The Selves Within Our'Self'

The Selves Within Our'Self'

By Scott Swanson

LS 801

Dr. Michael Kenny

I have always been intrigued by the forces that create and shape

our Self. Over the years my concept of how and why this happens

has changed as I have gained both experience and understanding of

the forces within and without, which mold, coerce, force,

manipulate, pick your verb, the creation of our Self. These

forces can work in concert or in opposition. They can be

deliberate or accidental, intentional or not. No matter what the

characteristics of the forces, they affect the Self.

As my title suggests, I do not see the Self as a single 'thing',

but rather a multifaceted element of our humanity. I have come

to believe, and my beliefs were reinforced, by the readings and

discussions in class, that there is no singular Self. I don't

believe that our Self is immutable, nor is it fluid. I believe

it is malleable and at times mercurial. I believe that all human

beings have numbers of Selves and that these Selves are ever 1

The Selves Within Our'Self' – Scott Swanson LS 810 Spring 2012

present, but not always presented. I think of this like the

disco balls of the 70s and 80s where it is a recognizable shape,

but there are many reflections from this Self and it is the

reflections that others see (our audience if you will) and,

therefore, different audiences see a slightly or not so slightly

different reflection of our Self than what is truly the entirely

of our Self.

Another way to imagine my view of Self is to look at a candle

flame. The shape is clear, but only appears to be still. If we

look closely we will see that it is never exactly the same at any

given moment and depending on the view of the candle that is

exposed to the audience, we can actually perceive different

shapes and colors in the candle flame. I don't believe our

Selves are quite as mercurial as a candle flame, but the allusion

still holds in the sense that the Self appears differently when

viewed under different circumstances.

2The Selves Within Our'Self' – Scott Swanson LS 810 Spring 2012

My purpose in this paper is to explain how my sense of

Self/Selves developed over time and specifically how it was

influenced by the readings and discussions in this course. If we

are to be intellectually alive we must constantly change as we

learn. If a day goes by and I have not learned something, and it

does not have to be world shakingly significant, then I have

wasted that day.

My first awareness of outside forces shaping me and how I viewed

myself, occurred when I was in elementary school and specifically

when I was practicing, first printing and later cursive writing.

I was never able to form a line of consistent printed or written

letters. No matter how hard I tried I could never get the

letters to be the same; they all varied to a greater or lesser

extent. This resulted in my teachers asking and later demanding

that I put more effort into my work. It was impossible, or so

it seemed to me at the time and even now I do not have a

consistent print style or signature. It is the main reason I


learned to type. That, however, is getting slightly ahead of

myself.

The result of my lack of the required results in printing and

writing led me to feel that I was inadequate, that I was not good

enough. I was aware that my lack of precision in printing and

writing was 'my fault' and that was indelibly etched into my

conception of Self. I recognized that it was an outside pressure

demanding of me something that I could not deliver.

The first time I was aware of my conscious modification of Self

had to do with my poor handwriting. In the fifth grade, we were

given the opportunity to either write our book reports or give an

oral report. In order not to have the comments written on my

book report that "Scott needs to improve his handwriting and be

neater.", I chose to do oral reports.

To digress slightly, I moved from Chicago to Appleton, Wisconsin

(the home of Senator Joseph McCarthy) in September of 1956 just


before my eighth birthday. I was not particularly aware of

changes in my Self, at the time, however, over the years in the

context of family get togethers I was told by various relatives

that I had been such a happy, outgoing child in Chicago, but that

I had become an awkward and shy boy in Wisconsin. I did know

that I did not fit into the society of Appleton. There were many

varied reasons for this, but clearly I had adapted my behavior to

try and fit in with my classmates. I had changed my Self

unconsciously to fit in. Now, I changed myself consciously by

delivering my book reports orally and not in writing. I was

terrified to speak in front of the class, but the alternative, of

seeing the look of disappointment on my teachers' faces as they

read my handwritten work and see their comments on my returned

book reports was a more powerful inducement to change my Self to

fit in.

I learned quickly, that although I did not have to face my

teachers pain in their marking my book reports, my new Self did

not in any way help me to fit in, however, I discovered that when


I empowered my Self to speak my thoughts instead of writing them

down I found it easier to tell the story. I did not know it at

the time, but I was learning to be a storyteller and that is a

skill or talent that has served me well over the last fifty odd

years.

