I wrote that Breakfast Club post when I lived in Colorado during the summer of 2010. I was, and still am, mesmerized by the magic of those Brat Pack 1980's teen movies. They all pretty much tell the same story, but they always felt so real. I could totally relate to what these guys were going through, and I would always formulate my own opinion about the proper (or improper) way to react to their circumstances. When I reread the words that I had poured out two years ago, I was struck by how much I have changed. Where I once had a lack of faith in humanity, I have sprouted some empathy. But even when I marvel about how much I actually have grown in that arena, I'm still stunned by how much more growing up I need to accomplish. I'm not remotely close to being fully aware and understanding of the many, many facets that make up an individual. And when I once was so hesitant to embrace comfort and the associated happiness, I have morphed into a man who is concerned with the long-term happiness that life can bring if we seek it out.
But here's the thing that stuck out so much for me. How could I really disbelieve so much in the Breakfast Club? Am I really going to have no faith in Claire? She has come to a startling realization and maybe she is actually going to fight for what may potentially be more fulfillling. If I can sit here and say that someone can never be affected to change because it goes against their initial characterizations, what does that say about me? I suppose I may be seen as someone who fears change, who embraces what is comfortable because I've been trained to like comfortable. But what if Claire and Bender and the rest of the Club aren't like me? What if they are tired of their situations and realized that the comfort that they were feeling was only an illusion?
Why do we hold onto things? Let's say that there's a relationship or situation that is comfortable and pleasing and very enjoyable for all involved parties. If this is the case, we would be silly to toss it out for something that may end up being uncomfortable...or will it? What is originally uncomfortable can, and typically does, morph itself into something much more comfortable after some time has passed. But then what exactly is that comfort in the first place? I think I've talked at some length, but rereading that Breakfast Club post from all those years ago reawakened the questions.
Here's where Claire and the rest of the Club come back into play. We can sometimes hold onto something because it gives off the illusion of comfort. We are happy, at least on the outside, and so we grasp onto the people and circumstances that bring us that pleasure, status, and rewards. But Claire must not have been truly happy. She admitted as much during the movie but I, for the sake of my argument or because I was ignorant, chose to ignore it. If she wasn't happy with her comfort, then wouldn't it only be natural to latch onto a new comfort when the opportunity arises? The question that comes to mind, when thinking like this, is why didn't Claire, if she was so unhappy with being a "princess" in the first place, just leave the group before the eye-opening detention?
To answer this question, I think we need to keep in mind the basics of human nature. As I've explained in the past, humans are drawn to comfort and acceptance. Claire was accepted by this group even though she wasn't the happiest person on the planet. But her acceptance was based on a false pretense and a hidden true identity. This, of course, is going to be personally displeasing but, over time, becomes a permanent mask because we are ashamed by the guilt and embarassment associated with coming clean with who we really might be. While the rest of Claire's "princess" clique may have also been fake and hiding it, the clique still remained strong because of the high status and great comfort level that came along with it.
Bringing this back into reality, people can change. It takes a monumental event and a very supportive cast, but it can happen. It does happen. The things that initially defined us (or defined us to others) can become something different based on situations or the people we ally ourselves with. I believe that this is oftentimes very good, but I also fear that it is a neverending cycle. There will always be new circumstances and people to interact with. We can either hide behind the sense of self we have created, the sense of self that actually describes us, or the sense of self that we've told ourselves actually describe us. There may be other options, of course, since I'm no soothsayer, but these are the first three that spring to mind. And all of them have to do with hiding of some sort, leading me down the dark path of possible belief in an inconsistent personality.
What is a personality? Is it a basic human need/instinct, or is it something that we subconsciously create for ourselves? If our instincts include love, acceptance, comfort, and social interaction (among many, many others), then they are, by very definition, instinctual and impossible (or very, very hard) to suppress. Does a personality spring up from those instincts and desires, or is it solely self-contained? Since our personalities can gradually change over time based on a number of factors - people we know, places we go, experiences we have - I'd wager a guess that our personality is a malleable piece that goes in whichever way the wind blows. I'm not sure if there's any other way to look at it - there may be no real definition of a sense of self. It is an extremely sobering thought...
No comments:
Post a Comment