1. What are the most important benefits – both for the individual and the collective, or society as a whole – afforded by the personae (or outer masks) that form around our egos like shells around a mollusk or crustacean? What are the liabilities, drawbacks, and common problems that stem from misuse or excessive reliance upon the persona?
2. What moral and psychological dangers are likely to follow from our failure to consciously distinguish or differentiate ego from persona? This is synonymous with being identified with the public or outer face. In such cases, one may think and believe “I am King” (and, therefore, 𝑙’𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡) or “I am the infallible Pope,” the “leader of the free world,” the “sex symbol,” the “Judas,” the scapegoat, etc., instead of recognizing themselves as the relatively minuscule, but nevertheless unique ego behind the role or mask – a mask which is, let us remember, largely projected and thereby greatly reinforced by the society.
3. Since the persona is always a kind of compromise or co-creation – between the individual and the society or collective – its control or management can never be entirely in the individual’s hands, once it is established. Half or more than half of it is always composed of forms and materials that are supplied extraneously – from the often automatic, unconscious projections of others. Thus, to a large extent, we “exist” as a type in the minds of others who base their opinions about us on surface characteristics and symptoms – persons who do not know us as individuals. And unless and until others’ perception of us becomes more nuanced and individualized through closer and more thorough acquaintance with the “man behind the mask,” this is what we will be up against in our dealings with these “others”: gross simplifications, crude reductions, stereotypes, distortions, and other forms of “poor reading.” Given all these limiting, reductive, and distorting factors, what steps can we take to minimize their potentially harmful or obstructive impact upon our growth as individual egos, which can be differentiated, but never entirely severed or cut off from, the group or collective?
4. If, following Erving Goffman’s instructive lead in his classic sociological work, 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑓 𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒, we liken social or group behavior to the scripted activity within a stage play, we can better appreciate the need for more or less clearly defined and recognizable roles, types, and narrative patterns in human interactions at all levels. If we liken ourselves to actors who are plopped into the “play-in-progress” when we are born, we can see why there is so much pressure to find or co-create our role(s) in the complex story underway around – and increasingly within – us. Long ago, Heraclitus told us, “Character is fate” and, to a large extent, the kind of part – and how big of a part – we play in the ever-unfolding drama around and within us carves out our destiny, as it were, in the world. Perhaps if we were able to abide utter solitude, alienated or self-exiled from all human interaction and communication, we might find ourselves in a slightly better position to avoid such an externally-determined destiny – or at least to reduce the shaping influence of these extrinsic factors. But why would anyone choose such solitary, cut-off conditions? Even if we made this perilous, “heroic” choice for the sake of deepened understanding and insight into human nature, would such knowledge be worth the impairment it would bring to our full “human” development? Isn’t this, in fact, what often gets compromised if and when some determined soul adamantly resists and refuses to assume a “role” or two and enter the story – because it seems no more than a mere fiction, or artificial program, to him? But then, how many persons do we meet who are genuinely capable of seeing us as unique individuals? This would require their seeing through all our roles, masks, and ‘typical’ features. Are most of us even able to do this 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠?
5. To what extent may communication by means of ordinary language be justifiably assimilated or subsumed by what we are calling “persona,” or the public face? Isn’t ordinary verbal communication a fundamental component of the interface between members of the community? We know that language (which we receive, ready-made, as children) can be employed equivocally as both a revealer and a concealer of one’s actual intentions, feelings, and opinions. In thus describing it, doesn’t language here sound a lot like a mask that can either hide or more or less faithfully depict the actual face behind it? And when spoken or written language serves as the principal means of communicating one’s “self” to other(s), then all the functions, paradoxes, problems, and possibilities connected with persona would seem to apply to language use. Just as it was noted, earlier, that a complete identification of the ego with the persona can lead to “moral and psychological dangers,” we speak of persons “who believe their own press.” As a seasoned writer, I have learned, over the years, how to craft my language for specific, desired effects in the ordinary reader’s mind. I have learned rhetorical tricks or techniques that enable me either to “sell” an idea or to discredit and mock the very same idea, depending on how I dress it up – what I choose to accept, insinuate, or edit out of the “picture” altogether. I’ve learned about the crucial role played by the tone, humor, wit, attitude, vocabulary, P.O.V., associations, and various stylistic options. We might liken these rhetorical tricks and craftwork to flavorings or additives that can make bland or even unpleasant-tasting raw ingredients flavorful and easy to swallow. By the same token, quite different flavors and additives – or excessive amounts – can make otherwise delicious, nutritious foodstuffs taste noxious or inedible. Certainly, we can become addicted to flattering and alluring (but empty) word-recipes in much the same way that we can become addicted to tasty junk food that not only lacks nutritional value, but is actually toxic or harmful to us. By extension, we might say that it is not sufficient merely to differentiate the individual, unique ego from the semi-collective persona. We must also perform an analogous analysis and deconstruction of the all too commonplace and convenient locutions, or pieces of word-concept-currency that have been smudged and defaced by too many hands and fingers passing them around. To extract or recover the original value or substantial worth in such inflated or defaced currency requires great discernment, artistry, and – most of all – patience.
