Though unrelated, this matches the current fiery of political polarisation in the U.S. People from both sides confine themselves to labels. When the foundation of their belief is then threatened, they strut their brows and puff up their chests, preparing a torrent of rage or hate. It’s more important as a society to simply live, rather than living superficially within an artificial label.
This is quite an affirming and validating take on identify in life. I’m an amalgamations of different hobbies, though mostly leaning towards arts and humanities such as reading, drawing, singing, writing etc. And growing up i struggled with the idea of inconsistency in my hobbies and believed that i’m not going to succeed in life because of said inconsistency, since people tend to dedicate themselves to one thing. But at the same time, because i explored so many different hobbies and tried my hand in everything, i tend to pick up things fast and am able to learn new things without much worries, which ironically now impresses people. But yes firm believer of just doing whatever you want, screw the labels.
Great stuff as always, Robin. I also find that people with variegated interests tend to be interesting, too, given their lack of predictability. It reminds me of the Nietzschean concept of living your life as a work of art, where you’re constantly eluding strict interpretation and therefore conformity.
Absolutely! The idea of committing yourself to a few interests for life seems quite unnatural in my eyes. Unless you're deadly obsessive about something, then go for it, but I would still argue that varied interests relieves pressure on any one interest, making variety ultimately good for one's work.
Seeing people as identities seems unhealthy, anyway. When I spend time with my friends, I don't see them as "the YouTuber" or "the business owner" or "the traveller." They're just my friends, I know them by name not by interest. People are still individuals, even if they have adopted an aesthetic.
Great article Robin! I agree with Emerson's quote on foolish consistency, as not everything needs a label or an explanation. This insight reminds me of this proverb that confused me when I was a college freshman but now have come to understand it as a grad student . To paraphrase, "the bird does not sing because it has answer, it sings because it has a song." The way I understand this proverb is that not everything needs to have meaning, and it's ok to do what you want simply because you can.
Incredible, Robin. I've been on the same journey myself; working to fight against our culture's cult-like obsession with dividing humanity using perfect personal perimeters (such as personality quizzes, generational divisions, the enneagram, ethnicities, astrology, etc) while completely foregoing the recognition of both the unity and diversity of the whole human race and the entirely unique person that each is. I suppose we're both just university studying, dark academia styling, coffee sipping, journal writing nerds. Typical.
Than you for clarifying this for me. Maybe the question “Who am I?” is pointless to begin with. It’s an ever-obsessive mind trying to make sense of constant change triggered by surprise actions. “What do I want to achieve?” is made up of what I do, not what I am.
Ioved reading through this as it echoes the realization I came to recently. No one is ever really the same all the time. Our identities are catalogues of contradictions bound together in a weird sense of balance or imbalance
Yes, and by extension I think it’s important to speak to people who live polar opposite lives. The idea of engaging in contradictions is vital across the board. To compartmentalise our identities is to suffocate parts of ourselves we might not even know are there. This was a really affirming read. Thank you.
I’ve always felt like people tend to try and categorize others to more conveniently understand them (even if that means imagining unknown aspects of their personality). Perhaps we all do that’s subconsciously to various degrees. But I do feel that, in recent years with social media, a handful of archetypes have arisen with a fairly rigid set of traits. If one doesn’t satisfy those traits exactly, some people are incapable of using a different paradigm to understand another’s personality and so use other archetypes to fill in the gaps. “Wow you’re like so granola, but also kind of a gym bro.” It’s definitely upsetting to me than many seem to have lost the ability to just see individuals as individuals and try not to categorize them into convenient, rigid boxes
Really enjoyed this. It points to a very fundamental issue, which is the assumption that there must be some core identity in the first place. In our attempts to pin it down, we end up constructing it, which means that there isn't any core identity there to be discovered, but rather just a choice we can make to continue making one up for ourselves.