Although I did not realize the complete nature of these events, I

was aware that there were forces that were shaping me and the

perceptions of who I was as a person. That some of these forces

were from the society and some were from within me. I came to

realize that some were very conscious and some were unconscious

adaptations, but all were evolving from me and becoming an

integral part of who I am. One small example: my 11th grade

English teacher submitted one of my short stories for publication

and it was published. Soon after that, I noticed a young woman

in the school who was not in my classes. She turned out to be

the editor of the student newspaper. I joined the writing club

and my first story prompted a call from the editor of a local

newspaper and I began to write regularly for that newspaper and


by the time I graduated I was writing for four local newspapers.

Little did I know I would continue as a freelance writer from

then on.

Probably the most significant event in my creation of Self was

total serendipity. At least that's the way it has always

appeared to me. In the Spring before I graduated from high

school, my family took a trip to South Carolina where some

friends of my parents had moved. I had babysat for their

children when we both lived in Wisconsin. Lawrence, the father

of the family was teaching at thea small private Presbyterian

College in Clinton, South Carolina. While we were visiting they

offered me room and board in exchange for some babysitting. My

parents did not have the money to send me to school anywhere and

this seemed the perfect solution. I would attend Presbyterian

College, I enrolled on the spot and was accepted. In early

August, I received a phone call from Sandra that Lawrence had

been offered a job at the University of Southern Mississippi as

the Chairman of the Theater Department. So, to Mississippi I


went. The significance of being in southern Mississippi in 1966

cannot be overestimated, it changed a great deal about how I

viewed myself and the society in which I lived.

While in high school, I had been a debater and Captain of the

Debate team. I had participated in 22 debates and won 21 times.

When I arrived in Mississippi in August of 1966, Lawrence

introduced me to Dr. Benjamin Chapel who was the Chairman of the

Speech Department and Coach of the debating team. I was accepted

and offered a full scholarship to the university, including all

my books and supplies, but I did not have any spending money.

Lawrence arranged for me to work as a stage carpenter for fifteen

hours a week to earn some money.

One night, about three weeks into the first term, I was working

in the scene shop sizing flats when a head popped into the room

and said the director would like to see me on stage. When I

stepped onto the stage the director informed me that an actor had

not shown up for rehearsal and asked if I could read the lines.


I said I was working in the scene shop and he said that was fine

they would have me work reading the lines. I indicated that this

was a real job, not just volunteer work and the director said

that my reading the lines would fulfill my work obligation, they

would pay me to read lines. I agreed and that encounter set in

motion the rest of my life and the subsequent adjustments to

Self.

I began acting. Various directors would ask me to be in their

plays. I had been a musician when in highschool and to help pay

my way through university I taught guitar and later acting and

movement Over the years I developed workshops for actors in

character development. Since I believe that the only person we

really know is ourself, every character we create must be built

from our experiences, both lived and vicarious experience

filtered through our accumulated knowledge, I developed an

exercise I call the Mask and Mirror. The Mask is those aspects of

Self that we willingly share with the world. They are a

collection of conscious and unconscious aspects we reveal to the


world, but the most important part is that they are a part of us,

they are real not fake. The Mirror is like the mirror of the

Queen in Snow White, it only tells the truth. I ask actors to

think about and the write out their Mask and Mirror. Later I

designed a very similar workshop for writers, also in character

development.

Our first courseware reading was Michel Foucault's Technologies of

the Self. In the chapter we read, he makes a couple of

observations the resonated with me, not in the context in which

he intended, but in the context of my own understanding of Self,

especially as it relates to character development, which I feel

is actually creation of Self, even if it is a one time, special

person use of Self. Once created it never really leaves us, it

remains, perhaps never really used again, but resident in our

mapped existence. He said we have "the obligation to tell the

truth", which for me means that we must always be honest with

ourself. There is nothing to be gained and much is lost, in

lying to ourself. The other observation he made was we are


"deciphering who one is", which speaks to the fact that in order

to create a character we must understand both the character and

ourself. (Foucault, 16)

Many people think that actors pretend to be characters and I

believe that is fundamentally wrong. As an actor, it is not my

job to be the character, but it is my job to make the audience

believe I am the character. In order to do that, I must be

truthful in performance. I must, at the moment I am playing the

character, believe that I am that character. If I am not

truthful in my performance, the audience detects that lie as bad

acting.

One of the reasons I took this course was to get a perspective

outside of my own direct experience into the nature of Self

creation. While the readings greatly informed me, not every

reading truly enters into what I wish to discuss in this paper.


