“…stop trying to be someone else. Don’t. try. To. Be. Someone. Else. Don’t try to be like someone else, don’t try to act like someone else, be yourself. Be secure in yourself. Rely and trust upon your own decisions, on your own beliefs…” – Rosie Watson
The above quote is an excerpt from a track called ‘Be Yourself’ on Frank Ocean’s album, Blonde. This track is a voicemail message from the mother of Frank Ocean’s best friend. In this track, she is cautioning her child against drugs by telling him to remember who he is and what she has taught him. I think that this song is a perfect example of the complexity of the self. This song is just over a minute long and for the first thirty seconds, this mother encourages her child to be himself. However, she goes on to say, ‘…remember what I have taught you…’ and goes on to lecture her child some more. From my point of view, this mother is taking her beliefs, her values and projecting them on her son in a nice package that she sells as his values. Now luckily, it passes in this case because drugs are bad and we should not do them! However, it really brings up question: who constitutes the self?
The self is quite a complex subject but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s make the assumption that when we speak of the self, we are referring to self-esteem, self- image and identity. We all have our innate traits and characteristics that make us unique and thus – who we are. However, we also have this heavy influence which is family and by extension, society. By itself, I don’t think identity construction is or should be a difficult process. You are born who you are. You like what you like, you dislike what you dislike. The problem, in my view, is society. We live in a society that is obsessed with labels. Maybe labels make it easier for us to navigate the world but they are also limiting. The biggest misconception we are operating on as a society is that each person has one self, one identity. As intersectional feminist scholar, Patricia Hills Collins has mentioned: there is no one pure identity. We all have certain parts of certain identities which all intersect – some of these identities empower us and some disempower us. Another scholar, Judith Butler, mentioned: while we have our own traits which are linked to biology this makes up a very small part of ourselves. Identity, according to Butler, is a social construct that is performed. But, let me not bore you with the nitty gritty of it and quickly make my point: identity is just not one thing but a combination of things. Furthermore, it is a man-made concept and thus, it is always subject to change.
Living in a society that rejects the fluidity of identity, and by extension the self, is what makes life difficult and sometimes - traumatic. Putting myself into some of the labels society has provided, I would say I identify as a black, queer, feminist, South African woman and so I will only speak on that identity. I am sure after reading my identity, you have a certain picture in mind of what I’m expected to be – how I’m supposed to behave. I would need much more of your time to fully engage each part of my identity (the parts of mentioned) but for me, the biggest part of my identity is that of being a woman and so I will mostly refer to that. In an article I read, which inspired this one, the author spoke of mothers who suppress their daughter’s identities: some girl children are more sexual in nature, others more adventurous, others loud and boisterous etc. However, patriarchy has mandated that a woman must be timid, submissive and anything along those lines. You can image the curse; the horror it is to a mother to have a child (whether male or female) who does not fit the patriarchal script. Anyway, in this article I read, the author mentions that in their observation, a mother’s policing of her daughter’s identity often lead to two outcomes: 1. “the church girl” who gets confused about who they are and develops a sort of ‘split’ identity where they are a certain person one day, entertaining a certain crowd and a totally different person the next day; entertaining a very contrasting crowd to the previous day. This split, the author observes, caused an array of mental health issues and general happiness in the person. They never fulfil their purpose. 2. The alternative is a girl who becomes self-assured and is unapologetic in her journey of self-discovery. The assumption is that she fulfils her purpose.
As I chewed on these observations, I realized that these are the exact two routes that society has stipulated for women – and people in general. It’s either you are this or you are that – never room for a combination. The author is operating on the idea that ‘a church girl’ must be a certain way and that a ‘party girl’ or someone who indulges on earthly pleasures, must be a certain way. They are operating on the logic that both these identities – church girl and party girl- cannot exist in one person. Perhaps the girl who is self-assured only comes across that way because the various identities that she presents align with the image society has in mind for those identities. For instance, feminist women are known for their independence, their assertiveness and detachment. However, I am a die-hard feminist, do-not-let-me-go-first-through-an-entrance kind of feminist. At the same time, I am such a romantic, it’s disgusting. I like gentleness – gentle people, gentle gestures, gentle words. These are two seemingly contrasting identities for one person to uphold. It does not change the fact that I uphold them. The same with make-up and hair and so on. I’ve also seen this with sex and sexuality. A girl who is quiet but rumoured to be a ‘freak’ in bed. Firstly, we should realize that we have our own conceptions of ‘innocence’ and that we are projecting them to the quiet girl. Secondly, perhaps we should consider that both identities of said girl are valid: she can be quiet and have a high and adventurous sexual appetite. A girl who comes across as ‘freaky’ but is actually very conservative. For some people, it is feminine energy and masculine energy. I have a friend who is a lesbian but she is feminine. Because of this, she often struggles with her sexual orientation because the identity ‘lesbian’ comes with a certain look in society. Like Collins said, there is no single identity.
So we hold all these different identities. In an ideal world, they are just identities. It is only when we bring our conceptions and ideas and expectation of what a certain identity should look like that we introduce ‘confusion’. Certain identities only seem ‘contrasting’ because we have an idea in our minds of the ‘complementary’.
In The Lesbian Re-evaluates, a poem by Blythe Baird, she considers the effect of labels on identity construction. The gist of the poem poses an important question: who do we owe an explanation to about our identities? Should our identities change, who do we account to? Plead for forgiveness to? The obvious question is we account for our own identities to ourselves but society has this sense of entitlement over all of our identities. Like the author mentioned in the article I read, society – especially family- tend to police identities. They encourage that which aligns with their values and beliefs and discourage the other. It does not mean the other does not exist, though. It does not mean a person is confused or hypocritical when they embrace the other parts of their identity at a later stage. Thus, the statement “be yourself” starts to sound hypocritical. Be yourself as long as society deems it worthy of expression. Be yourself as long as it is in line with the self you were conditioned as. Be yourself as long as it serves patriarchy. Be yourself as long as it serves capitalism. Be yourself as long as it is heteronormative. It seems society has condition on who can be themselves.
Going back to my opening quote, I always wondered why Frank Ocean chose to include that voicemail in his album. But I think I understand what he was trying to point out: his friend’s mom wanted his son to be the self she knew; the one that didn’t smoke. But what if smoking weed was a part of his new, ever developing self? If he decided to incorporate this new piece of self into his identity does that mean he is a different person? A self his mother no longer recognizes? Or is he still the same person, adding just one more intersection in his construction of the self? That’s for you to decide, I guess.
We do not own people or their identities. We do not get to hold people’s identities hostage with our expectations. We should not let other people hold our identities hostage with their expectations of us. We are people who are growing every day and so, until our dying breathe, we are ever susceptible to transformation – to discovering another of our ‘selves’. There is no need to reconcile our existing and new selves with anyone but ourselves. This is the only thing for society to understand: identity is many things but linear and fixed. When we start to operate on that basis, discovery and (self) acceptance won’t be such a battle.