In the virtual world Second Life, there are people who are there to play being someone they're not, and other people who are trying to be authentic. At one extreme there are people who come in and act as a member of the opposite sex, or as a machine or animal. There are those who come specifically to play faerie and S&M roles, living out fantasies behind the mask of their avatar. There are those who act "realistically" but assume airs or false bravado, who essentially lie about who they are and see how long they can fool others with their charade. Then there are the many who act, and speak, in chat and voice, just like who they are in real life, except better looking. And at the other extreme are those who alter their avatars to look as much like themselves as possible (and sometimes even caricatures of themselves) and insist that everything be completely "realistic".
These groups tend to self-select others who share their passion for fantasy or realism. The role-players shrug off accusations of inauthenticity from realists as anal, puritan and self-important, insisting that Second Life is just a game -- harmless fun. The realists portray the role-players as autistics, liars, time-wasters who are preoccupied with esoterica and too irresponsible to use virtual worlds for much needed, authentic conversation and problem-solving.
I have a foot in both camps. I see Second Life as a remarkable imaginative tool: You can create worlds that don't (or even couldn't) exist in reality. You could (theoretically anyway) film a group's spontaneous experiences in Second Life and edit it into a movie that would be unlike anything you could do in real life. For those who, because of difficult personal circumstances or disabilities, are restricted in their ability to seek or have deep, loving, personal relationships, Second Life is exactly what its name implies, a second chance to live a healthy, normal life.
On the other hand, it can be a place of escapism, aggression and addiction. The degree to which some people obtain gratification from dominating and humiliating another person, and to which others are willing to subjugate themselves just to be "loved", is very troubling. Many of the places in Second Life are precise and banal imitations of real life, except with vastly more conspicuous consumption and private ownership. The poor play at being rich, with massive private mansions and torture chambers filled with expensive playthings (you need pay nothing to have fun in Second Life, but some people spend enormous sums of real money buying land, clothing and toys for their avatars). In a world that needs no hierarchy, there is a lot of it. In a world where "physical" violence is very difficult to perpetrate, there is a depressing amount of psychological violence.
In today's complex world we all have (for perfectly practical reasons) multiple identities, and I've written before about the challenges of moving between identities (and the media that tend to keep them separate) as relationships evolve and the communities we are each a part of bump together and overlap. My identities as business executive, as family member, as friend, as colleague, as writer, as speaker, as student are each different. They are all authentic, but they emphasize and de-emphasize (or even hide) different aspects of my history and personality, of who I really am.
In addition to identities we also have multiple personas. These are public roles that we assume or display, that we play. Many of these roles are assigned tacitly or explicitly, through a job title, a screenplay, a team roles list, duty roster etc. People who are insecure or unsure who they are will muddle their personas and identities: They will act, for example, how they think a father is supposed to act, in the presence of his children, rather than authentically. In some cases, when they're really messed up, this can actually be a good thing, but for the most part it's dangerous and confusing to others. It's hard to trust someone when you know (and people know when what they are seeing is a persona and not an identity) that it's only an act, a role-play.
Some personas are authentic, while others are utterly and purposefully false. Some of them are protective colouring that is designed to make it easier to survive in a crowded, judgemental and often intolerant world. Sometimes the gunk of our personas sticks to us so closely that, like some theatre makeup, it is very difficult to take off afterwards. After enough time and practice playing a role we may not even realize that many aspects of our persona are not authentic, not really ourselves at all. We 'become' our role, our job, to the point that our true identity is lost.
In many human activities, from the workplace to the theatre, we also recognize archetypes (from the Greek = original model). Archetypes are recognizable symbols or patterns, which may be simplified (stereotypes) or exaggerated (caricatures) to increase their recognizability. Humans are, after all, pattern recognizers, and putting a label on a certain type of character or behaviour enables us to think and communicate with others about it in a meaningful way. If we say Obama acts presidential in the same way that Kennedy did, for example, we are establishing Kennedy as an archetype. The cliché about "they broke the mold after they made her" likewise identifies someone as an archetype. All similar people thereafter "in the same mold" are merely copies.
Much use is made of archetypes in the writing and criticism of literature, in art, and in psychology. Many of the gods of different religions are archetypal -- intended as models to study or follow. The cards of the Tarot deck, especially the major arcana, are also archetypes, handy in the search for patterns of people and behaviours necessary to tell fortunes.
