But Deep Down, Who Are You?

During my travels, throughout the encounters on the roads, I have often been asked to introduce myself: >. So many questions to get a sense of who I am. But at the core, what are the right questions to present oneself? What criteria should we rely on?

Answering this question requires a quest for self-discovery and criteria to define oneself: professional activity, private life, education, nationality, passions, beliefs, values... Do all these roles serve as gateways to uncover the foundations of our individuality? Are they just masks we wear in turn?... And if not by opposition, what alternatives exist for defining ourselves?

Before delving into the heart of the matter, let's transgress a bit: what is art?

How does one decide to bestow the prestigious title of > upon an object? The question seems odd, as it is evident that a master painting or an ancient sculpture appears to be the very definition of art.

But it is not always that straightforward.

Think of all those Impressionist, Dadaist, nihilist artists... who came to disrupt our habits: is a blank canvas considered a work of art simply because it bears the signature of a recognized artist? Is it recognized for its aesthetic qualities? For its high price? Or for the time spent in its creation?

Does a painting created by an amateur artist from the window of their attic over two years hold a different value than a watercolor created by Kandinsky in thirty seconds? And what about a urinal signed by a master?!...

As we see, the choice of criteria for defining art (the artist and their fame, beauty, price...) is not as easy as one might think at first glance. Context plays a crucial role here: art is both a social convention and a disruption of those conventions. Art is also expression and thus is profoundly linked to the social aspect, through its desire for communication. Isn't art, more than laughter, the essence of humanity?

Behind this grand philosophical question of > lies one of the deepest reflections of human existence: the definition of one's being.

Humans love to define their environment, and perhaps that's why they transitioned from grunts to words: because frankly, calling everything > doesn't facilitate conversation. And while defining everything, they gave themselves a name: >. But calling everyone > takes us back to the age of >, which is not the most practical either! Thus, first names were born, bringing with them the notion of uniqueness and personal identity. We can differentiate Peter from Paul and Jack by their first names, but not solely...

Behind this little fictional fable lies humanity's concern to give meaning to their environment... and to themselves. Humans may define themselves as a species part of a broader biodiversity, which they like to consider themselves at the top of as >. But that isn't enough: they must define and categorize themselves within this great species known as Humanity, as their individuality matters as much, if not more, than the collective.

This is where the great and perpetual work of humanity begins: in the quest to organize, classify, and categorize others and themselves. Through this reflection and introspection, it's ultimately all humanity that is examined.

I myself have had to respond to this challenging task of self-presentation for this blog: the page Who am I? has surely been one of the hardest to write!

There are several angles to study humanity:

Each of these disciplines will have its particular vision, conditioned by approaching the human being from a unique angle.

The question of the criteria for defining oneself faces a multitude of thought currents. A holistic approach would be interesting but remains quite theoretical. Can you imagine responding at a party when someone unfamiliar approaches you to ask who you are:

Not very glamorous!

Think for a moment: how do you introduce yourself to a stranger? Does this introduction differ depending on whether it's a private or professional context...?

Exercise this by taking a sheet to write five answers to this ordinary question.

... Do you feel the stress of a blank page?

Often, we start by defining ourselves professionally. Whether through our studies or the position we hold, introducing ourselves as a worker seems to be the priority.

Simply stating one's job title rarely suffices: one must position themselves in relation to it, attempting to attract admiring, even jealous, gazes. Defining oneself through professional criteria is often linked to the desire for professional distinction and to be number one. This relentless pursuit of performance actually disguises a quest for recognition: to be the favorite.

But let's return to this choice of presentation through a professional lens: why is this the first choice for criteria? Is it because the professional criterion is the one that defines us best? Or is it rather the aspect of ourselves that is easiest to present, the most > and thus the least intimate? Stating > answers the (vague) question and avoids diving into a deeper self-reflection.

Yet, when we know that many young people face an indefinite period of unemployment after their studies, that crises bring their share of layoffs, and that simply, currently, people no longer stay in the same job for their entire career, we can even more so question the relevance of this presentation choice.

Personally, my choice of studies was decided by little, and I only practiced my profession for a few years; since then I have changed careers multiple times... Hence, I have lost this > of presenting myself through my professional activity. But before getting there, the journey was tough, as in addition to losing anchors, I was presenting myself at the margins of a > society.

