The easy definition of self-perception would be "how we see ourselves". Though I agree with that basic notion, I have expanded the meaning with a newer observation. Self-perception goes deeper then simply how we see ourselves, it is how we would LIKE to see ourselves.
I recently went through a really rough half-a-year that forced me to do some really heavy self-examination, and let me tell you, what I found was not always what I wanted to know, hear about, or see in myself. I had seen myself as a person who does certain things, behaves in a certain way, and comes off a certain way. It's a terrible feeling to see many things within yourself that you do not like about others, and that is exactly what I discovered.
Being that we are self-biased to begin with, it is not always easy to be objective about who you really are. Sure, we all think that we know who we are, as I'm sure you think you know who you are (at least to a point). Sometimes we behave or speak in ways that are unbeknownst to us, and are quite obvious to those around us. Often these subconscious traits are interpreted to mean something unintended by the person perpetrating the actions. One way to see this would be that if someone interprets something about what you did/said then they are wrong about who you are, since they merely took what you did in whatever way they took it, right? Because you are not aware of something about yourself, and because other people interpret something out of what you did/said, does that mean it is not part of who you are?
The answer, of course, is that it is all you. In fact you can only know yourself from your own, internal perspective. And while this is a very deep perspective, filled with insights and understanding that no other human being will ever be privy to, or comprehend, it is not the only facet of what makes up your being.
Therefore, I will say that most people (myself included) tend to view themselves with incomplete evidence, thereby giving only a partial picture of who we are. In that way, it would be almost impossible to know yourself fully. Adding to this, is the idea that we are more interested in seeing ourselves in an ideal sort of way, as opposed to a realistic way. We view ourselves in the future sense, the person who has arrived not the person who is getting there. Why? That is how we would like to see ourselves: as the most accomplished, successful, interesting, intelligent, talented, attractive, important, influential, cool, and all around good person we could (and maybe should) be.
More often then not, these thoughts and views of ourselves are not conscious. They are like our dreams intruding on out self image. And most of the time I would guess we are completely unaware that we have a jaded view, and largely, an inaccurate grasp upon who we really are as people.
One of the upsides to a fantasy-like perception of one's self, is that it can actually be a catalyst to get us to become that person we want to be, or accomplish the thing we want to accomplish. And other times, it can do the very opposite and keep us from doing anything as, in a way, we are already there.
Sometimes self-perception can be intentional. It can be used as an avoidance of certain aspects of who we are that we refuse to accept or are afraid of. As is well known, fear is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest negative motivators in our lives.
As a semi personal example, I had a friend who fit some of these ideas. For this blog I'll change the name and call him Zeus (why? It's a cool name, and I feel that more people should be named after greek gods).
Zeus had surrounded himself with many superficial friends, would attend a lot of parties and such, and by all accounts was a quite liked, respected and popular guy. Zeus was under the impression that he was a fairly self sufficient person, yet my observations of his true nature were quite different. I had told him, on one occasion, that I thought that he was a person who craved attention, needed to be adored by other people, and was quite co-dependant. Now, these don't have to be fully bad traits, but if someone sees them as such, as I sort of did, they can be.
Zeus, naturally, denied my claims outright. The last thing he would want to think about himself is that he is, in some ways, desperate for attention, and needs to be fawned over by silly young girls (not that that is torture by any means). But the thing is he never saw himself as a superficial person in that regard, and had thought he was someone who was quite independent and did not need the lavish praise of others to make himself feel good. Obviously, we all need some form of outside validation once in a while, so there is no blame being passed there. But when he is going out of his way to wear the latest, most fashionable clothes and to attend all of the hippest social gatherings as much as possible, one starts to wonder what the motivation is. The idea of him embodying all of these traits was absolutely awful to him, and therefore he was more content to see himself as the person he wanted to be, without actually being that person.
One of my personal favorite examples of Self-Perception is the show American Idol. Though I am generally not a big watcher of the show, and could never tell you, let alone recognize the new winners each year, what I do love about the show is the first few episodes where I get to watch all of the awful singers make fools of themselves on national television. I'm sure some of you can relate.
What makes this such a great example of our topic, is the strangely high number of contestants that, by all accounts, are genuinely terrible at singing, and yet seem to be convinced that they are amazing, let alone good.
I can recall several specific instances whereby a hopeful young person gives their audition, in what can be observed by musicians and non-musicians alike, as god awful. Blatantly tone-deaf, and just all around embarrassing. Once the performer is finished (or cut off usually), the judges tend to tell the person, in so many words, that they are not a good singer, and rightfully so. Now comes the interesting part. The performer in question has, many a time, responded in general idea of, "You [judges] are the ones who do not know anything. I actually am a great singer. All of my friends and family think so too!"
What is startling is that all of America (and other countries that watch the show) know that this person had just performed terribly, it's almost fact. Granted art can, and is, interpreted in different ways, and one man's trash is another man's treasure. All fine and good. But I would assume that most people would consider this singer's voice garbage.
What is the biggest support this singer has to validate his/her self beyond their personal opinion? Outside sources. In this example the person cited friends and family who reassured or even encouraged them. Outside validation is a potent thing, I know this well. It can inspire us to try even harder, or to give up completely.
So let's look at the contestant's assertions.
He/she is a good singer because other people told him/her so. Why would people intentionally tell such a terrible "talent" such utter rubbish? Here are a few scenarios I can think of:
A) The friends/family are fully conscious of the aspiring singer's abilities, and are telling them positive things as to not hurt the person's feelings.