Three years ago I wrote about one of those Tarot archetypes, The Fool or Jester, and specifically the interpretation of one Australian writer of the card's meaning:
The archetype of the wise Fool is one that is found in many cultures in all parts of the world. His lack of experience in the ways of society is seen on the surface to be a disadvantage, but in reality it ensures that his mind is not closed to unusual experiences that are denied to ordinary men.
He is the vagabond who exists on the fringe of organized life, going his own way, ignoring the rules and taboos with which men seek to contain him. He is the madman who carries within him the seeds of genius, the one who is despised by society yet who is the catalyst which will transform that society.
The Fool is the Green Man, the harbinger of a new cycle of existence, the herald of new life and fresh beginnings. He can be seen as the innocent spirit about to embark on physical incarnation; the young child who has yet to learn of the perils of the world; or as the seeker after enlightenment chasing the elusive butterfly of intuition in the hope that it will lead to the mysteries.
In the earlier article I wrote about cats as exemplars of Playing the Fool: "I have seen cats of all ages, cats of amazing wisdom and style who otherwise show themselves to be cunning and astonishingly self-sufficient, chase a piece of string dragged by a child around the house for an hour or more, indefatigably and with enormous concentration, creativity and energy. What is the purpose of this unexpected playfulness? Is this the cat's way of discharging the tension and anxiety that preoccupies her more sombre and sober moments? Is it her way of teaching the child (or the adult, since I get great pleasure from such games, until usually some intrigued child coaxes the string away from me to learn more about this magic trick) important lessons about instinct, about reflexes, about strategy, about the need for play, and a hundred other lessons we are too besotted with WeltSchmertz (sadness over the evils of the world) to appreciate?"
I got to thinking, after reading Chris Corrigan blogging cryptically about learning the value of Playing the Fool at OSonOS, about whether the injection, into an Improv session or an Open Space session, of someone Playing the Fool or some other archetype, as a role, a persona, might be beneficial in getting new perspectives and breakthroughs for the group. The Fool is, after all, the naive seeker of knowledge and self-knowledge. Could someone Playing the Fool ask just the right "stupid questions" to get a group grappling with a complex problem out of their thinking rut? How about someone playing The Magician, the powerful, self-confident master who knows, and shows, that all he and others thought was true is just illusion?
The Magician card reversed is the Juggler, the indigenous Trickster, a conjurer who shows how illusions can wreak real magic (like the colourful butterfly wing that contains no pigment, whose rainbow of hues is the optical deception created by the way the wing's molecules are layered). What value could be achieved by having someone adept at biomimicry delighting and inspiring the group with nature's own tricks to overcome adversity, as they struggle with an intractable human problem?
Or how about planting a Hanged Man in their midst, one who is willing to let go of everything he has always been told is true, to look at the world from a fresh and inverted perspective, and trust his instincts and subconscious? Or the Hermit, the one who keeps bringing everything back to reflection, self-organization, self-sufficiency, adaptation, when the group is clamouring for the politicians or management to fix the problem, or calling for a committee, or a revolution?
And of course, we could always plant the Devil. Imagine the creative conflict and friction that might come from having a Devil's advocate in the room, arguing, just for the sake of challenging all conventional wisdom and the propensity for groupthink.
Dave Snowden has warned me that for such mischievous plantings to work in Open Space and other types of event whose group dynamic is based on trust, the provocateurs would have to be Actors, clearly identified as such, wearing the appropriate 'mask' or accoutrements of their persona. To have someone within the group do this surreptitiously, he suggests, would be a betrayal of the group's trust and throw the authenticity of everything in the event into doubt.
I'm not so sure. I've played the Fool and the Devil and other archetypal roles in meetings, not dishonestly but just to stir things up when I felt that stirring up was needed. I've seen other people move into these and other roles, and the effect on groups is astonishing, perhaps for the same reason that self-deprecation is so powerful in Improv comedy sessions.
Those of us who are continuously learning have all of these archetypes within us, and for them to emerge as personas is, I think, the most natural thing in the world. Kittens and puppies playing together take turns in the dominant (Magician) and submissive (Fool) role, and this is how they learn about complexity, about how to solve problems, and ultimately, about their own identity.