Though unrelated, this matches the current fiery of political polarisation in the U.S. People from both sides confine themselves to labels. When the foundation of their belief is then threatened, they strut their brows and puff up their chests, preparing a torrent of rage or hate. It’s more important as a society to simply live, rather than living superficially within an artificial label.
This is quite an affirming and validating take on identify in life. I’m an amalgamations of different hobbies, though mostly leaning towards arts and humanities such as reading, drawing, singing, writing etc. And growing up i struggled with the idea of inconsistency in my hobbies and believed that i’m not going to succeed in life because of said inconsistency, since people tend to dedicate themselves to one thing. But at the same time, because i explored so many different hobbies and tried my hand in everything, i tend to pick up things fast and am able to learn new things without much worries, which ironically now impresses people. But yes firm believer of just doing whatever you want, screw the labels.
I agree, screw the labels 👏
Great stuff as always, Robin. I also find that people with variegated interests tend to be interesting, too, given their lack of predictability. It reminds me of the Nietzschean concept of living your life as a work of art, where you’re constantly eluding strict interpretation and therefore conformity.
Absolutely! The idea of committing yourself to a few interests for life seems quite unnatural in my eyes. Unless you're deadly obsessive about something, then go for it, but I would still argue that varied interests relieves pressure on any one interest, making variety ultimately good for one's work.
Totally agree! Plus, new experiences can ultimately lead to new perspectives in relation to your main interests, which might further enrich them :)
Seeing people as identities seems unhealthy, anyway. When I spend time with my friends, I don't see them as "the YouTuber" or "the business owner" or "the traveller." They're just my friends, I know them by name not by interest. People are still individuals, even if they have adopted an aesthetic.
Great article Robin! I agree with Emerson's quote on foolish consistency, as not everything needs a label or an explanation. This insight reminds me of this proverb that confused me when I was a college freshman but now have come to understand it as a grad student . To paraphrase, "the bird does not sing because it has answer, it sings because it has a song." The way I understand this proverb is that not everything needs to have meaning, and it's ok to do what you want simply because you can.
Incredible, Robin. I've been on the same journey myself; working to fight against our culture's cult-like obsession with dividing humanity using perfect personal perimeters (such as personality quizzes, generational divisions, the enneagram, ethnicities, astrology, etc) while completely foregoing the recognition of both the unity and diversity of the whole human race and the entirely unique person that each is. I suppose we're both just university studying, dark academia styling, coffee sipping, journal writing nerds. Typical.
Than you for clarifying this for me. Maybe the question “Who am I?” is pointless to begin with. It’s an ever-obsessive mind trying to make sense of constant change triggered by surprise actions. “What do I want to achieve?” is made up of what I do, not what I am.
Ioved reading through this as it echoes the realization I came to recently. No one is ever really the same all the time. Our identities are catalogues of contradictions bound together in a weird sense of balance or imbalance
Yes, and by extension I think it’s important to speak to people who live polar opposite lives. The idea of engaging in contradictions is vital across the board. To compartmentalise our identities is to suffocate parts of ourselves we might not even know are there. This was a really affirming read. Thank you.
I’ve always felt like people tend to try and categorize others to more conveniently understand them (even if that means imagining unknown aspects of their personality). Perhaps we all do that’s subconsciously to various degrees. But I do feel that, in recent years with social media, a handful of archetypes have arisen with a fairly rigid set of traits. If one doesn’t satisfy those traits exactly, some people are incapable of using a different paradigm to understand another’s personality and so use other archetypes to fill in the gaps. “Wow you’re like so granola, but also kind of a gym bro.” It’s definitely upsetting to me than many seem to have lost the ability to just see individuals as individuals and try not to categorize them into convenient, rigid boxes
J.D.Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye
Really enjoyed this. It points to a very fundamental issue, which is the assumption that there must be some core identity in the first place. In our attempts to pin it down, we end up constructing it, which means that there isn't any core identity there to be discovered, but rather just a choice we can make to continue making one up for ourselves.