|
Amaros -> RE: Roles (10/28/2006 10:16:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mstrjx
Substitute 'role' for 'persona'. Do you see any difference? I believe I do.
I know I said this in a thread of mine a few weeks back.
Whatever I 'am', in this case dominant, I'm not 'that' all of the time. I CAN be in relationships, but I'm not with a partner 24/7. I'm out in public a portion of that time. I don't try to seem 'dominant' in public.
One of the problems that I'm having with our terminology lately, and I might as well bring it up here, stems from when people say that they are just being themselves. I think that is because they think of themselves as consistently dominant, submissive, mixed. Fine.
But the terminology that is best served in this type of question (am I 'somethingorother' at all times) is whether your are A dominant or A submissive at all times. Of course you will say that regardless of the parties present that you are indeed A submissive to your partner, even if your partner is not present, but the fact remains that you are not A submissive to those you encounter. You pick and choose when those times are. Presumably, ONLY when you are with your partner.
Jeff
"Roles", or "role" are terms often used by the "other" of an external agent to describe what you do, i.e., how it appears to others, or conversely, to describe a function you perform that is learned, i.e., enculturated, and does tend to comnnote and artificial state: i.e., a personae you consciously study and take on as opposed to acting "naturally".
I do prefer the persona theory, which really isn't an official psychological theory I'm aware of, although the terms are used, and it appears to be based largely on the Maslovian hierarchy - but rather a sort of unofficial psychological theory that has been presented in Science Fiction novels, cyberpunk specifically, and don't quote me but I believe Greg Bear may have first organized it into a cohesive theory, although the idea has been around for a while.
It's basically on offshoot of MPD, or multiple personality disorder, and posits that we are comprised of a number of personality aspects or "agents", with their own speciaties, and behaviors. In the integrated personality, these agents work and flow more or less seamlessly together, whereas in the deranged personality, a specific agent or cabal of agents "hijacks" the personality, presenting a seemingly cohesive but deranged personality.
In this, there is also what is called the "optimal personae", which represents the totally integrated, self actualized individual.
A personae, naturally, is thus more "personal" than a mere "role", which has the connotation of acting.
Freudian theory, posits a tug of war between superego and id: the superego representing our internalized ideal of perfection, the id representing our base needs and desires, with the ego mediating between them. In this construct, the ego is the only one of these aspects of the psyche that is able to interact and interpret external reality, which is what makes it the mediator - the other two are wholly internal, and disconnected with external reality - i.e., when either superego or id "take over" the psyche, which represents the integrated individual, destructive behavior generally results.
Narcissism for example, represents an imporperly mediated superego, internalizations of high paraetal expectations for instance, that have never been properly mediated through the experience of the ego, and hence pathological Narcissism is characterized by alternating bouts of extreme self aggrandizement and subsequent nadirs of self doubt when the psyche recognizes it cannot live up to the inflated expectations of the superego.
Sorry, got going there, but the upshot is that between these two theories probobly lies something close to the truth - id, ego and superego roughly correspond to the limbic system, i.e., raw, animal needs (id), the paleomamaliam cortex (ego) which contains most of our social instincts, and the cereberal cortex (superego) which is capable of extensive abstraction, and from whence our more abstract behaviors, not always realistic, arise.
Obviously, the cererberal cortex does more, and one cannot entirely seperate it from ego activity, it plays a large role in memory storage for example, language, etc., and the exact functions of the ego would be difficult to place exactly, though I'd tend to associate it more with the paleomammalian cortex, social activity being so key to the survivial of the individual, and necessitating external interaction.
Thus, a submissive or dominant role, or persona, may be the the result of the egos mediation of overactivity in either id or superego, channeling it into (peripherally) socially acceptable forms, or personae, as opposed to seeking a career in politics or even more anti-social forms.
|
|
|
|