Perhaps what we need is to give each participant in a problem-solving or brainstorming event a set of cards representing all the common archetypes, and have people self-identify and 'wear' the card which represents the persona that has emerged for them, that they are playing, at any point in time during the event. We might learn as much about ourselves as we do about the challenge the event is about. I think de Bono used something like this in his Six Thinking Hats creativity sessions. Some of the more sophisticated emoticons (e.g. the wink) serve a similar purpose, of giving the listener context for "where we're coming from" in this.
Some of the desktop videoconferencing tools allow participants to put up an emoticon indicating how they feel about what they're hearing (happy, unhappy, excited, confused) so speakers who can't 'see' the audience can get feedback that way, without interrupting the event.
In Second Life we've been using the Talking Stick and a Placeholder to encourage group listening and manage the order of conversations, and to 'park' subjects to be discussed once the current one has run its course.
It would be interesting to see whether, in real-time, face-to-face events like Open Space, and in real and virtual conversations and group discussions, we could develop a whole set of "where I'm coming from now" emoticons and archetypal symbols, that we could each display and change on the fly, so that we could accurately 'read' all of the other participants as we spoke and listened. A new, unspoken, supplementary language.
I suspect that animals in the wild, wild children, and perhaps some indigenous peoples, have no need for such artifacts -- they can sense what is not said much better than we can, and they probably have less 'gunk' preventing them from knowing themselves well enough to signal and read accurately "where they're coming from" without the need for artifacts. But we've largely lost that sensing capacity and that deep self-knowledge.
Anyone up for inventing, and learning, a new language?
译文:
扮演愚者：角色扮演是一种不可信的行为吗？