You have probably played the game of >: descriptions help with recognition, but is that all?

Many clichés and prejudices hide behind physical descriptions, some of which can hurt. We form an idea about people very quickly: a few seconds are enough in a first meeting to > the stranger before us.

These judgments stem from our past experiences, but also from the conscious and unconscious interpretations we make based on non-verbal communication. This encompasses both physical aspects and clothing, as well as the way we move and speak.

Non-verbal communication, like a business card, is a means to present ourselves to the world: depending on our attire (both clothing and overall), and the way we initiate contact with the outside world, we each provide a first glimpse into ourselves, willingly or not.

: who do you imagine you are? Surely the average professional, living in a comfortable house with a small family, kept in order. Perhaps this man is a great mountain and cold enthusiast, absent half the year to quench his thirst for adventure...? Prejudices also play a royal role here.

The concept of age is also misused to form opinions about people. How many times has a young person felt looked down upon for being > or >... Besides these considerations, age is also used as a judgment criterion for our interlocutor's maturity. Consciously or unconsciously, a young adult and a forty-something will not receive the same welcome, even if their words differ not at all.

All these criteria, professional, physical, and private, share a common point: by using them, we define ourselves by what we have rather than by who we are: we have a job or a degree, we have a spouse and children...

Defining oneself by being is a difficult exercise, as it leads to the question: who am I really, behind all this facade of having?

The confusion between qualifiers and personality is quick to form:

What is the point of categorizing ourselves into predefined boxes: introverted/extroverted, dominant/submissive, creative/perfectionist...?

This represents a first step in self-reflection, which can generally be interesting: but one must not remain locked in this introduction. It allows the mechanism of self-examination to start, which isn't natural for everyone.

Another possibility, after the qualifiers, is to define oneself by what animates us, what we love, our tastes and passions.

This approach has the advantage of being creative and positive: defining oneself as a loving being positions one as a living being. Someone who is not animated by anything is no longer in a state of life (for instance, in a more or less hidden depressive phase).

But are we what we love? What difference can be made between loving to travel and being a traveler? A difference of intensity, regularity, importance...?...

This questioning of social conventions for a refocusing on oneself is useful, even inevitable.

There always comes a moment in life when one feels lost, out of phase, following upheavals that disrupt the criteria by which we defined ourselves and on which we relied to perceive the world: a marital separation, a loss, a job or lifestyle change...

Anticipating these moments of questioning, by not forgetting oneself at the corner of the street to continue living on autopilot, helps avoid the biggest shocks, the midlife crises, and more, and to remain connected to one's vital center, dreams, and life projects. Such psychological hygiene, consisting of an ideal, provides the mental strength needed to navigate life's challenges. Thus, an identity with solid foundations allows one to withstand the trials of time:

Humans are difficult to define in their uniqueness: we are all similar yet so different.

Anthropology, sociology, professional/private/physical criteria, tastes and colors... There is no one-size-fits-all approach to defining oneself. This question, debated since the dawn of time, cannot find a singular answer: that would be simplistic and sad to respond in just a few lines. The interest lies in both the questioning and the question.

Are these responses (and these questions) conditioned by our belonging to a society and gender? Surely! Psychologists have noted tendencies for different responses based on gender, with men often basing their answers on action, while women favor responses rooted in being and affectivity.

Culture also plays a significant role in this questioning. For example, Buddhists detach from these concerns by relativizing the importance of >, illusion and cause of suffering. Seeking satisfaction from an ephemeral self makes no sense in this philosophy of life.

Art and humanity share much in common. A bland and conventional piece will appeal moderately, but to the masses, while a more daring work may be rejected by the majority but will fascinate a limited circle of admirers. Isn't it the same for humanity? Those who content themselves with the security of well-trodden paths and social clichés find satisfaction in being > and, by following trends, pleasing (or at least not displeasing) the majority. Whereas, those who, adhering to the old adage of Socrates, seek to know themselves and pursue the path towards their original and unique being, may displease and disturb many as much as they will appeal to a select community.

Humans, just like art, define and construct themselves within their environment. Humanity shapes the world as much as the world shapes humanity.

And you, who are you?

To continue reading