A Discourse on Natural Personality and the Theory of 'Masques'

by Daryl Dominic Tan

Do humans have ‘natural’ personalities? If so, when do we exhibit this ‘natural’ personality – with friends, family, or in solitude? What exactly is the state of nature of man’s personality? It is after all a fact that people exhibit different personalities – which I will term here as ‘masques’. People assume different forms of these masques to suit different occasions. Which, then, is our natural form? Are we predisposed to know what this natural form is?

Many will define the word ‘natural’ as being synonymous with ‘comfortable’. We exhibit our natural personality when and where we are most comfortable. Many feel most at ease – or rather, comfortable – with friends, but isn’t it a fact that being with friends, one has to portray himself or herself as likeable and compromising – efforts that are incompatible with the very notion of what ‘natural’ means, or at least what it ought to mean for ‘natural’ in its very basic form is also when we are free from all sorts of encumbrances.

What about family? Unless you're an orphan, one spends his first few years to first couple of decades of their lives with family. Is that then, the basis of form? And therefore one is truly himself and exhibits his ‘natural’ personality with his family? This argument is weak for it implies that time is a factor of this basis of form - that time builds nature, in that one who spends the most time with a particular group of people, and by way of case illustration here – family, is in a personal state of nature. So if we take this premise and look at a man imprisoned for life, does he assume a new personality based on a new nature based on his surroundings? That does not make sense, for how can nature be new, when all he would be doing is adapting to a new environment (not nature), and assuming a new persona, which is not equivalent to assuming a new natural personality for how can this be so when nature is supposed to be the basis of form – or rather the basis of all things in the first place?

What about solitude? The stronger argument of the three possible choices I’ve posited so far. That one is truly in accordance with his natural state of self when he is alone. This is plausible, but for the sake of argument, lets suppose one suffers great discomfort from being alone or isolated from the rest of society but derives great comfort from being surrounded by the people that he loves. Does the fact that he feels extremely uncomfortable – based on the notion that ‘’natural’ means ‘comfortable’ – invalidate this premise, in that he is clearly not exhibiting his natural personality for it is not compatible with his natural desire and natural emotion? Another way to challenge this premise is the very fact that in order for man to understand himself and his nature, he has to interact with society – for man is inherently a social creature. As the 18th century clergyman Richard Cecil once said, “Solitude shows what we should be; society shows us what we are”. Does man, therefore, know his nature only through interaction with other people as society shows us who we really are? If that were so, this premise falls flat of being able to tell us man’s natural personality.

Perhaps the strongest argument I can think of is that the answer of what the state of nature of man’s personality is a subjective and relativist one – that people based on their own free will, are in their ‘natural’ state of personality when they feel most natural – but that itself is difficult to define, I will however take the layman meaning here to mean, as earlier mentioned, that to be natural is to be absolutely comfortable. It is indeed clear that we all have different personalities – just as there are different animals that live in different natural habitats, so it must most certainly be that there is no one absolute nature – no objective nature, for nature differs with different people and animals and therefore it goes the same way with personalities. Just as contemporary students of the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras frequently surmise, “a spring day in Athens would be cold to a visitor from Egypt but warm to a traveler from Sweden and both would still be speaking the truth.” Therefore the true state of nature of man’s personality should depend on perspective and is therefore relative – and therefore Protagoras makes sense when he says that man is the measure of all things.

The tough question arises when you put the absolutist and relativist argument aside and ask yourself from an epistemological point of view – how do you know what is your natural habitat and what is your natural personality, which masque you put on makes you feel like you’re in synthesis with the rest of yourself and brings you peace of mind – and if that’s the case, my question will always be – how can a masque, no matter how comfortable you feel when you put it on, be a ‘natural’ personality when it is ultimately a masque and a masque, for axiomatic reasons, cannot be natural. Is the human mind really capable of discerning what our nature is? How do we know whether we belong in the ‘jungles’ or the ‘oceans’? A fish does not know that it lives in water, and to the fish water may not even exist because it lives within it.

Or perhaps, there is no need for relativism/absolutism argument here for the answer could be that ‘natural’ personality is merely made up of an amalgamation of different masques (although I’ve already mentioned earlier that a masque for axiomatic reasons cannot be natural, but for the sake of argument – we shall accept this premise here). But if so, this contradicts the form of nature – in that nature cannot be an amalgamation of different masques borne out of empirical experience for if that were so, then what precedes experience? How can nature be formed later when it has to be the basis of form? Tabula Rasa? A blank sheet? That can’t possibly be a ‘natural’ personality then for personality comprises of different characteristics, traits, and habits that are innate to oneself – hence a ‘natural’ personality. But empiricists tend to reject the idea of innateness, and will argue convincingly at the end of the day that a ‘natural’ personality will be borne out of characteristics, traits, habits and way of thought acquired through a life of experience, and therefore since life and its events are constantly changing, I come to a conclusion that there can be no ‘natural’ personality. Perhaps the word ‘natural’ itself is a misnomer, and possibly even the word ‘personality’ in this context, and that there is no one true personality of man. Therefore, man could be deceiving himself all along when he speaks about his own personality, for in reality man has no face, just a collection of different masques.