Illusion of Identity

We often take actions and follow expectations in certain ways, only to justify them by saying "Well, that's just my personality" or "That's just how I was born"?

But if that’s the case, were we really born with immutable personalities? If so, wouldn't that mean our decisions (even destiny /life choices) are predetermined, leaving us shackled by the influence it has on our paths?

These questions, among many others, I want to explore with you as we continue through this article.

Is personality an inherent trait, or is it a performance?

As we introspect, the question arises, do we truly have a fixed personality, or is it more of a performance we put on for others? With each person in our lives, we showcase different versions of ourselves, but are these genuine pieces of who we are, or merely shadows of us that we project?

Erving Goffman presents an interesting analogy in "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life," comparing humans to actors who adjust their roles for different audiences. He describes daily life situations as ‘front stages’ where performers refine their behaviors and patterns based on what is expected of them, while the "inner self" (perhaps our true personality, if that exists, which we will further inspect) emerges when we're alone, free from the pressure to conform.

This raises a compelling conflict: if our personalities shift with each situation, are we simply showing social awareness, leading to compromising our authenticity to fit societal norms? Are we masking our true selves (assuming such a thing exists, we will further discuss it later), or have social forces shaped our behavior in ways we don't fully grasp? I encourage you to ponder over this question: what is our authentic self? Is it truly what we believe it to be, or have we convinced ourselves of a different reality?

Are we truly choosing who we are, or are we just following a script given to us by culture, family, and expectations? " Existence precedes essence" —You are not born with a set personality; you define it through choices. The idea claims that we throughout our lives have several choices, we have free will, which shapes us to become the individuals we are as the end product, that means everyone is fully capable of forming their personality based on their life choices right? But do we really have free will? Answering yes reveals a privileged perspective, let’s consider a contrasting example, a citizen of North Korea versus someone like you. One lives under strict social control, while the other has freedom of choice. The North Korean citizen may not even understand the concept of "choice," let alone use it to develop their personality or form their individuality.

Now, if they are really just our choices that shape us, which are clearly influenced by external forces, does it truly stay our own? In fact , what even is self, is it something fluid that is constantly being rebuilt by the circumstances or is it an entirely different object in itself? This is an interesting perspective we can discuss through the complex paradox of “The Ship of Theseus”.

Imagine a ship owned by the mythical hero Theseus. Over centuries, its wooden planks decay and are replaced, one by one, until none of the original material remains.

⁠Question 1: Is the fully restored ship still the Ship of Theseus, even with all parts replaced?

Question 2: If the discarded original planks were collected and rebuilt into a ship, which one is the “true” Ship of Theseus?

Logically, the ship is not its original self anymore, but rather a replica as it has none of its original parts left to be itself, but in that sense, since we were kids we have all experienced such transformation, physically, as our cells die and regenerate and even mentally as we face several different situations which alters and reshapes our perceptions. This raises a profound question, are we still the same person as we were before or an entirely new one now? What if our fundamental core beliefs were changed due to some experiences, does it mean we are fundamentally not the same person anymore, if our essence of self has been scarred permanently or have we evolved? So the ship is still the same because of its interaction with the surroundings or a mere replica due to its parts being taken away and entirely built up again?

Can we really detach ourselves from our past, or are we always shaped by it?

According to Freud, our past defines our choices as it shapes us into the person we become, the trauma and the unresolved conflicts influence our personalities in ways that are out of our control. As a result, our future decisions are heavily influenced by past experiences and based on how others (predominantly parents) played a role in our lives. i.e., most things in our lives are not in our control. Whereas in contrast, Alder’s idea suggests, “Trauma doesn’t exist.”. He unlike Freud believes that we aren’t prisoners to our past but rather authors for our own stories. According to him, two people will have two entirely different reactions to the same situation and it is our choice how we perceive, react, and take from the situation. This raises a crucial question, do we have control or not in such a situation, if we consider Alder’s view then, how can we expect a kid to have enough mental clarity to view a situation from a wiser perspective and reframe the circumstances accordingly to view them in a wiser light when he doesn’t even know he has a choice? Isn’t the expectation a way of burdening him than simply validating his feelings which might not change his situation but at least validate him, or is it just serving his delusions and reinforcing a narrative of victimhood rather than guiding him toward growth?

So as we navigate through these extremely nuanced ideas, it gets quite complicated where does our personality stay defined, is there really a fixed self or are we just a bundle of experiences, expectations, and habits? The self as a stable entity can’t be stated as it is constantly being influenced by experiences, memories, perceptions, and desires. So, what about the “core” identity? One might argue that it is the essence of oneself that remains unphased by the influence of circumstances.

From a philosophical perspective, it can be argued that identity must not be discovered but rather something that's molded by a journey of constant self-improvement through overcoming obstacles in life, like Nietzsche said,“One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.”

But that's from a philosophical view, the spiritual one suggests otherwise.According to Shreemad Bhagwat Gita, “न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन् नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः। अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे||” which states,"The soul is neither born, nor does it ever die; nor having once existed, does it cease to be. It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, and ancient." The view suggests that we are not merely our habits, emotions, or attachments but something much beyond them, the atma (true self) . If this is true, then isn't it pointless to make sense of oneself through external objects when it really is untouched by it?

So, next time when you say, "That's simply who I am." stop and think again, is it you, or just a role you have gotten comfortable playing? Maybe the ability to question this is the closest thing to atma.

So, conclusion? What are we really? Actors, a ship that's constantly being rebuilt, a result of our past experiences and trauma or something beyond that, a soul buried under deep layers of conditioning?