By Jose IV T. Lopez, University of Cebu Main Campus
This whole performative discourse is the ongoing topic on the internet where the opinions of the majority are often criticizing the “performatives,” stating how deceiving this can be and how it can wither the concept of individuality. Points taken; however, I have some thoughts to unpack about this. From my point of view, performing is now incorporated in our identity, woven unconsciously in our system. Styling our outfit, putting on make-up, how we modify our language and pronunciation, what perfume we wear, what music we listen to, or basically how we present ourselves outside is performative (at least to some people and this includes myself) driven by our unconscious desire to make an impression not just to ourselves but to the society.
Goffman’s analogy of theatrical stage explains this as our social life differentiating the front stage and the backstage as our public self and our private self. The front stage is our public self, this is where we are seen by the audience (pertaining to the people of the society). Here, we present ourselves either in a way that is curated or solely based on our socioeconomic status. Whereas, the backstage is our private self, where only a few selected people have access to. Here, we can let our guards down; opposite to the conformist demand of the society. This dramaturgy establishes how people present themselves with different people, grounded by comfort and convenience.
In a political sense, Social Contract Theory explains how people voluntarily give up their individual rights and autonomies to belong to a governing authority in exchange for security, stability, and even supervision to be a member of civilized society. This speaks so much to our society nowadays because we want to belong. Now, I am not a professional in the psychological field, but what I learned from Tajfel & Turner’s Social Identity Theory is it seeks to explain that humans boost their self-esteem and have a sense of belongingness by identifying their respective groups. The theory is compartmentalized into two groups: the in-groups and out-groups. In-groups are composed of people who you resonate with and they can be in the dimension of religion, race or ethnicity, nationality, politics, and even interests. On the other hand, out-groups are composed of people who are outside of the said typology or are alien to your collective identity. In a nutshell, in-groups are membership whereas out-groups are alien and are often targets of prejudice. This sets the tone on why people perform- to not become foreign that is subject to discrimination- because people can be xenophobic sometimes.
All of these seem to explain why people are the way they are and it’s important that we have to acknowledge and give space to this discourse. This conclusion seems to negate the whole thought, but I cannot stomach the idea that we got to the point where performing is now etched to our identity to become palatable; not just to society but to the insatiable desire of our own selves.