This is yet another great observation about human behavior that you'll see quite often. We tend to avoid telling the truth when such a view-point will hurt the feelings of the person in question. So encouragement of that person's self-delusion of the trait, idea or situation is furthered, sparing the person temporary hurt for long-term ignorance. Is this really the best solution here? Would not the long term growth and understanding outweigh the momentary emotion of being told a truth that contradicts what a person would WANT to hear?
B) The friends/family are fully conscious of the aspiring singer's abilities, and are telling them positive things to have that person go out and fail miserably.
It happens. In this case I would assume that the person, or rather the victim, is probably not on the best terms with the friends/family, and they are trying to teach this person a lesson. Sounds a bit vindictive, and spiteful too, but hey, that's human.
C) The friends/family are delusional just like the singer and really don't know what good vocalists sound like. Hence them praising and encouraging awfulness.
I suppose a fourth scenario is that this person is truly a vocal virtuoso, and all of the rest of the world is wrong. Not bloody likely.
The singer's self-perection of him/her self is that they indeed can sing wonderfully. Look how far from reality self-perception can take us. Look how distorted this person's view of themselves is. The result of this is that after watching something like this, I tend to throw that same critical perspective back on myself. The comparison goes like this:
That person sings - I sing.
That person thinks they are at least a decent singer - I think I am at least a decent singer.
That singer was actually terrible and could not objectively hear themselves - Maybe I am a terrible singer who cannot objectively hear myself.
What is the difference between me and this person?
Well, as I see it, potentially nothing. What would be my argument in this? Probably something like, "Well the difference is I actually am a decent singer." Que? I just used the same logic this American Idol contestant used. That is no way to prove anything. Alright then, my next argument would be outside validation: "I have other people telling me I have a fairly ok voice, therefore I do." Well, again you see where this is going. Same as the god damn same. Again what is the difference between me and this person? This line of questioning has frightened me on numerous occasions in the past.
Another example involves a local band which I had the distinct "pleasure" to see and hear live. Band bios and band members are a great and fiber-rich source of self-perception. Being a musician and having a band over time I am no stranger to this. Musicians always think they are the best players, performers, writers, etc. Why? Because they want to be, thats why.
During my time working in clubs, I met my fair share of musicians in bands. I also met my fair share of musicians in bands who will use every opportunity to tell you that they are in a band, when and where they are playing/have played, and why they are so amazing/popular/important. Usually I just smile and nod, never mentioning that I too have a musical project and blah blah blah.
I will refrain from mentioning the names of the people, or the band name for politeness reasons, as these people have only ever been very nice to me, and this is not meant to be a full out attack, just an observation.
One light acquaintance in the scene was a nice guy who was working on his band's debut EP, which to my knowledge was an industrial/EBM sort of deal. He would tell me every time about the progress on the album and about the style of music and such. Basically it was quite hyped to me, and I was expecting a lot from him.
So what about self-perception?
Good point. The topic of this blog, yes. Well, I was given a copy of their EP (since we discussed mixing and mastering on many occasions) and was given their myspace address and website.
Upon reading their little band biography, the term "self-perception" flashed in my head like an "applause" sign. Here in the bio I read such phrases as (and I'm paraphrasing) ". . . and blends these styles into a powerful new sound. . ." in addition to listing a bunch of genres that they say they sound like or mix together.
This type of speak is rampant in the music world, and a big reason for me understanding this was I too had done this in my earlier years. Yes, guilty as charged.
Every band wants to tell you about how they are completely unique, original, new, different etc. Just because they want to be something, or want to have others think that they are something, does not mean that they are. And in this case, it is particularly true. So back to the example.
". . . and blends these styles into a powerful new sound. . .". Just as I said, they want very much to be these things, which is why they say them. Are they really unique and new? Well, the reality is they are not. Their sound was complete derivative of the industrial/EBM style, with virtually nothing fresh or "avant-garde" as they also said, to fly under the banner of " a powerful new sound". The music was by the book, generic music that sounded almost identical to their influences. Now let me say that they did what they did just fine. Not great mind you, but it was still passable by grading standards. I'm objecting to their idea of what they say they are, not what they actually are.
I mentioned that they saw themselves as a mix of genres. I believe the ones listed were: gothic, rock, electro and classical. Right off the bat, having heard their songs (yes more then one), I will concede and give them goth and electro, as the music was mostly synth based and was in a gothic style. But rock and classical? Rock is generally live drums, guitar, bass. Now they had a guitar player on stage, but his part was so minimal to their sound that they turned him down to barely audible live, and did the same on the CD. Also there is no drummer live, as everything is run off of backing tracks with programmed drums. This does not bother me at all, until you call it rock, which it is not. Finally the big one: classical? Classical. Are you serious man? Have you heard classical progressions and instrumentation before? I'm sorry but some barely-moving synth string parts does not mean the music is classically influenced. You yourself could listen to classical music, but it does not mean your music bares resemblance to it.
That last one is kind of personal as I used the same genre in describing my first album "Sweet Painful Reality" back in 2002. That album was by no means classical, yet it used some string sounding parts, and guess what? I wanted it to be perceived that way! Yes I even said there were Jazz influences, when there were none (at least on that album). Self-perception my friends. I said it was something because I wanted to be those things, not because it actually was.
So next time you watch an interview with a movie star, musician, politician or other such person, pay careful mind to what that person is saying and how they are saying it. Soon it becomes startling how much of what a person says about themselves is not actually who they are, but who they want to be. Not what they have actually done, but what they would like to do. And we are all guilty of this.
In conclusion, self-perception can be a great thing once you become aware of it. Self-perception is an ongoing process, as are most journeys of self discovery. But when you begin to be a bit more critical with yourself, and see yourself for the flaws, and flat-sides you have, only then can you really see the truth in who you are, and then begin to work on yourself, becoming the person that you always wanted to be. Except this time it's not delusional.