How did some of these readings affect the perspective I bring to

this discussion?

Ian Hacking, in Our Neo-Cartesian Bodies in Parts, raises the question

of what is it about us, about our bodies, that is essential to

our humanity? With the ability to transplant organs and to

synthesize body parts, what is it that truly makes us human. I

would argue that what truly makes us human is our Self, including

the conscious and unconscious Self. Clearly, our physical body

plays a part in our creation and understanding of Self, but as

our body changes over time or for whatever reason it changes, our

perception of Self, in fact the reality of Self, changes as well.

Galton, Eugenics: Its definition, scope and aims, proposes that we not only

focus on our Self, but also on the future Self of the society

through Eugenics, which is tied to the concept of improving the

species. This seems to be directly connected to the apparent

human need for Self improvement. For instance our desire to do as

well or better than our parents, in whatever area is particular


to the individual. It seems to me that this pushes the

boundaries of the Self from the immediate, individual Self, to

the future collective Self. The interest we have in the future

of us can be illustrated by our desire to have children and to

see our children have the best opportunities for their own Selves

and future. This can also entail the changing of our Self. My

wife is severely hearing impaired. Before we had children I was

a night owl and slept the sleep of the just and could sleep

through even fire alarms. When our first child was born I had to

train myself to be a light sleeper and to become, while not a

morning person, someone who could function in the early morning

hours. So, concern for others led me to change my Self.

In Genius Sperm, Eugenics and Enhancement Technologies, Nicholas Agar

argues that once we understand the concept of how genetics can

'determine' the person, then comes the concept of how to improve

that person, which implies that we are not good enough and by

selecting gametes from 'better' sources we can improve on our

offspring. What fascinated me most in this discussion were two


related facts. "Among the maths prodigies and business successes

on the Repository register is a man reassuring nicknamed 'average

guy." (Agar, 4) Also, the fact is that the few instances where

clients chose the genius sperm, "There was never a successful

insemination using sperm from a Nobel laureate, but 'average guy'

sired a dozen children." (Agar, 4)

This seems to me to underscore how nature works to preserve the

species, not the exceptional, unless that exceptionalness is an

evolutionary step forward for the species.

One of the most illuminating, though heart rending articles, was

Wailoo's Eradicating a 'Jewish Gene'. The fact that the genes

responsible for Tay-Sachs always leads to fatal consequences adds

a much more personal sense of how the Self can be destructive.

The knowledge that you carry a gene that will kill your children,

if inherited, must affect how you view your Self and how you

will act through your life. Seeing Self in terms of genetics and

how it will 'determine' Self, not our Self, but the Self of


others, causes us to think about how knowledge gained affects our

concept of Self.

Flexible Eugenics, by K.S. Taussig is somewhat akin to Tay-Sachs

except in its most crucial difference. In Tay-Sachs it is always

fatal, but dwarfism is not fatal. The idea that certain

'undesirable qualities' could or more importantly should be 'bred

out of the gene pool' is deeply disturbing in its implications.

It makes me question how does that element of Self come to be?

What drives such a sense in some of the need to remove from the

gene pool certain qualities that are not life threatening? Of

even greater concern is the drive to eliminate 'undesirable

qualities' in others in the society as a threat to the society as

a whole.

While I fully support the concept of a right to choice in

reproduction, many of the readings, such as Flexible Eugneics and The

DNA Mystique make it clear that the decision to abort could come

about to avoid having a child with red hair. How does that sense


of Self come to be? Does the species, or even the society, truly

benefit from those decisions? What gives even a majority the

right to restrict the reproductive rights of individuals where

there is a perceived threat?

David Eagleman in The Brain on Trial points to the 'facts' that

physical abnormalities can change our Self to something other

than who we are. That begs the question - what is the true Self?

Dumit in A Digital Image of the Category of the Person: PET Scanning and Objective

Self-Fashioning quoted from Peter Kramer regarding Kramer's

patient ‘Sam’. As Dumit recounts it: “Sam becomes more alert,

attentive, happy, adjusted, and “successful” than ever before in

his life. Observing this, Kramer realizes that both he and his

patient now understand the “real Sam” to be the one that Prozac

revealed.” This brings into stark relief the concept of what

does ‘real’ mean? Clearly, Prozac is chemically altering Sam’s

brain and it has had an effect on Sam so what is real; his

biology or his chemically altered brain?


