This is off course a paraphrase of Tyra Banks' quote in the vinaette of America's Next Top Model. I think the concept of role models is a bit ascew these days (if it's ever been not-ascew remains a valid question). Maybe we ought to challenge this idea on the whole. Let's break it down. Sometimes when Britney Spears (yes, I'm aware of a person called that) have been out shaving her head, breaking up, getting drunk, this that and the other, she's put in question for setting a bad example for young girls; she's not a good role model.
The question I want to pose is: what happened with the concept of role within the concept of role model? A role can off course be elaborated in various ways. However, one common conception is the likeness to what a role means in a movie - it's portraiting someone with specific traits. In this sense, picking up a role, is trying to portrait (fictious) behavior modeled on someone. With this line of argument it follows that anyone following the example of such a role model, exhibits a behavior that isn't genuine to their own character.
However, if we widen our understanding of role within role model, we can discuss how indentity is constructed both through social structures and (both positive and negative) pressures, but also through external sources of inspiration that is not present in the individuals immediate environment. With the help of such a concept, we can choose parts of Britney Spears actions, deeds and accomplishments to implement into our own behavior. Let's say that the two feats that Britney displays that isn't present in my immediate surroundings is (1) being able to sing and (2) disorderly drunken behavior. Both of these will be possible to pick up from this external (outside the family and other structures) source of inspiration (Britney). The question is however with what ease we can add these to our roster of characteristics. Probably the (presumably it's a young) individual we're talking about, will try to "feel out" how much resistance the immediate group displays towards these both feats of Britney's, and if both seem appealing and both also seem unoffensive to the group, there's a pretty good chance that the individual will pick these up. However, if drunken behavior isn't accepted or a frequent part of the immediate surroundings, chances are that that part of Britney's actions will not be implemented.
This probably seems relatively straight forward, however, what we also do here is that we choose who Britney is. We choose one of her feats as something aspiring, and we combine this with a row of other feats that has nothing to do with her. In this sense, we isolate Britney-for-us as a singer, not an examplary mother, party girl, or academic exemple to aspire to. All the different people we meet through every day interaction, social media, television etc, essentially work in the same way. We choose what we want to pick up on. This gives us a quite unique set of feats that is combined to a person - you.
The last thought I wanna pursue here, is my attitude regarding these different roles (and the people we model ourselves after). The main problem is not "snatching" feats from here and there, but more so trying to make everything to fit in one person. For instance, I have various ideas, thoughts, feelings, an different people that have inspired me in different areas of life. But what I don't want to do, is try to put one of my feats as the most important characteristic of me. For example, if I postulate that my being a Christian is the most important characteristic, this puts me in danger of thinking that I can probably not get along with i.e. Muslims, Jews or Buddhists, who have this essentially different character. This is tied in with the second danger I see. If you see yourself as role-X-first (i.e. Christian) you run the risk of being extra sensitive to other people's attempts to fill that role with their impression of what it is to be a X (i.e. Christian). The danger then, is that you try to model your different feats and sources of inspirations, not in a way that you yourself is comfortable with, but that corresponds to someone elses version of your "top-role". My experience is that identity/identities are much more fluid than this, and that this is a really positive thing. If we let our identities be slightly disorganized - instead of hierarchial - we are better equipped to face today's world of pluralism, and enjoy it; rather than seeing it as a threat towards your "main" identity.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar