Being yourself - expressing yourself authentically - isn't always strategic, given whatever other goals you may have. For example, someone could say, "In the spirit of being myself, I've dyed my hair pink, and nobody'd better have a problem with it!"
Pink is awesome. Pink hair is awesome. If you want to get a job as a trustee at the Knickerbocker Bank ("They're so conservative, they don't pay any interest at all!"), it's not strategic. You might choose to stick with a more natural color, not because you're living in fear, but because that's the path to getting the job you've chosen.
And on the bank's side: They might outlaw pink hair, not because there's anything intrinsically wrong with pink hair, and not because they actively want to kill employees' individuality. Maybe they'd rather have pink hair themselves, all things being equal. They may have decided against pink only because they're trying to create a public image that will be most profitable for the bank. They've decided the value of pink hair as self-expression is outweighed by the higher profits they expect with a more traditional image. And they have every right to make that decision about how their organization presents itself. (As long as it doesn't get sexist, racist, etc.)
---
The lovely and talented Martha Ramos Duffer taught me the term stimulus value. Whatever your pink hair generally means to people who see it, that's the stimulus value of pink hair. I've heard the argument that pink hair has no stimulus value, that it's all in the eye of the beholder. In a vacuum, yes. In a society, with societal norms, no. The new season of Glee just started, and Quinn suddenly has pink hair (and new clothes, makeup, etc). It sends a message about how she relates to authority, social norms, etc. It's not all in the eye of the beholder, completely idiosyncratic for every single person who sees it. Otherwise, the writers wouldn't have given her styling a second thought.
I also remember an episode of Cheers, where Norm (fat, not stylish or polished, kind of crude) discovered a gift for interior design. Sam introduced him to some yuppies who needed a designer, but he didn't look/act like they expected from a designer, and they weren't warming up to him. Sam took him aside and said, "Sorry, Norm, I don't know what to say." Norm replied, "That's alright, I do." Then he turned to the couple and asked, "Did I mention that last night I programmed myself to dream about your space?" Everyone who knew Norm's character knew he was totally bullshitting. And the couple looked at each other, suddenly delighted with him.
Every viewer got why they didn't warm up to him at first. We knew what his presentation conveys. It's based on sociocultural norms we're all aware of. Or, if there are people who really don't pick up on those norms, and don't understand the stimulus value of different things, that's a form of impaired social functioning. Just like people with Asperger's Syndrome don't pick up on others' emotional reactions and what triggers them.
----
Maybe some banker's most authentic self-expression also happens to be exactly what the marketing department says will be most profitable. So for that person, there's no tradeoff between self-expression and profitability.
For the rest of us, we have to decide our priorities. For a queer youth, is it more important to live out and proud, or to avoid bullying, rejection, and possibly getting thrown out of your house by closeting yourself? When I worked as a psychotherapist, was it more important to paint my office the color that made me happiest to look at day in and day out, or the one I thought would be optimally conducive to a therapeutic mood? For my partner, is it more important to have pictures of me on his desk, or to avoid anything that could piss off homophobic people he has to work with?
I don't think there's a right answer to this kind of question. It's a value judgment.
----
At some point, I had to develop and articulate my ideas about how to dress for work. If you're at a job where you want to look sexy for the UPS guy, professional for clients, and fun for happy hour, you can't wear this. Maybe you wear a blouse, and when the UPS guy shows up you unbutton a button or two, then button back up for clients. And you add crazy fun jewelry for happy hour. Or you just wear something versatile and do it all with your behavior: bat your eyelashes at the UPS guy and act extra festive at the happy hour. If you wore the sexy red dress, you'd be stuck conveying only sexy to everyone. You'd have no way to make strategic adjustments for different audiences.
----
I just bought new glasses. There were two frames I got excited about. One was dark green, stylish, not attention-grabbing. The other was a vintage 70's frame, same color as my eyes, one of a kind, so different from today's styles it would make everyone do a double-take. I wanted both for different reasons - the green were more versatile, the vintage way more fun and unique.
The vintage also made a big statement, pretty much the same way pink hair would. They'd limit me to only ever looking weird and wonderful. That could get in the way of my work.
I decided to buy the green frames, and when I want a weird and wonderful look, I can wear a weird and wonderful shirt. When I want a business-like look, I'll wear a business-like shirt. When I want people to pay more attention to me than to my look, I'll wear something more neutral. I won't be locked into just one image. I can make strategic decisions about it from one day to the next.
Of course, this decision depends on my recognition that there's more than one way to express my weird and wonderful self. It doesn't have to be those glasses frames.
I came really close to getting the blue frames instead of the green. I even thought about getting both until I realized how little my insurance would cover, and how much they'd add up. I can't justify spending a few hundred bucks on an accessory. But it's not a bad thing, reconciling myself to not having absolutely everything I covet.
I know, I'm rambling.
I found a couple links on stimulus value and "professional use of self," the idea that therapists should show or not-show aspects of themselves based on whether it's therapeutic for the client. (That's in contrast to the Freudian idea that therapists should try to be a "blank slate" and not show anything at all.) I haven't read them through yet, but they look like they'll be interesting:
Stimulus value of children's first names, as relates to social and academic development
Your stimulus value as a therapist by Sparky the Mind Doc
No comments:
Post a Comment