Who Are You, Really? Who Am I?

When we meet another person, “first impressions” are gleaned by both individuals. However, such insights are often unreliable. Attire, mannerisms, fragments of information about one’s education, residence or occupation, for example, are insubstantial bases for understanding about who the person really is. We tend to categorize people with labels that do not fairly represent them. In truth, each of us has many “selves.” I often feel that “me, myself, and I” cannot achieve consensus!

We live in a society in which individuals often are quite mobile, transient, individualistic, an “atomized population” with fleeting and often superficial relationships. A Danforth Foundation study contended that Americans tend to have many acquaintances but very few friends. Developing deep friendships, confidants, is often difficult and rare in a “here again, gone again” culture. (In our society, perhaps women manage to develop such deeper friendships than men.)

Imagine an individual with overall integrity, intelligence, congeniality, and personal attractiveness who also possesses some seemingly incongruous traits. If this person is a child of the Great Depression in the 1930’s, he/she may still prefer the “cash on the barrelhead” economy, buying only what one can then pay for (except perhaps for land, house, and/or car).

Such an individual may also be frugal and choose clothing that is functional, without regard to current “styles.” One might, in that regard, refer to such a person as a “reactionary” – wishing to return to a simpler time. With a rural upbringing close to the soil, they might strongly support preserving the environment and oppose economic patterns which degrade it, warranting the term “conservative.” If the person supports the freedom of expression on diverse views in the media, schools, churches, and/or governmental platforms, he/she might be considered “liberal.” And if that person rejects “mainstream” religious views, being agnostic or humanist, one might view him/her as a “radical.” Thus, the same person can be reactionary, conservative, liberal and radical, depending on the views and behaviors on which one focuses.

Of course, persons are also often categorized as rural or urban, of a particular racial, ethnic or national background, as heterosexual or not, and so on. We need to exercise caution in “defining others,” lest we deprive ourselves of sharing together our qualities in common and beginning friendships undistracted by our differences. So, WHO are you? And WHO am I, really? Reflect upon yourself! Try to seek the full humanity in others! “pigeon-holing” individuals inhibits the development of new and potentially valuable friendships. Get past the usual introductory questions: “What do you do?” Better: “What do you care most about?”

While teaching courses in Criminology, the first day of class I would distribute a check-list of about 60 crimes, asking students to mark any of the acts they had personally committed (all anonymous). Over the years, I had no one check murder, but there were noted robbery, rape, stealing, trespassing, speeding, and numerous other offenses! The appropriate questions are these: “Who are criminals?” (“Are they only criminals?” “Once a criminal, always a criminal?”) Criminality is but one trait catalogued! Even a thief may otherwise be a good father, husband/wife, friend, voting citizen, and so on. Probably all of us have committed one or more crimes in our lives, apprehended or not, for reasons of conscience or not. I confess that I don’t get headaches from a halo fitting too tightly! Currently, some states are reinstating voting rights for “criminals” who have completed their sentences, returning them to society again.

To establish solid, satisfying friendships, we need to invest the time, make the effort, and discover the multiple selves and fuller humanity of others, finding out WHO they are as we gradually reveal WHO we are. Nations need to do this as well. Restraint from polarizing and demonizing; avoidance of the use of perfunctory labels, are sorely needed in the current political scene and in international relations.

The most destructive use of categorical labeling occurs when opponents are “demonized,” dehumanized, legitimizing emotions toward the opponent such that “anything goes” – torture, assassinations, massacres, carpet bombing, genocide – e.g., Huns, Gooks, Hajis, “terrorists.” As King contended, we commit ourselves to nonviolence, or the results will be non-existence. The urgent concerns regarding global warming will require cooperative endeavors on every level from family, community, states, and among nations.

All humanity confronts the same common problems, living on the same swirling globe in space. To survive together, we’ll need to reach out and find reconciliation with those of other societies to preserve ourselves and all other living things on earth. Let’s reach over the barriers and across the boundaries! We’ll discover a common humanity!