在虚拟世界第二人生的游戏中，有些人扮演的角色与其本身并不相符，而另一些人则是努力做到完全真实。一种极端是有些人开始游戏时就选择扮演与自己性别相反的角色，或者扮演一台机器或者一只动物。有些人玩这个游戏特别就是为了扮演精灵和S&M的角色，以化身的形式实现幻想。有些人逼真地演绎，但其实只是装装样子，虚张声势，他们并没有据实告知自己的身份，他们以自己的表演来观察自己嫩愚弄别人多久。然后还有许多人在游戏中的行为、交谈、声音和现实生活中差不多，只是相貌变好看了而已。另一种极端就是将自己演绎得过分的相似（有时有时甚至是自己的夸张漫画），他们坚持所有东西都必须“真实”。
这几类人都自主选择扮演对象，来实现对虚幻或现实的热情。角色扮演的玩家无视对其不真实行为的指控，他们自大地认为第二人生只是一个游戏——无伤大雅。真实主义的玩家则批评角色扮演的玩家，认为他们是孤独者，是骗子，是满脑子黄色书刊的浪费时间的人，真实主义的玩家认为角色扮演是一种极不负责的行为，使用虚拟世界满足不切实际的要求、不真实的对话以及解决问题。
我同时在这两个阵营中扎堆。我认为第二人生是一个重要的想象工具：你可以创造一个现实中无法（或者不可能）实现的世界。你可以（无论如何从理论上来说）在第二人生中记录一组人的自发经验，并且将其剪辑成电影，这与你现实生活是完全不同的。有些人由于处于困难的个人环境中或者身体有残缺，而不能寻求或者拥有深入的人际关系，那么第二人生如其名字所言，提供了第二次机会，从而能够过上健康正常的生活。
另一方面，这个游戏也是人们逃避问题，发泄情绪的方式，人们很容易沉迷其中。一些人在控制和侮辱其他人的过程中得到满足，另一些人更愿意“被爱”，发展到这种程度就非常麻烦了。第二人生这个游戏中有许多地方作得非常细致，对真实生活进行无关紧要地限制，不过不包括大量显而易见的消费和私人拥有。穷人玩成为富翁的游戏，在游戏中可以拥有大量私人大厦和充满昂贵玩物的torture chambers(折磨房间)（在第二人生的游戏中，你不支付一定的代价是不会发现其中的乐趣的，但是一些人投入巨大的现金为自己的游戏角色购买土地、衣服和玩具）。在一个不需要等级制度的世界却充斥着阶级问题。在一个难以实施“肉体”暴力的世界里却存在大量的心理暴力。
在如今如此复杂的世界里，我们（为了种种不得不做的理由）都有多重身份，我曾经写过一篇文章是关于在不同身份间转换的挑战（而且媒体试图将他们分离），因为各种关系在形成，我们每一个人都是各个群体里的一分子，这些群体碰巧相遇，形成交集。我的身份是商人，是家庭成员，是朋友，是同事，是作家，是演说者，是学生，这些身份各有不同。他们是真实的，但是各有侧重，也各有不强调的地方（或者甚至隐藏某些特质），他们强调我的过去、个性和真我中的不同部分。
除了身份，我们还有多重表象人格。这些人格都在我们所扮演的社会角色中体现。许多角色或明示或暗示，是通过工作头衔、电影剧本、团队角色表、值勤名单等体现出来的。无论人们自信与否，他们都会混淆身份和人格：他们会表现，比如他们思考一个父亲应该如何在孩子面前表现。而不是现实生活中他是如何表现的。在某些情况下，他们真的混淆了，可能会是一件好事，但是大多数情况下，混淆两者是非常危险的。当你发现（当人们发现他们所看到的是一种人格而不是一种身份时）这只是一种表现，一种角色的扮演时，你很难再去相信别人。
一部分人格是真实的，但是另一些就完全是虚假的。有些是为了更好地在嘈杂残酷的世界中生存的保护色。有时候，我们人格中的一些污点会紧紧地粘着我们，就像一些演出妆一样，演出结束却难以卸下。长时间地扮演某个角色之后，我们甚至没有意识到我们人格中的某些方面变得不再真实，完全不像我们自己了。我们“变成了”我们所扮演的角色，我们的工作，从某种角度来说，我们把我们真实的身份弄丢了。
在许多人类活动中，从工作场所到剧院，我们同样意识到典型（这个词来自希腊=原始形态）。典型是一种可辨识的符号或模式，可以简化（模式），或者扩大（夸张表现），以增加他们的辨识性。人类终究是模式辨认者，在某一特定的性格类型或行为类型上贴上标签，从而使我们在与别人交谈或思考时更便于理解。比如，如果我们说奥巴马和肯尼迪以相同的方式行使总统权力时非常，我们就将肯尼迪设为一个典型。有一句老话说：“打破定式”，这和将某人认定为典型是相似的。因此所有相似的人都处于同一模子里，互相之间仅仅是复制。
在文学作品及其评论以及艺术和心理学中常常使用典型人物或事物。各种不同的宗教的神都具有典型性——作为榜样来学习效仿。塔罗牌中尤其是大阿卡那同样具有典型性，这样便于寻找该模式的人和行为，以此能够预言未来。
三年前，我写过一篇关于塔罗牌的典型的文章，其中主要围绕一张愚者的塔罗牌，尤其侧重对一名澳大利亚的作者就此牌的含义的解释：
在世界各地的各种文化中都存在智慧的愚者的典型形象。他缺乏社会经验，从表面上来看，被视为弱势，但是实际上这同样使他能够接受常人拒绝接受的不寻常的经验。
他是周游在正常秩序生活边缘的流浪汉，走自己的路，不顾人们试图束缚他的规则和禁忌。他是疯子，但是播撒智慧的种子，他被社会所鄙夷，却是社会进步的催化剂。
