![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Happy Birthday To You, Dr. King...
Tuesday, January 21st, 2003 12:45 am"I have a dream that one day my children will live in a world where they will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
(That's from memory, so appolgies if I've made any mistakes.)
There's nothing in Martin Luther King's message that limits it to race. It covers, if not all, at least most boxes that people get put in. A world where people are judged not by the presence of boobs, direction of erection, cut of their clothes, functionality of their limbs.
People often co-opt Dr. King's mouth. "Martin would have supported affirmative action." "King would have opposed war with Iraq." "Dr. King would have supported prayer in school." As if King's support makes it more the right thing to do than someone living's opinion. I therefore make no claim whether King or anyone else would agree with what I say below.
It's one thing to be judged not based on your boxes and labels, but instead on the content of your character. It's another to act based on the content of your character and not from the boxes and labels. People often think and then act in the following way: "I'm a foo and foos do baz so I'm going to do baz." There's nothing inherently wrong, and is often a good thing to do -- determining your role and acting according to that role's script is a fairly efficient way of making decisions -- you don't need to do expensive rational computation.
These boxes and roles don't need to be contentious sociologically studied labels. Jean Paul Sartre would say I "play at" being an RA, for instance. Some people play at being hip hop fans or wine snobs or Star Wars geeks. Others play at being middle managers, waiters, or authors. (Yes, I know I'm putting words in Sartre's mouth while I'm not for King. But it's his phrase, so it came from there. And it's tongue-in-cheek. Whose tongue and whose cheek I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.)
Another advantage of acting from role is that you can call on previous solutions. "Mara's a good RA and she does such-and-so, so I'll do such-and-so in the hopes of being a good RA." Building on the accomplishments of others is one of the most important engineering skills.
But role playing can often hold back the content of your character. If you want to do $action, but think "I'm a $type, and $type people don't do $action," then the role may be getting in the way. (I say "may" because this can also be a good thing. "I want to kill my neighbor, but I'm a nice person, and nice people don't do that" is a good thought. Similarly, "I'm a gangsta and gangstas kill guys" is problematic, especially if you don't have a good reason for killing the guy.) I try (and do pretty well, I think) to remove boxes, roles, and labels from my thinking. "That looks like a cool hat, I'll wear it" rather than "I'm a weirdo, and weirdos wear weird hats, and that's a weird hat, so I'll wear it." Sometimes I think "Trevor wears weird hats, I'm Trevor, and that's a weird hat, so I'll wear it." This is a rather specialized role, and the script is one I've built myself over the years, but it's still good to step out of that role sometimes. To act for the act rather than for the construct. I don't claim to be pure or anything. Especially in job situations or learning environments I'll try to follow a role. But most of the time I try to do what seems interesting, neat, fun, or that seems to fit my plans. And this seems to be one of the cores of being Dasien, a mensch, perhaps the sage, or whatever other existential hero term you like.
Think about what roles you play, what boxes you act out of. Ask yourself what dissatisfies you about what you do or don't do in the name of your labels. Do something unique. Because my friends do unique things, damnit.
(That's from memory, so appolgies if I've made any mistakes.)
There's nothing in Martin Luther King's message that limits it to race. It covers, if not all, at least most boxes that people get put in. A world where people are judged not by the presence of boobs, direction of erection, cut of their clothes, functionality of their limbs.
People often co-opt Dr. King's mouth. "Martin would have supported affirmative action." "King would have opposed war with Iraq." "Dr. King would have supported prayer in school." As if King's support makes it more the right thing to do than someone living's opinion. I therefore make no claim whether King or anyone else would agree with what I say below.
It's one thing to be judged not based on your boxes and labels, but instead on the content of your character. It's another to act based on the content of your character and not from the boxes and labels. People often think and then act in the following way: "I'm a foo and foos do baz so I'm going to do baz." There's nothing inherently wrong, and is often a good thing to do -- determining your role and acting according to that role's script is a fairly efficient way of making decisions -- you don't need to do expensive rational computation.
These boxes and roles don't need to be contentious sociologically studied labels. Jean Paul Sartre would say I "play at" being an RA, for instance. Some people play at being hip hop fans or wine snobs or Star Wars geeks. Others play at being middle managers, waiters, or authors. (Yes, I know I'm putting words in Sartre's mouth while I'm not for King. But it's his phrase, so it came from there. And it's tongue-in-cheek. Whose tongue and whose cheek I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.)
Another advantage of acting from role is that you can call on previous solutions. "Mara's a good RA and she does such-and-so, so I'll do such-and-so in the hopes of being a good RA." Building on the accomplishments of others is one of the most important engineering skills.
But role playing can often hold back the content of your character. If you want to do $action, but think "I'm a $type, and $type people don't do $action," then the role may be getting in the way. (I say "may" because this can also be a good thing. "I want to kill my neighbor, but I'm a nice person, and nice people don't do that" is a good thought. Similarly, "I'm a gangsta and gangstas kill guys" is problematic, especially if you don't have a good reason for killing the guy.) I try (and do pretty well, I think) to remove boxes, roles, and labels from my thinking. "That looks like a cool hat, I'll wear it" rather than "I'm a weirdo, and weirdos wear weird hats, and that's a weird hat, so I'll wear it." Sometimes I think "Trevor wears weird hats, I'm Trevor, and that's a weird hat, so I'll wear it." This is a rather specialized role, and the script is one I've built myself over the years, but it's still good to step out of that role sometimes. To act for the act rather than for the construct. I don't claim to be pure or anything. Especially in job situations or learning environments I'll try to follow a role. But most of the time I try to do what seems interesting, neat, fun, or that seems to fit my plans. And this seems to be one of the cores of being Dasien, a mensch, perhaps the sage, or whatever other existential hero term you like.
Think about what roles you play, what boxes you act out of. Ask yourself what dissatisfies you about what you do or don't do in the name of your labels. Do something unique. Because my friends do unique things, damnit.
