. The possibilities are endless, but all involve seeking truth, a code, a way of life – something which will help the individual impose some semblance of order on what he or she may perceive as the chaos of his or her life.

 

In conclusion, then, I have to say that I believe in something, but I'm not sure exactly what. I also have to conclude that I owe my father an apology as I have done no better in trying to answer my own question than he did!

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

YouTube                                             Blog