愚者是没有经验的人，是新循环的预兆，是新生活和新开始的预示。他是纯洁的灵魂，代表神的化身；他是幼小的孩童，还未曾了解世界的险恶；他是寻找光明的人，追寻难以解释的直觉蝴蝶，希望它能指引神秘之路。
早些时候，我写过一篇文章是关于猫咪是典型的愚者扮演者：“我看过各个时期的猫咪，猫咪拥有惊人的智慧，但是它们总是表现狡猾、极其独立。它们会追着孩子牵的长线，满屋子的跑，数小时不知疲倦，它们精神集中，充满创造力和无限活力。这个出乎意料的嬉戏有何目的？这算是猫咪摆脱压力和紧张重回冷静状态的方法吗？它就是以这种方式给小孩（或者大人，因为我从这类游戏中得到很多乐趣，通常一些好奇的孩子拿绳子逗弄我，想更了解这个神奇的把戏）上了很重要一课（关于本能反应、反射动作、策略、扮演的需要河其他100多种内容，我们非常痴迷于悲观厌世主义 (世界恶魔的悲伤) 以至于没来得及欣赏这些）的吗？
Chris Corrigan在博客中写了一片含义隐晦的文章，他了解了在OSonOS装傻的价值，阅读之后，我在思考：在即兴表演中，或者一次开放空间会议中，是否插入一些人扮演愚者或者一些其他典型角色，典型人格，可能会在小组中得到新的看法和突破。愚者毕竟是知识和自知之明的需求者，他们缺乏经验。扮演愚者的人可以只问一些“蠢问题”却正好将其他人从思维定势中跳出从而能够解决一个复杂的问题吗？如果某些人扮演魔术师，充满魔法自信的主人，他们知道并展示了所有他的想法和其他人的想法看起来是正确的，但实际上只是一种错觉而已，那么这样的结果又将如何？
逆位的魔术师牌代表变戏法的人，是本地的骗子，是巫师，他展示了幻觉可以形成真正的魔术（就像不含颜料的彩色蝴蝶翅膀一样，它彩虹般的颜色是光线视觉上的欺骗，其实是通过翅膀分子的排列形成的）。如果让某人采用仿生学，用自然界本身的魔法来鼓励小组其他成员克服困境，就仿佛他们在解决一项很困难的人类问题，这样做会取得何样的价值呢？
或者在他们之中放入一个倒吊人，人家告诉他的任何所谓的真理他都愿意放开，他以一个全新的逆向的角度看世界，并且相信这种本能和潜意识，如此而为不知会如何发展？或者扮演隐者，当小组大声要求政治家或管理层来解决问题或者要找一个委员会或一次改革时，他会思考所有问题，组织工会，自我独立并自我适应，那么又会有什么变化呢？
当然，我们也可以扮演魔王。想象一下，在一个房间里，争执中，魔王的支持者会带来富有创造性的争议和分歧，这样就能挑战传统智慧，避免集体思维的惯性。
Dave Snowden曾告诫我，在开放空间会议或其他形式的会议中，小组的热情是建立在信任的基础之上的，进行如此恶作剧的角色扮演，密探可能就是演员，可以明确定义为带着适当的“面具”或者伪装他们的人格。他认为如果在小组里有人偷偷地扮演角色，就可能是背叛了小组的信任，让所有人都觉得任何事都不具有可信性。
我并不能确定。我曾在会议上扮演过愚者和魔王以及其他典型的角色，也不是不诚实，但是只是为了在我认为需要一些刺激的时候挑起分歧。我也看到过其他人扮演这些和那些角色，对于小组的作用是惊人的，也许出于一些相同的原因，在即兴戏剧表演中自我贬低是非常有效的。
我认为，我们不断学习我们身边这些典型的角色，并且以某种人格出现是非常自然的事情。小猫和小狗一起嬉戏，轮流扮演统治（魔术师）和顺从（愚者）的角色，这就是它们如何学会复杂问题，如何解决这些问题，并且最后如何了解自己身份。
也许我们需要做的就是给想要解决问题的人或者处于头脑风暴中的人一副塔罗牌，这副塔罗牌代表了所有常见的典型角色，帮助人们自我定位，“带上”某张牌所代表的人格，在会议中任何时刻都在扮演他们的角色。我们就可以充分了解自我，并且具体了解了会议挑战的内容。我觉得de Bono在他的《六顶思考帽》的创意中用到了类似的东西。一些较为复杂的情感符号（如眨眼示意）也起到类似的作用，告诉听众“我们的感受”。
一些电脑视频会议的工具让与会者可以发送情感符号，来表达他们的感受（高兴、不高兴、兴奋、迷惑），这样演讲者虽然不能“看到”听众的表情，但是还是能够在不干扰会议进程的同时得到反馈。
在第二人生中，我们一直使用Talking Stick（说话棒）和Placeholder（占位符）来鼓励小组聆听并管理会议的秩序，还要在讨论当前话题的时候“留下”下次要讨论的话题。
有一件很有趣的事情，就是能够看到在即时的面对面会议中如开放空间会议以及在真实和虚拟的会议和小组讨论中，我们能否发展一整套“我现在的感受”的情感符号和典型符号，这样我们能够及时展示和改变，同时也能在演讲和聆听的时候准确“读取”所有其他与会者的反馈。这样就形成了一种崭新的辅助语言，不需要言语。
我猜野生动物、野孩子也许还包括土著居民不需要这种制品——和我们相比，即使不说他们也能感应这种情感，而且他们的“污点”更少，更容易辨识，因此能够准确地去了解“他们的感受”，完全不需要制品。但是我们大部分已经遗失了这种感应能力和深度自我认识。
有人愿意发明、学习这样新的语言吗？