Therefore, in addition to our own ability to alter our Self,

either consciously or unconsciously, the ability of society or

members of society who can also cause alterations in our Self, we

have to add the affects of chemicals either administered to the

individual by him/herself or by a doctor. We also have the

changes that can happen by disease or accident that alters the

person's Self. All of this confirms for me that it is not a

singular Self within an individual, but rather reflections of

Self, as well as, a core Self. I am borrowing without permission

the term core self from Antonio Damasio from his book Self Comes to

Mind because it elucidates clearly an essential, enduring center

to our Self around which we have any number of reflections that

project either consciously or unconsciously the Self we wish or

need to project to our audience.

Another contribution of Joseph Dumit was published on April 8,

2008 in Promiscuous Facts in the magazine Psychology Today in an

article entitled, What you read about your brain affects how you use it.


"One of the most fascinating articles in neuroscience I've

read recently was The Secret to Raising Smart Kids by Carol Dweck.

This article discusses a set of research projects by Dweck and

others on how different views of intelligence held by children

affect their school performance. Those kids with a "fixed

mindset" think that intelligence is innate and those kids with

a "growth mindset" think that your intelligence is something you

improve through working hard. What Dweck found is that kids

with the fixed mindset gave up when they encountered really

hard problems, apparently because they imagined they had hit

their plateau; if they were really talented, then the

problems would have been easy. Growth- oriented kids, however,

treat difficult problems as opportunities to improve their

intelligence. Not surprisingly, growth-oriented kids

continue to improve in school."

This demonstrates to me how we directly affect our sense of who

we are, who is the Self.


Nelkin and Lindee in The DNA Mystique present a mass of information

about the mythic quality of the genome as our understanding of

the genetic code transforms our sense of what factors enter into

the mix in determining the Self. What it affirms for me is how

much we are affected by an almost infinite number of factors in

our lifetime. Our nature, as well as, how we have been nurtured

by others or by ourselves affects and determines how we conceive

of our Self.

In Humanity 2.0 Steve Fuller presents the view that the Self needs

to be enhanced. What disturbs me most is the idea that somehow

we can do a better job than evolution and in much less time than

the evolution that has brought the species this far. My grasp of

the history of humanity and especially the 'civilizations' of man

who have spanned our time on the planet, does not imbue me with

confidence that we can improve on Nature.

We, as human beings, are animals, but what makes us different

from other animals? What makes us human? For some, it is a


divine spark that animates us for others we were created in the

image of a creator. Descartes, in his creation of a method for

determining what is true, depended on not just the analytical

capacity of the human mind, but in the ability of the human being

to observe and interpret those observations.

He ended up with a distinction of body, mind and Self or a

trinity if you will, that matches the perfection of an

equilateral triangle, three equal sides, three equal interior 60

degree angles and three exterior oblique angles of 300 degrees.

The repository for the Self was the soul and when the soul left

the body then the body was no longer possessed of Self and ceased

to be a human being.

It seems to me that Descartes saw the Self/soul as a single

entity; a single Self.

The last volume to influence my thinking is the aforementioned

Self Comes to Mind by Antonio Damasio. His explanation of how the


brain may work, to create memories and Self, fits entirely with

my understanding of how we create knowledge and Self from our

experience.

This returns me to how I came to view the Self in the ways I do.

At this moment in time I teach acting to animators, as well as,

storytelling. This grew out of workshops that I had taught for a

number of years for writers. I based this on my realization that

people behave differently in different circumstances. In the

simplest terms, I found that when I observed people in different

situations I could see different Selves emerge. One person when

talking with their friends would behave in one way and when a

teacher or person of authority would come along, the behavior

would change.

One example: I was teaching an acting workshop at one point in

my career to preschool children. I had never dealt with children

that young before and I was very aware of everything as I gained

some experience with young children. Up until that time I had


taught young adults or adults. In the middle of one session, the

director of the center came into the room and the children

instantly changed from being very relaxed to being quite stiff

and formal. Their tone of voice, their body language, the

movements they made while the director was in the room were

completely different than what I had experienced with them

moments before. These kids were between the ages of three and

five. The instant the director left the room they reverted to

their earlier behavior. I called them all to me and we talked

about the changes in their behavior while the director was in the

room and how it was so different to the way they behaved with me.

I asked them why and one child said, 'she's a phony and you're

not. I was blown away. I had never imagined that children at

that age would be as sophisticated as that.

