A Meditation on the Royal "We"

Just as the family needs it's "archetypal" structure (the stoic father, the supportive mother) to foster healthy propogation, the social scene, if you will, needs something analogous. I suppose as we all have jobs and families, our sedentary social regiment will be replaced by a more "when-available" sociality, meaning these roles which I am about to talk about will not be as applicable, if at all.

Like I said, perhaps as a result of being sedentary, we find ourselves being cast into these roles within social operations. Needless to say, we are no longer at the point of cohesion where we need to operate like a pack of wolves, with one being the alpha, one as the omega, various betas, and so on. However, I don't think I need to give a 500-word essay on how similar we are to that, either; the simplest illustration I can give is the behavior of monkeys, and the simplest advance-reply I can give is "No, we're not that far off from monkeys." So anyway, dominance, identity construction/reinforcement, childhood hang-ups and defense mechanisms (among others) come into play in routine social constructs. This broad statement cannot be refuted. Perhaps to the female reader, it will not be so apparent, but please try to imagine I am talking solely about male social behavior on a day-in day-out level.

Now, I don't want to be so faceted as to talk about "the alpha male" or "the omega male". Obviously, people have many different feelings and to others they may seem like archetypes but to themselves I am sure everyone is a continent of spiritual wealth. Instead, try to think of a Dostoevsky novel in which every character is immensely philosophical, even if people are not philosophical in the "nature of the universe" or intellectual meaning it has come to take. What I mean is anyone who performs said social interaction probably thinks, at least on some level, about it and almost definitely if it is something such as a public display of aggression.

I find there to be this immensely interesting, abstract dilemma: And before I put it forth, please do not assume that I am simply unsure of myself. That could be said of me at times, but right now I am speaking simply to retrace my steps and put my thoughts down in writing. Now suppose I come into a group of people who have been living together, or spent a lot of time together for an long period of time. Everyone has gotten a satisfactory sense of each other and have assembled regimented attitudes thereof. Coming into this group, immediately I am a) an outsider; b) a mystery; and c) have no or little knowledge about how each of them can handle various degrees of social interactions or demands. As an outsider, I have to either establish myself as someone who will start mentally (socially) living with these people, provide some sort of "business" (for lack of a synapomorphic title), or make my intentions clear in some other sense. As a mystery, I come in as an archetype. The first impression I give can be carried away and I can either become something that each person wants to see in themselves, or something they want to suppress.

Now the process of validating one's status as a human being (in the spiritual sense) is tough, as we all know. There are many people I interact with who probably view me as an extension of themselves and there are people who even I cannot help but do the same to. I've come to the belief that it's not a developmental state about ourselves, but rather a facet of humanity that just can't help but oscillate between "person" and "object" depending on our internal state.

Some illustrations: being self-conscious, we need something to identify ourselves positively with. In order to do that, as the formula behind human thought-proscribed-communication goes, we must construct calibrations. "In order to define the good, the bad is an unfortunate but necessary evil." See my point? And for ourselves, humans, we must compare these now-defined, objectified traits (see, it's that process of defining something, turning it into a concept or a held variable that turns a perfect, undesired " " into an object)... as humans we must now compare these objects to other objects, which requires the descension from the cosmos as such therewithin; bringing down from the heavens of being a something and turning it into an accessible, humanized ideal - i.e., an object.

Now as I was saying, being seen as a person takes a while, and it only happens for a flash. Or maybe you think it doesn't (and maybe it doesn't). I often try to see people aside from physical objects (a goal which requires a 20 year essay describing motivation to do so). But it's possible I'm squinting too hard at these people, seeing them as more than they are. It's like looking at a hazy picture and deciding you see things. They may be there, they may not be; nobody is to say but you, but you have to fight it out with your own misgivings. And like I said, seeing a person in that split-second comprehension I talked about after last summer, it oscillates between people and objects and may just be driven by what it is we want to see. Certainly if we don't need something out of a person (and it's a stretch, but this includes our own need to "save" others if your argument is that you'd save a person with absolutely nobody else around), that person doesn't exist as a person to be thought about and somberly respected internally as the complete being they are. There are logical truths, but there are situational adaptations that take on a [seemingly] ugly pragmaticism.

Now, I know I've been beating around the bush trying to get to my point, but seeing as how this post is the first one that comes up when people click on my page, I might as well try to pepper in some background information. My point is one that I brought up a few posts back. In this group that I have outlined, is it better to leave things be or to come in and make a [possibly] positive impact? Sadly, the way I put my conundrum really explains what it is I've been pondering quite obviously, but let me put it another way (if you will mentally let me). Is it better to let someone perform their role in the group or should I draw from the balance (think Zen) to weave a role for myself in the lives of these people? If instead of playing the archetypal game and "present myself as an accessible, vulnerable human being" (as I am now), supporting the archetypal roles of the people in the group [such as laughing at their jokes, allowing them to do something that needs to be done so they can feel like they're the ones who helped the group], and yet placing myself in a position where their lack of understanding can result in passive-aggression, being used a scapegoat (e.g.), being subject to the way they wish to deal with such a situation. Is this scenario truly "worth it"?

It seems like the natural response would be "find new friends who can appreciate one's openness" but I've found that to be too much to ask of someone. In this sea of unexplainable little needs, personal boundaries and sporadic and imperfect communication, I don't think that ideal can really happen. People are bound to hit each others boundaries and come away hurt and too awkward, the only way they can come back into that relationship is by drawing up a contract (either with themselves or between each other) leaving the purported victim a little bit more closed up. I guess that's where I get my belief that the only way for a long-term relationship to succeed is through mutual ignorance (turning into respecting the boundaries) of each other.

So with the idea of finding friends who accept someone unconditionally, it comes back to my question two paragraphs above. Is it more noble to boost another's ego at a cost to their own status or instead impinge on a host's status in order to attain a socially-accepted place and force the purported victim to reconcile his anxieties his own way against unwavering social norms. Get social norms on your side and encounter/accost others' prior balance, try to get involved but do no harm (hippocratic social oath) or simply don't get involved in the first place (end your days as a ferryman, listening to the flow of the river). Right now, I just can't help but feel like all three are really shitty choices.