I begin with my acting class having them discover and relate

their Mask and Mirror to me. To encourage them to be completely

honest, they do not have to share this exercise with others.

Over the years I have collected a number of really well expressed


Mask and Mirror exercises. I have received permission from the

authors to share their work with other students. I have done

this and I often refer to some of them in class. Over the course

of the term, we work through the process of creating a character

from the collaboration of imagination and experience. This

includes their own lived and vicariously lived experiences, as

well as, observations of other human beings and animals. All

this needs to be tied to who they are as human beings, as who

they them Selves are.

As I observed above, they do not need to become the character,

but they have to discover, within them Selves, the reality, the

human truth of their characters and they need to project that to

their audience. At the moment of creation, they must be truthful

and believe that they are the character in order for the

character to be real and animated. If it is not real to them, it

will not be real to the audience. In their storytelling class,

we build on their experiencse in acting to create a series of

characters over the term, adding to their repertoire of


characters/Selves. The purpose of these classes and workshops is

help writers and actors to discover other Selves, people that

they might have become or could become. When creating a

character you need to identify the elements of the character and

the interpreter that are the same or similar, as well as, those

elements that are different.

In Oscar Wilde's novel The Portrait of Dorian Gray, the character of

Sybil Vane is presented as a magnificent actress. Dorian Gray is

so moved by her performance as Juliet that he must marry her.

When Sybil falls in love with Dorian Gray she feels real love for

the first time and then understands that her 'love' for Romeo is

a false love just as her love for Dorian Gray is a real and true

love. From that moment on she cannot believe in the truth of

Juliet. She is not able to believe in her moment of performance

that she is Juliet and that her lover Romeo is her lover and not

the middle-aged actor she sees across the stage. She is no

longer believable as Juliet because she no longer believes she's


Juliet and Dorian is repulsed by her 'acting'. He leaves her and

she kills herself.

This of course is story, but its truth is essential. It speaks

to what I believe goes on within everyone to some extent, but in

an actor or writer there is the Self knowledge that the character

is an aspect of imagination and Self and, if it is to work for an

audience, the character must be the reflection of Self that

projects to its audience.

I ask you now to reflect on your Self. Do you imagine the

Self/Soul as a single entity; a single Self as I believe

Descartes perceived it? Or do you imagine a core Self surrounded

by a myriad of reflections of your Self ready to be projected to

your audience as needed? If so, I hope you will agree with me

that there are Selves with Our "Self".


Works Cited Agar. Nicholas, 'Ch 1: Genius Sperm, Eugenics and Enhancement Technologies'. Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement, US: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2004. Print.

Damasio, Antonio, Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain, US: Pantheon Books, 2010.

Descartes, Rene, A Discourse on the Method, Trans. Ian Maclean, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.


Dumit, Joseph. et al, 'A Digital Image of the Category of the Person', Downey, G. L. Cyborgs and Citadels Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences s and Technologies, CA: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Print.

Dumit, Joseph, What you read about your brain affects how you use it. Psychology Today, April 8, 2008. Web

Eagleman, David, 'The Brain on Trial', The Atlantic, July/August 2011, US: The Atlantic Monthly Group, 2011. Print.

Foucault. Michel, 'Technologies of the Self.’, Martin, L. H, et al. Technologies of the SelfUS: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988. Print.

Fuller, Steve, Humanity 2.0: What it means to be Human Past, Present and Future, UK: Palmgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print.

Galton, F., 'Eugenics: Its definition, scope and aims', Essays in Eugenics, US: University Press of the Pacific, 2004. Print.

Hacking. Ian, 'Our Neo-Cartesian Bodies in Parts', Critical Inquiry .vol. 34, no. 1, US: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Print.

Nelkin, Dorothy and Lindee, M. Susan, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon, US: University of Michigan Press, 2004. Print.

Taussig K.S., et al, 'Flexible Eugenics', Goodman, A, et al. Genetic Nature/Culture - Anthropology and Science Beyond the Two-Culture Divide, US: University of California Press, 2003. Print.

Wailoo, K, et al, 'Ch. 1: Eradicating a 'Jewish Gene", The TroubledDream of Genetic Medicine, US: John Hopkins University Press, 2006. Print.

Wilde, Oscar, The Picture of Dorian Gray, UK: Penguin Classics, PenguinGroup, 2008. Print.



The Selves Within Our'Self'

Documents